^»jWMi»;Fy

0

giw^iv-

VmS/V^^^

'^eM

YALE UNIVERSITY
LIBRARY

DISSERTATlbN
M I R A C L E S 5

DESIGNED TO SHIsW,
That they are A r c tj k e n t s of a
' DiVrNE lNTERPOSltrOW> A Nn ,
Abfblute P 'R o o F s of the Miffion and
Dodlrine of a P'ko p h e t.
*.__: — i —  — '  -
Believe me for the very Worh^ftike, JoH'N xiv. ii.
¦¦ ¦' "' II  ,
A KEW EDITION, CORR'ECrF.'D.
* Bv HUGH FARMER.

EDINBURG PI :
i'rinted for J. Dickson, J. Fairbairn,
and J. Ogle,
179S.

nil

PREFACE.

THE Chriftlan revelation well deferves the efteeni
of mankind, on account of its intrinfic ex
cellence ; neverthelefs, the proper proof of its divine
original is, that miraculous teftimony which was
borne to thofe who firft publifhed it to the world.
But, ynhappily for the interefts of the Gofpel, its
moft learned advocates have greatly impaired, if not
deftroyed, the force of this teftimony, by afferting
the power of invifible beings, of different and oppo^^
fite charafl:ers, to work miracles.
This opinion (than which fcarce any has been
ihore generally inculcated) has occafioned much per
plexity to many fihcere Chriftians. When they fur-
vey the miracles of the Gofpel, they can fcarce help
.Jeelihg the force of tlie argument arifing from them
in favour of its divinity : but, when they recur to
their fpecuTative opinions concerning the povver of
dvil fpirits, their minds are in the fame fituation
with that of the ihoft learned of all the Jews *, when
a 2 he
¥ Maimonides, de Fund. leg. c. 8. fed:, i. Compare th<; .
pafifage from Dr, Chrke, cited cb. 2, fe£t. 6, p. S^i.

iv PREFACE.
he confeffed « a fufpicion, that all miracles may be
?' wrought by the power of magic or incantation."
What has ferved to perple?: the friends of revela
tion, has emboldened others to rejed it. From the
earlieft ages of Chriftianity, down to the prefent
day, unbelievers have treated the argument from mi
racles (as it is commbnly ftated) not only as an im
proper means of conviOiion, but as an affront to their
underftandings. Celfus, (in a paffage wp fhall have;
occafion to cite *,) not without an equal mixtu?e of
fcorn and indignation, upbraids Chriftians with their
abfurdity, in making ufe of the fame works, tp prove
one perfon to be a divine meffenger, and to difgrace
aiiother as a magician and irnpoftor. And a late cele
brated writer, when arguing againft thofe who allow thq
devil a power of performing miracles, and w.ho, (acr
cording to his conception,) after proving the doftrine
by the miracle, are reduced to prove the miracle by
the doftrinej afks and'refolves the following queft-
ion : " Now, what is to be done in this cafe ? There
" is but one ftep to be taken, to recur to reafon, and
" leave miracles to themfelyes : better indeed had it
" been never to have had recourfe to them, nor to
" have perplexed good fenfe with fuch a number of
" fubtle diftinftions t-"
It may, perhaps, be faid, " That could deifts be
« perfuaded of the truth of the Scripture miracles,
" they would not deny their divinity" But the
fame
* Ch. 2. feS. 6. p. 83.
f Rouffeauj inhii EmIUus, V. 3. p. 113.

J ktf Act. V
fame opinion lEoncerning the miraculous power of
wicked fpirits, which furnifties them with an objec
tion againft the divinity of the rtiiracles of Scripture,
fupplies them with the ftrongeft argument againft
their triith. Fbr they cannot perfuade themfelvesj
that God, when he fees fit to give proofs of his own
fextraordinafy interpofitioii, will chufe fuch as are
deceitful or ambiguous. And whatever their own
fentimenfs niay be with fefpeft to the power of, evil
beings to work miracles ; yet, as long a's they are
-taught to believe that the Scripture afcribes to them
this power, thfey will thirik therafelves warranted by
the Scripture itfelFto fejeft or difregard its miracles.
The more I refleft upon this fnbjedt, the more
fully am I convinced, that it is entirely owing to the
natural itnprej^ton vi^hich miracles msike upon the hu
man mind, and not to thofe fpeculative opinions;
which have been mdft comihonly fentertained con
cerning them, that Chriftianity has maintained its
groiliid in the world. And to thefe natural impref-
fions Wd jnight fafely triift the caufe of revelation j
were they tiot liable to be effaced by the power of
fUperftition,- and the fophiftry of fcience, faUely fo
called. In other inftances, as well as in this, the
natural fenfe of miankind may be in fonie meafurc
fubdued by the force. of oppofite principles; And
whenever this is the cafe, it becomes neceffary to
Ihew that thOfe principles are ill founded.
Wh^ is attempted in the following ftieets, is, to
refute thofe principles of demonifih, which have done
fo much difcredit to the argument drawn from mira
cles in favour of the Jewifti aiid Chriftian revelations.
a 3 Without

vi P R E ? A C S.
Without entetirig into an examination of the peCfl^
liar i^ature and circumftances of the Scripture mira
cles, I confider only the general, yw^/Vw, Whether
miracles are, in themfelves,, evidenges of a divine in-.
terpofition ; and confequently (wheni properly apv
pljed) certain proofs of the divine original, of a fu-
pernatural revelation ? Nor is it mere^ly the credit
of revelation that is.corkcerned in this queftion ; but
the honour alfo of the general^ admipiftration. of di
vine providence, and the common interefts of piety
and virtue. And one would imagipe, that all men
would wifh to fee the affirmative of this queftion fully
proved: for what can contribute more to our happi^
nefs, than the belief thajt the world is under the go-
vernujient of God alope ; and thfat no created fpirits,
much lefs fuch as opppfe his benevolent and wife
d6figns, can difturb that courfei and, or dqr.' of things
which he hfis, eftablifhed? With refpeft to the^
friends, of revelation, there is this additioixal reafon
to difpofe them in favour of this principle, that they
muft alloAY, that (at leaft) it facilitates the proof of
r^yejation, apd reduces it: within a narrow compafs ;
leaving them only the eafy tafl^ of proving the truth
of the miracles of the Gofpel, in order to their fully.
eflablifhing it? divine original,
Notwithftanding many recommendations of this
principle, I am fenfible it muft meet with oppofitioi*
from the prejudices : Of mankind, which infenfibly
bias even upright, enquirers asfter truth. , Many are
ready to acknowledge, that an opinion is not therefore
falfe, becaufeit contradiflis received, notions; and'
yet bu|; f?w. are, duly fenfible: how exceeding difficiilt it

PREFACE. v\i
it is to get rid of falfe ppinions, ciarly entertained,
conftatitly inculcated, and ftamped with the authority
of thofe who are moft refpeflied fot their learning
, and abilities. Habits have as great an influence over
the judgments, as over the actions of mankind.
The fubjea before us certaihly deferves an impar
tial and attentive examination. And though the
manner ih tirhlch it is here handled may be liable to
feveral objeftions ; yet the author hopes for fome in
dulgence from thofe who are acquainted with the
difHculties with which the fubjeO: was embarraffed,
and confider the compafs ndceffary to be taken in
treating it. One objeftion it may be proper here to
bbviatCj viz.' *' that by maintaining, that miracles,
" if they are not works peculiar to God,' for iii no
" conclufive proof of a divine revelation ; I give an
" advantage to infidelity.*' To perfons accuftomed
to follow truth wherever it, leads, fuch language will
feem rather to require a rebuke, than to deferve an
anfwer. It is not the language of probity, but of
policy, which has ever difcouraged all enquiries after
truth, and ftill continues t6 ftop its progrefs in the
world. This language betrays an unworthy fufpicion
of the Chriftian revelation, which, nobly confcious
of the validity of its credentials, demands a rigorous
Examination, arid muft in the end be a gainer by it.
If the tenets advanced in the following fheets are
falfe, it is fit they fhould be dete£l:ed ; and if they
^re true, we may embrace them with fafety: becaufe
truth will "be always foUnd confiftent with itfelf It
is not however the doftrine which we affert that
gives advantage to infidelity, but that which we op-
a 4 pofe.

Vjii PREFACE. '
pofe, viz. " the power of other beings befides God
" to work miracles, even in epp'ofition to heaven.'
While this principle is maintained, and maintained
upon the credit of thofe very Scriptures whofe au
thority it fubverts ; unbelievers. If we may judge by
the experience of near two thoufand years, will al
ways reject the evidence of miracles as^inconclufive*
If they are to be convinced,, it muft be done, I ap
prehend, in the method here attempted^ by fhewing
them, that this principle is as contrary to the fenfe
of revelation, as it is to the genuine didates of rea
fon; and confequently that miracles, being appro
priate to God, conftitute a certain proof of a divine
miflion,- and are the moft proper means of confirm
ing and propagating a new revelation^
I will only add, that it was never more neceffary
to' do juftice to revelation bn this fubjedt, than in the
prefeiit age; which is every day making fuch quick
'advances in the kiipwledge of nature. For hereby
we are daily furnifhed with new proofs, th^t in the
fyftem of nature there is no combat of oppofite
powers ; that all the ^parts of which that fyftera is
compofed, though infinitely various, aft by uniform
laws, and confpire together in carrying on the fame
defign ; and confequently that tfiey, are under the
conftant direftion of Ow^ almighty Ruler. Will not
the prejudices of unbelievers therefore be every day
increafing, while men mifreprefent revelation as
teaching t^e contrary dodrine ?
C O N-

CONTENT S.

CHAP. I.
preliminary Confiderations, p. i. ' ¦
SECT. I.
The nature of miracles explained j, and (hewn to confiil in
their contrariety'to thofe general rules by which the vifible
world is governed, or to the common Courfe of events in
it, p. I, This account cleared from objeAioiis, p. 3. Four
Concluiions from it, p. 12.
SECT. II.
Miracles not im'pofHble to' the power of God, p. 14. Nor
neceffarily repugnant to biit ideas of his tvil^dom and immu
tability, p. 18. Neither do they imply any incohliilehcy in
the divine condufl, or any defe£l or diflurbance of the laws
o.f /nature, p. 21.
SECT. III.
Of the different caufes to which miracles have been afcribed,
p. 2'2, jA,-,Miraples unjullly confidered b;^ fome 'as the
effefls of the fecret powers of nature, ib. Ealily diftin-
gui(hed from the wonders both of nature and art, p. 26.
idtyj The .opinion of thofe, who afcribe mjiracles to fuperior
.created intelligences afling without a fpecial commiflion from
God, .llated, p. 27. 3dly, An examination of the opinion
of thofe who appropriate all real miracles to God, as works
which are ftippofed to require the immediate exertion of di
vine omnipotence ;, while at the fame time they allow fupe-.
tipr fpirits, both good and evjl, a power of performing very
great wonders, p. 28. and fuppofe the deyil counterfeits true
miracles.

CONTENTS. .
miracles, and deceives the fenfes of mankind, p. 30. — What
is here propofed; is,»to prove, that miracles can never be
effefted without a divine interpoiition, and are, in theirifelves,
authentic evidences of a- revelation hota God-, p- 3^-

CHAP. II.
Arguments from Reafon, to prove, that Miracles are
never performed without a Divine Iriterpofitrbn,'
SECT. 'I.
The fame argunlents, which prove tbe exiftence of fuperior
created intelligences, do much mOre ftrongly Conclude a-
gainft their afting out of their proper fj)here, p. 34. I. The
argument from th"e gradation of being in our lyttem, ib.
2. The argument from the perfeSions of God, and the
magnificence of the unlverfe, p. 38. The objfeftion from
the fpiritual and. invifible nature of fuperior' beings, anfwer-
«J, p. 39. A power of moving matter, hot effenraSl to a!!'
fpirits, p. 41. As reafon makes knovvri to us only d'ne al
mighty Being, who can certainly work miracles, it is liibS
natural to refer thefe works to him,' p. 43.
SECT: n.
No proper e,vidence of the truth of any miifacles, but fuch as
' might have God for their author, p. 45. The fuppofitioit
of the power of any created agents to work miracles in this
lower world without a divine commiflion, contrary lootl'r
own perfonal obfeivation and experience, ib. N'O'r does it ap
pear that biftoi'y has tranfmitted to us any miracles worthy of
credit, but fuch as might fitly be, afcribed to God,- p. 46.
Several general reafons fbr rejefling all miracles that could'
not have God for their author, p. 4^. If fuperior beings ,
never exert, it is unnatural to fuppofe they poffefs, a mira
culous power, p. ^2. The objeftion, " that God may lay
*' created fpirits \ixia&r ^ gerterai, butn6t under an univerfal'
" reftralnt,," confidered,- p. 53.
SEC T.

CONTENTS. xl
SECT. III.
The laws of nature being the immediate ordinance or opera-
tion of God, the rule of his government, and elTential to
the order and happinefs of the world; it is impoflible' that
God fhould delegate to any of his creatures a power of
¦Working'miracles, by which thofe divine eAablilhments may
be fuperfeded and controuled, p. 57.
SECT., IV.
The afcribing to any fuperior bein'gs,' befides God, and thofe
immediately commiflioned by him, the power of working
miracles, deftroys the evidence of the exiftence and provi
dence of God, p. 63 ; is hurtful to true piety, p. 64 ; and
a fruitful fource of idolatry and foperftition, p. 65. Chrif
tians too nearly refemble the Pagans, who deified the prin
ciple of evil, p. 66. '
SECT. V.
If miracles were performed in favour of falfe dodtrines ; man
kind would be expofed to frequent and unavoidable delufiori,
xj). 69. Of the natural impreftion of miracles, when per
formed in atteftation of a profeffed miflion, p. 70. Whe
ther miracles may accompany a falfe doftrine, far the trial
of mankind, p. 72. Whether, in this cafe, the nature of
the dodtrine would uni\;erfally fecure mankind from decep
tion, p. '75. What confequences might be expefled to fol
low from miracles wrought in fupport of idolatry, p. 76;
or vice, p. 78. God will not fubjedt mankind to' neceifary
delufion-, p. 80.
SECT. VI.
If miracles may be performed without a divine interpofition,
and in fupport of falfehood ; they cannot be, in themfelves,
authentic credentials of a divine miflion, and criterions of
truth, p. 81. Whether^ in cafe of a conteft between two
oppofite parties working miracles for viftory, the party that
works tbe mofi and greatejl miracles, is efpoufed by God,
p. 83.

iii CONTENTS
p. 83. Whether, in cafe miracles prove only the interpofi
tion of fome fuperior being, the ddSirine will enable us to
determine, who that being is," p. 87. The proper aiid im
mediate intention of miracles cduld not be anfwered, if they
did not appear to be divine works, previous to our examitaa-
tion of the doftrine they atteft, p. 89. God muft there
fore have referyed to himfelf the power of miracles, p. 90.
Recapitulation, p. 91. ' ,

CHAP. III.
Afgumerits from Revelation, to prove, that Mirdcles
are, in themfelves, certain Evidences of a Divine
Interpofitloii, p. 94.
S£CT. I. . .
The view which the Scripture gives us of angels, both good
^nd evil, and ofthe' foiils of departed -men, inconfiAent with'
iheir liberty of working miracles, p. 95. , ,
I. Concerning angels in gen'fifal, a'nd good angels, ib'.
ll. Concerning fallen angels, and their ftate as defcribed
by St. Peter and St. Jude, p. 98. Their prefidency
over diftinft regions of the world, cannot be'proVed
' from what occurs Dan. x. 13, 20. concerning Gabriel's'
being oppofed by' the princes^f the kingdom' of Petfia,
and his fighting the prince of Perfia,- p. 100. Nor can
their power of changing the conftitution of the air, be
inferrjsd from what is faid by St. Paul concerning " 'the
prince ofthe power of the air," Ephef. ii. 2. p'. rot.
III. Concerning the fouls of departed men, p. '105; They
have no intereourfe' with the m'aterial creatipn, at leaft
not with this lower world, ib. The idea entertained
of them by Chriftians,. both in aiicient and modern
times, borrowed from, the Pagans, p. 107. The mira
cles afcribed to departed faints, branded as .impoftures
by St. Paul, i Tim. iv. i, 2. p. 109.- >
S E C'T.'

CONTENTS. xu
SECT. II.
The Scripture reprefentation of the nature and claims of the
Heathen gods, confidered, p. iii. i.] The Heathens dei
fied all the parts and powers of nature,' p. 112. 2.] They
believed the exiftence of demons, p. 115. The. office of
demons explained, ib. Demons, the more immediate . ob-
jefts of Pagan worftiip, p. 116. An examination of the
reafons commonly afligned. to prove, that demons were fpi-
- tits of a higher origin than the human race, ib. The more
immediate objedls of Pagan worftiip were human fouls,
p. 121. This proved by the teftimony of the Heathens,
p. 122; of their hiftorians, p. 123; their poets, p. 125;
their philofophers, p. 126; and by uncontroverted fafts,
p. 129. Why the doftrine, of Euhemerus was cenfured by
the Heathens, p. 130. That the Heathens worftiipped dead
men, farther argued from the authority of the Old Tefta.-
ment writers, p. 132. The ufe of the word demon in the
I.XX tranflatidn, .2^. ; in Philo and Jofephus, p. 133; and
in the New Teft^e'nt, p. 134. Remarks on the late con-
troverfy concerning demons, p. 137. Demon, ufed in a bad
¦fenfe 'inTIeathen writers, and in the NewTeftament, p. 138.
The fpjrit? pf vvicked men were thought to become wicked
den^otjis, p. 140. This proved from the teftimony of Hea
thens, .V^.; "-and Jews, p. 141. The Chriftian Fathers main
tain, that all the Heathen gods had been men ?nd lyomen,
p. 142. At the fame time, they affirm them to be demons,
p. 143. Their inconfiftency in reprefenting the Heathen
gods as demons of a celefti'al origin, p. 145. This notion
borrowed from the PagSn philofpph'ers, p. 148. Some of
the Fathers taught, that demons were the fouls of departed
men, p. 1 50 ;'or that they fprung fronr angels and the daugh
ters of men, p. 151. The fentiments^ of TertuUian and
Origen concerning fouls and demons, p. 152, 154. The
common people in the time of Chryfoftom believed that
human fouls became demons, p. 155.
The Scripture condemns the worftiip of the objefts of nature,
p. jj6; cenfures all the Heathen god? as. utterly impotent
^ an4

xiv CONTENTS.
and fenfelefs, p. 157; and denies, that they ever infpired
prophecies, or wrought miracles, or could do either good or
evil, p. 160. The fyftem of Pagan idolatry was not fup-
ported by powerful wicked fpirits, perfona^ting the Heathen
gods, and, under their names, delivering' prophecies, and
working miracles, p. 162. The Scripture never reprefents
the Heathens as worfliipping devils, p. 167. The meaning
of the feveral words rendered deviit ; oi fchedim, in Deut.
xxxii. 17. and Pf. cvi. 37. p. i6i ; oi feirim, in Levit.
xvii. 7. and 3 Chron. xi. 15. p. 168, 169; and of ^empHs^
in the New Teftament, p. 171,
SECT. III.
The charaftei^ and pretenfioiis of the magicians, dividers and
fo5:cerers of antiquity, examined, with the Scripture account
of them. And the yarious pleas alleged by Chriftians, in fup
port of the credit and efficacy of the antient magic, refuted,
p. 173. The magicians undertook to foretel future events,
and to effeft many wonderful things, by their fuperior know-
lege of the fecret powers of nature, ih. ; y^t were not mere,
naturalifts and aftrologers, p. 178. They are branded in
Scripture as impoilors, who ivere inCapabt^ of fupporting
their pretenfions by any works or prediftious beyond hutiiari
power and Ikill, p. 183. The fu^ernatural power of magic
cannot be inferred, either from tLe Scripture's defcrlbirig
diviners by their ufpal appellations, or as perfofls having
a ' familiar fpirit,' and a ,' fpirit of divination,' p. 186; nor
from the law? of Mofes againft divination and witchcraft,
p. 189; nor frotn the credit in which thefe' ai;ts were faid
to be held, p. 192. Rlagic and divination held in general
contempt in enlightened ages, ih,
SECT. IV.
Coflcerning the falfe prophets, as fppken of in Scripture,
p. i^f] : in Hhi^li are explained, I. The celebrated warning
of Mofes, " If there ?rife aniongft you a prophet, or a
" dreamer of dreams, and giveth thee a fign or a wonder "
&c. Deut. xiii. i — 5, ib. II. Chtift's prophecy, " There
" fliall

CONTENTS. XV
i" fliall arife falfe Chrifts, and falfe prophets, and fliall ftiew
" .great figns and wonders," Mat. xxiv. 24. p. 206. Ill,
Several paffages in the epiftles, relative to the falfe teachers
in the apoftolic agp, whether they rejefted or corr«pte4
Chriftianity, p. 213.' IV. St. Paul's prophecy concerning
%he man . of fin, " whofe coming is after the working of
,•' Satan, with all power, and figns, and' lying wonders,''
2 Theff, il. 9. p, 2i8, V. St. John's prediftion concern
ing the perfon " who was to do great figns, and make fire
" come down from heaven," Rev. :^iii. 13, 14. p. 221. The
^rediftions of falfe prophets not fupernatural, p. 224,
SECT. V.
The Scriptures reprpfent tlie one true God as the fole creator
and fovereign of the world, p. 226 ; and as goveriiing it by
fixed laws, p. 229. They appropriate all miracles to God,
p. 230 ; and urge them as proofs of his fole Divinity, p. 232.
The import of the Vfoxd Jebovaij, ib. The miracles of
Mofes defigned to prove the God of Ifrael to be, Jehovah,
p. 236. The miracles of fucceeding prophets performe4
with the faihe intention, p. 240. The controverfy between
|he antient prophets of God and idolaters, ftated, p. 243.
-, SECT, VI.
The Scriptures uniformly reprefent all.miraele^ as being, in
thenifelves, an abfolute demonftration of the divinity of the
niiflion and doftrine of the prophet at whofe inftance they
were performed ; and never direft us to regard their doc
trines as a teft of the miracles being the eifeft of a divine in
terpofition, p. 249. The miracles of Mofes and the antient
prophets, ih. Thofe of Chrift, p. 25 1 ; and his apoftles,
p. 262. Concerning the gifts beftowed upon the Chriftian
converts, p. 268. An examination of the objeftion from
Mat. xii. 26, 27. " If Satan Caft out Satan, he is divided
a " againft himfelf; how then ftiall his kingdom fland ? And
" if I by Beelzebub caft out devils, by whom do your
*' children caft them out ?" p. 269. The Pharifees did not
;»fcribe Chrift's naiTacles in general to the affiftance of de-
 mons.

xvi CONTENTS.
mons, p, 270. Nor did Chrift refer them to his doftrine
in order to determine theldivinity of his works, p. 271.
The main doftrines of the Jewifti and Chriftian revela
tions, confiilit&eJother proofs of God's 'being.the author of
jniracles, p. 280. /
CHAP. IV.
She^ng, Ihat the Scriptures, have not recorded^ny
inftapces of real Miracles performed by the Devil;
in Anfwer to the Objedbions drawn from the Cafe
"of th^e Magicians in Egypt, from the~Xppearance
of Samuel after his deceafe to Saul, and from our
Saviour's Temptations in the wildernefs, p. 382.
SECT. I.
The cafe of the magicians who, oppofed Mofes, confidere^,
. p. 283. " The various accounts of this fubjeft given, by^
learned, p. 284. The prevailing opinion fince the timf'q
St. Aufiin, that the lyorks of the magicians were genuine
miracles, performed by the power of the devil, ib. It' Is
proppfed to fliew, that the magiciatjs^ did not perform works
Liteally fupernatural, nor were aflifted by any fuperior beings,
p. 285. With-this view, the following points are examined
at large ; I. The charafter and pretenfions of the magicians,
ib. il. The true intention of Pharaoh in fending for them,
"and the abfurdity of the intention'^commonly afcribed to
him, p. 289. III.; The motives which might induce the
magicians to attempt an imitation of- t|ie Works of Mofes,
5^:^96. IV. The afts done by Mofes, and the prindlnks.
^ oh whic-h he'afted, p. igi. His opmibn of magic,^i^. ; £d
• of the Heathen" deities, ti. ; his" doftrine concetnSg Je^-
4- vail as foie. Creator and Lord of the world, p. 299;. tjie uffe.
,^ he maft.es of liis own miracles, iji general, p. 301 ; ^ij^^f
J, each individual miracle apart, p. 304^ thefe feveral cpflfin
^ .derations rendered i,t wi^oflible for him to admit that Veaf
miracles were' perfdfmed'by the magiciaihs^ Uaft of all" Ttidli

CONTENTS'. ±v{{
fis imply a creating power, p. 307. The plea, that Mofes
Worked more and greater miracles than the magicians, in-
fufficient to eftablifti his credjt, ih. The confequences which
would follow from the order of time, in which Mofes and
ihe magicians are fuppofed to have performed their refpec-
tive miracles, p. 308. V.' The language in which Mofes
defcribes the works of the magicians, p. 3 10. Three obfer-
vations upon it, p. 311. Vl. The nature of the, feveral
works done by the magicians, p. 314: their firft attempt,
p. 315; their fecond, p. 31^; their third, p. 3i!'9; their
fourth, p. 320. Why, in this laft attempt, they could , not
produce a fpecious counterfeit of the worl^ of Mofes, p. 321.
What they meant by faying, " This is the finger of God,"
p. 32i. The cenfure paffed upon them by St. Paul, p. 325-.
SECT. II.
The cafe of Samuel's appearance to Saul at Endor, p. 326.
I. That the forcerefs did not raife up Samuel, p. '327. II.
Nor did flie caufe the devil to appear before Saul, in the
likenels of this prophet, p. 329. III. Whether the whole
Was the work > of human impofture ; the artful forcerefs
making the credulous monarch helieve that flie faw an ap
parition, when ftie really faw none ; at the fame time fo ma
naging her voice, as to make it to be Jieard from the place
where ftie pretended the ghoft was; and thus to caufe Saul to
think he received his anfwer from Samuel, p. 330. IV. Whe
ther God did not either raife Samuel, or prefent a likenefs
or image of him before Saul; to denounce the divine judgment
againft him for the crime he was at this time committing, in
applying to a reputed forcerefs, p. 335.
Concerriing our Saviour's temptations in the vvildernefs, p. 349.
Allowances ftiould be made for the errors of Chriftians, with
refpeft to the devil's power of performing miracles, ih.

CHAP.

xvi CONTENTS.

C H A P. V.
Shewing, that Miracles, confidered as divine Inter-
pofitioHS, are a certain Proof of the Divinity of
the Miffiott and Doftrine of a Prophet. The "ad
vantages and neceffity of this proof, in confirm
ing and propagating a new revefationr Miracles
ufeful in reviving and confirming, the principles
of natural religion, p. 352. *?•
Under what circumftances, miracles prove the divinity of a
prophet's miflion and doftrine, p. 352. Two extremes to
be guarded againft ; that of confidering miracles as proofs
only of power, on the one hand,, p. ^SS > ^^^t on the other,
that, of reprefenting tbem as proofs of the univerfal and per-
^petual infpiration of the perfon who petfotnjs them, p. 357.
2.J The proof from miracles of the divine coj3amiflsioa> and
doftrine' of a-prophet, is in itfelf decifive and abfolute, p. 361.
2.3 This proof is natural, and agreeable to the common
fenfe of mankind in all ages, p. 3^4. 3.] It is eafy and
compendious, p. 368. 4.] Miracles are a powerful method
ofconviftion, p. 370. 5.] Yet not violent nor compulfive,
p. 371. 6.] Miracles neceffary to atteft a divine commif-
^fion, and to confirm and propagate a new. revelation,_fuch
e%ecially as contradift men's preju;jjices and pailions, p.'372.
7.] Miracles feive to revive and confirm the principles, of
natural religion, and to recover men from th.e two oppofite
extremes of atheifm and idolatry, p. 375. g.J The evi
dence fif miracles, whether of po-wer or knowledge, is the
litteft to accompany a. Sanding re.velation ; becaufe it may
be conveyed to diftant ages and nations, p. 381. Cohclufion.

A
DISSERTATION
M I R A C L E S.

.CHAP* i»
¦i>REt,lMlNA4l.V CONSIDERATION^.
BEFORE we -efiquite-,. ¦whether miracles are the
peculiar works of God, and in themfelves pro-
feer evidences of a 'divine interpofition, and confe*
i^uently of a fupernatural revelation ; it will be ne-
|:effary to prepare the way by feveral preliminary con
fiderations. I fhall begin with
$ E G T. I.
/Explaining tie Nature «f Miracles.
THAT the viible wortd is governed by ftated
general rules, Commonly called the laws of
. iiature 5 or that there is an order of caufes and efi
fedls eftabliftied in every part of the fyftem of nature*
fo far as it falls under our obfervation; is a point
which none can coAtrovert. £ffe^ produced by the
I A •¦• regular

2 Preliminary Conf derations.
regular operation of the laws of nature, or that are
conformable to its eftabliftied courfe, are called na
tural. Effeflis contrary to this fettled conftitution and
courfe of things, I efteem miraculous. Were the con
ftant motion of the planets to be fufpended, or a
dead man to return to life ; each of thefe would be a
miracle; becaufe repugnant to tjiofe general rules,
by which this world is. governed at all other times.
All miracles pre-fuppofe an eftabliftied fyftem of
nature, within the limits of which they operate, and
¦with the order of which' they difagree. The^ creation
of the world at firft, therefore, though an immediate
effefl: of divine omnipotence, would not come under
this "denomination. It was different from, but not
contrary to, that courfe. of nature, which had mot hi
therto taken place. And miracles may be faid to
difagre9»with, or to be contrary to, the general rules
and order of the natural fyftem, not only when they
change the former qualities of any of the conftituent
parts of nature, (as when water, for example, is con
verted into wine :) or when they coK/raw/ their ufu^al
operation and effedls, fas when fire, without lofing
its properties, does not burn combuftible materials ;
or a river is divided in its courfe, the water ftill pre-
ferving its gravity.) but alfo when thty fuperfede fas
they always do) the ufual operation of natural caufes.
For effeas produced in the pre-eftabliflted fyftem' of
nature, without tbe affiftance of natural caufes, ¦are'
manifeft variations from, or contradiaions to, the or
der and ufual courfe of things in that fyftem.. That
a man ftiould be enabled to fpeak a new language,
which he never learnt in a natural way, 'and that his
'' '^ body

Preliminary Confider ations, < 3
body ftiould be fupported without food ; are events
evidently contrary to the ordinary courfe of things,
and to that conftitution of divine providence, which
renders mankind dependent upon their own ftudy and
application for the knowledge of languages, and upon
food for fuftenance. We do not affirm, that mira
cles do univerfally and neceffarily imply a propery^/^
penfim of Jthe laws of the natural world, fo as that
they fhould ceafe to produce their ufual effefts : the
human mind may "receive new knowledge in a fuper
natural manner, without any fufpenfion of its prefent
powers. ' Neverthelefs, the fupernatural communica
tion of new knowledge- to the human mind, is con
trary to the general rules by which the human fyftem
is governed, or to that connexion which God has
eftablifhed between our acquifition of knowledge, and
the proper exercife of our rational faculties.
To this account of miracles it has been objefted,-
ift; " That miracles may be performed, where
" there is no difagreement with any law of nature,
'^ nor any variation from its eftablifhed courfe : be-
" • caufe many things which exceed the power of man,
" may be performed by fuperior beings." This ob
jeftion has been illuftrated and fupported in the fol-
' lowing manner : " A fpirit may have a natural power
" of lifting up a ftone from the earth ; and therefore
" if he does fa, there is no law of nature contra'-
"• difted, any more than when a man lifts it up.
" Were a man to walk upon the water, upheld by
*^ iome- invifible power, the law of gravitation would
" no more be violated or fufpended, than if he was
'• upheld by fome vifible powdr. What departure is
'' • A 2 " there

4 Prdiminary Confiderations.
*' there from the laws and conftitution of the unl-
" verfe, when a difeafe is cured by a fuperior being,
" any more than when it is cured by the force of
*' fome powerful medicme ; unlefs there be a law q£
" nature or conftitution of the uni*erfe forbidding
" thfe occafionai interpofition of fuperior beings in
*' this lower world .? a point which ought not to be
*' taken for gTanted, and affumedinto the definition
" of miracles."
. In anfwer to this objefifeion, we may obferve, that
it is built on a mifapprehenfion of what I here intend
by the laws of nature. For though the word, nature,
may be fometimes ufed for the whole compafs of ex
iftence, created and uncreated ; (in which fenfe of
the word, no effeft can ever be produced contrary to
the laws of nature, that is, to the natural powers of
all orders of exiftence;) yet this is not the moft com
mon acceptation of the word, nor that in which it is-
-here ufed. Neither do I apply this term to the confti
tution of the Tinrverfe, and comprehend under it the
invifible worlds, and thofe fuperior feeings that in
habit them. By the laws of nature, I here mean,
thofe rules by Wihich the vifible world is ftatedly go
verned, or' the ordinary courfe of events in it, as
fixed and afcertained by obfervation and experience ;
and particularly the order of that fyftem to which
we belong *.. Now according -to the ufual courfe of
* ' events
* Thus, for example, that there is a force imprefled upon-
all bodies whereby they mutually attraft, or tend towards each
other, according to the cjuantity of matter they cont£(inj and in.
a- certain

Preliminary Confiderations. 5
events in this fyftem, a ftone which lies upon the
ground, will reft there, till it is removed by fome
torporeal force, fuperior to that by wi)ich it gravitates
towards the earth ; all bodies fpecifically heavier than
water, will fink in it,, when no badily fubfiance hiter-
pofes to prevent it: and 'the difeafes of our animal
frame will continue, till the conftitution, either by
its own efforts, or by the affiftance of material cau
fes, returns to its original ftate. And therefore there
is a real tranfgreffion o^f thefe feveral laws of matter
and motion, when a ftone is ralfed up in the air, or
A 3 fupported
9 certain proportion to their diftances : that every body perfe-
yeres in the fame ftate, eit)j«r,of reft, or uniform reiftilinear mo-
tion, except fo far as it is compelled to change that ftate by
fome foreign force : that the change of motion is eyer propor
tioned to the moving force whereby it is efFeiSed, and in- the
¦ dire£lion of the right line wherein that force is impreffed : and
ldu9t the ailions of two bodi'es on one another are alwsys mu
tually equal, and, dire£led contrary ways : thefe are laws of na
ture, or general rules bbferved by natural bodies in their ac
tions on one another, and in all the changes which befal thenj
in their natural ftate. It may be faid, that the general laws of
nature denote only the fhaifomena or obje£ls_ of nature. To
pie they feein- to espyefs fojnewhat^raore, viz, that the phspno^
mena are conne£led together in a certain order, and fucceed
one another in, an invariable train, according to fome general
rules, ,fi^ed hy divine wifdom. Nor does it appear, that any
part of the natural fyftem, (not even the fmalleft particle of
matter, any more than the vaft body of the fun or earth,) is
eyer moved ; but according to thefe ftated rules, The more
nature' is ftudied, and the better it is uiiderftood ; the more
reafon have we to believe, that its laws are ftri^ly and invip?
]ably qbferved.

6 - Preliminary Conftderations.
fupported on the furface of the water *, without the
application of any ct>rporeal force ; or when a difeafe
is,cured, without the affiftance of the fprings and
powers belonging to the human frame, or the appli
cation of any fuitable medicine.
In affirming all miracles to be deviations from or
contradiaions to the Jaws and order eftablifhed in all'
the parts of the creation, which fall under human
cognizance ; it is not fuppofed or taken for granted-,
that there is a law or conftitution of the univerfe pre
venting the occafional interpofition of all fuperior be
ings, in this vifible world, for the purpofe of working
miracles. Whether there are ^^wy ; and if any, w^a^ ¦
other beings there are in the univerfe, who have a
power of interpofing for any fuch purpofe; is left
undetermined by , our definition, and is the point
which is to fall under future examination. All that
our definition implies as a thing allowed, is, that, as
far as our obfervation reaches, there is an eftablifhed
difpofition and courfe of things, or that certain cau
fes- uniformly produce certain effefts, according to
fixed laws or rules. Every contradiftion to this con
ftitution of the natural fyftem, and the correfpondent
courfe of events in it, I call a miracle, by whatever fpiritual
* ,If in this and the'foregoing inftance the law of gravita
tion be not fufpended, but only overcome by the interpofition
of fome fpiritual agent : yet on this fuppofition, a -real miracle
is performed; becaufe the operation and effefts of the law" of
gravitation are controuled, in a manner repugnant to the gene^,
ral rules by which the natural world is governed.

, Preliminary Confiderations. 7 .
fpiritual beings it is apprehended to be effefted, whe
ther created agents, or the Creator himfelf. 1
Thofe who have oppofed this notion of miracles,
'have not attended to the obvious diftlnaion between
the ufiial courfe of nature in this vifible world, and ihe
(fuppofed) natural powers of invifible agents : and .they-
will not allow, that the former is chariged, if tlieef-'
feft produced does not exceed the latter. But fup
pofe an angel to be as able, to carry a man thiough
the air,, as a man is to carry a child in his arms ; ne
verthelefs the former would be contrary, and the lat
ter conformable to thofe general laws or rules of mo
tion obferved by bodies in our fyftem in their aftions
on one another. And if no effeft can be faid to be
, repugnant to the courfe of nature, unlefs when it fur-
pafles the natural p>ower of the agent ; then, till the
utmoft power of the agent is known, it can never be
determined whether the operation agrees with the
courfe of nature or not. Nay, it would follow, from
this principle, that the courfe of nature can never be
changed : for fuch a change cannot be effefted, but
by an agent who has power equal to the work ; and
yet if the agent has power eqv^al to the work, then
the courfe of nature is not changed. On this princi
ple, the courfe of nature cannot be changed by God
himfelf, merely becaufe he has a natural power of
doing it. And yet who does not perceive, that his
caufmg the fun to ftand ftill for twenty-four hours
though It lies within the compafs of his omnipotence,
would be a variation from the order of nature, or the
common courfe of events in the natural world ?
zdly ; As fome will not allow, that the order ofna-
A 4 ture.

8 Brelimittdry CoitfideraiisM.
ture is mttradiaed, fo others den^, tbkt a^f^iracfefy
, performed; unlefs the a^ion exceeds the litmoft^capa-
iities of the agent. Accordingly they maintain *, that
the fame aftion may be or not be miraculous, accord
ing to the different abilities of the pei former. Were t$
man, fay they, to ftop the courfe ofthe heaverily bo-
dies, which is above the reach of all the powers of
his nature ; this; would be a miraculous pperatioat :
but were a. fuperipf bsing, who had pojwer equal to
fuch a work, to fu(pend the motion of the heavenly
bodies ; this would be no miracle at all, But this
opi-'jion is liable to many of the fame difficulties with
file other, For from hence will it not follow, tha*
while the agent is unknown, it will b'e impoffib^e to
determine whether the operation is qr is not miracu- \
lous ? and likewife that God himfelf can ^ever work
miracles, becayfe he is natyrally able to work them ?
Nay, as, according to the former opinion, no law of
tiature can ever be fuperfeded or controuled ; fo, ac
cording to the latter, no miracle can ever be per.<
formed: it being impoffible that any aftion ftiould
Exceed the power of the real agent. - Every effeft
muft neceffarily have an adequate caufe. An effeft^
therefoi-e, whi^h; is beyond the ability of the perfon
who produces it, feems rather an abfurdity, than a
miracle. n ir
Should it be alledged, " that what the man -him*
" felf has no power of performing*, he may. do by"
" the a^iftanee of a fuperior being i" it Wouldfb^;
*!« eafy
% Dr. Chandler in particular, in his difcburfe of the nature"
a^d ufe of miracles,' p? 17," maintatni tlift- opinion. '' -^ 'i. '

F0:e&wMm/Ky'Qofifidemtioffs, j)
eafy^^ reply, th|it this fuperior being is the only pro*
peragfent, the work being, accomplilhed by his^powBi^
l^dne. When. we fpeak of a prophet 2£\\ie:ferfonmn
of ¦his.miracles, nothing more is to be underftood by
ihis popular language,^ than that they take place agree*
ably to his. declaration, and are defigned as a tefti*
mony .to. his miffion. He is not, in ftriftnefs of
fpeech/ the proper ageht ; the works are not done
^ him, but /or him, by that invifible being who in^
^rpof^ in his behalf If the works did not eix,
teed bis own ability, ibcy could be no atteftation to
his charafter, nor poofs»of the interpofition of any.
fuperior beiiig whatever. And the fame works would
be equally miraiculous, were theyLto be perforraed.fo*
any other purpofe, than that of bearing teftimony to
sufwrapbet, or even without^ his intervention. Tik^
refurreftiop of Chrift, and. that of thofe who camg;.-
out of their graves at the fame tii^e, though accoH*4
pHfhed immediately by 'God ; were as. real 'mirsffilesy asi
ifthey had been effefted,^s many sahers vfixe^iuLtbei
vme, .ox by tbe in/irumentalty .^mauii jM hen .sms^
cles are perforraed^iB^ the in/iam^ojriwitkjheiintleawemb
tion of man ; thisixireamftance ferws to poiirt (mtihei
relatisn they, bear tpE him, not to prove- Jtheioc&sin^'
done by \n% ptixver. The cafe merttionoiijabswB] siM/
which is framed with a view to lhew» that a miracle'
is an operation beyond thg ability of the agent ; feems
¦yery incapable of anfwering the purpofe. To sftbp
the courfe of the celeftial .bodies^ is faid to be either
fupernatural or not, according as the agent wants or
pofftffes power equal tp th^wor^k. ^''^ .I'o^ Qouid
this (or any Q^feer) ppiration be,,perfpi|i}ed by ^a,.
power

lo Preliminary Confiderations.
power unequal to it? It could be deemed miracu-
lOus on no other account, than its contrariety to the
general courfe of nature. If it was performed at the;
prayer of a prophet ; this would better ferve the pur
pofe of attefting his charafter, but would make no
alteration in the nature of the work itfelf.
Moft writers, in defining a miracle, feem to place
it, not in the^effeSi produced, but in the caufe^ or at
leaft include the latter in their definition. A mira
culous eff'e6l, like every common appearance, has its
own proper fpecific nature, diftinguifhing. it from all
others of a different kind,' feparate from the confi-
deration of its caufe. And it is thd operation or ef
feft alone, which is affirmed to be contrary to that
eftabiiflied order and' difpofition of things, commonly.
called the courfe of nature : the real invifible agent
by whom the effeft is produced, though he afts out
of his ufual fphere, exerts only his natural powers.
The contrariety or conformity of the event itfelf to
thofe laws by which this world is governed in the
courfe of God's general providence, is that alone
which denominates and conftitures it a proper miracle
or not. In this light,- at leaft, the fubjeft appears to
me; though, confidering the many different views
taken of it by our abieft writers, it becomes me .to
propofe my fentiments upon it, with a juft defer-
eiice to the judgment of others *. " From
* The greater part of our lateft writers upon this fubjeft,
define miracles, effeSs unufual, above human power,, and mani-
fefling the interpofition of fuperior power. The following reafons
prevented me from adopting thjs definition.' i. The term un-
ufual

Preliminary Confiderations.

II

From the account here given of miracles, as ope-
ratioiis contrary to the courfe of nature, the follow
ing conclufions are fairly deducible. I/?; No

.(

vfual does not diftingulfh real miracles from many things which
are not mirajculous, fuch as the rare and uncommon appearances
and produftions of nature. 2. Nor does the calling a miracle,
an effeB aboiie human power, diftinguifti it from all other effefts
equally above human power, produced by fuperior beings when
afting within their ufual fphere, which for that reafon cannot be
miraculous. 3. As this definition comprehends many things
which are not miraculous, and to which no perfons apply the
^erm ; fo it excludes many things which are allowed by all to ,
be proper miracle's. For there feems to be a difference between
effefts above human power, or which argue a higher degree of
power ; and effefts whit;h argue a power barely different from
human, and in no manner fuperior to it. If a ftone of a pound
weight were fufpended in t/ie air by an angel ; all would admit
this to be a miracle. But does this argue a greater power than
is exerted, when a ftone of the fame weight, or one 50 times
heavier, is fufpended by a man? To make a piece of iron to
fwim, (a miracle afcribed to Eliflaa, 2 Kings vi. 6.) may not
abfolutely require more power, than men exert every day ia
different methods, though it requires a power which does not
belong to their nature. 4. According,tp this definition, beaffs
and birdS^may work miracles; for they do many things that are
above the power of man. 5. This definition, inftead of de-
fcribing miracles by the nature of the works themfelves, defcribes
them by their author, and the degree of power fuppofed neceffary
to their performance. 6. Works which argue only a power
more than human, can be no abfolute proofs of a divine inter
pofition. 7. The laft part of the definition, manife/ling the in
terpofition of fuperior power, is fupe.rfluous. It is only faying,
effefts- above human power, muft be produced by a power
¦ above it.

J 2 Pxelitmmry Confiderations.
i/i; No event, however unufual ox firange, how
ever wonderful and unaccountable, can on thefe ac
counts alone be deemed miracuLouSj, or contrary to
nature ; fince it may be only the lefs known or the lefs
common effeft of its eftablifhed laws and order. Co
mets, eclipfes, monftrous births, prodigies, the pecu
liar properties of particular bodies, and all the rare
appearances of nature, however they may raife mens
wonder, efpecially in the more ignorant ages of the
world ; are as regular effefts of the laws of the natu
ral world, as any of thofe with which we are moft
familiar. Under certain circumftances the manfier is
'nature's genuine iffue ; and in the fame circumftances
there would always be the fame kind of produftion*.
Where nature proceeds regulaily in her courfe, with^
out being fubjeft to any adventitious inj|uence \ there
no, miracle is performed.
idly ; In order to determine^ whether any opera*
tion be truly miraculous ; it is not neceffary to in
quire into the powers of fuperior created intelligen
ces, and to fhew how far they do or do not extend.
Such inquiries are wholly relative to the caufe or aU'
ihor of miracles, and are of no ufe in fettling their
proper fpecific nature, as deviations from or contr^-
diftions to the ordinary courfe of things. They do,
indeed, neceffarily argue the interpofition of fome
fpiritual agent, who is equal to fuch works; but
their nature is the fame, whether that agent be God,
or an angel, or an Svil demon..
2,dly; Before we can pronounce with certainty any
effeft
* WoUafton's Religion of Nature, p. 151. 7th ed. 8vo.

Prelimnary Confiderations, 13:
effeft to be a true miracle, it is neceffary, (and no^
thing more is neceflary, than) that the common courfe
of nature be in fome degree firft underftood. In all
-tfoofe -cafes in which we are igndrant of nature ; it is
impoffible to determine What is or is not a deviation
from it, or to diftinguifh betweenmtiracles and natu
ral effefts. Even a real miracle cannot be admitted
as fuch, or carry any conviftion, to thofe who are
not affured that the event is contradiftory to tbe
courfe of nature. On the other hand, in all cafes
in which the courfe of nature is unden/lood; it will
be eafy to determine whether any particular event be
contrary or conformable to it, that is, whether it h&
a real miracle*. Miracles therefore are not, what
fome reprefent them, appeals to our ignorance ; they
fuppofe fome antecedent knowledge of nature ; wtth-
eut which, it is owned, no proper judgment can be
formed concerning them ; though with it, their rei
stiity may be fo apparent as to prevent all difpute or
hefitation. Every fetifibk deviation from or contradic
tion to the knowft Jaws of nature, muft^- be an evident
^nd incont'e/lible miracle.
.4thly; Thofe who maintain, that both miracles.
and the courfe of nature are equally the operation of
the divine power, have not fufficient ground to afferty
** that what dtftinguifhes miracles from common e-
" vents, is, that, with regard to the former, the in-
" fltience of the divine power is obvious and fenfi-
" ble." For in both cafes, the influence (that is,
the aft:ual exertion or exercife) of the divine power is-
* This fubjeft is purfued fRrt}ier, ch, j. fee. iii.

14 Preliminary Confiderations.
isi fecret and invifible; and the evidence and effefts
of it may in both be alike fenfible and obvious. Nor
is, it neceffary that aU miracles ftiould anfwer this de-
fcription, but fuch only as are defigned for the con
viftion of mankind. The proper diftinftion, there-
fore, between the miraculous and ordinary effefts of
the divine power, confifts in this, that, in the former
cafe, God afts according to general laws ; in the lat-
*ter, he departs from them.

*• S E C T. II.
Miracles not impoffible to the power of God, nor' neceffarily re
pugnant to our ideas of- his wifdom and immutability. Neither
do they imply 'q,ny inconfiftency in the divine conduB, or a defeB
or d'fturhance ef the laws of naturci >
T would at beft be a point of Ufelefs fpeculatiori,
to inquire what purpofes might be ferved by mi
racles, if from the general nature of all fuch works,
there arifes a full proof againft their exiftence. And
fuch proof would arife, in cafe they were,. what fome
reprefent them, abfurd and impoffiMfe. '
ffiut to deny the poffibility of miracles, is to contra
dift a principle the moft certain and evident of all the
deduftions of reafon, allowed everfby the adverfaries
of' fupernatural revelation ; the being of a God^ FOr
if there exifts an all-perfea mind, who made and go
verns the world, his omnipotence is a caufe adequate
to thefe marvellous operations. Infinite power, though
it does- not extend to contradiftions, perforflis with eafc

Preliminary Confiderations. ij
eafe whatever is poffible in its nature. And fo far are
miraculous works from being impoffible, that they
are fimilar to what we fee aftually effefted in the com
mon courfe of divine providence. I will endeavour
to illuftrate this by the following example : to caufe
water to be both. water and wine at the fame time, is
amanifeft abfurdity and contradiftion; and therefore
cannot be the objeft of any power : but to turn water
into wine, or to change one liquid into another fpec fi?
cally different, is certainly within the reach of divine
omnipotence ; inafmiich as there is nothing contra
diftory in the idea of fuch transformation, and we
obferve continual changes of a like kind in many parts
ofthe creation. Thus the moifture of /the earth, by
a coniraon but admirable operation in the natural
world, is converted inUo the juice of the grape, and
numberlefs other juices, differing in kind from each
other, according to the different nature of the plant
or tree which imbibes it.
This obfervation might be extended farther, and
applied to other inftances. Revelation is itfelf a mi
racle ; but wherefore fhould it be thought impoffible
With God-? To his infpiration we owe pur under
ftandings, with all their powers ; from him we derive
the noble faculty of fpeech, by which we communi
cate oiir ideas to each other : and has the father of
our fpirits no accefs to them, no ability of ijmparting
imrpediately and direftly the knowledge of his will,
and of affording fufficient evidence of his own extra
ordinary prefence and operation ? Is there any thing
in this more inexplicable, than in the common aftion
of mind on body, or of body on mind ? Will any
affert,

i6 Preliminary CenfidefatioHS.
aflertj that the almighty author of our frame is unabk
to repair the difordets of it ? that hCj who with fuch
exquifite fldll formed the feeing eye and tho heading
ear, cannot reftote fight to the blind and hearing to
the deaf? or that it is impoffible for him to raife tbe
dead> who every year renews the face of natute, and
revives the ileed fown in the earth, and every day a-
wakeiis inankind from the death of fleep to new life,
in a manner as incomprehenfible by us as the greateft
miracle? He gave being to every living thing, to
innumerable kinds of animals^ and to a great diver-
fity of rational creatutes j continually does he call in
to exiftence ten thouiand new individuals i and is a
fecond gift of life more difeult than tbe %ft ? The
analogy beitween miracles, and the common opera^
tions of God in the fettled courfe of nature, is a
convincing demonftaration of the poffibility of the
former. Nothing can lead meft to eofttfOVert a point fo ob
vious as this, but their not confidering, that the
courfe of nature, which denotes only the ftated laws
by which the world is governed, is certainly the vo*
luntary appoiniiment of God, if not the immediate
operation of his power. For if it be admitted, that
nature is the operation or conftitution of God; it
cannot be denied, that the power exerted in produ
cing natural, may alfo produce preternatural effefts ;
there being no other difference between them than
this, that in the former cafe, the operations are re
gular, uniform, and conftant; in the latter, occa
fional, uncommon, and out of |he ordinary traft'of
GodXadminiftration. Upon^ what grounds can it
be

Preliminary Confiderations. 17
be concluded, that God is hmited to a fettled courfe
of afting, and to the prefent laws of natur;e,?^ Is he
not a free agent ? . Did he not, aft,, without the inter
vention of natural caufes, when h^created tj^f w'orld
at firft, and fettled the, prefent conftitution and courfe
of things? It muft folely depend on the will of the
Deity, in what manner he fhall exercife his own
power; whether in continuing or controuhng the
courfe of nature, which is his own appointment ;
that, is, whether he fh^ilji, work miracles or not. Thus,
for example, it is owing eit%r to his original law, or
immediate agency, tha,t the planets move round a cen
tre,, and keep in their refpeftive orbits : but the fame
oiii,nipotent hand which guides them in their prefent
courfe, could eafily arreft them, or give thein a new
direftion. To deny this, is to deny that God is
at liberty to aft as he ^es fit, that he has any power
over his own creation, and laws which derive all their
authority from his fovereign will' The poffibility of
miracles, therefore, cannot reafonably bedlfputed by
thofe, who beheve the exiftence of the all-perfeft Di
vinity, the great Author and Lord pf nature. ^Aijd
this is a principle whi^h laught to be admitted, before
we engage in in'quiries into the t:i"uth of any fuppofed
difcoveries of |his will. For if there be rio God,_it
is obvious to aUj; tliere can be no divine revelation *.
1 , B ' ^ As'
* 'Miracles, in&e?id, which are the evidences of. a fcpema-
tura'l revelation, mayi.be ufeful to convince nien of jthe e;xift-
eace and perfe,ftipns.pf the ,-tr,ue, God. Neverthelefs, we find
¦.St. Paul, why perfe^ft ^propriety, firft inftrufting idolaterl,^ in
this fundamental point, before he opened to theni the pecilliar
doflrinesof tlie GofpS. '''Afts xiv. 15-. -xvii. 22—31. '

1 8 Preliminary Conftderations. -
As miracles are not impoffible to the power of God,
fo neither are they neceffarily repugnant to our ideas
of his wifdom and immutability. Frequent miraculous
interpofitJons might, indeed, argue a defeft in thofe
general laws by which" the world is governed ; to the
regular execution of which laws, we owe our ideas
of order and harmony, our rational expeftations of
fuccefs in all Our undertakings, and our ftrongeft
conviftions of wife council in |he frame and govern
ment of the univerfe *. And confequently, it muft
appear highly improbable, that variations from thofe
laws fliould take place, unlefs upon fome fpecial and
urgent occafions. Yet whoever reflefts on the bound-
lefs extent and duration of the divine government,
will eafily perceive, that nothing can be more abfurd
as well as arrogant, than for a man, a creature whofe
faculties are fo limited, and who is but of yefterday,
to prefume to determine, that no fit pccafion for ex
traordinary interpof^ls can ever occur in that admi-
niftration, the plan of which tranfcends his compre-
henfion. By what prindples of reafon can it be de-
monftrated, that he who reigns from eternity to eter
nity, never formed any defigns, except fuch as may
be accomplilhed by the prefent eftabhflxment and
ftruftur'? of the^unlverfe-? In the natural world new
phssnomena have been obferved ; new- luminarigs in
the heavens have fuddenlylhone out, and as fuddenly
vaniffied. And notwithftanding the great appeapng
regularity, with which the heavenly bodies perform
their revolutions ; yet thofe which belong toour fyf-
tern
* This argument is farther illuftrated below, ch.ii. feft, iii.

Preliminary Confiderations. 1 9
tem are fubjeft to fuch diforders, as may in a fuccef-
fion of ages require redrefs from the immediate hand
of its creator *. And if the natural world may ad
mit or demand extraordinary exertions of the divine
power; much more may the moral; becaufe more
liable to difouder, and at the fame time capable of the
moft divine improvements. May not God then inter-
pofe in an extraordiiiary manner, to atteft a divine
miffion, and communicate fome important inftruftlon "
to his rational creatures, which they could not gather
from the common operations of his providence ; or to
raife them to a fublimer pitch of piety and virtue, than
they could otherwife attain ? If they are frail ai;d liable
to fall into fin, and are, either as a check upon the
cxprbitance of paffion, or on other accounts, wifely
aijd juftly fubjefted ^o all the miferies of a mortal
ftate ; may not the divine Being ereft a new difpenl-
fation to reform them from wickednefs, to redeem
them from death, and to advance them to a nobler
ftate of exiftence? Such occafional interpofitions
might be farther ferviceable, by obviating the incon
veniences of governing ' by fixed and general laws.
For extraordinary interpofitions of the divine omni
potence in controuling the courfe of nature, befides
B 2 anfwering
* " 'While comets move injirery excentric orbs in all man-
*' rito of pofitions, blind fate could never "make all the planets
" Sreve one and the fame way in orbs concentric ; fome incon-
". fiderable irregularities excepted, which may have arifen from
" the mutual aftions of comets and planets upon one another;
*' and which will be apt to increafe till this fyftem wants a r*-
" formation,'''^ Sir If. Newtm\.0'sX. p. 378. 4th edit.

20 ' Preliminary Conftderatims.
anfwering the ends to which they are more imme
diately direfted, are well adapted to banifli from the
world »thp notions of neceffity and fate, (which owe
their rife to the uniformity and eftabliftied order of
the divine adminiftration ;) to awaken intelligent be
ings to a fenfe of their duty and depencjpnce ; and to
give them a new conviftion, and a deeper impreffion
of God's governing power and juftice. And if in
fuch inftances, arid for fuch valuable purpofes as
thefe, (and there may be many others of a, fimilar
,kind far beyond the reach of our faculties,) the Deity
fhould diverfify his operations ; would not fuch ope
rations difplay, rather than obfcure, his wifdom, be
nevolence, and other attributes ? It would be diffi
cult to prove, that God may not, in certain circum
ftances, have greater reafons for varying from his
fiated rules of aaing, than for adhering to them.
And whenever this is the cafe, and the end propofed
is proportionable to the means of accomplifhing it ;
the miracles are worthy of a divine, interpofition.-
With regard to the immutability of God in parti
cular ; that cannot be reproached or impeached , on
account of occafional interpofitions ; fince they might
be defigned from the beginning, upon the forefight
of a juft: occafion for them ; and, inftead of arguing
any change in the Almighty, be only the execution,
at the fore-appoiiited feafon, of his eternal and immu
table councils. Nor is it by purfuing invariably the
fame methods of providence, but by conftantly adapt
ing them to every different occafion, that Go4..dif-
plays his unalterable and impartial reaitude. Itwill
not therefore follow from the fuppofrtion of God^s
miraculoufly

Preliminary Confiderations. 2i
miraculoufly interpofing his power in fome circum
ftances, that he muft neceffarily do it in all others,
however different; becaufe in the one cafe they may
be expedient or neceffary to anfwer the wife defigns
of providerice, and not fo in the other.
Nor do miracles imply any inconfiftency in the di
vine conduft, or any defeft or difturbance of the laws
of nature. When the Deity occafionally controuls or
fuperfedes them, he does not hereby contradift or de
feat his intention in their firft eftablifhment : he pro-
pofes a defign different from it, but' not inconfiftent
with it. The laws of nature, , being the laws of God,
are certainly perfeft, that is, perfeftly adapted to an-
fwei* all the ufes for whi^h thdy are defigned '• but mi
racles derogate not from this perfeftion ; becaufe they
aim at an end which the laws of nature were not in
tended to anfwer, and indeed could not poffibly an
fwer, — the marking a fpecial divine interpofition, and
authorizing the miffion of him at whofe inftance they
are performed. Nor do occafional interpofitions of
the divine power difturb the order of nature in the
common courfe of things. The operation of nature
may be controuled in particular inftances, without
aftefting the general fyftem. Not to plead, that fome
miracles feem only to fuperfede the operation of na
tural caufes, without controuling it; or toproduce
new effefts without the affiftance ©f nature, but with
out interrupting it in its ufual courfe.
There is nothing then in the general idea of mira
cles,. confidered as variations from the common courfe
of nature, to furnifh a certain univerfal proof againft
their exiftence ; and there is a power fuperior to na-
B 3 ture.

22 Preliminary Confiderations.
ture, who is ever able, and who in certain circum
ftances may fee ample reafon, to over-rule what he
at fi^ft eftabllflied.

SECT. III.
Of the different caufes to which miracles hcfbe, been \ afcribed.
The point undertaken to he proved, is, that miracle} are ne
ver ^eSled without a divine interpofition.
AS fome have afferted the impoffibility of mira
cles, even to the power of God ; ^others, on
the contrary, have reprefented them as works which
may be performed without any difficulty, either by a
flsilful application of the fecret powers of na,ture ; or
by the affiftance of invifible beings, who may be at
liberty to produce fuch effefts without the immediate
order of the Lord of nature. While there are fome,
who allowing their poffibility, yet confider them as
performable by God alone, or as the works of infi
nite power.
I. That miracles are not the effefts Of the hid
den properties of matter, the laws of motion, and
the art of man ; or in other words, that they are not
owing to a fuperior knowledge and fkilful application
ofthe fecret power-s of nature; a few words will be
fufficient to evince. ' I readily grai*t, what fome fo
earneftly contend for, viz. " that we are not ac-
*' quainted with all the powers of nature ; that many
*' ftrange properties of matter are now difcovered,
'' which were not formeriy known ; and therefore "that

Preliminary Confiderations. 23
" that there may be others equally furprizing,
" yet imdifcover ed ; that fome perfons having a
" greater knowledge of thefe properties than others,
" may, by a dextrous application of natural caufes
" only, perform fuch things as would amaze igno-
" rant fpe^lators, and be by them too haftily mif-
" taken for real miracles ; and that, fince we cannot
" univerfally determine the bounds of another's know-
" ledge, it is impoffible to afeertain the limits of that
" power which in fome degree increafes -with his
" knowledge." All this may be fafely admitted ;
for whatever men may be able to do with the affift
ance of natural caufes, it is certain that they can do
nothing without that affiftance ; and confequently can
not work miracles, which fuperfede the operation of
natural caufes *. Befides, though we do not know all
the laws of natures yet we are acquainted with many
ofthem. It has been obferved already-]-, that in or
der to determine what, operations are miraculous, an
antecedent knowledge of nature is requifite. And it
is a juft inference from hence, nor are we under any
concern to deny it, that, inafmuch as our knowledge
of nature is partial, and we cannot univerfally deter
mine how far its powers may extend ; it may be
equally impoffible for us to determine univerfally,
what operations are miraculous. But,' on the other
hand, our ignorance of nature is not total ; the com
mon courfe of iii is in very many inftances perfeftly
underftood by all, by the illiterate as well as the phi-
lofopher ; their own obfervation and experience im-
B 4 parting
* Seft. i. p. 2. ^ f Scft, i. p. 7.

24 Preliminary Confiderations..
parting to them very clear and fatisfaftory inftruftlon
concerning it ; fuch as is moft fully confirmed by the
obfervation and united teftimony of others, in the fe
veral ages of the world. In this knowledge of the
laws of nature, all our reafonings, both in the fcien-
ces and in the conduft pf human life, and all our
ideas, are founded. Conftant, never-failing experience
farther inftrufts mankind in the uniformity and con-
ftancy ofthe laws of nature : it informs us, that al
though men may difcoyer new properties of matter,
and find that natural caufes under a fkilful dlreftloii
are capable of producing very wonderful effefts; yet
that they cannot fubvert, controul, or fufpend any of
the eftablifhed laws of nature *. No change in thefe
fixed
* Mr. Rouffeau, who has lately revived the objeftion to
miracles "we are here confidering, affirms, " that it might be
" in the power of one unknown law in certain cafes to change
" the effefts of fuch as were known." But what reafon can
this celebrated writer aflign in fupport ofthis affertion ? Is it
agreeable to our ideas of the divine wifdom, to' fuppofe, that
there is a perfeft contradiftion between the different parts of
tbe fame fyftem ; that, for example, the operation of the known
laws which regulate the motions of the heavenly bodies, may
be defeated hereafter by fome other law yet unknown ? Do
the new difcoveries which are daily making in the hiftory and
operations of nature, give any ground for fuch a fufpicion ?
And even fuppofing that by the difcovery of fome law yet un
known, the effefts of thofe already known might be defeated ;
thi§ could not affeft the' credit of evident miracles, works feen
and known to luperfede the operation of all natural caufes, and
performed without their infttumentality. 'Were we to allow
Mr. Rouffeau, that by a farther acquaintance with the powers
of natnre, men may hereafter be able to raife the dead; it would ftill

Preliminary Confiderations. 25
fixed rules of the divine government, can be effefted
by human power ; notwithftanding, in certain other
refpefts, human power may increafe in proportion to
our knowledge. From hence it will follow, that mi
racles, which are effefts repugnant to the fettled laws
and courfe of nature, cannot poflibly be produced- by
natural caufes, though under the moft fkilful direc
tion ; nor be otherwife accounted for, than by allow
ing the interpofition of fome being fuperior to nature,
and capable of controuling its eftablffhed order. And
in all cafes in which the laws, eftablifhed in the natur
ral world are underftood, and the effefts prpduced are
contradiftory to them ; we may conclude, that thofe
effefts are fupernatural. In fuch cafes, the knowledge of
flill be a real and evident miracle to raife the dead, without
the ufe and affiftance of thofe powers of nature. It has been
faid, " That what, in one age, has been deemed a miracle,
" has been found in another, more enlightened by philofophy,
" to be produced by the powers of nature." This is not true
with refpeft to the miracles of Scripture. There is not one faft
there reprefented as miraculous, which does not ftill appear to
)be fuch, notwithftanding all our improvements in natural know
ledge. And how will the adverfaries of revelation account for
this faft ? The Greek and Roman hiftorians relate as prodi
gies many events now known to be perfeftly natural : while
the writers of the Old and New Teftament, who relate a
greater number and variety of miracles, have not mentioned
one, but what appearsito furpafs the powers of nature now, as
much as it did formerly. I only add, that if the Scripture
miracles are eafily diftinguiftied from natural events ; it is of
no moment to inquire, how far ignorance or incohfideration
may lead men in other cafes to miftake the wonders of nature
for real miracles.

26 Preliminary Cotfiderations.
of the miracle is as eafy and certain as that of the laws.
To heal all forts of difeafes, even the moft inveterate,
in an inftant, and without the ufe of natural reme
dies ; to perform thefe cures in numberlefs inftances*
without ever failing in any one, and upon perfons ab-
fent as well as prefent ; all men muft acknowledge*
tha,t thefe things far furpafs the bounds of human
power. An uniform, unvaried experience convinces*
us, that they do not happen according to the fettled
conftitution of nature, and that a bare volition of the.
human mind cannot in any degree contribute towards
their accomplilhment. Nor indeed did any man, in
any age or country of the world, ever lay claim to a
natural and inherent power of performing them.
Real and inconteftible miracles are eafily diftin-
guifhed from the artifices of impofture, and from cu-^
lious experiments in natural philofophy ; which,
however unaccountable they may appear to the igno
rant, can never be pronounced by them to be mira
culous ; becaufe they do not know them to be devia
tions from the] courfe of" nature. Nay, from the vi
fible natural means ufed in. producing themi, they
have juft reafon to believe, that they are the effefts
of the powers of nature. For thefe itafons, .the mo
tions of a crucifix, the pretended liquefa^ion of
blood, cures gradually effefted in the ufe of natural
remedies, but afcribed to the interceffion of faints,
and the like juggles of popery^* ought not to p^s
for miracles, even with thofg who cannot deteft thdf
impofture : nor ffiould the flcill of an Archimedes in
raifing an immenfe weight, with the affiftance of a
machine which himfelf alone underftood, be judged
fupernatural.

Preliminary Confideratims. 27
fupernatural, how furprizing foever the effefts of it
might appear to one ignorant in mechanics : in this
laft cafe, the vifible application of mechanical powers;
and in the former, the ftrong fufpicion of fraud ari
fing from the circumftances of the fafts, and the co
vered manner of performing them; and in both ca
fes an abfolute ignorance, at leaft, whether the ef
fefts might not be produced by natural caufes, fhould
prevent any from pronouncing them miraculous : a
fentence which ftiould be always founded on fuch
a clear knowledge of nature, as enables us to deter
mine with certainty, that the effeft in queftion is a
contradiftion to its eftabliffied courfe.
II. There are many who admit, that real miracles
exceed the utmoft power of natural caufes and of
0nankind, who neverthelefs do not afcribe them to
God as their author. '
" There are or may be in the univerfe," it is al
ledged, " invifible agents, placed in a higher order
" than men, and endowed with- fuperior abilities,
" fuch as are equal to the greateft wonders; and
" God may not fee fit to reftrain them from exer-
" cifing thofe abilities. Miracles, therefore, are
" proofs only of the liiterpofition of fome fuperior
" beingg, not of God more than any other." In
this manner unbelievers argue, in order to difcredit
the evidence of the Jewifh and Chriftian revelations.
*'j'Were we to allow," fay they, " the reality of the
""miracles to which thofe revelations appeal; this
" alone would • not eftablifti their divine original ;
*' becaufe the works might be performed by other
" powers lower than the divine." Nor is this the
language

28 ¦ ' Preliminary Conftderations.
language only of the avowed adverfaries of all fuper
natural revelation, but even of very many of its fin-
cere and zealous advocates, not excepting thofe moft
diftinguiftied by their learning and abilities, whofe
high reputation is fufficient to procure a general de-
ference to all their opinions. Dr. Clarke * in parti
cular affirms, " that it is by no means poflible for us
" to determine what degrees of power God may rea-
*• fonably be fuppofed to h^ve communicated to ere-
" ated beings, to fubordinate intelligences, to good
" or evil angels." And " that (unlefs we knew the
" limit of communicable and incommunicable power) we
" can hardly affirm with any certainty, that any par-
" ticular effeft, how great or miraculous foever it
" may feem to us, is beyond the power of all created
" beings in the univerfe to have produced." With-<
out any defire to detraft from the juft merit of thofe
great writers, who affert the power of fuperior\be-
ings, both good and evil, to work miracles ; we fhaft
freely and candidly examine the doftrine they ad
vance ; than which none appears to me more ground-
lefs, or more dangerous. But before we enter on
this examination, it will be proper to obferve,
III. That thofe advocates of the Chriftian revela
tion who rejeft this account of miracles, haye gene
rally embraced another as hard to be maintained.
They allow, that fpirits, both good and evil, by " the
"greater extent of their intelleftual abilities, may
" difcover to men a great xaxa^ fecrets ; and that
" their fubtlety, agility, invifibility, and mighty force,
•' may
* V. ii. p. 697. fol. ed. " -'

Preliminary Conftderations. ao
" may enable them to do moft afionijhing things, and
" enable them alfo to affift men in performing many
*' great and marvellous works, fuch as are far beyond
" the reach of human capacities : while at the fame
" time they maintain, that a real miracle cannot be
" performed by any power which is riot ftriftly inf.
** nite, or otherwife than by the immediate exertion
" of divine omnipotence."
Though this fqheme be defigned to fave the credit
of real miracles, yet it can never anfwer this end, till
the abettors of it enable us to diftinguifli between the
great and marvellous works which created fpirits may
perform, and thofe which are peculiar to the AI-
mighty. What purpofe can it ferve to call them by
different name^, while we are left in ignorance con
cerriing their refpeftive fpecific natures, and are lia
ble to miftake the one for the other ? ¦ When the
learned bifhop' Fleetwood allows, " that fpirits may
" perform moft firange and afionijhing things, may
" convey men through the air, or throw a mountain two
*' miles at a cq/i ; becaufe their natural powers may
" fufEce for fuch purpofes*:" in what, befides Words,
does he differ from thofe who allow them the ability
of performing real miracles ? If he will not call any
effeft a true miracle, which might be produced by the
natural powers of created intelligences ; we can ne
ver determine what is truly miraculous, without firft
knowing
* See p. 99, loo, loS, 109, 113, 114, of his moft ingenious
Effay upon Miracles; to which the public is indebted for ma
ny excellent refleftions upon this fubjeft ; notwithftanding the
dangerous conceflions which he has here made to his adverfaries.

30 Preliminary Confiderations.
knowing the extent of the abilities of all created
agents*. Ifthey can remove a mountain ; who fhall
fay, that they cannot remove the earth from its or
bit ? And if they can go io far ; why may they not
remove the fun from its cen,tre ? It can never be af
firmed concerning this (nor perhaps concerning any
other) miraculous effeft, that it neceffarily argues
the higheft poffible degrees, or a ftrift infinity of
power ; fuch as cannot be exceeded. Much lefs can
it be proved, that no invifible power which is not
infinite, could fupport a human body on the water,
or raife it into the air ; which nevei;thelefs are real
and evident miracles, becaufe contrary to the known
and ufual courfe of nature.
" But evil fpirits," it is faid, " have not only the
" power of working the like wonders, which good
" fpirits do, but alfo another, which good fpirits wift
" never make ufe of; that is, by delufion and deceit
" to imitate thofe true miracles, which none but God
" himfelf can really effeft.",^ « The devil," it is faid,
" can deceive the fenfes of mankind, or place falfe
" appearances before them, fo as to make them be-
" lieve, fuch works are really performed as exceed
" the power of all created agents." Thofe who hold
this language do not duly confider, that fuch a de
ception of the human fenfes would be itfelf a miracle;
a miracle multiplied according to the number and
different organs of the fpeftators ; and which muft
have the fame effeft upon them, as if the work, how
ever miraculous, was truly and really performed. For
*" Contrary to what is proved, feft. i, p. ua.

Preliminary Confiderdtions. -^t
For how could they diftinguifh, when an outward
miracle is performed, and when it is that their own
fight only is altered ? Could they forbear doubting
equally concerning all miracles, nay, concerning all
the objefts of fenfe, if they once firmly believed that
their fenfes, the only judges of them, were liable to
be thus deceived ? If the delufion of Satan confifb,
not in affefting the orga,ns of fight, but in placing^
falfe appearances before them, fuch as are perfeft
imitations of divine miracles ; this is liable to the
very fame objeftions as the former. To be able to
malce things appear what they are riot, and to impofe
upon the fpeftators beyond their capacity of deteftirig
the cheat, would be equivalent to a power of per
forming the greateft miracles.
It will now, perhaps, be inquired, — " If miracles
" are neither the effefts of natural caufes ; nor of
" fuperior created intelligences, afting from them-
*' {fives alone ; and if it cannot be proved, that they
*' do univerfally and neceffarily require the exertion
" of infinite power ; to what caufe are they to be
" afcribed ?" I anfwer, they are always to be
afcribed to a divine interpofition : by which I mean,
that they are never wrought, but either immediately
by God himfelf, or by fuch other beings as he com-
miffions and empowers to perform them. Miracles
may not require a degree of power abfolutely incom
municable to any created agent ; and yet God may
never adlually communicate a miraculous power to any
creature, or do it only where he direftly authorizes
its ufe. Now, whether God works the miracles
himfelf alone, or whether he enables and commiflions others

32 ^ Preliminary Confiderations.
others to work them ; there is equally a divine inter
pofition. And in either cafe every purpofe of religion
will be fecured : for whatever God authorizes and
empowers another to do, is, in effeft, done by God ;
and is as manifeftly a declaration of his will, as what
he does immediately himfelf He can no more au
thorize another to aft, than he can himfelf aft, in
oppofitiori to his own nature, or in confirmation of
impofture. /
The point, then, which I ftiall undertake to efta-
bliffi, is this, " that miracles are the peculiar works
" of ^od, or fuch as can never be effefted without
" a divine interpofition" in the fenfe of the]phrafe al
ready explained. This point we fhall endeavour to
eftabliffi both by reafon and revelation. And fhould
we fucceed in this attempt, there will then be no dif
ficulty in fhewing, that miracles are, in themfelves,:
certain proofs of the divinity of the miffion and doc
trine of the perforiher, and the moft effeftual me
thods ojF recommending him to the regard of man
kind.

CHAP.

Proofs from Reafon, that Miracles, &c. 33)

CHAP. II.
ARG^TMENTS FROM'- REASON, TO PROVE THAT MI
RACLES ARE NEVER EFFECTED WITHOUT A DI
VINE INTERPOSITION.
MIRACLES, confidered as means of conviftion,
6r as proofs of an extraordinary divine reve
lation, pre-fuppofe an ability of judging, whether
God be the author of them, .and they can be fitly re
garded as his immediate declaration and teftimony in
favour of their performer* The appeal in this cafe
is plainly made to natural reafon ; which muft firft be
fatisfied with the evidence of any fupernatural revela
tion, before we acknowledge its authority, or fubmit
to any of its decifions. And, therefore, before we
examine the fenfe of the Jewifh. and Chriftian reve
lations, with rega|:d to the authority of miracles ; we
will confider what maybe advanced from Reason,
to prove that they can never be performed without
the imniediate interpofition of God.
We fhall begin with examining the idea which
reafon teaches us to form of fuperior created intelli
gences : and in the next place, endeavour to fhew,
that the fuppofition of their power to work miracles
is contrary to faft arid experience ; and laftly, point
out fome of the numerous abfurdities, which wduld
follow from their poffeffing a miraculous power.
G SECT,

'^'tv Proofs from Reafon, that Miracles

SECT. I.
The fame arguments which prove the exiftence of fuperior created:.
intelligences, do. much rrmre fitongly conclude againfi their aSl-r,
ing out of their proper fphere. The objeBion from their fpi
ritual and invifible nature, anfwered.
W£ are far from denying, that there are in thg.
univerfe beings of a higher order than
mankind, fuch as furpafs us far both in natural and
moral excellencies. All that we here undertake to
fhew, is, that reafon is fo far from clearly informing
us of the power of any fuperior beings, befides God,
to work miracles ; thcit the beft arguments it can em
ploy, tr prove the exiftence of creatures of a higher
order than man, do much more-flHaS" ftrongly prove,.
that they can aft only within a certain limited fphere.
Thofe arguments are chiefly the two following.
ifi ; From the divevfity of creatures, and the gra^
dual afcent from the loweft to the higheft orde,r of ex
iftence, obfervable here on earth ; it has been infer
red, that the fcale of beings is continued u.pwards^
above man, and that there are numberlefs fpecies. of
creatures fuperior tp him, as we know there are of
fuch as are inferior to him. '.' Is it not very un-
*' likely," we are afked, " that the gradation of be-
*' ing ffiould ftop juft at man,, the loweft order of
*' reafonable creatures? Is the immenfe fpace be-.
*' tween man and the Deity quite empty, at the fame.
*.' time that there is not fhe leaft chafm between man
« and

^ argue a divine Interpofition, 3J
" and nothing ?" In anfwer to this reafoning *,
I obferve, I'irft, That it has not, perhaps, all that force in
it, which its having been uncontroverted might lead
us to fuppofe. We may allow, indeed, that the in
finite number of living beings with which the earth Is
ftocked, affords ground to conclude, that the other
regions of , the univerfe are equally furniffied with in
habitants, adapted to their refpeftive fituations. We
ma)6. allow farther, that the gradation of being from
lower to higher, which we obferve in our fyftem, fur-
niffies a proof, that the like gradation obtains in other
fyftems, and that their inhabitants differ from one
another in degrees of excellence, and rife one above
another in beautiful order. But whether they rife
above us in perfeftion, the argument from analogy ,
alone, as 1 apprehend, cannot determine. For that
only enables us to judge, by God's manuer of afting
in one cafe, how he will aft in another ; and of what
we do not fee and know of his ways, by what we do^
But all that we obferve in the fyftem to which we be
long, ,is an innumerable variety, and a gradation of
beings. By the rule of analogy therefore fome fimi
lar ceconomy may take place in other fyftems, and
C % . they
* It is hardly neceffary to take notice of the great impro
priety there would be in fuppofing, -that the chafm between
man and his maker can poflibly be filled up. Were the chain
of intelligence continued upwards from man, through as many
or,ders of created beings as you can imagine; yet the uppermoft^
link of this chain would be at an infinite diftance from th^
throne of Gpd.

3(5 Proofs from Reafon, that Miracles
r
they may contain numberlefs orders of creatures ri-
fing one above another till we come to the higheft of
them *. Beyond this, the argument from analogy
will not carry us, fuppofing it to carry us fo far f.
Secondly, Let us however fuppofe, that the fcale
of beings in our planet is a concliilive proof, not on
ly of a like gradation of being elfewhere, but alfo of
there
* This may likewife ferve as an anfwer to another objeftion.
From the clofe connexion between the difi"erent orders of beings .
in our fyftem, and their mutual dependence ; it has been inferred
by fome, that we may be equally related to and dependent up
on the inhabitants of fome other fyftem. All that the argu
ment from analogy proves, is, that in each fyftem of the uni-
¦yerfe, the different orders of creatures are or may he dependr
ent on each other : but it does not prove, that the inhabitants
of one fyftem have a dependence on thofe of another: for of
this we have no example. Befides, if the argument from ana
logy proved a mulual dependence between the inhabitants of
different fyftems ; it would conclude as ftrongly in favour of
the dependence of the inhabitant^ of other fyftems upon us, as
of our dependence upon them. There may be a relation be
tween all thofe numberlefs worlds, and fyftems of worlds, of
which the uniyerfe is compofed, as between various parts of one
flupendous whole : but the point that ftill wants to be proved,
is, that the inhabitants of other fyftems and worlds have more
ppwer over us, than we have over them.
f Thofe who have fo often made ufe of the argument from,
analogy on the point in queftion, will perhaps have a lefs opi
nion of its force, if they confider farther, that in another view
it militates againft their oun principles : for were this argu
ment conclufive, it would prove, that inafmuch as our fyftem
is inhabited by corporeal intelligent creatures, other fyftems
are fo likewife ; and thus lead them to deny a world oi fpirits.

tirgue a divine Interpofition, 37
there being in the univerfe. creatures as much fuperior
to maiv, as man is to the meaneft reptile : ftill the
fame kind of reafoning which proves there are fuch
beings, proves at the fame time, that they have a cer
tain limited fphere of aftion appointed them by God.
. For how various foever rhe powers of different fpecies
of creatures bete on earth may be ; they are all Urider
particular laws, and have bounds circumfcribed to
their aftivity, which they are not able to tranfgrefs.
The rule of analogy teaches us to conclude the fame
concerning all other beings. If we may judge of the
conduft of Providence in unknown inftances, by thofe
which fall under our obfervation ; " He, who has fet
*' bounds to the fea, which it cannot pafs, and fays
" to its proud waveSj Hitherto ffiall ye come, but no
*' farther *," has bounded the power, and fixed the
ftate, of-*all the creatures Whldh he hath made, not
excepting thofe of the nobleft order. And therefoi'e
whatever their natural powers may be, and however
freely they may be allowed to ufe them ; they are li
mited and determined to fuch purpofes as God has
appointed, and cannot poffibly be extended beyond
the fphere affigned them by the Creator. And yet
no fooner is it proved, (or thought to be fo) that pro
bably there are, in fome portion of the univerfe, be
ings fuperior to man ; than it feems, to be taken for
granted, that they have the liberty of an unbounded
range over the whole creation, that their influence ex
tends over this earthly globe in particular, and that
C3 they
* Job xxxviii. II. Jerem. v. 22.

38 Proofs from Reafon, that Miracles
-they ftand in the f^me relation to man, as man him
felf does to inferior creatures. But though there be
a ftrift connexion between the different orders of crea
tures on this earth, who all belong to the fame fyftem;
yet none of them have any poffible communication
from this lower world With the inhabitants of different
fyftems; none of them are able to traverfe the uni
verfe, or to pafs the bounds of their proper dwelling.
And this muft be the cafe in other fyftems, fuppofing
them to' be regulated by the fame laws which take
place in our own. Their inhaljitants may have lar
ger capacities than mankind, and a wider province
affigned them ; and yet have no more power over us,
than we have over them ; they may have no commu
nication with us, nor any influence beyond the limits
of their own globe.
2dly ; If we wave the argument from what is called
the fcale of being, and appeal to the unbounded power
and goodnefs of God, or to the-aftoniffiing magnifi
cence of the univerfe, in proof of the exiftence of
creatures of a higher order than man : ftill thefe ar
guments, however conclufive, will not prove, that they
are not under the continual government and controul
of God, or that they have not all their proper depart
ment. For not to alledge, that the power and good
nefs of God, though ftriftly infinite, and though they
have (without doubt) difplayed themfelves in the pro
duftion of more noble orders of beings than man
kind ; are not, however, exerted to the utmoft in
every, or in any, fingle effeft ; it is certain, they are
never exercifed but under the direftion of unerring
wifdom, by which all things are ftamed in the moft
1 exaft

argue a ditntie Interpofition. 3p
etaft ptoportions : and as to the univerfe; it is no lefs
diftinguifbed by its perfeft order and harmony, than
by its grandeur and extent. To what purpofe then
is* it to plead, that we know not what degrees of
power God may have communicated to created be
ings .? Can it be ffiewn, that they are fubjeft to no
laws, that their influence is unconfined, and reaches
to all the fyftems of the univerfe ?
But it is the opinion of a juftly celebrated writer *,
that to deny created fpirits tbe natural power of work
ing miracles j is faying, ?' they have no power natu-
" rally to do any thing at all." He had before ex-
plained his meaning more fully, in the following
terms f : " Suppofing (which is very unreafonable to
" fuppofe) that the natural powers of the higheft an-
** gels were no greater than the natural powers of
*' men ; -yet fince thereby an angel would be enabled
" to do all that invifil|Jy, which a man can do vifi-
•' bly ; he would even, on this fuppofition, be natu-
" rally able to do numberlefs things, which We ffiould
" efteem the greateft of miracles |." Angels, ac-
C 4 , cording
* Dr. Clarke's fermoris, vol. ii. p. 760; fol. ed. or his
Boyle's leftures on the T<uth and Certainty of the ChriAiaU
. Revelation, prop. 14.
f P. ^91-
J The doftor does not confine thi« reafoning to ^oo// angels,
but extends it to. evil ones, p. 699. " If the devil has any na-
•' tural power of doing any thing at all, even but fo much as
" the meaneft of men ; and be not reflrained by God from ex-
" ercifing that natural power ; it is evident he will be able, by
" leafon of his invifibility, to work true and real miracles.'''' The

40 Proofs from Reafon, that Miracles
cording' to this learned writer, could not be equal to
men in dignity and power, much lefs fuperior to them;
nor could they even poffefs any power at all ; unlefs
they are able to work miracles upon this earthly globe:
and nothing feems to him more unreafonable, than to
deny angels the power of doing all which a man can
do; which alone, be acknowledges, would be equi
valent to a power of performing the greateft miracles,
on account of the invifible manner of their operation.
This reafoning proceeds upon thefe two principles,
that fuperior natures have the fame fphere of aSlion af
figned thfcm with thofe inferior to them ; and that
they enjoy the ^eryfame powers and privileges. The
former of thefe is deftitute of proof, and the latter is
contradifted by the wife prder and ceconomy of Pro
vidence. Has man the ftrength or fwiftnefs of brute
animals ? Can he fly in the air, or dive into the
oceari ? How much foever rqan may excel the brutes,
he has not the fame organs and powers of aftion';
and his operations muft therefore be quite different
from theirs. The fame may be true of angels com
pared with men. Their capacities may be more no ble
The ancients alfo, as well as our learned moderns, built their
Opinion of the vaft powers of demons, upon the fubtlety and
finenefs of their make, .and then Jpiritual nature. TertuUian in
particular, after fpeaking of their power to inflift difeafes upon
mens bodies, aad to caufe a fudden diftraftion oi foul, adds,
" Suppetit illis ad utramque fubft^ntiam horiiinis adeundam
" fubtilitaS et tenuitas fua. Multum fpiritalibus viribus licet
'' ut ihvifibiles in effeftu potius quam in aftu fuo appareant."
Apol. c. 22.

argtle a divine Interpojffwn. ^i
ble than ours ; and they may move in a much more
exalted fphere, without being able to do every thing
which man is capable of doing*
It is a point that hitherto has rather been taken for
granted, than proved, that a power of moving mat
ter is effential to all fpiritual beings. It is difficult to
difcern any neceffary connexion between their imma
teriality and a power over matter *. If they are not
united
* The late ingenious. Dr. Ifaac Watts, in the 6th of his
Philofophical Effays on various fubjeBs, (p. 132. ift edit. 8vo.)
attempts to fljew, that though the almighty fpirit who called
the matd'rial univerfe into exiftence, can put the feveral parts
of it into motion as he pleafes, no created fplcit has any innate
power in itfelf to move any part of matter ; that the world of
bodies, and the world of minds, are fo entirely different and fe
parate in, their whole nature, fubftance, and fpecial properties,
that they cannot poflibly have any communication with each
other, except by a particular appointment of God.- Spirits be
ing void of all folidity, cannot move matter by impulfe, becaufe
there can be no contaft. Nor can they (without a divine com
miflion) excite motion in bodies by volition, there being no na
tural connexion between their volition and the motion of mate
rial beings. The power which the human fpirit has over its
own body, (and thereby over other portions of matter,) is no
proof that a fpirit has in itfelf a native power to move matter
indefinitely : for the human fpirit, by all its volitibns, can move
only thofe particular parts of the body which God has fubjefted ,
to voluntary motion, and for which proper mufcles are pro
vided, together with the nervous powers which are neceffary
to move thpfe mufcular parts. This limitation of its power
Ihews, that it is not effential to its nature, but owing to the
fpecial ordination and conftitution of God, who by uniting fuch
a body to fueh a fpiiit, has given to man that degree of power
over matter which he poffeffqs. -It does not therefore appear, that

4i Prwfs from Reafon, thod Miracles
united tb fuch organised fyftems of matter, as th"^
fpirit of man is ; upon what grounds ffiall we afcribe
to themj that capacity for human aftions and enjoy
ments, which is the fole effeft of our union to thofe
particular fyftems of mattej ? As reafonably may we
fuppofe, that light and darknefs dwell together; or
that caufes the moft oppofite to each other, ffiould ~
all produce the fame effefts; as th&t ffimtual beings
fliould have the fame natural powers with corporeal
ones. To the abfurdity of this principle, we may'
add its tendency to countenance the moft flagrant im
morality. That polluted intereourfe which w:as thought
to be carried on between the human race and celef-.
tial beings *, of which we read in the lying legends

that Sny immaterial created fpirit can operate upon mattery un
lefs firft united to a body. 'Whether there are any created fpi
rits who are entirely unembodied, I do not here enquire : all
1 mean, is to ftiew, that th«ir being_^W/j' does not prove their
power of afting upon matter, and of rworking miracles.
* We learn from Socrates, (apud Pldtop, Cratyl.) that the
heroes (w'ao, in the Pagan theology, are ranked next after de
mons,) " were all of them born from Love, either of a god
" with a mortal woman, or of mortal men with goddeffes.''
Dionyfius Halicarnaffenfis, (Ant. Rom. 1. i. c. 77. p. 61. ed,
Oxon.) after relating the rape of Ilia, explains more fully this
doftrine of the Pagans. The Jews, in our Saviour's time, en
deavoured to approach as near as poflible to Paganifm ; for
Jofephus fpeaks of the angels of God mixing with women, and
begetting a mofl wicked (ff spring, Antiq. 1. i. c. 4. The fame
opinion was alfo embraced by Philo. And what is yet more to be
lamented, many Chrijlian writers, Juftin Martyr, (Apol. I. p.
10 Si ^i. ed. Thirlbii.) TertuUian, (Apol. c. 2a.) Athenago- ras.

argue u divine Interpofition. 43
of Jewiffi rabbis, and Gentile poets and philofophers^
gained credit upon the pretence, (and was indeed no
unnatural confequence from it), that fuperior beings
poffefs the fame powers with mankind, and could at
pleafure affdme a human form. This maxim has
ferved as a cover for the luft of mankind, in Popiffi
as well as pagan countries ; though, perhaps-, it was
at firft indented to fupport the credit of a falfe theo
logy. What the heathen priefts once incorporated
into their religion, that the philofophers undertook
to juftify. And too many Chriftians (in the true fpi
rit of the Jews .before them) have ever been more
fond of the fouleft dregs of Paganifm, than-of that
holy religion which came down from heaven.
If we fet afide the wild fables of antiquity, (how
ever dignified with the pompous title of philofophy,')
and form our judgment of fupeiior beings by the fo-
ber rule of analogy ; we ffiall be under no tempta
tion to reduce the natural powers ef created beings to a
low degree ; (a liberty .which a learned writer * is
pleafed
ras, Clemens Alexandrinus, Cyprian and others, maintained
that demons, in the fliape of the heathen gods, had commerce
with women, and defiled boys ; and they endeavoured to fa
ther thefe'fehtiments upon a paffage of facred fcripture, Gen.
vi. a. I would not take notice of a circumftance which reflefts
no fmall diftionour upon fo many of the primitive Chriftians,
did it not appear to be a matter of great importance to be con
tinually recollefted, that when they embraced Ch.fiftianity,
they, at the fame time, defiled it with the groffeft doftrines
of Paganifm.
. ^Dr. Clarke's Serra. Vol. %. p.. 6^7.

44 Proofs frtii! Rr.ifri, that Miracles
pleafed to allow us :) the confideration of their pof-
feffmg powers fuperior to mankind, will not create-
any proof, or even the loweft degree of prefumption,
that they have any power over this earthly globe, or
are capable of difturbing the laws by which it is go-
vcrncJ. Reafon does indeed make known to us one
almighty,; omniprefent Being, who is at liberty to aft
everywhere, and in what manner he plcafcs ; and his
omnipotence is the only adequate caufe, we are capa
ble of difcovering in the whole compafs of exiftence,
of thofe effefts which are called miraculous : to him
therefore it is moft natural to afcribe them. With re
gard to all other beings, it is not pretended that they
exift neceffarily ; and that it is impoflible for them to
be excluded from any place, or confined to any : they
may therefore, nay, they muft have fome limits cir-
cumfcribed to their agency. The very lame kind of
reafoning which is thought to prove their exiftence,
does much more clearly ffiew, that all their powers
are bounded, and their ftation fixed by their omni
potent cre.itor, and that they cannot aft beyond their
proper fphere. Should it be laid, " That allowing that
*"• fuperior created beings have only a limited fphere
" of aftion afligned them ; yet how doe4 it appear,
*' that this lower world itfelf is not their lappointeil
" fphere, and that they have not a power of intcr-
" pofing to work miracles upon this earthly globe f "
The anfwer will be contained ,in the following fcc-
tion.
S EC t.

argue a divi;ii- Inierpfticn. 45

SECT. II.
The fuppofition ofihepsvver of any created agents io ivork miracles
ef themfelves in this Iswc-r world, is centradiBed by the obfervn-
tion and c.\pir:tn,r of all ages : there being, in f'<^, no proper
evidence cfthe truth of any mirachs, but fiwh as mpy fitly h- a-
fcribed to the Deity. The ctjiBicr., that God may lay cnr.ied /f-
rits under a genera/, li:t /;./ an univerfal rtyh\ii::t, .-./ijUiriJ,
THIS being a queflion of fad; it is mamfeftly
incumbent upon thofe who affirm, that mira
cles have been performed by evil beings afting with
out the order of God, to produce the fafts upon which
they chufe to reft their caufe, and to eftablifli them
by an evidence which cannot be overturned *.
In the mean time, if we confult our own obfervation
and experience; we find that God governs the world
by fixed ani eftabliffied laws. The more we improve
in the knowledge of nature, the more regular does it
appear in all its prQduQions. Even the minuteft parts
cf it obey the laws of God as conftantly as the moft
magnificent bodies in the firmament, and co-operate with
* To prevent miftakes, it may not be improper to obferve,
that it is not here intended to prove, that no fuperior beings
ftand in any relation to our fyftera, or that they nevet operate
within its limits in a manner imperceptible by the human' fen
fes ; but merely that they do not interpofe fenfibly, and In a
miraculous manner. We are not fo well acquainted with the
icgulations of the fpiritnel, as with thofe of the materic!
world.

^^ Proofs from Reafon, that ^^^icles
with them in their proper fphere for the prefervatioa
and benefit of the whole. And this regularity of the
courfe of nature is an argument, that it is not dif-
turbed by any miraculous interpofitions. Now if evil
fpirits do not work miracles at prefent ; why ffiould
we believe they ever have ? Indeed, our not having
feen any miracles ourfelves, is a fufficient reafon for
rqjeftlng thofe that are reported by others ; unlefs it
can be ffiewn, that they were expedient in the times
and places, in which they are faid to have been per
formed, to anfwer fome -extraordinary purpofes of di
vine providence ; or that they are attended by an evi
dence of their certainty, fuperior to the natural pre
fumption of their falfehood, and to the proofs which
fatisfy us with regard to the common events of life.
But this is far from being the cafe, with regard to
the generality of thofe miracles which are related in
hifory. Amongft them all, we ffiall find none which
on any account deferve credit ; except fuch as in their
nature, intention, and circumftances, are worthy of
God ; and which therefore, allowing their reality,
may reafonably be fuppofed to have him for their au
thor. Of this kind are the miracles of the Jewiffi
and Chriftian difpenfations. But we are here in
quiring into the reality of fuch miracles, as' are
thought to have been performed by fome evil agent,
With regard to thefe ; fuch of them as arfe beft fup
ported, have been feverally weighed in the balance
of reafon, and been found wanting *, It has been
ffiewn,,
* Cicero in his fecond book of divination, (in which he con
futes the arguments advanced in favour of it in the firfl:,) and
Fontenell^

#
ergue a divine Interpofition, 47
fhewn, that they are deftitute of every effential cha
rafter of truth, and bear all the diftinguifhing fea
tures of human impoftures ; that they are trifling, lu
dicrous and abfurd in their own nature ; or deftitute
of all rational intention, and manifeftly calculated to
anfwer fome low or worldly purpofe ; that they are
related by incompetent witneffes, againft whofe fkill
and integrity there are the ftrongeft exceptions ; and
that they never gained credit amongft any, but thofe
whofe ignorance and fuperftltion expofed them to the
groffeft delufions *. In all thofe cafes in which the
fafts cannot be denied, their miraculous nature may
juftly be called in queftion. The ancient prodigies,
fuch of them, I mean, as were not mere fiftlons,
were natural aecidentSj interpreted arbitrarily, and
which
Fontenelle in his Hiftory of Oracles, (which is an elegant a-
bridgement of 'Vandale's larger work, on the fame fubjeft ;).
have fufficiently difctedited the feveral modes of Pagan pro
phecy. And Dr. Douglafs in his Criterion, and many other ex
cellent writers, have very fuccefsfully expofed the falfehood of
the beft attefted miracles, bc>th amongft Papifts and Pagans.
* Some learned perfons, fenfible that the devil, does not ma
nifeft a miraculous power in all countries and in all ages, though
they imagine he fometimes does ; maintain, " that the world of
" fpirits may undergo many variations, and be fubjeft to different
" reftraints and regulations in different ages, fo as to interfere
" more or.lefs or not at all in human affairs." Dr Taylor's fcheme
of Scripture-Divinity, p. 266. But thefe (fuppofed) revolutions
in the world of fpirits, correfpond to the known and certain re
volutions of learning and fcience here on earth. Now whether
is it maft reafonable to believe, that human knowledge con-
crafts, and human ignorance and credulity enlarge, the empire
. ¦ of

48 Proofs from Rectfon, that MTraclcs
which created terror only as their caufes were un
known. It is merely in thofe ages and countries in
which nature was little underftood, that prodigies
have abounded. Laftly, Very many cafes fuppofed
miraculous, may be refolved by confidering how na
ture and art may have afted in conjunftion*. In
a word, all the fafts appealed to, in proof of the mi-
raculous agency of evil fpirits, are either not fuperna"
iural, or not real. I will not defcend into particulars,
that I may not repeat what has been fo well urged by
others ; but only add a few general obfervatlons, '
which feem to .affeft the credit of all thofe mira
cles, which, in cafe they had been really performed,
could not have God for their author.
, ifi ; None have ever yet attempted to ffiew, that
any of the miracles in 'queftion, are fupported by an
evidence fuperior to tbe natural improbability or ab
furdity of the fafts themfelves. How far they are im
probable or abfurd, will appear from what occurs in
the fequel. In the mean time all muft admit, that
the more improbable any faft is, the more unexcep tionable
» ' ^
of fpirits who belong to the other world ; or, that it is no^
their rezX power, but mens belief concerning it, which is thus
affefted by the progrefs or declenfion of human knowledge ?
What Livy fays of the prodigies which were reported to have
happened at Rome at a particular period, is applicable to de
moniacal miracles: " Prodigia eo anno multa nuntiata funt,
" quse quo magis credebant fimplices ac religiofi homines, eo
" plura nuntiabantur." Lib. 24. c. 10.
* The curious may find this ohfervation very well illuftrated
in Dr. Hutchinfon on Witchcraft.

ttfg'ue a divine Interpofition. 49
tionable ffiould the evidence be by which it is fup
ported : and if it be abfurd, no teftimony in favour
of it can be worthy of credit.
o,dly; It is univerfally allowed, that mofl of thefe mi
racles were the mere effefts of human artifice and fraud.
Now, if mofi were fo, why not all? The principles
ripon which all riien condemn fo large a part, if car
ried to their juft extent, would oblige them to con
demn the whole. At leaft, it muft be allowed to be
incumbent on thofe who make a diftinftion, to point
out the difference between thofe demoniacal miracles
which they rejeft, and thofe which they receive : a
talk which they have- hitherto prudently declined*.
^dly ; The reafon affigned for not allowing all of
them to be human frauds, viz. " Left, if out of fo ma-
*' ny fafts alledged, none of them are true, we ffiould
" deftroy the credit of all human teftimony, even
" that upon which the miracles of Scripture are
*' built ;" is both inconclufive in itfelf, and dlffion*
D our able
.* We might add, that the behaviour of the perfons, who
are thoughtto have performed miracles and delivered oracles
by the affiftance of evil fpirits, is exaftly«uch as agrees with
the fuppofition of theiB being deftitute of that afliftance, and
having no other dependence than human artifice and fraud;
Now if their miracles were real, why did they always aft as
if they had been fiftitiouS ? Why were not the works per
formed in fuch a manner, as clearly to manifeft the interpofi
tion of fome fuperior being ? And why did the conduftors of
the aiicient oracles, in order to maintain their credit, take
filch pains to procure early and univerfal intelligence, if fecret,
diftant, and future events were fupernatifrally revealed ? Sec
Lucian's Alexandi feu Pfeudomantj

50 Proofs from Reafon, that Miracles
ourable to true religion. Notwithftanding thefe, and
ten, thoufand other inftances of the deeeitfulnefs of
human teftimony ; yet has it ever beeri allowed and
found, under proper circum¬ftances, to be a veryfafe
and reafonable ground of reliance. The numerous
frauds of every kind which have obtained in the
world, are a ground of caution, not of univerfal fcep-
ticifm. Though many miracles have been forged,
it will not from thence follow, that no real miracles
have ever been perfptmed. Nay, " how can we ac-
" count for a praftiee fo univerfal of forging mira-
" cles for the fiipport of falfe religions, if on fonie
" occafions they had not aftually been wrought for
*" the confirmation of a true one ? Or how is it
*.' poffible, that fo mariy fpurious copies ffiould pafs
" upon the world, without fome genuine original
" from which they were drawn ; whofe known exifl-
" ence and tried fuccefs might give an appearance of
" probability t^ the counterfeit * ?" It would be
unreafonable, either to receive' or rejeft all miracles
alike ; in cafe there be ,a juft diftinftion between fome
and others. Now the miracles of Scripture are more
credible in their own nature than any others, being
performed for ends of the higheft Importance, fuch
as are fuitable to the charafter of an infinitely perfeft
Being, and which could not be accompliflied in any
other method. Their, truth is confirmed, by wit
neffes of rhe moft unfufpefted credit ; by the public
revolutions
* Dr. Middleton's Prefatorj? Difcourfe to a letter from
Rome, p. 86 — 88.

argue a divine Interpofition. 51
revolutions and events which they produced, (fuch as
the converfion of the world to the Chriftian faith ¦*,)
and which cannot poffibly be accounted for, but up
on the fup,.^fition of their truth ; by the clear pro
phecies delivered by the authors of thefe works, of
the completion of which diftant ages are witneffes ;
and by a variety of other arguments' peculiar to thefe
miracles, and which ferve to deteft '^nd expofe the
falfehood of all others ^ Thofe feeih to me but ill to
confult the credit of the Gofpel ntiracles^ who place
therii on a level with grofs impofturej, inftead of
pointing out the wide difference between them; and
who have no other way of fupporting the Chriftian
faith, than by countenancing lies and popular errors,
which in all ages has created the ftrongeft prejudice
againft it, and given occafion to boundlefs fiifpi-
cions f.
4thly', Many even of thofe miracles j which of all
others feemed to have the faireft pretenfions 'to credit,
have been undeniably proved to be mere impoftures.
Amongft thefe I reckon many of the miracles of
D a popery,
* The miracles of Chriftianity confirmed a doftrine contrary
to mens ftrongeft prejudices, and could not be believed without
danger : other miracles, for the nioft part, cannot be rejefted
without danger^ and are defigned to eftablifti popular and pro
fitable errors.
•f " Duih per mendacium tenditur, ut fides doceatur, id
" demum agitur, ut nulli habetur fid*s." St. Auguft. ad
Confentium.

^Z Proofs from Reafon, that Mirdcles
popery *, and thofe of witchcraft f, both of them aff-r
telled upon oath by pretended eye-witneffes, and th^
latter examined into with all the accuracy and authori
ty of a court of juftice, and yet both afterwards found
to be the offspring of fraud and delufion. Amongft
all thofe which have efcaped deteftion, thefe is no
ground to prefume, that there is one either more cre
dible in itfelf, or more ftrongly attefted, than thofe
in which the impofture has been difcovered. And
therefore, without troubling ourfelves to account for ev
ery particular relation ; is there not the higheft reafon
to believe, that, had they all been equally fubjeft to
examination, and undergone a rigorous inquiry, the
impofture muft have been difcovered in all ?'
Now, if there be no fufficient reafon to believe, that
any fuperior fpirits afting without the order of God,
have ever, from the beginning of the world to this
day, performed a fingle miracle upon our earthly
globe ; how void of all foundation, muft be the a-
fcribing to them a miraculous power } Were they
poffeffed of fuch a power, it is natural to fuppofe they
would have exerted it frequently ; efpecially as^ it may
be fo eafily made fubfervient to the purpofes of male
volence and impiety ? What miferies of every kind
might not wicked fpirits, from a principle of envy
and hatred, introduce amongft mankind ? And if
good
/¦ • .
* Several remarkable conceflions of Papifts themfelves up
on this head, are cited below, ch. 3. feft. 4, art. 5.
f See Hutchinfon on Witchcraft,, ch. i.

argue a divine Interpofition. j;^
good fpirits enjoyed an equal liberty of doing good
offices to men ; what a theatre of contention would
our globe have been between fpirits of fuch oppofite
difpofitions and defigns ? And therefore, if in a long
fucceffion of ages, there has been no appearance of
any fuch conteft between virtuous and wicked fpirits ;
if no motives whatever have excited the one or the
other to exert a miraculous power, fo much as once ;
is it not a natural inference, that they do not poffefs;
it ? With regard to God, indeed ; reafon informs
us, that he who eftabliffied the courfe of nature, can
change it at pleafure, even whether he has already
done fo or not. But the cafe is different as to other
beings, whofe powers and operations are only to be
known (in a .natural way) by obfervation and expe
rience. God is manifeft in every part of nature ;
but who can point out the effefts of other fpirits, and
their operations -on the univerfe ? And if we fee no
effefts of their agency on this earthly globe, if no
fuch effefts have ever been feen ; there can be no
ground from reafon to afcribe it to them. It is as
repugnant to the obfervation and experience of all
ages, to afcribe to evil fpirits a miraculous , power, as
it is to afcribe life to the inanimate, or fpeech to the
brute creation.
To deftroy the force of this argument, fome have
pleaded, " that fuperior created intelligenceis, evil as
*' well, as good, do not want the natural power of
*' working miracles, but only the liberty of exerting
" it: and notwithftanding they may be reftralned
** from ufing. it frequently or commonly j yet that it
3? 3 c^«

54 Proofs from Reafon, that Miracles
" can never be proved, (as a great * writer expreffes
" it) that they are under fuch reftraints, univerfally,
*' perpetually, and without exception." There is evi
dently, I acknowledge, a real difference between hav
ing the power of performing miracles or of producing
any other effefts, and the aftual exercife of that power;
and thofe perfons may have the ppwer, who do not
exercife it, provided their hot exercifing it be the
matter of their own choice. But I fcarce under ft and
the propriety of reprefenting any perfons as having a
power, which they are refrained from exercifing by
Others. As far as they lofe their liberty oi exerting
it, \!ne\x pQWfii' is abridged. The malefaftor confined
in a dungeon, and the flave chained to a galley, by
lofing the liberty, lofes the power of going beyond
the limits of his dungeon, and the length ' of his
chain. Not, however, to infift upon this ; I would
obferve, in anfwer to this objeftion, Firft, That were
the Deity to lay fuperior'beirigs under fucH 71. general
refiraint as is here fuppofed ; the removal of that re
ftralnt, and the fetting them at liberty on any parti
cular occafion, on purpofe that they might work parti
cular niiracles,' and with ho other view; would be
giving them more than a bare permifton^ (as fome re
prefent it ;) it 'would be givirig them both a power
and a comm^ioH to perform thofe particular iniracles
on that fpecial occafion. The miraculous works in
this cafe could not be c6nfidered in the fame light as
ihe ordinary aftions of free agents, to whom God in^
dulges
* Dr. Clarke, V. 2. p. 697. fol. ed.

argue a divine Interpofition. 55
dulges the ufe of their natural powers ; but would ar
gue a fpecial licence, and even the exprefs appoint
ment of the Deity. Now, we are not contending,
that God may not commiffion and empower whom
he pleafes .to work miracles ; this being, in effeft, the
fame thing as performing them himfelf. And he can
never give his fanftion to impofture. So that the ob
jeftion we are confidering. Were it well grounded, can
never ferve the main caufe of thofe by whom it is
urged, or enable them to ffiew that miracles may ac
company a fjtlfe doftrine. Secondly, There is, how
ever, np manner of foundation for the objeftion. For
pur judgments are to be guided by fafts, not by ar
bitrary hypothefes : and therefore, unlefs it can be
ffiewn, that there is full and fufficient evidence of the
truth of fome miracles, which cannot fitly be afcribed
to God ; there is juft the fame reafon ,to believe, that
fuperior created intelligences are univerfally and per
petually reftrained from working miracles, as that they
are generally fo. The very fame obfervation and ex
perience which convince us that there are any laws
of nature at all, dep.onftrate th?tf thofe laws are uni
verfally and invariably executed. Thirdly, The ob-
j,eftion proceeds upon a fuppofition not only ground-
lefs, but abfurd : it fuppofes, that God communicates.
and qontinues to his creatures, powers which he has
hitherto, through an unknown length of ages paft, al-
moft totally reftrained them from exerting, and which
he wIU equally reftrain them from exerting thrpugh
all future generations. Indeed, as it cannot be ffiewn,
that he has in any fingle inftance hitherto perniitted, fo
there is all imaginable reafon to believe he never will
D 4 , hereafter

5 6 Proofs from Reafon, that Miracles
hereafter in any fingle inftance permit, them to exer
cife that miraculous power which they are fuppofed
to poffefs. And can there be a ftronger refleftion
upon the wifdom of God, than to maintain that he
conftantly denies his creatures the ufe of thofe natu
ral powers which he beftows and preferves ? He ha?
indeed fixed the bounds, beyond which they cannot
aft ; neverthelefs, it is a flagrant contradiftion to aft
that we know of the works of God, to fuppofe that
within thofe bounds they are not allowed freely to ex-
ert themfelves. And therefore What fome are pleafed
to call a refiraint upon the liberty of fuperior beings,
is more properly a natural inability oi working mira
cles * ; and the argument againft their poffeffing a
miraculous power, from their never having made ufe
of it, remains in its full force.
To what purpofe is it to plead, " that we do not
*^ know the other world ?" We are not unacquainted
with this, to which the prefent inquiry refers. In the
foregoing feftion we have endeavoured to ffiew, that
if we reafon from analogy, and that view which we
are able to take of the works of God ; the various
orders of beings fuperior to the human kind ad only.
%vithin a certain limited fphere. And if w'hat we have
advanced.farther in the prefent feftion be juft, thii
lower
* If this reafoning appears to any to he* inconclufive, ray
ijnain argument will not be affefted : for that equally holds,
good, whether Go,d by a perpetual, law refrains all invifible
agents from interpofing at any time to alter the regular courfe
of things in this lower world ; or whether they want a natural-
power of interpofing for any fuch purpofe.

argiie a divine Interpofition. ry
hwer world is not their appointed fphere of aBion ; and
confequently they are pTevented from working mira
cles by the very law of their nature, without a fpecial
divine affiftance and commiffion. Now, if there are
no other beings capable of performing miracles ; to
whom ffiall we afcribe them but to God ? Upon this
principle, they muft be confidered as the imriiediate
operation of the divine ppwer,

SECT. in.
The laws of nature being ordained by God, and effential to the
order and happinefs of the world j it is impoffible God fiould
delegate to any of his creatures a power of %vorking miracles,
by which thofe divine eftablifhments may be fuperfeded and con
trouled,
BY the laws of nature, I do not mean thofe laws
to which fuperior invifible agents are fubjeft
ed, but the rules by which this vifible world is go
verned, and more efpecially the ufual courfe and or
der of things in the fyftem to which we belong*.
When miracles are performed, thefe laws are fuper
feded, and may be fufpended and controuled. I am
here to ffiew, that the idea of miracles, as contradic
tions to the laws and courfe of nature, contains a
proof of their never being performed without the im
mediate agency or order ofthe fovereign Author and
Lord of nature. Goiiftder the defign of thefe laws, and
* See ch. i. feft. i. p. 3.

c5 Proofs from Reafon, that Miracles
and the authority by which they were enafted. The
laws of nature were at firft ordained, and are contii-
nually preferved by God ; they are the rules by which
he exercifes his dominion over the world. His wif.
dom did not, and indeed could not, fee fit to leave
the world without Jaws ; or (which would have been
much the fame thing) leave thofe laws to be con*
trouled at the will of his creatures, to the ftrift and
conftant obfervance of which we owe, the regularity
and uniformity of the naturabwoljld ; the fettled or- "
der of caufes and effefts in the moral ; and the con
tinued harmony ofthe univerfe, all the parts of which
are related to each other, and confpire together to
carry on one commori defign, and thus demonftrate
that all things are under fhe fteady and conftant di
reftion of one ruling counfel. Nothing gives fo m.uch
force to the argument from the natural world in* fa
vour of true thelfm, or enables us fo effeftually to
anfwer the principal objeftions againft it, as the fta-
bility and invariable permanency of the courfe of na
ture. The conftancy of it conftitutes its beauty. And
what would be the confequence of God's departing
from the rules which he has fettled in the world, but
the violation and difparagement of his own majefty
and wifdom, and the perplexity, confufion and dif-
trefs of his creatures, inftpad of that order- which
now reigns every where ? If God did not govern the
world by fteady meafures.*, no room would be given us
* See above, ch. i. feft. 2. p. 12. and Berkley's Treatife
concerning the principles of hunian knowledge, part i. feft.
3i> 151-

argue a divine Interpofition, jp
US for the exertion ^nd improvement of our faculties,
nor any affiftance afforded us fbr the direftion of our
conduft ; a grown man would no more know how
to manage himfelf in the affairs of life, than an in
fant juft born; Which one confideration abundaritiy
over-balances whatever particular inconveniences may
thence arife. The laws of nature being ordained for
the general good, are not violated or fuperfeded even
by the great ruler of the world himfelf, to prevent
partial evil, or on any occafion whatever, unlefs when
the moft important ends of his government neceffarily
require a miraculous interpofition. What probability
then is there, that any other beings ffiould be able to
difpofe of the laws of nature, and interrupt them at
their pleafure, or (which is the fame thing) prevent
them from producing their ufual effefts ? Nay, there
feems to be a neceffity, that natural caufes ffiould ope
rate in the moft uniform and fteady manner. For
¦were God to grant to fuperior beings, fome of them
good, others evil, all of them finite and imperfeft,
a power of wprking miracles at pleafure, fuch as
might fuperfede and controul the operation of nature;
there could be no law of nature, no fettlement or fixed
conftitution of things at all ; every appointment of
God for our benefit might be defeated, and the or
der of this lower world be deftroyed. If fpirits, ac
cording to the doftrine of the Platonic philofophers,
are natu^llyable to move matter, or any particular
parts of it, not only in our fyftem, but in every other
throughoiit the univerfe ; what a boundlefs empire
would they enjoy? and with what extenfive defola-
|tion might they overfpread the face of the whole cre-
tion?

<5o Proofs from Reafon, that Miracles
tion .? . But is it credible, that God has fubjefted the
univerfe to the power of every fingle fpirit fuperior
to mankind, however malignant in his difpofition ?
The order * of the world feems to make it neceffary,
that all created agents ffiould be effeftually reflrained
or difabled from difturbing that order, in the man
ner they might do, did they poffefs the power of mi
racles. And there muft' be a divine law or conftitu
tion, preventing the interpofition of fuperior beings
in this manner upon our earthly globe in particular.
Unable as we might have been to determine by fpe
culative reafonings,. or arguments a priori, what con
ftitution of the univerfe it became God to eftabliffi;
yet we may dlfcprn the wifdom, the fitnefs, and in
fome degree the neceffity, of that conftitution which
we fee he has aftually eftabliffied, and confequently
the impoffibility of its being fubjefted to the arbitrary
wiU of any of his creatures, from whofe dominion
and controul we find it in faft to be exempted^ Thes
laws which the wifdom of God ordained for the ge
neral good, his omnipotence carries into certain exe
cution, without the leaft danger of being checked or
controuled by any oppofing power. Hence arifes the
impoffibility of miracles being ever performed without thQ
J
* Should it be here objefted, that the order of the worl4
does not forbid' rars and occafional, but only frequent and com
mon difturbances of the courfe of nature : I anfwer, that we
have already proved, ch. 2. feft. 2. p. 54. that ther« is no foun,
dation for this diftinftion, as it refpefts fuperior created agents,
who appear to be not only generally, but univerfally reftrained
from working miracles,

argue a divine Interpofition. 6i
tlie order of God. Not that the works themfelves,
abftraftedly confidered, require the exer-tion of an in
finite power * ; but the courfe of nature bein|; a di
vine fettlerAent, it cannot, in any inftance whatever,
be overturned by any finite power, without God's ex
prefs appointment. This is affirming nothing more,
than that there is no being in the univerfe capable of
oppofing the Deity with fuccefs.
The moft eminent philofophers and divines have
maintained, that the law of nature is not only the
ordinance, but the operation of God, and denotes the
rule by which his energy is unceafingly exerted in the.
government of the world ; and that natural effefts are
as much the operation of God as even miracles them
felves. This doftrine is ftrenuoufly maintained by
Dr. Clarke in particular, in many of his writings f.
And
* See above, ch. i. feft, 3., p. 28 — 36.
f Sermons, V; i. p.- 620, 621. 'V. 2. p. 287, 296, 297, 697,
698, fol. ed. In fome of the paffages here referred to, I ac
knowledge, the poftor, iu fpeaking of God's afting upon mat
ter continually and every moment, diftinguifties between his
doing it immediately hy himfelf, and his doing it mediately hy
fhme created intelligent beings ; and the latter feems to him moft:
probable. On this fuppofition, indeed, it might be as eafy for cre
ated intelligences to (titer, as to continue the courfe of nature.
But if matter be (as tliis very eminent philofopher affirms) in
capable of iny powers whatfoever; excepting only this one ne
gative power, that every part of it will, of itfelf, always and
neceffarily continue in that ftate, whether of reft or motion,
wherein it at prefent is : and if all thofe things which we com
monly fay are the effefts of the natural powers qf matter, are
the effefts of fome intelligent being's afting upon matter conti
nually

62 Proofs from Reafon, that Miracles
And therefore, if his doftrine be true, by contend.
ing for the pbwer of evil fpirits to work miracles j
does he not contend for their power to fufpend and
controul the operations of divine omnipotence ? But
whether you confider the courfe of nature as the re
gular and continued operation of God, or as his con
ftitution only, and the fixed rule and plan of his go-
vernment; it cannot be controuled at any time, but by
the fame authority by which it was at firft eftablijhed,2ind
is continually preferved. And confequently miracles,
which fuperfede the laws of nature and providence,
and difplay a fovereign dominion over them, do not
only moft naturally befpeak, but neceffarily argue,
the immediate interpofition and authority of the Lord
of nature, the omnipotent creator and governor of the
world, who reigns without any rival. If it be true
in faft, that God governs the world by general laws ana
nually and every moment : to whom is it fo reafonable to afcribe
this univerfal and perpetual agency on matter, and every parti
cle of it, throughout the unbounded univerfe, as to the eternal,
and omniprefent Deity ? We are fure that matter cannot re-
lift the unremitted and almighty energy of his fovereign will,
who only fpeaks, and it is done ; who commands, and it ftands
faft for ever. But how does it appear, that created fpirits have
any power to move matter of themfelves, and without the fpe
cial commiffion of God ? (See above, ch. 2. feft. i, p. 41.)
And is it not more reafonable to believe, that the Deity main
tains his fovereignty in a more immediate manner over his own
world, and thofe laws of motion on which its order depends ;
than that he has fubjefted them to the incliimtions and voli
tion of any of his creatures, who are neceffarily finite and im-
perfeft ?

argue a divine Interpofition. 63
and it be neceffary that he ffiould do fo ; he has not
delegated, he cannot delegate, to any of his creatures,
any power over them. To do this^ would be to re-
fign the reiifis of government.^ But the neceffity of
God's prefervii^ the laws of nature inviolate, will more
fully appear, as we proceed in confidering the farther
abfurdities which, attend tl^e contrary doftrine.
. " SECT. IV. -
' t
The afcribing to any fuperior beings, befides God, and thofe imme
diately ci^miffioned by him, ^ the pokuer of working miracles,
fubverts the foundation of natural piety, ani is a fruitful fource
of idolatry and fUperftition.
IT is evident, that prior to all fupernatural revela
tion, we have no other way of knowing God^
than by the works of nature. From thefe we infer
the exiftence, and attributes, and providence of their
almighty Author : principles which are the bafis both
of all religion, and of all our happinefs. But if fu
perior bdngs afting without the order of God, can
wOrk miracles ; ffiall we not lofe our proof of the ex
iftence and perfeftions of God from the wprks of na
ture I For fome miracles, fuch as turning inanimate
rods into living beings, -and raifing the dead, are fo
perfeftly fimilar to the works of creation, and the ori
ginal gift of life, as not eafi^ly to be diftinguiffied from
them ; and afford juft reafon to conclude, that any of
the authors of fuch miracles might be the creators of
the world : which would leave it doubtful, to whom
we

(54 Profs from Reafini that Mk;actes
we were indebted for our exiftence, amongft the nit*
merous beings equally capable of conferring upon us
that important favour *.
If others befides God could change the order of
nature ; what evidence ffiould we have of his wifdom
and providence in the continual government of the
world ? For this evidence arifes from that regularity
and uniformity, which we obferve in the courfe of na
ture, proceeding on from, age to age without inter
ruption. Could Others change the order of nature,
even when afting in oppofition to nature's Lord?
what reafon would there be to fear, that there were
other gods in the univerfe befides him, fuch as were
independent upon him, and as oppofite to him in their
natures and defigns, as they were in their operations 1
Nay, on this fuppofition, there would be juft ground
to apprehend, that he who had given laws to nature^
had himfelf z fuperior lord, who could controul his
appointments, and fubvert hlsemplrel.
Even if it could be proved upon the principles of
©ur adverfaries, that the author of nature had no fu
perior or equal, and that it was by his permiffion that
others ffiared with him the government of the world ;
this alone would be deftruftive to all true piety. If
the

* Even without fuch an inducement as miracles, many a-
mongft the heathens have afcribed the creation of ferpents and
other noxious animals, and even of the whole vifible world, to
an evil being, in oppofition to the divine intention. Nay, fome
learned advocates of the Chriftian revelation, in this enlight»
ened age, feem to think, that invifible beings may be poffeffed'
cf powers equal to the making and governing, of worlds.

Argue a divine Intef^ofttion. ' t$
the courfe of nature be not under the f6!e direftion of
God ; what foundation can there be for our worffilp
of God alone, and for the continual exercifes of gra
titude and fubmiffion to him, in every condition?
If we believe, that other invifible beings can inter
pofe in our affairs at their own pleafure, and either
inflift puniffiments or beftow bleffings upon .us^ fuch
as are quite out of the ordinai-y courfe of nature, and
contrary to it ; could we confider ourfelves as under
the proteftion and government of God ? Would It
•not be natural and unavoidable for us, to pay homage
to thofe who had the difp'ofal of our lot, and, by all
the means which we judged fuitable to that end, to
engage their favour, arid avert their difpleafure ? It
Was, this belief of the power of demons, to difpenfe
both good and evil to iriankind, that was the founda
tion of that worffilp which was paid them in the Pa
gan world; And had they given proof of their
power-; it would have been unreafonable to deny
them worffilp *. To fear or hope Without any
grounds, is very abfurd : but to fear dr hope where
there is juft reafon for either, where there is real
power either to proteft or puniffi us, is ari evident
diftate of the unde'rftanding. The paffions of hope
and fear do indeed neceffarily arife in the human
mind, upon the conteniplation of a power, that may
be eriiployed either for our benefit or prejudice ; and
will ever be accompanied with a fuitable concern to
I E render
* See below; ch. 2; feft; 5. p. 77.

66 Proofs^f^m Recfon, that Miracles
i;en4er thajt power propitious to ns*. Concer^iiiig
t)iejewsthemfelv^, even, after their return from then-
captivity at Babylon, yhef\ they are generally fqp-
ppfed to be, entirely cured of their fondnpfs for i^p^?-
try, ye are tpl4, tj^iat on ,the day of expiation tl^^y
o%i;e4 a gpat to S^mmqel or Satan, tha,t he migfit
not ^c^ufe.them of their crimes before God, bec^^^
they believed him tp have th^ power of doing it f.
With regard to Chriftians; it is in words, chiefly,
tha,t many of them differ from the anci^t Pagans,
who deified the fuppofed principle of evil. If they
refufe the devil the name of God, they go very far
in allowing him the attributes and prerogatives of
God-head, They conceive of him as a kind of om
niprefent
.* It feems very reafonable to infer from hertce, that no nji-'
racles were ever^performed amongft the Pagans, except b^ the
meffengers of the true God, with the exprefs and declared in-
ifention of manifefting and diftinguiftiing him from the falfe :
for without this precaution, the Pagans would naturally have
referred thefe works (had any fuch- been wrought amongft them)
to their own gods, confidered theiA as new difplays of their di
vinity, and been engaged to worftiip them with new zeal and
ardour. ¦ This is evident from the conduft of the idolatrous
Lycafonians, who, before they'were bettor inftrufted by St. PaHil,
concluded from the miracle he performed upon the 'cripple,
that the gods were come ^- do'wn in the likenefs of men, and
proceeded without delay to perform the rites of adoration.
Afts xiv,-8— 18.
,+ See Buxtorf's Chald. Talmud. & Rab. texicon, o,n tjie
-ivord Sammael, p. 149?, and Bochart's Hierozoic. 1. 2. c. 44..
p. 6j2.

orgife a divine Interpofitidnl 6'j
hiprefertt and omnifcient fpirit * '; aWd ifcribe to him
fuch adOminion over the hunian race^fe Can "belong
tW: noiie but 'the fpvefeigri of the uniVterfe. To the
devil thfey afcribdfrdfts, and tempefts; and infeftious
!,¥, blights upon the fruits of the earth, the difeafes
of cattle, the difafter^ and diftempers of metis nioOTe^,
phrehfy and the allenatioh of their mirids; and the
power of inflifting even crUel deaths f. This ^mit
has' begotten amongft Chriftians, though not' ati' ido
latrous worffilp, yet endlefs and cruel fuperftitions J,
particularly witchcraftj which alone has occafioried a
vaft effufion of human blood ; as the records of every
Courftry' can witnefs. No lefs than nine hundred
witclfes have in fome -very fmall provinces been, put
to death in the fpace of a few ^ars j|. Neverthelefs,
the grand principle upon which this deteftable art is
built, viz. " the natural power of the dev-il to de-
*' ftroy ihens bodies and lives, to bring upon them
"innumerable other calamities, and to work mira-
E 2 ¦ «f ^lesj
.* TertuUian. Apol. c. 2-i. i"
¦: . '¦¦ -sn > . i'. T. ; Oj * , , b .• . ¦ .,
f Tgrtiilllan. AppVc 22.,&. de'^iym. c. 57. arid Dr. Mac-
fiight's Tfuth^of the Gofpel Hifl;ory, p. 172, 173, , Dr. Whitby
bfl Luke xji. 16, Heb. ii. 14. Jofephus de B. 1. 1. 7. c. 2j.
&nd Tol?it vi. y.'ch. vlii. 2. ch. iiif8,,.„ ^
X We hetice fte, with how little reafon it is affirmed, that
inafmuch as we are liable to evils, it can make no difference to
whom they are afcribed. Befides, did the evils we fuffer pro
ceed froni' the power and pleafure of evil fpirits ; -why ate they
riot greater and more numerous ?
(I Mead's Medica Sacra, prsefat. p: 11, 12.

68 Proofs from Reafofi, that Miracle^
" cles *," is ftill maintained by the greateft names ifi
the republic of learning. On this foundation, laid
for him by philofophy, the wizzard eafily raifes his
own fuperftruftUre. While the philofopher afferts
the power of wicked fpirits to produce the moft extra
ordinary effefts, out ofthe common courfe of nature;
the wizzard prefumes, and not unreafonably, that
they have the ufe of this power : for a power which they
cannot ufe, is, in effeft, no power at all. And he
advances only One ftep farther, -When he pretends to
a familiar intereourfe with them, or to be flsilled in
the manner of fetting them to work^ Now this dif
ference between them is very trifling ; fince, if the
devil can interpofe in the manner fuppofed by both,
it matters riot whether he does it with, or without
the inftrumentality of human beings. Moft melancho
ly is it to refleft, how much the general principle we
are here oppofing, viz. the power of Satan to work
miracles, and the various fuperftitions grounded upon
it ; have contributed in all ages, and in all nations^
to the difquiet and corruption .of the human race,
and to the extinftion of rational piety. This confi
deration alone, were there no other, ffiould check
the zeal of Chriftians to maintain an opinion, fo de
ftruftive to our virtue and happinefs ; and which the
wifeft heathens, from principles of benevolence and
piety, earneftly wiffied and laboured to extirpate f. In
* Dr. Clarke's Serm. 'V, 2. p. 700, folio.
f Sftperftitio fufa per gentes, oppreffit omnium fere animosy
atque horainum ifnbeeillitatem occupavit.— ^Multum enim &
nobifmet''

argue a divine Interpofition. 69
In a word, if we entertain juft and honourable fen
timents of the cpnftitution of the univerfe, and its
Sill- wife and benevolent author ; can we beUcye that
he has fubjefted us to the pleafure and difpofal of fu
perior beings, many of whom are fuppofed to be as
capricious and malevolent as they are powerful ? Has
God put our very life, and the whole' happinefs of it,
into fuch hands ? This fome maintain he has done ; and
this he muft have done, if be has granted them the
power of working miracles at pleafure ; an opinion,
which cannot fail to rivet Heathens in their idolatry,
^nd Chriftians in the nioft deteftable fuperftitions.

SECT. V.
If }^iraales were performed in. favour of falfe doBrines i ntankiiid
would be eitpofed to frequent and unavoidable delttfion.
MIRACLES may be confidered either apart by
themfelves, or in their relation * to the mif
fion and doftrines of a prophet. It is In the former
view, that they have been confidered in the preceding
feftions of this chapter : we ffiall now examine them
in the latter ; which will furniffi us with new evidence
of their being works peculiar to God. What I ffiall
E3 attempt
nobifmet ipfis, & noftris profuturi videbamur, fi eam funditus
fuftuliffemus. Cicero de divinat. 1. 2. c. 72.
* What circumftances are neceffary to point out this rela.
tion, is particularly fliewn below, ch. 5. at the beginning,

7© Proofs from Reafon, that Miracles "•
attempt itfthi§'^feftion, is to ffiew, that were evil fpi
rits at hberty'to Work miracles to impofe upon man-
fcifid, the efr-or^firiight be abfolutely invincible. In
pfOof of thisafffeftiori, I appeal to the natural fenfe of
mankind cOncernirig miracles, and to thofe impref-
fions which they always make upon the mind, when
free from the bias of prejudice. '*"'
It is certainly more natural, to refer miracles to
God, than to any other invifible being : for reafon
informs ps clearly and certainly, that God can, but
does not equally inform us that any other being can,
perform thefe works *. And inafmuch as the courfe
of nature' is a diving conftitution, it muft be unnatu-
lal to fuppofe, that any being, befides God, is at li
berty to controiil it f . Accordingly it appears in faft,
that mankind confider miracles as the works of God,
and as divine teftimonials to a prophet, whenever
thiy are performed and' appealed to as fuch. This is
evident, not only frbm^tfip immediate regard J which
h^ been fliewtf to genuine miracles, whenever they
iM^^ferf wrdughf ; biit alfo from the frequent pre-
tlrifi'drig to tH^,'in alt ages, and in all nations- of the
wbrld.^ "Had' they not been generally confidered as
amffe \MrkS, alfld authentic proofs of a divine mif-
Ironx ffi^y would not have been forged in fupport of
everf fafife religion that pretended to come froni God,.
V «irt ni /fig II. di. . nt Nav,
* Ch. 2. feft. 2,
f Ch. 2. feft. 3. .'i-^''- i-'T
t I Kings xvii. i4.*cH;'xviii. 39. Jbhn iii. 2. "¦ IW^'. xv.
30, 31. ch. ix. 8. Luke xiii. 13, 17. Afts iii. ib.cli. iv. 31.'
ch. xiv. II. ¦

argue a divine Interpefitisn. 71
Kay, fo jftrong an impreffion of their own divinity do
genuine'iliiiTacles leave upon the human mind, that
their force is felt evqri by thofe,lwhofe natural fenti
ments concerning them are moft perverted by the er
rors of fuperftltion, and.the refinements of learning.
It is ftrongly felt by the whole Chriftian world, not
withftanding their fpeculative »©pinions are calpulatgd
to defeat it*; and not -lefs. -by infidels andatheifts.,
who never think themfelves fafei in reiefting religion,)
tiU they have perfuaded themfelves, that every hiftory
of miracles is falfe. Spinoza himfelf, as ^r. Bayle t
affures us, faid to his friends, " That if be could be
" convinced of the refurreftion of Lazarus, he wpuld
" break his whole fyftem into pieces, and readily em-
*' brace the common faith of Chriftians.''( , The very
Pharifees, when moft blinded and hardened by their
malite againft Chrift, confeffed the force of this evi-
dence in his tfavour, 'when they faid, *' This man
" does many miracles. If we, let him thus alone,
" all men will believe on him J." And indee,d the
whole world would have believed on him oft account
of his miracles, had they not been prejudiced againft
' his doftrine. I add, that Chriftians muft allow, that
miracles, when performed in atteftation of a profeffed
miffion from God, conftitute an evidence adapted tp
the frame of the human mind, and the genuine fenti
ments of nature; for both our Savipur and his apof-
E ^ ties
'^ .Preface,
f Qeneral Didionary, article Spinoza, note R.
I John xi. 47, 48.

J 2 Proofs from Reafon, that Miracles
ties contented themfelves with the mere exhibition, of
this evidence, and then left it to produce its proper
effeft. Now, if miracles, by their own natural influence^
are calculated to procure immediate credit to the doc
trine they atteft; if they conftitute an evidence a-
dapted to the common fenfe and feelings of mankind;
if they make an impreffion which fcarce any refiftance
can totally prevent or efface : it is an eafy and obvi
ous inference from hence, that if they were per
formed in favour of falfe doftrines, the generality of
mankind would be neceffarily expofed to frequent de
lufion. And thofe would be the leaft able to refift
the impreffion of miracles, who had the ftrongeft
fenfe of God upon their minds, the moft honourable
apprehenfions of his natural and moral government,
and were the moft fearful of incurring his difpleafure,
^y rejefting any revelation of his will.
Here it will be objefted, '* That if niiracles were
" wrought to Confirni falfehood^-the nature of the
" dodrine might ferve to guard us againft being de-
" ceived, and direft us to afcribe' the works to fome
*' evil agent, who was permitted to perform them for
" the trial of mankind." In anfwer to this objeftion,
it might perhaps be fufficient Jo obferve, that vsrtmt
fome caU, God's permitting, would be in reality ^m-
powering and commffioning eyil fpirits to work mira
cles. For God's removal of the reftraint or difkbi-'
lity which thofe fpirits are under at all" other times,
amounts to his giving them both a power and a com
miffion to Work miracles on this particular occafion*. And
^ See iibqve, ch, 2. feft. a. 54.

argue a divine Interpofition. 7-3
And this God cannot do in confirmation of falfe
hood. But much ftrefs being laid on this objeftion, we
will offer fome farther obfervations upon it. The
moft arbitrary and unnatural fuppofitions, when they
have been long made, are thought at laft to have
fome foundation to fupport them, and require the
fame notice to be taken of them as if they had. le
is not true in faft *, that any miracles have ever
been performed in fupport of error, on purpofe to
try our faith, At leaft, no fufficient evidence ap
pears of the truth of any fuch miracles. Nor do the
puds of the divine government feem to require, that
mankind ffiould be expofed to this particular triaU
The temptations which occur in the ordinary courfe
of providence, are abundantly fufficient to exercife
our virtue; and it is quite needlefs that miracles
ffiould be wipught, merely to put it to a farther
proof. Now, if reafon cannot ffiew, that mankind
ought to be, and experience convinces us that they
never have been, ^xpofed to the delufion of falfe doc
trines infprced by miracles ; the notion that they
may be fo, muft be confidefed as a mere fiftion.
Befides, how unlike would fuch a trial be to thofe
ordained by G6d ? The latter arife from paffions plan
ted in our nature for the moft valuable purpofes, and
from the moft ufeful and neceffary relations of life.
But our adverfaries fuppofe, miracles may be atchiev-
ed with no other view, than as mere matter of trial to
mankind : which is repugnant to all our knowledge
' ' • ^ " " Of
f See ch. 2. feft. 2.

,>74 profs from Reafm, that Miracles
of the divine difpenfations. Not to obferve, that ^t;-
rors inforced by miracles, would, veryj^freqbently at
leaft, conftitute a trial rather of the underftandings
than of the heart; and in this refpeft likewife,* it
would differ froni' thofe to which God has fubjefted
mankind, ' • ac t
To convince us more fully, that no miracles can
ever accompany a falfe doftrine, merely for the triai
of mankind ; I would jobferve, that they are not ca
pable of anfwering this end, upon the principles of
thofe by whom it is affigned. Were a falfe doftrine
to be attefted by miracles ; it muft be affefted, either
that the falffiood of it was difcerned, or that it was
not. If the falffiood of the doftrine was difcerned,
and it was at the feme time known, that the miracleis
attefting it might, and muft be performed by fome
evil agent ; in |;his cafe, where would be the trial ?
The miracles, it would be allowed, were no evidence
of the truth or divinity of the dpftrine ; and contain
ed no recommendation of it, or motive to embracp
it ; nay, they could only ferve to furniffi an invinci
ble prejudice againft it, on account of the known
malevolence of th,eir author. If, on the other hanid|
the falfehood of the doftrine was not and could nofe
be difcerned ; the niiracles attending it being confij^
dqred only as proofs pf the interpofition i of fome fU|C
perior. being, the mind miift- be thrown into a ftate
of perplexity and fufppnce about the author of the
works, and remain void of all inducement either tp
jcmbrace or rejeft the doftrine. And confe;quently
here alfo theie would be no trial at all. We are ne
ver more in danger of charging God -fooliffily, than
whei\

argiie a -divimf Interpofition. 75
¦when we judge of him, not- by. what he has -done,
but by what we prefume it becomes him^to do. It
might convince us, how little a way hare fpeculation
can carry us in all refearches into the natuBe amd go-
VJa"nment of God, to find the-^rongeft mindk, when'
trufting to fpegulation alone, afcribing to him un
worthy meafures, and inventing defigns and tends for
tfaem, which they are not adapted to,; anfwer. The
very fcheme which affigns the trialwpf mankind, as
the end of God's permitting miracle^ to be performed-
in -confirmation of error, dogs itfelf ffiew, it could
not be promoted by themr Now, whoever calls up
on us to believe, that miracles may be wrought with
out any neceffity, and even without any ufe, demands
our affent to what contradifts all our ideas of divine
wifdom, and -the whole courfe of the divine difpenfa
tions, as well as the feveral reafons before urged to
Ihew, that no variations from the eftabliffied laws of
nature can take place, except when they are indifpen-
fably neceffary to promote the moft important purpo
fes of God's adminiftration.
Though miracles wrought in ftipport of error, ac
cording to the idea fome have formed of thefe works,
wduld not conftitute any triafof mankind ; yet, if we
confider them in their true light, they carry fo much
weight and authority with them, as moft' powerfuUjb-
and effeftually to recominend to the belief of mankind
the doftrine -which they atteft. And, confequentljip-
were they to accompany error, they eould" nor jfail;
in very many inftances, of procuring it credit ;as' We?
endeavoured to ffiew at the beginning of the Ife'ftion;
Ja order to confirm what was there asdvaaakedy'lt is
only

?6 Proofs fiom Reafon, that Miracles
only neceffary to add; that, in this cafe, the confidcra-
tion of the dodnne which the miracles attefted, could
not univerfally fecure men from deception. Man is
a creature liable to error, jind his judgment (eafily
impofed upon by fpecious appearances) often pro
nounces that to be reafmable which is not fo. And
even when a doftrine appears doubtful, or ftrongly
fufpicious, mankind are more ready to call in queftion
their own reafonings concerning it, than to difput^
the authority of the miracles which are thought to re
commend it. Innumerable cafes there are, in which
human reafon, in its moft improved ftate, is unable
to form any judgment concerning the probability or
improbability of a divine interpofition to confirm par^
ticular doftrines. Do not the moft learned, and even
the wifeft of mankind, differ widely concerning the
reafonablenefs of certain opinions ? Nay, what con
trary cenfures do they pafs upon them ? Is there a
feft of Chriftians which does not reprefent the dif-
tinguiffiing tenets of all the other fttls as unworthy
of God, however credible they appear lO thofe who
hold them ? How then can the bulk of inankind, the
moft ignorant and illiterate, and thofe in particular
who have been educated in all the darknefs of idola
try ; how can they in every cafe jud.<e with certainty,
whether a doftrine be worthy a'divlne interpofition,
!or deteft the falfehood of it, when it brings the tefti-
monlal of miracles ?
Let us put a cafe the moft favourable of any to
thofe whom we hJre oppofe. They affirm, " That
" if the moft numerous and illuftrious miracles were
" performed in fupport of idolatry, we ought to dif-
^' regard

argUe d divine Interpofition, 77
" regard them; that the doftrine being falfe, the
*' works could not be divine." Let us then fuppofe,
that fuch miracles were aftually wrought for the pur
pofe here affigned, the confirmation of idolatry, in the
fenfe they imagine it to have been praftifed by many
in the Pagan world, that is, in confirmation of the
worffilp of certain powerful beings, to whom the go
vernment of particular parts of nature was delegated
by the fupreme Divinity. Frojn what was obferved
above*, it appears, that had miracles been performed
among tbe Heathens, thefe works muft, by their own
natural influence, have inflamed their devotion to
wards the reputed authors of them. And in farther
juftification of their idolatry, they might be ready to
plead, " That the honour paid to inferior deities was
" warranted by the miracles which they performed ;
*' becaufe fuch changes in the order of nature could
" not take place, but by the appointment of the great
" Lord of nature ; and becaufe they were in them-
" felves di^lays of that authority and dominion over
*' mankind with which he ^a^ had invefted them :
*' and confequently that difowning their authority,
" and refufing them their due homage, was afting
" contrary to the will of the fupreme Being, and to
" the truth of things ; refufing to ackowledge thofe
*v inferior deities to be, what they reaiiy were, ouf
" divinely appointed governors and guardians." If
a Heathen offered this plea, the validity of which, or
of one very fimilar to it, feems to be admitted in
' Scripture J
*• Ch. ?. feft. 4. p. 6j.-

^"S Proofs from Reafon, 'that Miracles
Scripture * ; it would be difficult to tfonvince him ttf
theiweaknefs" of it, efpecially as it gave a fariftioW tb
all his ftrongeft prejudices and indination^ f .*^ NBV^
if in a cafe thought to be fo plaiftj and cert^afiiBf 6f
the firft importancas; mankind Ird liable to delufiofi ;
in how many thoufand inftances, befides Would ifli^y
not be open to tt, if riiiracles Wetfe performed to give
a fanftion to impofture ? ««'"8'\ *'^' *; ^'" ^ ' '
And even fuppofing the doftrine attefted by niira
cles, to be immoral, or favourable to our corrupt pa&
fions ; this confideration \i^ould indeed awaken the
caution and prejudice of a few good men againft:'^ it;
but would only fo much the "more ftrOngly re^bfti-
mend it to the affeftion of the greateft part of liiari-
kind. When I confider upon what accounts the
Heathen world did not Hke to retain the true God hi
their knowledge, what vices they afcribed to th^ir
chief divinities, what flagrant immoralities they prac-
tifed as rites of rd^ligion, even Without any fuch faric-
tion as that of miraidles : when I farther refl^ftf hh%
often the moral precepts of the Gofpel have been cM-
fured as impraftitable, and their ftrift purity urged* ail"
an objeftion a-gainft their divinity ; and that feVen
Chriftians themfelves; of all denominations, *are con-"
tinually corrupting the fanftlty of their religion, oi'
relaxing its rigour, and ftriving,' under differerit -^ri-
tences, to bring it nearer to the level of humari frail-
* If. xH. 21-^23. cited below, ch. 3. feft. 2. ^
j- What is here offered to ftiew, that miraclies would have
riv'ttted Pagans in their idolatry ; is apparently true with re
fpeft to Papijls, were fuch works to be performed by theui;

argue a divine Interpofition. 7p
ty;^,]^ qin?lot help being of opinion, that a doftrine
mij^i?5i<^;gfJi^le, to.mens favourite paffions and/pur-
ffij^, if it „yva|, fuppor^dv by miracles-,, would be a
remjptf^tlpn too ftrong for humani^ nature to refift,
an4rifuc,h as God therefpre will never fuffer it to be
expofed to. 15.^3,1 =.onsjf!f
, A veiylearne^ writer,, who has done Angular fer-
vice to the caufe of religion, has afferted, " Suppot
*' ing that the miracles pretended in favour of Pa-
*' ganifm were all, real miracles,. yet as they lead meil
*' to a corrupt religion and.. idolatrous worffilp, no
'*, i^yerence, no regard is to be paid to them.*" The
worj[h}p yfljiich men pay to God, will eyer be fuitable
to tj^.-j^ea^ they fprm concerning his nature. Th&
napft immoral ritps of Pagan devotion were conform
able to the charafter of the objefts of that devotion.
And while, men entertain corrupt notions of their
gods, they are not likely to difcern the abfurdity of a
corrupt religion. , A.n^ therefore miracles performed
in fupport of it, would ftrengthen, and (in their opi»
nion, at leaft); juftify their attachment to it. In a
word,,,wh9eyer-confiders the true nature of miracles,
ihe power wl^ich they neceffarily imply, and the for
cible ii^preffions, they make on the hiiman heart, to
gether with the real charafter of mankind, will hard
ly deny, that, if they were wrought to give, ei^idemto
to falfehopd, they ^puld unavoidably, irt number lefo
inftances, procure it credit ; efpecially if he farther takes

*

l^ ! 1.

Dr. Newt9n*s; Dilferjtaticjns on the. Prophecies, ^! 2. p.
475, Dr. Clarke, lilf;,ewife had advaticed the fame do-ftrinCjVj
2-. p. 699, 70a, 702. fol. edit.. ¦ "'' ^3"

go Profs fro^ keafan, that* Miracles
takes into the account, the underftanding and fagacfj
ty afcribed to created fpirits. We are indeed expofed
to the danger of delufion by the artifices of men,
Neverthelefs, againft human craft, human caution is
a fufficient fec®-ity : but men are not a match for fu
perior beings.
Now if God's allowing to evil fpirits the Hberty of
working miracles in confirmation of falfe doftrines,
would neceffarily fubjeft mankind to great delufion ;
will it not follow from hence, that he cannot have
granted them any fuch liberty ? This confequence"
Will be allowed by thofe, who think honourably of
the divine government. Who, without being com
pelled by fiich evidence as canriot tie refifted, would
reprefent the Deity as placing his rational creatures;
even thofe who with upright hearts were endeavour
ing to learn his will, under a difpenfation. Which,
without amy fault of theirs, would promote their de
ception, in matters which concerned their moral con
duft, and their eternal happinefs ? Such a difpenfa
tion as this feems to be utterly inconfiftent with God''s
wifdom and goodnefs, with his effential reftitude, and
love of righteoufnefs and truth, and with aU the no
bleft perfeftions of his nature. * If God does not, and
indeed, (for the reafons affigned above *,) cannot, fuf
fer the order of the natural world to be difturbed at
tbe will of created agents at: any other time ; can it
bg thought, that he will permit and employ- them to
make this miractilous difturbance, merely to promote
a farther and much greater evil, the delufion^ depra vity
* Ch. I. feft. 2. p. i8. & feft. 3. p. 58.

argue a , divine Interpofition. 8 1
vity and mifery of the moral world ? Scarce is it pof
fible for us, to diffionour the deity more, tfiian by fo
groundlefs arid injurious an imputation. If falfehood
and vice are' objefts of God's difapprobation, he muft
have teferved in his own hands the power of work
ing miracles. Ndw, ic is not more impoffible, that
this prerogative of God ffiould be ufurped by vio
lence ; than that-it ffiould be voluntarily refigried and
proftituted to imworthy purpofes*

S E C T. VI.
^ miracles niay be performed without a divine ihierpofttid'n, and
infapport tf falfehood •, they cahnot he authentic credentials fa
. divine miffion, and criterions of truth.
IT is a thing too obvious to requirfe anj^labouted
argument, that if miracles; in theirifelves, are e-
Jvidences only of the interpofition of fome fuperiot-
beings, not of God more than ariy othei-; thej can
never be, in theirifelves, a cfertain criterion of a per-
fon's being fent of God. '* You could not know I
" came from, and was fent by fuch a prince, by
" my bringing his feal along with trie, if other
" people had the fame feal, and would lend it to o-
" thers to ufe as they" faw fit-j-." If you cannot point
oiit, with clearnefs and certainty, the fpecific diffe-
tence between thofe miracles which are peculiar to
F God,
f Fleetwood's Effay on MiratleSj p. 5, 7;

82 Proofs from Reafoh, that Miracles
God, and thofe which the devil can either perform
or imitate, you will be in perpetual danger of mif-
taking the one for the other *. Accordingly we find
Chriftians themfelves, from the earlieft ages down to
the prefent, difparagirig the evidence of meremira-,-
cles, as doubtful aniuncertain ; cautioning the world
againft receiving doftrines as true and divine, upon
the bare atteftation of thefe works, and cenfuring
a faith founded upon them as manifeftly rafh and
groundlefs t. Can it then be matter of furprize to us,
that unbelievers ffiould treat miracles with very little
reverence, and except to the evidence arifing from
them.'' It has long provoked their fcorn and indig
nation, to have that offered them as a valid proof of
the truth, which equally attefl^Jalfehood ; to fee the
t , ^^^y
* Dr. PrideaiJx in his, letter to the Deifts, p..2Q6, and ma
ny others have undertaken to fhew, what fort of miracles the
devil may perform or Imitate, The talk however feems to
have been too hard fox them ; whic'/i it might well be, if It be
true, as Dr. Clarkj6 and others tell us, that there is no know
ing how fnr the pOwer of created fpirits, good- and evil, may
extend. "Why then do thefe writers undertake to determine
the limits of their power ? See Dr; Clarke, "V. 2. p. 696, &c.
f , Temeraiiam Plane. "TertuUian in Marc. 3. 2. Origen, in
his anfwer to Celfus, I., 3. p. 124, fpeak-s of prophecies and fu
pernatural cures, as things of an indifferent nature. And Je
rome, ;or whoever is the author ofthe Breviaj-y upon the Pfal-
ter, apud Hicron. T. 2. p. 334, 335, makes no 4ifEcultyof
allowing to Porphyry, that the magicians of Egypt, Apolloni-;
•us, and an infinite number of other perfons, wrought miracles.
Non eft autem grande -facere ligna, feems to have been the
principle common both- to, Porphyry and Jerome.

argue a divine Interpofition. 83
very fame works ufed to recommend fome tp their
regard as divine meffengers, and to difgrace others
as magicians *. For, I think, there is hardly a, fingle
miracle, either in tlie Old or New Teftament, which
Chriftians t have nbt thought they could parallel with
fonie fimi'lar miracle amongft the Pagans. There are
two cafes, however, in which miracles are confidered
as evidences of a divine miffion, by idme who plead,-
that fuch vporks niay, ori other occafions, be perform
ed without the order of God.
I, It is ui-ged; " that in cafe of a conteft between
'* tvs^o oppofite parties working miracles for viftory;
" the party which works the mofl and greatefi mira-
'' cles, may reafonably be fuppofed to be affifted by
" God ; and therefore that his doftrine ffioiild be re-
" ceived as divine." To this we anfwer, \ft. That
if ffipernatural operatibns were brought to fiipport
Oppofite riiiffions, it would be difficult to determine
which ofthem required the greater degrees of power.
Scarce, perhaps, would any two perfons pronounce
the fame judgment concerning them. l:he driving of
F 2 ' ' the
* It was this which afforded Celfus fuch matter of infult and
triumph, nZf it is r^iriMv, im rat nirSv H^ym Toy fia Bilii, tii; di yi-
i/iTxg iyeiieii. Celfus apud Origin, contra Celf. 1. 2. p. 93. This
it is that feems to have created the ftrongeft prejudice in Mr.
Rouffeau againft. miracles : " Can it be imagined," fays he,
" that God nfes the fatne means to inftruft'men, as he knows
" the devil will ufe to deceive them ?" Lettres ecrites de la
Montagne, p. 104. -"¦
J This talk was undertaken by the learned Hu'eti'tis, In his
Quseftiones Alnetanse.

8-4'' Proofs from Reafon, that Miracles
the traders out ofthe temple, is called by St. Jerome *,
the moft wonderful of all th miracles v^hich Jefus per
formed: and yet a yery learned modern | fcarce alf
lows it to be any miracle ?it all. To change the/or/n.
of a creature, is pronounced by Dr. Lightfoot J thp
greateft miracle; and he applies the obfervation to
that wrbught at Gana,: but Dr. Lardner H calU it,
*' one of the leaft miracles any where afcr^^ejl, to
" Chrift." How can miracles of a different kind be
brought into a comparifon with each other ? Were
this difficulty overcome, there ftill remains a greater.
For, idly ; It would be impoffible to ffiew, on the
principles we are hete examining^ that thofe miracles
which Cc^^ried marljLS oi ¦& fuperior power were really
divine. The moft learned Dr. Clarke fejcms indeed
to have thought § , that vihexejiiperior power a,ppear-
ed, " there it was neceffarily tp be. believed,, that the
" commiflion was, truly fron^God,;" and the ingeni
ous and acute Biffiop Sherlock affirms % " that mi-
" racles ar« an immediate and direft proof of what
^•^ they a^e brought to affert, the fupremacy of God :
" For, when the fingle queftiOn is, who is the
.*' Mightieft, muft it not be decided in his favour
** who vifibly exerts the greateft afts of power?" But
* In Matt. tom. 9. p. 31. ed. Baf. 15 16.
t TH^^acles of Jefus vip^icated, by Dr, Pesirce, p. 26.
t v. I. p. ^04.
, .Jl yindicatiqn, p. 26.
I Serm. Vol, 2. p. 700.
f Difcovirfes, V. i, p. 285,

k ttrgue a divine Interpofition., 8^
But if created fpirits of Ver} different rftriks and or-
deifs, are at liberty to Work niira\:les without any
Jfcommiffioh from God ; who can determine the li-
hiits of thfeir rtfpeftive capacities, and tak6 upon him
to fay, how far thfe power o'f the> higheft cftated fpi-
tit may exterid ? Dr. Cliarke tells us *, " that (un-
*' lefs we knew the limit of communicable and incommu-
" hicabk power, we can hardly affirm with any cer-
'" rainty, that ahy particular effeft, how great or mi-
'^^ raculous foever it may feerri tons, is beyohd the
" power of all created beings in the univerf<g"to have
*' produced." I admit, that in cafe of fuch a Coriteft
as is fuppofed abo-ve, the party which performs the
moft and greateft niiracles \% fuperior tO the oppofite.
But I am nbt able to difcerri, how thhs fuperiority of
the ohe to the other neceffarily proves an infinity of
poWer, or ari abfolute fupremacy over all other be
ings. ' Ori the principles ,6f Dr. Clarke, the miracles
6ft both fides, feparately confidered, might be per
formed by beings inferior to God, and are proofs on
ly of the interpofition of fome invifible Agents fupe
rior to riiari. How then can the circiiniftance of theii-
being performed in a conteft for viftory, dem'dMrate
that they could have rio other ftuthdr than God ? "'2,diy ;
Ori the contrary, this circuiriftance -would inclirie us to
belie-ve, that both parties were affifted only by created
intelligences, fuperior to one another in power : for
it feeriis rnuclTmore likely, that there ffiould be a con
tention for power arid fupremacy between different
F3 " treated
* "V, 2. p. 697-.' '^ ¦' n'.i'-ii t

86 Profs from Reafon, that Miracles
creat^ed agents, than between any creature and his
omnipotent Creator. , With whom would the , al
mighty Maker and Sqvereigri pf the univerfe deig^
to enter into a conteft ? And fuperjor fpirits,, (as
Dr. Clarke * himfelf allows) " could not poffibly be
•' fo abfurdly ignorant, as to imagine that finite coulj4
" prevail h^ force againft infinite, or not know that
" the Almighty could, if he jileafed, annihilate them
" fwift as thought,?' From hepce it feenis to me tq
follow, that if oppofite miffions were fupported by
miracles, the fupreme Being could haye no concern
in the dffpute. \thly ; Accprding to the rule of
judging concerning the divinity of miracles, here laid
down ; thdfe works wiU, at different times, both prove
and difproye thq divine commiffion of their per
former. While the conteft is continued betweeii two
oppofite parties working miracks for viftory ; he who
to-day,' by working more and greater miracles than
his rival, is received as a divine meffenger, muft be
rejefted as an impoftor tp-morrow, if his rival ffiould
then exceed him in the number and greatnefs of his
miracles. At^ the next trial, however, he may ex
ceed his rival, recover the advantage he loft, and
from being an impoftor, become again a divine mef-
fefiger. How long the conteft may 4aft, none caii
tell; but everyone may fee, that ^|iere can be no
force in that proof, which alternately eftabliflies'and
deftroys oppofite claims. In fuch a fuppofed conteft,
each of the miracles, in itfelf confidered ; is of no
;^ ¦ value;
* SeimoBS, V. i. p. 60, folio cd." & p. j;87,

argue a divine Interpofition, 87
vahie: arid add as many of tbefe ciphers together as
you pleafe, they will be but cyphers ftill.
n. Thofe Chriftians * who are of opinion that mi
racles may be wrought by inferior beings, do never
thelefs afcribe fuch to God, as are performed for an
end not unworthy of him. " Though the works,"
fay they, " do neceffarily prove nothing more than
'* the interpofition of fome fuperior being ; yet the
" nature of the dodrine will enable us to determine
" who that being is : and if the doftrine has a ten-
*' dency to promote piety and virtue, or be only in-
*' different in itfelf, and not abfolutely inconfiftent
*' with thefe ends ; then the miracles, and confe-
*' quently the doftrine, muft be divine: for ffiould God
" in fuch cafes as thefe, permit evil fpirits to work mi-
" racles and impofe upon men, the error would be ab-
" folutely invincible ; and that would in all refpefts be
" the very fame thing, as if God worked the. miracles
*' to deceive men himfelf." This reafoning feems
liable to feveral objeftions. Why ffiould the mere in
difference of the doftrine engage us to afcribe the mi
racles to God, rather than, to other fuperior fpirits
fuppofed'capable of performing them ? Is it not more
honourable to the Deity to fuppofe, that he will not
atteft a doftrine merely indifferent in itfelf } It is
what' his wifdom will not permit. With regard to
doftrines of a moral or ufeful tendency ; it is not in all
cafes eafy for the bulk of mankind, or even for the
wife and learned, to form a certain, judgment con-
F 4 eerning
* Dr. Clarke, ,Vol. 2. p.- 700. Dr, Chandler, and others.

88 Proofs fram Reafon, that Miracles
eerning them. What to men. appeared tp havej»
tendency to promote virtue and happinefs ; fuperior
beings, who difcerned its remoteft effefts, might
know to be a curfe rather than a bleffmg, and ^give
it countenance from a rnotive of malevolence. On
the other hand,, a doftrine really fubfervient to the
caufe of piety arjd virtue, men might judge to be
prejudicial to it. And were the fanftity of the doc
trine ever fo evident, it would not (on the principles
of thofe wi;:h whom we are here arguing) certainly
follow from hence; that the niiracles recommending
it were wrought by God ; inafmuch as other beings,
from motives unknown to us, might intereft them
felves in favour of fuch a 'doftrine. Concerning
none but the divine Being can it be demonftrated,
that he is abfolutely incapable of deceiving or being
deceived. Nor is there any reafon to plead, " that
*' if miracles were performed by evil fpirits in fup-
" port of a doftrjne good or innocent, mankind
'f would be neceffarily deluded into a belief pf its di-
" vine original :'¦ unlefs it be allowed that miracles
bear upon therafelves evident and certain charafters
of divinity. But thofe who make this plea, fuppofe
it to be a thing knowp and certain, that no miracles
' -whatever do neceffarily argue a divine interpofitipn,
Weye I to fee miracles perfornied in favour of all
forts of doftrines, I would npt afcribe any of them to
God : I ihould be unableto perfuade myfelf, that In*
finite wiltioni employied any works as the diftinguiffi-
ing tefl: of his own extraordinary interpofition, which
pay be performed by inferior beings ; or that the
Deity would ufe that as a feal of truth, which the'
devil

argite a 'divine Intcrpoftlon, gra
jdeyil iifes to gain credit to impofture. And there
fore if iniracles may be performed by created agents
of different and < oppofite charafters, and in fupport
pf falfehood as well as truth ; I am not able to per-
,£eive, how any doftrine can be proved by miracles *,
or at leaift any fuch doftrine as v?^nts the atteftation
of thefe works.*"
It is neceffary to obferve farther, that the making
the doftrine the teft of the divinity of the miracles,
is, to make the doftrine the rule of judging concern
ing the miracle, not the miracle the rule of judging
concerning the doftrine. ITie proper and imme-
dia,te defign of niiracles is,- to eftabliffi fome truth
unknown before,. and fuch as is not demonftrable by
reafon, or capable of othei; evidence befides that of
iniracles; to prove, for example, ^he miffion of the
prbphet by whom they -vyere performed, a^d the di-
' »T-' . ' vine
* In confirmation of -what is urged above to ftiew, that, on
the ptinclple maintained in the objeftion we are now examin
ing, no doftrine whatever can be proved to came,from God by
miracles; it may be obferved, that if the dpftiine be fuch, as
natural reafoii can clearly and certainly difcover to b,e true ;^.
the miracles are unneceffary and fuperfluous, and for that rea-
fon-cannot be divine. And if the doftrine be fuch as reafori
can clearly prdve to be falfe ; it will be ftill more imptJAible
to afcribe the miracles to God. If the doftrine be doubtful,
and nstliral reafon be unable to determine whether it be true or
faJife ;„ it muft be, equally danbtfi^l who the author of tlj^ v^s.-
cles i;s.. Bi;t it is fufficient to have fliewn, that, if miracilei are
not peculiar to God, no doftrine that vyants the atteftation'iof
jbefe works, can be proved by them. ' > ' ' **

_^o Proofs from Reafon, that Miracles
¦vine original of his meffage or doftrine, and to en-
gafge men to receive and comply with it, however
contrary it may be to their prejudices and paffions.
But according to fome learned men, the doftriti'e
muft firft be examined without paffion or prejudice,
and then employed to prove the divinity of the mira
cles. But is not this repugnant to the proper ufe
and intention of miracks ? It is making the whole
force of the proof, to depend upon the doftrine to
be proved. It is of importance to add, that miracles
are intended more efpecially for the conviftion of thfe
ignorant and unlearned, who are eafily impofed upon
by the fophiftry of-fcience, and the fpecious difguifes
of error, as well as utterly difqualified to determine
by abftraft reafonings concerning the abfolute necef
fity, or the fitnefs and propriety, of fpecial divine in
terpofitions. : , It is neceffary therefore that miracles;
when they are-offered as evidences of a divine com
miffion, ffiould contain in their own nature, a clear,.
demonftratlve proof of their divine original : for ¦
Otherwife their fpecial defign could not be anfwered.
It is quite unnatural to fuppofe, that the doftrine
muft firft eftabliffi the divinity of the miracles, befpre
the miracles can atteft the divinity of the doftrine ;
and it is abfurd to expeft that a neW revelation arid
offenfive truths, (which are not received without re-
luftance, even where there' is a prior conviftion of
the divinity of the miracles attefting them,) ffiould
themfelves effeftually engage men to afcribe thoffe
works to God, which niight be performed by num
berlefs other invifible agents.
Now, can it be imagined, that God will ever allow
fuperiof

argue a divine Interpofition, 91.
fuperior beings to work miracles in fupport of falfe
hood ; if hereby he would deftroy the proof froni
thefe works of his own immediate interpofition, and
put it out of his own power to employ them as cer
tain credentials of a divine miffion ? mi) acles (under
which term I comprehend thofe of knowledge as well
as power') being the only * mean, whereby God can
affure the world of the truth of a new re-velation, he
muft haye refer ved the ufe of it to himfelf alone,
without ever parting with it to ferve the purpofes of
|iis rivals and oppofers.
With regard to the rule, of making miracles
then a proof of the divinfe original of th^ doftrine,
vphen the works difplay a fuperimty of power, and
when the doftrine is either fubfervient to, or not incon
fiftent with, piety and virtue ; it may be farther ob
ferved, that were this rule true in gerieral, it could
"^ not be applied to the cafe either of Judaifm or Chrif
tianity; if it ffiould appear, that the great founders
of both thofe religions have eftabliffied rules direftly
oppofite to this, jind reprefented miracles as abfolute,
not as conditional proofs of' a doftrine's coming- from
God, And this is tb,e point which comes next un
der confideration.
But before we proceed farther, it may npt be im
proper to recapitulate what has been already offered
from reafon, to ffiew that, miracles can never be per-
fprmed without a divine interpofition, Reafon, it
has been obferved, makes known to us but one al-
•'• .' ' mighty
* See below, cji. j;'

ptL Profs front Reafon, thst Miracles
mighty being, who is at liberty to aft every wherft;
and in what manner he pleafes, and whofe omnippi
tence is the only adequate caufe, we are Capable of
difcovering in the whole compafs of exiftente, of thofe
effefts which are called miraculous. To him therg.'
fore it is moft natural to afcribe them. The b^ft ar
guments which reafon can employ to proVe the exift*
ence of fuperior created intelligences, do much more
ftrongly prove, that they can aft only within that
particular fphere appointed them by their Creator.
It has likewife been ffiewn, that the obfervation and
experience of all ages are a full demonftration that
they are riot at liberty to perform miracles in this
lower world ; no fuch works having ever been per
formed in it, but fuch as may be 'fitly afcribed to
God. The laws of nature being the eftabliffied rules
of the divine government, arid effential to the order
and happinefs of the world ; it ieims very unreafoii^
ble to fuppofe, that God fliould delegate to ariy of
his creatures a power of fuperfedirig or controuling
thefe laws. Miracles are fatnples of dominion over
them, and argue the immediate iriterpofitlon and au
thority of that great Being by whom they were at
firft ordained. Delfts more efpecially, who deny th^
exiftence both of angels and devils^ muft allow, that
if any miracles are performeid, they can ha\/e nofte but
God for their author, arid that the fettled courfe of
things is unaltetable but by his immediate will.
Were inferior beings at liberty to difturb the wife
order of nature, we ffiould lofe our beft evidence of
God's exiftence and providence ; and tbe very foun
dation of all the homage he claims would be ovef-
turnedi

•argue a divine Ittterpfttion. 92
turned. The opinion we are here oppofing has in
all ages been fatal to true piety, and given birth to
endlefs fuperftitions and idolatries. And did fuperior
^leings really poffefs the miraculons powers afcribed
to theni,; the exercife of thofe powers by good, and
evil agents, would either expofe mankind to necef-
' fary and invincible error, or entirely deftroy the cre
dit and ufe of miracles under the idea of criterions of
truth, and authentic credentials of a divine miffion.

CHAP.

94 Proofs from Revelatim, thai Miracles

C H A P. ill.
ARGUMENTS FROM REVELATION, TO PROVE THAT
MIRACLES ARE, IN THEMSELVES, CERTAIN EVI
DENCES OF A DIVINE INTERPOSITION.

It* is neceffary on this occafion, to appeal to the
facred writings ; riot merely for the conviftion
of thpfe who acknowledge their divine authority,
though they miftake the meaning of many paffages
relative to our prefent inquiry ; but alfo fo convince
thofe, who, denying their authority, are ready to
avail themfelves of the mifinterpretations of the
former, in fubverting- the foundation on Which their
authority refts. I will endeavour to ffiew, that the
Scriptures both of the Old and New Teftament;
(ftriftly correfponding with right reafon) always re
prefent miracles as the peculiar works of God; and
never attribute them to any other beings, unlefs
when j^fting by his immediate commiffion. The fub
jeft muft be confidered in its full extent ; and com
prehends under it the following topics, which de
mand a clofe and candid examination.

SECT.

argue- a di-iAhe Interpofition, ' p5

S E C T. I.
The view which the Scripture gives us of good angels, of thi
devil and his angels, as -alfo of the fouls of departed men ; in-
¦.confiftent 'with their liberty f working miracles.
I. "W-'TTITH regaird to good angels ; the Scripture
W never reprefents them as capable of
Working riiiracles a.t their own pleafure, or as inveft
ed with arty dominion over mankind. Very fre
quent mention indeed is made of angels, either as
the inftruments or fymboKof an extraordinary pro
vidence. * When Jacob'* in a dream faw a ladder,
reaching from earth to heaven, on which the angels
of God feemed to afcend and defcend, and on the
top of which the divine glory itfelf appeared'; this
vifion, p^'rhaps, was defigned only as a fymbol or
figurative reprefentation of God's fpecial care of Ja
cob, and readinefs to interpofe at all times for his
proteftion. It is in allufiOn to this vifiori, that our
Saviour expreffes himfelf, when he foretold to Natha
niel that furprizing train of miracles which attended
bis miniftry t; *' From this tinie J you ffiall fee hea-
" ven
,* Gen, xxviii. 12.
f John i. 5.1. That.Chrift -here -foretels his miracles, and
not the vifible afcent and defcent of angels" upon him during
his miniftry,, is evident from hence, that the prophecy was not
accompliflied in this latter fenfe of it.

9$ Profs fcsm iievelatieih that Miracles
*' -ven open, and the angels of God afcending a^nd
*' defcending upon the Son of man." Now, inaf
much as the miracles of Chrift are elfewhere afcribed,
not to angels, but to God*; the former cannot be
regarded as the proper authors of thefe works ; and
our Saviour might mean only to affirm, that his mi-
racles wpuld he fenfible difplays of the divine power
in his favour, or open proofs of an immediate inter-t
courfe between heaven and earth. We do not how
ever deny, that Chrift might employ angels in exe*
cuting hjis prders, and particularly in working mira
cle?: for they are all made fubjeft to him. Never
thelefs, it does not appear from the Scriptures, that
they can perform miracles of themfelves,'and without
an immediate divine commiffion. Ou the contrary,
according to the Scripture account of thems, if they
bring any meffages to men, they firft receive them
from Gpd ; if they controul the courfe of nature, it
is by authority from the Lord of nature ; and if they
interpofe at all in the affairs of Our fyftem, it is "not
as they fee fit themfelves, but according to the com
mand of God, as the minifters of his will, which
they execute as punftually as thofe paffive inftruments
of his providence, the luminaries of heaven, and the
elements of nature f.. The word, angel or meffenger,
denotes only one employed in the execution of foriie
commiffion. Hence it. is applied; not merely to in-
4* •' telligent
* See beloTjr, {e(\. 6. ¦
f Pf. xvlii. p, lo. Pf. Ixviii. 17. . Pf. ciii. 20, 2l. Tf. vi.
I, &c. Dan. vii. 9. Matt. irvHi. 10. Hd). i. 14. ch. is-, 5^
Rev. V. 13. ch. vii. 11. ch. xi.x. Jio/ ' '

argue a divine Interpsfitton, J 7
telligent beings afting by the order of God, but
even to the inanimate parts of the creation, which
he employs as the inftruments of his government.
T- ePiaimift, when celebrating the empire of God
over the material world, fays, " He maketh the winds
" his angels or meffengers, and lightnings his mi-
" nifters *. For fire and hail, fnow and vapour, and
« ftormy winds, fulfil God's wordf." But all that
G is
* This is th"e true rendering of Pf. civ. 4. (Compare Exod.
ix. 23, 24. Pf. IxxvIIi. 48, 49.) Nor is it certain, that thefe
w6rds are applied Heb. i. 7. to intelligent beings; as the apof-
tle feems to have had no other view In citing them, than to
obferve, that the very name of angels (however applied) im
ported miniftry zndfuhjeBion; whereas that of Son implied au
thority and dominion. Very probably the Scripture may repre
fent the mOft adliye parts of nature, as God's angels, in oppo
fition' to the,. Heathens, -who conceived of them as deities. See
below-, ch, iii. feft. 2.
-f- .Pf. cxlvlii. 8. According to this general import of the
vtoid angel, many learned writers underftand it in the follow
ing and other paflages of Scripture. " The angel of the Lord
fmiting Herod," they think is explained In the text itfelf of
an extraordinary diffemper iijflifted by God, Afts xii. 23. God
threatened Sennacherib, '.' that he would fend a blaft upon
him," a peftilential blaft, or burning wind, which deftroyed
his army; and this being done under the direftion of God, and
in execution of his defigns, the blaft or witidis called the arigel,
the meffenger and fervant of Gqd; 2 Kings xii. 6, 7. ch. xix.
35. ' " God's fending an angel to Jerufalem to deftroy it,"
feems only another form of expreflion for " his fending a pefti-
lence upon Ifrael," i Chron. xxl. 14, 15. 2'Sam. xxiv. 15, 16.
We read Exod. Ix. 23, 24. that the Lord " fent upon the E-
gyptiSns thunder and hail and fifx '" and the Pfalmift fpeaking

p8 ' Proofs from Revelation, that Miracles
is of importance here to obferve, is, that the Script
ture teaches us, that angels, of whatever dignity, are
only' miniflring fpirits-, the fervants of Jehovah, "do.
" ing his commandments, and hearkening to the
" voice of his word,'.' without having themfelves any
power over mankind, or over thofe laws by which
the fyftem to which we belong is governed.
II. We are next to enquire, whether the Scripture
afcribes the power of performing miracles to the devil
and his angels. It is generally fuppofed, that thefe
wicked fpirits were originally inhabitants of the ce
leftial regions, and equal in r^nk and dignity with
thofe who preferved their innocence. Now, fuppo
fing this to be the cafe ; yet, if even good angels, who
continue in a ftate of favojir with God, haye no power
of working miracles at their own pleafure, or any, do
minion over mankind, (as we endeavoured to ffiew
under the preceding article ;) what reafori can there
be for afcribing fuch dominion and power to evil an
gels, who are.- fallen under the divine difpleafure ?
Would the Deity, unchangeable as he is in reftitude
and juftice, reward their difobedience, by enlarging their
of thefe judgments, fays, "¦ God fent evil angels amongft them."
Pf. Ixxviii. 48, 49. See Mr. Lowman's three Trafts, p. 60 — 74.
On the other hand, it may be alledged, that the facred writeirs <
feem to have thought, that God adminiftered a particular pro
vidence by the inftrumentality of his angels ; and confequently
in defcrlblng the effefts of a fpecial divine Interpofition, would
¦very naturally make mention of the agency of thofe miniftring
fpirits, much in the fame manner as is done in the paffages here
vited.

argue a divine Interpofition. 99
their fphere of aftion, and advancing them to new
dominion over his own creation, fuch as is denied to
the higheft archangel ? Is the latter only a miniftring
^/n'f, while the former reign as fovereigns over na
ture, as fellow-fovereigns with the eternal God ? The
apoftles * Peter and Jude fpeak a very different lan
guage, when they tell us, that inafmuch as the angels
" did not keep their principality f, but deferted their
" own habitation, God did not fpare them, but caft
" them down to Tartarus %, and (there) referves them
" in everlafting (or perpetual) chains, under dark-
*' nefs, to the judgment ofthe great day." If Peter
and Jude are here fpeaking of fuperior fpirits ; it is
evident, that even prior to their fall, they did not en
joy the liberty of a boundlefs range, but had a certain
limited fphere of aftion affigned them, or their proper
habitation : which we have ffiewn to be highly proba
ble from reafon ll. And in their prefent ftate, they
are fubjefted to new reftraints, like prifoners confined
for their orimes, in a doleful dungeon, where they re
main in fafe cuftody, till they are brought forth to an
ignominious execution. The place of their confine
ment is called Tartarus; by which fome underftand
G 2 a deep '
* 2 Pet. ii. 4, Jude 6. '
•}¦ Tijv inttTm »^xfiv, Jude 6,
X T ct^tiguiriii. -
II Ch. 2. I I,

I do Proof 'from Revelation, that Miracles
a deep^giilf under the earth % and others the dark air\
iBb^r thb earth : but whatever^ place it refers, to,
they can Jiave no ckminion there ; it is not their king-
^m, biit theix prifon, their confiant zxA perpetual pri-
fon. How inctirififteht is this reprefentation of thci?
cafe, -with theif ffiaring with God the empire^ pf the
world, and ^controuling the laws of nature and provi
dence f Nor does the Scripture on any occafion con-
tradift^'this reprefentation i it never afcribe* to the
ideyil the aibility of'revealing fecrets, foretelling future
cventsV or working miracles ; never guards mankuiid
'igairift being deceived by the outward effefts either
"of his miraculous poWer or infpiration ; neceffary as
iuch a caution Would hdve -been, had he been able to
infpire prophecies and work miracles ; and earneftly
a^s it warns' us againft a lefs danger, the pretences( of
Hieii to divine iriiracle; and infpiration, when they
''were not fent and affifted by God. " ; i " '
'' It is, indeed, iirged by fome %, that the Scriptasre
reprefents evil fpirits as *' prefiding over diftinft^re-
*.^ions, by the direftion of Satan their prince." In
proof of this affertion*, we are referred to that paffage
'¦ ¦ >: - ' ' -  ••¦¦•- ' ., -^
-rfj k
* T^his feems to be the ftrift import of the word. Homer,
JL 8. L 13, 14. Hefiod. Thedgon. L 119,718. Plato iii
Phsedonfe; p. 399. ed. Ficini. "Virg. JEn. 6. 1. 577. '
i . .
f Confult the ..^commentators on 2 Pet. ii. 4. Ephef. ii. 2.
ch. vi. 12. .... '
} Dr. Doddridge's lam. Expof.^V. i. p. 427. 3^ ed, not^ f.
iDfi Luke viii. 31. ' ' "'¦ ¦ i ¦ -

argue a divine Inte^ofition.'^., loi
in the book of Daniel *, where mention is i^ade of
Gabriel's being oppofed by the princes pf thjS king
dom of Perfia, and of his fighting the prince ^of Pef-
fiai It is not the defign of thi& vifion,. to affert the
prefidency even of good arigelsj (who at moft only
execute the divine orders ;) but to reprefent the pecu
liar providence which God exercifed dver the Jewiffi
nation, and his care to fruftrate the councils of their
enemies. As to evil fpirits; there is here no reference
to them. For by the princes of the kingdom of Per
fia, the prophet intends the nobles of that kingdom,
and efpecially Cambyfes; the fon of Cyrus, who, in
his father's abfence, -ftopt the execution of his de-
creeSj and forbad the building of the teriapfe f . It is
the more reafonable to linderftand this paffage, of
fome oppofition againft the Jews in the court of Per
fia, by the prince and fome of the nobility ; inafmuch
as the prince of Grecia mentioned in the very fame
paffage, cannot fo well be referred to an angel or evil
fpirit, as to Alexander the Great, who overturned the
empire of Perfia : he and his fucceffors being the main
fubjeft of the foUpwing prophecy;
Some learned Writers afcribe -to the devil a power
" of chariging the conftitution of the air %." This
element " is fo wonderfully cpntrived as at one and
" the fame time to fupport clouds for rain^ to afford
" winds for heaUh and traffick, to be proper for the
G 3 *' breath
* Ch. X. 13, 20.
f See%e Affembly's Annotations in loC.
t Dr. Macknight's TrulK of tlic Gofpel lliiiory, p. rj^i

loZ Proofs from Revelation, that Miracles
" breath of animals by its fpring, for caufing founds
""by its motion, i for tranfmitting light by its tranf-
" parency *." And therefore if thedevil can change
the conftitution of this element, on which the mate
rial, the vegetable, and the animal creation abfolutely
depend ; this world is in a ftate of perfeft fubjeftion
to him ; and inftead of being a prifoner in Tartarus,
he is the fovereign of nature. ¦ It has been a prevail
ing opinion amongft Chriftians*, that the devil raifes
ftorms, and lays them ; in direft contradiftion to the
facred Scriptures, which reprefent the winds and
waves as fubjeft to the controul of God alone f , and
every change of their natural ftate as the certain evi
dence of his "peculiar interpofition, particularly the
miraculous ftorm of thunder and hail in Egypt %, the
dividing the Red Sea by the rod of Mofes ||, and
Chrift's calming the winds and waves upon the lake
of Gennefaret §. God inlerpofes to controul the ele
ments very rarely, and .only on great and extraordi
nary occafions ; can we then believe that the devil,
and forcerers by his affiftance, controul tbem at plea
fure every day ? So ftrange a doftrine requires fome
clearer
* Dr. Clarke's Sermons, vol. i. p. 5.
t See Pf. IxV. 7. Pf. cxxxv. 7. '#f. cxlvH. 18. Prov.
XXX. 4. If. xxvii. 8. Jerem. x. 13. Amos Iv. 13. JoT>
xxxvli. 10, II.
X Exod. ix. 27 — 29. Compare If. xi. 15.
II Exodi xiv. 15.
¦J Mark iv. 41. Matt. xiv. 33.

argue a divine Interpofition i 103
tiearer proof, than the mention made bv St. Paul, of
" the prince of the power of the air *." It is evi
dent in general, that the apoftle is defcrlblng, riot
the natural, but moral ftate of the World. •' Who
the perfon here referred to is, there may be fome dif
ficulty to determine. If St. Paul refers to " the
prince of the Heathen deities," Who were thought to
have their ftation in the higher regions of the airf ;
he could not allow their having any real dominion
over the aerial regions, and muft be underftood as
reproaching the grofs ftupidity of idolatei-s, in being
as ftrongly aftuated by their regard to thefe idols, as
if they had been powerful divinities. The very feopd"
and defign of this paffage, as well as the principles
which the apoftle avows on other occafions, are fuf-
fident to convince us, that he could -only intend to
defcribe the Heathen deities by their ufual appella-
tionsj without allowing their claims: Suppofe the
apoftle, to make the Ephefians affiamed of their
former debaucheries, had reproached them with hav
ing been the votaries of the god Bacchus, or the god-'
defs Venus : who would have inferred from this lan
guage, that he believed "Venus or Bacchus to be
powerful divinities ? Our Saviour himfelf ufes lan
guage fimilar to ihis^ when he fpeaks of mens firv-
ing Mammon, the god of riches. If (as is more ge-
G 4 nerally
* Ephef. ii. 2.
f See Whitby on Ephef. ii. 2. with whom compare Fabri
cius on Sextus Empiricus, note F. p. 571, and Dr. Harwood's?-
New Introduftion, p.. 303.

104 Proofs from Revelation, that Miracles
nerally and probably fuppofed) St. Paul refers to tlje
devil, or any fpirit notorious for bis (difaffeftipnrjuto
God, and for having feduced others from th^{r air
legiance; he defigned to, upbraid the world with fipjlf
lowing fuch a leader and example, who was confi
dered by the Jews as the prince or chief of all th^qfe
wicked fpirits, who were beheved to have their refi-
dence in the air *. The, apoftle is here remjn^g
the Ephefians of their charafter and ^ftate before their
converfion to the Chriftian faith : " In time spaft-, y^
" walked, according ] to the courfe of this world,"
•(in conformity tp the manners and. Idolatries of jthe
Heathen world^,) "raccordingf to" (or after the, ex
ample xaf) " the prince of the power of the air,";even
t^ prince " of th^, fpirit t" (or difpofition an^temr
* The Jews had adopted the notion of the Heathens, that
the' air -was inhabited by evil fpirits. See Whitby on Ephef.
if. 2. And to this notion the apoftle feems to refer, Wh^rf'he
fpeaks of the prince of the power of 'the air, or the prince of the
aerial power j , dcfcribing him In thls^ manner, becaufe iit \v9»
his ufual appellation, and becaufe he really was the ringleader
and chief of thofe wicked fpirits, who were commonly confi
dered as inhabitants of the air.
•j- K«T«. . , . r
X Inftead oi, the fpirit, the original (t«b ?rwuf««i'6s)'outht tff
be rendered, of the fpirit ; vMc\\. Dr. Doddridge well explains
by difpofition and temper; And that the viord, fpirit, does of-
ten bear this fenfe, is evident- from Pf. 11. i&. Luke ix.' t f.
Rom. vlii. ij.! 2 Tim. i. 7. and other places-. It muft bear
this fenfe here-, for if by the fpirit that now worieth ih the child
ren of difobedience, you underftand the devil, who is the prince
of that fpirit, after whofe example thd Ephefians had walked?'

krgue a divine Imerpolition, - to
^er) " that noWworketh in the 'children of difobe-
diencfe,'' of in thofe who have not been perfuaded to
embrace the Gofpe^l. The apoftle is riot here excufing
idoktry, from the confideration i6f mens* being urged
to commit it by a'fiipernatural "power, but -aggra
vating its guilt and fottiffiriefs, from the confideration
of its conformity to the moft odious^'charafter, to the
example of " the pringe of the power of the air,'*
even " the prince," captain and leader of '* that tem
per*" or'fpirit of difaffeftfon to God, which ftill ac
tuates and governs the unconverted- Heathens.
III. We proceed to confider the view which the
^cxi^tnxe g\\e% u^ oi the fouls of departed men. ' '
Many eminent writers maintain,, that men fink
at death into a' ftate of total infenfibility till the ge;-
nferal refurreftion. But we will not avail ourfelves
of this opinion; being perfuaded, that, the^ fouls of
men, though formed with a great dependence iippn
l^ebody, with regard to the exercife of all their fa
culties, are neverthefefs feparable from it, and do
(by the appointment of God, on which it muft de
pend) exift in a ftate of confcious refleftion, when
aftually
* The fame manner of fpeaking is ufed, Micah i. 13. where
I^achilh is calle.d in the Septuagint, n^x-ivs afuc^Tiea, thcprince
or ringleader offm for this city fet Judah an example of Idola
try. And in Maccab. ix. 61. mention is made t«v et^^tym mt
««K<«f, -ofthe leaders of that mifchief, or the chief in it. The
fame manner of fpeaking was familiar with the Latins. • Veftri
pulcherrimi fafti ille furiofus me principem dicit fulffe. CIcer.
ep. Princeps atque architeftus fceleris. Id. Princeps fceleri?
atque q^ncitator belli. .Hirt. ap. Csef, B. G. 8. 3?. .

iq(J Profs from Revelation, that Miracles
¦dually feparated from it. In this ftate however thd
foul can have no intereourfe with the prefent world:
It is the body alone which links us to. the world, and
the organs of It are the neceffary and only means
both of our receiving any notices and impreffions
from outward objefts, and ofour exercifing any do-
MVmion over them. And confequently when this ani
mal fyftem, with all its wonderful powers of fenla*
tion and aftivity, is diffolved by death, the foul can
have no communication with the material creation*
To renew this communication,- it muft again be unit
ed to an organized body: This feems to me moft
agreeable to reafon*, and is unqueftlonably the fenfef
of divine revelation. Can lefs than this be implied
in thofe paffages of Scripture, which reprefent death,
and the ftate to which it reduces us, by fieep f, in
which the organs of the body are bound up; and
e\'en by a negation of (corporeal) Ufe and adion X ?
The facred writers conftantly affirm, that the dead
" know not any thing ||,!' which concerns the pre
fent world ; that they are ftrangers to the affairs of
their neareft relatives ^, " (Abraham being ignorant " of
* See above, ch. ii. feft. i. p, 64.
f Deut. xxxi. 16. .Job iii. 13. Pf. Ixxvi. 5, Dan! xii. 2.
X job Hi. II, 16. Pf. XXX. 9, Pf. Ixxxviil. 10, 12. Eecleii-
rx. ^,6.
II Ecclef. \\. 6.
S His fons come to honour, and he knowet^' it not ; and they
are brought low, but'he percelveth it not of them, job%v. 21.
1

argue a divine Interpofition. 107
" ot his own .defcendants, and Ifrael acknowledging'
"them not *,"- neither acquainted with their fuffer-
ings, nor capable of affording any relief:) and 111
a word, , that there is "no Work, nor device, nor
" knowledge, nor wifdom in the grave f ." In this
ftate, the moft eminent faints remain til! the general
refurreftion: for David is not yet " afeended into
*' the heavens \." Much lefs are the fouls of wick
ed vntn advanced to dignity and power. St. Peter
calls thofe who were formerly difobedient in the days
of Noah, fpirits in prifon \\ ; and our Saviour expreff-
ly teaches, that the fouls of the dead are in a ftate,
where they can have, of themfelves, no poffible, in
tereourfe J with the living.; and that they are never
releafed from, it by God ; no not for fo important a
' purpofe, as that of perfuading their vicious relatives
to reclaim their lives ; and confeqiiently not for any
lower end.
Notwithftanding thefe feveral paffages of Scrjpture,
and the general idea which it gives us of death, as a
puniftiment for fin, from which we are delivered by

* Ifaiah Ixtii. i6j
f Ecclef. vi. 10.
X Afts ii. 4.
II I Pet. iii. ^9.
§ " Between us and you there is a great gulf fixed :' fo that
" they which would pafs from hence to you, cannot ; neither
" can they pafs to us, that would come from thence." Luke
xvi. 26, 31.

fog Proofs from RMatien, that Miracles
a proper refurreftion * ; are well calculated to fub
vert the foundation of Pagan fuperftltion and idola
try*; "yet, from too ftrong a reliffi'of both, the FdJ-
iBer's ofthe Chriftian dhiirch (as they are ftiled by
filMr ''true fons, who inherit their principles and dif
pofitions) adopted the wild fiftions of the Heathen
priefts and'philofophers concerning the ftate of the
deadf ; arid like theni maintairied, that the fouls of
mm the
fi> * •j'jjg vTord aii^tmtffig is *e«Ts|« or^s-is, refloralion. Suidas in
voc. Death deftroys our peculiar and diftinguiftiing nature, as
beings compounded of matter and fpirit ; yet 'it does not de
ftroy the fubftance either of the material or fpiritual part of
our compofition. The refurreftion of the dead confifts in their
refloration to that kind of life which they formerly enjoyed, and
-which they loft by death, or In a return to their former ftjte.
In the age of the Gofpel, all who believed a refurreftion,, or
any future ftate of retribution, believed the pernianency of the
human foul after death ; and' all who rejefted the latter^ deni
ed the former. This was the cafe particularly with refpeft to
the Pharifees and Sadducees amongft the Jews. See Afts xxii?.'-
8, and the hiftory of Jofephus. So that our Saviour by affert
ing the refurreftion, would be underftood rather to affert,''thai>
deny, an Intermediate ftate.
f Eyen In the age of the apoftles, fome profeffing Chriftians
denied the refurreftion of the dead, i Cor^ xv. 12. or faid, it
Vizs paffed already, 2 Tim. ii. 18. Having been taught by the
Heathen philofophers, to look upon the body as the prifon of
the foul, and upon death as the means of its liberty and en
largement j they pronounced the refurreftion of the dead to
be equally undefirable and impoffible, and interpreted what
Chrift, and his apoftles declared concerning it, of a renovation
to a life of holinefs from a ftate of fin, defcribed as a ftate of
death. See Whitby on i Cor. xv. 35, and compare Peters on
Job;

argiie a divine^ Interpofition, loa
the deceafed have fqmp feftfe and knowledge of what
is doing, her«*; that they are clothed vi\^\fubtle bo
dies, in which they frequently appear to ipani|:ind t >
and that perfons oif emirient virtue become, after
death a kind of^ inferior .deities, ,f'^4lofe^^ images and
fepulchres oueht to be honoured and.adored. „„¦. ,
In order to juftify the .Worl^p^.Qf,d!ti^ed or be^i^-
ed foulg, they forged innumerable njijf acle^, pretend
ing them to be wrought by apparitions of the faints
in dreams, by their interceffion, by the touch of their
fepulchres, their bones or other reliques. Sir Ifaac
' ^ '¦ : . l&wton
Job, p. 403. And betaiife fome of the ^antient philo&phet-s
had taught, that the fouls of illuftrious perfonages rn&ended,
ittimediately after'dedth, into the celeftial regions ; IImny^GKl^f-
tians maintained; that xhei'martyrs (and they only) eDJoyedithe
fame 'jprivllege. '- " - .3 r- ¦'
* Plato, ep. 2. fays. Urn Tit tucrSiiT^ rofj t;S»h*w«, rav iyltih.
f The Jews alfo had imbibed this Pagan principle : for the
difciples were terrified at the firft appearance of Chrift after his
ref^irreftion, and " fuppofed that they had feen a'lj)irit," LuRe
xxiv. 37. It is obfervable, that our Saviour, ih his reply, nei
ther countenances nor. controverts the opinion; that ghoflfs can
render themfelves vifible to.human fight,, and that in the^r prif-
tine form ; but contents himfelf yyith Srguing on their own prin
ciples,; in or4er to convince them of^the truth of his refurrec-
. tion ; g.^d. " If you will feel and handle niy body, you will
H foon perceive from^he folidity of it, that I am not a mere
*¦' ghoft, -whjich you conceive of as prefenting itfelf , to the eye,
" and yet eluding the grafp of the. hand ; but a real man, rai-
^' fed I from the dead In the very fame body, compou&ded of
" flelh and bones, in wtich I fuffered death."

iiQ Proofs from Revelation, that Miracles
Newton * has ffiewn this concerning the Fathers in
the eaft ; and the faipe is equally true concerning
thofe in the weft. '1 o guard all honeft nlinds againft
fo dangerous an impofture, it pleafed God to fortel
if, and to brand the authors and fupporters of it
with the , charafter they fo well deferve, that of " a-
*' poftatesfrorn genuine Chriftianity," while they re-
tained the outward profeffion of it, and " > profligate
*^ venders of lies. Now the Spirit fpeaketh expreff-
'* ly, that in the latter times fome ffiall depart t from
" the faith, giving heed to feducing fpirits, and doc-
" trines concerning demons t,", (the fouls of men
deified after death,) " through the hypocrify (or,
'^ feigning)
* Obfervations on Daniel, ch. xiv,
X This apoftacy or revolt from the Chriftian- faith, refers to
the corruption of it by the introduftion of an idolatrous wor
ftiip ; as is ftiewn by the eminently learned Mr. Jofeph Mede,
Works, p. 625. ed. 4.
X ^i^atrK»Xixif tsuiiontfiy, doBrines concerning demons. Coni-
pare Heb. vi. 2. Afts xiii. i2. Jerem. x. 8. in the Ixx. and
Mede, p. 626. St. Paul here fpecifies the idolatrous worftiijp
which would prevail athongft Chriftians, which is that of dd.
mons, deified human fpirits. See Rev. ix. 20. and below,
eh. iii. feft. 2. By demons, it is impoflible here to underftand
devils, (in the common acceptation of that word;) becaufe the
Chriftian church, notwithftanding its dreadful degeneracy In,
many other Inftances, never defiled Itfelf with the worftiip, of ,
devils. In Epiphanius (adver. Hser. Ixxviii. p. 1055. tom. I.
ed. Petav.) there is a claufe added to the foreclted paffage
from St. "Paul, which at leaft ferves to explain ir, ^nd. which
feems to have been a pjtt ofthe original text, " for they ftiall
^' be worfliippers of the dead, as In Jfracl alfo they were wor- '
" flilpped,"

argue a divine Interpofition. iii
** feigning) of lyars *," (who will fupport their own
erroneous dodlrlne concerning the divinity and wor
ffilp of dead men, by falfe miracles and other le^n^
dary tales, and whom therefore Chriftians ought to
deteft as perfons) " having their confcience feared
" with a hot ironf." Thus the facred Scriptures
both give us fuch a reprefentation of the ftate of
the dead as is inconfiftent with their poffeffing a mi
raculous power, and refolve the whole hiftory of
their intereourfe with mankind into the falffiood of
its compilers ; notwithftanding, under various pre
tences, (fuch as " forbidding to marry," and *' com-
" manding to abftaiii from meat J,") they have af-
fumed a claim to extraordinary fanftity.

SECT, IL
The Scripture reprefentation of the nature and claims f the
Heathen gods, confidered.
^HE gods pf the Heathens taken notice of in
Scripture, are of two different kinds ; the
woVld,
" fliipped," that is, when the Ifraelltes fell into the Heathen
idolatry. See Mills and Beza in loc. and Mann's critical notes
on fome paffages of Scripture, p. 92,
* Ey virtM^im •^•Jha'KityH'i.,
f I Tim. iv. I, 2.
:|: I Tim. iv. 3,

112 Proofs from RevelatiBn, that Miracles
world, ~ together with all its conftituent parts and
principles ; and demons.
I. The Heathens deified the world, together with
all its conftituent parts and powers. Conceiving the
world to be pervaded and animated * bya vital and
inteUigent fubftance, they regarded it as a divinity f,
which contained, framed and governed all things.
The world poffeffing animal Hfe and intelligence*
they concluded the fame concerning the feveral por
tions of it, efpecially its moft illuftrious parts and ac
tive principles, the elements, the heavens and all
their hoft, the winds ajfo, and whatever other beings
partook
f Principlo caelum, ac terras, campofque Hquentes,
Liicentemque globum lunae, Titanlaque aftra
Splritus intus alit, totamque infufa per artus
Mens agitat molem, et magno fe corpore mifcet.
Virgil. iEn, 1. 6. 1. 724.
yide etiam Virg. Georg. 1. 4. v. 221. & Plutarch, de Placitis
Phllofoph. 1. 2. c. 3. p. 886.
f Nee magis approbabit nunc lucere, quam, qiioniam Stoi-
cus eft, hunc mundum effe fapientem, habere mentem, quae &
fe & ipfum jfabricata fit, & omnia moderetur, moveat, regat,
Cicero's Acad. Q^l. 2. c. 37. Nihil mundo perfeftius,— fapi-
ens eft, & propterea deus, Id. de Nat. Deor. 1. 2. c. 14. Om
nium rerum parens eft mundus, c. 34. The Platonifts indeed
fometimes fpoke of the world as only a fecondary and begot
ten god, (as we learn from Origen. contr. Cell. 1. 5. p. 235.
and Plato's Tim. p. 1049. E- F. 1090. A.) but the doftrine of
the Stoics, which reprefented the world as the chief god,.(Dio-
gen. Laert. 1. 7. fegm. 137, 146. Plutarch de Placit. Philo-
foph. 1. I. c. 7. and Senec. ep. 94.) was more cpnfprmajjlq to
conjmon creed of the Pagans.

• ¦¦¦ argue •adi'^e'SSIetpofiiioHr*^''^ -11-5
partook.'pf a.fimilar fubftariice ; and confidered thertl
aU as fo many diftirift deitieso, The fentient nature
arid diswinitjhjof the fun, moon and ftars- mbre efpe-
eially,-Mwas ftrenuoufly afferted by the philofophers *,
as jWeilt^s believed by the commori people ; and was
indeed. f the very foundation ^of the. Pagan idolatryi
ThiȤi point was allowed(.by all, except athelfts t, or
thofe who were reputed fuch. Anaxagoras, though
he maintaiaedi the -Exiftence of an infinite mind, and
its efficiency ia the forriiation of the univerfe, was
neverthelefs accufed of atheifm and impiety, for
teachingr^that the heavenly bodies were irianim'ate and
unintelligent beings, and the fun itfelf a mafs of in
flamed matter. Thiis it came to pafs, that the Pagan
nations Idft^fight of the argument, from the admira
ble contrivance of the natural wof Id, in favour of the
exiftence of the true God, the original caufe of all
things. ,. Balbus, the Stoic, in Cicero's fecond book
concerning, the nature of the gods, difcourfes ad
mirably on the order and harmony of the univeffe,
and the ufe a,|id beauty of the, parts -that compofe
it: but whatvis the inference he draws from thefe
premifes ? ' " that the world was a god, and thei
H « habitation
* Particularly by Pythagoras and his followers, (as we learn
froin lilogen.. Laert.' 1. 8. p. 509.) and by the Strolcs. Thus
Balbus expreffes himfelf, (In Cicer. de Nat. Deor. 1, 2. 15.)
Atque had'mUndi divlnltate perfpecia, tribucnda eft fiderlbus*
eadeta.divinitas.' S'^e above, note p. ,112; and below, note
piii4. -'i'' *i!x' ¦' "'' ' -"^ "r
¦f Stob. Eel. Phyf. c. 2j. Plotin. Enn. 4.;1.<3. c. 7. ani
Plutarch, adv." Colotem. p. 1^23. A.

1 14 Profs from Revelation, that Miracles
« habitation of the gods *," and that it was govern
ed by " the providence of the gods t-" Thefe were
the firft deities of all the idolatrous nations ; and
were efteemed eternal, fovereign and fupreme I.
They
* Effe mundum deum, & cleorum domum.
-j- Deorum providentla. ,
X A'riftotle mentions It as a doftrine delivered down froirt
their very earlieft anceftors, and he himfelf applauds it as a di
vine faying, that thefe firfl, fubflances are gods, ^itvi umu itti ir(m-
titi m<rt»g, Metaphyf. 1. 14. c, 8. in fin. Plato condemns the
doftrine of Anaxagoras, becaufe it was inconfiftent with the
divinity of the fun and moon, which have ?rgo™aviiirsi; s^Aijvaj t6
xeu fixptei^m vavrm, " the adorations of all the Greeks and Bar
barians." He makes Socrates difclaim this doftrine of Ana
xagoras as abfurd, and puts-the following words into his mouth,
" What ! do not I believe as other men do, that the fun and
" moon are gods ?" ov^mhuv, ouSs rsAjjvijv «g« UftiZ/u £iv«' S^sous, 415'-
wEg 8<,«AAo( ttyS^uTeci ; Plat. Apol. Socrat. p. 362. F. G. ed. Fi-
cinl. And he direfts a more excellent worftiip to be paid to
the heaven, than to the other gods, becaufe all men confeffed
it to be the caufe of all good things, Epin. p. 1006. A, ' Plu
tarch cenfures the Epicureans for afferting; that the fun and
inooh are void of intelligence, whom all men worftiipped. Adv.
Colotem. p. 1123. SanchonkthoLi (apud Eufebi Prsep. Ev. 1.
1. c. 9.) reprefents the moft ancient nations, particularly the
Pheniclans and Egyptians as acknowledging only tlie natural
gods, the fun, moon, planets and elements. And Plato declares
it as his opinion, that the firft Grecians likewife held thefe on
ly to be gods, as many of the Barbarians in his time did. In
Cratyl. p. 273. F. See alfo Herodot. 1. i. c. 131, 138. 1. 3.
c. 16. Diodor. Sic. 1. i. p. 10, 11. ed. Rhodomani. Strab.
Geogr. 1. 15. p. 732. Polyb. Hift. 1. 7. p. 699, 70D. ed. Gro-
nov. Eufeb. Prsep. E-v. 1. 2. c. 2. p. 39. Even Philo (lib. de
Somnlls,) and Origen (in his books m^i ag^e*"")) pnaintaiii, that
*' the ftars are fo many fouls incorruptible and immortal.'*

eirgue a divine Interpfition. T 1 5
They are diftinguiffied by the title- of natural
gods *.
2. The Heathens likewife believed, that there weris
certain fpirits who held a middle rank\ between the
gods and men on earth, and carried on all Intereourfe
between thfem ;, conveying the addreffes of men to
the gods, and the divine behefits to men |. Thefe
fpirits were called demons 11 ^ diflributors or difpenfers
oi good and evil to mankind. Their name is ex-
preffive of their office, and of that power and au
thority which they derived from the celeftial gods f .
H2 , It,
* ^vifiKti ^iil. Philo Byblius apud Eufeb. Prsep. Ev. 1. 1.
c. 9. p. 33. ed. Paris.
•f- nZt TO ^difiitnf ftirU%u Is-i 3io3 Ts x«i ^vnriv. Plato in Syni-
pos. p. 202. tom, 3. ed. Serrani. Plutarch (de defeft. Orac.)
fays, " Thofe feem' to me to have folved veiy many and great
" difficulties or doubts, who place the demons," l» jusya; ^zm 1^
X Plutarch de defeft. Orat. p. 415, 41S, 417, 421. E. Pla
ten. Sympof. p. 202, 203. tom. 3. ed. Serrani. Apuleius de
deo Socrati J). 674, 677. ed. Delph. Jamblichus de myfter. &
Auguft. de fcivi^, Dei, 1. 8. c. 18. 1. 9, c. 9. 21.
ll They were called demons, ?e«^» tS 3««k«; ra ¦jrdtra, « fti^i^M
to. ay»Sci »^ xccxa. rcTi atS^aTrttf, Procliis In Hefiod. See alfo the
fcholiaft on Homer, II. i. v. 222. Others derive '^M/xm from
exi/im, fciens, Plato Cratylus, p. 397. arid Laftantius, II. 14;
Demons were thought to be intriifted with the infpeEiion and
government oisa.Z'sM.nd.
\ Plutarch (de defeft. Orac.) Inforins us, that each- demon
-ivas called by the name ,of that celeftial god, ir»( k iumfn^ag i^ n-
ftHs iiMjiiv, Apuleius (De dpo 96cratis, p. 675, ed. Delph. ) fays;-
Cunfta;

Il6 Proofs from Revelation, that Miracles .
It was the opinion of many, that the celeftial divinf-
ties did not themfelves interpofe in human affairs,
but committed the entire adminiftration of the go
vernment of this lower world to thefe fubaltern dei
ties *.~ Hence they became the grand objefts of the
religioiis hopes, and fears of the Pagans, of ihimediate
dependence and divine worffilp. " If idols are no-
" thing," fays Celfus t, " what harm can there be
*' to join in the public feftivals ? If they are demons,
" then it is certain that they are gods, in whorii we
*' are to confide, and towhom we ffiould offer facri-
" fices and prayers to fender them propitious." In
the moft learned nations, they did not fo properly
fhare, as ingrefs the public devotion. To thefe alone
facrifices were offered, while the celeftial gods were
worffiipped^ only with a pure mind, or with hymns
' and praifes ||.
It has been often faid^ that the demons of thfe Hea
thens
^ -.)
Cunfta caeleftium voluntate, numlne, & authorltate, fed dss-
monum obfequio, ¦& opera, & minifterlo fieri arbitrandum eft.
Apuleius here refines the vulgar fyftem, when he reprefents
demons merely as a minifterlal order of beings.
* Neque enim pro majeftate' deum casleftlum fuerit, haec cu
rare. Apuleius de deo Socr"atis, p. 677. ed. Delph. Plato (in
Sympof. p. 202. tom. 3. ed. Serm.) fpeaks to the fame effeft,
*' No god has atiy immediate intereourfe with man: all com-
*' merce betwen the gods and men is carried on by the media-
" tion of demons." Does not Plato's Ssoswdgajra is filyivTHh
explain Dan. ii, 1 1 ?
f Apud Origen. cT Celf. 1. 8. p, 393.
11 Mede's worksjip. 636.

argue a divine Interpofition, 117
thens were fpirits of an higher origin than the hu
man race. Thofe who hold this opinion. Jay the chief
ftrefs on the following arguments ; the force of which
we ffiall take the liberty to examine, ift, " The fu-
" preme deity of the Pagans is called the greatefl de-
" mon." Suppofing this to be the cafe, it is per
haps one proof, amongft many others, that their fu
preme deity fuftained a human charafter, and had
once been a mortal man. Notwithftanding the mag
nificent titles by which the heathens defcribe their
fupreme deity ; yet they do at the fame time inform
us, that he had a father and a mother^ a grandfather
and a grandmother, and was of the, fame kindred
with the other gods of whom he was chief And
though he was fuperior to any of thein. fingly, he
was nP match for two or three of them in conjunc
tion ; as appears from the dread he was in of being
feized and bound by Neptune, Juno and Minerva ;
ffom whofe violence he was not faved without the
affiftance of Briareus with his hundred arms, This
is related by Homer * of that very Jripiter, whom he
ftyles " the father and fovereign of gods and men,
" who thunders on high, and ffiakes all heaven with
" his nod." «6uch likewife is the reprefentation made
©f Jupiter by the other Heathen writers f : they afcribe
H3 to
* II. I. v. 35(8. See Luclan. Deor. dialog, inter oper. v. i.
p. 228. ed.Varlor.
•j- Hefiod, in particular, fpeaks pf Jupiter in the very higheft:
terms, in his Theogony, v. 47, 457, 481, 506, J48 : and yet he
tells us, that he was the youngeft fon of Rhea and Saturn, ancj.
dpthrpned his father, v. 453^90.

1 1 8 Proofs f'om Revelation^ that Miracles
to him the prerogatives, tides and epithets of their fu-^
preme natiiral divinity, and at the fame time cloath
him with the weakneffes, vices *, and all the proper
ties of a human being. It is plain therefore that hd
fuftained two charafters, that of a natural, and that of
a hero god. It feems difficult, if not impoffible, to
reconcile the different reprefentatlons made of him,
on any other fuppofition. It i% allowed by all, that a
mixture of phyfiology arid herology runs through the
Pagan fyftem of divinity t. It is likewife evident,
that as amongft the natural, fo alfo amongft the herq
gods, there was a diftinftion of rank and dignity;
and one was confidered as prince of the reft. It far
ther appears, that deified human fpirits were (accord?
ing to the Pagan fyftem of theology) affociated with
and reprefented the natural gods, and that both .-were
called.

* Chaerea (in Terence, Eunuch,, Aft, iii. fc. 5.) hardens
himfelf into the commiflion of a rape, by the example of Jupi
ter, the god, who ftiakes with his thunder tae lofty battlements^^
of heaven ; qui templa coeli fumma fonitu concutit.
f That the firft fubftances are gods, and that the deity con
tains univerfal nature, Arift'otle tells us, was (fclivered in the
form of a fable, h fti/Sis o-x^/txli, Metaphyf. 1. 14. c. 8. in fin.
Thefe fables were the mean^ of corrupting their theology, and
bccafioued the Heathens to transfer their worftiip to new ob
jefts. Specimens ofthe manner, In which they accommodat
ed the fabulous traditions concerning^ their hero gods to the
1d«ified objefts of nature, may be feen,ln Cicero de Nat. deor,
L 2. c. 24,25. ¦¦ ¦¦¦-¦-*¦¦

argue a divine Interpof tion, lip:
called by- the fame names *. The fun, or setber, or
air, or whatever, other part of nature was efteemed
the fupreme deity of the Pagans, was caUed in Egypt,
Ofiris ; in Chaldea and Phenicia, Bel Or Baal ; and
in many other countries, Jupiter. Now it is univer
fally known, that Jupiter, Bel and Ofiris had oqce
been mortal men, who were fuppofed to be advanced
after death to a deified ftate. For the fame reafons,
therefore, for which the chief Heathen "numen -was
called Ofiris, or Bel, or Jupiter, he might be called
a demon; fuppofing the word to denote a deified
human fpirit. It was under this laft charafter that
he was principally regarded by the common people.
sdly, It is further urged, " that demons are defcrib-
" ed as beings placed between the gods and men."
This defcription refpefts, not their nature, but their
office \, (which was that of mediators and agents be^
H 4 tweeri
* Dlodorus Siculus (1. i. p. I2. ed. Rhodomani,) fays, that
fome ofthe earthly gods had the fame names with the celeftial,
?jMwifeas iB-«gji;«)i T»(s Kgaw'ois., See Plutarch cited aobve, p. 175.
notel. From PhlloBiblius (apud Eufeb, Praep, Ev. 1. i.e. 9.
p. 33. ed. Paris.) we leam, that the ancient nations " gave the
names of their kings to the elements of the world," ti>75 xos-fii-
mTs faix^oii, which were their natural deities, whom alone they
^acknowledged to be ftriftly and properly gods. Lord Herbert
pbferves, (De Relig.vGentll. c. 11.) Initio heroas in aftrls plcT
riimque, aftra in heroibus colentes, -adeo ut cognomines Ita ef-
fent, neque fatis judlcarl poffet, num aniles de lis contextK fa-
buls ad ^ra myftice, an ad homines mythice pertinerent.
t See above, p.- 11 S,-

1 20- Proofs from Revelation, that Miracles
tween men on earth, and the celeftial gods;) and
confequently agrees with fuch human fpirits (and it
is not to be denied^ that there were fome fuch) as
were thought to be advanced to the office of demons.
It may be proper to take notice, farther, that when
Jamblichus *, the Pythagorean philofopher, makes it
the reward of good men at death, to be converted in
to angels and angelical fouls t ; he has the fame mean
ing, as if he had called them demons. The learned
allow, that JambHchus, . Hierocles, SImplicius and
others, ufe the word demons and angels indifcriminate-
ly. Hierocles fays exprefsly X, that the middle kind
of beings were called indifferently angels, or demons, or
heroes. Now it is univerfally admitted, that the lat
ter were human fpirits : and -confequently the former
were fo likewife. Philo fays ||, " Souls, demons and
*' angels are only different names, but imply One and
*' the fame fubftance." And in anotHeir place § he
affirihs, " that Mofes called thofe a!ngels, whom the
*' other philofophers ftyled demons.'' 3dly, It is
, pleaded, " that demons are exprefsly diftinguiffied
*' from heroes, who were the departed fouls of men."
Demons
* Apud Stob. Eclog. Phyfic, 1, i..p. 144.
f E(5 afyeAss 3 »^ «fyeAi»«s i^vjiccg.
X In Car. Pythag. *
11 De Gigantibus, p. 286.
§ De Somn. p. j86. ss «Mei fihiiro(p» iedfuyt^s, «|ye;iBs Mueis

argue a divine Interpofition. 121
Demons, were advanced to a rank and flation * fuperi
or to that of heroes ; and this difference occafioned
the diftinftion. Plutarch f teaches, " that, accord-
'*' ing to a divine nature and juftice, the fouls of vir-
" tuous men are advanced to the rank of demons;
*' and that from demons, if they are properly purifi-
** ed, they are exalted into gods, not by any politi-
*' I cal inftitution, but a.ccording to right reafon," The
fame author fayst, " That Ifis and Ofiris were, for
'' their virtue, changed from good demons into gods,
"as were Hercules and Bacchus afterwards, recelv-
" ing the united honours of both gods and de-
f' mons ||."
I do not affirm, that the Heathens had no demons oi
* On this difference of rank and ftation, fee Hierocles in fe-
cundum Aur, Carm, p, 41.
•j- Plutarch. Vit, Romul. p, 36. A. ed. Paris, and in his book
de defeft. orac. he fpeaks. of human fouls as commencing firft
heroes, then demons, and afterward advanced to a more fii-
blime degree, n
X De If. & Ofir. p. 361.
II K«< Slav ^ ^Mftivav. Thefe fentiments of Plutarch are con
firmed by other writers. . Dlodorus Siculus (p. 3. ed. Rhodo
mani.) after fpeaking of Hercules, adds,, 7a> 3 oi».i!t9 ufxim a»3ga»
e'l filv i^amSv, c'l 2i itrtiim -rifiat £Tu;^ov. It alfo appears from the
, cafe of the Greek Hercules, as related by Paufanlas, (Corin-
thiac. 1, 2. c. 10. p. 133. ed. Kuhnii.) that heroes rofe by de
grees to the rank of gods; and came to be worftiipped as fuch.
(For the worftiip paid to the gods, was different from that paid
fQ the heroes.)

122 Proofs from Revelation, that Miracles
of a different kind from thofe who were of human
extraft '*. The foregoing refleftions were merely
defigned to fliew, that the higher order of demons is
not fo frequently fpoken of, as is generally fuppofed ;
and that the common hypothefis is built -upon weak
grounds. I ffi.all now affign thofe reafons which in
duce me to think, that by demons (fuch, I mean, as
were " the more immediate objefts of the eftabliffied
worffilp" amongft the ancient nations, particularly the
Egyptians, Greeks and Romans,) we are to under
ftand 'beings of an earthly origin, or fuch departed
human fouls as were believed to become demons.
Hefiod t, and many other poets J, who have recorded
the ancient hiftory or traditions, on which the pub
lic faith and worffilp were founded, affert, that the
men of the golden age, who were fuppofed to be very
good, became demons after ^eath, and difpenfers of
good things to mankind. This account of demons
is fully confirmed by the other writings of the ancient
Heathens. Many paffages have been produced from
thofe writings by feveral learned moderns ||, in which
demons muft have the fame meaning as in Hefiod. And
*- Some of the lateft philofophers, in- particular, (fuch as
Apuleius, de deo Socrat, p. 69S.) fancied that there was a
higher kind of demons, who had never inhabited human bo
dies. Ammonius In Plutarch entertained the fame fentiftienti
De defeft. orac. p. 431. torn. 2. ed. Paris. 1624.
f Hefiod. Oper. •& dier. 1. i. 120.
X Plato's Cratylus, p. 398. tom. 1. ed. Serrani.
It Mr. Jof, Mede, and Dr. Sykes.

argue a divine Interpofition. 1 23
And there are many more, which I do not remember
to have met with in any former writers on this fub
jeft. Some of thefe paffages have been already cited ;
9,nd a much greater number we ffiall have occafion to
cite in the fequel. I will, here only take notice of two
from Celfus, becaufe they ferve to ffiew, how long
the word preferyed its original Import, and was ufed
to defcribe a deified man, Thus Celfus * itifults
Chriftialis under their fufferings : " Your demon, or
*' as you fay, the Son of God, gives you no help.'*
In another place f, after fpeaking of the followers of
Marcion, he adds, " Others form to themfelves ano-
^' ther rnafter and demon." Perhaps it would be as
wfelefs, as it would be endlefs, to colleft all the p'af^
fages from the writings of the Heathens, in which
mention is ma,de of demons, in the fenfe here afferted.
For ftill foine would alfege, that the w^ord occurred
frequently in a different meaning. Our main defign
(which is, to explain and juftify the Scripture repre
fentation of the Heathen deities,) will be anfwered ;
if it can be ffiewn, that the more immediate objefts
of divine worffilp in the moft poliffied Heathen na
tions were deified mortals. This, at the fame time,
may ferve to fliew, i^ what fenfe it is moft natural to
underftand the word, demons, when it is ufed to de
fcribe thofe gods.
, That the more immediate objefl:s of popular adora
tion amongft the Heathens were deified human be-
* IS

mgs.

'* Apud Origen. c.Celf. 1. 8. -J 39. p. 803.
t P. 37 a.

124 Proofs from Revelation, that Miracles
ings,.is a faft attefted by all antiquity,, whether Pagan,
Jewiffi or Chriftian. Let the Heathens themfelves'
fpeak, and let us credit the united teftimony of their
hiftorians, their poets, and their philofophers, to a
faft which they could not but admit, though it re
dounded fo much to. their diffionour. We ffiall be
gin with the doftrine of the hiflorians ; bfecaufe it is
clear and explicit, and may ferve to guide us through
the labyrinths of the Pagan theology.' Herodotus*,
when fpeaking of the Perfians, fays, " They have
" neither ftatues, nor temples, nor altars, — What I
"- take to be the reafon, is, that they don't beHeve,
*' like the Greeks, that the gods are of the race of
" men f." Now, inafmuch as the Greeks derived
their religion from the Phenicians and Egyptians, and
fpread it amongft the Romans, there can be no doubt,
but that the gods of all thefe people were of human
race. Philo Byblius J, the tranflator of Sanchonia-
thon's hiftory of the gods, exprefsly affures us, " That
" the Phenicians and Egyptians, from whom Other
" people derived this cuftom, reckoned thofe amongft
" the greateft gods, who had been benefaftors to the
" human race : and that to them they erefted pillars
** and ftatues, and dedicated facred feftivals." Dio-
dorus Siculus fl treats largely concerning the Gentile
theology ;
* Lib. I. c. I a I.
^ X Apud. Eufeb. Prsep. Ev. 1, i. c. 9. p. 32.
II Lib. I. & 5, - ,

eii'gue a divine Interpofition, . 125
thecilogy ; and he fpeaks of it as the opinion of ami-
quity, " that there were two claffes of gods ; the one
" eternal and inimortal," (the natural gods fpoken
of above;) " the other fuch as were born upon the
*' e^rth, and arrived at the titles and honours of di-
" vinity, on account of the bleffings they beftowed
" upon mankind f." He confiders Saturn, Jupiter,
Apollo and the reft, as the primary gods of Pagan
ifm ; and yet fpeaks ofthem as illuftrious men. .
The /lof/j deliver the fame fentiments coricerning
the gods, as the hiftorians do. In their theogony ¦]-
or generation of the gods, (which was the fame thing
with their cofmogony or generation of the world,)
and in their fabulous theology, we have an account
both of their natural and hero gods ; though by mix
ing together their, herology and phyfiology, they Have
introduced much confufion into their fyftem of divi
nity. With regard to the principal objefts of popu
lar worffilp, they have, given us an account of their
birth and parentage, of their marriage and offspring,
and have entered into a detail of their aftions J;.
Whatever fublime titles the poets beftow upon them,
they hold them out to our view chiefly under a hu
man charafter. Nor is there any juft reafon to affirm,
that the poets invented what they fay concerning their
gods. For their works are either faithful records of
ancient
* Lib. I. p. 12. ed. Rhodonlani.
f See Hefiod's Theogony, and Homer's II. 14, v. 2qi.
X See what was faid above concerning Jupiter, p. 117.

t26 Proofs from Revelation, that Miracles
ancient traditions, or accurate reprefentatlons of life
and manners. Epic and dramatic writings do not
allow any deviation from truth and juftnefs of cha-
rafter. It is When reading the philofophers, that it becptties
us moft to be upon our guard, if we would not be led
into miftakes concerning the Pagan "deities. When
they began to reafon upon the nature of the gods, in
numerable objeftions arofe in their minds againft the
vulgar fyftem of theology ; which fome of them de
rided, and others endeavoured to refine artd improve;
Shocked at the abfurdity of the Worffilp paid to dead
perfons, they might be willing to perfuade themfelves!
and others, that their demons were fpiri&ual fiibftan-
ces of a more noble origin than the, human race.
They undertook to determine, with what foi-t of be
ings all the different regions of the univerfe were peo
pled ; and fome of them filled the sether with fuch
demons as had never been risen. But we have no
concern here with the fpeculations of the philofophers,
who on this, as on other points, contradifted one
another, and themfelves likewife. It is fufficient to
our prefent purpofe to obferve, that they were not
able to deny, that the public worffilp was direfted to
men who had been raifed to the rank of gods and de
mons. Socrates *, indeed, judged it difficult to de- ,
clare the origin of demons ; which ^t firft fight feeriis
fcarce confiftent with a perfuafion, that they were of
human extraft. Neverthelefs, he thought they were
natives-
* Plato's Timius^ p. 481. ed. Bafil.-

argue a divine Interpofition. 1-27
natives of this lower -world, proceeding from the
commerce of celeftial with mortal beings. Perhaps
this ftrange commerce was what created the difficulty
in the breaft of Socrates : for he rejefted many of the
common fables concerning the gods. Nor does it
certainly appear, that even the celeftial beings con
cerned in thefe*amours, were not originally mortals,
though aftei-wards advanced to a deified ftate. Plato
commends Hefiod and the other poets, who affirjiied,
that whenever any good man dies, he becomes a de
mon *. He elfewhere fpeaks to the fame purpole f.
The latter Platonifts, though they endeavoured to
foften the abfurdity of the eftabliffied fyftem pf the
ology, could not but admit a clafs of gods and de
mons, that had been human fouls. Varro, the
moft learned of all the Romans, afferted, as St. Au-
guftin Informs us t, that one would be at a Ipfs to
find, in the writings of the ancients, gods who had
not been men. Cicero || contends, " that the whole
' ' " heaven
*. Vintm ^tcifuiv. Plat. Cratyl, p, 398. tom, Tj ed, Serrani.
See alfo M^xim, Tyr, Diff, 27, p, 283, ed, Davis.
•f " All thofe who die valiantly in war are of Hefiod's golden
" generation, and become demons ; arid we ought for ever to
" worftiip and adore th«ir fepulchres, as the fepulchres of de-
" mons." He aSirras the fame concerning all who were judged
excellently good in life,' in ^whatever manner they die. Plato
de Republ. 1-. J. p, 468^ tom, 2. ed, Serrani,
X De civit, Dei, 1. 8.
II Quid ? totum prope caelum, ne plures perfequar, nonne
humano genere completum eft ?^Ipfi Illi, majorum gentium dii

128 Prof s from Revelation, that Miracles
*' heaven -was almoft entirely filled with the huriiail
" race, that even the greater deities * were originally
*' natives of this lower world, that their fepulchres
" were ffiewn in Greece, and the traditions concern-
" ing them . preferved in the myfteries." In like
manner Pliny .f, Labeo f, Servius || and others, fpeak
openly of the origin of the gods. And Plutarch him
felf vindicates the deification of human fouls, by the
principles of reafon and philofophy If. Not only did
Athelfts and Epicureans affert, that the Heathen gods
had been men ; this was a point allowed by the zeal-v
oils fupporters of the eftabliffied religion, even in an
age
dii qui habentur, hinc a nobis profefti in caluffi reperientur.-
Quaere, quorum demonftrantur ffepulchra in Grecia : remlnif-
cere, quoniam es Inltiatus, quae traduntur myfterlls : tum de-
nique, quam hoc late pateat, intelliges, Tufc, Quaeft. 1. i.
c. 12, 13. It is affirmed in Clcero^'s dialogue de Nat. deon
1. I. that every age honoured the in-fentors ofthe ufe of food,
¦at deos omnium clariffimos. See alfo 1. i. c. 42. 1. 3. c. 15,'
23. and compare Laftant. 1. i. c. 15. p. 8j;. 1. 2. c. 2. p. I46.-
Eufeb. Dem. Ev. 1. 8-. p. 364.
* The greater deities were
Juno, Veft^, Minerva, Ceres, Diana, Venus, Mars, Mercurius;'
Joyls, Neptunus,- Vulcanus, Apollo.
t Piin.Nat. Hift. L 2. c. 7.
X Servius (upon the 3d jiEneld) fays, Labeo in librls quf
appellantur, De diis quibus origo animalls eft, ait effe qusedam^
facra, quibus auimse humanse vertuntur in deos.
II Serv. ad .^n. 8. 1. 319.
f See the paffage from Plutarch cited above, p. \%z.-

argtie a divine Interpofition, \ 1 201
age when the improvements in fcience expofed it to
contempt. Thefe teftimonies of the Heatheris are fully con
firmed h^fads, which cannot be difputed : particu
larly by the very nature of the worffilp paid to the
Heathen deities. If no argument ,can be drawn from
the facrifices * which were offered them ; yet their
images, columns, ffirines, reliques, altars (or grave-
ftones) and temples (which were their fepulchres),
are fufficient proofs, that the objefts of public 'Worffilp
Were fuch dead men and women as fuperftltion deified f:
4 I ' Eveii

* Deified human gtiofts might more riaiturally be fuppofed
to be nouriftied by the fumes of incenfe, and the fteams of
llaughtered beafts afce'nding from their altars, than the fun;
tnoon and ftars. See Origen, c, Celf; 1, 7. c. 334,. 335. Con
cerning the idea of facrifices, as the noUrlftlmeht of the gods;
fconfult Arlftoph, Avef. v. 183, 1515. Eufeb. , Praep. Ev. 1. v;
p. 181. Lucran. Prometh. tom. i. p. 183. ed. Greev, De Sa-
fcrlficiis, Ib. p. 366. Porphyr. de Abftin. 1. 2. c. 42. p. 86. ed.
Cantabr. We are told by Eufebins (Prsep. Ev. 1. 2. c. 9.Ji
that in the earlieft agei, when the ftars only we're adored, they
were not honoured by animal facrifices : which feem therefore
to have been principally direfted to the heto gods. See above;
p. 176. Neverthelefs, It muft be acknowleged, that fuch Pa
gans and Chriftians as, believed the Heathen gods to be a dif
ferent order pf demons from human fouls, reprefented thofe
demons ^s nouriftied by libation^ and facsiftces;
t See Sir If. Newton's Chronology, p. 159, 160. and efpe-
cially Mr. Jof. Meile's works, p. 632, 634. That the.ftately
tombs of the Heathen' gods became public teipples, is alfd
Ihewn by Eufebius^ Prsep. Ev. 1, 2. c. 6/

f'30 Proofs from Revelation, that Miracles
^ven .fiineral rites* were performed in their ho*
nour. Euheirierus therefore in his facred hiftory,
befides recording the pedigree and aftions of the
Heathen gods, pointed , out the very places where
they were buried. His hiftory was tranfl.ated into
Latin, by Ennius, and is mentioned by Dlodorus Si
culus without any marks of difapprobation., Thofe
who cenfured f, were not able to confute, the fub
ftance
* Mede's works, p. 628, 630, Lowth on If,«vlii. 19, Ci^
cero de Nat, Deor. 1. i. c. 15. Lucan thus addreffes Egypt,
— Tu plangens homlnem teftaris Ofirin. 1. 8. v. 833.
¦f- It has been faid by learned men, upon the authority of »
paffage in Cicero, (de Nat. deor. 1. i. c. 42.) that the opinion-
of Euhemerus was generally regarded by the Heathens as
atheifm, or at leaft as great irnplety. Were this true, the
xnoft that it Would prove, ^is, that the Heathen gods were not
regarded as dead men by their worftiippers, though they were
really fuch. But what fome reprefent as the general feiitiment
-of the Heathens, is nothing more than the objeftion of Gotta,
under the charafter of an .Academic, which he cduld not fuf-
tain, without propofing the difficulties and objeftions,- with
which his fubjeft was embaraffed. See Cicero de Nat. deqf.;
1. 3. c. 39. and 1. I. c. 5. Cotta fays, Ab Euhemero autem
& mortes., & fepultuiae demonftrantur deorum ; and then aiks
the following queftion : Utrum igitur hie confirmaffe vidftur
religionem, an penltus totam fuftuliffe ? This objeftion is not
defigned to difprove the faft, that the Heatl^ens worftiipped
dead perfons ; but to expofe the abfurdity of that .worftiip.
Cotta admitted , the faft, and knew that the worftiip itfelf
pointed out the objefts of It : Quo quid' abfurdius, quam —
homines jam morte deletes reponere in deos, quorum omnis
cultus effet futurus In liiftu ? Cicero de Nat. deor. 1. i. c; 15.
M'Jtarch alfo cenfures the doftrine of Euhemerus as ptoduftlve^ of

ai'gue a divine Interpofiiioni i ^ t
fiance of his fyftem. If the mere abfurdity of an opi-
nion, would prove that it was never entertained ; what
a blank would this reafoning make in the hiftory of
religiori amongft the Pagans ?
We go on to examine the opiniori of the Jewi
Concerning the Heathen gods. With refpeft to the
writers of the Old Teftament ; though they knew;
that the Pagans believed in fidereal arid elementary
deities, yet they very properly defcribe, their gods aS
I 2 ' dead '
bf atheifm, De If. & Ofir. p. 359, F. p. 360, Neverthelefs;
from this treatife it appeals, that the Egyptian ' priefts ac
knowledged; that Ofiris arid the other gods of Egypt had been
men. Nay, tlutarch himfelf confeffes, (p. 359. E.) that thofe
who hold this opinion, i^ivriv ,u'»o rSv ii-e^ovfcimv /Snilesits, have
the fupport of hiftory : to which he oppofcs fpeculation, p. 360.
This confirms what was obferved concerning the philofophers;
p. 189. I admit, however, .that the doftrine of Euhemerus
hilght even in the opinion ofthe vulgar HeathenSj be very lia
ble to the cenfure of impiety ; aild certainly was liable to this
cenfure, if he maintained, (a-s poflibly he did, or might be
thought to maintain) that the Heathen gods Were mere men^
not advanced to a deified ftate; or that the Heathens had no
other gods but thefe. In this view he might well pafs for an
atheift. The deification of men prefuppofed the exiftence of
the natural gods, with whom they were affociated, and from
whom -they derived their po-wer and authority. And^ therefore
if he rejefted the natural gods, he would be thought nOt to be
lieve In any gods at all. With ,this he feems to be charged by
TheophIL Anjtlochen. ad Au,tolyc. 1. 3. p. 210. ed Oxon.
Concerning Euhemerus, fee Eufeb. Praep. Ev; 1. 2. c. 2. p. 59,'
¦where there is an extraft from the 6th book of Dlodorus Si.
ciiliis, now loft. See alfo Laftantius, Div. Inftit; 1. i, c. ii
p. 6i. et de ira Dei, c. 2. p. 63. ed. Lugd, Bat. i66oi

1^2 Proofs from Revelation^ that Miracles
dead* perforis ; becaufe it was to fuch that the puB-'
Kc worffilp was more immediately direfted. Here it'
fliould be obferved, that when they defcribe the Hea>
then gods as dead perfons ; they cbnfider them as
what they really were, not What they were conceived
to.be by their woiffiippers; as fome have afferted:
for their worffilppers regarded them as men advanced
to divine power and dominion. In eontradiftinftion
from thefe, the ancient prophets called Jehovah the
pnly living \ God. Thofe Jews who tranflated the
Old Teftament into the Gre6k language, (I mean the
authors of that verfion which is called the Sepfuaglnt)
%fe the Heathen gods,' demons X- A-iid it has beeri
generally
* This is implied in tliat declaration, which Mofes required
iach Ifraelite to make, at offering the firft fruits of every year,
Deut. xxvi. 14. " I have not given ought thereof for (or to)
the, dead," to any Heathen deity : which fUppofes, that each
xif thofe deities was nothing more than a'dead perfon. Such
•was Ifis, to whom; Spencer and' Le-Clerc think there is here a ¦
.peculiar reference. Thofe who partook of the facrifices ofl
•fered to the Pagan gods, are faid " to eat the facrifices of the
dead,"- Pf. cvi. 28. compared' with Numb, xxv, i, 2, 3. It
Was becaufe the Heathen deities were dead men, that Ifaiah,
reproaches thofe who had recourfe to their pretended oracles,
as " feeking for the living to the dead.'* If. -viii, i^. ,
f Deut. v. 26. Jofti. HI. 10. I Sam. xvii. 26. 2 Kings'
xix. 4. Jerem. x. ro. Dan. vi. 26. and niany other places.
:|: " They facrificed unto demons," Siu'ifeoy/oi;, Deut. xxxii.
17. " All the gods of the Heathen are demons,"' 'ixiftmn'^
Pf. xcv. 6. " They facrificed their fonS arid tlieir daughter*
Mnto demons," ^xiftemi?, Pf. cvi. 37.

argue a divine Irtterpsfitian., ,13.3
¦generally fuppofed, that by demons they meant cer
tain created fpirits of a celeftial origin, who, though
fallen from God and virtue, poffefs a very extenfive
power over this lower world. This however is a
point that ought not to betaken for granted. The
authors of the Septuagint were not unacquainted with
the Greek learning. They could not therefoffe be
ignorant, that the Heathens did not <icknowledge any
created fpirits ; or at leaft, that according to their
eftabliffied fyftem of theology, the world and every
thing in it, was either eternal or begotten, not cre
ated. As little reafon is there to fuppofe them igno
rant, in What fenfe the word, demons, was ufed by
the Heathens, both in their writing.s, and in their
common difcourfe. No word in the Greek language
could be- more familiar to them, efpecially as applied
to'the objefts of popular adoration, or fuch human
j|)irits as were fuppofed to become demons, wheth/r
, confidered as good or evU. Now, why ffiould It be
.prefumed, that tbefe writers ufe this word in a fenfe
different from all the Greeks, when fpeaking upon
the fame fubjeft?, Befides, did not the authors of
the Septuagint verfion know, (what all the world
knew) that the Heathen gods had once been men ?
Could they be ignorant, that in the books which they
tranflated, and which they ackno-wledged to he in- .
fpired, thefe gbds' were reprefented in this their true
light? Or, ffiall it be taken for granted, that in
open contradiftion to the infpired writers, and in
defiance of their own inward conviftions, they were
.capable of affirming, that all the Heathen gods were
§f a differerit origin from mankind ? Such a degree
'¦ ¦ -' . I3 '^f

134 proofs front Revelation, that Miracles
of e^ctravagance and wickednefs as this implies, ought
not to be charged upon any writers, without the
ftrongeft proofs. For thefe reafons, it appears to me
moft probable, that they ufed the word to exprefs
fuch huirian fpirits as became demons. And I am
confirmed in this, opinion,' by attending to the parti
cular occafions on which they ufe it *. As to the
other Jews who wrote in the Greek language, they
were no ftrangers to this ineaning of demons. We
have already had occafion to explain the fentiments
of Philo \,- With refpeft to Jofephus, he; fays ex
prefsly, " Demons are the fpirits of wicked men f."
This fliews, that in the writings of the Helleniftic
Jews, particularly thofe who lived near the com-
inencement of the Chriftian sera, the Word is to be
underftood of fuch departed human fpirits as became.
demons. Is it not natural then to fuppofe, that it bears the
fame
* It win be ftiewn below, that the paffages in the Hebrew text '
which correfpond to thofe cited above (p. 132, ri. ±) from the
Septuagint, manifeftly refer to the hero gods of the Heathens.
I add here, that when the authors of this verfion fay. If. Ixv.
1 1, that the Jews " prepared a table to a demon," tS l^tftmu;
It feems to me more natural to underftand them, as reproach
ing the Jews with facrificing to fome Heathen demon, than tp
any fallen- angel. See Lowth in loc. and compare Dr. Sykes'^
Further Enquiry J p. 35.
f See above, page 120.
^«T«, De Bel. Jad. 1. 7. c. 6. J 3. ' . - •'¦

krgue a divine Interpofhkn, 135
fame 'meaning in the Neis Teflament? There the
Heathen deities are called demons : " Thofe things
*' which the Gentiles facrifice, they facrifice to de-
" vils, or demons *." St. Paul, whofe language this
is, was a perfon of extenfive learning, and well ac-
<juainted with the theology of the Gentiles, which re
prefented hunian fpirits as becoming demons after
death. He knew, that thefe demons were the very
perfons to whom the Gentiles offered their facrifices.
At the fame time he was converfant in thofe writings
ofthe infpired prophets, which taught, that the Hea
then gods were men and women deceafed. He him
felf (in imitation of thofe prophets) diftinguiffies Je
hovah frorii them by the title of the living X God.
Now, if he knew them to belong to the human fpe
cies ; would he deny that theyhad been men, and
affirm' that they were angels ? To fuppofe that he
would, is to charge him, not whh error, but with
wilful falfehood : a charge that oannot be fupported,
but by putting a fenfe upon his language, which, to
fay the leaft, was not the moft ufual and common one.
Befides, this apoftle was not only himfelf weH'ac-
' i^uainted with tjhe theology of the Gentifes, but was
1 4 writing
* Auifcmtts. The apoftle adds, " I would not that ye fliould
." have fellowftiip with devils, ^aifton'uy, demons. Ye cannot
*' drink the cup of the Lord, and the cup of devils, S«ifton'a»,
" demons : ye can not be partakers of the table of the Lord,
" and ofthe t^ble of ' devils, ^aiftmm, demons," i Coi.,x. 20,
21. '
I Afts xiv. 15. 2 Cor, vi. 16. i TheiT. i. 9.

136 Proofs from Revelation, that Miiracles
writing to Gentiles, who knew that, according to
their theology, human fpirits became demons after
death ; and who would naturally underftand him as
referring to Jupiter, Venus, arid other men and wo
men, whom they had once worffiipped under this
very, charafter. Would not St. Paul then ufe thg
word, demon, in the fame fenfe in which he knew it
would, be underftood, by thofe Gentiles to whom he
was writing } If you fay he borrowed it from the
Jews who fpoke the Greek language, particularly the
authors of the Septuagint ; you fuggeft a new-proof
of the point we would eftabllfh ; for it muft be ad
mitted, that he would employ ix, as we have feen they
did, to defcribe fuch human fpirits as were called de
mons. There are paffages in St. Paul's writings, and
in other places of the New Teftament, where it can*,
not bear a different meaning *.
" ¦ '¦ \ ^ ' '' In
* When St. Paul preached to the Athenians Jefus Chrift as
rlfen from the dead; he feemed to fome of his hearers, . a /S'Wfr
forth of firange gods,%<iu(i.i>dii>i, demons, (Afts xvii. 18, 22.)
which, as our tranflators themfjlves were fenfible, cannot figni-
fy devils, (in the ordinary acceptation of that word) but muft
denote deified men; the Athenians imagining that St, Paul was
recommending a new deity, who had once been a man. Nor
can it be fuppofed, that St. Paul himfelf, in his addrefs to the
Athenians, i\ould ufe the word in a fenfe different from what
they did, when he calls them "^na-^itifi.on^ui, (v. 22.) " perfons
much addifted to the worftiip of demons,'' or gods of human
original ; for tq fuch gods all the devotion of the Athenians
and other Greeks was direfted. The wtLrftilp of cannonized
~ faints amongft idolatrous Chriftians,, is called " the doftrine
]' concerning demons," i Tim, iv. i. explained above, ch. 3,
feft,

argue a divine Interpqiltion, 13^7
In the late controverfy upon this fubjeft, both par
ties feem to have committed feveral great miftakes. I
ffiall take notice of a very effential one, relative to our
prefent argument. On the one fide, it was afferted, that
demon never fignlfies an evil being, till after the times .
of Chrift : whereas the word is indifferent in itfelf,
and is ufed in a bad as well as a good fenfe by very
ajicient writers *, On the other fide, ft was affirmed, •thai'
feft. I. p. 109. And the fame corrupters of Chriflianlty arc
reproached, for not repenting of the works of their hands, that
*f they ftiould not worftiip, demons." Rev. ix. ,20 : which
muft refer to faint worjhip and image voorfhip: for who can
charge Chriftians with the worftiip of wicked fpirits, as fuch ?
'. * If the firft demons were all good, as Dr. Sykes afferts ;
it is laecaufe the firft men, (whofe fouls they were) the men of
the golden age, were' all good. For we fliall fhew, that the
Heathens thought, that the departed fpirits of good'^nd bad^
men became refpeftively good and bad demons. There is
therefore ground to prefume, that as foon as mankind degene
rated, their departed fpirits wiJuld be reprefented as wiclied
and mifchievous, that Is, as bad demons. The common or con- ,
ftant ufe of .demon in the earlieft ages In a good fenfe, unlefs
when x««i)f, or fome_fimilar epithet Is jolnedwith it; is ow
ing to its being applied at fivft to the deified fouls of good.
men. Plutarch tells us, in his life of Dion, near the begin
ning, p. 958. ed. Paris. 1624. " that it was the opinion of the"
" ancients, that evil and mifchievous demons, out of envy and
" hatred to good men, oppofe whatever they do." In his
treatife concerning Ifis anjl Ofiris, p, 360. he fpeaks of de
mons who had a mixture of virtue and vice In their charafter,
^nd reprefents Xenocrates and Empedocles as believing there
were fuch demons. From thofe writings ofthe ancients which
|re come dovyn taus, we accordingly find, that they ufed the
, word

S3'8 Proof from Revelation, that Miracles
that demons in general, and the bad in particular,
were fpirits of a celeftial origin, and that it was of
the latter, (or of apoftate angels) that the word was
to be^underftood, both in the Septuagint, and in the
paffages of St. Paul cited above. We may aftow,'
(what however has not hitherto been eftabliffied by
clear and certain * evidence) that in the places under pur
word demon In a bad fenfe, and applied it not only to l;he prin?
ciple of evil, but .to other malignant fpirits, Pythagoras held
demons who fent difeafes to men and cattle ; Diogen. Laert,
Vit, Pythag, p. 514. ed. Amft. And though fome of the
Heathens might regard evils as the Infliftions of juftice; and
it is poflible that xax.®' ^aiftav may fignify fometimes (and
particularly in Homer, as Dr. Sykes contends)' an adverfe de
mon ; neverthelefs, the hurtful demons were generally conff-
dered as violent and cruel in their nature, and were according-,
ly to bei appeafed by cruel rites. Befides, they were thought
'CO inftigate men to wickednefs. Zaleucjis In his preface to his
lai*s„ apud Stobaeom, ferm. 42. fuppofes, that an evil demon
might be prefent with a man, -r^iTrm Tr^ts a'incUt, to irfluencel
him to injufiice. Empedocles (according to Plutarch, de If. &
Ofir. p. 361, and in llb.,5reg/ t5 fivi 'hst^itifi.B-M^ fpoke of demons'
who were puniflied for their crlmej. ,And Ocellus Lucanus, in
a paffage to be cited immediately, makes exprefs mention of
wicked demons. Thefe inftances are fufliclent to fliew in ge
neral, what alone they are here produced to fliew, that the
moft ancient writers, believed in bad as well as good demons..
.Accordingly iaifimii freqently occurs in them, as a term of re
proach, as well as prajfe.
* It feems to me djfticult to determine with abfolute cer
tainty, whether demon is ufed in a good or in a bad fenfe in
the Ixx. It might, poffibly, be chofen on account of its ambi
guity : for the authors of that verfiOn were not difpofed to
giv^

argue a divine Interpfition. 139
our prefent confideration, the word is to be taken in
a bad fenfe, and is applied to wicked fpirits. Never
thelefs, it cannot be inferred from hence, that thefe
wicked fpirits were originally of a higher order than
mankind. For as the fouls of many good, men were
thought to become good demons after death ; fo it
was a prevaiHng opinion, that the departed fouls of
many
give offence to tlip Pagans, .amongft, whom t^iey lived ; nor
were they free themfelves from every tinfture of Paganifm.
Were we certain, in what fenfe it was to be underftood in the
Ixx, we ftiould be equally certain of the meaning'of it in tlie
¦writings of St. Paul; inafmuch as, this apoftle and indeed .-ill
the writers of the New Teftament adopted the ftyle and dic
tion of the Ixx. That in both, demon is to be taken in a bad
fenfe, feems to me fomewhat probable, for the following rea
fons. Some of the Heathens themfelves inferred from the ac
tions afcribed to their gods, ^nd the rites by which they were
appeafed, that they were not gods, but evil demons. See Plu
tarch de If. & Ofir. p. 361, B. p. 362, E. & de defeft. Orac.
p. 417, C. D- coropaie Porphyr. de Abft. 1. 2. feft. 36, 37, 42.
The Jews who wrote In the Greek language,- ufe demon in a
bad fenfe, particularly Jofephus cited above and the tranfla
tor of Tobit, ch^ iii. 8. ch. vi. 17. Grotius thought " that
" the Hellenifts ufed 5a/fj»ir in an 111 fenfe, as the Hebrew.s
" did Baal; though both originally indifferent in their figni-
" fication;" Note on Math. iv. 23. Laftly, the New Tefta
ment does certainly, on fome occafions, by demons mean evil
fpirits, Matth. ix, 34. James ii. 19 : and therefore the -wprd
may have the fame meaning, when It is applied to the Heathen
gods. On the other hand Philo tells us, that the people fpoke
as commonly of good as of evil demons,, aVsrsg ^e ayaSss ?«(jtt«-
niif; >g xnKHi AsyKs-iv ot ¦xoXt^.ti.. De Glgantibus, p. 286. ed. Paris.
Philo however more frequently fpeaks the language and fenti-
inents of the Platonic philofophers, than of the Jews.

140 Proofs from Revelation, that Miracles
many bad men- became bad demons. Thales, Pytha
goras, Plato, and the Stoics, as we leam from Plu
tarch *, reprefented " heroes as fouls feparated from
" their bodies, and as being good or bad according
" to their refpeftive charafters." The Platonifts
commonly held the very fame Jariguage with refpeft
to demons i. From fo early a writer as Ocellus Lu
canus we learn, that " fuch as are begotten with in-
*' jury and intemperance, are wicked, and wil} be
*' evil demons X, And there iS no'notion which pre
vailed more generally over the Heathen world, from
the earlieft ages, than that concerning the power of
ghofts to haunt qnd torment mankind, particularly
the ghofts of thofe who died a violent death II: whicl^ ,
ma^
* De Placit, Phil. 1. I. c. 8.
-f- Plerique tamen ex Platonis mftglfterlo, dasmones putant
animas corporeo munere llberatas : laudabllium quoque viro-
Tum-aethereos daemones, improborum vero nocentes, Chalchid.*
in Platon, Tim, c. 135. p. 30, p. 330, Compare Origen con
tra Celf. 1. 7. 334. Dr, Hammond on Matth, viii, 28, refers
to Hieronymus Magius (MIfcell.l. 4. c. 12.) in proof of Its
having been the opinion of the ancients, that human fouls were
turned into devils. But as I have never feen the works of
that author, f which, I am informed, are in the Bodleian llbira- ,.
vy at Oxford) I cannot tell what authority he cites.
^ ' \
J Ei 3 x«/ yivvwuirit oi toiStoi fii$' JiSgeas, khi ix^xa-Mi, (Mxhm
ti yinfiim, xni xxxodccifcofis iTotrMi. .Ocelius JLucan, p. 532, ed.
Galei. II In Horace's Epodes, 1. 5. ep, j, v, 9T. the boy whonj
t'he forcerefs intended to murther, thus menaces her. Quia,

drgite a diiiine Interpofition. I^i ,
inSy eaftly incline us to believe, that th'e doftrine of
the philofophers concerning evil meri's becoming evil
demons after death, was the creed of the vulgar.
From the Heathens, the fame or fimilar opinions paff
ed to Jthe Jews, whofe doftors taught*,," that the
" fouls ofthe da!mned are for fome time changed'in-
*' to devils, in order to be employed in tormenting
*' mankind." Jofephus (as we have already feen -f)
.affirnis, that demons were the. fouls of wicked men. E-
ven Afmodeus (who is often defcribed as th"e prince
of evil fpirits, and reckoned the very fame as Sam
mael and Belzebub) is reprefented by the Jews, as
having for his mother Nahemah, the fifter of Tubal-
Caint. Some ofthem taught, that demons were the
offspring of Sammael (the prince of demons) and
Eve, before Adam kneW her : others faid, Adam
was their father, and Lilith their iriother || : and
fome
Quiri, ubi perire juffus exfpiravero, ,
Nofturnus occurram furor ;
Petamque vultus umbra curvis unguibuS;
Quae vis Deorum' eft Manium,
Compare Didoes threateriing to iEneas, Virg. En. iv, 384 ; and
what TertuUian fays concerning the aori and the bisebthanati,
whom the magicians invoked, De Anima, c. 57, p, 305.
* See Calmet's Diftionary, under the article Demon ; .and
Theophylaft as cited by Grotius on Mat. viii. 28.
, f Page 201. >
:jl Elias Levita in Le^iico fuo.
II See Calmet's Diftionary, under the attlcle. Demon, Van-
dale de Origin, ac progreffu idolat. p. iii, iiz, xi$', ii6'
Buxtorf'9

'^42 Proofs froin Revelation, that Miracles
fome might affign them a ftill different origin. It
was a common opinion, that demons were the dege-
Jierate fons of God defcribed by Mofes*, and their
iffue by the daughters of men, tlie latter efpecially.
To thefe they added the fouls of other wicked men*
Thefe were the' demons with which they were beft
acquainted ; of whom therefore they moft frequent
ly fpeak. Had Dr. Sykes and his opponents attend
ed to thefe fentiments of antiquity ; the, former would
not have found his account in denying, nor the latter
in afferting, that demons, in the paffages iri queftion,
(from the Septuagint and the -writings' of St. Paul,)
were wicked fpirits : for when the Jews ufed the word
in a bad fenfe, they underftood by it the fpirits of
fuch wicked men as were thought to be changed in
to demons. So that whether the tranflators of ther
Old, and the writers of the New Teftament, took
the word in a good or a bad fenfe ; the arguments
urged above, to ffiew that human fpirits were in
tended, hold good.
The Chriflian Fathers, iriftead of cofttradifting the
fentiments here advanced, (as is generally fuppofed)
feem to me in fome meafure to confirm- them.- There

EuxforPs Lexic. Chald. almud, Bafnage's hiftory ofthe Jews/
Book IV, ch. II,
* Gen. yi. 2. Some ofthe Jews miftook thefe fons of God
for angels; as was obferved above, p. 42, n. ;*. Many thought!
that the angels were firft corrupted by the love of women; as
appears from the Apocryphal book of Enooh., See CalmetJ
and Bafnage,-

urgue a divine Interpofition. 145
Is no one-point, that they more unanimoufly or ftren-
tiouSy maintain, than that all the Heathen deities had
beeri men and women *.'
Here it will be objefted, that the Fathers affert,
" that the Heathen gods were demons t ; and that
*' by demons they meant fallen angels." In order
to our forming juft conceptions of this fubjeft, it will
be neceffary to attend to the proper point, which the
Fathers undertook to maintain againft the Heathens:
which was this, " that thofe beings whom the Hea-
*' thens regarded as gods. Were demoris X" It was au
* TertuUian xa his Apology, c, 10, 11. afiirms, that Sa
turn and Jupiter, and the whole fwarm of Heathen'deities were
men, and that they Were reprenfented as ftfch hj the Pagans-
them-felves; whofe confclences would condemn them, if they
did not allow all thofe whom, they worihipped as gods, once to
have been men, omnes iftos deos veftros homines fuiffe. See
alfo c. 28, 29. According to Laftantius, 1. 3. c. 15, theif
having no knowledge of any kings before, Uranus and Saturn,
is the reafon why thefe were regarded as the moft ancient di
vinities. St. Auftih. (de civit. Dei, L 6.) fays, Euhemerus,
omnes tales deos, non fabulofa garrulltate, fed hlftorica.dllig^n-
tla, homines fpiffe, mortalefque confcripfit. Vide Minuc.Fel.
c. 22. Laftant. 1. I. c. 15. p. 85, 86. 1. 2. c. 2. p. 146. Eufeb.
de Vit. Conftant. 1. 2. c. 16. 1. 3. c.z6. Derti. Evang. 1. 8. p.-
364. Arnob. pafliili-. According to Minucius Felix (p. 121.
i22. ed. Davis.) Cyprian (de idol, vault, p. iz.) and Auftin;
(de civ. Dei, 1. 8. c. 5, 27.) Leo, the Egyptian chief prieft,
.difcovered to Alexander the Great, that moft of the Heathen
gods had been men.
f As«(|«o'vi«e an ot 9-ioi rSf shut. Juft. Mart. c. Trypho. p/gib.
X Thus TertuUian addreffes the Heathens, Ipfi putatis eos
effe de6s, quos ftos demones fciihus. Ad Scap. init. c. 2. Juftin
Martyr'

i44 - Proofs from Revelation, that Miracles
an article of the common creed amongft the PagSriS,
)tbat the fouls of "deified men were taken up into hea
ven, advanced ^ to aflate of divine doml-nion, there,
and ranked with the iminortal gods *. Herein, their
deificatiori did properly confift. Thefe gpds W4r6
commonly regarded as goodt beings, whofe* merit if
',:,.: '-,. > itO
Martyr .alfo. In hIs_Apology, reproaches the Pagans with mif-
taking evil demons for gods. See Tertullian's Apol. c. 2Z.
and de Aninia, c. 57. *-* '"
* Good demons Inhabited the higher regions of the air.'
When they commenced gods, they were exalted to heaven.
Diodorus Sicuhis (1. i. p. 12. ed. Rhodomani) ranks the gods'
taken from earth with thofe in heaven, «»ife5 Ix ts^twIi \rm l»'sj«,
?w Ssaiv] hrty'ans, K. T. X. Arces attigit igneas. Hoi ace, Carm.'
1. 3. od. 3. V. 10. fays of Hercules. The Egyptian priefts (ac
cording to Plutarch de If. '& Ofir. p. 359.) taught, that the
fouls of their earthly gods, Iv ts^xiiS xd/iaHt cLr^ct. They became
immortal, according to the golden verfes' afcribed to Pytha
goras, , ¦ ' ¦.
Eirirseet aSdvxr^ ^so; SftSgoTa';, »jt m Bturig.
The change from a demon into a god, is from a mutable, poffi
ble, mortal nature, into a nature immutable, impaffble,- and im
mortal, Plutarch de defeft. Orac. p. 416. See alfo the paf
fage from Plutarch cited above, p. 182. and Cicer. de Nat.-
1 .Deor. 1. 2. c. 24.
f Menander fays, " We muft not think any demoil to be
Ci'il, hurtful to a good life, but every god to be good." And
Euripides m^ikes Iphigenia (in Taiir. v. 391.)' fay, OiJeni y«j'
aifiasi aosfMo'vav ejv«( K«xiiii. VId. Here, furi' 1341.
:(: Qaos in ccelum meilta vocaverint, colunto ; was part of
the "Roman law. And from Cicero de Nat. Deor. we learn,-
that the cuftom was, Ut. beneficiis excellentes viros.in cselum'
famn & voluntate tolkrent. '

iirgue a divine Interpfition. 145
to mankind gave them a title to the honours of divi
nity. Now it is evident, that the Hekthens might
affert, and Chriftiaris deny, their deification ; and at
the fame time both of them allow, that they had once
been men. When Chriftians affirmed, that the Hea
then gods were demons, I acknowledge, that they
ufed the word in a bad-fenfe,*, as they generally do
ori Other occafions, and thought the Scriptures did |.
But it will not neceffarily follow, from their uiing
the word in a bad fenfe, tltet they applied it to fallen
angels -. for they might refer It to fuch human fpirits
as, in thofe ages. Were thought to become evil and
mifchievous demons;
It muft, however, be allowed, that they did be
lieve, as the Heathens alfo did, in demons of a cele
ftial origin j, who had never been united to human
bodies; and that feveral of thern maintained, that
thefe demons were the gods of the Heathens. And
inafmuch as the authority of thefe writers has been
^ _ K often
* Origen, c; Celf. 1. 8. p. 377, See alfo p. 234;
f Id. 1. 5. p. 234; Eufeb. Prsep. Ev. 1. 4. c. 5. St. Aiig. d.e
fclv. Dei, 1. 9. c. 19.
X Laftantius, II. 15, faysj " Trifmegiftus calls demons, evil
*' angels : fd well was he acquainted with thls^ that they had
." been celeftial beings, biit vyere depraved, and fo were be-
" come terreftrial." And in ch. 14, he affirms, " that there
" are two forts of demons, the one celeftial, the other terreft-
" rial : that the latter are the authors of the ill things that
" are done, whofe prince Is the devil, whom Trifmegift-us calls
'' the demonarch" (prince of demons.)

146 Proofs from Revelation, that Miracles
often oppofed to (what we judge to be) the prop6lf
meaning of demons in the New Teftament ; it will
be worth our while to inquire, what regard is due to'
it in the cafe before uS. The Heathens did not wor-
ffiip any fuch beings as we call fallen angels : it was
falfe therefore to affirm, that they did. The Fathers
themfelves taught, that ihe Heathen gods had all been
men : they contradifted themfelves therefore wheri
they afferted, that they were a different order of be
ings. Nor is this the only incOnfiftericy with v?hieh
they are chargeable, iri relation to the prefent fubjeft.
They very frequently boafted, that Chriftians could
compel the Heathen gods to confefs themfelves to be
demons ; and that none of them dared to lie to a
Chriftian *. Neverthelefs thefe gods, inafmuch as
they were human fpirits, did lie to Chriftians, when
they declared that they were celeftial demons. The
Fathers themfelves conftantly maintairif, that Saturn,-
Jupiter, Serapis, ..^fculapius, and all the Heathen godS
had been mortal men. Now if the Heathen gods had
all been men, with What truth could they deny this,
and call themfelves fallen angels ? TertuUian tells us,-
* Edatur hie aliquis fub tribunalibus veftris, quem daemone
agl conftet. Juffus a quolibet Chriftiano loqui fpirltus Ille,
tam fe daemonem confitebitur de vero, quam alibi deum de fal-
fo. Daemones — Chriftiano mentiri non audentes. TertuUian^
Apol. c. 23. p. Ti. Vide etiam MInuc. Fel. c. 27. Cyprian, ad
Donat. 'p. 3. De Idol. Vanlt. p. lO. Ad Demetrian. p. 133.
Laftant. II. 15. ¦ ¦ • . . -*¦ ¦ *^
f TertuUian. Apol. c. 23. Minucius Felix, c. 27. compar
ed with the paffages cited above, p. 143, note *.

argue a divine Jf^eTpqfiiion. ' 147
US, thai the Heathen gods and demons were only dif
ferent names ofnhe fame beings* ; and yet on other
occafions, he reprefents the demons as perfonating\
thg Heathen gods : which manifeftly fuppofes that
they were different beings. Laftantius t affirms, that
the very names by which the Heathen gods were
worffiipped, were the names of demons ; though th^
whole world-knows, that they were the real names
of men and women; Laftly, fuch bf the primitive
Chriftians as affert, that the gods of the Heathens
were fallen angels, not only contradift certain and
evident matter of faft, arid their own avowed opiniori
ipf the Heathen gods; but they alfo contradift thofe
facred Writings, Which reprefent them as nothing
more than mortal men. K 2 Front
, * Sed haftenus verba, jam hinc demonftratio rei ipfius, qua
oftendemus unam effe iitriufque iiominis qualitatem, Apol,
ib. 23.
f He fpeaks of a demon, fub perfonis defunftorum delitef-
centls. 'De Aniiria, c, 3-7.
:j: '* They not only cbhfefs themfelves to be denions, but
*' alfo declare their own names by which they are worftiipped
" in the temples! Laftant, II. 15. Juftin Martyr fays, that
" impure fpirits under various apparitions went in unto the
'' daughters of men,' and defiled boyS ; and that each ofthem
'• was invoked by fuch a name as he had given to himfelf.'*
Apol. I. p. 10. ed, Tirlb. He iinagined Jupiter, Apollo, &c.
tvere the proper names of the demons : but TertuUian feems
to have thought, the demons only procured themfelves to be
worihipped under thofe nanies, which belonged to deceafed
men and womeni

I-4S" Proofs from Revelation, that Miracles
From the Scriptures, it is plain, the Father's did
riot borrow their fentiments concerning the Heathen
gods. The facred writers do, perhaps, brand as evil
demons, thofe v?ho.m the Heathens regarded" as wor
thies, and worffiipped as gods : but they liever repre
fent fallen angels as the gods of Paganifm, nor as
perfonating thofe gods, nor as paffing urider the fame
names. Why then has the language of the Fathers
on this fubjeft, been adopted by all fucceeding ages,
with the revererice due only to that of immediate in
fpiration ? Though I do not remember to have feeri
it taken notice of by others ; yet it feems highly pro
bable, that this language was borrowed from the Pa^
gan. philofophers. Several of the latter afferted, as
the former did, that thofe beings whom the Heathen
world worffiipped as gods. Were evil demons. Both
of them, in fupport of this affertion, urged the fame
arguments ;,fuch as the aftions afcribed to the Hea
then gods, the rites appointed to placate them,, and
their oppofition to the caufe of true piety. Both
taught that evil demons were fpirits of a celeftial ori
gin ; and that they were infplrers and authors of pro
phecies and miracles*. Nor can we wonder, that the
* Plutarch (in his treatife de If, & Ofir, p, 360, ed, Paris.'
1624.) mentions it as the opinion of the moft ancient tlieolo-
gifts, and declares his; own approbation of it, that what is re
lated of Ofiris and Ifis, and other hero deities. Is not to be con
fidered as an account either of gods, or of men ; but of certain
great demons, who tranfcend mankind in power, but, like theni,
have a mixture of vice in their charafter. And in his book
de OraculoruHft defeftu,-(p. 417.) he argues from *the obfc*- nity

argue a divine Interpofition, 149
the Fathers ffiould be too ready to adopt the fenti
ments apd language of the philofophers. ' They had
been educated in the fchools of Pagan philofophy :
-and who can make fufficient allowance for the preju
dices of education? Certain it is in faft, that upon
K 3 their
nIty, cruelty and folly of the worihip paid to the gods, that it
was Inftituted to avert the wrath of wicked demons. Compare
•Plutarch de If. & Ofir. p. 361. Porphyry (de Abajn. feft.
36, 37. p. 80, 81.) fays, thata man who is ftudious of piety,
does not qffer animal facrifices to the gods, ^xlftoa-i ^4, but to de
mons. He defcribes wricked demons, very much In the riianner
the Fathers do, as endeavouring t.i draw tbe regards of man
kind to themfel'v€s, as being ambitious of pafling for gods, and
as calumniating the heft deity, tov «gjro» 5soii. Seft. 39, 40, 42.
p,i83, §4, 85, 86. He affirms, as the Fathers do, that evil
demons are nouriftied by llbatlgns and the fteams of the facri
fices, feft. 42. p. 86, aad that they perfonate the gods, feft.
40. p. 84. '^Philo, -who was more properjy a Platoijift than a
Jew, had f^Id long before, that " evil fpirits ufurp the names
of angels'." De Gigantibus, p. 286. C. ed. Paris. Porphyry
(feft. 41. p. 85.) afcribes the whole efficacy of magic to the
power of eyil demons ; as the Fathers liliewife rlld. There is
no ground to affert, that Porphyry borrowed his notions from
the Chriftians, to whom he bore an implaiCable hatred. He
fpeaks agreeably to the principles .of the Pythagorean and Pla
tonic, philofophy ; nor does he advance any new dpftrine. Jam
blichus delivers the like fentiments concerning evil demons
(de Myfterlls, Segm. 3.'C. 32. et paffim.) with Porphyry ; pro.-
fcfljng at ,;the fame time to have borrowed them from the Chal
deans; to whom (I apprehend) they of right belong. J. Ger.
Voffius^ in his book de feftis phjlofophorum, fays, Mea autem
haec fententia ; non poffe aliunde melius, quam ex hoc opere,
quid et Pl'dtonici de divinis rebus fenferint, cognofci. ./Egyp-
tiorum et Chaldaeorum opinionem exprimit. Voflius is herg
Jfce^kipg of Jamblichus ds Myfterils,

15© Proofs from Revelation, fhat Miracles >
their embracing Chriftianity, though they adopted
fome new^opinibns, they dropt very few of their old
ones; and in too many inftances, inftead of re ftlfy^
ing their preconceived opinions by the Scriptures,
tortured the Scriptures (as all men are apt to do) to
foipport their preconceived opinions. In the cafe
under our prefent confideration ; they were not per
haps governed entirely by prejudices of their own ;
they are fufpefted at leaft of afting in fqme meafure
from a principle of conformity to the prejudices of
others; (as will be ffiewii in the fequel.) However
this may be ; they ought not to have countenanced
an opinion, that was re'piignant to revelation, as well
as to the common fenfe of mankind, and fapportdd
merely by the authority of the moft fuperftitious of
all the Pjgan philofophers. ¦'
xtjSfotwIthftariding the attachment of the Fathers to
the Pagan fyftem of demonology; fome of them,
maintain, and Juftin Martyr in particularj that" de
mons were " the fouls of dead men *.'' When this
lea> ned writer is proving, that the foiil does not die
with the body, he argues from the cafe " of 1;hofe
*' who are feized and tormented by the fouls of the
" deceafed, whom all call demoniacs and madmen f."
Athenagoras, who flourlffied in the fecond century,
as Juftin alfo did, reckons " the fouls of the giants
ambngfl;
* iryji»i iiroS'tevivlm. -^
t O' 4'''X;'*'5 «T«3-«v»v7«)» hxfi&aiofum, jg fivlisftim m^^eJiroi, St
%fti!MuXvi7t\isq xcii /ixm/titiss xmXiirt irdnti. Apol. I. al. 2. p. 6c."
Paris. 1620. p, 54. ed. Eened. p. 27. ed'. Thirlb.

iirgue a divine Interpofition. 1 5. I
am,ongft the demons ^.** Tatian, indeed, who be
lieved that the human foul dies, could not allow;
that any human fouls became demons f : but his rea
foning agairift this notion, is a proof that it was en-
jtertained by others. TertuUian likewife conceived
the ftate of the foul after the death of the body, to
be fuch as ill eonfifted with the idea of demons, who
wandered about in the region of the air near the
earth. Accordingly we find, that he fpeaks princii-
pally of fuch demons .as were never united to humari
bodies. Neverthefefs, even from TertuUian it ap
pears, that there was a current belief in his time of
demons «that had once been men ; and that he himfelf
did not wholly rejeft them. He tells us in his Apology,
lhg,t ,''. from a corrupted ftock of angels, there l|)rung
*' a.ftill more degenerate race of dfemoi^s J." It is
univerfally allowed, that TertuUian here refers to the
fans of God in the hiftory of Mofe^ U, who mixed
with the daughters of men, and who were believed
to be angels by TertuUian, and by almoft all the Fa-
K 4 thers
* .^ xi rSv ytytltrav "^v^xi, 01 Tngt Tsv xprfi^y «ff« TrXxva-
uivoi IxiftoHi. Athenag. Apol. p. 28. B.
f Tatian (Orat. contr. Grsecos, p. 154.) fays, " Demons'
are not the fouls of men :" and (p. 148.) he affirms, " that they
yieie ejefted from the heavenly conyerfatlon."
X Sed quomodo de angelis quibufdam, fua fponte corruptis,
corruptior gens dsemonum evaferit, &c. TesttiJlian. Apo],
f. 22. p. 21.
II Gen. vi. 2.

152 Proofs from Revelation,. thftt.Mkacles
thers of the four firft centuries *, Hpon.the au^orlty
bf philo, Jofephus, and the ancient .editJons «f the
feptuaglnt, which, had fubftltutedt the angels of Gedi
inftead of the fins' of God,\ So that according to Ter
tuUian, and I beHeve I, may fay, according to tla©igie--
nera] fenfe of thofe ages, the worft;. kind pf demons
are In part, , at leaft, of human original.,) In a^otltf r
place, however, . TertuUian expreffes himfelf in the'
follow.\rig manner ¦\ ; '•'¦ We difcover (if I be not mifr,
" taken) the faUacy of an evil fpirit, lurking under
" the ^aflis of dead men, , by fafts; when, during,
" his, b,elng exorclfed, he fometimes affirms hImf(?Lfi
V to ha.vebeen a man, one of our progenitors, fome-
" times a gladiator, or one who fought 1 with wJI4,
" beafts \, as elfewhere he would fay he was a god 4
*' being concerned for nothing more thaii this, , that
. , " ^.
* See Wliitby's Striftur. Patrum, in Gen. c.\\. 4. p. 5.
Some think the Fathers were drawn into this error, by the au-
- f 'i ; 1 i 1 '^ ' I >
thority of tlit apocryphal book of Enoch. ! )t 11 "
X ,Hanc quoque fallaciam fpirltus nequam fijb perfonis de
funftorum delitefcenjtis, nifi fallor, etiam rebus prohanju^, qnun^
in exorcHmis interdum aliquem fe ex parentibus homlnem fuls
affirmaf. interdum gladiatorem, vel beftiarium, ficut et alibi
deuin ; nihil magis curans, quam.hoc ipfum excludere quod prae-
dicamus', ne facile crcdaraus animas unlverfas ad inferos redigi,
ut et judicli et refurreftlonis fidem turbet. Et tamen ille dae
mon poftquam circumftantes circumvenlre tentavit, inftantia di-
vinse gratiae viftus, id quod In vero eft, invitus confitebitur.
TertuUian de^ Anima, c. 57. p. 305, 306. ed. Paris.
X This confirms what Is obferved above, p. 141. and beloiVi
p. 155. concerning fuch as fuffered a violent death.

ai>gue a divine Intirpofittdn, 153
^', he may contradift what we preach, and prevent
*'i us from believing that all fouls go to the ffiades
*' below *^ and this in order to difturb our faith of
" a judgmfent and a refurreftion. Yet will this de-
M mon; after he has tried to delude the company,
" be fo'far over-ruled by the prefence of divine grace,
" as unwillingly to confefs himfelf to be vi-hat he
^' really is." TertuUian here contradifts what he
himfelf elfewhere advances concerning thofe demons,
who were the iffue of the daughters of men ; as well
as what he afferts with refpeft to the power of Chrif
tians, to compel demons to declare -what they truly
"were, and to prevent them from telling lyes in their
prefence. For here a demon, though in the end he
owns his real charafter, is guilty of lying, even un-
d€r the exorcifm of Chriftians, by afferting he had
been a man. It is more material to obferve farther,
ift, That it muft have been at that time a very com
mon opinion, that demons were the fouls of dead
men : for otherwife this evil fpirit would not have
been reprefented as affirming, that he had been a man.
adiy. The reafon affigned by TertuUian for rejefting
this opinion, was his beheving that all fouls remained
in the ffiades below tiU the day of judgment : which
is meqtioned amongft the errors and paradoxes f of
this learned writer; and therefore could have no
wejo-ht

¦*o

t Or, to badff, the region underneath the earth : which ac
cording to many of the Heathens, as well as TertuUian, was
the region of the dead.
I See Tertvllian, p. 306. note b, ed. Paris.

154 Proofs fram Revelation, that Miracles
weight with thofe Chriftians, who taught; ' tl^^ hu-
man fouls either afeended th© etherial regions; , or
sWandered about the earth, according to their refpep
tive charafters. ,,, ,,-,. ., ;
The fentiments concerning the ftate of feparate
fouls, which were entertained by Chriftlap^ in gene
ral, and by Origen in particular, the moft learned
of all the Fathers, were very different from thofe of
TertuUian. Near the beginning of his feventhi book
againft Celfus, Origen undertakes to ffiew, that, the
ancient oracles were not infpired by any gods, as the
Heathens commonly thought, but oil the contrary
by evil demons *. In proof of this point, he ob-
ferves t, (amongft bther things,) " that all men,
*' whether Jews or Chriftiaris, Greeks or Barba-
" rians, . believe that the human foul furvives thedif-
f' folution of the body : that it is agreeable to rest-
'' fon to think, that the pure foul afcends the purere-
" gions of ether, leaving the grofs body, and its pol-
" lutions behind; but that the avicked foul is born^
" downwards by its fins, flying about the earth, or
" living near fepulchres." He then aflcs the follow.
ing queftion | : " What fort of fpirits ffiould w^
-?' judge thofe to be, which are tied down whole ages,
" as one may fay, to particular buildings or places,
*' either by certain charms, or by their own wicked-
" nefs?" that is. Are they fuch purified human fpi
rits as reafon tells us afcend the fublimqr regiQjjiS» an4
* Page 333. f Page 334.
X HoSxTra Y,^ fofil^aii Smi Tntiifuirx, x. r, A. Ib.

argue a divine Interpofition. J55
and the Heathens efteem as gods ; or are they thofe
polluted human fpirits who are detained near this
iowe^r earth, and are evil demons ? This qufeftioa
does not appear to concern any but human fpirits j
no mention having been made of any other. Origen
refOlves this queftiou in the following manner : — -
" Reafon tells us, that they ought to be regarded as
*' wicked fpirits, who ufe prophecy (a thing of a-n
*' indifferent nature in Itfelf) to deceive mankind,
V and to draw them from the pure worffilp of God *."
There has beeri occafion to obferve, that the ancients
were of opinion, not only, that wicfed human fpirits
became demons, but alfo that " thofe who fuffered a
violent d^eath became fuch." fJow from. St. Chry
foftom we learn, that even this was the belief of the
meaner people in his timef. And had it not, at
that time, been generally thought, that demons were
the fouls of the deceafed; would demoniacs have
faid, as from the fame author we learn fhey did, that
" they were poffeffed by the foul of fuch or fuch a
monkt?" The forecited paflages from the Father? appear to
trie to contain a fufficient proof, that whatever they
teach
* Ibid.
hlvrSrriav Sxifiotixe yin&'xt. De Laz. Serm. 2. tom. I. p. 727. E,
X T/ J», ort el ixl/toK; xiyus-i, tS fto)ix^i rx S5»os » -^vxi «|«4
tpwi, Chryfoft. de Lazaro, tom. i. p. 728. Ainol, puiriv, ei
^xiftovSvTii Poariv, otj •^''-'K'I ''^ ^?l»i ly». In Matt. hoin. 28.
al, 29. tom. 7. p. 336. C.

f^6 Profs from Revelation, that JMi,racles
teach concerning the miraculous powerSjajPjd opera
tions of celeftial demons, was borrowed fron;i, tli^, Pa
gans : that many of, them did t^fterit, th^t fomcj^p-
man fouls after thediflolutiori of their bodies be(;^me
demons: and that for fgveral ages after the. coming
ef Chrift, demons did very commonly denote fuch
human fouls; agreeably to the meaning affi^ei^ to
thtm by the avicierit Heathens and Jews,, an,d by the
apoftles of Chrift. The writings of , the Fathers,
therefore, inftead of deftroying, do in fome meaj^e
confirm the explication we haveglveij, ofthe den;jo,:^s
mentioned in Scripture, as the objefts of Pagari^de-
votlon. At- the fame time, they bear exprefs teftirpo-
ny to this great trutlf, (tbe eftabliffinjent of which has
been our main view, in what has been hitherto ad
vanced in this feftion,) that aU the Heathen, gods,
except the deified parts and, powers of nature, )?je-
longed to the human race. The forming a jtrue idea
of the Heathen gods, being a matter of' np finall im
portance to a juft defence of the Scripture; we hope
to be exGufed, for having taken up fo much tirpeji^
difcuffing it.
If the foregoing account of the Pagan gods be
juft ; there will be no difficuhy, in vindicating the
cenfures, paffed upon them in the facred writings,
Wit)-" regard to the parts and powers of nature, which
the Heathen world deified ; they are reprefented in
Scripture as the creatures of God's power, and the
paffive inftruments of his decrees *. Even " the fun,
"and
* See above, p. 97.

argue a divine Interpofition, i^«?
"Itid tWe mbon, 'and the ftars, and all the hoft of
" h^^veri," however revered by the Pagans as the
chief deities ; " the IfraeHtes are' forbidden to Wor-
" 'ffiip and ferve ; becaufe Jehovah, their God, pla-
*' ced them in the firmament of heaven ;" 'not for- the
ufe of any one particular nation, but " for the coni-
" rriori benefit of the whole human race *." It
is extraordinary that Mofes, at a time when the
Worid was univerfally regarded as animrte.l and di
vine, and the elements and the heavenly b.>dies were
thought to poffefs an internal power to exert them
felves in all their admirable effefts ; it is very extra
ordinary, that Mofes, -at this time, ffiould difcover;
publiffi, and (by fuitable miracles) confirrri the oppo
fite doftrine.* His doftrine is perfeftly agreeable to
the -modern philofophy, which reprefents the whole
natural world as a merely material^ inert, inaftive
thing, without any wifdom or power of its own, and
-refiftlBg any change of ftate, whether of reft or mo
tion ;-' andwhich -muft therefore be continuaHy up
held and direfted by the wifdom and power of G-od,
to whom the whole train of natural caufes and ef
fefts is- to be afcribed. The doftrine alone of Mbfes,
fo remote from the Sentiments and philofophy of his
«ge, ''and fo agreeable to truth, creates a ftrong pre-
fiiraptlon of his having received it by immediate re
velation. As 'to the other gods of Paganifm, whether they
were fuch human fouls as became demons, or (as
fome
* Deut, iv. 19. compared with Gen.i. 17.

i^S Proofs from Revelation, thai Miracles ,
fome apprehend) created fpirits of a fuperior order J
we have already * feen, that the Scriprure gives us
fueh a view of therri, as is inconfiftent either with
their infpiring prophecies or working miracles. And
it will be ffiewn in the fequel, that all fupernatural
effefts are referred to God alone by the facred wri
ters. Is it ppffible for them to contradift themfelves;
as they rnuft do, if they afcribe fuch effefts to the
Heathen gods ? But fo far are they from doing this^
that they Conftantly reprefent thofe gods as utterly
impotent and infignificant ; either as haviirg no real
exiftence; or no more power, than if they did not
(pxift. They call them vanities f , things of no kind
of value or efficacy; Nor is this cenfure confined to
a part only bf the Heathen gods ; it is , extended to
all, without a fingle exception. " They are all
variity |." " All the gods of the riations are idols;
or nothings (l :" not powerful evil fpirits, but mere
nullities. In this manner, the anfierit prophets of
God fpoke of fhe Pagan deities ; and the apoftles of
Chrift ufed the fame language : ^' We know that ari
« idol
* Ch. 3. fe£t. T.
f Dent, .xxxii. 21. i King. xvi. 13, 26. Jerem. viii, t^;
ch. xiv. 22. ch. xvlii. 15. In i Sam. xii. 21. they are called
" vain things which cannot profit." They are called " lying'
vanities," Pf. xxxi] 6.
X ir. xlI; 29. Jerem. x. 8.
jl Heb. Elilirii, nothings^ or things of no value. Pf. xcvi. 5.'
(Compare Job xiii. 4.) See alfo Levit. xix. 4. i Chron. xvi.
z6. Lzek. XXX. 13. and compare i Kifigs xviii. 27. If. xiv. 5.

argue a divine Interpofition, 1^9
**^ idol is nothing in the world *." This is not' to be
underftood of the mere images of the gods : for the
Heathens did not 'regard thofe images, in themfelwes
confidered, as real gods. They believed them to be
the reprefentatives and the receptacles f of their gods,
and iri this view they fpoke of them as gods, and the
objefts of divine worffilp ; and it is in reference to
the divine powers fuppofed to refide in them, that
the Scriptures affirm, that they are nothing* On all
occafions,. the facred writers deride thefe pretended
refidences of the Heathen deities, as mere earthly ma^
terials, poUffied by the hand ofthe artificer, and the
deities themfelves as equally void of underftanding,
or rather as being nothing diftinft from thofe fenfe
lefs materials, and exifting only in the imagination
of their deluded worfliippers*. " The ftock is a doc-
*' trine of vanities J." "Their idols are, fil ver and
*' : gold, or wood and ftone, the work of metis hands^
" which neither fee, nor hear, nor eat, nor fmell||."
Agreeably hereto the Scripture reprefents the votaries
of thefe divinities as perfons utteHy loft to reafon, and
¦1
* I Cor. villi 4. ch. x. 19.
f Various cereirionies were ufed, to induce the gods to take
up ^heir refidence in the temples and ftatues ere^ed to receive
them. See Arnob. 1. 6. p. 203, 207, Sozom. H, E, 1. 7. pj
724, Origen, c. Celf. 1. 7. p. 37S.
X Jerem. x. 8.
II Deut. iv. 28. Pf. xcvii. 7. Pf. cxv. 4. Pf. cxxxv. 15.
it. xV. 18. ch. xiii. 17. ch. xliy. 9. Jerem. ii. 27. ch. x. 3.
Dan. V. 4, 23. Habak. ii. 18. Afts xvlii. 19. i Cox. |Viii. 4^
eh. X. 19J ch. xii. 2. i Theff. i. 9.

S'6o Proofs from Revelation^ that Miracles
m
and without a ffiadow of excufe.-; v" They are, alifco--
gether j brutiffiy and fooliffi," ' and difcover no 'motte
uiiderftanding than the idols theyi-make *; .ut >
Oracles, prophecies, prodigies were afcribed- by tte
.Heathens to their demons : and on their favour the
good or evil ftate of mens .Hves was thought itmda'-
pend. This perfuafion wasi the; ground of-theits wor
ihip. And the proper; point in difpute betweeri ido
laters and the prophets qf the true God,! waSj whe
ther that perfuafion was fupported hy fads. We find
the meffengers of God challenging idolaters, to juftin
fy their worffilp of idols; and the idol gods theilii
felves, to give proof of their divinity, by- a difplayef
knowledge, or by fome exertion of power, fuch as
was either hurtful or beneficial to mankinds; -and* ev
en admittingj that by fueh a difplay. of their power
or knowledge, the Heathen deities would have efta^
bllffied their claim to divinity, »and tlieir title to the
homage of mankind* " Produce your caufe, faith
•f the Lord, bring forth your ftrong reafons.— rLet
" them ffiew the former ihin.gs what they be; that
*' we may confider them, and know the latter end
" ofthem:" produce your ancient oracleS, that we
may judge whether they were fulfilled by correfpon
dent events ; or, now "¦ declare to us things for to
" comie. Shew.us things for to come hereafter, tha't
" we may knowthat ye are gods ; yea, do goodjjor
" do evil, that we may be difmayed," that it may
V " ' appear
, "9'"' ¦\ ¦'
* J[erem. x. 8. Pf. cxv. 8. Pf. cxxxv. i8. Habak. ii.-
i8, 19.

Argui d divine Interpfition. ,, t6i
afipear ye have, what your votaries affert; a title to
theirevefrence and worffilp of mdnfcind. " Behold,
ye are nothing, and your work of'riought*;" and
#ieEefore^here can be ho ffiadow of reafon for pay
ing -you homage. How very different is thii'-lan-
guage of the ancient prophets, from that of our learn
ed 'modernsi, who tell us, that idolatry cannot poffi
bly be juftified by any miracles, however numerous
or fplendid ; and that whatever power over mankind
the Heathen gods might poffefsj they could have no
right to worffilp ? The prophets would have allowed
their tide to worffilp, had they admitted their pow
er !• Their utter impotence is the only reafon ofthe
Scripture's remionftrating againft paying them hom
age. I.. add, that thefe remonftrances of Scripture,
which are frequently repeated $, are confirmed by
fafts, by many ftriking teftimonies of the utter ina
bility of the Heathen deities,> to interpofe either for
the conviftion of gainfayers, or for the benefit of
their worffiippers, or in vindication of their own hon
our. They could not interpret Nebuchadnezzar's
dream II, nbi the hand*- writing upon the wall of Bel-
L fliazzar's
* If. xii. 21, 24.
¦j- The reafoning urged above, p. 76, 7f , 7§, ittay ferve to
juftify the decifion of this cafe by the prophets.
X Jerem. x. 3, 5, 15. If. xliii, 8. cH. xliv. 7. ch. xiv. 16,
20. ch. xhri. 5. ch. xlviii. 3. i Cor. viii. 4. ch. x. 19. ch*
xii. 2. I Theff. i. 9.
II Dan. iv. 7. • , ^

1 62 Proofs, from Revelation, thatf^ifacles
ffiazzar's palace* ; nor weye th?y. able to anfwf^r by
fire, in the pubhc trial between their own prqp^qj^
anjlthe prophet of Jehovah+v though on t^fe feve
ral occafions, but efpecially. the laft, all /heir, cred[it
was at ftake. Nor did they oppofe (ho-y?, much (9^
CA'er ft might be, their intereft to, do it). any rniracle&
of their own, to thofe either of Mofes. or th|^,ft3^e^j-
j\h ; as we hope to ffiew In the fequel. ',
In oppofition to all this evidence,, it h?is bes^ afi
ferted, thatth^ fyftem of Pagan idolatry was fuppor,u
ed by prophecies and miracles, delivered arid per
formed, not by, the. fift;itious deities of the IJe^hep|i,
but by devils, or wicked denions. of, a higher or^^i;
than mankind, who perfonated the godSjlurk^, with
in. tbejr confecrated images arid ftatyes, infpired the
vates, animated the fibres of the, entrails. of viftijiivs, *iurr
* Dan. V. 7.
f 1 Kings xviii. If fpirits. (as learned men have affirtWed)
can do mvifibly, all that men can do vifibly i why. In the con-
left related in this chapter, did not evi.l. fpirits bring.firpln a
iecret manner from fome neighbouring place t^ the altar, to
confume what was laid upon it? There feems to be no peculiar-
difficulty Iri fuch a'mlracle. ' ' "^''
Should any objeft to what is here urged' concerning the im
potence of the Heathen go.ds, thgt In 2 Chron. xxviii. 23, the
facred hiftorian is reprefented as faying, that,'' the'gods.of Da-
mafcus fmote Ahaz:"- I anfwfcr in the words of Mr. Halett
(V. 2. p. 79.) " All this difliculty is avoidedj.if we follow the
" old Hebrew copies, from which the Greek tranflatioa was
" made, which reads thus. And king Aliaz fiiid, I will feek t»
" the gods of Damafcos who fmote me."

isr^ii'e a divine Interpofition, ' i^j -
^V'ei'ned the flight' of birds, guided the lots, framed^
the '<!)'i'k<iles^ and exerted themfelves to the utmoft in
prottlotiri^ idolatry, in order' to Involve rrien in the
gtiilt ofit, to draw aU adoration to themfelves; to fe-
cut^e |)ifcifpeffobd and rtouriffimeritfrbm the rich fteams
andblood'of the viftlms, which were offered to them,
and hereby to ftrengthen themfelves for the enjoyment
of their luftful pleafrires with boys and women. It
ha^ been farther afferted, that thefe wiclced fpirits
wfere, 'fiMpetly fpfeaklrig, the gods of the Heatheiis j
rather th^iri thofe imaginary -beings, whom they feem
ed to themfelves to" wOrffiip. In fupport of thefe af-.
fertlons, ^ppealls made to the writings of the Fathers,
arid' the' authority of Scripture.
For the honour of human nature, who would nbt
wiffi that fuch* extravagant opinions as thefe had ne
ver been broached by any writers ? Neverthfelefs, it
muft be owned, they are clearly contained in the
Writings of the Fathers t» Thefe opinions however
are there only afferted, not proved ; and perhaps were
never really believed, by the very perfons who main
tained them, and upon whofe authority alone they
. have been received in fucceeding ages. For the Fa
thers, though they fometi/nes taught, or allowed, that
L 2 Pagan
fi Juftin Mart. Apol. p. 113. ed. Thirlb. TertuUian de ani-
.ma, c. 57. Minucius Felix, c. 27. Cyprian de Idolo?, Van. p.
206, Arnob. c. Gent. I. i. 26, Ladtaht. de Orig. Error. 1. 2.
Cii6. ' De vera Sapient. 1. 8, d. 16. ed. Spark, p. 399. Eu
feb. Prsep. Ev. A. 5. c. 4. Sj:. Auguft. de Civ. Dei, 1. 8. c.
16. See alTo Middleton's Free Inquiry, p. 66, 70, 77, and
Mede's works, p. 680, 681,

'?64 Proofs from Revelation, that Miracles
Pagan idolatry was fupported by oracles and miracles;
^6 neverthelefs on other occafions confefs or clearly
intimate, that Paganifm had no other fupport, than
hunian craft and impofture*. They pretended, in
deed, that aii'y Chriftian was able to compel the Hea-
tfiefl gods to confefs themfelves to be devils, as well
as to ejeft t thein from the bodies of men ; but eve
ry one now knows, that there was no miracle J in the
cafe. To me it feems to be a matter of no great im
portance, what fentiments the Fathers entertained on
the fubjeft under our confideration ; and therefore
we will proceed to examine thofe of the facred Wri
ters. Several general reafons have been already || fUj^-
gefted, to ffiew how unlikely it is, that the Scriptures
ffiould affert or allow, that idolatry was fupported by
the miraculous interpofition of any Wicked fpirits ;
whether they did br did not counterfeit the fouls of
then
* Origen, c. Celf. p. 333. Eufeb. Pra:p. 1. 4. c, I, 2,'^.
Clemens Alexandrinus, Strom. 1. 3. See Fontenelle's Hift.
of Oracles, ch. 9. p. 76. and Clerici Hift. Ecclef.. prolegora.
p. 54. With regard to the refidence of irxvifible beings in the
confecrated images of the Heathens ; it is frequently treated
by the ancient apologifts with the fcorn it fo well deferved.
See Arnob. 1. 6. p. 200. Laftant. 1. 2, p. 147. Perhaps (iJie
reafOn Why on fome occafions the Fathers allow,' thaf Pagan
ifm \vas fupported by miracles, was their finding the Pagans
more difpofed to refer them to evil agents, than to diftaelieye
their reality.
•¦ ;b'3r vf' '-
¦id t See Dr. Whitby's general preface to the epiftkf, p. xxvi.
X See Dr. Middleton''s Free Inquiry, p. 8c, &c.
¦'''' '.11 See above, p. iJ"?. "¦ '^

(^rgue. a divine Interpofition. j6^
.„..JS#f> -Tp what has been ^ready fpffer^d*^!
vj^^^^^ f^|iiM'#?%^^tmf,W )*lf -cafe
•m'm.J¥ 5cnptpre ha? j^^ver ,giy^n ^J^^j^^i-
.BH^9^' !fe^^*^^ g°#,?f # ^e^en? wereg|;vsg5^^if-
m^U ^h ^^^ '^il^'^M ^^^femedpofhemfel^es
Mi^BE^^^'J^^ °^hl ^^^ real objefts of their devo-
>#i;ilte^!^.% ^ the Scripture f/I^r^e4^ or i;iti-
rfflP|g%^%^' thqiigll the f(^rme^,,,-!fere pttefly ii^o-
#lWfm3J?i^*^^i ^ W? powerful wicked ,fpiri^,s, who
M¥i4¥M, P^9^fttWg: idolatry by.prophecies, pro-
Sm^mWwlBm ^?^' 's Jt <;r,edit4e„that |he
iffPfte?f|9.?49 who vv^rejn t^,e higheft degree^ ^n-
:J^4^.f8*'s.fcW???'^;.^^ ^^e IfraeHtes,, ifliould n,e\'¥r
[g^BS"l#c|^M#<^|?Sf !PC^hf ^"^ hourly ^^rigfl^oni/uch
i/!M%is^oify m^.M^ fliotii^dj^t^i,^]^ pp.
siSfy ^^^^ ^° P'"°'^^ ^° worffilp ; without dropping a
fingle hin^tharthofe gods had a thoufand abettors, who
^^fr,§ allowed .fo-iwork miracles, in orders, to involve
tiff m iSl-«he guilt of idolatry ? This will Appear ftill
*©rfe'iiicredibk,'if' wfe confider,' adly, ThS^ Bad the
ftitei'of the' Heatheri deities been flfpiporteJ^bv iither
mm%W^^ affummg their names/ajid^a^fmg^tiieir
^ar;ts,;,^his v^ould have been the very fainfgjihing, to
i^Upprehenfions of mankind, as if thofe deities, ihad
tfetrifdves interpofed in fupport of theisq'6w«f divi
nity!* For had miracles' been performed itttlilg name
ofthe Heathen gods; the fpeftators muft Have refer
red theal'ito thofe gods ; rather than to any other be
ings, of -s^hom they were entirely ignorant. -And if
to the fpeftators, the Heathen gods neceffarily appeared
L3 tp

l66 Proofs from Revelation, thatf^iracles
to poffefs a miraculous power ; w.puld not this, J^ajffi
produced, and very juftly too, the fame feffeft as-.if
they had really poffeffed it ? if the exercife there%e
of , this power, fqr the l^eriiefit or to the .prejudice of
mankind, by the idql gods, would, have juftified, jl^g
worffilp of them, (as the prophets of Qod aUojy.it
¦WQuldj;) tl^e ejfercife of the fame power by others,
under the circumftances hpre fuppofed, would. have
dou? fo tofiip sdly, The prophets of (jodiCouId,4iji?jt
with trutlf or fincerity affirm, that apoftate a^ngels
vvfr,e, properly fpeaking, the gods of ^the Heatheris ;
bep?iufe| they reprdfent their god§.as dead men, Ng^
do they fpeak of thqm in this maiwi^r, in .order tp .ac
commodate themfelves to the comnion opinion of thp
Heathens cpricerning_them, as fome have imaging f4
for t})e Heathens regarded them 2i% deified fouls oftbei^.
worthies. They call themdead men ; beca,ufe thieg^
were really a,iid truly fuch ; and not evft fpirits mafl^
ing themfelves \inder their nanies. 4thly, ^h^,
could npt without the groffeft yiolatip^ of truth, re
prefent the ftatue? and images of the Heathen deities
as mere fenfelefs materials, if they were inhabited by
awy fpiritual beings whatfoever., sthly, Moft f^tUa^k
ciPus and dangerous would it have been in the prp^
phets, to inculcate it perpetually upon the IfraeHtes
as a moft certain and evident truth, that all the Hea
then gods were imaginary beings, who had no exifi'^
ence, or no degree of power ove'r mankind ; without
iriformirig them at the fame time,, (vvhat it concerned
,i ' thei^
¦ ' f Si^e ?ibove, p. 132,

argue a divine Interpftion. ' 167
thdm mHlch to know, if it was true,) that the real ob
jefts of 'the Heathen worftiip. Were ipoffeffed even of
miraculous powers, which they Wete continually ex
erting' to the deception of -die human race'. Thlfe
W6\lld have been egregious trtfli'ff^ on a moft fofetttri
occ^fiori, and %rafs prevaricatiori : it would hkve
befen riot only leaving the people in ignorance of theilr
danger, bilt deceiving them into a falfe and fatal opi^
¦ftl^iSri of th^ir fafiefty. Include in thfe number ofthe
Heathen gods 'wha-tever fpirits you pleafe, apoftate
angels of ^e^ery rank and order, as Well as human
fouls; that dedaratiPn of Gdd muft hold true,
*' They are all vanity, their works are nothing*.'*
IF you chufe to fay; that the prophets of God corii
ceived the Heathen deities to be devils, m the ferife
in which the word is ufed at prefent ; you make them
denyj that devils have ahy pdwer at all : for in refe-
retttetOaU the Heathen deities, they thus adnloriiffi
the IfraeHtes, " Be not alrald of them, fou they
"cantiaf do evU, neither alftj is it in thebi- to do
'^'^gOOd f."
Tt i^ true, indeed, that both according to the an-
cit'nt and modern "verfions ofthe Bible, the Heathen
g9d§ are reprfefented as devils in that facred volume.
BSt 'thefe verfions do great injuftice to the original ;
if by devils you mean a diftinft order of beings from
hiiman fouls. Let us examine the feveral paffages.
Where the Heathen gods are defciribed as devils, in
thef^ngliffitrariflation. "^^ , .. "
1,4 Mofes,
? Ifaiah 3fli. 29." f Jerem. x.j.

i^ Profs from Revelaliofl^that Miracles jf{f
'I^ofes, in his prophetk hymn coricerning fh'4*«jMl¥"
tasty ofthe IfraeHtes, takes notice cif it as a prtJSf ^TftJ'
aggravation'' of 1 'their idolatrbiil^ difpofitiori,'^ " that
they fac-riic^ ^vmtO devils,'^ YT^^^-t/wz,) whom Ihe;
calls " itew' gbds> that came newly up, whom ^^
*' knew jndt;r'and their fatherstMted! riot *,'?'' 'Ttoel*
Pfa!Siift> riwjiilike riiaflner thu^ 'repfbai'heS thfemi;!
?,' ^Yea, thfey rfacrificed th^ir ft)ris'%^11tthel^^*5ai^«i«^l
^' 'xintp-de^ilsff ffchedimy.' ^If aU-tbe PkgaAn^®^
werfe devils^ why are the y^i6<frf/«2' diftihguiffiedl^frifetff'
theh- other godsi^ Why are they called new to fl^
IfraeHtes, who had of old worffiipped 'the Pag^ri'^ddP'
ties I? Why is the worffilp oi theie fchedim mt!A-i
tioned as matter of^^tw/wr reproath?- Arid if thsafe'
fchedim' wete devils, who have a rear and eitiihfiSv^
poWer over mankind; why are they eallted''ft*«l«^?
and idols \\ ? ^ The word, fchedM^ Ai a#iv«a ftbftt- a '
verb § which fignifies to lay waflif'-'h d^r^jt,- it^
ought' to have been rendered, thedeftroyeW^H^^-
preffes the fuppofed cruel nattire "arid 'ihitSfttet' Hi'
thtife falfe gods, who were thought td delight fdj'
and who' were accordingly worffiipped- by;' #f"&«
flrudion of the human fpecies, and '4fio reiqtlifed^aio
appears fiPd?fl3the 'Context;^ eySh ^tiiJ^Sibd^'fef^i^''
dlI*83Vbtm.- IJ b;>lllriO '='7r.dj^^fi^l ij3fli| gnnol

* Deut. xxxii. 17, ,, ,^ , ^j^-jq^
X Gen. XXXV. 2, 4. Jofli. xxiv. 3, gi, ^ ^. )cj-^
II Deut. xxxii. 21. Pf. cVl. 36. ,„ . .,

v., 'J.

argue a -^vine Interpfition. i6^
fojUfc aOid 4*BifetQ?"9 *•'' I ]Who the gods were» that
were wqrffiipped'fby human lacrificesi; all hiftory in-
fofjris us Jl and fo has the Pfalmift in the moft ex-
pafefs.terrriiSt, " They ate the *6icrifices of the dead."
"J^^ were ,the great warriors, ,who in their mortal ,
ftale delighted in the flaughter of the , human face.
Xhe- revolt of the IfraeHtes from the worffilp of God
ihf^iji^aviour, to that ofi thefe wafters and [deflroysrs
ofi mankind, argued the higheft degree of folly and
wickiednefs. This worffilp was new to the IfraeHtes,
what they had-^li^ver praftifed either in Egypt, or he-
fofQ they w,ent into that coiintry ; but what they ,af-
tegsyftrdftji^^ii'^tiOf the Canaanites. Accordingly the
f^^inii, are exprefely called- by the P/almift, " the
idp^.pf Canaf^n %f\ - What one circumftance is there
tha,t^can lead, us to fuppofe, ,that either Mofes or the
Pj^h^iiftj *i» ^e fprecited paffages, are fpeaking of
di^y, ip. thg common acceptation of that word ?
,;;3Ghflfti™e defeft- either of candour or judgment,
oir trsififl^l^rs have ftevyn iuthe explication of an-
otjjgr vrprd; .whlq^ they rend^i* devils. *' They ffiall
" no .^orepffer thgir facrifices unto devils," T^/Wot,
^'^%.f^f(VS^ cTfeis fjohibition of Mofes to the ,!£.,.
ra^iy[^es^t|;if,{t|>ey;had left Egyptji implies/, tbut they
][ia4,,iduring their ftay there, defiled themfelves with that

. * Pfali cvi. 38. ^^
, t V. 28. See
the Pfal'flis, p. 218

1
f V. 28. See the learned Mr. Merrick's annotations on
n ¦

X Pfalmcvi. 38. ^ *'' '^^
II Levit. xvii, -,•

170 Proofs from Revelation, that'.Miracles
that particular ' fpecies of idolatry here 'fcondemild&
Aad from other paffages of 8ici4pture; it fafficientfy
appears, that the IfraeHtes were< no ftrangers to .the
worffiip'of the Egyptian deities *. ' It is all©w«!dfr#i!^
the word, 7?/Wot, fignifies hairy beings, m'^goathf.
And the learned Bochartt has fullyffiewKiJ thAf tfeii
yircrft/ animals 'of Egypt were hairy; and that thfe
^o«j? in particular was worffiipped, (ori thefatne^aci
count as Priapus was amongft theGreeks ;") and'thib
Pan was reprefented under the image of t^is animalt
It is 'plain, therefore, that as the fchedim we#e thfd
idols of Canaan, fo thfe feirim were the ided^ of
Egypt. This will more clearly appear from anot^ieiff
place in which this latter word occurs : " He (Jero-
" boam) ordained him priefts for the high places,
*' and for the devils, {feirim, the goats,) and for the
f' calves he had made [j." Did JeroboaiA makede-
* Jofti. xxiv. 14-, E?ek, XX, 7, ch. xxiii, 2, 3. Adls
^"'- 39- • ,  4,-^, ,, 5ij,,,^
f In Levit. iv. and ch. xvi. and other places', it fignlflfe^i
goat. In many places it fignifies Aoj'r or h4iry. Lev. xiii. i^'
3^,2^,30,32, Gen. XXV. 25. Pfalm lxvlli.,2r. The wor(^,
alfo occurs. If, *xlli. 21. where the prophet is foretelling the
Utter deftruiSion and defolation of Babylon: " The fatyrs,"
the feirim, " the goats or hairy creatures fliall dance there ;"
i, e. It ftiall be inhabited by beafts, and not men. And in If.
xxxivi 14, this -word is rendered .yi^yrr, where the prophet is
defcrlblng the defolation of Idumea, reprefenting it its {he
haunt of goats and other wild beafts,
X HIeroz. 1, 2. c. 53,
II 2 Chron, xi. ijf, >

argue^a divi-neilMerpofitfon, 171
vLfe^sriithe ftastees and images of devils ? The- word,
feirim ji^^^s,) no-moije fignifies devils, than the'^ri-
giteii word's '^tranflated cahes, or any ofher'"'Word
tfe(roughoust the Bible.' Some very learned f men
indeed plead; that devils were reprefented by goats,
Tbflsau^" they appeared to mankind In the form 'of
rhefetadinKds. But, tiU they produce fome better au-
thaiitgfv-than the reports of witches, and the fables
of 'the t -Heathens concerniiig fauns «nd fatyrs, in
proof of the devil's appearing in the ffiape of goats ;
this f tea. cannot be admitted. What 'the hiftorian
ia!ffirm8;is plainly this ; that Jeroboam, lately returned
frota Egypt, eftafeliffied the worffilp of the deities of
thaifc'country, which was eminently that of goats and
calves; or at leaft fet uf>' the images of thefe animals
as.fymbols of the Divinity. There could be no re-
feffenrc'e to devils, as this word is pow underftood ;
hebafufe the IfraeHtes are never charged by their pro
phets, with fo deteftable a fpecies of idolatry, as the
Worffilp of devils. The inftitution of fuch worftiip
would not have fuited with the policy of Jeroboam,
whov^s defit^pus of attaching the IfraeHtes tohiinT
felf. Nor did "thfe Egyptians, whofe example Jero-
boarii copied, pVer reprefent devils undgr the figures
oT'goiats and calves.
With regard to the paffages in the New Teftament,
iri which the Heathen gods are ftyfed devils, ox (acr
cording to the-original) demons Xi it .has already been
¦' • • c ' ^n'^l'¦.¦^<^v• ,rimr< t -J - • fhevVn,
f See Patrick in particular.
t I Cor. X, Z($, ai, cited above, p. 135.

172 Profs front 'Revelation, HhM-Miracles
ffiewn *, that thereby we are lo underftand fuch hu-
man fpirits as were fuppofed to be converted into de
mons. It is jTcarcenecesffaryTitoa obferve, that when
St. Paul in thefe paffages calls the objefts of Pagan
worffiip,'demons, aiid in other pWceS', gods'iiMTorS^',
It is merely foi- the fake of defcribing'''tfeem^'by their
ufual appellations, or to exprefs what tB(*'' Sfelffiens
beheved them to be; without havirtg.iSnyM^tel&^ of
allowing them any real power or divinity : fpr he elfe-
mlere" upbraids them as vanities |, arid riieirf imli-
t\i^t^\ This likewife is the view which all th^^facSd
writers gi^4^ us of the gods of Paganiftrii a'Vife^k'fe.
Iblutely-ihfcbnfiftant with "their poflyflfegVpower^^f
Wdrking niiracles.

'S'-fctfiJit,

Page 135,, 136.

\ f " There be gods miny,' and lords piany," i.'fe. fffds'is
are fo called, i Cor, viii. 5. The lords here fpoki* of,'^ki-
ifHSti Xo Baalim in the Old Teftament, and tQ|i</(?/«i4qt init^e
New ; the fuppofed difpenfers of good ap4 ^VJl according^to
the Pagans. But C^j^rillians , ack^iowlege only one ,po^,,^j^d

one Lord.
)/, X Afts xiv, 1 5.

,~.arg^e a divine, fntet-pgfition, ,A 17"?

S E C T.""lll.^

, |^iAflg|^^»a'«^ ^i^^^^o'" ?fl tbe magicians, difji^erS .i^^f^-
msfff^lit ^kf^' 1 :'4l'^ "^^ .^WC'oas pleas alledged by ChriftiatiA fn
\f,3^'il^t.Pf,tbf..c.r(dit, and efficacy of the. aneient ntfigic, refytefl.

jJ?%Y%%f !^{Mf ^^5(^»t^^; t9 j^ork.TO^^
branded in Scripture as mere impoftors, iincapab|^,,$^f
fupporting their pretenfions by any works or predic
tions beyond human power or flcill. It is natural to
¦fogpt^e' this, from what has been advanced in the
foregoing feftion ; but it will admit of a much fuller
confirmation. In order to our clearly difcerning the
jnfticc, with which the Scriptures cenfure and*ex-
.p|g4e allj the .^ggan pretences to, prophecy and mira-
JfijeS(; it iwill not be improper to inveftigate the falfe
a^indpisB^'toporibwhidi they were founded, the know-
"fegd'fif^^tfh ¥\\\ be'of fervice" tb us on feveral occsi-
^bn^^^tf'ffie^l^uM^&f thearguriierit:;'''^ '"^^"^ '^^
The magi were originally the priefts of the gods *,
,1 MX fi &nd
* Plato's Alcibiades, 1. Luclan l» M«K|«5('(ys. Porphyry, m
hi^book, de Abftinent, 1. 4. § 16, fays, rr«g« ys ftsv Te7f Xik^txt^,
«' m^t TO ^Hoi a-oipei, Ke(i nsTH Bs^XTTome, Mayot fti) ^^crxyo^ivomiu.
See alfo Plato apud Apul. Apol, p. 290, and Dio Chryfofto-
mus, Orat. 36, F. 499.

f 74 Proofs- frm Si^elation; ' t%ai Mh'dcles
arid the profeffors of fcience, particularly phyfic and
aftrology*. They undertook to interpret dreams,' tb
foretel future events, and to accompliffi many wori-
derful things, by their fuperior knowledge of theffe-
cret powers of nature, of the virtueis of plafits aid
minerals, and of the motions and influericels ofthe
ftarS. Dlodorus Siculus inforrils us, that " the' prl^ftg
" of Egypt foretold filture events by aftrol6g^,'-iiriii'
*' the infpeftlon of facrifices t." And from the fame
author we learnt, " that the Egyptians Obfer#|*
" with great exaftrtefs, the motions, re-volutions a'nd
" ftations of the planets, and their refpeftive po^is^F
" apd operation In the generation of ariiriialSj arid'
*' the produftion of good and evil ; 'that they fote-
" tel very frequently future events j| ; and that by lorig-
" obfervation they forekriow- many things, which a'le*
" commonly thought to be beyond the reach or hil-
'" man knowlege." Cicero §' gives' us the famekd-
^ " courit ^
¦ * Plln. Kat. Hift. 1. 50. c. I.
-[- Ai« T»5 ««-g«A«y('«ss xai rm li^iTxoTrfxg, p, 66. D, ed, Rhodo

mani

*«{ Ixaca ausufieii w^o; rii; rm t^uv ys/^a-H;, rivilv tiir\i xyaSSv « xie^
teaa XTsn^ya^ixxK ^iMTi/Mrxrx TrxaxTiTYi^iixcis-i, », t. A. p. 73- 4,
If P^rticulairly, fcarcity and plenty, epidemical difeafes^ '
earthquake's, and comets, (which have been generally thortglft
to portend fonje extraordinary eVents) as well'as the accidents-
¦ of private life* ,:.„„i,! , - , 's • .e"-,-™- >', „„,-,..o.. ,¦, ' -
- ' , ,:_¦ ,, • li» -•,„« '.fas ¦<• , IT«»
§ Principio Afiyrli, trajei£liones motufque ftellarijm obJeriM
vaverunt : quibus notatis, quid cuique iignificaretur, memo-ri* ¦
: prodiderunt.

argue a divine Interpofition.' 17^
count of thefe men, both-amongft the Egyptians,
and other ancient nations. To the former of whom,
as the original difcoverers, Herodotus afcribes, " the
" afcertaining the month and day which belonged to
" each fpair ticular deity; and -the foreteHing the fu-
" ture difpofitions and fortunes of men, by obferving'
" the4ay on Which each perfon was born *;" He
alfOfiacqiiaint us t, " that when a prodigy happens,
"they keep an account of the events which fucceed
"jjit ; and conclude that when a. like prodigy appears,
" the fame event? will happen after it." In Cicero's
firft bpok of divination, in which the feveral kinds
of it are explained and defended ; it is refolve^ into
many caufes very different from that of an immedi
ate revelation from fome fpiritual being. Hedivides
divination into artificial and natural. Under divina-'
rionpby art and obfervation, he comprehends that-
drawn from the infpeftion of the entrails of viftlms,
the interpretation of prodigies and thunders, the ufe of
prodiderunt. Chaldxi — ^^diitturna phfervatlone ftderum, fclen-
tlam putantur effeciffe, ut prsedici poffet, quid cuique eventu-
rum, & quo quifque fato natus effet. Eandem artem etiam
.fflgyptii, '&c. Cicero de Divinatj I. i. c. i. According to
Diodorus Siculus, p, 73, the Chaldeans were a colony of E-
gyptians, who had been inftrufted in aftrology by the priefts
of Egypt.
* Euterpe, c. 82.
> f Tiioitivou y«g TEg*T^, ^tj>.d<rwt '/^xfifiitoi ra' iti^xmf xxi n«
x«Te iVsgov a-i»j»i!rA«V«iv t»t« ymrxi, x,iR» riii'tt roftH^nri xir^nn&tst.
Herodot. ubl fupra.

T]6 Proofs from Revelations that Miracles
ofaufpices, the pra&ices of lots and aftrological pre
diftious, and all the varieties of ptefages and figns.
In a word, as in almoft every objeft they looked for
fignifications of the divine purpofes, and the prefages
or, indica'tions of future events ; fo in the right uri-
derftanding of thefe external figns, eonfifted divina
tion by art. By natural (ii\im.tioB (which was inter
nal J Cicero means, the forefight of future events by
the mind under a particular emofioh and agitation ;
, as in dreamlrig, or when aftuated by vaticinations ox
prophefyings by fury ; zxi.d fuch oracles as proceeded
from a divine inflind and afflatus *. It was thought,
that divination by fury (or when the mind was in an
extacy) might be excited by certain vapours or exha
lations of the earth; arid that a draught of water from
a particular fpring would render perfons oracular and
prophetical f. It was alfo afferted, that, prod igjes a^d
figns
* Cicero de divinat. 1. i. c. 4, 6, 1^ 49, 5J.
f Of the waters which infpired the poets and prophets,
mention is made by Statlus Silv. I. II. 6^ Et de Pieriis voca-
lem.fontibus undam ; by Anacreon, xiii, AmAov sriovTS; uSaig; by,
^Tacitus, Haufta fontisarcani aqua, — edit refponla ; (Annals, 1.
3. c. 54.) and by Pliny,' 1. 2. c. 103. 1. 5. c. 29. Oracular ex
halations ire fpoken bf in Cicero, de Div. 1. I. 0.30, Credo
etiam anhelitus quofdam-'fuifl'e terrarum, quibus Inflatse raeiites
oracula funderent. The ftrange agitations into which the goats
of Coretas, and' afterwards Corctas himfelf fell, Hpon their ap
proaching the top. of a cavern on the hill of Parnaffas,' and re
ceiving the influeiice of the fubterranean blaft ; gave occafion
to the building the temple, and eftabliftiing the fatnons oracle
at Delphi. It -was fuppofed, ' that " that virtue pf th^Jarth-,
" which agitates the mind of the prieftefs of Apollo with a di^

argue a divine Interpofition. 177
i'? vine afflatus, 'May in length of time- vanifti." Poteft vis ilia
terrae, qu* mentem PjfthisE divino afllatu concltabat, evanuiffe
vetuftate, ut quofdaip exaruiffe atnnes, aut in alium curfura
¦contortos S«|4eflexos videmu^. c. 19. ' Strabo likewife fpeak
ing cp.ijcernin^ the Delphic, Oracle, fays, there Iffued out of a
.cavity miifiii loS^mxi-ixh^ an enlhufiafilc gale, br wind, renderino-
petfon^ p'f6phetical. But this matter is trciited at large in
Plutarch de defefiu Oraculorum, where he allows Indeed thst
jdemortsimightbe appoirtted by the gods to ;pE6iide"0ver divina-
(tipn and pracles, (p. 418. D. & p. 436. F.) and to be the
cu^r4ians of the temperature of thofe exhalations, td-^whlch
they are afcribed ; but at the fame time it is afferted, that the
foulis natdrally endued with, the faculty of divining, aiid that
certain exhalations of th'e earth were the means of exciting
that'prophetic^oWer- or'virtUe. TVn prophetical blafi or fpirit
f^idivinaiion {for jt Is. cglled lixmxot-^^fogi lif mu/xpf, p..^432,)
was thought to owe ifs virtcue to the fun oij. ApoUp, ,(fof they
were bpth efteemed to be the fame god, p. 4^3. D. p. 454. F.)
When the infpiration was too ftrong, the prophetefs w^s f%ld
tooeppffeffed with a dumb 'and evil fpirit, p. 438. B. vide p.
43l'^438. From Ammianus Marceilinus we learn, that di
vination was afcribed to the " fpirit of all the elements, and
•' to the fubftantl^l powers, which were 'appeafed by different
*' rites, and over which the goddefs Themis was faid to' pre-
" fide." Elementorum omnium fpirltus, utpqte perennium
corporum prsefentiendi {al. prEefentienti) motu femper & ubir
que vigens,'ex his quse per difclplinas varias affeftamus, partl-
cipat nobifcum raunera diyinandl : & fubftantiales ppteftates
ritu qiverfo placatae, velut ex perpetuls fontium venis vaticina
m.ortalltati fuppeditant verba, quibus nuraen prseffe dicltur
f.hemidis ; quam ex eo, quod fixa fatali lege decrpta prsefcire
facit in pof^erum, que Tsfe^6»« fermo Graecps appellat, ita cog-
nominatam, in cubili folioque "Jovis vigoris yivifici theoilogi ve-
teres collocarunt. Auguria & aufpicia npn volucrum arbitrio
futura nefcientium cplliguntur : (nee enim hoc vel inftpiens
quifquam dicet) jed yolatus ?yium dirigit Deus, ut roftrum fo-
{|ans, ^ut grastervolans pinna turbido meatu vel leni futura prse-
]y| monflret.

178 Proofs from Revelation, that Miracles
figns might be procured by difclpline *. So that di
vination was a fcience, in which they thought them
felves fure of fuccefs, if they proceeded according tq
certain eftabliftied rules,
^Ve are not, however, from hence to infer, as fome
have done^ that the ancient magicians or prfefts were
mere riaturalifts and aftrologers. There have indeed
been Athelfts and Chriftians, who have been much
addl<^ed to divination and aftrology t ; but thefe arts
amongft the Pagan nations were fourid^d in their fyf-
tem of theology. Great things,- it was thought, might
be produced in nature ; but not for that reafon with
out the gods : for they had deified all the parts.and
powars of nature %, and more efpecially the heavenly bodies :
monflret. — Extis Item pecudum attenti fatldicis, in fpecies
converti fuetis innumeras, accidentia fciunt. — Aperiunt tunc
quoque Ventura, cum seftuant hominum corda, fed loquuntuf
divina. Sol enini (ut aiunt Phyfici) mens mundi, noftras men- *
tes ex fefe velut fcintillas diffunditans, cum eas incenderit ve-
hementius, futuri confclas reddit. Unde Sibyllae crebro fe di-
cunt ardcre, torrente vi inagn^ flammarum. .Aripmlanus MaiTi
celllnus, 1. I. c. I. p. 204,, 205. ed. Gronoy.
* Cumque magna vis videretur effe — in monftris procuran-
dis in harufpicum difcipllna, Cicero de div. 1. i. c. 2. See
Liv, I, :j2, c. 44, cited below, -ch, 3, feft, 4. article i,
f Le Clerc de L'Incredulite, ch, i. p. 32. and Mr. Bayle
fur une comete.
X See the beginning of the preceding feSIon. Lord Bol-
ingbroke reprefents Infpiration, according to the Pagan ide^
of it, merely as a natural phenomenon, and as grounded on ^
phyfical principle, the intoxicating wind or vapour explained abpve. \

argue a divine, Interpfition. 1 79
¦bodies ; afcribing to the latter not 0% life and intel
ligence, but afire-perceiving motion*, and a fovereign
influence on every thing here below. This notion \^y
at the foundation of divination by art. With regard
to natural divination, as by fury, for inftance, -exci
ted by certain exhalations ; this was founded on a
fuppofition of the divinity of the earth, out of which
thofe exhalations are generated, and of the fun, (caH-
,e_d the mind of the world) to which -they owe their
virtue f. The human foulitfelf (which was thought
to be " a particle of the divine air or fpirit,' to be
taken out from God X," and to have exifted from
.eternity,) Was beheved to have a prefaging faculty,
ayhich exerted itfelf under feveral favourable circura-
M 2 ftances.

.above : whereas from the paffage in Cicero's firft book of Di
vination, c. 19, cited above, p. 176. note p. it appears, that that
,very vapour was confidered as tl divine afflatus. See his philofo
phical works, 'V. I. Effay I. It muft be acknowleged^ however,
that Lord Bolingbroke was in this Inftance mifled by men more
learned than himfelf, who have corifidered tliat as natural ma
gic, (according to the modern accjeptation of it) In which de
mons were not thought to be concerned ; without reflecting,
that what we now call inanimate nature, was regarded by the
ancient Heathens as .as/wa^e^and divine.
* Perennium corporum praefentiendl "(al. prsefentlenti) mo
tu, &c. Ammianus Marceilinus, cited above, p. 177.
f Plutarch de defeftu orac. p. 436, E. See alfo above, p. 176.
jiote t, and note * below, p. 181.
X Ex ipfo Deo decerptus, ex unlverfa raente delibatus, Ci-
.cero's Tufc. Qugeft. y, & de ^eneftut.

1 8 o Proofs from Revelation, that ^ Miracks
ftance? *. As from the imagtried exiftence of thefe
gods, they concluded there muft be divination; fq
from the apprehended reality of divination, they con
firmed themfelves in the belief of the exiftence of the
gods f. Hence Malmonides reproaches every magi
cian as an idolater |; and Pliny afcribes all the fplen-
dor of magic to religion ||. The Heathens had other
gods, befides the objefts of nature, viz. demons, or
^dified human fpirits ; and from their fubordinate
miniftry and mediation, and that of wicked ipirits ;
divintidon, prophecy, and magic, were thought to
proceed J. The afliftance or influence of the godsj
was obtained by a great variety of rites and facrifices,
adapted to their refpeftive natures, H; by the ufe of
charms and fuperftitious words **, by ceremonies and
•fuppHcations.
'-i- Cicero de Divinat. 1, I. c. j, 31, 49, 51, 59.
f Si divlnatio fit, dii fint ; & fi dji fint, fit divinatio. Cicero
.de Nat. Deor. '
X Mor. Neyoch. p. 445. Omnis magus citra dubium eft
Idololatra. II Nat. Hift. 1. 30. c. 12.
§ Herodot. 1. 2. c. 83. Plato in fympof. in Eplnomide}^ in
Phsedro ; Porphyr. apud Eufeb. prasp. Ev. 1, 4, 5, 6, 8f de
Abftineiitia, 1. 2. Jamblich. de Myft. Appl. Apol. Id. d* deo
Socrat. Plutarch de defeft. Orac. cited above p. 176. ij. f. &
Pythagoras apud Diogen. Laert, in vita Pythag. n. 3^." p. J14.
<5[ Ritu dLverfo placatae. Arnmianus Marceilinus, 1. 21. inic.
. ** The famous Ephefian Letter s,vi\i\(^ were certliin barbar
ous words ufed as charms, mjy beJlfceh in Hfefychius, or in Dr.
' ' ' Sykcs'>

argue a divine Interpftion. 1 8 1
fuppHcations. Sometimes we find the power of in-
thariting afcribed to nostious herbs and drugs *, but
not exclufively ofthe afliftance of the gods, who were '
invoked to give them efficacy f. The magicians pre
tended in the proper ufe of their art, (for it was
taught as fuch) to a power of compellir^ X the gods to
execute their defires and commands.
Upon the principles here explained, Jill the preten
ces aniongft the Pagans to divination andforcery (and
fe^ery other 11 fpecies of magic) were founded ; whe-
M 3 ther
Syk|'s Inquiry, p. 6i, See his Further Inquiry, p. 66. Ovid
fays, Carmina fangulnea deducunt cornua lunffi
Et revocant niveos foils euntis equos.
* Thus the witch in Virgil, Ecj. 8. fays.
Has herbas, atque h^c Ponto mihi lefta -venena
Ipfe dedit Mseri's; nafcuntur plurima Ponto.
His ego fisepe lupura fieri, 8t fe condere fylvis
Moerin, fsepe animas imis exoire fepulchris,
Atque fatas alio vidi traducere meffes..
f Theocritus Id. 2. TKey likewife thought, Quamvis plan-
tarn fuam habere ftellam, quemadmodum 8c omnibus anlmali-
bui & metallis cetta fydera adfcfibunt. M^imon. Mor, Ne-
vbc, 1, 3. c. 37.
X They afted cseca coaftorum nuitilnum violentia: Enchan-
treffes boafted that they had power over the gods. Lucan. 1. 6.
v; 606, 742. Ovid. Metamor. I. 7. 192.
II I havetaken.no notice of that fpecies of magic, called the-
i*ty (*•»{*'«)) becaufe it principally eonfifted in a tanatical
pretence to communion with demons, and, a vifion of their ef-
fente. ¦ So far a$ it was thought, to inveft thPfe who praftifed It,

I'S'z Proofs from Revelation, that Miracks
ther thofe pretences were carried on by the prieft ,i
under the proteftiori, and for the fervice of the
ftate*; or for the purpofes of private gain, by the
loweft- orders of magicians t, conjurers and witches,
generaUy (though feldom effeftually) profcribed or
prohibited by. law J. Whatever difference there might
be between them, the Scripture brands them all as'
fliamelefs impoftors ; and reproaches them with an
utter inability of difcovering or accpmpHftiing any
thing fupernatural. The prophet Ifaiah having fore-
told the deftruftion of Babylon, fo famous all over the
it, with the power pf the gods; it differed in one refpeft fro-m'
that fort of iriagic called forcery (yoMi-wasj) theurgy invoking,
only the benevolent divinities ; forcery the mifchievous ones,'.
whofe Sperations were fuitable to tlieir nature.
* That the public miniftiers of religion praftifed forcery as'
well as divinatidh, is Certain from their curfing the enemies of
the ftate, and devoting them to' deft'iuftjion,
, f They were rather more extravagant, as well as more mif
chievous, than the eftabliftied priefts ; Inafmuch as they pre
tended to know other people's fortunes, to difboyer what was
loft, to bewitch, lo procure love, to walk upon the water,, td "
fly through the air,- to raife or lay ftorms; to turn themfelveS
or others Into any ftiapes, to remove Corn from one field intb
another, to draw down the moon, to raife ghofts, to ftop the
courfe of rivers, and to kill or cure both men and cattle, ^c.
See Ovid's Metamor. I. 7. v. 199,
X Concerning conjurers and fortune-tellers, who were called
mathematici, Tacitus fays, they are a fallacious fort of meny
quod in civitate noflra & vetahjtur femper, & retlnebitur.
Hift. 1. I. c. 22.

drgue a divine Inteipfttiin. 183"
the world for divination and aftrology; thus pro
ceeds to infult that proud city * : " Stand now with
" thine inchantnjents, and with the multitude of thy
" forceries, wherein thou haft laboured from thy
'* youth ; if fo be thou flialt be able to profit, if fo
" be thou mayeft prevail. Thou art wearied in the
*' multitude of thy councils : let mow the aftrologers,
" the ftar-gazers, the monthly prognofticators, ftand
" up, and fave thee from thofe things which fliall
" come upon thee," from that deftruftion; which, he
tells them, with their various methods of divination
and forcery, they would be unable either to forefee
Or prevent. The fame prophet thus warns the Ifrael-
ites againft having recourfe to the Heathen, diviners
for inftruftion ; " Should not a people feek unto
their god ?" Whom then ftiould you confult but the
God of Ifrael ? " For the living to the deadf V that
is. Is it riot abfurd to confult the dead concerning
the ftate ofthe living, of which the former are igno
rant ? Or the riieaning may be, Inftead of the living
God, will you have recourfe to the dead ? The Hea
then gods were dead men : and the oracles were pla
ced in their temples, which were their fepulchres.
Moreover, the Heathen diviners pretended to call
up the fouls of the«departed, which Were fuppofed to
poffefs a prophetic virtue ; nay, by an infpeftion of
the entrails of boys who had fuffered a violent death,
M 4 they
* Ifaiah xlvii. 11 — 1 3. ' ,
t Ifaiah viii. 18, 19.

1 84 Proofs from Revelation, that Miracles
they hoped to dive into futurity*. The language of
Ifaiah implies, that it was unpardonable ftupidity, 'ixt
any or all thefe ways, to expeft any inftruftion or in
formation from the dead. When Jeremiah thus
warns the Jews, " Learri not the way of the Hea-
" then, and be not afraid of the figns of hea-veri,"
whofe appearances were thought to portend particu-
far^calamities ; he pronounces " the cuftoms of the
Heathens vain," on aecoum of the utter ignorance
and impotence of their godsf, who could not be'
fuppofed to convey to' Others, that knowledge and
power which they did not poffefs themfelves. And
thus Jeremiah defcribes the prophets^ whoi were not
fent of God, " They prophefy unto you; a falfe vifion
" arid divination, and a thing of nought, and the-
" deceit of their heart X." Ori other occafions, he ad
dreffes the people of God in the following ftrain :
" Hearten not ye to your prophets, rior*to your di-
" viners, nor to your dreamers, noiftlto your enchan-
'' ters, nor to your forcerers. For they prophefy a
" He unto you (|." The facred writersodo at all- times
brand thofe, who exetcifed the arts of divination and
forcery, as liars ^.y and the arts themfelves as lying
vanities,'
* To thefe methods' of divination Juftin Martyr refers, A-
pol. I. p. 27. ed. Thirlb. Nixvofixyreixt ftlvyx^, >^ xi xhx^6i^(>^.
f Jerem. X. 2, 3-^8, 14. Compare If. xii. 23, 24. *
X Jer. xiv. 14.- ,, ^
II Ch. xxvii. 9, 10.
§ Ifaiah xliv, 25. Jerem, l.-^S.' '* -S

argwe a divine Interpfition. ig^
'ifdnities * , the moft abfurdciandi groundlefs delufions
imaginable. What ftronger language could.they.have
ufed, fuppofing them to have believed (as they cer
tainly did believe) all thcmiagic of the ancients to
have had" no other fupport, than human artifice, atid
falfehood? ^ 
Notwithftanding thisclear decifion of the point by
the divine oracles, many. Chriftians have contended
for the fupernatural power and efficacy of Pagan di
vination and forcery. This point was maintained by
the Fathers in particular. Who afcribed the effic^y
of magic to evil demons ; as fome of the Heathen
philofophers alfo did'-]-. It was a very prevailing (pi
nion, in the primitive church X, that magicians and
necromancers, both amongft the Gentifes and here
tical Chriftians, had each their particular demons,
perpetually attending on their perfons, and obfequi-
ous to their commands, by whofe help^they could
call up the foute .of the dead, foretel future events,
^nd perform miracles. " In the cafe of idolatry,
".they imagined demons to affurae the names, aad
" to
f Pfalm xxxi. 6. Jonah ii. 8.
f Eufebius's Praep. Ev, .1, 5. c. 4, has this infcription, tli^l
vS irotii^m ixifiivibv «»«(, T« w«g« T«?s ihift fixnSx -tt xx) ;Kg»ir^«».
And St. Attftin (de'civ. Dei, 1. 8. c. 16,) fays. Inter cseter*
etiam dieit [Apuleius] ad eos [daemones] pertlnere divinatio-
nes augurum, arufpicum, vatum, atqiie fqniniorum. Vid. Mi
mic. Fel. p. 3^0. ed. Lugd. Bat. and fee above, p. 180. note §.¦
Porphyry de Abftin. 1. 2. J 41. p. 85, fays, Si* /ksvtiw tSv i»Ai\la»-
iij ig ¦Trava yc/fretx IxtsAhtou.
X See Dr. Middleton's Free Inquify, p. €>6.

1 86 Proofs J^r'om Revelation, that Miracles
*' to aft the parts of the -Heathen gods ; and in ma*
" gic to affume the forms of departed fouls, and to
" appear under the names of thofe,iwho were called
*' up from the dead ; and as fuch, to anfwer all quef-
" tions, which ftiould be demanded of them,*.'' As
what was urged above + againft the former fuppofi
tion, concludes with equal force againft the latter; I
need not ftieW, how inconfiftent this is with the,jScrip-
ture 'account of the magicians,, as utterly unable, to'
fupport their pretenfions, by any works or prediftions
beyond human power and fliill. It will be neceffa--
ry however to examine what is aUedged, in fupport
ofthe contrary doftrine.
I. It Is alleged, ", that the narnes by which the
" feveral forts of diviners are defcribed. in Scripture,
" imply a communication with fpiritua:l beings."
Thofe \^ho urge this argument, do not alwa,yS( dif
tinguifti between the Scriptures in their original; lan
guages, and in the tranflation now in ufe, which
(like moft other tranflations, whether ancient or mo-
da-n) was made by perfons deeply tinftured with
the vulgar fuperftltion, and often on that account
does great Injuftice to the original.; That phrafe X,,d
familiar
* Id, p. 70. f Page 240.
X This phrafe (Which occurs Lev. xl<f. 31. chap, xx, 6, 7,'
Deut. xviii. 11. i Sam. xxviii. 3, j, 8, 9. 2 Kings xxi. 6'.'
cb. xxiii. 24. I Chron. x. 13'. 2 Chri, xxxiii. 6. If. xxi x.
4. ch. viii. 19.) has nothing in the original to anfwer to it bn£
f}b (or oboth in the plural number) which fignlfies a bottle, (which
amongft the ancients fomewhat refembled our bladders,) Job
xxxix. 19; and hence came to denote a perfon whofe belly is'
diftended'

argue a divine Interpofition.^ 187
familiar fpirit, ox familiar fpirits, which occurs- fo of
ten, is thought to be an inftance of this kind. But
even fuppofing the original word to be rfghtly tran-
flated ; it cannot be Inferred from hence, that the fa
cred writers believed, that any perfons were really
affifted and infpired by a famihar fpirit. They could
not allow, and meant only to charafterlze, their pre
tenfions. The Scripture, as it defcribes the Heathen
deities by their ufual appellations, (gods, lords, de
mons,).
fliftended as a bottle, and Is applied particularly to thofe per
fons who delivered oracles as from thei« bellies, fwelled, as It
* was believed, by fome divine afflatus. Accordingly, it is ge
nerally tranflated by the LXX. Efyas-gi/Kt'Sos ,• a word which fig
nifies thofe who fpeak with their mouths fliut, fo as to feem to
fpeak out of their bellies. But though the word, according to '
its ftrifteft etymology, might denote only a bottle-bellied- per-
fonni yet as it is the word ufed to defcribe thofe, who pretend
ed that their bellies were inflated by a divine energy, by the
perfons who believed the reality of thofe prentences ; our
tranflators are riot, perhaps,' wholly to be condemned, forthe
manner in which they render it. (See below,- ch. 4. feft. 2.)
But it Is not fo eafy to excufe them, for the manner in which
they have acquitted themfelves on another occafion. I refer
to their reprefenting Simon, the magician, as bewitching the
Samaritans ; and hereby giving a fenfe to the word, i%i^Sv,
Afts viii. 9, different from what they themfelves have put up
on s|(y«Ti>, in the 13th verfe : which they juftly render, he won
dered. Simon had been exercifing the magical arts in Samaria,
and thereby raifing the afionifhment of the inhabitants. But
the fight of genuine miracles difcovered at once the vanity bf
the moft artful imitations of them, and afionifeed and convin
ced Simon himfelf, who had fo long riiifed the^ a/looi/hmed a£
Others. ^'Vld. Schmidium ad Aft. viii. 13.

iS^ Profs from Revelation, that Miracles
Hions,) which are expreffive, not of what they really
were in thfrnfelvesj but of what their votaries be-
Eeved them to be * ; fo it calls all thofe perfons, who
pretended to any intereourfe with the gods, by their
commori namfes, (prophets, magicians, necromancers,
diviners, forcerers, monthly prognofticators; ^^.'j
though thefe names were at firft affumed by the pre
tenders themfelves, to enable them more fuccfefsfully-
to carry on their impoftures ; or conferred ori them
by the fuperftltion of the people; " Whatever preten
fions or claims thefe names may implyi it is fufficient
that the Scriptures deny them any anfwerabie powers
or performances. 'And therefore When St. ¦¦ Luke
fpeaks of the damfel at Phitippi as " poffeffed With a
fpirit of divination. Or of Apollo +," he meant only
to defcribe her pretenfions, sind the common belief
concerning her; Dr. Sykes was of opinion, that this
woman had merely acquired a trick of fpeaking iij-
wardly, as from her belly ; by the difcovery of which
fhe was difabled from playirig it any longer : while
others,
* See above, p. 172. In like irianner Jeremiah c^lls partt-
- cular celeftial appearances, " the figns of heaven," becaufe the
Heathens regarded them as fuch, ch; x. 2. And who fcruples'
to fay, fuch a perfon tells fortunes, when nothing more is'
fcicant, than that he pretends to do it ?
-f- Afts xvi. 16, 18. nviifix 7s-ii$u)io;, a fpirit of Python or ./f-
polio : this is manifeftly the language ofthe Pagans, which St.
Luke adopted, becaufe it ferved to defcribe the cafe ofthe
dsmfcl. He cannot be fuppofed to allow, that Apollo (whe
ther the word here denotes a hero god, or the fun) imparted
to her the po-.ver of prophefylng.

argue a divine Interpftion. jRa
Others plead that fiie was really infpired. ¦ Both par
ties equaUy forget, that a fpirit of Python or Apqllo.,
denoted in the language of antiquity, not only the
infpiration of Apollo, but alfo that raying and mad-
nefs, ¦which were the effeft of .that fuppofed infpira-
'tlon and poffeflion *. And therefore the miracle p^-
foraied upon the dartifel, or the cafting out of her
the fpirit of Apollo, eonfifted in curing her madnefs,
andireftoring her to her right mind ; in confequence
of which the people would confider her no longer as
pfpired or poffeffed,
2. The laws of Mofes t againft divination and^witcli-
craft are thought to prove the efficacy of thefe arts;
though thofe law^ do really prove nothing more than
their fexecrable wickednefs and impiety. By the cre
dit of thefe arts, the people were drawn away from
the true God to felfe ones. The arts themfelves
Y^'ere founded upon the principles of idolatry X ', and the
^ .No prophetefs w^s thought to be infpired, but when ft>e
was mad and raving. 'H 4-s y«g a« \i AsAipsijs-gofiljTi?, eu -i h AoSa-
M iiftixi, fixiveia-xi, x. T. A. Platon. Phsedr. p. ,1220, C. D. E.
kJ«5 y«g inns lipxTrrirxi ftxvrixiii hSia ;^ aXtiSSg. Id. Tim. p. 1074.
D. It appears from Meric Cafaubon, (cited by Dr. Macknight,
Harmony, v. I. p. 179, 2d ed.) that to the natural difeafes of
melancholy, madnefs, epileply, &c. enthuflaftic divinatory fits
are (thought to be) incidental: and that when tbe difeafe is
cured, the enthufiafms go away.
f Exod. xxii. 18. Lev. xix. 26, 31. ch. xx. 27. Deut.
xviii. lOj II. Would it not be in vain to make laws againft
thofe, whofe miraculous power could prevent their execution ?
X This was proved' above concerning divination; p. 178.
Witchcraft alfo, and all magical rites, had ^ reference to the
heavenly

•190 Proofs from Revelation, that Miracles
the rites and. placatory facrifices which attended them,
were In their very nature afts of idolatry, that is, of
high treafon againft the Jewifli ftate, over which Ja-
hovah prefided as fupreme Governor. It was necef
fary therefore that every magician ftiould be put to
death^ becaufe every iriagiclan was an idolater. I
add, that many of the rites of magic were flagrant
immoralities. For thofe who anciently praftifed witch--
craft, mingled dangerous drugs with their compofi-
tions, and, ori account ofthe real mifchief they here
by did, are often ranked with poifoners*. Amongft
other deteftable methods of diyination, one was the
murther of infants and others, .who were facrificed on
.purpofe, that by raking into their entrails, they might
^aln an infight into futurity ; as appears from the
.teftimony of Herodotus, Cicero, Lucan, Juvenal, T^-
,citus,,Philoftratus, Porphyry f, and many other learn* e.d
heavenly bodies. Nullum autem magicum'fipus fine fide'rum
jefpeftu & confideratlone poteft perfici. Malmon. 'Mor.
Nevoc. pt. 3. c. 37. He farther obferves, that the belief (jf
their power to hurt or help, neceffarily led mankind to worftiip
them. Accordingly both witchcraft atid divination are joine^
with idolatry, i Sam. xv. 22, 23. If. II. 6 — 8. ch. xlvii. 12,
13. Jerem. xxvii. 9, 10. E^sek. xxi. 21, 22. Nahum iii. 4.
Micah v. 12.
* The Hebrew word, mecaftiephim, which we tranllate for-
cerers, the LXX render by ^x^fixxes.
f Jacobus Geufius, in his boofcjentltled, Viftimae. humane,,
Pars I. c. 19 — 21, cites thefe and other Heathen writers, to
•ftiew how very frequently humfin facrifices were employed by
thofe, who praftifed divination and magic. The Cimbri rlppe/i open

a«gue a divine Interpofition. 191
ed Pagans ; as well as from the intimations of the fa
cred writers*..,, Sorcerers and forcereffes were fup
pofed to perform all their amazing works by the af
fiftance of the fouls of youpg boys, who had beei;
violently put to death for that purpofe, and then
called up from the dead, by ineftabje adjurations t.
Now, might it not be very fit, feverely to punlfli thefe
external ads of forcery X, vtflthout entering into the
queftion
ppen the bowels, and from them formed a judgment of future
events. Strabo, 1. 7. p. 451. (compare Porphyry de Abft. 1. 2.
J 51.) The Celtce diviued by the agonies and convulfions of
the meri, who were offered for a facrifice, and from the effu
fion of their blood, Diodor. Sic. 1.5. p. 508.
" ' '¦ • h
* Deut. jiviii. 10, 11. '2 Kings xvii. 17. chap, xxi, 6. 2
Chron. xxxii). 6. Ezek. xx. 26', 31.
'' I ¦ -i
f Iri Horace's epodes, I. 5. epod. 5. v.^12, 13, the perfon
murdered by the forcerefs, Canidia, is puer, impube corpus.
'The author of tJiiat very ancient, though fpurious work, the
' '¦ Recognitions of St. Clemens," reprefents Simon Magus as
faying, Pueri incorrupti, & violenter necati, animam adjura-
I irientis ineffabilibus evocatam adfifteremihl feci; & per ipfam
fit omne quod iubeo. Ed.Xotelerii, p. 523. See Eufeb. Hift,
i Ecclef. 1. 7. c. 10. Chryfoftom and others, cited'hiy Cotele-
rius In his note on this paffage of Clemens. This kind of di
vination was tailed fl^s(pofiane-ix. On fuch rites of magic, fee
Broukhufius on TibuUus, i. 11. 45. and Fabricius, Bibl. An
tiq. p. 417, 419.
X This is not a groundlefs diftinftion ; for the laws of Mo-
fes, are levelled wholly againft the external aBs of forcery, as
appears from all the laws referred to above, p. 189. nofe f , and
particularly from Deut. xviii. icJ, 1 1, 14, " There ftiall not be
i I* fpund amongft you any one that maketh his fon or his daugh-
1 ¦ ' ¦ ¦ " ter

I^Z Proofs from Revelation, that Miracles
queftion, whether they were or were not of any eff-
cscy to procure fupernatural affiftance ?
3. Pretenfions to divlnarion (it is farther pleaded)
could not have fupported " their credit in all tl^e
*' Heathen nations, and through all ages;" if fomi?
inftances of true divination had not happened, ho-w-
ever rare we may fuppofe tbem to have beeij. Thi|
laft argument (which wfts confidered in a former
chapter *) "proceeds on a fuppofition notorioufly falfe :
for diviners of all forts, obfervers of times, inchant-
ers, witches, wizzards, ventriloquifts, and necroman
cers, did not fupport their credit iji the manner herie
alledged,
'' ter to pafs through"the fire, or that ufeth divination, or ai^
" obferyer of the times, or an enchanter, or a witch. Sec.""
Amongft thofe who believed the fupernatural. power of force.
ry, laws were framed againft its fuppofed effe£ij. The Romaa
iaw forbad bewitching the fruits of the earth, and drawing''
their neighbours corn In their own fields by charms. Apud,
nos in duodecim tabulis cavetur, ne quis alienos fruftus excan-
tajEt. Seneca, Nat. Quaeft. 1. 4. c. 7. Seneca adds, " dur
" ignorant anceftors imagined, that ftiowers could be procure ^
*' ed or driven away by charms ; but we need not go to any
" fchool of philofophy to teach us otherWife." As the Ro
mans became more enlightened, the ftyle of their laW was al
tered. > The Lex Cornelia, ufually cited as a law againft for
cery, forbids potfoning, & mala facrificia, Liv. Decad. i. 1. 8.
which may ferve both to explain and vindicate the laws ,of ,
Mofes for the puniftiments denounced againft the fame crimes,
and to ftiew how unreafonably' this divine legiflator has been
reproached, on accouut of thefe laws, with a fpirit of perfg- '
eution.

-» .-!'

Cljap. 2. feft. 2.

brgu'e a divine Interpofitiori. I93
alleged, and never were iri any reputation with Pagans
of a liberal mind and education. And from Chrift
tians, whofe zeal for the credit of ancient magic thus
tfanfpOrts them beyond the bounds of truth, we ap
peal to Heathens of underftanding and virtue, in vin
dication of the cenfure paffed upon eVery fpecies of
magic by the prophets of God. Cicero, the greateft
rnafter of reafon and learning amongft the Romans,
and iri all refpefts a vety able judge of this fubjeftj
condemns the oracles of tffe Heathen gods as either
falfe, or obfiure, or ambiguous, (fo as to require other
oracles to explain them) or as true only by chance or
accident *. We find both Sophocles and Euripides,
upon the public theatre at Athens, (a city greatly ad
difted to fuperftltion and idolatry,) paffing a fimilar
cenfure upon the Pagan foothfayers and diviners f, or
reprefenting them as men aftuated only by the love
; ¦ N of
* .Partim falfis, ut ego opinor ; partiin cafu veris, ut fit in
omni oratione fseplflime ; partim flexlloquis & obfcUris, ut in-
terpres egeat interprete, et fors ipfa ad fortes referenda fit 5
partim ambiguis. De Divinat. I. 2. c. 56* In the 25th chap
ter, he argues againft divination by art, in the whole extent
ofit, from the obfcurity of the figns, It appears likewife from
Cicero in the fame book, (as alfo from Strabo, 1. ij.) that
aftrology was rejefted by aftronomeis, and the beft philo^*
fophers. .f- — — Tis .3 ficiirtf Ir ^«»» j j
'O5 oAiVI xMSm, vo>i?M 3 4^u^ yiyfi In Aulide, -v. 956«

1^4 Proof from Revelation, that Miracks
pi money *. Pindar \n his Olympic odes fi whicll
were all compofed to be fung on the' moft public oc
cafions, and probably at the folemn facrifices, offered
to the gods, affirms, " that they have beftowed upon
•' mortals no fure prefage of things to eome." And
in ftlH earHer times, Hefiod | had maintained the fame
opinion. What variqus rites of fuperftltion were piac*
tifed by fuch Heathens as were loft to all refleftion,
Vv^hereby they gueffed what ftiould happen to them ;
we learn from Theophraftus in his charafters of fu
perftltion, and from Plutarch in his bo^ on the fatne
fubjeft (1 :' but we find them derided by Terence in
his Phormio \, Nor were there any men of, under
ftanding, who gave countenance to any of the mod§5
of divination, unlefs from a principle of compHan^ce
with vulgar prejudices, or for reafons of ftate f.
Amongft the Heathens no impofture was cenfured as
unlawful,
* To (ixvtixit yx^ •arm ip(X«'|jy«jBv y'ii@^. Sophocles Antigone,
t6o7' Vide etiam Oed. Tyr. 395, et EuTipid..Iphi.g. in Aul.
520. f Ode xiii 1. ro.
X Mmrif y kSms irtv im}i6ttyla» ivl^trar Hefiod. Fragmeirt.
II See alfo Malmonides de Idolatria, Ci 11. § 4, 5, 6.
§ Aft. 4. fc. 4.
^ Exiftimo jus augurum, etfi divinationis' bpinione princii
pio conftitutum fit, tamen poftea reipublicas caufa confervatum
sic retentum. Cicero de Divinat, 1.2,0.35. fee alfo c. 33.
From!

¦argue a divine Interpftion, ' 195
^hlawful, which -wras judged to be ufefril *. With
, iregard to forcery ; the pretended effefts of it, as they
are defcribed by the Heatheri poets f, are tbb eitra-
Vagant to be corifuted, and their beft writers treat the
art itfelf with derifibri; Iri proof of this, I appeal to
'Horace t, Cicero ||, l^eneca§, i5i6n CaffiusHf, (^in
tus Ciirtius **, Tacitus ft, and Pliny tii befides other^
'Sifeady taken notice of ; arid irideed to all the Hea
thens, whofe undeirftandings were not totally dispraveii
by fuperftltion. The riiiracles faid to be vvrought
aniongft the Pagans, were not believed by the hiftoi
fT 2 riatts
Tirom the fame political motives, the wifefi tteathens counte-
iianced the popular Idolatry. See Auguft. de Civitat. Dei;
i!4. c. 3,ii, 27, 31.
' '" . ' ' ¦¦ ' ¦ , " -' ' .
* Plutarch, 1, de Socrat. Genio, p; 579, j8o.
¦j- Ovid, Meti 1. 7. fab. 2. 1, 199, &c. Virgil. Eclog. 8;
^n. 4. Lucan. 1. de bello civili, 6. Mauil. I. 1. TibuUiis;
1. i.Eleg. 2. See above, p. 182. note f.
X Epift. 1. 2. fep. 2. 1. 2o3;
II De Nat. Deor. 1. i. Cuni poetarum autem errore con-
jungere licet portenta tnagoriim, ..^gyptiorainique in eodeid
geneire dementiaiii. And in his fecond book of divination,
¦ivhete he delivers his own fentiments, he fays in reference to
inaglcal opera-tions, Num igitur me cogis etiam fabulis cre-
defe? &ci
§ Nat. Quaeft. 1. 4. c. 67;
If L, 52. p. 490.
** L. 7. c. 4.
4t I" !• C- 22i
¦ %X Nat. Mift. i. 30. C, I, 2, 3. 1. 26. C. 4*

196 Proofs from Revelation, that Miracle^
' rians * who relate them ; and the philofophers treated
them as fables +. If magic was able to fupport fome
reputation in ages or grols ignorance, through the
, fuperior knowlege and fraudulent contrivances of
thofe who exercifed it ;' yet when learning revived and
became general, it never failed to fink into contempt.
It did fo in the fame age, in which the Gofpel gained
a general eftablifliment by the credit of undeniable
mjracles. In vam.did the Roman emporor, Wero,
by difcovering the moft extravagant fondnefs for ma
gic, and fending for the moft eminent profeflbrs of it
from every quarter of the world, endeavour to fup-
port its finking reputation. Pliny informs us, that
all that Nero gained by his attempts, was an entire
conviftion of the folly of riiagic. And he obfirves
himfelf, that if at any time magicians perform extra
ordinary things, it is owing to the efficacy of their
drugs, not' of their magic art J. Now, iiiafmuch as
* Qtaaeante conditaiti, condendamvfe Utbem; poetlcisi magis .
. decora ¦fabnlis.,h quam incorruptis rerum geftarum monumentls
traduntur, ea nee afHrmare nee refellere in animo eft. ,Datur
, hsec ve^Ia antiquitati, ut mifcendi humana divinis, primordia
urbium auguftiora faclat. Liv. Proem. After reciting feveral
, prodigies, Livy adds, Et alia ludibria oculoium, auriumque,
credlta pro veris. L. 22.'c. 44. See Liv. 1. 24. c. 10. 1. 23.
c. 3. etQuintus Curtlus, I. 9. c. i.
¦f In reference to Heathen miracles, ¦ Cicero fays, 1. 2. de
Divinat. Nihil debet effe in philqfophia commentitils fabellis
loci. Concerning Cato, hc' tells us in the fame book, Mirari
. fe,aiehet, qupd non rideretarv^fpex, arU|^pIcem cum vidlffet. *
X In hls^Veneficas artes, ,pollei:,e, non magjcas, Nat. Hift.
1. 30. C. 2. , , - ¦

argue a divine Interpofition, , 197
as magic did conftantly lofe its credit, juft in the dk\
gree in which meri exercifed their underftandings, it
certainly was noj;' fupported by ariy fupernatural
power.

S E C T. IV.
Concerning the falfe prophets as fpoken of in Scripture, in which
the following paffages are explained, Deut. xiii. I — 5. Matt.
xxiv. 24. _2 Theff. ii. 9. Rev. xiii. 13, 14; together
-fwith feveral others relative to the falfe teachers in the apofto-
,, ) lie age,
THAT the pretences to infpiration and miracles,
made by falfe prophets,' in fupport of error
and idolatry, fliould be brarided in Scripture as the
fole effefts of human craft and impofture ; is what
might be naturally expefted from thofe writings,
which do not allow the power of infpiring predic
tions, or of working miracles, to any Pagan deity,
or to any evil fpirit. For from what other quarter
was it ever imagined, that a falfe prophet could re-
ceive,any fupernatural fupport ? It will be neceffary,
however, to examine the feveral paffages of Scrip
ture, which fpeak to this point ; inafmuch as they
have had a fenfe affigned them, abfolutely inconfiftent
with the principles already eftabfiftied-
J.
I fliall begin with confidering that celebrated warn
ing of Mofes to^the IfraeHtes : "If there arife among
N 3 " you

198 i Proofs from Revelation, that Miracles
¦' you a prophet, or a dreamer of dreams, and giveth,
*' tfjee a fign or a wonder, and the fign or the won-
^* der come to pafs, whereof he fpake unto thee,^ fay-
" ing, Let us go after other gods, (which thou haft-
^' f^'^jt known,) and let us fer-^e them ; thou flialt^not
*' Jijearkeni unto his words :r--for the Lord your God
^' proveth you, to know whether you love the Lord
" yiour God With all your heart. — ^And that prophet,
" ,^id tl^at dreamer of dreams, ftiall be put to death,
^' ,bjecaufe he hath fpoken to turn you avway from the
" ;Lord your God, which brought thee out of the
*' land ,of Egypt, and redeemed you out of the houffe
^' of bondage *."
It has been contended that Mofes, in this paffage,
is laying do-wn this general rqfe, viz. ^' that the true
" divinity bf miracles is to b,e determined by the doc-
*' tKmes,, which they are supplied to confirm." It is
farther afferted, that the Jews are , here required, tq
make i>M /«w, in particular, the ftandard by whicl^
to judge of miracles ; to difeUow the force and evi.,
dence of thofe which oppofe that law, and. even to
put to death the prophet who performed them, be
caufe he taught the worftiip of a ftrange god f. The
learned Dr. Benfon^ and Dr. Lardner (|, as well as
many
* Deut. xiii. i — 5,
t Hence Rouffeau concluded, that the Pagans had an equal'
light to put the apoftles to death, for preaching up to them
th-e worftiip of a ftratige god, though they proved their mif
fion by miracles.
X Life of Chrift;, p. 202.
II Jewifti, and Heathen Teftimonies, V. i. -p. 255, 256,
, Thpugl*

lOrgue a divine- Interpofition. 199
many others, were of opinion, that Mofes here puts
a cafe, which never would happen ; but if it did hap
pen, and a miracle was performed to induce the If
raeHtes to worftiip other gods, it was to be difre-
garded. Here it is natural to enquire, whether any
prophet did ever arife amongft the IfraeHtes, who
perforriied real miracles to draw them into idolatry.
If no fuch prophet did arife, (and there is not the
kaft reafon to believe there did ;) how needlefs wSiS
it to caution the IfraeHtes againft him ? Na^ ; Mofes
knew that it was impoffible any fuch prophet fliould
arife ; becaufe he appropriates all miracles to God *,
and denies that the Heathen deities could fupport
their claims by any fupernatural works. Re a'lWays
reprefents tbem as fenfelefs idols, and could not there
fore allow them: any power or dominion over man
kind. Ori' all occafions he appeals to miracles, as
abfolute proofs of the divinity of Jehovah, and of his
own miffion * ; and can he, without grofs felf- con-
tradiftion, here reprefent .thefe works as common
both to the true God and to rival deities ; to a<divlne
meffenger ' and- a falfe. prophet ? Aud indeed why
N 4 ' • fliould
, ,,;_r-,-.;ibi,K,. b ^•..L^uL' .','.,¦,-.' ¦¦¦'¦ , ¦ •¦ 'I.-..
Though this judicious, candid and excellent writer afierts,
that Mofes here. refers to miracles ; yet, contrary to his ufual
method, he .produces no proof of his affertion. Nay, he al
lows It to be a rule of Scripture, that if any man propofes, and
performs a miracle it) prbof of his mjflton, it .would be d'ecifive
in his favour : and yet in the cafe ftated aboVvC, he fuppofes
that a miracle determines nothing.
* This will be (hewn below, ch. 3. fe^. 5. and ch.
fca. I. ,,:..,

200 Proofs from> Revelation, that^M^acles
fliould not a real miracle equally gjEiinicredit to boijh
or neither ? be of as great weight againfi Mofes as/sr
him? Mofes neither does, nor could allow, thatjan
idolatrous prophet, -vFOuld perform works truly mir/a-
culous : and the ver,y order to put fuch a prophgi to
death, fliews that there was no danger of his being
protefted from puniftimerit by a miraculous power.
The Jewifti lawgiver here refers, riot to true mira
cles, but to thofe divinations amongft the Pagans, by
which the credit of idolatry was fupported. Amongft
Other methods of divination, one was by the inter
pretation oi portents, oflents, prodigies-, monflers *, rare
and extraordinary appearances and occurrences,
which were falfely deemed fupernatural, and thought
to prefignify f future events. Thefe are the figns and
wonders \hexe. fpoken of by Mofes, and which it was
.. ¦ ' the
^ The, feveral fpecies of divination are enumerated in Ci^
tiero de Nat, Deor. I. 2. 0.65. Multa cernunt hamfpiees^
multa augures provident ; multa oraculis declarShtui: ; mult^
vaticinationibus 5 multa' fomnlis ; multa portentls.
f See the paffage from Herodptus, cited above, p. 175,-
and note J, below,
X Heb.O/\ a_y^«, and mopheth, a wonder, like the corret
fpondent Greek words e-tifiSi^y and TSgaj, though often applk4
to mIra,culous works, yet very commonly bear a different apr^
plication, 0th denotes any mark or token, Gien. ,xvil. ji,
Exod. xii. 13. Ezek. .xx, 12, 20; and fo likewife does the
word (TYifiSon, Matt, xxvi. 48. Luke ii. 12. Rom, iv. 11,
2 Theff. iii. 17. Nor can moph eth denote a miracle, Pf. Ixxi,
7. If. XX. 3, -Ezek. xii. 6., ch, xxiv, 24; or Tsg«s in the fame
paffages of the LXX. 0th and OT(j>Af/j& are both •applied to
iw\

ergue a divine Interpftion. 201
the "bufinefs of the Pagan~ prophet (or interpreter of
the wiH of the gods) and diviner by dreams to ex
pound *.' And that Mofes does not here refer to any
miraculous works performed upon the fpot, hut to a
prodigy or fign of fome future event, is farther evi
dent
fuch things sis point out, and prefignify future events, i Kings
:jtiii. 3. If. viii. i8, ch. xx. 3: E^ek. xii. 6., IX. ch. xxiv. 24,
•27; and fo are both o-tiftiiov and Tsg«{, Luke xxi. 11, 25. Afts
ii. 19. In jElian's'Var. Hift. 1. 12. c. 57. we are told, that
when Alexander led his forces againft Thebes, «' /th Ssw o-'ji-
liHX xiriii t^ j-i^xrx ^^EfE^sv, TT^onifMitoiTSi rx; ttipi xiravos-of oi-
liira Tvjixs, " the gods fent figns und wonders amongft them,
" prefignifying their Impending fate," Polyblus alfo (lib. 3.
c. 10. p. 365, 1, 9, cited by Raphelius on Mat, xxiv. 24.) ufes
both thefe words together in the fame fenfe as iEIIan. See alfo
the citation from Herodotus, feft. 3. p; 175. note f , where li^xg
^gnlfies a prodigy. The following paffage from Livy, (I. 22.
c. 44.) may ferve fartheJf to explain jhe nature and ufe of pro
digies. Confules duabus urbanis leglonlbus fcriptis, fupple-
pientoque in all^s lefto, priufquam ab urbe moverent, prodigia
procurarunt, qux nuntiata erant. Murus ac portse taftae, &
ArlcisE etiam Jovis sedes de cbbIo tadla fuerat. Et alia ludi
bria oculorum, auriumque, credlta pro veris. The prophetic
|ign and portent was fometimes preternatural. Homer. 11. 2. 1.
308 — 324, but pften nothing more than fome very rare and
uncommon accidents and occurrences,: Terent. Phormio Aft,
4. fc, 4- 1- 24, 25, 26. Hence the Roman orator fays, (De
Div. I. 2.) Si quod.raro-fit, id portenfum putandum eft, fapi
entem effe portentum eft, fs^pius enim mulum peperlffe arbl-
tror, quam fapleijtem fuiffe.
r -
* In Homer (II. i. v. 62.)- a prophet, and an expounder of
4reami are reckoned amotigft the perfons, capable of explain?
jng the meaning of Apollo in fending the plague amongft the
Qreel5,s, Compare Jerem, xxvii. 9.

202^ Proofs from Revelation, that Minagles
dent) from his fpeaking ofthe fign given,' as a thing
that might come to pafs, or afterwards happen. To
give a fign or a wonder, therefore, muft mean, the
propofing and appeaHng to any particular prodigy or
portent, as a token or proof of a divine interpofition,
as a declaration of the decrees of the gods, and an '
indication of futurity. It is indeed fuppofed, that
the prodigy might poffibly be followed by the very
event it was faid to prefage ; neverthelefs Mofes did
not, and could not admit, that this completion of the
prediftion was a proof of any fupernatural infpiration.
For the Heathen gods, according to his reprefenta
tion ofthem, were as unable to foretel, as they were-
to accompHfli, anything. Prediftions no lefs than'
miracles, are propofed in Scripture as figns of a pro*'
phet's miffion. When a prophet fpoke in the name
of the true God, and the event foretold did not come
to pafs; fhe IfraeHtes were to conclude, that the-
prophet fpoke entirely from himfelf * ; it beipg . int-a.
poffible that Jehovah ffiould either be deceived him
felf, or~ deceive his creatures. On the other hand,
if his prediftion (of fuch future events as human rea- '
fon could not forefee) received its accompHflimenSjil
they were to regard him as a prophet -j-. But a per
fon who fpoke in- the name oi a falfe or idol god, was
to be rejefted, notwithftanding the accompHftment
of his'(conjefturall) prediftion ; becaufe the deity hj
whom he profeffed to be infpired, was a mere nullity, and
* Deut. xviii. 18—22.
,\,f Jerem. xxviii. g. If. xii. 23. cb. vii. 14.

ifrgue a divine Interpofition. jqj
anfiittherefore could not infpire him with any fuper-
iiat^al knowlege, The very fuppofition, that the
P^pn prognofticatpr might, in a particular inftance,
jiiywier arighti; implies, that thi? was not lively to be
a copimqn cafe, but that this prediftlve fign would
more generally f^il of its accompliffiment ; and. con
fequently was nothing more th^n hiiman conjec
ture** To difcern the; full meaning an4 propriety of this
prophetic admonition, we muft recolleft both ihe
temper, and the circumftances of the IfraeHtes. They
were continually expofed to the artifices of the nu
merous Heathe:n priefts and diviners \ ; -who in vir
tue of their fuperior flsiU in thg laws of nature, were
able to make very probable gueffes concerning fome
events, which were thought to be beyond the reach
of- human forefight ; and who, no dqubt, by habit
acquired a conjeftural fagacity more than common ;
and who,, at leaft, by the very frequency of their con-
ieftures,- could fcarcely he^t^lwaysX in the wrong.
Whenever their prediftions came to pafs, they urged ,
thef-accomplifliment of their fign (fent, as they af-,
^rflfied, by ^;he gods) as a divine interpofition. To
-iw\ - fafts
•"¦ t 's , , '
*f Ag,airift the divinity of figns anj^ oftents, we find the Hea
thens pbjefting; th,eir obfcurity, Quas fi figna Deorum putanda
funt, cur tam obfcura fuerunti Cicero de Div. 1. 2. c, 25. See
above, p, 193.
f I Kings xviii. 1,9. Jerem. xxvii. 9, 10.
' ^ For as Cicero obferves, (de Divinat. 1. 2. c, 4.) Quis eft
^gnii^ qui totum d^em jaculans, non alic^uando qoUimet ?

204 Proofs from Revelation, that Miratles
fafts of this nature we know the Pagaris were wont
to appeal. But this was not the worft of the cafe^
Thofe who are ftrongly addifted to fuperftltion, ea
fily give credit to every thing that feems to favour it ;
they remember and regard a fingle oracle that proves
true, while they overlook the more numerous inftan
ces in which the oracles have failed. With regard
to the IfraeHtes, their whole hiftory ffiews, that they
had too little efteem and reHffi of the chaftd and pure
worffilp of the true God, and were inflamed with the
love of idolatry, on account of its licentious rites, and
^the Indulgence it allowed to their lufts.This made them
an eafy prey to the delufion of falfe prophets, ' aind is
the ground of the frequent warnings againft them in
Scripture^ M9fes here puts the i;afe as ftrongly as
poffible, when he tefls thein: " Suppofe that a Pa-
" gan prophet or diviner ffiould propofe fome pro-
*''dlgy or extraordinary appearance, as a proof of
" the interpofition of a falfe god, and an indication
*' of fiiturity ; and that the event ffiould correfpond
" to the prophecy ; do not on this account haflily
" conclude, that there is any thing fupernatural or
'* miraculous in the cafe ; neither expeft th^t the true
" God ffiould interpofe * in an extraordinary manner
" at every turn, to prevent fuch occurrences as thefe ;
" which he will permit for the trial and dlfcoveryi of
" your temper. If doubtful appearances 'and lucky
" conjefturjB^
* For fuch purpofes God might on fome great occafions in
terpofe, " He fruftrateth the tokens of the liars, and maketh
diviners mad," Haiah xliv. Z5. See Pfalm xxxi. 10.

argue a divine Interpofition't 205;
" conjeftures ferve you as reafons to defert his wor-
•' 'ffiip ; this will be a full proof of your being previ-
*' oufly dSfaffefted to him. For ye know, how am-
" ply he demonftrated his own divinity and fofe do-
" minion over nature f , (fo utterly fubverfive of all
" the groundlefs claims of the Heathen gods,) and
" laid you under the moft powerful and lafting obli-
'* gations to his worffilp and fervice, by thofe ftu-
" peridous and undeniable miracles, which accom-
*' pHffied your . deliverance from the bondage of
'• Egypt." ¦"« ¦
rii' From this view ofthe paffage, it appears, that Mor;
fes does not make the ^fuppofition, of a prophet's
Working real miracles in the name of the Pagan dei
ties ; nor require the IfraeHtes to difregard fuch works,
on account of the abfurdity of the doftrine they are
"defigned to atteft. Nor the 'moft diftant intimation
i^s^given, that we are in any cafe to make a prophet's
*id6ftrine, the ftandard whereby to judge of the divi-
'^flity of his miracles. He is here guarding the If-
vi^felltes againft the pretended divination and prodigies
of the Pagans. And the reafon he affigns, why they
^teuld not fuffer themfelves to be feduced by prodi-
'gies and ftrange events, or by the accidental comple
tion of a conjeftural prediftion, into the worffilp of
falfe gods, is, that the claims of- Jehovah had been
v already eftabliffied, and confequently theirs confuted,
by miracles ; the validity of his claims neceffarily in
ferring the falfehood of theirs. It is to miracles
'''¦'•'' ¦ ' -'':¦• • ' alone,
¦>.'0.4sfr f See below, ch. 3. feft, 5. ,

ao6 Proofs from Revelation, that Miracles
alofle, that Mofes here appeals ; by this firigle p?6b/
he decides the qufeftion coricerning the fole fi^ht of
Jehovah, to thg wprffiij) of the IfraeHtes. And his
feafonirig is difigried to ptove, that the fign 6r -vtBri-
der of the prophet, who, announced ariy other god,
thari the God Of Ifrael, could not be really fuperha-
tural. In thofe early agfes, whfeh eclipfes, m^tiJdi^s,
earthquakes, inuridatlons, arid ^11 the'uricomtriori phe
nomena of nature, were reprefented by Pagan im-'
pbftors or erithufiafts, as the pfodiiftloris Of their fie'.
titious deities ; how could Mofes more effefl:ually
guard the IfraeHtes againft thefe ftauds and delulibhs;
than by reminding th^ffij how fully Jehovah had af-
ferted and vindicated his fole domlftiOn over^fhS
whole natural WOtltl ; arid thug ffiewing them, tha^
the events ift qrieftltin W^fe the effefts of that Orde^
and difpofitiori, which God hsd eftabliffied at the be-;
girifling ? II.
We are iri the fiext place to fe^airiirie that Warn
ing of the Ghriftlari lawgiver to his difciples, " There'
*' ffiall arife falfe Chrifts arid falfe prophets, and ftiall
" ffiew great figns arid Woridets, infomuch that (if it
*' were poffible) fhey ffiall deceive the very eleft *."
Here our Lord has (very erroneoufly, as I appre^i
heftd) been fuppofed to make his gofpel, (juft as
Mofes iri the foregOirig paffages was fuppofed to mafee'
his law,) the criterion Whereby, to judge of the divi nity >
* Mati. xxiv,- 24. ' Mark xiii, 22V

argue a divine Tnferpefitian, Co 7
nity bf miracles ; and to direft men to confider the
like works as marks of impofture when wrought by
.others, which he had appealed to, when wrought by
himfelf, as indubitable figns of a divine miffion. But
if miracles proved him to be the Meffiah ; muft they
not equally eftabHffi the claim of any other perfon to
that charafter? Were it poffible, they ffiould be
wrought in confirmation of oppofite claims ; they
would mutually deftroy each other. The wonders
here fpoken of, are emphatically ftyled great ; and
the end propofed by them, was the deliverance of
God's people ; which, to a Jew at leaft, could not
appear to be an end unworthy of a divine interpofi
tion. And therefore, fuppofing the miracles td have
been really performed by falfe Chrifts and falfe pro
phets ; the Jews muft either have admitted their
claims inforced by great miracles, or. have rejefted
thofe of every other. At leaft, might it not have
been expefted, that our Lord, to prevent the decep
tion of his followers, would have laid down fome
fure and perfpicuous rule, to enable them to judge,
in what cafes great miracles are proofs of a divine
agency, and when they are evidences only of a diabo
lical one I When a prophet has eftabHffied his own
miflion by miraicles ; is his barely foretelling: thofe of
his rivals and oppofers, a fufficient criterion whereby
to judge of their author ? Would it not rather be a
confeffion, that miracles are no certain figns of a di
vine miffion ?
But our Lord is not here warning his difciples
againft admitting the divinity of unqueftionable mi
racles, but againft haftily crediting the truth of thofe
pretences^

lo8 Proofs from Revelatioti, thett Miracles
pretences to miracles, which would be made by. the
perfons of whom he is fpeaking. This appears, as
well from the natural import of this prophecy in its
original lariguage; as. from the hlftory^and charaftei^
of the impoftors, to whom it ^refers. Chrift does
not fay, " Falfe prophets ffiall fhew * (that is, really
exhibit and perform') great figns ;" but (as th^ origi
nal word ffiould have been rendered) " they will
GIVE f," that is, appeal to, promife' or undertake to
produce, fuch figns ; ufing the very language of the
Jewiffi legiflator explained above, who reprefents a
prophet as giving X (that is, propofirig or appealing to)
* Had this beetliour Lord*s meanln'g, he would have ex-
preffed it, as Jofephus does in the paflag-es cited below, (p. iio.
note f. and p. 211, note f.) by the word ?«|a».
f This is the moft natural fenfe of Jao-airi. Dr. Lardner, In
-a letter which is now before me, after tkking notice, that al
though "Whitby, Le Clerc, and other commentators allow,
great things were done by the impoftors, referred to by Chrift
in this prediftion, yet that no miracles are afcribed to th-em by
Jofephus ; adds, " I ftiall be obliged to Mr. Farmer, if he
" will let me know- his folution of this difficulty." In com
pliance with this requeft, I communicated to him my explica
tion of the oword ^atrtsirt, which I had never met with In any
writer, and which Intirely folves the particular difficulty pro
pofed by Dr. Lardner, as well as removes the general objec
tion againft the authority of miracles, which unbelievers have
hitherto raifed from this paffage. The doftor in his reply ex
preffes himfelf in the following terms : " Your anfwer is.very
" agreeable, and will be of ufe to me." Accordingly he in-
ferted it in Vn Teftimonies, Y, I. p. 67.
X Deut. xiii. I. In ijhe Septuagint.

argue a divine Interpftion, 200
/
to) a fign or wonder, whether it did or did not come
to pa|s. The phrafe itfelf does not determine, whe
ther the fign given, be it the promife of a miracle, or
the prediftion of an event, would be confirmed or
confuted, when it was expefted to be accompliffi-
ed. It might be engaged for, and yet never be
exhibited, And every circumftance of the prophecy
contained in this context, ferves to prove, that the
perfons here foretold would only undertake to ffiew
great figns, without performing what they undertook.
But I ffiall argue chiefly from the hiftory of thofe
perfons, in whofe appearance and pretenfions this
prophecy received its completion, and which muft
be aHowed to be the beft key to the interpretation of
this prophetic warning.
Our Saviour heje refers to thofe impoftors, who
fprung up in Judea in the interval between the de
livery of this prophecy, and the deftruftion of Jeru
falem. As early as the 45th or 46th year of the
Chriftian a;ra, one Theudas, who caHed himfelf a
prophet, perfuaded great nunibers to follow him to
Jordan, by teHing them that he would,, by his own
cdmmand, divide the river : but this confident boaft
ended in .his own deftruftion, as well as that of many
of his followers *. About riine or ten years after-
Wards, Judea fwarmed with thefe deceivers, who led
the people into the wildernefs, and undertook to exhi
bit divine wonders f . One who came out of Egypt
promifed to caufe the walls of Jerufalem to fall down ;
but the deluded multitudes who followed him were
O difperfed
* Jofephus Antiq. 1. 20. c. 5. § i.

a 10 Proofs from Revelation, that Miracles
difperfed or deftroyed by the Romans, ^' fuffering^'
(to ufe the language of Jofephus) " the juft puniffi.,
" ment of their folly §." The nearer the Jews were
to deftruftion;' fo niuch the more did thefe impoftors
multiply, and fo much the more eafy credit did they
find with thofe, who weie wilHng to have their, mi-
feries foothed by hope. Even during the conflagra
tion of the temple, a falfe prophet encouraged the
people with miraciilous figns of deliverance * : nor
did the total deftruftion of the city cure this madnefs;
as appears by the conduft of an impoftor at Cyrene f,
who " promifed to ffiew them figns and apparir
" tions."
There is the moft perfeft correfpond ent e between
the impoftors defcribed by Jofephus, and thofe fore
told by Chrift, In the following particulars, i. Ac
cording to Jofephus, their appearance both preceded
and accompanied the -deftruftion of Jerufaleni; and
by Chrift alfo they, were diftinftly foretold both as
the diftant J: figns and fore-runners, and as the near.
er II and more immediate attendants, of that great
and awful cataftrophe. 2. Our Saviour defcribe'^
them as feverally afluming the double charafter of a
prophet and ,pf .the Meffiah : and according to the
Jewiffi hiftorian, they both pretended to infpiration and
§ Jofeph, Ant. c. 8. § 6. & de B. J, 1. 2. c. 13. § 4, j,
* Jo'feph, de B, J. 1. 6. c. 5. § 2.
¦f- Id. ib. 1. 7. c. ir-; § I. o-MjmS* (^ tpairftatx S«|«», vitur-ffi^ptst
1 Mat. xxiv. 5. Mark xiii. 6. Luke xxi. 8.
II Mat. xxiv. 24. Mark xiii. 22.

argue a divine Interpofition. 21 1
and prophecy f, and undertook the peculiar office of
' the Meffiah *, the deliverance of God's people from
their enemies. 3. " They fhall give" (or undertake
to exhibit) " great figns and wonders," fays the pro
phecy : and the hiftory relates the faft in perfeftly
correfponding language, " They promifed to ffiew or
*' exhibit evident wonders and figns \." 4. Does
lOur Saviour fay, that by their confident promifes of
miracles, they would deceive many X of the unbeliev
ing Jews, and the very eled, or Chriftians themfelves Jl,
luere that ffftble ; that is, could this be well fuppo
fed of perfons, who certainly knew that the Meffiah
was already come-? Jofephus informs us that thefe
impoftors drew away vaft multitudes after § them ;
and that under pretence of divine iifpir'ation, they rai
fed the enthufiafm of the people to a degree of mad
nefs **. 5. The very places of their appearance are
the fame in the prophecy, as in the hiftory; " the
P 2 " defart
f
¦f As they ftyled themfelves prophets, fo they profeffed to
aa'a-g(ur;i5i)|(s«!r' ^e^XTfiS^ " under pretence of a divine afflatus."
Jofeph, de B. J. 1. 2. c. 13. J 4.
* Luke xxiv. 21. et Grot, in loc.
f Asian yag i^xrxv hxqyyi Ti^xrx'f^ Fi/ifcSx. Jofeph. Ant. 1. 20,.
,c. 8. § 6. ' This language of Jofephus ferves both to explain
and verify our Saviour's prediftion, fo as to remove ail reafon
able doubt concerning either its meaning or truth, ^
X Matth. xxiv. 5.
II v.. 24, compared with Rom. xvi. 13. Coll. iii. 12.
I Theff. i. 4.
§ On one qccafion be mentions fix thoufand ; B. J. 1. 6. c. ^.
§ 2. on another thirty thoufand ; 1. 2, c. 13. § 5.
** A«(jM»i!«» x/iTreth), Id, ib, § 4.

212 Proofs from Revelation, that Miracles
'^ defart or wilderne fs,and the fecret chambers or
" places of fecurity in the city ¦*." 6. If our Savi
our calls them deceivers, and fuppofes all their pre
tences (and confequently their pretences to miracles, as
well as^to the Meffiahffiip) to be founded in falfehood :
Jofephus calls them by the fame name f, and repre
fents them as utterly difappointing all the promifeS
they had made to their followers, and every expeftation
they had raifed. Now, if no miracles were aftually
performed by thefe impoftors ; it is great weaknefs
in Chriftians to affirm, that ariy were foretold by
Chrift ; as it is virtually branding him as a falfe pro
phet. But in the fenfe of the prediftibri affigned
above, it received the moft perfeft accompHffiment
in the conduft" and appearance of the Jewiffi impoft
tors, who only pretended to miracfes. And coufi-
dering how backward the Jewiffi Chriftians them-
felves were, to give up all hope of deliverance from
their fubjeftion to the Romans ; it was an inftance
of the -wifdom and goodnefs of our Saviour, to fore
warn them againft trttftlng to the fallacious promifes
of perfons, who affirmed confidently that they Were
divinely raifed up to accompliffi fych a deliverance ;
and by confiding in whom, the infatuated Jews were
deceived and deftroyed beyond all recovery or re
demption. .
III.
* Mat, xxiv. 26. Jofeph. Ant. 1, 20. c. 8. § 6. et B. J.
1. 2. c. 13. § 4. et 1. 6. c. 5. § 2.
f nxxm yxq xtS^UTTci i^ xTTxnuHi. B. J. 1. 2. c. 13, § 4, See.
i\h Antiq, 1, 20. c. 8. § 6. '

argu^ a divine interpofition i 2 1 3
IIL
All the falfe teachers in the apoftoHc age, whether
Ihey rejefted or corrupted Chriftianity, are repre
fented as deftitute of fupernatural gifts.
With regard even to the true apoftles of Chrift,
arid others nVvHo reaHy performed miracles; thefe
Works could not be applied by them to any other pur
pofe; than the confirmation of the miffion and doc
trines of Chrift ; inafmuch as they were always pet-
formed by his immediate power, in profeffed attefta-
tian of his authority, and not without the aftual ex
ercife of faith in his name, at the time of theii- per
formance. How then could real miracles be per
formed; in oppofitiori to the claims or genuine doc
trines of Chrift j by falfe apoftles?, Wheri St. Paiil
fays, " We can do hothing agairift the truth*;"
do^ not this language imply, that no miracles could
be wrought in atteftation of falfehood ? He threat
ens his oppofers at Corinth; with coming to them in
a ffiort time, that -j- " he might know, not the fpeech
*' (the eloquence) of them that were puffed up, but
" the (miraculous) power ;" with the want of which,
it is evident, he here upbraids them. He adds, " For
" the kingdom of God is not in word, but in
" power;" it is erefted and fupported by the im
mediate exertions of omnipotence: language that
plainly intimates, that his oppofers were not imme-
0 3 diately
* 2 Cor. xiii. 8,
f I Cor, iv. 19, 20. ch. v. 4.
I

2I'4' Proofs from RenJelation, that Miracles
diately commiffioned to publiffi the gofpel by God',!
becaufe he did not fupport their claim by miracles.
The power of miracles he elfewhere calls " the fign
of an apoftle * ;" and on a ftlH different occafion, he
thus defcribes and diftinguiffies himfelf, " He that
" Worketh miracles amongft'you f :"" could mlracle&
then be common both to him and his opponents-.^
He warns the Corinthians againft giving him occafion
to exercife his miraculous power in their puniffiments
*' What will ye ? ffiall I come unto you with a rod .?"
This is not the kngiiage of a perfon expefting mira
cles to be oppofed by miracles. Nay, he reprefents
. the leaders of the oppofite party as fupporting them
felves wholly by artifice and fraud : " X Such are falfe
" apoftles, deceitful workers (or labourers in thfe
" gofpel ll) transforming themfelves into the apoftles
" of Chrift. And np marvel, for Satan himfelf is
" transformed into an angel of light." It may be
doubted, whether St. Paul is here fpeaking of any
transformation of Satan, in. the literal fenfe of the
word: for the falfe apoftles did not in this fenfe
change themfelves into the apoftles of Chrift, or af
fume their external fhape and form. But the falfe
apoftles here referred to, pretended to preach gratis ;
which is what St. Paul really did at Corinth : and
this groundlefs pretence was the fole foundation of
their
* 2 Cor. xii. 12.
f Gal. iii. 2, 5.
X z Cor. xi. 13, 14.
Ij Locke upon the place.

eirgue a divine Interpofition. 2 i ^
their claim to the apoftolical charafter. To prevent
the Corinthians from being deceived by fuch or any
other fpecious appearances or difguifes, he reminds
them, that the very worft charafters might eafily af
fume the outvsrard femblance of virtue; that there
was not any temptation *, even of the moft infernal
kind, which did not ftrive to conceal its deformity,
and affume an alluring and celeftial form. It is pof
fible, however, that St. Paul may here refer to an
Opinion, common amongft the Heathens, that evil
fpirits could render themfelves vifible at pleafure, and ^
affume the appearance of gods and demons -f. l^or
is it necisffary to fuppofe, that the apoftfe Is here de
livering - his own opinion ; he may be barely illuf-
tratlng his argument, by a commonly received fen-
timent concerning evil fpirits X'
O 4 Both
* Dr. Doddridge upon the place, .
f Porphyry (de Abftinent. I. 2. § 39, 4o.) fpeaking of fpi
ritual beings, and evil demons in particular, fays, " All thefe
" are naturally invifible to men ; but they make themfelves
" vifible at pleafure, change their' forms, and perfonate the
, *' go^ds," Apuleius (ih Apol. Socrat.) fays. At enim Pytha-
goricos mirari oppido folItoS, fi qub fe negaret unquam vidiffer
d«monem. See Jamblichus, feft. 2. c. 3. and Porphyry cited
below, ch. 4. feft. 2. article 2,
X Thus our Saviour draws a comparifon betvireen the Jews,
&nd " the fpirits who walk through dry places ;" and the Pfalift-
ift fpeaks of the " deaf adder that ftops her ear to the voice of
the charmers," (perfons who ufed forbidden arts, Deut. xviii.
il.) with regard to which the authors ofthe Univerfal Hiftory
obferve, " There is no more occafion to underftand it literal-

2 1 6 1 Proofs from Revelation, that Miracles
Both Paul and Peter reprefent the falfe teachers as
feducing their followers, not by miracles, but hy faif
fpeeches, and by a condefcenfion to mens criminal
paffions*. Jude defcribes them as " not having
the fpirit f ;" and John brands all their pretenfions
as impofture, " Thou haft tried them which fay they
" are apoftles, and are not ; and haft forind them
" Hars X" He lays it down as un univerfal maxim;
" Every fpirit" (or pretender to a fpiritual and di
vine afflatus) " that confeffetb hot that Jefus Chrift
" is come in the fleffi, is not of God \\," And Paul
in like manner declares, " that no man fpeakirig by
" the fpirit of God, calleth Jefus accurfed f." Ne
verthelefs, becaufe fuch oppofers of Chriftianity as
thefe apoftles fpeak of, could not be infpired by
God; it has hence been inferred, that they were ena
bled to work miracles by the devil. But the former
does by no means infer the latter. To underftand
thefe paffages we muft recolleft, that John moft cer*
talnly,-
" ly, than if he had compared an 6vll tongue to t'he voice of a
" fyren, the claws of an harpy, the eyes of a bafilifli, or any
". other- fabulous creature." V. 3. p. 491. 8vo ed. The words
of the Pfalmift, however, are differently interpreted by others..
Set the learned Mr. Merrick's annotations on Pfalm Iviii, 4, 5.
* Rom, xvi. 18. 1 Cor. iv, 9. Col, ii, 4, 8, 2 Pet. ii^ 18*
f V. 19.
X Rev. ii. 2.
II 1 John iv. 3.
f 1 Cor. xii. 3.

Argue a divine Inierpeliiion. 217
talnlyj and Paul * poffibly, refers to the Jewiffi anti-
chrifts t, fome of whom affumed to themfelves the
charafter of the Meffiah, and all of whom oppofed
the claims of Jefus ; and did it under the pretence of
a divine afflatus and infpiration. Now, fince thofe
who denied Jefus to be the Meffiah, pretended to be
prophets ofthe true God, (herein differing from the
idolatrous prophet mentioned by Mofes X) ', the apof
tles direft: their fellow Chriftians to conclude, that
fuch pretences muft be falfe ; for this . felf-evident
reafon, that God cannot contradift himfelf. Since
Chriftians allowed, that God had borne teftimony to
Jefus, it was impoffible he ffiould ever bear teftimbny
againft him. As to any intejcourfe with evil fpirits,
, or'affifhnce from them ; thefe prophets did not pre
tend to it ; nor do the apoftles charge them with jt ;
but
* It is immaterial to our prefent purpofe, whether St. Paul
ifefers to the Jewifti antichrlfts, or to the unbelieving Jews In
general, who had long taught, that the Spirit of God could
teft on nOiie but on thofe of their own nation, and ftill pretend
ed to fome of his gifts. The apoftle therefore with great pro
priety here reminds Chriftians of two felf-evident truths : —
" that no man fpeaking by the Spirit of God, calleth Jefus"
(onefo highly approved of God I) " accurfed;" and " that no
" man can fay that Jeflis is the Lord," (or affert and maintain
Chrift's divine authority,) " but by the Holy Ghoft." Does
Uot this language imply, that all genuine miracles proceed
from the fpirit of God ?
f See what was obferved above in the explication of Mat.
xxiv. 24, and compare Whitby on i John iv, i, 2.
X Deut. xiii. i.

itS " Profs from Revelation, that Miracles
but refolve their pretenfions into human delufion and
forgery, as we have already feen.
IV.
St. Paul's prophecy* concerning the man of fin;
" whofe coming is after the working of Satan f , with
*' aH power, and figns, and lying wonders:):;" though
frequently urged to ffiew, that the papal hierarchy
was to be fupported by real miracles, proves the ve
ry contrary. Whoever confiders the nature of the
papal empire, (that moft flagitious and daring ufur-
pation on the government of (Jod, and all the valua
ble rights of mankind !) will readily adniit, that if
ever the devil had a hearty zeal for an,y caufe, it muft
be for this ; and that he would have exerted his ut
moft pbwer for its fupport. Neverthelefs the apoftle;
inftead of allowing that popery would have the ad
vantage of trite miracles, affirms that the coniing of
the man of fin was to be " with all power, and figns,
" and wonders of a He || ;" that is, " with lying, or
" fiftiuous
* 2 Theff. ii. 9, IO.
f That this phrafe, the working of Satan or an adverfary^
does not imply a miraculous agency, appears from the ufe of it^
Ephef. ii. 2.
X Whoever compares this paffage with Heb. II. 4. will find
the fame terms applied both to the miracles of popery and
Chriftianity ; and confequently will be forced to maintain,
that they are both eyual, unlefs the latter alone were genuine;
and the former counterfeit.
II This is the true rendering of the original words, h sraW

argue a divine Interpfition. 219
" fiftitioiis power, and figns, and wonders." The
apoftle does not fay, that the wonders are wrought
with an intention to deceive ; but that the wonders
themfelves are a lie, the fole effeft of falfehood and
impofture. The church of Rome lays claim to a mi
raculous power, glories in it as a mark of the true
church* ; and from hence infers the validity of her
pretenfions. Many learned proteftants have allowed
in part the truth of this claim, and admitted that
fome real miracles have been performed in the Ro
man church. But the infpired apoftle brands them
aft as deceitful tricks, and fabulous legends. Such,
many of the beft attefted are allowed to be, by the
'feembers of the Roman communion f; and fuch
with
tmdfiet }^ <n)fte«(; 1^ r'^ees-t ¦^'suSaj. The word, lie, referfi equally
to all the preceding tjerms, and ought not to .h^ve been limit
ed to the laft. That " the power, and figns, and wonders of a
lie," denote " lying" or ". fiftltious power, figns and wonders,"
by a ufual hebralfm ; appears from Deut. ."ix-il. 20. 2 Sam. xIL
15. Pf. V. 6. Luke xvi. 6. Ephef. Ii. 2. ch. iv. 24. Col. i, 3 j,
and from the context alfo, where the like form of fpeech is ufed.
" The man of fin" denotes av notorioufly finful man : and the
deceivablenels of un righteoufnefs fignifies unrighteous decep
tions. Nay, in the very place in queftion, the prefent tranfla
tion renders " wonders of a lie," " lying wonders."
* Undecima nota eft gloria miraculorum. Bellarmin. de no-
fis ecclefiae, 1. 4. c. 14.
f They confefs many even of thofe miracles, which were at
tefted by witneffes upon oath, to be mere impoftures. Marac-
*Ius, fpeaking of certain bones, which were miftaken for thofe
bf fome eminent faints, fays, Vix credl poteft, q-jot ftatim mi-
racuia-

2 2d Proofs from Revelation, that Miracles
with equal reafon we may fafely pronounce them alh
It is riot therefore the power of miracles, (as fome
maintain *) but the making falfe pretences to it, that
St, Paul here (and elfewhere f) affigns as one of the
charafteriftics
iracula de lis in vulgiis emanaverint, quae etiam adjuratis teftl-
bus confirmabantur. Et tamen nullum hie e'rat, nee effe pd-
terat, verum miracultim. Prodr. pars 2. Melchior Canus com
plains, that the lives of the philofophers, and the hiftories of
the Cefarsy are written by Laertius and Suetonius with greater
regard to truth, than the lives of the faints by the Catholics.
And fpeaking of 7^^- golden legend, he fays, it contains for the
inoft part, rather monfters of miracles, than true miracles, 0-
ther learned papifts have made the like complaints, as mpy be
feen In Geddes's Trafts, V. Iii. traft 2. p. 49. Even the mi
racles afcribed to the miflionarles of the Roman church In In
dia, where they are moft wanted, are denied by their graveft
writers, Hofpiniari de Origin. Jefurtar.' p. 330. Middleton's
prefat. Dif. to his Letter from Rome, p. 97. and Acofta de
procuranda Indorum falute, oited by the Criteriopj p. 77, I
add, that whenever any one of the orders of the Roman church
endeavours to fupport its peculiar tenets by fupernatural works ;
the other orders feldom fail to deteft the cheat, or to treat it
with all imaginable contempt. Will any one undertake, to'
produce one popifli miracle, which Is either more credible in
its natute, or more ftrongly attefted ; than thofe which learn
ed papifts themfelves have condemned as impudent falfehoods ?
* " Admitting (fays a veryleafned writer) that any ofthe
" Romifli miracles were undeniable matters of faft;-^yet I
" know not what the Biftiop of Rome would gain by It, but a
" better title to be thought antichrlft." Biftiop Newton's
Differtations on the Prophecies,- V. 2. p. 279, and Vol. 3. p.
223. -^
f See t Tim. iv. i, 2. explained above, ch. 3. feft. i. p-
141.

(trgue a divine Interpftion. 22i
I
charafteriftics of the man of fin ; and by which he
is remarkably diftinguiffied from Mohammed and
other impoftors, to whom this prdphecy has been
improperly applied. V.
The papacy feems -to be farther charafterifed in
the Revelation of St. John '*, " He doeth great won-
'*jders (or figns f)fo that he maketh fire come down
" from heaven on the earth, in the fight of men ;
" and he deceiveth them that dwell on the earth, by
" means of thofe miracles (or figns) which he has
" power to do in the fight of the beaft."
Whatever be the true fenfe of this obfcure paffage,
it ought not to have any meaning affigned it, repug
nant to the numerous more plain declarations of the
. divine word. , If the prediftion of St. Paul which we
laft examined, brands all the miracles of popery as
forgeries ; this of St. John cannot allow them to be
¦realities. Befides, there is this material difference in
the two cafes : the prophecy of St. Paul is delivered
in much plainer terms, not under the co^er of fym-
bollcal reprefentatlons ; but the revelations made to
St. John, were in the way of vifion, in Which there
was frequent Ufe of emblems and fymbols, with which
we find th.e whole Apocalypfe abounds. And there fore
* Ch. xiii. 13, 14.
t £)),»»«.. The fame word Is ufed in the original in both
yerfes, though rendered by oui! tranflators vuonders in the 13th,
?nd miracles in the 14th verfe.

£22 Proofs from Revelation, that Miracles
fore it is more natural to give a figurative, than a li
teral conftruftion to this language df St. John.
"' The making fire to come down from heaven,"
may poffibly refer to the anathemas and excommunicch
tions of the Roman church, 'ftyled the thunders ofthe
Vatican, which are ffiocking imprecations for fire
from heaven, and were thought to expofe men to its
fcotteft vengeance ; (as a fymbol of which they ufed' '
in pronouncing their excommunications, to fwing
down a lighted torch from above*) and which have;
aftually fet whole kingdoms in a flame, being infor
ced by princes and perfons in authority, who in the
prophetic language are reprefented by the heavens.
On either, or both thefe accounts, but more efpecial
ly the former, the fire may be faid to come down ,
from thence. The great figns he is here faid to per
form, include thefe and other amazing artifices ufed
by the pope, to perfuade an ignorant and credulous
laity, thatjhe vengeance of heaven will be armed a-
galnft all his oppofers^ The fuccefs of thefe frauds,
and the credit they would gain with the members of
the Roman communion, may be intimated in their
being fpoken of as done, " in the fight of men," and
in " the fight of the beaft." However this may be,
I can fee no ground to conclude, that amongft the
figns here referred to, we are to include true miracles f;
both
* Sir If, Newton, in his Obfervations on the Apocalypfe, p,
f The word, o-nftHne, denotes figns and tokens, even though
they are not miraculous ; as we''lhewed above on Deut. xiii.'

argue a divine Interpftion. 223
*
both becaufe the word is applied to - other e-
vents ; and the fign here particularly fpecified, " the
*« making fire to come down from heaven," if un
derftood figuratively, agreeably to the ftyle of St.
John's prophecy, was not miraculous. Moreover true
miracles are never reprefented as means of delufion,
but of conviftion.
We have now diftinftly examined the feveral paf
fages of Scripture, which are generally thought, to
allow the claims of falfe prophets to infpiration and
miracles ; and, I hope, it appears, either that thofe
paffages do not refer to any fuch claims, or exprefsly
deny their validity. Whether thefe prophets fpoke
in the name of the true God, or in the name of falfe
gods, the Scriptures , reprefent them as totally defti
tute of fupernatural kriowledge and power, and ex
prefsly refolve all their pretences to them, into human
artifice and falfehood *, This has been already fliewn,
I ; and It is in the Apocalypfe applied to furprlfing events, ch.
xii. I, 2. ch. XV. I. There may be a reference In this chapter.
to thofe ftrange appearances, (fuch as the -bowing of crucifixes,
the ftiaking and ftirring their hands and feet, motions perform- .
ed'by fecret fprings ; and a thoufand other things of the like
kind ;) which though mere human artifices, are reprefented a?
the effefts of the divine power. The fraud praftifed by the
Roman clergy with regard to thefe things, was expofed in
fome remarkable inftances at the Reformation. See Burnet's
Hiftory ofthe Reform. V. i. p. 232.
.* Some of our lateft and moft approved writers upon mira
cles affirm, that God will not fuffer falfe prophets to work mi
racles, " fo as to lay men under a neceflity of being deceived,
'• or -(vithout giving honeft men plain evidence of the impof-
«' ture."

224 Proofs from Revelation, that Miracles
ftiewn, both with refpeft to their pretended miracles
and pifbphecies. I will here add a few paffages, which
more immediately refer to the latter. Mofes afcribes
them to the arrogance or prefumption * oi the prophet.
Jeremiah caHs them, " the vifion of his own heart f,"
not the fupernatural fuggeftions of the devil. And
Ezeklel defcribes the falfe prophets, as prophefying
" out of their own hearts, and following their own
'* fpirit, and as having feen nothing :f," Before
" ture." See Mr. Hallet on miracles, ?nd Dr. Benfon's Life
of Chrift, p. 202, 203, 219, 220, 222, 234, 235, 236. The
Scriptures feem to me to deny the pOwer of falfe prophets,
to perform miracles under any circumftances whatever. And
indeed If " the whole nature ^f miracles lay in being fuch
"things, as are above the power of men," (as the do^or af
firms, p. 236, compare p. 204 ;) if they may be performed by
falfe prophets, when they do not neceffarily fubjeft honeft men
to delufion ; and if performed by fuch prophets, are to have no
regard paid to them, (p. 202;) how are they, in their own
nature, figns of a divine interpofition, and a divine miftion ?
Befides, there could be very little danger of any man's being
deceived by the miracles>of a falfe prophet, if he was clearly
and certainly perfuaded, that thefe works are np diftinguiftiing
teft of a divine interpbfition ; .(as was fliewn above, p. 88.)
There would, in this cafe, be more probability of mens re
jefting the miracles of a- true prophet ; from an apprehenfion,
that infinite wifdom would not employ ambiguous proofs of a
divine miflion.
* Deut. xviii. 22. " The prbphet has fpoken it prefumptu-
onfly j" per fuperbiam vel tumorem animi fui.
f Ch. xxxiii. 16. Inch. xiv. 14, he fays, " They prophse
fy unto you a falfe vifion, — and the deceit of their heart."
X Ezek, xiii, 2, 3. See alfo Zechar. xiii, 4,

argiie a. divine Interpfition, 225
Before we proceed any farther ; let us recolleft
how far we are advanced in examinirig into the fenfe
of Scripture, concerriing the author of miracles, whe
ther of power or knowledge. We have attempted to
fliew, that the Scripture deriies the ability of perform-
irig ahy miracles, to angels, whether good or evil ; to.
the fpirits of departed men ; to the Heatheri deities ;
to magicians, who pretended to an intereourfe with
theiri ; and laftly, to all falfe prophets, upon what
ever principles they grounded their pretenfions. Now
thefe are the only agents, -who have ever beeri con
ceived as capable df Working rriiraclss, either in op
pofition to God, or without an immediate coriimif-
fion from him. And confequently the Scripture,
by deriying the miraculous power of all thefe, does,
in effeft, deny; that ariy fingle miracle has ever been
performed without the imrriediate iriterpofitlon of
God. Farther evidence Of this important point will
opeur in, the following feftionsi

SECT,

226 Proofs from ff^e^lhtion, that. Miracles

s E c't; v.
The Scftpures reprefent the or\e true . God, ai ihe .file irec\tfiK.

7

vereign of the 'xvorld. wldfh he governs by fixed sinA '/'Wr
Jri<?|&' ,&w/,: , To him.^tbe^ppr(^riate.all miracle/y^^anfurge.
ti^^S^emMrations kS Ms Divinity^ ami fole dominion,. <>^^f-
tipture^ imS^bofition. t%the'mhims faU.^othe^ fupe^Mr b^fgs% .
The ancient contrcvetfy between the pKf^kets of God.,^nii^id^^
latcrs, ftated..,
'J!^ direft oppofition to the numerpjis fiftitiogsrjjiiit:"
ti,^s of -the Pagans, whethfeF-they were .f|!ppefe(4:4
to,ppflefs an original, or only- a delegated'powfjsjIflE^
authority :; the prophets of the true God ai^BiisBtfcaaii
he, alprieris God.: " He is^ Jehovah, and ^.erfett&Bo
"God I befides him ; He is Jehovah, and .thisillisiil
",^one elfe^.gfjjThe Heathens maintaiajjd i the «2?ife3
tence of local f deities, whofe power and prefence were
circumfcribed within narrow bounds. Aiiftptle Very
juftly obferves, " that it was by no means agreeable
" to the fyftem, of religion eftabliffied. by law,tofup- •
"pofe God to be one riioft powerful and exc'dH&ift'
" being ; the gods in that fyftem being mut'ual1y"biEt"-*
" ter one than another, as to many things X-" »A.t-
. cordingly
* Deut. Iv. 35. If, xiv, 5, 6, 18, 2,1, 22. compare ch. xlui.
10 — 13. ch. xliv. vS. 2 Sam. vii. 22. »
, f iz-Klngs XX. 23.'
i When arguing againft Zerio, Ariftotle fays, ««* itT^x-nx
EjriJsjaTirw'

., ' ¦' ^' h^lne'ii'^dimlrie^'kti^pfaion.'".^'^^ 227
edrdingly we find, that as each nation * had its chief
deity ; fo feveral of the gods held by the fame peo
ple- were, each of thejJi fupr§m,e'in their refpeftive
provimfes, and independent of the reft. One was
fu|ireme ruler over the heavek} ^ano^ex asex^t^e air
atiSf winds, and others' ftill, diffefentlfroni th^e over
tWefe(i\nd mfth and hell, "'Bui the language of* re
velation is, "JehbVah he is Go3" fii fieaven afcove,
" and upbh'thefearth berieathj there is^ri&ne elfef:!-:"
-he exifts arid opefdtesiri all placeV^'wi^h^out limits,
and without controul $. To underftand this lariguage,
it is neceffary to recolleft, that the word, God, irt
Scripttfre denotes a goveriior or kirig;i:':h&r^^Srl
iMoflfdiiftithe gtihef^I idea, than ahth'oViif^ M do*
rf*rtc«l7' -Ktoftfs is <aS\&d:dgodto P^droah H'; Mh^ii
h&fifaff'appointed' to controul and gOvferii- him. ' Jud
ged arid kirigfe'are frequently called godi\iithiei^eBi
to their fubjefts, over whom they ftilelf.'^ Arid there?
f(»e when the facred writers affert,^that *th5efe ' is 'iio
P2

imiif£T^^miJyly''^tit' Xir/Jo'dia, tkto Stivxtdtxtil *«/ /^sXTfj-oy KiytSv, oi
"•iiitsOtBirp/liai'd'.iToii *^jw»y, «^« aaXto- Ji^^lss 4^<«t' tl^jAaV ii '&*»/.
De.,^nophane,, ^e^one, e; Gorgiaj!*;,. 4*1 inter J>oiOV. ia.^ p.
84.rJS42..ed. Paris.
f/^ Judges kLiHIU
•f Deut. iv. '3,^,
X I Kings viii. 27; S Pf. cxxxix* l-iJi2.'' If. xliii. 13I
11 Exod. vii. I. , t .'
^ Exod'. xxi. 6. ch. xsii. 9, 28. Pf. Ixxxii. i, 0. Com
pare John X, 34, 35.

228 Proofs from Revelation, that Miracles
Other God but Jehovah ; they mean, that there is no"
Superior being befides him, who has any power or.
dominion over mankind- Had there been other fu
perior beings, who were vefted with power over the
human race ; the Scripture; We have feen *, would
have allowed, that they were our gods or rulers.
The Heathens either beheved the eternity f of the'
world, or afcribed its origin,- aricf the generation, of
anim?ils |, to elementary and fidereal deities. Accor
ding to the eftabliftied fyftem of theology, the world
vias begotten, not created; at once' the offspring and
the parent of gpds, and ifdf a god ||. On the other
hand, the facred penmen afcribe its creation to thd
fole operation (or rather to the almighty fiat f ) of tjie
one eternal Jehovah: " He made the fea, his hand
" formed the dry land **. He formed the light, and
" created darknefs \\. He created the heavens, and
*' the earth,,and all .the hoft of them ft ;" that is, the
whole
* Ch. 3. feft, 2, p, 237, 238,
f Diodorus Siculus,, p, 6. ed. Rhodomani.
X See above,-p, 174,
II 'See abbve, III — 114. What we call the creation or for- -
ttiation of the "world, was in the Pagan fyftefld its generation, qr
a cofmogonyi And their cofmogopy or generation of the worldi
Was a theogony, or generation of gods.
f Pf, xjfxiil, 6, 9. Pf. cxlviii. 5. Gen. i, 3.
** Pf.- xcv. 5.
f f If. xiv. 7.
XX G6n, i, I. ch. Ii. I. Pf. xxxiii. 6.

ergue a divine Interpofition^ 229
whole world, all the parts which compofe, and all
the creatures that inhabit it, whatever divine attri
butes and operations might be foolilhly afcribed to
any of them by the Heathens. God afferts his fole
prerogative in fuch language as this: " I am Jeho-
^' vah who maketh all things, who ftretcheth forth
" the heavens alone, who fpreadeth abroad the earth
'? by myfelf*." This-truth is often inculcated, with
the exprefs defign of guarding the IfraeHtes from wor?-
Shipping the objefts of nature f .
To thefe falfe gods, and to demons the Heathens
afcribed the goveriiment of the world, the direftion
of all human affairs, the calamities and prbfperity of
perfons and nations. But the Scriptures celebrate
Jehovah as 'the univerfal fovereign, who exercifes, an
abfolute dominion over all without any rival, without
any co-adjutor or partner of his throne ; " I am Je-
'.' hoyah, and befides me there is no Saviour. — ?Ther^
" is none can deliver out of my hand : "I will work,
-" and who fljall let it t ? I make peace," and create
" eyil||." It was, indeed, the inain defign of the
Jewifh difpenfation, to convince the IfraeHtes and the
whole world, that as Jehovah created the world at
firft, fo he referved the geyernment of it in his own
hands ; and that there was no fuperior invifible be
ing whatever, befides Jehovah, on whofe favour, the
P3 ^ good
' If. xliv. 24.
f Deut. iv. 19. Jerem. xiv. 22.
X If. xliii. II, 13, t II Ch. xiv. 7.

230 Profs.sfig^&i^k^tifi^iitit^j^racles
goo^f^ evil ftatfiiijf.'their^livesidifl in any degceovifla*
P^Di4,,,jiThis is{!tl|ieC doft»ine every' yhcHie'fcdulcaleE^
iijid^Jrel^fJflpoAyiSMte toi 'thofe' iwho taught, thattlfere
'\^pr^ifyaiV^bift,l}ei|igfi^iwho were tlie authors both, of
hl8«i",^5ai43f ^araSties tb mankimili The order oif
t]^j©atjy:||l world is-ti^referited, as fixed " by his
'('lfc4fgf#>3«f'itifhiiSall not pafs away;" and govern^
e4(l303his',laWs '' which ftiall not be broken," by laws
'".ijisrhichhe^has^eftablUhed for ever and ever*;". and
<S^!gm?o^y WhJeh cannot be 'controuled by any au-
tlipf'i,tyviexee;pt^>tbat by which they were at firft or-
dainpd. If you'-ifay, that the allowing a liberty to
fugeirlon. created rirftdllgences to interpofe in human
af^fs^! .is ose, of thofe ^^ery laws which God has or-
d^igi^jj-jli anfwerj that If they can do this of them-
fqliV)e^j.)and without an immediate commiflion from
God ; then, what the Scriptures affirm is not true ;
there are other fuperior invifible beings befides God,
who can difpenfe both' good and evil to mankind ;
and the order of everits in the natural world is not
fixed at all,; but is dependent upon \he pfeafure of
thbfefirperioTi beings f. -tii-rtPi^^ "« '-,«Tff«f>"
•With r^gai'd to miracles, br deyiations .from tJie
ordihary cbu^fe*6f nattirg ^^ the §(jj-jptures refer thein
to God ap their author. Nor do they aferibe themito
him eminently, as fome X pretend ; but abfolutely apt
ex uypropriate
* Pf. cxlviii. 6. Pf, Ixxxix, 3,7, Pf, cxLt. §bj 91. J^repi,
x'fxi. 35, 36, ch. xxxiii, 2j. " ^ .iivyxlv'l -
... J
f See abbve, ch. 2, feft, 3'. 1^ .i^xfx:^ .11
X Dr. Sykes on miracles, and others,* " •

argue- -a difvine'lniirpftiiin;"^- 23 1
pstprmi^ them to Mm «&«,?. t^Witn^' the fong of
Mofesi'" Who isllke unto 'thee;-0 Jehovah, amorif^ft
"t the gods ?" who is like unto thee,-— doing won-
*;< ders * ?" ¦ What words can more ftrOli^iy tfeny' to
all Other beings the power of working miracles, and
challenge it as the fole prerogative of the true God,
tl:^n the following paffages ? " Bleffed be Jehovah
S' God, the God of Ifrael,' whofonly doeth wondrous
*' [things .t. Thou art .grfeati' and dWl Wdndrous
"(things, thou art God alone t-" Such language of
ten occurs, 'f Thou.art the God that doeft wondersltv
" To him who alone doeth great wdnders §." When
ever tjhe facred writers occafionally mention ariy'par-
ttpular miracles, whether of power or knowledge;
they afiirriiiconcermng every one of them ffeparately,
Vfhftt theyf doirconcerhing aU of them in general.
ThiUs they afHrjri.it to bie'the fole and' exclufive pre-
jTQgative 'of God^ito raife the dead% to opto the eyes
pbitlM.icm oi b'/. -. P4 i.^iii'- '^J?J of
'yj. ,,: b'lo^iw Li,»^i;n' 'srfj* ¦'n9>'' io .3 ' ' '^ ¦.'
f,j*_.-!^K0d. XV. II. .1 That by wonders,. vA tMs and the foUow
ing paflages, we are to underftand mira<;lfs, appears £rom> the
coaneftion In which the word is ufedi,_,The miracles majre e-
fpecialiy referred to are thdfe wrought in favour of the Ifrael-
itSs;fcotTcernIng which Mofes_ declares, that all the annals of
timecouldaifSrd no inftance of a lilie^n^ure, Deut. iv. 32 —
36. /->,J('l' ' ' ,"' • ¦¦%-<•
t Pf. Ixxii. 18,
X Pf. Ixxxvi. 10. . 1 i >j ' '^
}| Pf, Ixx vii. 14, '«^' '* •''• -
§ Pf. cxxxvi. 4. . :
5r Deut. xxxii. 3^,, I Sam. ii. 6. a.^or. i, ^, , <¦

232 Proofs from Revelation, that Miracles
oi the blind*, to tread upon the waves of the featj,
to ftill the nolfe of its waves f , to reveal fecret and dif
tant tranfaftiOns [|, to foretel future events §, and to
fearch the heart of m^n. Thefe declarations of Scrip
ture, though they are particularly levelled againft the
falfe pretences to prophecies and miracles ^mongft
the Pagans, are no more to be reconciled with, the
notion of the devil's poffeffing a fupernatural power,
than with the opinion of any Heathen gods poffeffing
that power. If-any being wh^^tever can perform mi
racles, befides God, it is not true that God alone
can perform them. ,. '"f "
As the Scriptures reprefent miracles as v?orks pe
cuHar to God ; fo they urge them ^s proofs of hl§
fole Divinity, or of his claim to the diftlriguifhing
charafter of Jehovah. To give us a clearer idea of
this very important point, we muft look back to the
firft account of rairacles. When Mofes, on h^s being
appointed God's ambaffador to the people of Ifrael,
and -the court of Egypt, defired to he inftrufted by
wh-dtdtle he fhould defcribe him ; God was pleafed
to affume a name, which of all others was the mofl
expreffive of his nature, I AM, or JEHOYAHf. Both
* Pf. cxlvi. 8,.
f Job Ix. a,
J Pf, Ixv, 9. P.f, cvii, 29.
(I Dan. ii. 28, 29, 47.
, § If. xlil. 9. ch, x^v, 2\, ch. xlvi. 9, 10,.
if Exod. iii. 13, 14, 1j, In the 13th verfe what is comipon- ' 1^'

argtie a divine Interpofition. 273
Pbth thefe names are in fenfe the fame;, and exprefs
•^ his eternal, underived and imnautable exiftence
%'¦ and excellence'*." They likewife affert ^his as his
fole prerogative ; and therefore neceffarily imply
(what fome think they direftly exprefs) " his giving
V'being to all other things f," or his being the fove*
' '' ' , *"9S^
¦ ly tranflated, I AM THAT I AM, is rendered by Mr. Pur-
yer, I AM HE WHO AM- Accordingly God ordered Mo
fes to tell the IfraeHtes, I AM has fent me unto you. Though
Jhe word ehjeh be in the future, yet according to the genius of
the Hebrew tongue, it is applicable to the prefent tenfe.
* Eft autem hoc nomen, Ehjeh afcher Ehjeh, derivatum %
yerbo hajah, quod fignifioat eifentiam vel exiftentiam. Mai-
rnon. Mor. Nevoc. p. i. c. 6^.
\_
f Ainfworth and others are of opinion, that Jehovah Is a,
participle pf hajah in piel ; and that It doas-^ot pnly fignify t^
be, but I a caufe to be. Univerfal Hift, ,V, 3, p. 360, 361;:
In the foregoing part of that note, p. 338, the learned authors
condemn our verfion for rendering Jehovah by LORD, and
the LXX. for rendering it xifi®-; though biftiop Beveildge
. (V. I. p. III.) all-edges, that xvgios comes from xig« to he, as
Jehovah from hajah. The laft mentioned writer obferves, p.
112, that the word, Jehovah, Is never ufed with ariy other ge
nitive cafe after it, hfitfahaoih, though this occurs fo frequent
ly. The title of Jehovah or LORD of hofts (or fabaoth) does
no{ denote the God of battle; as thofe affert it does, who would
degrade the God of Ifrael to a, level with the Heathen ^lod of
¦war, .Vho{e peculiar province it was, to prefide over battles.
This very magnificent title Is given to God, on account "of his
\feing the creator and fovereign of all other beings ; the mo-.
narch, not of fome particular people and province, but of the
whole 'univerfe. He created " the heavens, and the earth,
and all the hoft of them," Gen, ii. i. "He is the former of.

234 Proofs ' from M&nehdmi that. Miracles
H^gH creatofoandiSbfpIute lordrofijhe ufiito-felafHlis"
Rja^rdpfjgQfiAito f^iTttnt^hbth the Ifeelites aiid^Kgyp-
tian?>:frwia^egf5i^gg him to tti^ikvieinof thbi&telatf
deities ,o^„^l^i}i^ip^,T (jwhofe'infliienceiwisnljeraght
to be ,Gonfi^ed,^tO( fa ^articular country andtpsmpk ;)
andtby afferting hisi, proper dif^iflgiuiiMjigi.cbaraaer,
tOf^qny, the claims of aft their; gods to any fliare in
the creation and government ofithei w»rld. In di
reft oppofitipn to thefe: falfe, 'gods,l mere fiftions of
the, human imagination, the Q«)d stf I&ael ftyles blm- feif

dU things,— the ,LORD of hoflf Is bJs=iUiaf!'le." Jerem^ Ii. 19.
rh. X. 16. '' Thus faith lehovah, who giveth, the fun for, a
liffht by dav, — the LORD of hofts is.his name," Jerem. xxxi.
35. See ch. xxxii. 18, 19. If. xlii. 5. cb. xliv. 24. ch. xiv.
d' Dan, Iv. 35. The Englifti rtader ftiduld be reminded, that
•whenever LORDj in capital letters, occurs in our tranflation,'
Jehovah is ufed in the original, which I have generally retain
ed in'the paffages cited in the fequel, i>
After I had drawn up the preceding part of this note; I
found, that the celebrated Le Clerc was ofthe fame fentiment
with Ainfworth, with refpeft to the 'meaning and derivation of
' Jehovah ; though the' former decla^esi^'he had never met with
it in any author. I will tranfcrjbe a part of his note on Exod.
vi. 3.- Dubium non eft quin vox ab rPH fuit derivetur^ quo
faftum ut fufpicarer Deum vocabiilum n]rp fibi fumfiffe, non
quod fua natura fit, adeoque seternitate gaudeat, fed quod effi-
ciat uVi-es fint, quafi effet futurum Hiphil aut Pihel faciei.
ut fit. We may, however, allow, that the word, Jehovah,
waS only defigned to exprefs God's eternal and immutable
exiftence, and to affert' this as his fole prerogative; inaf
much as it necelTarily follows from hence, that all other beings
owe their exiftence to his fovereign plea'fiire. ,And'the mira
cles defigned to prove the former, ferve to afeertain the latter.

drgue a divim JnUrpfthn. 235
felfljehovah *, " ' himUffeb is f , 'and- from whom aU
*'i ofHei' beings are? derived;" This conftruftibn bf
the word 'is confirmed by the fequel* God faid'tb
Mofesi,! " I am JehOvah : and I appeafed unto Abra-
'' ham, uhto Ifaac,. and unto Jacob, by the name (or
?' Jiinder the charafter) of God ALMtoHTv ; but by
"1' my name (or charafter of) Jehovah Was I not
*'iknown unto them:|:." God had called himfelf by
the name, Jehovah, to the Patriarchs || ; and they had
iavoked him by it : in what fenfe then was it iJn-
Idnfewn to them ? Critics have fuppofed, that it refers
to God's giving being or life to his- promifes, by their
aftual accomplishment f. But this feems a very grotind-
lefsiltftitatlon bf the wofd. Underftand it in its' juft'
latitude, and God will appear to fpeak to the followr
;ng effeft;: " I toqk your fathers oinder my powerfal
.. .1 fl - -!" ' , S(.''vprot-eftion,
* " I am Jehovah, that Is- my iname,^antrmy glory will tf
¦" not give, to anotberf neither my^ praife to gra«ir*n* images."
Jfeiahigol-ii.'S. 'j ' ' "' ¦ - '-'i-' '- ''' '--
-f As on other occafions he is ftyled the y^'ii/rap- Qpd,..in op-
pofition to dead foen, vvhom thc^J^e^thens worftiippeil as gods.
f]!, QeU, ficv. 74?8.,,.^hap. ,XKvi.-24.*,ch, xxii. 14. ch. xxviii.
I3' i\ briil ., ¦.-.. . ¦ .rtu-jrJii- 'Us -i-P ¦'
,1 . ,-, ,, jj_i(j ¦ -111' >- ' ; 8 - - .,v?,-c-' -I ' ,' u
-§ Both Ainfw-otth and Le Clerc fuppofe, that the word, Je-
havah, expreffes God's caufing his^promiles tq ;-eceive their,
accom^iiftimefit : but many ofthe paffages cit?(l by the latter,
aii'i.' particularly K xliI." j.'ch. xiv, 5—7. Jerem. xxx,i. 3;,
ftiew," tha,t it muft, be takc'n in a ftiil more extenfiv^ fefi^fe, and
/ ¦ i?'u J? ' ¦- •• ••••I'-jQ! '¦:). . Jill. J- 3" 1 -' OJ ':'jfii;. 1
that it expieffes his charafter as univerlal creator.

^^jd Proofs from Revelation, that Miracles
^ proteftion, and granted them marks of mypeeu-
" liar favour ; hereby afting rather under the cha^
" rafter of theiir God, than as the one eternal Deity^
'' and only fovereign of the univerfe. And though
*' your pioijs anceftors always entertained juft ideas
" of me as Jehovah j yet I did not make this my
*' true charafter known * and evident, in the coufpl-
" cuous manner I am now going to do. To your
" fathers I revealed niyfelf chiefly by private dreams
" and viftons .\ but now I fhall fully vindicate and
*' proclaim rny eteriial Divinity, and my boundlefs
" doraihion, by the moft public and fiupdndous mirti-
** cles.'" It was neceffary to explain, what is includ
ed in the term, Jehovah ; inafmuch as the miracle^
of Mofes were defigned to prove, that this tgrm was
appropriate to the God of Ifrael. •
To the Ifraelites God comman4ed Mofes to fay, "
" I AM hath fent me unto you ; Jehovah, the God
*' of your fathers appeared unto me f ." Mofes was
farther inftrufted to tell the Ifraelites, " Ye fliaU
" know, that I am Jehovah your God, which bring-
*' eth you out from the burdens ofthe Egyptians X"
The miraculous means of their deliverance were de
figned, as Mofes fays in exprefs terms, for the con
viftion
* To'tnow often fignifies lo make knojun-. " I determined not
to know, any thing- amongft you, fave Jefus Chrift," that is,
this was what I determined to " make known amongft you,"
1 Cor. ii. 2. See alfo ch. viii, 3, and Locke upon it.
f Exod, iii. 14, ij,
1 Exod, vi, 7. ; '

argue a divine Interpofition. 237
¦Viftion of the Ifraelites, or " that they might know,
" that Jehovah he is God, and that there is none
'' elfe befides him*." When Mofes went to Pha
raoh, and told him that jehoyah, the God of Ifrael,
demanded the releafe of his people ; and the king of
Egypt afked, " Who is Jehovah," and faid, " I
know not Jehovah :" ,God declares to Mofes, " The
*' Egyptians fhall know that I am Jehovah, when I
" flretch forth mine hand upon -Egypt, and bring
" out the children of Ifrael from amongfl them t."
Nay, each particular miracle is frequently alledged as
a full demonftration of this grand point. God (by
Jiis prophet) faid to Pharaoh, IN THIS (that Is, by
turning the waters of the river into blood) " thou
fhalt know that I' am Jehovah J." The miraculous plagues
* Deut; iv; 35; coiiipare E«od. x, i, 2; ch. xi. 7., 2 Sata.
. Hi, 22 — 24,
-f ch. V. I, 2, ch, vii. j; fch. ix, 14, ch, xiv. 4, 18, 25.
X Exod, vii, 17,' In like manner Mofes promifed Pharaoh,-
to remove the fecond plagiie, that of frogs, " that he might
''.know thete 1V9S none like unto Jehovah," (ch. viii, 10,) or
none befides hiin who could pferforip true miracles, (compare
th, XV, II,) — The fwarms of flies were fent upoin Egypt, while
Goftien vvas preferved, from them,' " to the end thou mayeft
know," (as God faid to Pharaoh) ".that I am Jehovah, in
N the i^idft ofthe earth," (ch; viii. 22,) or, " the fovereign of
" the whole earth, not of one particular dlftrlft only," The'
metaphor, as Paulus Fagiiis obferves upon the pla-ce. Is taken
a regibus, qui fedes fuaS fere babent In medlls provlrreiis, ut
ex aequo illis profpicere poflint,-?i-To the fame effeft. It is faid^
the hail fliould be removed, that Pharaoh might know, " that
the earth Is Jehovah's/^ ch, ix. 29,

i^ Profs f!^<i^ii^l»tim^ti>a^>i^iracles
pbgdesv^ E^y^bMeMoietl d^^eul^^t^ '^Pp^^t
di{kllfitO£icco^a|i^finntoddi«ir3hRQ!{Pofi%hg1^rM^
Icfto^e boadigeoftiEgjTptvriwhtorii^hf^feWJ^
effeftbdsswkh !few%ii^iul}Tl9ld$M>a»f ^Sbl%)3|l^s(i'
tioh's from the; ordinary eourfe of nature, ' The prin
cipal end which God had in view, was inftnitely'more
important^ and?' the' very fanflis #il:h that whiCif ne'
propofed by' taking "i^he'Iftiielit^s to be fii§ pecu^af
peopfe^ viz. the rrjanifeftation of^iml^lf tp .t;t^e,-^5|f)dd„
For jit was not froni^^ny partial reg#rdl to themj ^^i
they were- at firft, -feparated from i the reft ofrxinaiwi
kind, but to accompHfti the defi|ns tff God'^V^''
neral providence, 'aird faAorigft Othet' iftfp^jmji?''
purpofes) to recover and prelerye the kft9ijivlg^ gf.
the true God, and to pfopag?ite ifi^^dngft tilfe^^ia-"
then nations, (and thereby tOiprepajebthfiworidjfiMSH
the oOmingof Chrift.) jr^The nationsi were* atlfga^*
funk into the groffeft idolatry, fueh af ga\^e' i'fajMfift'!
to the louleft crimes. Egypt was the parent and
ipB r u-''-j.'>i = T^ ,_ "' i *^'-' 'TT ,5t5S[w
nunc or this idolatry, t rom hence it .^i^^^jfPrQpjg^^ji
ed through^any other nations. 3y itheir^r^deasaiil
in this coiintry,, the Ifraelites ^ei&f^es ^e^e^idi^iMi"-
with its idols*.- .n]eh<s\ah', therefote, i'ti h'i^lMiii^'^
wifdom and goodnefs^^ 'was bleafefl fb aecomplifti t'ftelr"'
redenipcrdn, in a manner the molt proper to c^pyj^jjiGej,,
them, and the Egyptians, a^^ t};i,e other ,nati.ons„iiof;i
the evil and iblly of idolatry,, and to make? hlmfelfi'l
known and; adored as the oaly Uving Godf. '" 'Pha-

rao

h'

t 1 ¦
* Ezek. XX. 7". ch. xxiii. 2, gy Jbfli. xxiv. 14. ''
f See Exod. i.v. 14, 16. ch. xi; 7. ch. xiv.-4,i8. and.cow".
pare If. .\i.\.. 21. Pf. x\ii. !•], 28".

,dkgMiadf!uifWi'it0psfittS(t.\'^-^'^' 25^
c^i^ili35rfiiilo<w»3^IS<*^*n)(Sriifli%ty^^^ the
neiigri»oiwteB^;^ttiQbilsJiwcyii3^ii^gacBo<x^^^^ "felV¥)^e ifillli fe<?sdfifiJ»iw<i^ti«9u^aM tbe<eafctflJ*^3 The"

*»ft fi5^!?!**?^lf (fflVP"Sk4if paff^ge^,-fctf«a,abovei arefal-

tiW^ tm<k^ ^Itf^S^^ttifceffity the^iW^ if ^nJdiicJng'a-'
nyifel*}i^jprX)Qfe ef4fei«r|«ilk i yfet I cannot fSr&ear ohCiivli^i
thafow^:^^^ beenga^YJQifeei'iJpon: itijfeBSjs, lo ha natk&ttush
^WM^if^ ^'^^M^ IV%^^,^XQd.g^gl2.,«',^f>fiIVfHlitfr.#
"'tne firft born of tlie land pf Egypt, both main and beait : and
" agMfl all the gods of Egypt I will execute judgment ; I,
« SiJljeHiVaii?*'^'SW^ irideed thihk, tlia't by-gods we are
h(ai^tbk@6tredA£>il^t, princes and rulers'6f Egyjit': but thef
^ffffiS^lX f^'P^*" aumber, itrst^mparifoiii with the multitudt^s
who &rf&;£jd[J t^iejlof^^ffthejr ifiirft barn. Others arfl of opinion,:
that God threateh&,the,.2yo/j- of,£gypt ,.h)2re, (ap he does elfe-,
wfiere, If. xIjC. i. Jerem. xliii. 15.) and that they fuffere^
foSJ^S^9h'^ji(f|iSeril as befel'Dagon, i Sam. v. 3, 4. This
hoaafitefe4>iSoiJ'fiippdl^'^d by the "hiftory. 'Why '(hould we not
um^^SJ^dr^wd as'fpeaikin^cone-ettiing the deities oi Egyjlt ?
Lej^j^jllftpo^deriSd, that ,the,imiraculous( judgment hitherto
ifef :fl!lfJhl?¥.^^- a^,i^f Egyptiansi.werejthe wifeft
ptfelSs .that could be empjp-y-ed to, convince them of the claims
pi Jenovah, and ot^ the utter impotence or their own gods, t
^dr^tWIgil^'thfe ^U'iiilnl's,'^Hd otlTer olsjefts of nature which '
thi^kailhippSdpWeit-c thcftnfelves employed by Jehovah as the
inftrti,iqents«f their punriflimeJif. The death of the firft born,
both of man and beaft, was a farther condem-natlon of their
falfe religion. For in ancient times the priefthood was the pri-
vdege of primogeniture j in Egypt,, their gods were taken from
amongft the firft born of their flocks and herds', and thefe enir
mal gods were worftiipped v.i.h a -reference to their elementa ry

2i[ii Pkqofs from Revelation, that Miracles , ' '
The effeft they produced was anfwerabie to this iiii
tention : for both the Ifraelites, and many of the E-
gyptians; " feared JehoVah, and believed Jehovah *."
The miracles of fucceeding prophets had the fame
inoft benevolent intention, with thofe of Mofesi The
paffage bf the Ifraelites over Jordan, aa well as that
through the Red Sea, and their difpoffeflion ofthe
GanaaniteSi had this ultimate View, " that all the
" people of the earth might know the hand of Jeho-
*' vah, that it is mighiyf." When. God interpofed
for the deliverance of his people ; it was that both
they and all the kingdoms bf the earth " might knoW ,
" that he was Jehovah |." Accordingly good, men
prayed to God to " tnaintairi the caufe of Ifrael at all
" tiiries, that all the people of the earth might know
'^ that
ry and fidereal deities; The fatal cataftrophe therefore which
befel the firft born of figypt, from which the- Ifraelites were
, pj-efcrved-, was the executiohof judgmerit agalnftiall the gods,
as well as againft the people of that cotmtry. Thus was the
great controverfy concerriing the claims of Jehovah, as fole
monarch of the univerfe, and his right to demand the releafe
bf his people, finally detfermined. Thofe "on whoni fuch means
of conviftion could produce no lafting effeft, were certainly
ilpe for utter excifion.
* E.xod. Ix. 20, 21. ch. xii. 38. ch. xiir. 31; The like ef
feft was produced by other miracles, Jofti, ii. 10, li. i Sam,'_
xii. 18. 2jChron. xx. 29.
f jofti. Iv, 23, 24. Exod. xxxiv. 10.
X 2 Kings xix. 15—19, 3 J. compare I Kings xx. 13, 28.
See alfo Pf Ixxxiii. 18.

argiie a divine Interpftion, 24!
** that Jehovah is God, and that there is none elfe *."
And indeed the Ifraelites would have been deftroyed,
on account of their great propenfity to idolatry, had
not God intended by their miraculous protedion or
.chaftifement, as thiey were obedient or difobedient,
to affert and -vindicate his own Divinity in the eyes
of allthie nations. The conclufion to be drawn from
every fingle ad of miraculous power, by thofe who
attended to its true nature and defign, is the fame as
Naaman expreffed^ when his leprofy Was miraculouf
ly cured : " Behold ! now I know there is no God
*' in aft fhe earth, but in Ifrael f." The king of If-
tael in particular confidered the cure of a leprofy as
a proof of divine power, " Am I God, to kill and to
*' make alive, that this man doth fend unto me, to
(^ " recover
* I Kings viii. 59, 66. Notwithftanding the numerous paf
fages from the Old Teftagisnt cited above, together with a
(multitude of others, afljsrt the God bf Ifrael to be " Jehovah,
" the univerfal governor of the world, and the one only living
" and true God>" and notwithftanding the Heathen gods are
a th-oufand times irejiroached in Scripture as mere nuUitieJ :
yet the celebrated Voltaire has, In different works, endeavour
ed to perfuade the world, that the Jews and their prophets ac-
knpwiedged the Isca} tutelary deities of other countries ; and
at the fame time Infinuated, that they worftiipped their own
God undei: no higher charafter than thofe. His great dlfin-
genulty in quoting the Scriptures, is well expofed by the learn
ed^ Mr. Findlay, in his " Vindication of the Sacred Books," p.
98. Would writers of fuch eminence ^s Mr. Voltaire, reft the
Caufe qf infidelity on the groffeft mifreprefentations, were they
fconfcious of being able to fupport it by fair reafoning ?
t 2 Kings V. 15.

242 Proofs from Revelation, that Miracles
*' recover a man of his leprofy * ?" And though the
gods of Egypt andGanaanwere worihipped by the moft
immoral 1-ite^ with which the Worfhip of Jehovah
could not be charged ; yet the prophets of God ne
ver urge this circumftance either in confutation of
their claims to divinity, or in proof of his ; but refer
the decifion of both thofe claims to miracles alone.
"Whatever difference there may be between fome mir
racles and others with refped to grandeur, the OJd
Teftament conftantly reprefents all miracles, whether
of knowledge or of power, as, proofs that the God of
Ifrael was .Jehovah f . The New Teftament alfo holds,
the fame language, when it ftyles miracles the works
of God Xt aud fpeaks of them as defigned, to recover
idolaters to his faith If and worfhip.
How very different a view of miracles is this, from
that given us by thofe learned moderns who affert^
that they argue only the interpofition of fome power
more than human ; that thejoweft orders of fuperi
or intelligences may perform great miracles ; and
higher
*V. 7.
f If. xii-. 21 — 26. ch. xlii. 8, 9. ch. xliii. 9 — 13. ch. xliV.
8. ch. xiv. 18, 21, 22. ch. xlvi. 9, 10. ch. xlviil. 3, Jer, -A.
3 — 16, Dan, ii. 11. 27, 28, 29. 47. In thefe paffages, revealing,
fecrets, foretelling future events, delivering and faving, and the
,doing either good or evil in a fupernatural manner ; are not
only afferted as the fole prerogati-vfes of the true God ; but ur
ged as the decifive proofs of deity.
X See below, feft; 6.
II I Pet.i. ii. iTheff.i.Q,

argue a divine Interpofituni. 24^
higher orders of beings, greater miracles ftill ; that
ho miracle recorded in Scripture can be pronounced
beyoiid the pbwer of all created beings in the uni
verfe to produce ; and that in no cafe whatever, cart
the immediate interpofition of God be diftinguifbed
fcertainly by the Works theinfelves * ? When the ad-
¦verfarles of revelation ufe fuch language. With a view
to deftrby its evidence, they fpeak in charaderj But
what raifes our wonder is, its being held by fome of
its abieft votaries and advocates, notwithftanding that
tevislatioh ftrongly afferts the fole dominion tf Jeho
vah over nature,' and every deviation from the laws
of natdre, (that is; every miracle) to be "in itfelf a de
monftration of his being its creator and lord. Which
of thefe two opinions is moft confdnant to reafon, is
a point difcuffed in the fecond chapter. We only ob
ferve here, that they canfaot both be true. Can thofe
works be the fole prerogatives of Jehovah^ and a
proof of his fole and Unrivalled fovereigfity *, Which
tthers befides him, and even when ading in oppofi
tion to him, have a power of performing as well as
he ? And can we fucCefsfuUy maintain the argument
from rtiiracles in favour of revelation, if we do not
iadhere td the ufe vvhich irevelation itfelf makes Of rni*
racles ?
[ The moft able of our modern writers feem not to
have attended to the true ftate of the antient contro
verfy between the prophets of God and idolaters.
Evfen the very learned and fagacioiiS biftiop Sherlock,
Q^ 2 fpeaking
* Dr. Claike at Boyle's Leftures, and others.

244 Proofs from Revelation, that Miracles
fpeakirig of the miracles wrought for the con\ndiorf
of Pharaoh, fays, " Here the queftion: plainly was
" between God undei* the charader of the God of
"^ the Hebrews, and the god of the Egyptians, which
" of them was fupreme*." He afterwards adds*,
" When the qufeftlon is, Who is the mightieft, muft
" it not be decided in his favour who vifibly exerts
" the greateft ads of power t ?" All the Heathen- nations
, * Difcourfes, V. I. p. 28r, 285^. At p. 279, he, had affirm
ed, " God thought proper to exett himfelf in fuch afts of
" power as ftiould, demonftrate \i\s fuperlotily above all gods' of
" the Heathen." And fo little did his Lordfliip attend to the
hiftory, that he afiirms, after the generality of divines, that the
fcharafter of diftinftion. Which God affumed, when he commif
fioned Mofes to Work liJiracles, was that of the God ef the He
brews, p. 279, 280 \ notwithftanding Its being fo evideht, that
the diftinguiftiing charafter which God then affum'ed was tli^t
o{ Jehovah ; and that the grand defign of Mofes's miracles was
to prove, that the God of the Hebrews had a right to this ti
tle. The miracles of Mofes Were indeed in part defigned to
acconiplifh the deliverance of the Ifratlit'es ; and in this vlev^
fhey deraohftrated Jehovah lo be " the God.of the Hebrews :"
a charafter under which God now appeared, though It was not
now firft affumed ; for he had ftood before In the fame relation
to their anceftors. But had he appeared under no other 01'
higher charafter than this ;, he would have been confounded
with the feveral local deities of the Heathens. Whenever he
was thus degraded as only the tutelary god of Ifrael •, (as he
was by Rabftiakeh, 2 Kings XA-Iii. 33^ 34 ;) he vindicated his
oWn proper charafter as Jehovah God, -and fole monarch of
the univerfe. 2 Kings xix. 14 — 35.
f That in the cafe of a conteft, he who performs the mofi
and greatefi miracles, gives evidence only ol fuperior power, not

) ) )

urgue a dipine Interpofition. 245
nations h?id at that lime their federal local deities,
whofe refpedive claims did not interfere with one
another ; each deity having a particular province and
peopfe of his own. Hence it came to pafs, that the
god pecuHar to each nation, never had his divinity
called in queftion within his own diftrid by the other
nations. So that had Jehovah appeared under no
higher charader, than that of the God of -the .He
brews ; the Heathens might and would have readily
admitted it, without departing from their owii princi
ples. But the God of Ifrael affuming the tiile of Je-
Jiovah, and declaring this to be his diftinguifhing
name and memorial, by which he would always be
remembered and celebrated * ; his claims were abfo
lutely fubverfive of thofe of aU other gods. It was
the fundamental article of the Jewifli religion, that
their -God was Jehovah, and God alone ; and that
all the Heatlien deities had no povfer or influence
oyer the affairs of mankind, within any limits what
foever. And therefore the queftion never could be.
Who h the mightiefl, Jehovah or thje riyal gods of
Paganifm. Any figns of .power given by the latter,
would have overthrown the dodrine of Jeho.vah's
prophets, and infri#ged his prerogative as the fole
author and fovereign of nature. If he. was Jehovah,
O 3 there
not of abfolute fupremacy; was fliewn above, ch. 2. feft. 6. p,
€3. And how unfatisfaftory the biftiop's folution is, when
applied to the works ofthe magicians in Egypt, will be ftiewn
below, ch. 4. feft, i,
* Exod. iii. 15.

246' Proofs from Revelation, that Miracles
there could be no other fovereign of nat-ure : and if
there was any other fovereign of nature, he was not
Jehovah, or the only Hying and triie God. Accord
ingly we find in fad, that in the conteft between the,
Ifraelites and Egyptians, E^nd in every fucceeding, con
teft, the queftion was. Is the God of Ifrael Jehovah,
in the full and proper fenfe of that expreffion ? In
this there was another queftion involved. Are any of,
the reputed gods of the Heathens truly Gods ? or do
they poffefs any of that power and doriiinion afcribed
to them by their worlhippers ? And how was this
queftion to be decided, but by miracles? A power,
and dominion over nature cannot be more effedually;
eftabllflied, thari by changing or fufpending the courfq:
of its operations. Accordingly Pharaoh demanded
of Mofes a fign *, as a proof of his 'miffion from Je^
hovah. And in the grand conteft between Elijah
and the prophets of Baal ; as. the queftion was, Whoj
is God, Jehovah or Baal ; fo both fides agreed to
have it determined by a fingle miracle. Elijah had
no conception, that Jehovah and Baal could both of
them be gods, one of them greater than the otheri
On the contrary, he fuppofes one of them only could
be God, or have any dominion over nature. Or pow
er of working a miracle, and confequently a title tq
worfhip ; when he fays, " If Jehovah be God, fol-
" low him: but if Baal, foHow himi." The pro-
pofal he afterwards made of deciding the controvert ¦ %
* Exod. vii. 9.
•\ 1 Kings xviii. ai. " '

argue a divine Interpftion, 247
fy by a fingle miracle, (not by the greater in number
or -degree,) " The God that anfwereth by fire, let
him be God," whether Baal or Jehovah * ; is a de
monftration that Elijah had no expeftation that both
Baal and Jehovah could interpofe in this miraculous
manner ; becaufe this would rather have proved both
ofthem to be gods, than that Jehovah alone was God ;
which was the point to be decided. And had Baal
anfwered by fire, this point had been determined a-
gainft Elijah, ^nd he muft have ackiiowledged that
Baal was god J anfwering by fire, being, in his opi
nion, a valid prpqf of a divine interpofition ; the ve
ry .touchftone by which he himfelf had defired the
claims both of Jehovah ^nd Baal might be tried, in
•order effedually to diftipgijifh which were genuine,
and which were counterfeit. Elijah allowed the
priefts of Baal to mak.e the experiment firft, aiid to
try to engage him to anfwer therti by fire ; firmly af-
jured of his utter impotence, and defirous of expof-
ing him in the prefence of his deluded worfhippers.
; All application to Baal being ineffedual,' Elijah pray
ed for fire from heaven, not to manifeft ihe fuperiori-
ty oi the God of Ifrael, but his fole Divinity, 'f that
" it might be known that .Jehovah was God in If-
" rael, and Jehovah God f." When the fire of Je
hovah fell and confumed the facrifice, the people ac
knowledged, " Jehovah, he is God; Jehovah, he is
i?od J." This conclufion was juft, upon the princi-
0^4 ¦ • pfe
-* V. 24.
f Ji Kings xviii. 3.6, 37, X V. 39,

248 Proofs from R.evelation, that Miracles
pie maintained above 1|, that the laws of nature being
ordained by God, their operation and effeds cannot
be controuled by any fuperior beings- befides him. If
this principle be falfe, could a fingle miracle C0nf\ne
the claims of the Heathen deities, and demonftrat^-'
Jehovah to be the only fovereign of nature ? But it
is, I hope, needl'efs to Ihew, that revelation fcotifirms
the didates of reafon on this fubjed. Here we have
no other view, than tp illuftrate the ftate of the an
cient controverfy between the prophets of God and
idolaters ; and by that means to fconfirm what has
been already urged to fhew, that the Scriptures re
prefent all miracles as the prerogativfes of the one e-
ternal Divinity, and- as proofs -of his bfein-g Jehovah^,
and God alon'e. They do this in a mannfer, that
plainly fhews their ha-viflg.no apptchfenfioft, that any
fuperior beings whatever, -befides God, had a powe?
of producing thefe effeds.
II Ch, 2. f^a. 3.

SECT,

j^gtie a, divine Interfolkion,. 249

SECT. VI.
SKfe Scriptures uniformly reprfent all miracles as being, in theni^
felves, an abfolute dentonftr ation of the divinity of the miftion and
doBrine of the prophets, at whofe inftance they are performed ;
tfiid never direB us to regard their doBrines as a teft ofthe mi
racles being the effeB fa divine interpofition,
"W JHE^ God commifiipned Mofes to deliver the
VV Ifraelites out of Egypt; he at the fame
gabled him 10 perform figns and wonders, to pro
cure him credit both with the Ifraelites ^, and the E-
gyptians ^. Miracles were the only teftimonials urg
ed with either, in proof of his miffion from Jehovah.
And it was alfo upon this evidence alone, that the
laws of Mofes Tssere afterwards received by the Ifrael
ites «is divine injondions X, and his authority fupport
ed amongft them ; though they were too much dif
pofed to difobey the one, and murmur againft the
other -|. They did not however try his miracles by
his
* Exod. -Iv, J, — 5, 8, 9. See alfo Numb. xvi. 28 — ^30.
T>b.at. iv. 39.
f Exod. vii. 8.
X Exod. xix. 3 — 8. ch, xxiv. 3. ^
'II When the Ifraelites c%arged Mofes with ambition and a-
farpation, 'be appea'ls to a miracle in proof of his divine com
miffion, Numb. xvi. 13, 28, ,29, " Hereby ye ftiall know that
J' the Lord has fent me.— If the Lord make a new thing, and
• the

250 Proofs from Revelation, that Miracles
his laws ; nor difpute the divine original of the for,
mer, merely becaufe many of the latter were expen-
five and painful, and had no intrinfic excellence to
recoinmend them. Nor did Mofes, when he proved
by miracles his commiffion to require of Pharaoh the
releafe of the Ifraelites, appeal to the equity of his de
mand, in confirmation of the diyinity of his works ;
though he might have fhewn, that the bondage of the
Ifraelites was the higheft reproach to the gratitude of
the Egyptians, whofe country had been faved by Jo
feph, and a violation of all the laws of hofpitality,'
and of all the promifes of protedion and kindnefs
made to the Ifraelites, when ihey firft came into E-
gypt. But Mofes refted the proof of his authority
upon the fole evidence of his works, as plainly dif
covering the hand of God, The fucceeding prophets*
under the Old Teftament, proceeded upon the fame
principle ; and appealed to miracles alone, as an un-
^ queftionable demonftration of their miffion from God- '
Elijah in particular thus prays to God to anfwer him
by fire, " Let it be known this day, that thou art
f God in Ifrael, and that I am.thy fervaiu, and thaj
" the earth open her mouth," &c. It was by a miracle like-
wife that Samuel convinced the Ifraelites of their fault In aik-
ing a king, i Sam. xii. 16 — 19.
* Jofti. iii. 7. ch. iv. 14. i Sam. x. i — 7. ch. xii. 16—18. I
¦*KIngs xiii. 3. ch. xvii. 24. 2 Kings v. 15. In like manner with
regard to prophecies, by their accompllftiment it ftiall be knowa '
that a prophet has been-amongft them, Ezek. xxxiii. 33. Jei;^
;:xviii. 9* i Sam. iii. 19, 20. compare Deut. xviji. 22.

¦ argue a divine Interpofition. 251
f I have done all thefe things at thy word *.'' The
very, f&me ufe is made of the miracles of the New
Teftament. But this being a point which has been
controverted both by the adverfaries and advocates of
ihe Chriftrian revelation ; (the former fometimes de
nying, that th^ miracles of the Gofpel were defigned
tp atteft Chrift's divine miffion; and the latter often
afferting, that they are .urged only as conditional at-
tf;ft.ations of it ;) I will examine diftindly the paffa
ges which fpeak of the author and end of the Gofpel
iniracles; efpeciaHy as I do not remember to have
feen them colleded together, much lefs placed in
(what appears to me to be) their true light. The mi
racles of Chrift, and his apoftles fhall be confidered
feparately.

With regard to our Saviour ; juft before he enter-,
ed upon his pubHc miniftry, he was quahfied for the^
difcharge of it, by receiving " the Spirit of God
without meafure t," or for univerfal and perpetual
Vife, and not as the former prophets had received it,
for a limited time and occafion. Accordingly he re
fers both his dodrine and his works to God as their
author. " He fpake as the Father taught him, and
gave him commandment :|:." His miracles he ftyles
" th?
* I Kings xviii. 36.
f John iii, 34,
X John viii, 28', ch, xii, 49, 50, In farther proof of his re-
. ferrlng his doftrine to God, the following paffages might be
''' •, appealed

252 Proofs from Revelation, that Miracles
*•' the works of God," and " the works of his Fa
ther * ;" which would have been an improper mode
of expreffion, if any one elfe could have done the
fame works. Chrift exprefsly afcribes them to " the
finger or Spirit pf God f ;" and affirms on one oc
cafion, " The Son can do nothing of himfelf f ;"
and on another, " The words that I fpeak unto you,.
" I fpeak not of myfelf. But the Father that dwell-
" eth in me, he doth the works il," whereby thof^i
words are confirmedr He.reprefents them as a vifible
and very confpicuous difplay of the " glory § and
power t of God." His difciples, in like manner^

appealed to, ch. viii, 26, 38, 40, ch. vii. 1$, \']. ch. xiv. 10, 24,,
Agreeably hereto we are told, " that the Spirit of the Lord
" was upon him, anointing him to preach the Gofpel," Luke '
iv, 18, and that after his refurreftion " he through the Holy
*' Ghoft gave commandments uhto his apoftles,^ Afts I. 3,,
See Whitby's preface to St. John's Gofpel,
* John ix. 3. ch. x. 37. ch. v. 36. ,
, f Mat. xii. 2^. Luke xi. zo.
X John y. 19.
^) John xiv. 10.
J Ch. xi. 4. In the 40th verfe Chrift, when going to raifi}
Lazarus, thus addreffes Martha, " Said I not unto thee, that
" if thou wouldft believe, thou ftiouldft fee the glory of
" God?"
i. " To whom hath the arm of the lord been revealed ?"
John xii. 37, 38. It I5 with a peculiar reference to the mira
cles «f Chrift, that he frequently affirms, " that feeing hifia," was

drgUe a ^vine Interpftion. 253
fpeatc of them as works, •' which God did by him * ;"
and declare, " God anointed Jefus pf Nazareth with
" the Holy Ghoft and with power, who went about
" doing good^ and healing all that were oppreffed
" with the devil, for God was with him f ."
Agreeably to this reprefentation of their author^.
Chrift appeals to his miracles as a demonftration (not
a pariial and conditional, but a compleat and abfo
lute deraoiiftration) of his miffion from God. He
tells the jews, " Tbe works which my Father has
*' given me to finifli (or to perform) the fame works
'* that I do, bear witnefs of me, that the Father has
" fent me." He adds^ *' Even the Father himfelf
*' which hath fent me, hath born witnefs of me J."
Juft as he was going to perform one particular mira
cle, he made a public appeal to God, '^ thaf men"
(by that fingle miracle) " might beHeve that the Fa
ther had fent him ||." And St. Peter ftyles him, " a
*' man approved of God, (or confpicuoufty demon-
" ftrated by God § to be his meffenger) by miracles, *' and
was ** feeing God who fent him." John xii. 44, 45. ch. xiv.
9 — 12. ch. xV. 24.
* Afts ii. 22.
f Ch. X. 33. ^t. Luke alfo fays, ch. iv. i, 14, " Jefus re
turned in the power of the 3^pirit into Galilee," which Is ex
plained Mat, iv. 23, 24, " He healed all manner of difeafes."
X John V, 36, 37* See alfo ch. viii. 18, 28,' 29, 42, 54.
ch. X. 35, 36.
11 ,Ch, xi. 41, 42.
J , Ami T8 ©iS «7r»S«Jfii|f«5M>. Afts ii. 22^

254 Proofs from Revelatim, that Miracles
*' and wonders, and figrisi" This language of^Chrift
and his apoftles implies, that his miracles were works
appropriate to' the Father, arid therefore,' in theiri
felves, and apart from all confideration of his dodrine^
a full detnonftratibri' of his divine miffion. '
The miracles of Chrift were farther defigned to e-
vlnce his peculiar charader as the Meffiah or anoint
ed. But here it will be neceffary previoufly to confi-
der, what is included in this charader : a point which
has been overlooked* by our beft writers upon the
fubjed of miracles ; and the overlooking of which
has, I apprehend, been one caiife of their not dif
cerning the pecilliar and dired defign of the; New.
Teftament miracles, or at leaft occafioned their fpeaki
ing of it in too vague and indeterminate a manner.
The kings of Ifrael (thofe vice-roys of God, who fat
upon God's throne,) were inftalled in their office, by
the ceremony of anoinfirig them with oil, and very
frequently diftinguifbed by this title f, " the Lord's
anointed." When this term is applied to Chrift, it
conveys to us the idea of " a king, immediately ap-
" pointed by God, and qualified for that office by a
" divine
* I take notice of this overfight, not merely for the fake of
ftie wing the neceffity of here laying before the reader, a fuller
account of the ends propofed by the Gofpel miradles, than any
that has been given by former writers j but alfo of fliewing in '
general, how neceffary it is to examine every tfiing ourfelves,'
Without trufting to the reprefentatro"n everi of learned, judi
cious, snd candid men.'
f This title was not indeed peculiar to the kings, of Ifrael ;
but it belonged to them eminently.

argils a divine Inierpfdioti. i^f;
*' divine undion," the unlimited communication,
and perpetual refidence of the Holy Ghoft. The two
grand branches of Chrift's regal office are " legifla-
tion," and " the diftribution of rewards and punifh-
ments amongft his fubjeds," according to their dif
ferent behaviour. In ancient times kings were alfo
.judges* ; arid indeed the adminiftration of juftice is a
principal ad of government, and infeparable from the
office of fovereign princes. An authority to difpenfe
. pardon, is likewife an effential branch of the royal
prerogative, and fuch as it was neceffary the fove
reign of mankind ftiould be invefted with, in order
to his encouraging his fubjeds, who weje in a ftate
of guilt and revolt from God, to return to their ahe
giance f . And the kingdom of Chrift not being of
a temporal nature, but fpiritual and heavenly, and
the chief bleffic^gs of it being fuch as could not be
enjoyed in their proper extent in this world, or even iri
* " Be wife now therefore, O ye kings : be inftrufted ye
judges of the earth." Pf. ii. lo. compare i Sam. viii. 5, 7.^
Our Saviour declares, that a judicial -po-vier belongs to him as
the Meffiah, " The Father has given him quthotity to execute
judgment alfo, becaufe he is thf fon of man," John v. 27. He
i^eaks of himfelf under the charafter of a king, when he de
fcribes his coming to judge the world. Mat. xxv. 34. And St,
Paul calls his appearance as the judge of the living and the
dead, his kingdom, 2 Tinrt iv, i,' See Afts x, 42, 1
f Afts vi, 31, ch. x. 43. It is obferved in Livy, Dec. r.
1. 2i c. 3, that what renders the kingly government dear to the
people,, is the liberty of pardoning ; Regem h-ominero effe, a
quo impetres, ubi jus, ubi injuria opus fit :' effe gratise locum,
effe beneficioj & irafci & Ignofcere poffe.

256 Proofs from Revelation, thefl Miracles
in the fiiture ftate While mankind continued uilder
the power of death ; it was abfolutely neceffary, that
Chrift fhould be aiithorized by God to raife the dead,
iri order to their being judged, and either rewarded
or condemned *. All the other exercifes of his royal
power, are only fp many preparations foi- the laft
grand ad, of inftating all the children of God in a
bleffed Immortality. The notion we are to form of
Jefus as the Meffiah, is that of the (^promifed and)
divinely (ronftituted prince and Saviour f. In his le-
gi/Iative and judicial capacity; he is fpoken of as a
king : and when he exercifes his power in difpenfing'
divine pardon, in redovering mankind from the do
minion of death, and putting the righteous of every
age and nation into the poffeffion of eternal life, he
is defcribed as a Saviour. But, ftridly fpeaking, this
latter office is included iri the former. Chrift's roy
alty would have been but an empty title, without the
power of diftributing rewards and punifhments, to
inforce the obedience of his fubjeds. In a Word, the
Meffiahffiip pf Jefus denotes his regal commiffion arid
power, or his right by divine defignation to domi
nion and judicature over mankind. And this is what
the miracles of Cfirift were defigned to eftabHlh.
At the firft opening of his miniftry, he proclaimed
the joyful tidings of the approach or arrival of the
Meffiah, or of the kingdom of heaven ; afferted his
own authority to give laws, and to adminifter govern ment
* See John v. 27—29.
f Aftu V. 31.

drgUe a divine Inferpfiiiofi. 257
meiit in this kingdom of God ; and at the fame time
'Urged- his miracles as a full and adequate proof of
his regal inveftiture and commiffion. In oppofition
to thofe who accufed him of a corifederacy with Sa
tan, he affirms, " If I caft out demons by the Spi-
" lit .of God, then is the kingdom of God come
" unto you*:" which implied,- that he himfelf was
the perfon, under whom that kingdom was to be
ereded. To thofe who defired hini, in cafe he Was
the Chrifti plainly to declare it, he replied, " I. told
" you who I am, and ye believed not. The works
" that I do in my Father's name, they bear, wit-
" nefs of me.—- — Say ye of him, whom the Father
" has fandified" (or fet apart to the. office of the
Meffiah) " and fent into the world" (under fo high
a charader), " Thou blafphemeft ; > becaUfe I faid,
" I am the Son of Godf ? Tf I do not the works of
" my Father, beHeve me not. But if I do, though
" ye beHeve not me," i. e. my teftimony, " believe
" THK WORKS," which sire the teftimony of God:
" that" by thefe vifible difplays of his power and au
thority, " ye may know and believe, that the Father
" is in me, and I in him |." To his difciples he
fpeaks the fame language,^" Believe me that I am
''' in the Father, and the Father in me : or felfe be-
R " lieve
* Mat. xii. 28. Luke xi. 20.
f The Son of God, and the Meftiah or the Chrift, are equi
valent terms. Mat. xvi.' 16. John. vi. 69. Mat. xxvi. 63.
Luke xxii. 66, 70. John i. 34 — 41. Compare Prov., iv. 3.
Pf. ii. 7, 12. 2 Sara. vii. 14.
X John X-. 24, 25, 36^-38. ch. viii. 28, 29,

258 Proofs from Revelation, that Miracles
*' lieve me for the very Works sake *^;" which'
ate the moft authentic teftimonials of my union with
the Father, and of his dweHing- and operating in me
by a permanent influence ; fo that, properly, it is
God who fpeaks and ads by me. Ih anfwer to that
inquiry, by a deputation to Jefus from the Baptift,.
" Art thou He that ffiould come ?" he refers them
to his miracles for fatisfadion J. And' becaufe his,
miracles^ evinced his dignity and authority as the.
Meffiah, he affirms their Intention to be, " that the
" Son of God might be glorified thereby ||." His
divi.^e commiffion arid prerogative to difpenfe fpiri*
rual bleffings, is particularly pointed out, as a moft
effential branch of his office, and at the fame time
inoft remote from the conception of the worldly-
minded Jews. When he healed the maladies of
thofe, who, from a principle of faith, appHed to him,-
he declared he did it with" this vievi', " that men
" might know, that the Son of man had power en
" earth to forgive fins §," And to the end, they
might regard him as the difpenfer of eternal life to
good
* Ch. xiv. 10, li.'
X '¦ The blind receive their fight, the lame walk," 8tc.
Mat. xi. 5. Luke vii. 21.
II John xi. 4. By his firft miracle, " he manifefted forth his
glory." John ii. 11.
§ Mark ii. 10, 11. Chrift's reafoning here fuppofes, that'
the power of healing difeafes was_ no lefs the prerogative of
God, than that of pardoning fins; and therefore that neither
could be communicated to any, but by God alone.

argue a di-dine Interpfition. 2^9
good men, after haviftg raifed theni from the dead;
before he caHed Lazarus from the grave, he ftiles
himfelf " the refurredion and thd life," and affured
his difciples, " he that believes on me, though he
" were dead, yet fhall he live *." The power of re-
ftoring the dead to Hfe, he elfewhere fpeaks of as the
immediate gift of his Father : and then proceeds to
affert his power to call all mankind from their graves,
that they might be adjudged to everlafting life or
death f. And inafmuch as all His miracles, by prov
ing him to be the Meffiah, eftabllflied his commiffion
from God to raife the dead, (without which he could
neither judge his fubjeds, nor beftow upon them the
prpmifed recompence); we find him upon all occa
fions, and . particularly When he fed five thoufand
with a few loaves and fiffies, afferting his charader
as the difpertfer of eternal life X >' adding, " for him
" has God the Father fealed," his miracles being as
authentic ct-edentials of his Meffiahffiip, as the royal
feal is of a corrimiffiori from a prince, whofe feal it
is : which expreffion ftrongly implies, that miracles
are ?i feal which none but God can ufe. If impof
tors are allowed to perform them, they are no au
thentic proof of a divine miffion, any more than the
royal feal would be of an order from a prince, who
permitted otheJ-s, and even his enemies, to have a
R 2 duplicate
* John xi, 25, 26.
t Ch. V. 20, 21, 25, 29. See ch. vi. 39, '40, 44, 45.
X " The Son of tilan ftiall give Unto you eternal life."
John vi. 27.

",€o Proofs from Revelation, that M^'^'^l^^
duplicate or counterpart of the fame. In a word, aH*
Chrift's miracles were performed, (and all his pro
phecies * Hkewife were dehvered,) with exadTtly the'
fame view with which they were conimitted to Wris-
ting, "' that we might believe, that Jefus is the
*'' Chrift, the Son of God ; and that beheving, we
" might have life through his name f." The effed
they produced was anfwerabie to this defign of their
performance. They dai'ried along with them a con-
vidion of their divinity: "^ No man," faid NIcode-'
mus to our Saviour, " can do thefe miracles that
*' thou doft, except God be with him X" And " the
'* multitude," when they favv his works, " marvel-
" led, a-nd glorified God, who had given fuch power
"unto men il." Accordingly his miracles wrought
a perfuafion in fome, that Jefus was a divine pro-
I phet § ; and in others, that he was the Meffiah §. If
miracles were not conclufive, and even cogent argu
ments of a divine miffion, the refiftance of thefe
means of convidion would not have been upbraided by
* " Now I tell you before It come,' that when it is Come
" to pafs, ye may believe that I am he." John xiii. 19. See
ch. ii. 22. ch. xiv. 29. ch. xvi. 4, 30. I Cor. xiv. 2j. Rev. ¦
xix. 10.
f .John xx. 31. See ch. xi. 15..
X John iii. 2.
II Mat. ix, 8. See John ix.'33.
• § Mat. xii. 23. John ii. 11, 22, 23. ch. iii. 2', ch, iv, -45,
54., 53. ch. vi. 14. ch. vii. 31. ch. ix. 35—38. ch. x. 44.
•j'l:. r.'.. 45, 47, 48. ch. xii. 11. Luke xxiv. 19.

.argue a divine Interpofition. "0.61
by Chrift with fo much feverity, nor made a ground
of the moft aggravated condemnation *. On the
.other hand, Chrift declares, " If I had not done
1" amongft them the works which none other man
"did," (that is, fuch as none but a trUly divine
meffenger , can perforrii,) " they had not had fin :
" but now have they both feen, and hated both me
." and my Father f."
R 3 On
- ,* Mat. X. 1,5. ch. xi. 20—24. '^''- -^i'- 3^' Jo^u ^^'i- 37-
ch. XV. 22^-25. Heb. ii. 3, 4. ch. vi. 4. God proceeded to
execute judgment upon Pharaoh, upon his not yielding to the
•evidence of the firft miracle ; and Zacharlas was ftruck dumb,
for not giving credjt to .a .fingle divine appearance,: which
feems to imply, that every miracle bears upon it the vifible
ftamp of divinity. And wherein does the common doftrine
concerning mlraples being wrought by CiVll J^jflts, diffef -from
" the blafphemy againft the Holy Ghoft," (fo feverely con
demned in thofe who imputed Chrift's cure of demoniacs to the
affiftance of demons,) except ip its not arguing malice againft
Chrift ? The .Jews referred only one fpecies of Chrift's mira
cles to the devil: many Chriftians affert, thatjuoft, if not ^1,
his miracles might be wrought by evil fpirits.
f John XV. 24. This paffage has been generally thoaght
to affirm, that the perfonal miracles of Chrift were greater than
tbofe of Mofes, or any of the ancient prophets ; which was
fcarce true at that time. Chiaft is here ^iftingujffiing himfelf
from sX\ falfe prophets, whom the Jews were too much in
clined to follow, even without any evidence of their miffioii,
and from' a mere reliffi of their corrupt doftrine. The ex
preffion is fomewhat parallel to John x. 37. " If I do not the
" works of my Father, believe me not." Both thefe paffri-
¦.ges teach, us in the ftrongeft manner, that miracles are works
which no impoftor, nor any but God, can perform, and in
themfelves authentic proofs of a divine miffion.

262 proofs from Revelation, that Miracles
On the third day after he had fuffered death, un-:
der the falfe imputation of blafphemy and Impofture ;
he was raifed from the dead : a miracle which the
Scripture afcribes " to the working of God's mighty
power *," and confiders as the capital and moft au
thentic declaration of Jefus's being " the Son of
God f," and the true Meffiah ; and to which he had
often rejferred his enemies for convidion J. The re
gal power of the Meffiah, including in it a judicial
as well as a legiflative authority ; the refurredlori of
Chrift, and his advancement to the full poffeffion of ,
his regal power, is fpoken of a§ a completion of the
evidence, and as a commanding argument of his be
ing appointed to judge the world ||.
II.
With regard to the miracles performed ,by the.
apoftles of Chrift, after his afeenfion into heaven,; ai
they are afcribed tp the agency of the Spirit of God §,
even to " the Spirit of truth which proceedeth (com
eth forth) from the Father %" and is; difpenfed through the
* Ephef. i. 19. Col. ii. 12.
f Rom. i. 4.
X John ii. 18. Mat. xii. 38. ch. xvi. i.
. II Afts xvii. 31. In this paffage, 7thiy( va^xr^ai wxrit,
" having offered faith to all men ;" faith is put for the
evidence afforded, or the perfuafive argument, whereby, it is
wrought. § Rom. XV. 19. I Cor. xii. 4 — 11. Heb. ii. 4.,
f John XV. 26.

argue a divine Interpofition. 16^
the mediation of Chrift * ; fo they are urged as a fuU
vindication of the charader of Chriftfrom the afperfions
^nd calumnies of his enemies, as a proof of the truth
pf his refurredion and advancement to celeftial dignity
and power,as a confirmation of his claims tp be a divine
meffenger and the Son of God, as a teftimony of God
;and of Chrift to thofe whom he commiffioned to af-
'fert thefe claims, or to atteft the fads (his refnarrec-
-tion in particular) on which they were founded f ; or
in other words, as an indubitable divine teftimony to
ihe dodrine they preached,, when they taught Jefus
tp be the Meffiah, by faith in whom pardon and eter-
.nal life were to be obtained. Our Saviour promifed
his fpUowers, " that they ffiould do greater works
" than he had done, becaufe he went to the Father,"
(or was to be exalted to power in his prefence and
>kingdom,) when, as the effed and evidence of his
exaltation, he was to receive froni the Father, and
^ifpenfe to his fpUowers, the Holy Ghoft \. " And
" when he is come, he will*' (by the miracles he
will enable you to perform in my name) '' reprove"
R 4 ' (or
* Tit. ill. 6. " The Father," fays our Lord, " will fend
" him in my name. I will pray the Father, and heifliallglve
*' you another Comforter or Advocate. -I will fend him unto
¦" you from the Father.'? Jolin xiv. 26. ch. xv. %6.
f The apoftles received their commiffion from Chrift ; JcAa
?x. 31. ch. xvii. 18. and were appointed to be the witneffes
.of his refurreftion; ch. xv. 27. Afts i. 8. ch. II. 22, 23. ch.
X. 3^, 41. ch. xiii. 31. I Cor, xv. 14, 15. "'•''
t John xiv. 12. ch. xv. 26. Afts ii. 33 — 36.

264 ~ Proofs from Revelation, that Miracles
(or lather, convince) " the world of fin," of their
heinous guilt in rejeding and condemning me to
death as an impoftor, " and of" the " righteoufnefs'^
of my charader and the juftice of my claims, " and
of" the equity of that " judgmjent,',' which will ba
executed upon my enemies *. " He ffiall teftify of
" me f . He ftiall glorify me X- At that day," fays
Chrift, " ye ffiall know, that I am in my Father, and
" ypu in me, and I in you ||." He intercedes with his
Father, on the behalf both of his apoftles, and of their
converts, '* that they may be one," (by a common
participation of the Spirit,) " as § thou. Father, art
" in me, and I in thee; that they alfo may be one
" in us : that the world" (by the vifible operadons
of that Spirit, which I ffiall receive from thee, and
impart to them,) '¦ may beHeve that thou haft fent
" me." And " the glory" (the power and honour-
of performing miracles by the Spirit) " which thou
" haft given me, I have given them : that they may
" be one, even as wc are one ; that the world may
" knovs' that thou haft fent me, and haft loved them',
f' as thou haft loved me." And jilft before his af-
cenfijPn
* John xvi. 8 — ir.
f Ch. XV. 26.
X Ch, xvi. 14,
il Ch. xiv. 20. ch. xvii. 21 — 23. Compare ch. x. 38. ch.
xiv. 10, II, cited above; and confult Dr. Whitby on thefe
feveral, places, an^ on Ephef. iv. 4.
§ John. xvii. 21 — 23. ^s, in this place, denotes refem-
hlance, not equality : for in Chrift dwells all the fulnefs of .{he
Godhead bodily.

(C

ar-gue a divine Interpftion. 26 g
icenfion he teHs his difciples, " Ye ffiall receive power
." after that the Holy Ghoft is come upon you ; and
'f ye ffiall be witneffes unto me *."
Conformable to this declared intention of Chrift
in promifing and beftowing the gifts and miracles of
the Holy Ghoft, are the feveral ufes to which they
are applied by the apoftles. When they received the
gift of tongues, St. Peter tells the Jews, " Chrift be-
^' ing by the right hand of God exalted,- and having
f received of the Father the promife of the Holy
*^ Ghoft, he has ffied forth this, which ye now fee
f ' and hear f." And from this effufion of the Spirit,
as well as from the teftimony of prophecy, he argues,
^' that God had made Jefus both Lord and Chrift t."
We,'' fays the fame apoftle afterwards, " are wit-
" neffes of thefe things," (viz. the refurredion and
exaltation of Jefus,) ?' and fo' alfo is' the Holy
" Ghoft J," The Scriptures likewife inform us on
other occafions, that " with great power" (by very
illuftrious miracles) " gave the apoftles witnefs ' of
" the refurredion of the Lord Jefus ||." The manner
in which the apoftles performed their miracles, ffiews
that they were efpecially defigned as an immediate
teftimony to the refurredion and glory of Chrift.
"In the name of Jefus of Nazareth rife up and
" walk §," faid Peter to the lamC' man at the gate of
the
* Afts i. 8.
f Ch. Ii. 33—36.
I Aftsy. 31,- 32.
[I Ch. iv. 30, 33. .,
f Ch. iii. 6. Compare ch. iv. ^o.

^66 Profs from Revelation, that Miracles
the temple. And he thus farther explains the int^.
tion of the miracle to the aftoniffied multitude : " God
" ha§ raifed up, and glorified his Son Jefus ; and his
*' name, (or power,) through faith in his name, has
*' made this man ftrong'^' The apoftles conftantly
declared themfelves to be the appointed witneffes of
his refurredion and exaltation ; and accordingly their
miraicles are fpoken of as the atteftation of God to
»them, in tht execution of their commiffion. " God
^' bore them witnefs, both by figns and wondep,
*' and with divers miracles and gifts (or diftribur
*' tions) ofthe Holy Ghoft *: they went forth, and
*' preached every where; the Lord working whh
" them, and confirming the word with figns followr
" ing f : the Lord gave teflimony to the word of his
" grace, and granted figns and WQriders to be done
^' by their hands J." St. Paul, in particular, confi
dered fupernatural interpofitions in his favour, as ma-
nifeftatipns of " the life H" of Chrift, " and as a proof of
* Heb. Ii. 4.
f Mark xvi. 20. <- *
X Afts xiv, 3. Ey U the word, the word of God, the Gof-
^' pel, the word of the Gofpel, the word of the kingdom,"'
jf which are often ufed as fynonlmous terms,) the Scripture
means the joyful news of the approach or arrival of the Mef
fiah, and the preaching Jefus to be that very perfon, or the
ruler and redeemer of the people of God. , Compare Luke iii.
18, 21. ch. viii. II. ch. Ix. 2, 6. Mat, xi, 5, Afts viii, 4.
<;h, X. 36, 37. ch. xi. i, 19, 20. ch. xii. 24. ch. xiii. 42—49,
¦ch. XV, 7, 35, ch, xvii, 3, 11, 13, ch, xviii. 4, ii. '
,11 2 Cor, iv, 10, II,

argite a divine Interpfition. 267
of Chrift fpeaking'in him *," and exprefsly calls his
miracles, " the figns of an apoftle f." He likewife
tells his converts, " that his Gofpel came not unto
'« thein in word only, but alfo in power, and in the'
y Holy Ghoft, and in much affurance," (or with the
fuHeft convidion of its truth) ; " and that his preach-
'^^ ing was in demonftration of the Spirit, and of
.?' power, that their faith might not ftand in the wif-
f* dom of men, but in the power of God t-." , The
^effed produced by thefe miracles, correfponds to and
confirms the account here given of their primary de
clared intention : for they demanded and procured
an abfolute credit to the dodrine and teftimony of
the performers, " concerning the kingdom of God ||,
" and the name of Jefus Chrift §." And St. Paul
tells us, that the Gentiles were made obedient to the
faith, " through mighty figns and Wonders, by the
" power ofthe Spirit of God," and prefented as an
acceptable offering to God, " being fandified by the
Holy Ghoft t," imparted to the firft Chriftian con-
yerts in many extraordinary gifts.
The
* Ch. xiii. 3,
f Ch, xii. 12, Compare I Cor. iv. 19, 20, and what is,
^tged above, ch. 3. feft. 4. p. 213, 214.
X I Theff. i. 5. I Cor. ii. 4, 5.
II See above, note J, p. 266.
§ Afts viii. 6, 7. See ch. ii. 33, 41—43- ^^- '^^' 35) 42-
ch. xiii. 12. Rom. xv. 18,
f Rom. XV. 16, 18, 19. It appears from this paffage, that
the -winning men over to the faith of Chrift, was- the defign with

tj68 Proofs from Revelatiott; that Miracles
The paffages already cited, chiefly refer to the xni.
racles performed by the apoftles, for the convidion
of unbelievers : I will now fet down the paffages
which exprefs the intention of thofe fpiritual gifts
which the apoftles beftowed upon believers ; that we
may fee the whole fubjed in one view. The gifts
conferred upon the Chriftian converts, befides^beiti^
a new confirmation of the Chriftian faith, or of the
dodrine and teftimony of the apoftles concerning
Chrift *: ; were farther defigned as an evidence of the
divine favour tp all who received and obeyed the
Gofpel, though they did not fubmit to the law of
Mofes ;. as a feal ofthe pardon of their paft fins, and
a pledge of their adoption ip eternal life ^f- ; as a proof
of their eledion of God to be his church and people :|:;
and as a means alfo of fupporting the worffilp of God,
and thereby of promoting the edification and im
provement of Chriftians, as well as the corividion of
unbelievers, who might cafually attend the Chriftian
affemblies ||. With, regard to the miraculous judg
ments inflided upon fuch as wickedly pppofed, cor
rupted, or difobeyed the Gofpel; they were defigned
more immediately for the puniiiment and reforma tion
witli which the miracles were performed^ as well as the effeft .
which they produced.
* I Cor. I. 5, 6, 7. 2 Cor. i. 18 — 22.
t Afts ii. 38. Rom. v. j:, j. ch.'vlii. 14 — 16. 23. 2 Cor.
s. ,22. ch. V. 5. Gal. iv. 6, 7. Ephef. i. 13, 14. ch. iv. 30.
Compare Luke xx. 36.
X I Theff. i. 4, J,
i! I Cor!, xii, 7, ch, xiv. 3, 22, 25, 31. Ephef. iv. 8— 16,

argue a divine Interpfition, 269-
fiori of offenders *, though they ultimately termina
ted in the confirmation of the Chriftian dodrine.
The clear and explicit view, which the foregoing
paffages of Scripture give us of the precife intention
of the miracles bf the New Teftanaent, may ferve to
redify the miftakes men have fun into upon this fub
jed. In the numerous paffages here cited, the divi
nity of thefe miracles, confidered in themfelves, is
always either exprefsly. afferted, or manifeftly im
plied; and they are accordingly urged as a decifive
and abfolute proof of the divinity of the dodrine and
teftiirioriy of their performers, without, ever taking
into f onfideration the nature of the dodrine or of the
teftimony to be confirmed.
To what is here advanced, forne will objed, " that
*' our Saviour, when the Pharifees afcribed his mi-
" racles to a confederacy with demons, appealed to
'' his dodrine in refutation of the calumny :" " If
" Satan caft out Satan, he is divided againft him-
" felf; how then ffiall his kingdom ftand? And if
" I by Beelzebub caft out devils ; by whom do your
" children caft them out ? therefpre they ffiall be
" your judges f ." If. is fuppofed that our Saviour
ih this paffage affirms, that it was abfurd to afcribe
his miracles to the devil, becaufe his dodrine was moft'
oppofite to a!ll that an evil fpirit could wiffi to be pro
pagated in -the world ; and that if Chrift was an ac
complice
* I Tim. i. 20. Afts xiii. 11. 2 Cor. x. 6. i Cor. v. j.
2 Cor. xiii. 10.
¦\ Mat. xii. 26, 27.

270 Proofs from Revelation; that Miracles
complice of the devil, then the devil was fubverting
his own interefts, ruining his own kingdoiri. This
objedionj I apprehend, proceeds upon two miftakes;
ift. It fuppofes, that 'the Pharifees afcribed the
miracles of Chrift in general to a confederacy with
demons: a fuppofition altogether- groundlefs. It ap
pears from the hiftory*, that this calumny, as it was
occafioned by, fo it concerned only, one particular
fpecies of his miracles, the cure of demoniacs ; whofe;
diforders were thought to be caufed by the influence
of demons ; from whence it was concluded, that they,
might be reriioved by the influence bf demons. There
is no intimation given us, that the enemies of Chrift
ever extended this reproach to any of his other mira
cles ; faithfully as, the evangclifts have recorded every
other calumriy againft him, and particular as they-
have been in their relation of this. And indeed it is
certain, that the Pharifees neither did nor could
afcribe the miracles of Chrift in general to a demonia
cal agency; They could mi do it ; I mean, not without;
grofs felf- contradidion : becaufe they allowed mira
cles to be a proof of a divine miffion, upon which
alone their religion was foundai ; and becaufe maiiy
of the miracles of. Chrift were the very fame with
thofe, which their own prophets had produced as di-;
vine credentials. And that they did not afcribe theni
to demons, appears from their behaviour on fonie re
markable occafions. When they wdre unable to
deny
* The following are the only Inftances of this calumny on
record : Mat. ix. 32. ch. xii. 22. Mark iii. 22. Luke xi. 14.

argue a divine Interpfition, - 271
deny the reality of Chrift's miracles, at a lofs to evade
the convidion of them, and fully fenfible of the dan
gerous confequences to their fuperftltion and ufurpa-
tion, from their gaining credit ; in a word, when re
duced by them to the utmoft perplexity, even then
they did not fo much as attempt to argue, that the
works of Chrift proceeded from any evil fpirits *, but
rather acknowleged God was the author of them.
Thus to the man born bHnd, on whom Chrift had
beftowed fight, they fay, " Give God the pralfe :
^' we know that this man is a finner ,-}-." They were
willing to allow, that God might exercife his power,
and corivey his favours by a profligate imppftor, ra
ther than that any but God could open the eyes of a
perfon born bHnd. In this fenfe they were underftood
by the man on whom they were perfprmed, with
whom they were difputing ; as appears from his re
ply, " God heareth not finners X" cannot confirm
by miracles falfe pretences to a divine commiffion.
It has, I think, been univerfally affirmed, that the
Pharifees afcribed Chrifl^s miracles in general to a
confederacy with Satan ; though the contrary be fo
very evident. How ^igerous is it to adopt any opi
nion, until it has bSi ftridly and impartiaUy exa
mined ?
adly. The objedion we are confidering farther
fuppofes, that our Lord in his reply refers the Phari
fees to his dodrine for fatisfadion : whereas there is
not
* John xi. 47, 48, ch, xii. 19. Afts iv, 14, 16,
f Jolmix, 24. t V. 31.

¦_ , , , • ^^
±1i Proofs from Revelation, that .Miracles
hot one word faid in relation to that, however oppa.'
fite it was to the interefts Of the devil. As the ob
jedion referred only to one particular kind of mira
cles ; fo does the anfWer, which contains Jin argu
ment iri confutation of' the objedion drawn from the'
miracle itfelf. Our Lord is here addreffing himfelf to'
thofe, who did not acknowlege, and were unwilling
fo be convinced of his authority ; and therefore ar
gues with them (as he was wont * to do) upon their
own pririciples, in order to filence thofe Whom' he
could riot inftfudf: telling them, " that it was un-
" reafonable to impute his cure of demoniacs to the
" affiftance of the prince of demons ; fince, if the
•' miracle eonfifted (as they apprehended, and the
" objedion implied,)' In' the ejedlon of demons; it
" was in its very nature an ad of hoftility againft
" them ; ahdT Satan could not be fuppofed to affift in
^' overturning' his own empire." With the fame
view of expofing the abfurdity of this calumny, upon
their own principles and pretenfions, he adds, " If
" I by Beelzebub caft oiit demons ; by whom' do
" your children caft them out? therefore they ffiaft
" be your judges." By the cl||pren of fhe Pharifees We'
* Mat.xi. 12, 13. ch.'xxv. 24, 2-5. Luke xviii. i — 7.
f To the malicious Pharifees, who had been endeavouring
to Infnare hitn, Chrift propofes thIs''(|ueftion, '' If David call
Chiift Lord, how Is he his Son?", Mat. xxii. 45. not for the
fake of folving.the difficulty, but to leave his enemies fpeech-
lefs. And when they alkcd hxm, " Who gave him his autho
rity ?" Mat. XX!. 23 ; he anfwered this queftion with another,
to filence thofe who would not be convinced.

argue a divine Interpftion. 27^
we are to underftand their difciples * and followers,
or the Jews who undertook f to eaft cut demons in
the name of the God of Abrahain, but who certainly
did not fucceed in their attempts X- And our Lord
(without either charging their dodrine with ab..
S furdity,
^ In likd manner, hy " the fons of the prophets," we are
foturiderftand the difciples of the prophets. *
f Afts xiii. 19. That the Jews praftifed exorcifms, far
ther appears from the teftimonies of Jofephus, Juftin Martyr,
Jrenseus, Theophilus, and Origen, cited by Grotius, Ham
mond and' Whitby on Mat. xii. 27.
X See Middleton's Free Inquiry, p. 84. To what Is urged
by this excellent writer to difcredit the teftimony of the Fa.-
thers to the efficacy of the Jewilh exorcifms, I would add, that
Origen, notwithftanding his allowing to the Jevvs in his time
the power- of cafting out devils, declares, *' That the Jews,
", fince the coming of Chrift, are entirely deferted, have no
" token pf the divine prefence aftiongft them, have no pvo-
" phets, no miracles." Contra Celf. 1. 2. p. 62. and 1. 7. p.
337. And Juftin Martyr fpeaks of the prophetic gifts as
transferred from the Jews to the Chriftians. Dial. Tryph.
p. 308,' 3 i'5. Indeed- tlie Jewifli' exorcifms as defcribed by
their own hiftorian ( Jo^^H. Arit. Jud. 1. 8. c. 2. § 5.) are too
qbfurd to be confuted, ^.ccordingly the Jews who had been
gccuftomed to the exorcifms of their countrymen, (in whicli
they made ufe of magical ceremonies and natural remedies,).
-ivhen they faw the diforders imputed to demons perfeftly and
inftaneoufty ctfred by Chrift, were ftruck with the higheft afto-
niflimeirt. Luke xi. 14. Mark i. 26-, 28. ch. v. 20. Luke
i|v. 36, 37. The fight was new,^ arid the miracle carried ah
imm'ediate conviftion of itg divinity, " They were amazed at
the mighty power of God," Luke ix. 43. and affirm, *' It was
never fo feen in Ifrael," Mat. ix. 33. compare Mark ii. 12.
The fevecty difciples triumphed in their cure of demoniacs, as

274 Proofs from Revelation, that Miracles
fiirdlty, or making any mention of the reafonable-
ngfs of his own,) reproaches the manifeft inconfift
ency of their condud, in imputirig his cure of de
moniacs to Beelzebub, when they afcribed toGod
the pretended fucqefs of their own exorcifms ; and
at the fiiiie time taxes them as perfons of the moft
ffiamelefs difpofition, in countenancing the groffeft
impoftures, while they refifted a iniracle fupported
by the cleareft evidence. In the fequel of his ad
drefs to the Pharifees, inftead of referring them
to his dodrinei he urges the miracle itfelf as a full
, and decifive proof of his being the Meffiah * ; which
it could not be, if it could have been performed by
thofe who oppofed and blafphemed his charader and
claims. And when he adds, that the ejedion of de
mons argued a power (not only "oppofite, but) y«/if,
rior X to that of BeelzebHb ; he ftill reafons from the
^nature of the miracle alone, according to their idea
of it. He clofes his addrefs in the fame ftrain : " If
" it be a juft maxim, that he is to be regarded as an
" enemy, who only refufes" his affiftance J ; will you
" account me a friend and confederate with Satan,
f who diredly oppofe and difjMTefs him ?" '
As
the moft wonderful and diftinguiftiing privilege, Luke x. 17,
.and the people regarded this miracle as the charafteriftic o£,
the MeflTiah, crying out at the fight of. it, ^ Is not this the
Son of David ?" Mat. xii.. 23. Nay, the Pharifees them
felves were never fo far blinded by malice as to oppofe the
Jewifti exorcifms to Chrift's cure of demoniacs : a plain proof.
that the difference between them was too great to admit of
any comparifon. '
'¦* Mat. xii. 28; t V- 39. X V. 30.

argue a divine Interpfition. 275
As there is no proof that our Lord ever did, fo it
is utterly in^poffible that our Lord ever ffiould, refer
the Jews to his d(3drine, in order to convince them
of the divinity of his works, or tp fatisfy them that
thofe works were not performed by the affiftance of
the devil. For notwithftanding his miracles, they
difputed his divine miftion and authority, on accouijt
pf the apprehended abfurdity and. Impiety of his doc
trine, and his extraordinary charader and preten
fions as the Son of God, This was the c^fe of thofe
who reproached him with blafphemy, when he affert
ed his commiffion to forgive fin, though at the fame
time he confirmed it by a miracle * ; and of thofe
who difparaged his multiplication of the loaves and
fiffies, becaufe he fpoke to them of his fufferings and
death f . Indeed the dodrine of his crofs was a ground
of general offence both to Jews and Gentiles ; and
ipftead of giving authority to the miracles of the Gofr
pel, ftood in need of their affiftance tp procure it a-
reception. The Pharifees, who (as we have already.
obferved) could not but allow the divinity of his
works, did neverthelefs conclude, from his perform
ing them on the Si^tkith-day, (and thus fubverting
^hofe fuperftitions, which they reverenced as the moft
effential branches of religion,) that he muft needs be
a wicked impoftor J. And the true reafon, why our
Saviour, dtiring the courfe of his perfonal miniftry,
S 2 did
* Mark ii. 7.
f John vi. 30, 31, 41, 60, 66,
X John ipc. 14, 16,

27^ Proofs from Revelation, that Miracles
did not more clearly and explioitly reveal fome parts
of his dodrine, was, that the prejudices ^f the Jews
againft them were too ftubborn to be overcome by the
cleareft evidence of their divinity *. To have direc
ted them, therefore, to try his miracles by the doc
trines they were intended to atteft, would only have
fo much the more confirmed them in their difbeKef
of the Gofpel. Even after the refurredion of Chrifl!,
when the Gofpel was pjopofed^ tp them by the apof
tles in its fulleft evidence, and the right of the Gen-
tiles to all the privileges of the Chriftian church, with-
out fubmitting to the Jewiffi law, was vindicated by
the miraculous donation of the Holy Ghoft to Cornc-
Hus and other uncirctimcifed Gentifes ; yet eircumci,
fion was ftill infilled upon by many, as a neceffary
terra of Chriftian communion.
It Is to Httle purpofe therefore to plead, as the ad
vocates of Chriftianity are apt to do, that the natuTe;
of the dodrines which miracles are defigned to con
firm, will ferve to point out the authors of the works ;
inafmuch
¦* If Chrift had made his doftrinea teft of the divinity o£-
hls miracles, it would have been iiecra"ary for him to have re
vealed his whole doftrine, before he required men to receive
him as a divine melTenger on account of his miracles: for how
could they judge whether thofe parts of his doftrine which' he
had not revealed, were worthy of God or not? Neverthelefs
long after Chrift had required men to receive hirn becaufe of
his works, he tells his 'own difciples, " I have yet many things,
to fay unto you, but ye cannot bear them now." John xvi. 12.
Even at this day, no man, on the principle we here oppofe,
can regard the miracles of Chrift as divine works, uniefs he be
previoufly affured, that' he perfeftly underftands the whole
Chriftian revelation.

argUe a divine Interpftion. i^j
inafmuch as this can do no fervice to Chriftianity,
For the divinely authorized teachers of It did not,
and confidering the prejudices of the firft converts,
could not, make this ufe of its dodrines. Had there
been any ambiguity in the proof from miracles, it
Would have been rejeded by thofe to whom it was at
firft propofed. In latter ages learned nien have ad-
-ventured.(fuch is the prefumption and weaknefs of
human reafon, in many perfons endowed with the
largeft meafure of it !) to demonftrate a priori, that
it became God to interpofe for the reformation of the
World, juft at the time, and in the riianner related in
the Gofpel : and hence they infer the divinity of its rgi|-
racles, and very often even their truth. But it is certain,
that in the age in which the Gofpel was publlflied,
nothing feemed more incredible, than its grand doc
trine, that Jefus of Nazareth is the Meffiah. And
Jefus and his apoftles won men to the belief of this
article, by the evidence of prophecies and miracles,
without once appealing to the Internal credibility of
it, or entering into any nletaphyfical reafonings and
difqulfitioris concerning the difpenfations of provi
dence, fr
- indeed^ fetting all prejudice afide, the Meffiahffiip
bf Jefus of Naz;areth is a dodrine, which natural rea-
,fon cannot, of itfelf, difcover to be either true or
falfe. It is a dodrine which admits of no other proof,-
than the teftimony of prophecies and miracles ;; and
yet can never itfelf ferv6 to manifeft their' divine ori
ginal *. A late celebrated writer feems to have been
¦ S3 fenfible
* See below, ch. 5.

278 Proofs from Revelation, that. Mir acles
ferifible of this when he' faid *, that we are ", to dif-
" tiftgulffi between the dodrines we prove by mira-
" cles, and the dodrines by whidh we try miracles^
" and that they are not the fame dodrines." With
what a number of fubtle diftlndlons |iave the learned
perplexed the evidence of the Gofpel, fuch as render
it very unfit /or being (what it was, by its gracious
author, defigned to be) the religion of the poor and
illiterate! If miracles are common to all fuperior
beings ; is it evident to an ordinary capacity, that
they neceffarily argue the immediate interpofition pf
God, when performed by a perfon Who teaches lef-
¦ fons of morality ; though at the fame time he alleges
his miracles, in confirmation of claims and powers
quite diftind from and fiiperiot tp that of a teacher
of morality, fuch as his being the Meffiah and Son
of God? Befides, if the purity of Chrift's moral
precepts be a neceffary teft of the divinity of his works,
wrought to eftabliffi his extraordinary pretenfions and
charader ; hOw comes it to pafs, that neither Chrift
nor his apoftles have given us, any information con
cerning this matter ? As they hav? no where told
us, what thofe dodrines are, by which- we are to try
their miracles ; if there be fuch dodrines, are they
not chargeable with the moft criminal omiffion ? an
omiffion, which rio human wifdom or fagacity can
fupply; Nay, upon the fole evidence of miracles,
they demanded faith in Chrift as the Meffiah, before
they inftruded men in any other dodrines ; and
therefore
* Sherlock's Difc. V. i. p. 303, 304.

argue a divine Interpftion, ^jA
therefore certainly without fubnittting them to pre
vious examination : which would havfe been very unr
reafonable, if thofe other dodrines are a neceffary teft
of the divinity of their miracles.
The plain matter of fad, as it appears to nie, is
this : they never taught men to. try their miracles ei
ther by the dodrine they were immediately defigned
to cpnfirni, oi- by any other : but, on the contrary,
taught men to judge of their dodrine by their mi-
tacles. The very purity oi the ^Chriftian dodrine, as
well as the nature of Chrift's perfonal claims, rendered
this condud neceffary. The Jews in general, and
the Pagans more efpecially, were. plunged into the
deepeft corruption. The latter \vere not only idola
ters, but worffiipped their gods by ads of unclean-
nefs, fuch as Wefe fuitable to their apprehended na
tures. Would not. the purity of the Gofpel, create ih
fuch perfons a prejudice againft its miracles*? What
could erigage them, to embrace a dodrine that con-
tradlded every feritlmerit and affedion of their hearts,
but fuch workfe as were in themfelves, and according
to the genuine fentiments bf nature, certain and evi
dent proofs of a divine interpofition ? Thpfe there
fore who endeavour to prove, that miracles alone are
riot a filfficient criterion bf a divine miffiofi; do not
iittend to the nature ofthe Chriftian difpenfation, nor
b the ftate of the world when- it was firft ereded.
They likeWife impeach the condud of Chrift and his
appftles, and labour to deftroy (though Without de-
S 4 , figning
* See Sbove, diTTrfeft, ji p. 78—80.

2 So Proofs from Revelation, thaf Miracles
figning it) the vety foundation on which Chriftianity
is built. We have ffiewn in general, that if miracles
are ever performed in fupport of falfehood, they can
never afford certain evidence of a divine coriimiffiora.
iLeaft of all, then, can they ferve to eftabliffi the di
vine miffion and authority of Chrift ; which he re
quires us to acknowlege upon the account of his mi
racles, as in themfelves a compleat and fufficient evi-
derice; I have now laid before the reader Various argu
ments from revelation, to prove that miracles are the
peculiar works of God. Leaving others to judge of
the fo'rce of thofe arguments ; I ffiall conclude this
chapter with obferving, that what has been advanced
in it concerning the author of miracks, feems to me
to be confirmed by the main dodrines both of the
Jewiffi and Chriftian revelations. As it is the dif-
tinguiffiing dodrine of the Old Teftament, that Je
hovah is the only true God ; fo It is the diftipguiffi-'
ing dodrine of the New Teftament, that Jefus Chrift
is the only mediator between God andman. "Though
" there be that are called gods, whether ih heaven,
" or In earth," whether fuperior celeftial deities, or
inferior terrefiri-al demons, who are thought to inter
pofe in human affairs, and to controul the courfe of
events, in a fupernatural manner: " but to us there
" is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things,,"'
who is the fovereign of the whole world ; " and one
" Lord Jefu« Chrift, by whom are all things *," who is'
* I Cor. viii. 4, 5, 6. i Tim. ii, 5.

^ drgue a divine Interpftion, 28 1
IS the fole agent between heaven and earth, by whofe
miniftry God exercifes his government over mankinds
But if there are any other fuperior beings who can of
themfelves interpofe in our affairs in a fupernatural
manner, and controul the courfe of nature, without
an immediate comnliffion from God and his Chrift ;
then it is not true, that " there is none other God
but one,'* or that Chrift i^ the only Lord of mankind-
As to the former point, there has been occafion to
confider it already*: with refped to the latter, St.
faul obferves, that it was abfurd in Chriftians, who
profeffed to believe in the one Lord, to have com-
riiurilon with other lords or demons f ; his power ex
cluding theirs. He charges the Coloffians " with
not holding the head," or with fubverting the au
thority of Chrift, " by the worfeipping of angels,"
though they only afcribed to them a delegated power
and amhority over mankind. Others, perhaps, may
be able to reconcile thefe fentiments of the apoftle
with the power of fupeiior beings to work miracles ;
to me they fgem to corroborate the other proofs
from revelation, that miracles argue a divine inter
pofition.

*,Chap. 3. feft. 5. '
f .1 Cor, X-, 19, 20, 21,

CHAP.

i82 No Iriflances in "Scripture ef

C H A P. IV. - f-
SHEWING, THAT THE SCRIPTURES HAVE NOT RE-
CORDED ANY INSTANCES OF REAL MIRACLES
PERFORMED BY THE DEVIL ; IN, ANSWER TO THE
OBJECTIONS DRAWN FROM THE CASE OF THE
MAGICIANS IN EGYPT, FROM THE APPEARANCE
OF SAMUEL AFTER HIS DECEASE TO SAUL, AND
FROM OUR saviour's TEMPTATIONS fN THE WIL
DERNESS.

THE obfervations contained in the forego Ig
chapter, are, I hope, fufficient to ffiew, thai
the Scriptures feprefent miracles as works appropriate
to God, and riever attribute them ,to any other be
ings, unlefs w^heri ading by his immediate power and
commiffion. Neverthelefs, to all this evidence it is
bbjeded, " that the Scriptui'es cannot confider mira-
*' cles as the works of God alone ; inafmuch as they
" relate feveral inftances, in which evil fpirits ha^ve
" adually performed genuine and inconteftable mi-
" racles, without the order of God, iri oppofition.
*^' to his meffengers, and in fupport of error ind
" wickednefs. This," it is alleged, " appears with
*' the cleareft evidence, from the works of the ma-
" gicians in Egypt ; from Samuel's being raifed up
" by the forcerefs at Endor ; and frorfi our Sa-vaour's
" temptations in' the wildernefs by the evil fpirit,"

Miracles performed by evil Spirits. 293
But if thefe narratives eftabHffi the adual exercife df
a miraculous power by the devil ; then the Scriptures
grofsly contradid themfelves, when (as I think, we
have already ffiewn) they deny this power _to the de
vil, and appropriate it to God. But before We charge
them With fuch grofs felf-contradidiori, we ought to
inquire, (if -we treat them with the fame candour we
do othei: writings,) Whether the fads they record,
and the dodrine they teach, are hot perfedly con
fiftent. To this end, let us proceed to examine the-
feveral cafes which are appealed to, in fupport of the
devU's power of working miracles. We will begin
With confidering

SECT. I.
' - ' ¦ ¦ /
' Tie Cafe of the Magicians who oppofed Mofesi
VARIOUS are the accounts. Which learned men
have given of the wbrks df the magicians in
Egypt. Some have fuppofed, that God himfelf em
powered the niagiciaris to work triie miracles, and
gave them an linexpeded fuccefs *. But whatever
they perfornied; the hiftory afcribes it, not to God,
but to their inchantments. Befides, would it not
be injurjou^ to the charader of the Deity, to fupi
pofe that he aded in Oppofition to himfelf ? Would he
* Dr. Fleetwood on miracles, Difc. i. and Dr. Shuckford's
Connexion, V. 2. p. 422. 2d edit.

284 No Iff ances in Scripture of
be work fome miracles to confront the authc*ity of"
Mofes, at the fame time that he was working other
miracles to eftabliffi it? A-nd how, in this cafe^
ffiould Pharaoh know, Whether it was his duty to
difmifs the IfraeHtes, or to detain them ? Would
God, by a miraculous iriterpofitlon, require hini to
do, and not to doj the -t^ery fame thing ?
Others .imagine, that the devil affifted the Aiagi-
cians, not in performing trUe miracles, but in de
ceiving the fenfes of the fpedators, or in prefenting
before them delufive appearances of true miracles.
But we have already ffiewn * in general, that with
regard to the fpedators, there is no manner of dif
ference between appearing and real miracles, wheri
the fidions or illufions are not diftingulffiable fVoni
realities. And if Mofes had affirrried the works of
the magicians to be diabolhral dfeliifions, or mere de
ceptions of the fight ; why might not Pharaoh have
affirmed the fame concerning the Works of Mofes ?
If one fide had pretended, for inftance, that the devil ,
fecretly ftole aWay the rpdsj and fubftituted ferpents
in their ftead; the fame might'' have been faid by the
other fide : and the trial or competition muft have
ended in a common diftruft of the fenfes by both
parties, in confufion, or mutual reproaches of fraud
and impofition.
The opinion concerning the works of the magi
cians, -which has moft generally obtained fince the
time of St, Auftin, is, that they were not only per
formed
t
* Ch. I. feft. 3. p.- 30, 31,

Mir Of les perfsrmid by evil Spirits. aSy
formed by the power of the devil, but wene genuine
miracles, and real imitations of thofe of Mofes. This
opinion, iiowever, has* been rejeded by feveral emi
nent wricers, and even by fome very zealous affer-
tPrs * of the power of fuperior beings to work mira
cles without Pfee- order of God y and who therefore
might have acquiefced in the common explication -of
this hiftory, had they not feen other reafons for de
parting from It, drawn from the clfcumftances of the
hiftory itfelf What I ffiaJli attempt to- fliew, is, that
the magicians did not= perform works really fuperna
tural, nor were affifted by any fuperior invifible be
ing. I« order to form a right judgment of thiS; fub
jed, it may not be improper to confider
I. The charader and pretenfions of the magicians.
le has been already ffiewn from the teftimony of Bea-
tfien- wripers, that the ancient magicians undertook
to explain and to- accompliffi things which were
deemed far beyond- the reach of other mens capaci
ties f. Conformably to this view of them given us
. by
* This is the cafe with regard to Dr. Sylses in particular.
jfiis account o.,f the magicians contains fome e.iccellent obferva
tions ; neverthelefs his zeal to maintain the power of fuperior
beings, and ewn of CTi7 fpirits, to worli gpnuine miracles, pre
vented him from taking notice of the ftrongeft objeftions. a-
gainffi the common explication of the performances of the ma
gicians. At the fame timp he bas given, what I conceive to
be, a very falfe account of their charafter and pretenfions ;
and leftunex-plained many circumftances ofthe hiftory, which
are neceffary to the right underftanding of it,
t Ch. 3. feft. 3,

286 No Iff ances in Scripture of
by Pagan antiquity, we learn from the facred writers,
that they were applied to by the kings of Egypt and
Babylon to interpret and decypher their dreams.*, as
well as to difcredit the miracles of Mofes. In the- ex
ercife of their art, they relied much on their fuperior.
knowledge of the fecret powers of nature ; yet we
are not from hence to infer, with a late learned wri-
terf, that they did not pretend to any commbc^
with fpirits or demons s for the extravagant prodigies
they undertook to perform, their ceremonies, fuppli-
cations and prayers tp the gods for aid and fuccefs,
demonftrate the cojitrary §. Magic was indeed an
art, and might be learnt, like any other art, from
perfons fkilful in it : but it was founded on the Pagai^,
fyftem of theology, eonfifted in the pradice of the
rites of fuperftltion, and pretended even to a power
of compelling the gods tb execute their defires. The;
appellations by which ^ioie^ defcribes the magicians,
agrees with the account here given of their charader
and pretenfions. They are called wifemen, fgrcerers,
and magicians X' The original word' which we ren-, det
* Gen. xii. 8. Dan. H. lo, 27* ch. Iv. 7, See below,
note J, p. 288. '¦
f Dr. Sykes on miracles, p. 142. Becaufe witchcraft was
an art, the doftor concludes that winches did not pretend to
receive their power from demons : whereas It was confidered
as the art of fetting demons to work,
§ Ch, 3. feft. 3.
X- " Then Pharaoh alfo called the wifemen and the forcer,^
ers : now the magicians of Egypt, they alfo did," &c. E.\od.
vii. II.

Miracks performed by evil Spirits. 287,
del, magicians, does properly fignify perfons who un
dertake ^0 explain things obfiure and difficult^, Itjs
h^re ufed as a general term, and coniprehends under
it wifemen and forcerer^s ; as is evident from the man
ner in which they are mentioned f. Their being de^
nominated njoifomen, denotes their being the profeffors,
.of fcience. . With regard to the word we render for-
cefersf, it is derived from a verb J, which fignifies
tp ufe .juggling tricks, to delude the fight with falfe ap
pearance?, fo as to make a thing feem otherwife than
it. is II; pr rather to pradife fafcination and charms.
The word is always joined in Scripture with thofe
which fignify divination, fortune-telling, or revealing
fecrets : and it is frpm the fame root that the words
which we render witches and witchcraft are derived §.
J)x. Sykes** and others have taken much fruitlefs pains
* See Le Clerc on Gen. xii. 8. (where, the LXX render It
by a word that fignifies interpreters,') and compare Dan. v. 1 1,
12. It Is often explained by genethliaci or fapientes natlvita-
tum, and Is joined with aftrologers and foothfayers, Dan. I. 20.
(;h. Ii. 10, 27. ch. iv. 7.
^ See note, J, p. 286.
^ Heb. mecaftiephlm. J Cafhap.
II Vid. Buxtorf & Pagnln. In voc.
§ See Exod. xxIL 18. Deut. xviii. 10. 2 Chron. xxxiii. 6.
2 Kings ix. 22. MIc. v. 12. Le Cleic renders the word me
caftiephlm, diviners, Exod. vii. 11. And as thefe mecafliephim
(forcerers or diviners) made ufe of dangerous drugs, and often
employed tlieir art in poifoning, the LXX render the word by
^x^fixxot. ' ' *
** On miracles, p. 166. When this learned writers afiirms,
that magic does not feem to be fo old as the days of Mofes in

288 No Inftances in Scripture of
pains to prove, that all the names by which the ma
gicians are defcribed, import ov^ legerdemain ; as if
they had been jugglers hy profeffion, as weH z^ pradice,
There has been occafion * to obferve, that the Scrip
ture defcribes the Heathen gods, and thofe who pre*
tended to any intereourfe with them, by their ufual '
appellations. And the names here given the magi
cians feem to eSprefs What they were by profeffioii-f ;
they affeded the reputation of fuperior knowing | ;
and pretended both to explain and effed fignsfj pro,
dlgles and wonders, by obferving the rules of their
art. Thefe are the perfons who were caUed- in by
Pharaoh on the prefent occafion ; and we have feen
already that the Scripture denies them the ablKty of
difcovering or effeding any thing fupernatural 1]. H.
Egypt, p. ij8 ; he contradifts both the hiftory before us, and '
Gen. xii. S : which agree well with the later accounts of' this
art; as will appear to any one who compares what occurs here,
with what was advanced abxsve, ch. 3. feft. 3,
* P. 253, 274,
' f This is certainly the cafe, as to tJie two words magicians,
and wifernen; and therefore moft probably Is fo withreggrd to
the third, forcerers. And indeed the word itfelf does more
properly import the praftiee <jf fafcination and charms, than of
legerdemain. X In confirmation of what is obferved here and above (ch.
3, feft. 3.) concerning the magicians, I add a paffage from
Tacitus, Hift, 1, 4, Ptolomaeus omine & miraculo excitus, fa-
cerdotibus Egyptlorum, quibus mos talia intelligerc, nofturnp*
vlfus ape'rit,
II Ch, 3, feft, 3,

Miracles performed by evil Spirits, 2 §9)
IL We are, in the next place, to inquire, with
what defign they were fent for by Phai-aoh.
To^ fuppofe that they were fent for, to engage the
^ods of Egypt to work miracles, in dired oppofi
tion to the God of Ifrael; arid thereby to InvaHdate
Mofes's divine commiffion ; is to cofitradid the fun
damental principles of the Pagan theology^ in .which
the kirig of Egypt had beten ediicatedi Though the
Heathen poets do fometimes repfeferi't the gods as
quarrelling with onie another, and taking' different
fides ; fome favouring a particular perfbri, others per-
fecuting hini*: neverthelefs, the claims of the diffe
rent deities of the Pagans were fiippofed to be corii
fiftent with each other f; and their theology, inftead
of encouraging its votaries, to hope that bne deity
ffiould piroted them from the vengeance, or ad in di-
i-ed defiance of another, rather taught theth to ap-
peafe and gain over to their ovifn fide thofe deities,
who -vvere fuppofed to be angry with them, and to
proted their enemies J,.' So that had Pharaoh admit-
T ted,-
* Ovid. Trift. 1. 1. eleg, 2, v. 4.
f See above, ch. 3. feft. j,' p. 244.
j, Cyrus endeavoured to a^peafe the gods of tbe coiihi:rIes
iifhich he inVaded, Xenoph. Cyropsed^. 1/3. The Romans eyok-
¦ ed the tutelary goils of the cities they befiegedj Macrob. Sa-
tui-nal. i. 3. c. 9. Plin. Nit. Hift. 1. 24. c, 17. S 162. Plutarch.
Ctaffum, p. 553. A. The Tyriahs, when befieged by Alexan
der, bound the flatues of Apollo' and Hercules, to prevent
them from deferring to the enemy, Quintus Curt. 1. 4. c. 3.
And the Lacedeinonians, during war, piayed'very early In the
DboiniDg; tiiat being the firft folicltoisj they might pte-engage the

a'^o No Inftances in Sdriptut'e f
ted, that the works of Mofes had been performed hf
, the God of the Hebrews ; he would not have applied
to the Egyptian ddties to oppofe his operations and
claims *. Befides, on the principles of Pagans, who
held the dodrine of local and tutelary deities, the
performance of miraeles by the gods of one country,
would. not have deftroyed the claims Arifing from the
like miracles performed by the gods of another coun
try.' And therefore if Pharaoh confidered the God
of Ifrael, as a local deity, he would not have thought
Mofes's commiffion from him invaHdated by mirad^s
performed by the gods of Egypt. But it is apparent,-
from the attempts of the magicians, that they did not
ftrive to' engage the gods of Egypt to Hmit, or con-
. troul, or in any manner to oppofe, the God of Ifraeh
Tory in this eafe,- they would have endeavoured to
traverfe anfi counterad the aim of the adverf^ divinis
ty, not. to promote it; and would have entreated their
gods, not to aggravate and inhance the tremendous
effeds of Jehovah's difpleafure by infiiding like judg
ments, but tp diminiffi or remove thofe already in
flided j not io tutn mofe water into bloody for exam
ple, but to reftore the corrupted waters tb their natu-
ial ftate ; not to multiply frogs, but to remove- or
deftroy
the gods In their favour, Xenophon de Laced. Rep. When
;palaam was fent for to curfe the Ifraelites, he had no expefta
tion of fuccefs, without the pirmllGon of their God, Numb.
xxiii. 27. Thofe wh6 conqtiered afty country, adopted the g,6dt
of the vanquithed people.
'* See Shuckfofd, V/ ?'. p. 406. , ' ,;'j,. <

Miracles p'erfortHed by evil Spirits. 291
imxoy therii ; efpecially as it was, at leaft; equally
fedfy to do the latter as the former. Could the deities
bf Egypt more effedually expofe themfelves to the
reproaches arid indignation df their votaries; than by
toramittirig ads of hoftility againft them, inftead of
proteding or delivering them frOrri the plagues arid
irengeahce of the adverfe Divinity? And were the
Egyptians like-vfrife fo infatuated; as tb defire the di-
vihe guardians of theii" country, to jdiii With the God
of the llebrews in bringing down more arid heavier
judgiiients, and adding to thofe direful plagues Which
he had alr^dy inflided ? If Pharaoh arid his magi-
tians contrived no better for fhe telief or protedion
of their cotintry. We may be certain that Egypt, in
their days, was not famed for wifdom.
The real ftate of the cafe feems to haVe bedn, that
Mofes having in the name of JeHovahi the God of
the univerfe, who had taken the Hebrews under his
peculiar protedion^ demanded of Pharaoh leave for
them to go three days journey irito the wildernefs,
ia perform a fadrifice ; and having it the requeft of
the king df Egypt fheiioh him d mit-acle *, by turning
his rod into a fetpentj in order to authdritieate the
divinity of his miflion ; Pharaoh^ notwithftanding
this riiiracfej refufed to confent tb the demarid bf Mo
fes. It is natural to fuppofe^ that a fufpicion that the:
IfraeHtes were meditating ari efeape from that wretch-
fed flaveryin which they Wefe detained, (which might
Naturally fpring up in a mind confcious of its own in-
T 2 juftied
* Exod. vii. 9.

1 92 No Inftances in Scripture of
juftice and oppreffion,) and the fear of lofing fo vej*y
numerous and valuable a body of flaves, together'
with all their flock® and herds ; would prevent Pha-
laoh from being forvrard on this occafion, either to
j'eceive or follow convidion. We ffiall the. lefs doubt
of this, if we caft to mind thepride of pririces,- (whicli
is not eafify reconciled fo a diminution of their gran
deur,) Of the peculiar rigour of the Egyptian policy,
and the aftonifliing magnificence of their public
works *. Pharaoh was, as he told Mofes, a ftranger
«p Jehovah, in whofe name he came : a Deity wor
shipped only by his Hebrew flaves, whom he had per-
mitted to groan under the moft cruel oppreffions, and
even amongft them very little, and but lately known.-
And his charader as the God ofthe uiriverfe, the o^j
ly true God, being fubverfi-ve of the claims of all the
Egyptian deities, would at firft appear, to one accuf
tomed to worffilp a plurality of gods^ (many of whom,
arid particularly the lights of hea^veri, were thought to
exhibit Continufally the moft confpicuous proofs of their
divinity,) as the higheft abfurdhy and blafphemy. The
Egyptians were early famed fd* wifdom and learning,
and riiore efpecially for their knowlege of the nature
and worflilp of the ; gods; their fentiments on this^
fubjed
* The pyramids are a proof of the peculiar turil' arid' geniusr
of the Egyptians to works of magnificepce and grandeurij'
which is alfo confirmed by the teftimony of Diodorus Siculus,,
1. I-. p. 2'). ed. Rhodomani, The Ifraelites were employed in
their public buildings, as appears from Exodus, ch. i, and v,
and, no doubt, in many other ways fo large a body of peofllc-
muft contribute to the benefit of the ftate. ' ¦" '"' -

Miracles performed -Wj^U Spirits. 203
feem to have been receiv^with deference
ana fubmiffion by all the neighbouting nations. At
the fame time they exceeded them ?dl in ?eal for fu
perftltion and idolatry. It muft therefore be difficult
for us to conceive, what great offence il gave to their
pride and bigotry, to be told, that there was no Othqr
God but Jehovah, #ind that the IfragHtes, at that time
tJie «^oft defpicaj^e and wretched part of mankind,
yrere his pecuHar people. This was upbraiding Egypt
with ignorance and isEipietyj as welj ,as^ith injuftice
and cruelty.
Nor is it at all unlikely, that Pharao^ might fome
what doubt at firft, whether the xpi^de which had
been wroijght for his convidion, did certainly fur
pafs the powers of nature, and the fcience of magic,
and was a propgr- proof of the fole Divinity of the
God of Ifrael, He had never till then feen an exam
ple pf this Ipnd ; nor indeed had fuch wonders, as
Ifiofe of Mofes in Egypt, ever been performed before
this. time : which might occafion fome hefitation a^nd
furprize, Th^ l^ws of nature iu, general, and thofe In
particular concerning the gcReratipn of animals, the
feafons, circumftances and means of their being pro
duced and brought tp life, were not fo well under
stood, as at prefent. An4' a^ they conc^ve4 of the
whole fyftem of naturp as animated and divine*, they
sntertalr-ed an extravagant opinion of its hidden pow
ers. Learning was in a few hands; and therefore it
was not fo eafy to diftinguifh what was merely un-
X 3 ' ufual
f Se< abpv^, ch. 3, feft. ^. at the begi^nning..

2^4 ^0 I»lWf'S in Scripture of
ufual and aftoriH|n^from wha^ Was fupernatural.'
A feW ages ago our own countryman, friar Roger
Bacon,'in virtueuf his improvements in natural know-
ledge, paffed for a conjurer, without having any de
fign on his part to impofe upon the people. The an
tient xna^evm,% fluked to raife in others the higheft
pdifible idea of their profpffion. And it was the re
ceived opinion of antiquity, that diviifation and prodi
gies (with the laft of which Egypt * abounded more
than any other country,) y^exe the effed of the natu-
ral influence of the elements and planets j and that
m^igicians who dived into the arcana or fecrets of nar
ture, and were mafters of their own profeffion, could
regularly bring them to pafs, according to the fixed
and certain principles of their fcience. In this fcience
Mofes himfelf had been inftruded. And probably
the firft thought of Pharaoh vvas, that Mofes was no
thing more than a magician f .
In this view of things, what was more natural than,
for Pharaoh to fend for his magicians, in order to learn
from them, whether the fign given by Mofes was truly
fupernatural, or only fuch as their art was able to acx
complifh. The na.ture of their attempts correfpond witl^
^ ^'ie«^x ti v>iia fipj si'^^TSf* \ rtiiQ-i «4<"i!-« afV«« iiS^atrtin. He,-
rodot, Euterpe, c, 82.
f Moifeshad^feeen brought up in th^ palace, of Pharaph, and
was " learned in all the v^Ifdomi of the Egyptians^?' Afts vi^.
22; and therefore it, was natural to account him a magician,
On the very fame grounds, Daniel and the three children were^
acco^nted njagicians at Babylon, Dan, i. 4, 2Q. ch. iv.'7— 9.
' ch. v, IX, ,.'... ^ * ..

Miracles perfdfimed b^^iniil Spirits. 295
With this view of Pharaoh in calling them to his affift..
ance. For they did not undertake to outdo Mofes,
or to controul him hy fuperior or oppofite ads of power,
but barely to imitate nim, ox to do the fame works
with his : which they did with a view to invalidate
the argument which he drew from his iniracfes, in
fupport of the fole Divinity of Jehovah, and of his
own miffion. And had the magicians fiicCeeded in
their attempt, and, in the exercife of their art, reaiiy
performed the fame extrjiordinary ads as Mofes did ;
it would have followed of courfe, that Mofes, what
ever he might pretend, was a magjcian only * and' not
an extraordinary divine meffenger ; and that Jehovah
Was not the only foverei^- of nauire f. It is of the
laft importance therefore to attend to the true point
in queftion upon this occafion. The queftion was
not, and could not be, ^' Are the gods of Egypt fu-
^* perior to the God of Ifrael? or, Can any evil fpi-
" rits perform greater miracles than thofe which Mo-
' *' fes perfornied by the affiftance of Jehovah ?" Eve
ry ciccuinftance of the hiftory ferves to ffiew, that the
queftion was, " Are the works of Mofes proper
?' proofs, that the God pf Ifrael is Jehoyah, the only
^ fovereign of nature, and ponfequently that Mofes
T4 , ads
* Pliny, (In his Nat. Hift. 1. 30. c. a.) mentlqns: Mofes a-
mongfl; the moft illuftilous magicians ; which is the higheft
charafter under which he could be confidered on the comrnom
^ypothpfis,. f See ch. 3. feft. 5, p. 227, 345, If the magicians had per.,
formed real miracles, the confequences would have been tij^e
fame as if Baal had'anfwerfd by fire. P. 247.

29<5 No Irf prices ,ia Scripture of
" ads by his commiffion ? or. Are they merely the
*' wonders of nature, and the effeds of niagic * ?"
To refolve this queftion, Pharaoh fent for his magi
cians; and. they by their magical feats undertook tp
ffiew, that Mofes's works lay within the compafs of
their art, and therefore could be no proofs of the
high claims of the God of Ifrael, pr of Mofes's. di
vine commiffion,
III. Biit it may be aflsed, what; mqtives could in-
diice the niagicians to make fiich an attempt, fince
notwithftanding Pharaoh might, they could not be
ignorant pf the -extent pf their qwh art ? When they
were firft fent for to pourt, they, as well as Pharaoh
might conceive of Mofes as nothing more than a ma
gician, like themfelves^ And though it be too weak .
an authority for fuch an anciept fad, yet it may de
ferve juft tp be mentionied, on account of the probsi-
bility of the thing itfelf, that according tp the 'J'al-
rfiud, whei^ Mofes began to wprl^. his miracles, the
magicians bantered him, faying, " Thou bringeft
ftraw to Affraf,'* (or, as -yve fhoyld exprefs it, " Thou
bringeft,
¦* It may be wortl^ obferving, that both Philo (de vita Mo-
fis, 1, 1, p. 616.) and Jofephus (Antiq. Jud. 1. 2. c. 13.) place
the fubjeft in the fame light.
^ The learned authors of the Univerfal Hiftory, though.
they adopt the common explication of the wonders of the tpa-
giclans, have taken notice ofthis Jewjifti tradition. And they.
farther obferve, that Philo introduces them fpeak.ing to Pha
raoh and his court, to this purpofe, " Why are you affrighten-
" ed? We are not ignorant of fuch things, feeing we profefs
" the fame-purfelves." Univerfal Hiftory, v. 3. 8vo, p, 373,
,!iote E, ' ' ¦ '

Miraeles performed by. evil Spirits. 207
bringeft coals to Newcaftle ;") meaning that he had
judged iU to play his trick:s in a country ftocked with
magicians, who were as well verfed as himfelf in the
powers of nature, and in the knowlege of the fecret
arts. And it is certain, that they muft foon difcover,
|iow reludant the king was to part with the Ifraelites,
and therefore, how. acceptable to him it would be,
ffiould they by their fkill and dexterity be able to
imitateV and thereby to difcredit the miracles of Mo
fes. 4-nd by a mind prejudiced as his was, they well
knew, that mere cavils, and the rapft barefaced fo
phiftry, are often efteemed a fufficient confutation of
the moft conclufive arguments. Befides, the king,
refoltitely determined not to hearken to Mofes, might
be fo unreafonable as to require that of his magicians
which was beyond their power f ; by which they
might be tenipted to have recourfe to artifice, to
fcreen themfelves from his vengeance. And their
concern at all times, from motives of pride and arhbi-
tion -j-, to raife the reputation of their art to-an extra
vagant height, continually prompted them to have re
courfe to fallacy to fupport it. And this extravagance
pf their pretenfions gave fome colour to the refent-
inent of princes, when their boafted enterprlzes failed in
* See Dan. ii. i — 13. The propliets of Baal likewife, i
Kings xviii. 24. made an e.ijperiment, without any well-ground
ed expeftation of fuccefs, becaufe the people approved of Eli
jah's prbpofal.
f Strab.o (Geogr. 1. 1.) tells us, !' that' the priefts of Egypt,
"the Chaldeans and magi obtained great honour and pre-emi-
" nence, bpcaufe they excelled in all kinds of knpwlege."

2j^S No Inftances' in Scripture of -,
in the execution. In the cafe before us, the magi-'
cians of Egypt were under every temptation to en
counter Mpfes at all hazards, and if poffible to fup-
ply by cpllufion their defed of power. And they
might the more eafily hope for fuccefs and applaufe,
or at leaft to avoid difgrace and detedion, as they.
knew the whole court as well as the king would be
forward to avail themfelves of the appearance riot on
ly of equality, but of any refemblance between their
performances and thofe of Mofps. Froni this repre-\
feritation ofthe motives and aims of the magi, let lis
now proceed to confider thofe pf Mofes.
IV. If we examine the principles «and condud of
Mofes, we ffiall foon be fenfible, that he could not
allow the magicians performed real miracles. For .
i. We have already proved, that the Scriptures
ever reprefent the whole body of magicians as im
poftors*, who were incapable of fupporting their
pretenfions by any works or predjdioris beyond hu
man power and fkill.
2. It has been alfo ffiewn f, that aH the facred wrir
ters, and Mofes in particular, reprefent "^all the Hea
then deities (on the beHef of whofe exiftence and in
fluence the X magic art was founded) as unfuppottfed
by any invifible fpirits, and in themfelves utterly im-r
potent and fenfelefs ; and certainly therefore incapa
ble of imitating the ftupendous miracles of Mofes. 3. This
* Ch. 3, feft. 3. p. 182.
f Ch. 3. feft, 3. p. ij6, IJ7.
X Ch. 3. feft. 3, p. 178,

Miwcles pfh&rmed by evil Spirits. 299 t
3. This divine prophet farther taught, that fh»
God of Ifrael was Jehovah, who alone created the
world by his power, and ruled it continyally by his
providence *. His religion was built on the unity
and fole dominion of God, as its foundation^ J$nd
the point which Mofes at this very time was about to
eftabHffi, was, the 'fole Divinity of Jehovah f, in di
red oppofition to the principles of idolatry,*and cout'
fequently with a view of exppfing the abfolute nullity
pf all the Heatheri gods; the claims of the former
being fubverfive of thofe of the latter. If Mofes
therefore allowed, that the Heathen idols (or, which
we have ffiewn to be the' fame thing, any. evil fpirits J
fupporting their caufe) enabled the magicians " to
•' turn rods into ferpents, and water into blood, and
•' to create frogs ||," and confequently any other fpe-
(jies of animals, which require only equal fkill and
power ; he contradids the great defign of his mif
fion ; and overturns the whole fabric of his religion-
For on the fuppofition here made, the Heathen dei
ties are not mere nulHties, and Jehovah is not God
jjlone.
* Ch. 3. feft, 5. p. 228.
f Ch. 3. "feft, 5. p, 232,236.
J Ch^ 3. feft. 2, p. 162.
II I might have added, that the advocate||of the common
hypothefis (in effeft) allow, that thofe Invifible beings who fup
ported the magicians, had a ^o-vier oi turning dafl into lice,
when they afcribe their not doing it, to their being reflrained
by Qod.

300 No Ittftances in Scitjfiture -f
«lOTie. Whatever beings are able to create feveral
different fpecies of animals, and to multiply them at
pleafure, (and hereby to deftroy the wife economy of
the animal world,) and to change the inmoft nature
both of inanimate fubftances, and of living beings ;
whether we will allow fuch beings the name of Gpd
or not, they certainly poffefs in a very high degree
thoie powers, which, according to the united teftimo
ny of reafon and revelation, are the appropriate and
diftiriguiffiing glories of the one true God. If the
bringing things into exiftence, be no teft of a divine
interpofition, to what more authentic teft can we ap^
peal? The creation of beings endued with Vj^, does
more efpecially feem to be a branch of the divine
prerogative * ; the loweft degrees of animal life, hav
ing an excellence and'dignity fuperior to all the glo
ries qf inaniniate nature f. Siiqh a creating power, and
* A creating power is reprefentied in Scripture as a divln*
prerogative. If, xliv. 24. and as the foujudation of the worftiip
which God claims from mankind, Jerem. v. 22. " "His glory,
he will not give tq another." If. xlii. 8. ch. xlviii. 11,
f What bilhop Sherlock affirms concerriing the miracles of
Mofes, (V, I, p, 283.) would be true alfo ofthe works ofthe
magicians, had they been, as he fuppofes, real mirs^cles : " Theji
" were fo near akin to the works of creation, that by a juft
^' comparifon they niight he knqwn tp. co;nie from the fame au-
" thor." Or-r^er, l^nce works of creation were performed
by oppofite invifible pbwers ; It woojd follow of coiirfe, that
there was a plurality of creators ; an^ therefore of rival Gods.
See atfpve, ch, 2, feft. 4. Were the common accpijint of the
magicians true ; their works muft neceffarily hi^ve been confi-
dered by Pharaoh a? ^ full demonftration of the exiftence and
pq^ec

Mirdcles performed by evil Spirits. 30 p
and fuch a fovereignty over nature, as tiie Heathen
deities are here fuppofed to have difplayed, muft
make it difficrilt, if not impoffible, to determine,
what parts of the creation, and what events of provi
dence are to be afcribed to God alone. Who can tell
how far "the poWef of evil fpirits may extend on other
occafions, when uncontroulcd by God ;*if they were
capable even of oppofirig and contravening^ in fuch
an aftoniffiing degree, his operations and defigns, at
the verjr time he was publicly affefting his own pe
culiar honours * ? *
4. Mofes appropriates aU miracles to God^ and
tirges his own as an abfolute and autheritic proof,
both of the fole Divinity of Jehovah, and of his own
fniffion t : which he could not juftly do, if his oppo
fers performed miracles, and even the very fame with
his. But here it is alleged^ notwithftandirig we
ffiould admit that the magicians wrought real mira
eles, yet that in the iffue it appeared, Mofes was fup
ported by the true God ; becaufe he performed more
/' » and
poT*er of his own gods, and as a fuller vindication of their
-i^rorftiip (at leaft of a fubordinate worffilp,) thaa the Pagan
priefthood ever produced.
* tt is the more incredible, that God flioul'd now fuffer any
fe^il fpirit to work miracles iri oppofition to himfelf; as this
was the fiifi time of interpofing in a miraculoii? manner, for the
conviftion of the world, and no fuch iniracles were performed
in any fnbfeqnent conteft between him and the jdol gods, i
Kings xviii.
f See the paffages cited above, ch. 3. feft., 5. p. 236. feft.
6. p. 249'. and below, p. 304-^—307.''.

ct

(C

302 No Inftances in Scripture of
and greater miracles than his oppofers. " The riiifa.i
" cles petformed by the magicians in Egypt," (fays
an able, and ploquerii writer *,) '' Were fo far from
" leffening the authority of the works done by Mo
fes, that they added to it : For, the greater the
powers Were which God humbled and fubduedj
the gfeater evidence, did he give of his own fupe-
riority." Many other learned writefs have Hkewife
pleaded j that the miracles oppofed by the idolatrous
mjtgkians to thofe of Mofes^ the prophset of God,
ferved only to fet off the divine poWef to the greateffc
advantage: But I can nbt perfcrade myfelf, that the
power of God appears to any, mtrch lefs to the befl:^
advantage J but When it performs works pecuHar to
itfelf, fuch as no creatures are able to imitate ; arid
Carries the divine defigns into execution,- without any
controulrf The fuperiority however of the true God
to the Heathen dernes, was not the point in queftion.
What Mofes propofed to prove, was, that JehoVah
Was God aloncj a-nd that there wais none befides him,
and confequently that the Heathen gods^ were mere
nullities. Now, if in their nameS very great miracles!'
were performed by the rhagiciaris, arid ftill greater
by Mofes in the name of Jehovah ; though We may
allow that hereby Jehovah proved hiinfelf fuperior ^'
to-
* Bifhop Sherlock, In his Difcourfes, V. i. p. 285.'
f It Was fliewn above, ch, 2, feft, 6. p. 83, that in the'
cafe of fdch a conteft as is here fuppofed, between t-wo oppofite^
parties'-working miracles for viftory; though- hfe Who exerts'
greater afts of power thari his opponent,^ may be allowed to'
|>offe&'

Miracles performed by evil Spirits. qbg
(b the Heathen gods; yet this fuperiority to theni
will not prove that he is God alone, and that the
Heathen gods were nullities, deftitute of that very
power which they vifibly exerteid. " The greater
" the powers were which God humbled and fiibdii-
" ed ;" with fo much the lefs truth could they be
reprefented as impotent and fenfelefs idolsi Had Mo
fes, while he allowed to the gods of Egypt a creating
power, (or what feems -very nearly to approach it;)
attempted nothing mbrp than to prove the fuperiori
ty of the God of Ifrael ; this would rather have efta*
bliffied than over-turned the Pagan fyftem j which
was built upon a belief of gods of different , or
ders, who poffeffed various degrees of excellence and
ppwer. But a cafe fo vdry abftird, as that of tWo oppofite
parties working miracles for -vridory. Would never
have been put,'had the defenders of revelation more
ijarefuUy attended to the ftate of the controverfy *
between the prophets of God, and the antient idola
ters. And were it true in general, that in cafe of a
Conteft. between two parties perforniing real miracles,
he who does the moft and greateft is fent. of God j
yet this would be of no fervice jto the caufe of Mo
fes ; becaufe he places the truth of his miffion on a
different footing. Mofes certainly beft underftood
the^evidehce arifing frorii hi^ own riiiracles ; and it is
impoffible
poffefs greater degrees of power ; yet it will nbt follow from
hence, that he Is affifted by the Divine power.
»
' *¦ Ch. 3. feft. 5. p. 243. ¦- fl: '.

304 No Iff ances in Scripture of
impoffible to make a juft vindication of them, unlefs
We vindicate the rife to which^? applies therii. Now
Mofes never alleges in his own favour, that: on the
whole fie, performed more and greater miracles, than
his oppofers *. He urges his miracles in an abfolute^
not in a comparative view, as ftill. proofs of his mifc
fion from Jehovah : which he could not juftly have
done, at leaft with regard to thofe miracles which
were perforriied both by him, and his rivals,, had
there been ariy fuch. This will more fully appear
under the next head, where we ffiall ffiew, that
5. Mofes riot only nxgei his miracles in general^
but even each individual miracle apart^ as a compleat '
proof both of the Divinity of Jehovah, arid his oWri
miffion. With regard to his firft riiii^^acle, thetrans-'
formation of his rod into a ferpent, he was direded
by God to perform and propofe it both to the Ifrael
ites and Egyptians as a fign f, furely not as a doubt
ful arid fallacious, bat as a certain and demoriftrative,
fign of his miflion frorri Jehovah, the God of the He
brews; withPiit taking into cPTiifideration any fup
pofed fuperiority he was afterwards to- acquire. .Yet
how was the transformatipn of his rod a deinonftra-
tion of his being fent by Jehovah, if the magicians'
" produced
* Nor (to any ti the prophets of God ev«r plead the fupe
riority of their miracles,' either in refpeft of number ot excel
lence, to.thofe of their oppofers ; neceffary as fuch a plea would
have been, in cafe their oppofers had performed real miracles.
Thefe divine meffengers appeal to their %voiks, as being in-
themfelves, and feparately confidered, figns of a divine miffion-.'
f Exod. iv. I — 5. ch. vii. 8, 9.'

Miracles performed by evil Spirits. 30:;
produced the very fame credentials, to fliew the falfe
hood of his commiffion? Nay, the magicians, in the
firft conteft, if they performed real miracles,- not on
ly imitated, but exceeded Mofes ; having the advan
tage over him in the number of their miracles. For
they turried riot only one rod into a ferpent, which
was aU Mofes had hitherto done ; but they turned
their feveral rods Into ferpents. Now, why. is Mofes
ito be credited on acCount of a fingle miracle, if it be
,,cpntfadided and overborne by feveral miracles, fully
tequal to it ? Befides, with r.efped to the Ifraelites,
they had not only been inftruded to receive, but
h^d adually received, Mofes as a meffenger from Je
hovah, the God of their fathers *, upon the evidence
of the miraculous converfion of his rod into a fer
pent. What doubts then, nay, what ffiame on ac
count of their own credulity, and what indignation
againft Mofes, inuft they have felt, when they fa-vt-
this evidence overturned and deftroyed, which Mofes
had propofed, and they had admitted; as valid in it
felf, without the aid of any farther miracle? After
wards, It is true, Mofes's ferpent fWallowed up thofe
of the magicians : but this after-vidory, however
fplendid, could not retrieve the credit of the former
defeat ; it could not eftablifti the validity of the proof,
froK», the change of his rod; which he had appealed
to in the beginning, as a decifive teftimony in his fa
vour : but which was entirely deftroyed by the magi
cians changing their rods into ferpents. In like man-
U ner
* Exod. Iv. I — 5.

3o6 No Inftances in Scripture of '
ner, concernirig the firft miraculous plague ; Mofes
was commanded to fay to Pharaoh, iri the name of
God, " IN THIS thou ffialt know that I am Jeho-
" vah: behold, I wIH fmitp with the rod that is in
" mine hand, upon the waters which are in the ri-
" ver, and they ffiaH be turned into blood *." Now,
if the magicians afterwards performed the very famef
^ kind
* Exod. vii. 17. See above, p. 237, note; J, -where other
examples are produced, to fliew what ufe Mofes makes of each
individual miracle.-
f I allow indeed, that,' on the common hypothefis, the mira
cles of turning water into blood, arid bringing up frogs, as per
formed by the magicians, were not fo extenfive, as the fame
miracles when performed by Mofes. But, on that hypothefis,
the reafon migh't be, that when the magicians undertook thefe
miracles, it was impoifible to ca.rry them to the fame extent ;
the waters of Egypt being previoufly convertedinto blood, and
the country covered with frogs^ by Mofes. And to this caufe,
rather than to any defeft of power in the magicians, the Egyp
tians would naturally afcribe the difference betweeri their works
and thofe of Mofes, if the former had been feal miracles. • In
cafe you allow the magicians a miraculous power bf turning
-water into blood, how will you fliew, that they did not exert
it, as far as the fcarcity of water would permit, and therefore
as far as it could have been exerted by Mofes himfelf, had he
been in their fituation ? Why then fliould it be. taken for grant
ed, by the advocates of the common hypothefis, that, when the
magicians had (it is fuppofed) tutned a certain quantity of wa
ter Into blood, their power was limited to that particular quan
tity, and could extend no farther ; inafmuch as the hiflory con
tains an obvious reafon for their not turning more water into
blood, there being very little water on whicll the experiment
could be made ? When Chrift converted Irito wine, the waticr
in fix veffels J did he not hereby give proof of a power, which c6uld

Miracles performed by evil spirits, 307
kind of miracle; it was no more a proof that the
God of the Hebrews was Jehovah, than that one of
the Egyptian idols was Jehovah. With what truth
then could it be affirmed to Pharaoh, " By this mira-
" cle, the diftinguiffiing charader of the, true God
" ffiall be fully made knowri arid difplayed ?" Had
U 2 Mofes
could have prdduced the fame change in a much larger quanti
ty ? The limits df the miracle were deteririined by the occa
fion and circumftances bf It, and do not create the leaft pre-
fumptl.dti df any defeft of pdwer. I add, that If this miracle of
thrift was ih itfelf a proof of a divine inteirpofitidn ; why do
men deny the divinity of the fimilar miracle, which they afcrlb^
to the magicians ? From the mere nature of the work itfelf,
lid argument can be drawn to its difadvantage. It was indeed
lefs .extenfive, than the correfponding miracle of Mofes ; but
-ive have accounted for this difference. Befides, in miracles of
the fame klnci^ can the abettors bf the conimon hypothefis de
termine 'on their ovvn principles, hoiv fa^ the power of the de
vil reaches, arid whei:e the power of, God begins ? Were we
to allow them, that whenever one miracle exceeds another in.
extent, the moft extenfive miracle muft neceffarily proceed
frorii a being of the moft extenfive power ; this would not prqve
its divinity, as vvas ftievvn above, ch. 2. feft. 6. Nor did Mofes
ever reft his miflion, on his tnlcacleS being more extenfive, than
the fuppofed niiracles of the niagiciaris. Nay, God himfelf fays
to Mofes, Ex^dd. iv. 9. " If they will not believe even thefe
two figns," (the turning the rod of Mofes into a ferpent, and
the ferpent into a rod again, arid the making his hand leprous
arid fdimd,) " thou flialt take of the water of the river, and
*' pour it iipdn the dry land, and the water which thou takeft
" out of the river, (hall become blood upon the dry land.'*
Here the quantity of water could not be confiderable ; never
thelefs, the converfion of it into blood is propofed as a certain
fign of Mofes's divine miflion.

30 8 ' No Inftances in Scripture of
Mofes on this occafion referred the king for convic-
tion to his fubfequent miracles : this new evidence,
however' forcible, could not have refcued him from
the juft reproach of having before offered (and by a
pretended command of God) fuch as was futile and
fallacious, and of ftill claiming a title to a divine le
gation, which, on the iffue he had put it, had beeri'
already decided againft him. Though we ffiould al- '
low Mofes but the common difcretion of a man, and
deny him the. divine guidance of a prophet of God ;
vsre cannot fuppofe him guilty of fo weak a condud
as this ; which muft have funk the Ifraelites into de-
fpondency, afforded the Egyptians juft occafion- of
triumph, and fully vindicated Pharaoh in treating
Mofes as an impoftor, who had offered falfe lefts of a
divine agency and miffion. Gur learned divines would.
never have fuppofed, that Mofes beheved the magi
cians performed real miracles, and the fame with his
Qsstn ; had they confidered the ufe which this divine
prophet makes of each diftind and particular miracle.
which he performed.
6. The abfurdity of^ fuppofing that ISTofes allows
the magicians the credit of real miracles, will appear
Id a ftiil ftronger Hght, if we recoHed the order of
time, in which their fuppofed miracles, and thofe of
Mofes, were performed. Dr. Clarke*, after moft'o-
ther writers, feems to hate inverted the true order' of ¦
time, when he places the miracles of the magicians
firft : " The magicians worked feveral miracles to
" .prove
*. Vol. 2. p. 700. fol.

Miracles performed by evil Spirits. 309
«? prove Mofes an impoftor, and not fent of God;
" Mofes, to prove his divine commiffion, worked mi-
" racles more and greater than theirs," But, accord
ing to the hiftory, Mofes firft of all turns his rod Into
a ferpent; and thereby, according to his own and our
reprefentation, fully eftabliffies his divine miffion. Im- .
mediately after, his oppofprs deftroy the force of that
evidence to which he had appealed, by producing (ac
cording to the common hypothefis) the very fame e-
vldence, and in a more perfed degree, to prove him
an impoftor. In the next place, Jehovah interpofes
to recover th§ loft credit of his meffenger, and .the
ferpent of JMpfes fwallows^up thofe of the magicians.
But the fpedators might juftly doubt, whether one
ferpent's eating another was a greater miracle, than
the turning, feveral rods into fo many ferpents; and
therefore muft remain in fufpence on which fide the
fuperiority lay. However that might be, Jehovah ^
third time engages to evince his own Divinity, and
the authority of his ambaffador, by turning the wa
ters of Nile into blood. But now the evil fpirit (ac
cording to the commonly received account of. this
matter) interpofes In his turn, and by rivalling the
-operations of Jehovah, defeats his intention, and ex-
ppfes the infufficlency of the means ufed to accom?
pliffi it; and hereby gains a temporary triumph over
the profeffed fovereign of the univerfe. God Inter
pofes again, and with the fame view as before, and
brings frogs upon the land of Egypt. But his inten
tions are again fruftrated by S^atan, who performed
the fame atchievement, to convince the world that
U 3 that

310 No Inftances in Scripture of
that work had been falfely arrogated by God as hisf
fole prerogative. Thus (according to the prevailing
, hypothefis) were the claims of Jehovah and Mofes on
the one hand, and of the magicians and the devU on
the other, alternately eftabliffied and deftroyed; the
fuperiority of power appearing ori both fides at diffe
rent times : nay, hitherto more frequently, arid in
deed more inconteftably belonging to the devil, than
to God; inafmuch as it was not Jehovah Who con
trouled the fuppofed miracles of the deyil, (one in
ftance alone excepted,) but the devil whp controuled
the miracles of Jehovah. The abettors of the com
mon hypothefis are concerned to ffiew, that their ac
count of this conteft,, if traced into its genuine con
fequences, is not ^ig with impiety, and the moft dif-
honourable apprehenfions of the bleffed God. Can
they deliberately perfuade themfelves, that the al-
riiighty fovereign of nature would engage in an open
conteft for fupremacy with the devil ? and that he
would fuffer him to appear on fome occafions as his
rival, and even as his fuperior, capable of fruftrating
his great defigns, invalidating the proofs he thought
fit to give of his univerfal dominion, and hereby ren
dering him contemptible in the eyes of the Ifraelites
and Egyptians ? Or, could his claim to be Jehovah,
and the only fovereign of nature, be both true and
falfe ? For thefe reafons, (and feveral others which
will occur in the fequel,) Mofes cpuld not reprefent
the magicians as performing real miracles.
V. Here perhaps it may be objeded, that Mofes
defcribes the works of the magicians in the very fame
langu?g^

Miracles performed^ by evil Spirits. 3 1 1
language as he does his own*.; and therefore that
thgre is reafon to conclude, that they were equally
miraculous. To which I anfwer,
I. That nothing is more common, than to fpeak
of profeffed jugglers as doing, what they -pretend and
appear to do f ; and that this language never mifleads
us, when we refled what fort of men are fpoken of,
namely, mere impofers on the fight. Why might not
IVIofes then ufe the common popular language, when
fpeaking of the magicians, without any danger of
¦ mifcpnftrudiori ; inafmuch as 'the fubjed he was
treating, all the circumftances of the narrative, and
.the opinion which the hiftorian was known to enter-
Jain of the inefficacy and impofture of magic, did all
concur to prevent miftakes ?
2. Mofes does not affirm, that there was a. perfed
' U 4 conformity
* " The magicians of 'Egypt alfo did in like manner with
" their Inchantments. For they caft down every man his rod,
*' and they became ferpents." Exod. vii. 11, 12. After Aa
ron had tarned all the waters of Egypt into blood. It is faid,
" The niagicians did fo with their inchantments," v. 22. And
again it Is faid. " The magicians did fo with their inchant-
" ments,. and brought up frogs upon the land of Egypt," ch.
viii. 7, \
f When Mofes defcribes what the magicians pretended and
feemed to perform by faying, " They caft down every man his
*' rodj and .they became ferpents, and they brought up frogs
" upon the land of Egypt ;" he only ufes the fame language
as Apuleius, (Metam. 1. I.) when defctibing a perfon who
merely played juggling tricks, Circulatorem afpexi equeftrem
fpatham praeacutam mucrone Infefto devoraffe : ac mox eun-
dem,— rvenstorjam lanceani,— in ima vifcer? condidiffe.

312 No 1/ fiances in Scripture of
conformity between his works and thofe of the ma
gicians. He does not clofe the refpedive relations of
his own particular miracles with faying. The magi
cians did " that thing *," or, " According to what
he did, fo did they -f- ;" (a form pf fpeech ufed on
this occafion, no lefs than three times in one chapter,
to defcribe the exad correfpondence between the or
ders of God, and the behaviour of his fervants) :
. but makes choice of a word of great latitude, fuch as
does not neceflarlly exprefs any thing more than a
general fimllltude, fuch as is confiftent with a differ
ence in many important refpeds: They didy», or
in like manner, as he had done. That a perfed imi-
tation of Mofes could not be defigned by this- word, "
ig evident from its being applied to cafes, in which fuch
an imitation was abfolutely Impradicable : for when
Aaron had converted all the waters of Egypt into
blood X-) we are told, " the magicians did fo," that
is, fomething /«. like fort. Nor can it be fuppofed,
that they covered the land of Egypt with frogs ; as ,
will be ffiewn below. Nay, the word imports no
thing more, than their attempting fome imitation of
Mofes : for it is ufed when they failed in their, at-
tempt. " They did SO  -to bring forth lice, but
^.' they could not ||." • 3- .So,
*~ As in Exod. ix. C, 6. '
f Ch. vii. 6, 10. 20.
± Exod. vii. 20 — 25.
II Ch. viii. 18. Le Clerc obferves. Nee raro Hebrai, adl
conatum notandum, verbis utuntur quae j-em cffeftam fignifi- cant.

Miracles performed by evil Spirits, , 313
3. So far is Mofes from afcribing the tricks of the
magicians to the invocation and power "of demons,
or to any fuperior beings whatever ; that he does moft
exprefsly refer all they did or attempted in imitation
pf hirnfelf, " to human artifice and impofture." The
original words -which are tranflated inchantments*,
are entirely different from that rendered inchantments
in other paffages of Scripture, and do not carry in
them any fort of reference to forcery, or magic, or
the interpofition of any fpiritual agents. They im
port deception- and concealment, and ought to have
been rendered, fecret fieigbts or jugglings ; and are
thus tranflated even by thofe who adopt the common
hypothefis
pant. Gen. xxxvii. 2r. Confult him likewife on Exod. viii.
18. ch. xii. 48. Pf. Ixvi. 2.
,* The original word ufed Exod. vii. 11. is belahatehem j
and that which occurs, ch. vii. 22. and ch. viii. 7, 18. Is bela
tehem. The former is probably derived from lahat, which
fignifies ' to burn,' and the fubftantlve • a flame,' or ' ftilning
fword-blade ;' and Is applied to ' the flaming fword' which
guarded the tree ,of life. Gen. iii. 24. Thofe who formerly
ufed legerdemain dazzled and deceived the fight of the fpefta
tors by the art of brandiftiing their fwords, and fometimes
feemed to eat them, and to thruft them into their bodies. And
the expreflion feems to Intimate, that the magicians appearing
to turn their rods into ferpents, was owing to their eluding the
eyes of the fpeftators by a dextrous management of their
fwords. In the fucceeding Inftances they made ufe of fome
different contrivance : for the latter word belatehem comes from
a word fignifying * to cover' or ' hide,' (which fome think the
former word alfo does ;) and therefore fitly expreffes any fecret
artifices or methods of deception, whereby falfe appearances
9re impofed upon the fpeftators.

314. . , J^o- Inftances in Scripture f
hypothefis with regard to the magicians*. Thefe
fecret fieights and jugglings, axe exprefsly referred to
the magicians, npt to the devil, who is not fo much
as mentioned in the hiftory. Should we therefore
be afked f , How it came to pafs, in cafe the works
of the magicians were performed by fleight of hand,
that Mofes has given no hint thereof ? We anfwer,
he has riot contented himfelf with a hint of this kind ;
but, at' the fame time that he afcribes his own mira
cles to Jehovah, has in the moft dired terms refplved
every thing done In imitation of them entirely to the
fraudulent contrivances of his oppofers, to legerde?
main or fleight pf hand, in contradiftindlon from ,
rnaglcal Incantations. Mofes therefore could not de^>
fign to reprefent their works as real miracles, at the
very tittle he was branding them as impoftures.
VI, It remains only to ffiew, that the works per
formed by the magicians, did not exceed the caufe
to which they are afcribed ; or, in other words, the
magicians proceeded no farther in imitation of Mo
fes, than human artfice might enable them to go ;
(while the mirttdes, of Mofes were not liable to the
fame impeachment, and bore upon themfelves the
plaineft fignaturps of that divine power to which they
are referred.) If this can be proved, the interpofi
tion of the devil on this occafion, will appear to be
an hypothefis invented without ariy kind of neceffity, as
* Biftiop Kidder on Exod, vii, 11.
f As we are by Dr. Macknight, in his Truth of the Gof
pel Hift, p, 372, . '

Mif acles performed by evil Spirits. 315
as it certairily is without any authority from the fa?
ered text.
I. With regard to the firft attempt of the maglr
plans, the turning rods into ferpents ; it cannot be
accounted extraordinary, that they fhould feem to
fucceed in.it, when we confider that thefe men were
fainous for' the art of dazzling and deceiving the
fight ; and that ferpents, being firft rendered trada-
.ble and harmlefs *, as they eafily may, have had a
thoufand different . tricks played with them, to the
aftoniffirijent of the fpedators. Huetius f tells us,
that amongft the Chinefe there are jugglers who un
dertake to turn rods into ferpents; though, no
doubt, they only dexiroufly fubftitute the lattei; in
the room ofthe former. Now, this is the very tricl^
the magicians played : and it appears by fads, that
the thing in general is very pradicable. It is imma
terial to account particularly, how the thing was
done ;
* Thofe who defire to fee inftances of this from modern au
thors, may confult Dr. Sykes on miracles, p. 166 — 168. Many
pretended to render ferpents harmlefs by charms, (Pf. Iviii. 5.
. Bochart. HIeroz. Part. poft. I. 3. c. 6. Shaw's travels, pre
face, p. ^. travels, p. 42.9. fupplement, p. 62.) though morfe
probably they deftroyed the teeth thirough which they ejefted
their polfon- Herodotus mentions certain ferpents which were
quite harmlefs, Kid^ai;>rav i^x/^a SjiA^/^ovss, Euterpe, c. 74. An
tiquity attributed to the Pfylli, a people of Africa, the extra
ordinary virtue of rendering themfelves invulnerable by fer-
^ pents, as well as of curing thofe who were bit by them. See Dr.
Haffelqulft's voyages and travels, cited in the Monthly Re
view for February 1766, p. 133-
f Alnetan. Qu^ft.- 1. 2. p. i J5-

3i6 , No Inftances- in Scripture of-
done ; fince it is not always eafy to explain in what
manner a commop juggler impofes upon our fight.
Should it be fuggefted, that Mofes might impofe up
on the fight of the fpedators as well as the magi
cians ; I anfvfer, that as he afcribes their perform-
arices to legerdemain, and his own to God ; fo there
might, and muft have been a wide difference in their
manner of ading ; t^ae covered arts of . the magician^
not being ufed by Mofes, the fame fufpicion could
not reft on him as did on them. What an ingenious
writer afferts is not true, that according to the Exo
dus, the outward appearance on both fides was pre-
cifely the fame : for the book of Exodus fpecifies a
moft important difference between the miracle of
Aaron, and the impoftures of the magioiahs. For it
fays, that " Aaron caft down his rod, before Pha-
" raoh, and before his fervants, and it became a fer-
" pent." But with regard to the magicians it ufes
very different language ; for at the fame time it fays^
" They caft down every nian his rod, and they be-
•' came ferpents," it exprefsly declares that they did
this by their " inchantments, or covered arts." And
what in the moft effedual manner prevented any ap
prehenfion, that the ferpent of Aaron was (like thofe
of the magicians) the effed only of a dextrous ma-
nagement, not a miraculous produdipn ; God caufed
his rod to fwallow up theirs :' in which there was no
room for artifice, and which, for this rgafon^ the ma
gicians did not attempt to imitate; This new mira
cle was not defigned to eftabliffi the fuperiority of
the God of Ifrael to the idols of Egypt; nor was it
capaj^le

Miracles performed by evil Spirits. 3.1 7
capable of anfwering that end * : but in the view here
given of it, had much wifdom, by vindicaring %he
credit ofthe former miracle f, (which might poffibly*
be more open to fufpicion, than any of the reft,) as
Well as by .affording new evidence of a divine interpo
fition in favour of Mofes. God confidered this evi
dence as fully decifive of the point in queftion be
tween his meffengers and the magicians : for from this
* It was obferved above, p. 309. that It Is far from being
fevident, that the caufing* one ferpent to fwallow feveral, is a
greater miracle than the aftual creation of a number equal to
thofe fwallowed.
f We learu'from hence, how little occafion there was for
Mofes, to deteft the artifices of the magicians ; who did ftot
fo niuch as pretend to any peculiar divine affiftance, and who
funk Into contempt of themfelves. 2 Tim. iii. 9. The nature
bf the works of Mofes, and the open unfufpicious manner of
their performance, ferved fufliciently to difgrace the attempts
of his rivals.  On the other hand, it is an infuperable diffi
culty Sttetiding the common hypothefis, that Mofes never inti
mated to Pharaoh, or the Egyptians, that the magicians per
formed their works by the afliftance of the devil, (as without'
doubt he would have done, If that had been the cafe ;) nor
taught them to diftinguifli between diabolical and divine mira
cles ; though on the common hypothefis both appeared in fe
veral Inftances to be the very fame. If the devil performed
real miracles in fupport of the magicians ; it was the more ne
ceffary that Mofes ftiould have given exprefs notice of this,
^ both to the Ifraelites and Egyptians ; as the latter certainly
had no fufpicion of this kind, and neither cojild learn any
ihing concerning the miraculous power of the devil, but by
revelation. Mofes, howe-srer, inftead of revealing this fecret,
has, (by defcrlblng his rivals as magicians^, and their works as
iaijoliures-") -n effeft, denied their being affifted by the devil.

3i3 No inftances in Scripture of
this time he proceeded to the punifhvtent of PharaPtt
and the Egyptians : which affords a new demonftra
tion, drawn front the juftice of the divine Being,- of
the falfehood of the common hypothefis, according
to the reprefentation given ofit by thofe, who main
tain, that the magicians were not plainly vanqulffied,-
till they were reftrained from turning the duft^ into
Hce *. Had this been- the cafe,, it would have been
right iri Pharaoh to fufpend his judgment till that
time ; nor would, God have puniffied hirn by the twd
intervening plagues, that of turning the waters of the
Nile (to which Egypt owed its fecundity) into blood,'
and covering the land / with frogs : .puniffiriients fo
fevere, as to imply the moft criminal obftinacy on
the part of Pharaoh. i
2. With regard to the next attempt of, the magi cians
* According to Mr. Hallet, (on miraeies^ p. 26, 34, 35.)
the works of the magician's were real miracles, fuch as argued
the interpofition of Dppofite invifible powers to thofe by -which
Mofes was affifted ; the three firft rairacles of Mofes did not
appear to reqnic^ more ftrength for their performance, than'
thofe of the magicians ; and the fpeftators were in fufpence
which fide gained the viftory, till the magicians Were pre
vented from turning the duft of the land into lice. Archbiftiop
Tillotfon alfo, (on l John iv. i. V. i. p. 179. fol. ed.) after
a thoufand other writers of inferior note, fuppofes the evi-
denfce till then to be equal on both fides. But, is it poffible,
that the righteous judge of the world fliould punifli Pharaoh*
for not complying with his orders, before he had given him'
clear evidence that thofe orders came from him, and while he
could not but doiibt whether they did come from him 5 if the
being left in doubt did not itfelf create a fufpicion, that they
could not come from hiaa ?

Mirficlcs performed by evil Spirits. 319
Cians to imitate Mofes, who had already' turned all
the tunriirig and ftanding waters Of Egypt into
blood *, there is no difficulty in accoiinting for their
fuccefs, in the degree in which they fucceedcd. For
it was during the continuance ofthis judgment, when
no water could be procured, but by digging round
about the i-iver f, that the magicians attempted, by
fome proper preparation, to change the colour of the
fmaH quantity that was brought them; (probably
endeavouring to perfuade Pharaoh, that they could
as eafily have turned a larger quantity into blood.)
In a cafe of this nature, impofture might, and, as We
learn from hiftory, often did, take place. It is re
lated by Valerius Maximus^, that the wine poured
into the cup of Xerxes was three times changed into
blood. But fuch trifling feats as thefe donld not at
alldifparage the miracle of Mofes; the vaft extent oi
which raifed it above the fufpicion of fraud, and
ftamped upon every heart,.that was not fteeled agairift
all convidion, the ftrongeft inipreffion of its divinity.
l&ox he turned their ftreams, rivers, ponds, and the
virater in all their receptacles, into blood. And the
fiffi that was in the river (Nile) died, and the river
ftank II.
3. PharaOh not yielding to this evidence, God
' proceeded to farther puniffiments, and covered the
whole land of Egypt with frogs. Befpre thefe frogs were
* Exod. vii. 20— 25., f' V. 24-
:|: L. I. c. 6.
II Exod. viii. i — 7.

320 No Iff ances in Scripture f
were removed *, the magicians undertook to bring
(into fome place cleared for the purpofe) a freffi fup-
ply : which they might eafily do, when there was
fuch plenty every where at hand. ' Here alfo the nar
row compafs of the work expofed it to the fufpicion
of being effeded by human art ; to which the mira
cle of Mofes was not liable-; the infinitfe number' of
frogs which fiUed the whole kingdom of Egypt, (fo
that their ovens, beds, and tables fwarrned with
them,) being a proof of their immediate miraculous
produdion. Befides, the magicians were unable to
procure their removal \, which was accompllffied by
Mofes, at the fabmiffive apphcation of F'haraoh, and
at the very time that Pharaoh himfelf chofe; the
mbre clearly to convince him, thatGod was the au
thor of thefe miraculous judgments, and that their
inflidlon or removal did not depend upon the influ
ence of the elements or ftars, at fet times, or in cri
tical jundures;
4. The hiftory of the laft attempt of the magi-
clans, confirms the account here given of all their
former ones; ' Mofes turned all the duft of the land
into Hce : and this plague, like the two preceding
ones,, being inflided at the word of Mofes, and ex
tended over the whole kingdom of Egypt, muft ne
ceffarily

* Exod. viii. 6, 7, 8. Nor indeed can It be inoagined, that
after this or the former plague had been removed, that Pha
raoh would order his magicians to renew either.
f Ch. viii. 8.- Had they beeri able to infliB this plague v»i'-
raculavfiy, they might have removed \t in the fame manner.

MiKaeles perfrmed by evil Spirits. g^ui:
ccffarily have been owing, not to human art, but to
a divine power. Neverthelefs, the motives upon
which the magicians at firft engaged in the conteft
with Mofes, the ffiame of defifting, and fome flight
appearances of fuccefs in their former attempts,
prompted them ftill to carry on the impofture, and
to try 't' with their inchantments to bring forth lice ?
." but they could not *." With all their fkill in ma
gic, and with all their dexterity in deceiving rhe
ipcdators, they could not even fucceed fo far as they
had done in former inftances, by producing a fpeci
ous counterfeit of this work of Mofes. Had they hi
therto performed real miracles, ^>y the affiftance of
the devil.; how came they to defift.now? It cannot
be a greater miracle to produce lice, than to turn
rods into ferpents, water into blood, and sto creatf
frogs. It has indeed been very often faid, that the
devil was now laid under a refiraint: but hitherto
no proof of this affertion has been produced. The
Scripture is filent, both as to the devil's being now
raftrained from interpofing any farther in favour of
the magicians, and as to his having afforded thenri,
his affiftance on the former occafions, But if we
agree with Mofes, in afcribmg to the niagicians no
thing more than the artifice and dexterity Which be
longed to their profeffion ; we ftiall find that their
•want of fuccefs in |Jidr laft attempt, was owing to
the different nature and circumftance of their enter
prize. In all the former inftances, the magicians
Knew beforehand what they were to undertake, and
- X had
* Exod, viii. i8.

322 No Inftances in Scripture of
had time for preparation. They were not fent for by
Pharaoh, till after Mofes had turned his rod into a ferr
pent : and previous notice had been publicty given of
the two firft plagues *. But the orders in relation tq
the third, were no fooner iffued than executed, with
out being previoufly imparted to Pharaoh f. So that in
this laft cafe, they had no time for contriving any expe
dient for in^itatirig dr impeaching the ad of Mofes,
And had they been allowed time, how was it poflibfe
for them to make it appear, that they produced thofe
ariimals by which they themfelves, ^nd all the coun
try, were already covered X 4ud furrbunded ? Or,
what artifice could efeape detedion, in relation to
infeds, whofe minutenefs hinders them from being
perceived, till they are brought fo near as to be fub
jed to .the clofeft infpedion ? Now therefore the
magicians chofe to fay, " This (laft work of Mofes)
is the finger of God ||.''
It has been generally thpughl, that the magicians
here acknowlege, " that the God of Ifrael was
•' ftronger than the gods of Egypt, who had hltheMo
" affifted § them, but were novv reftrained from do-
" ing
* Exod. vii, 15, 17. Rh, viii, 1—4^.
•}• Ch. viii. 16.
J V. 18, There " being lice upon man, and vipop beaft,'<
feems to be affigned as a reafon of the magicians being l;j,riablR
to counterfeit tliis ^liracle,
l|V,i9, § Had the magicians, in the former trials, been affifted by
the gods of Egypt, (or any evil fpirits who fapported their
9^ufe ;).

Miracles performed by evil Spirits. 323
•* Ing it by his fuperior power," But the text makes
no mention of their allowing the God of Ifrael to be
fuperior to the gods of Egypt ; much lefs of their
^admltring the form-er to be Jehovah, and the only
true God. Nor do they refer to any fupernatural
f eftraint upon the Egyptian deities, but to the laft
^miracle'* of Mofes, when they fay, " This is the
finger of God;" or "of a god:" for the original
word t admits this fenfe, and very probably wiis ufed
^n no other by the magicians, who believed in a plu
rality of gods. Being unable to turn the duft of the
^earth into lice, {and even to feem to do it,) they al
low that this furpaffed the ff ience they profeffed, and
argued the fpecial miraculous interpofition of fome
deity. There is no fort of evidence, that this lan
guage of the magicians proceeded from a ^efire of
dpi^g juftice to the charader and claims of the God
pf Ifrael ; or jhat it was npt merely defigned as the
X 2, bef^
«
jcaufe j) they pnight haive injputed- their mifcarrlage In the tria:!
tinder confideration, to the omifilon of fome ceremony or iur
' cantation, judged neceffary to engage their affiftance. The
difappointments of the Pagan divinprs were frequently ac-
,counted for in this manner, and their credit hereby fa-yed.
Nor was it difficult for idolaters to account for a difparity of
power between different gods ; each gpd ba.ying his peculiar
province, as was flip-wn above, p. 32,9.
* The TarguiB of Onkelos renders the words, ^' This
flague comes frpm God." And the Arabic verfion exprefff*
the fame fenfe, *' A fign'of this natuie is of God."
t Heb. Elohji^,

324 ¦^ Iff ances ih Scripture of
beft apology they were able to make For their dwr^
failure of fuccefs, and to prevent Pharaoh from re
proaching them with the v^ant of fkill in their pro
feffion. Certain it is, that this declaration of the
magicians had no good effed upon Pharaoh, but
feems rather to be mentioned as an occafion of his
continued hardnefs *. Nay, the hiftory plainly inti
mates, that the magicians theinfelves afterwards con
fronted Mofes, till in'puniffiment of their obftinacy,
they were fmitten with ulcers |. I add, that the fenfe
here affigned to their language, is perfedly agreeable
to the account before given of the flate of the con
troverfy between them and Mofes: for it impHes,
that the magicians had not fo much as pretended to
any miraculous interpofition of the gods in their fa
vour, but reHed entirely upon the eftabliffied rules^ of
their art; and confequently that Pharaoh's view in

* V. 19. After relating what the magicians faid to Pha
raoh, tjie hiftorian bdds, " And Pharaoh's heart was harden-
" ed, and he hearkened not unto them," that is, to Mofes
and Aaron, (as clearly appears from the ufe of the fame form
of fpeech, Exod. vii. '13, 22.) " as the Lord had faid." Its
having been taken for granted, that Pharaoh is here reproved
for not hearkening to his magicians,' (who never perfuaded
their monarch to releafe the Ifraelites,) feems to have pre
vented critics from underftanding the true meaning of the paf-
fage in queftion, " This is the finger of God."
X " The magicians could not ftand before Mofes, becauf^,
" of the boil": for the boil was upon the magicians." Exod.
jx. XI. Does not this imply, that till this time the magicians
iiad, in fome metho4 or other, oppofed or difparaged ]VI'ofes ? '

Miracles performed 'by evil Spirits. 32?
JTeiiding for them, was to enable himfelf to deter
mine, whether the Works of Mofes lay within the
(:oHipafs of it.
I cannot conclude this fubjed without obferving,
that the ftrenuous but unfuccefsful opppfition of the
magicians to Mofes, added ftrength to his caufe ; as it
ferved to manifeft the divinity of his miracles, by clear
ing him from all fufpicipn of rriagic, This art was
thought equal to the moft wonderful phenomena;
In Egypt it was held in the higheft efteem, and car
ried to its utinoft perfedioii. Pharaoh, without
doubt, on the prefent moft important and interefting
occafion, engaged the affiftance of the moft able pro
feffors of it, who, from a regard to their own repu-
tation and intereft, -would try every poffible niethod
to InvaHdate the miracles of Mofes: Neverthelefs,-
their utmoft efforts were baffled ; and the vanity and
futility of the claims of iriagic were deteded and ex
pofed : agreeably to the cenfure paffed upon them by
St. Paul. For, fpeaking of certain perforis, whofe
bppofitiort to genuine Chriftianity Was the fole effed
bf their corrupt minds, without the leaft colour of
reafon ; he compares them to Jannes and Jambres *
X 3 who
* Jannes and Jambres, mentioned by St. Paul, 2 Tiiri. ill.
8, from the CKaldee paraphrafe on Exod: vii. ir. are fuppofi^d
to have bfeeri the two chiefs of Pharadh's magicians: Nairic -
liius, the Pyt~hagorean philofopher, (ap'ud Eufeb'. Praep: Ev,
1. 9. c. 8.) fays, " they are inferior to none in magic fkill j
*' and for that reafon chofen by common confent to oppofe
" Mufceus," for fo the Heathens called Mofes). See Le'Clere
bn E;Sdd. vii. IZ. arid Pliny 'S Hift- 1- .30- <=• i^-

32'5 No Inft'aftcef in Scripture f
whp withftood Mofes; and did it, he mufE mean,-
with as little pretence ; or there would be no juftice-
in the comparifon. He adds, " Their folly was ma
nifeft unto all men * ;" and thus he taxes the con
dud of the magicians with the moft glaring abfurdiw
ty. He cannot therefore be fuppofed to admit, that
they imitated and equalled for' a time the miracles of
Mofes, and then defifted as foon as they found themw
felves unable to continue the conteft to advantage,
(which would have been a point of prudence) ; but
to affert, that they wickedly and abfurdly attempted
to place the feats of art on a level with the undenia
ble op«'ations of a divine power ; and fo ftamefully
mifcarrying in their undertaking, they expofed them
felves to the contempt of thofe, who had once held
phem in high veneration.' We proceed to confider.

S E C T, ir.
7he Cafe of Samuel's Appearance to- Saul at Sndor,
I Sam. xjfViii.
Jf. Jk MONG'ST other deteftable methods of di'-
jlJL vination pradifed by the ancient Pagans^-
one was their pretenfion of calling up and confulting
the dead f. The. foul of man, when feparated from- ' the
* 2 Tim.' iii, 9,
f This cul^om Is referr-ed' to If. viii, 19.. oh. xxix, 4, ch.
Hv. 3. A full account of it maybe found in Lucan.- 1. &¦
V. iSli,

Mitacles performed by evil Spirits. 327
the ijody, was fuppofed to be cloathed with a mate
rial covering *, which retained the ffiape and linea-
inents df the body, and was capable of being feeri
and heard, though of t«o fine a contexture to be felt
or handled. This image X ox fhadow was What the
Heathens conceived they could raife by proper facri-
fices to the eftrth, tb the dead, and to the infernal,
deities $. Huntah vidims \\ were frequently offered
iip on thefe Occafions. At a time when the pretended
art of raifing up ghofts was held in high efteem §
X~4 i^
>. 59;, &c. Virgil. Mn.\. .6. Homer. t\. 1. 23. ,0'dyff. 1. 10,
,ii. Stafius's Thebaid, iv. v; 477., In Horace (epod. od;
iilt.) Canidia bbafts, Poffim cremates excitare inortuos; and
Medea, iri Ovidi' (Metam. 1. 7. v. 199, &c.) that ftie could
toirimaind, irianfes exire fepulchris. See likewife Herodotus,
1. J. c. 29. Heliodor. JEthiop, 1. 5. p. 293, Joftph. Antiq.
1, 6. c, 14, f 2. Horace, Satir. 1, i. fat. 8, v. 28, 29, And
Tibulliis, lib. i. el, 2. v. 45, 46. where the pretenfions offer-
cereffes are thus defcribed, *
Haec cahtu findit^iie folum, manefque fepulchrij;
Elicit, et tepido devqeat offa rOgo.i
* Gic. Tata Difput. i,x6:
f The Greeks called it, eH^xiy; ihe Latins," finiulachrum,
7magb, umbra.
X Homer. Odyff. A, 21, &c. jEfchyl. Perf.
II Servius ort Virgil, Mn, i. 6. 1, 107. and Patrick on Deut.
xviii. II,
§ Luciaii de Aftrol. 24'.' Homer makes Ulyffes ha-ve re
courfe to necromancy without any fcruple ; but in later and
more enlightened ages, the magic arts' becoming contemptible'
and odious, Virgil reprefents- Dido as making %n apology for
ttfing them, 2Exi, iv, 493,;

3.^8-' No IrfanceS in Scripture of
in the Pagan world, and temples were ere£ted where'
the ceremony of conjuration was to- be performed * y
Mofes, with the higheft reafon, branded it as a moft
atrocious crime, and puniffied it with death f. Un
happily however this execrable fuperftltion (as in
deed almoft all the other fuperftitions of Paganifm) was
too much countenanced by the Chriftian converts, and
particularly by the ancient Fathers,- who univerfally
afcribed to magicians and necromancers the power
of calling- up the fouls of the dead %. A blind de
ference to the authority of thefe writers, (whofe faith
was an unnatural mixture of Pagan and Chriftian
principles, not lefs oppofite to one another than light.
and darknefs,) has too long enflaved the Chriftian^
world,, and hindered them from duly attending, to the
-voice of reafon, or what is taught in the facred wri
tings. To this negkd we muft- afcribe their em
bracing an; opinion, fo repugnant to^the order of the
natural world, and to the dodrines of revislation re-
fpeding the ftate of the dead. Can it be confiftent
with a juft reverence of God, to believe, that he has'
iiibjeded the fouls of the departed, to be remanded back-
* Herodot, 1. 5', c, 92. f 7. Paufanius, Bcebt. c. 30. Plu
tarch. Vit. Cimon: p. 482. We read, 2Chron. xxxiii. 6. 2Eings^
xxi. 6. that Manaffes " dealt with- a familiar fpirit j" whichjt
according to thie LXX, imports, his eftabliftiing the praftiee
of confulting the dead, and ered:ing teiilples for that purpofe.
f Deut. xviii. 10, 11. Levit. xx. 27r. See above, cli. 3.
feft 3. p. 189.
X Middleton's Free Inquiry, p. 66.

Miracles perfornied hy evil Spirits- j^-j-
tack from their deftined abodes, and compelled to
reveal -what he has feen fit ffiould be concealed ; and
this at the call of fome of the vileft mof tals ? Are
even the moft eminent faints and prophets doomed
to fuch diffionour? And could Pagan ^priefts and
diviners acquire fuch an exitraiordinary power over
them, by the pradice of the moft execrable rites^
and offering up the moft inhuman facrifices ? Surely
-natural reafori confirms the fuffrage of Scripture,
when it brands the whole magic aft, to which evo
cations of the dead, arid all necromantic divinations
"appertain, as founded in impofture *.
II. There are fome who admit, that witches can-
hot difturb the fouls of good men,' much lefs of pro
phets ; who neverthelefs are of opinion that thefe
wretched women can caiife " the devil to cbunterfeit
the fouls of the dead ;" and that in the eafe before
BS, " an evil fpirit appeared before Saul in the like
nefs of Samuel f ." This is not advanced upon the
teftiriioriy of reafon or experience,- or upon the au-
fhority of divine revelation; brit in conformity to
the wild fidions of the Platonic philofophers J, in-
Vented to deceive the credulous, and to confirm their
attachment to the worffilp of falfe gods. Suppofe the
* See ch. 3. fe£i:. 3;. p. i82,
^ See Patrick on i Sam. xxviii. 12.
X Porph. de Abftineritiaj 1. 2. thus defcribes certain fallaci-
OUS fpirits, rites iinnrsuXK (pixnoi ¦prmriftc^^tv f^ jroAwTgosrav, iiTre-
te^tifam 1^ Ssbs, xeii ^Mfcoms, >^ ¦4"'K»f riSruMtm. Compare lam-
blichus de Myfter. feft. 3. c. 31.

^^o M) Infiances in Scripture oJ
the forcerers and diviners amongft the Heathens, had
been abfej by offering up facrifices to their infernal
deities, and by other rites of necromancy, to caufe
evil fpirits to affume the ffiape of dead men, and to
appear With their full refemblance before their former'
acquaintance : woiild not this deception,- efpecially
when accompanied with true predidions, have fup
ported idolatry as effedually, and done as much mit
chief in the world, as a power of calling up the dead
themfelves * ? Befides j the very apparition of a fpiritual
and incorporeal beings and the gift of prophecy,' are
real miracleSj and as fuch canriot take place, but by
divine appointment ; imlefs all the arguments hi
therto offered on this point are inconclufive, Laftly^
the hiftorian calls the appearance to Saul, Samuel f ;
which he could not do with truth, if it was no other
than the devil, who here appears, riot as a tempter,'
but as a very fevere reprover of impiety and wicked
nefs. III. Many fearned meri fiate maintained^ that it
Was rieither Samuel, nor an evil fpirit, who now ap
peared to Saul } but that the whole Was the work of
human impofture. In fupport of this opinion, it may
be pleaded, that the woman to whom Saul applied to
call up Samuel, though ffie is faid to have a familiar
fpirit Xi and pretended to be able to call up the dead^ and
* See above, ch. 3. feft. 2. p. 165,/
¦j- I Sam, xxviii. 12.
X It was obferved, ch, 3, feft, 3. p, 186. note X> t1>at tlie'
Hebrew word oh, and the plucal ohoth, is generally rendereS by

Miracles performed by evil Spirits. 3:3 1
tad by their help to foretel future events ; was mere
ly a ventriloquift j one of thofe who had the art of
fpeaking
by the LXX, efy«i-gii|K»iJB5y ventriloquifts. In If, xix-. 3, it i»
l^ndered by them, tb« Ik rni yiis ^mSnusr * thofe that fpeak out
ofthe earth.' I allow, that this art requires no evil fpirit 5 nor
had the woman whom Saul had confulted the afliftance of any.
Neverthelefs, as thffe ventriloquifts pretended to be, and- were
thought to be, infpired by thofe who applied to them to call
Up the dead; our tranflators had fome ground for* rendering
the word 6^,* a familiar fpirit.' Somewhat of this import, the
word muft have in the mouth of Saul, when he faid, " Seek
" me a woman,.that is miftrefs of ob ;. Divine to nie by ob,"
(i Sam. xxviii. 7, 8.). and denote either ' a fpirit of divina
tion' in general, or a * fpirit by which (it was believed) ihe
lEOuld call up the dead.' Saul muft fuppofe (he xvas agitated-
and fwelled by fome fpirit. See Le Clerc on Levit. xix, 31.
•It appears from Plutarch, (De Defeft, Orac. tom, 2; p, 414,)
.Suldas, (tom. I. ad voc. i[v»^^'!*v6@:', p. 667.) and^ofephusy
(Antiq. 1. 14. p. 3J4.)' that thofe who were antiently called
'i)intriloquifis, had afterwards the name of pythoneffies ; which-
implies a pretence to' divinatioHi Python is the word ufed by
the Viilgite vetfion, i Sam. xkviii. 7, 8, And Mr, -Voltaire
,(in his Philofophy of Hiftory, ch, 35.) fays-,. " It is ftratige
" that the word Python, which is Greek, fliould be known to
" the Jews in the time of Saul. Many learned men have con-
"** eluded from hence, that this hiftory was not written, till the
"" jews traded with the Greeks, aft«r the time of Alexander."
But in the original Hebrew no fu^h word as Python is ufed,
(as Mr, Voltaife himfelf knew) ; but a term fo remote in found
.from it as ob. And for the credit of learning one would hope,
(what ,1 really believe to be the cafe,) that Voltaire is the
-only learned man, who ever undertook to determine the date
of a Hebrew book, from the ufe of a word in a Latin tranfla
tion, made many hundred years after it, and not to be found-
in the original. Sec Mr. Findlay's Vindication, p. 3.89.

332i - No hf ances in Scripture f
fpeaking with their mouths ffiut, fd as to feeiri tdl
fpeak out of their belHes, and who could throw their
voices as if they came out of the eatrth, or from other
places : an art which muft neceffarily have been very
ferviceable to thofe who counterfeited the arif*ers of
the dead: With regard to Saul ; how eafy muft it
have been to impofe upon a man, whofe reafon had
been fo long difturbed by jealoufy, and who was now
funk into defpair, by the invafion of his enemies, and
a fenfe of his rejedion by God ? If he had been'
mafter of himfelf, would he have applied to a witch
to raife up Samuel, and to' extort from him the know
lege of futurity? or have expeded God to arifwef
him by a dead prophet,- when he refufeid anfwering
by the living; efpecially as he knew God had for
bidden the confulting the dead ? Saul came to' the
Pythonefs by night', a feafon the irioft proper for
carrying on a fraud ; and for this reafon always *
chofen for magical pradlces. Thofe who fupported
any reputation in this profeffion, a's the Woman ap
plied to by Saul feems to have done, were perfons
of great artifice, and of very extenfive intelhgence f,'
fo as very feldom to b'e ftrangers to the charader
and fituation of thofe who came to confult them".
We are not therefore to be furp'rized at the faga
city and, addrefs of the witch at Endor. She ei
ther knew Saul by the advantage of his ftature^ or
picked*
* See either Patrick on i Sam. xxviii. 8. or Le Clerc oli
¦V. 13. or Dr. Chandler's Life of Dav'id, V. i, p. 241, 2731
-(¦ Le Clerc on i Sam. xxviii. 16.

Miracles performed by evil Spirits. 333
picked out tbe fecret from his attendattts, or infer
red it from his giving her a promife not oi ficre-
fy,. (aH that a private perfon could give,) but oi im-
pfinity*, which S?iul alone could make. When ffie
pretended to have brought up Samuel, Saul was not
allowed to fee him f , but received his account of the
apparitrpn frpm the woman herfelf, whofe great fright
was a mere artifice J. The queftion which is put in
to thefmouth of Samuel, " Why haft thou difquiet-
'J ed |l me, to bfing, me up ?" by acknowledging the
efficacy of magic, and the power of this pythonefs to
difturb his reft, and to_bring him into this world at
her pleafure, even againft his own confent, and there
fore without a commiffion from God ; is highly ab
furd in itfelf, and injurious to the charader pf this
divine prophet. And though he is afterwards made
^o read Saul a very grave ledure, and to denounce
bis doom ; yet flie ran no rifque by fo bold an ad
monition
* V. 10. f V. 13, 14,
_ J It may however he objefted, that if the woman had a
ipind to make Saul believe (he had raifed- Samuel, why (hould
Qie pretend, to be frighted at the fight of him ? at the fight of
the perfon whom Saul defined, and (he undertopk-'to raife ? I
^Uow, fhe did not really expeft to raife Samuel ; neverthelefs,
as (he gave Saul this expeftation, why did (he counterfeit fur
prize at (what it became her to appear to expeft) the fuccefs
<){ her own art ? To me It feems moft probable, that her fur-
prife was not feigned, but real, and as fu^h the hiftorian repre-
il?nts it. , '
I) This is fomewhat like the complaint of Atoffa in the Per-
fseofi^fchyl(js, v.. 688. "

334 '-^^ Iff ances in Scripture f
monition and predidlon ; an oath in thofe days be
ing efteemed fo facred, that perfons readily ventured
their lives upon its credit.
With regard to 1ier predldion, concerning, the
death of Saul and his fons, and the defeat of his ax-
my on the morrow ; it has been affirmed by fome,
that it was not pundually accompKffied ; therii being
(in their opinion) more than a day from the time of'
its delivery to Sanl's engaging the Philiftines. "And
if by to-morrow*, the pythonefs meant ths time to'
come; the prophecy was vague and indeterminate,
and jufti/ liable to the fufpicion' of impofture. She
knew the fituation of public affairs, and that the as-
mies of the Philiftines arid IfraeHtes were ready to
engage ; ffie clearly inferred the iffue, from the fuper
rior numbers of the enemy, from the defpondency
of Saul, and his rejedion by God, and from the ap-
pointment pf D^yid to fucceed him f. It feemed moft
* The original word, maehar, fignifies ' the next day,' in
the following paffages, Exod, xvi, 23. ch. xxxii, 5, i Sam.
ix. 16. ch, xix, 4, I Kings xix, 2, ch, xx, 6, 2 Kings vii. i,
18. ch. X. 6. It means ' the time to cpme,' Indefinitely, in
Gen. XXX. 33, Exod. xiii. 14. Deut. vi. 2o.- Jo(h. xxii. 24,
37, 28. compare Mat. vi. 34, The o.ccafion therefore on
which this word is ufed muft determine the meaning of it.
And on this occafion it muft mean ' the next day,' or * ve;-y
fhortly ;' otherwife Samuel only affirms, that Saul and his foni
would ' in fome future time' bte numbered amongft thfe dead.
Compare i Sam, xi, 9, 10.- And If tlie prophecy was not ac
complilhed in this fenfe, it was not delivered by tlje real Sa
muel, but one who perfonated him.
t I Sam, XV. 28., ch. xxiv. 21. ch, xxvi. 25,

Mirflcles petformed by evil Spirits, 33?
Uioft pr9bable to her, that Saul and his fons would
not ftain their charaders by cowardice, and fave
their lives by a ffiameful flight. She might be dif-
appointed ; but ffie knew how to recover her credit
in cafe ffie loft any, by imputing her deception to the
omiffion pf fome neceffary ceremony or incantation,
Py the event it appeared, that ffie was uncommonly
fortunate in her conjedures. And the facred hifto
rian faw fit to record this very remarkable cafe, part
ly to ffiew how defervedly Saul was rejeded by God,
and partly to guard the IfraeHtes from giving too ea
fy credit to the prophecies of Pagan diviners. This
ppinion, however, like the immediately foregoing
one, contradids the facred hiftorian, who not only
reprefents the pytlionefs a| affirming, but himfelf af
firms *, that fhe faw Saniuel, and that Samuel fpoke to
§aul; nor has he dropt the leaft hint, that it was
not the real Samuel of whom he was fpeaking. I add,
therefore, IV. That there is an opinion concerning this mat
ter different from the foregoing : and it is this, that
the appearance of Samuel to Saul was a divine mira
cle ; (though whether the miracle eonfifted in raif ing
* " And tlie wpman faw Samuel," i Sam. xxviii. 12,
f' Samuel faid to Saul," v. 15. «' Then faid Samuel," v. 16,
Perhaps it may be objefted, that the hiftorian does not himfelf
affirm, that the woman faw Samuel j and defigned only to relate
the account given by her, though he himfelf believed it to be
falfe. But in this cafe, ought he not to have faid, the woman
pretended to fee Samuel ? and that the pretended Samuel fp.ok«f
to Saul I

g-jd No Inftances in Scripture of
ing Samuel, or in prefenting an image or reprefentar
tion of him before Saul, it is not neceffary to deter
mine.) It feems to have been the opinion of the an
tient Jews*, that Samuel now appeared to Saiil,
And if this was the real cafe j the apparition muft
be afcribed, not to the power of incharitment, but tp
the immediate appointmait of God \, as a rebuke
and puniffiment to Saul.
In fupport of this opinion, it may be obferved,
that Sapl came tpthe woman by night, when flie
.did not exped him, and was unprepared; and yet
no fooner had ffie obtained firom him a promife of
fafety, and learnt who the perfon yia% he wanted her
to raife, than Samuel appeared ; before ffie had any
$ime for juggle or artifice, or for the performance of
' * - -¦•¦;. ¦' ' the
* The author of the book of Ecclefiafticus, ch, xlvi, 20,
fays, "After his death Samuel prophecied, and (hewed the
king his' end." And the LXX, after relating the death of.
Saul for confulting the witch, add, " and the prophet Samuel
anfwered him," i Chron. x. 13. Jofephus llkeWife was in
the fame fentiment, Antiq. 1, 6, c. 14, feft, 2.
f This opinion Is maintained by Dr. Waterland, in his fer-
^ons, V, 2. p, 267. and defended by Dr, Delany in his Life
of David, The fucceeding writer of the fame life, the learn
ed Dr, Chandler, has combated this opinion, and given new
flrength to thofe objeftions which had been raifed againft it.
I have attempted to anfwer or obviate thofe objeftions, except
fuch as do npt affeft the Scripture hiftpry of this matter ; for
the doftor lays a ftrefs on fuch, and particularly on Samuel's
.concealing himfelf " in a dark underground magic chamber of
" a witch. But" (as the doftor obferves on another occafiop)|
M this is not the hiftory, but an addition to it."

Miracles performed by evil Spirits. 337
the neceffary facrifices and incantations. " Saul faid,
^ Bring me up Samuel. And the woman faw Sa-
'^ muel, and cried *." The hiftorian herC affirms,
" that the woman faw Samuel," not that flie pretend
ed to fee him, much -lefs that ffie raifed him. And
the language plainly implies, that ffie faw him imme
diately \ after Saul's requeft. At this fight, the text
¦fays, " ffie cried with a loud voice," in the .utmoft
furprize and terror |, having no expedation of fee
ing Samuel,;and having no pretence for afcribing his
appearance to her own art, which flie had not fo
friuch as exerted. This (as a juftly* .celebrated cri-
T lie
¦* I Sara, xxviii. 11, 12,
f This Is an important circumftance. It is generally fup
pofed, that fpme fpace of time intervened between the requeft
of Saul, and the appeal ance of Samuel, fo as to leave rooig
for the ufe of magical rites ; and that it was in the ufe of thefe
rites that Samuel Was raifed. The Englilh tranflation favours
this fuppofition, and Dr., Chandler all along argues upoq^ it.
And It Is acknowleged, that he very fuccefsfully (hews, that
it is very Improbable, eithei:' that the witch fliould raife up Sa
muel by the power of magic, -or that God himfel'f fliould raife
hiiri up in ^er ufe of the magic art, efpecially as Samuel did
not exprefsly inform Saul, that his appearing to him was not
owing to her, but God. But this' reafoning proceeds on a fup
pofition wholly groundlefs ; it does not appear that any magi
cal rites were ufed, or that a moment's time intervened be
tween Saul's requeft and Samuel's appearance. The Englifh
tranflators have inferted the. particle when, (" And when the
woman faw Samuel,") without any authority from the original,
and merely to favour their own prejudices.
t See above, p. 333. note X-

33S No In/lances in Scripture f
tic* obferves) " feeriis to be aplain evidence that her art
was a cheat ; and that the reahty, (which he caHs a,
likenefs of Samuel,) unexpeded to her, was God's owii
extraordinary interpofition." The forcerefs believing
that Samuel could be fent to no lefs a perfon than
Saul ; from the appearance of the former, ffie con
cluded the latter was now prefent in difguife : which
naturally made her very uneafy; as Saul had formejr-
ly cut off all thofe of her profeffion, and would now,
fte feared, be excited by Samuel to renew his former
feverity f. The king bade her not be afraid, and aflc-
ed what flie faw i It muft be acknowfeged, that this
queftion is a proof, that Saul did not himfelf fee Sa
muel at firft ; but it feems pretty evident from the
hiftory, that he faw him afterwards. To Saul's quef
tion the woman replied, I faw gods X, or a god, a per
fon of a majeftic form, or one in the habit of a judge
or riiagiftrate ||, afcending mt of the earth. The dead
were
* Dr. Clarke, V. 2. p. 361. fol.
f " But why ihould the. witch be frightened, if (he had not
ufed her magic arts ?" She had acknowleged herfelf to be
one that had a familiar fpirit, and at Saul's defire had aftually
engaged to raife up Samuel. And It Is in this fenfe (he fays,
flie had " obeyed. Saul, and put her life into his hand." i Sam.
xxviii. 21. -
X I Sam. xxviii, 13.
II That the word elohim is applied to judges and magiftrates,
cannot be denied. See Exod., xxii. 8, 9, 28. Pf. Ixxxii. i, 6,
Le Clerc and Patrick on i Sam. xxviii. 13. Dr. Chandler,
(in his Life of David, p. 239.) objefts to the application of
. this

Miracles performed ly evil Spirits, 339
were thought to fpeak out of the earth *, but Samuel
ffcended and ftood upon its furface in full view, Saul
farther inquired, " What- form is. he of?" The wo
man replied, " An old man cometh up, and he is
Cpvened Vi'ith a mantle." What witches undertook
to raife, was, the ghofts of the dead ; but the prefent
appearance did not refemble a mere ghoft or ffiadow,
and agrees beft with the fuppofition of its being Sa?
muel himfelf, or a miraculous reprefention pf his per
fon and habit. It is obfervable, that Samuel was
now covered with a mantle, the very habit in which
he was clad, when he denounced f that fentence upon
Saul, which he came now to confirm. While the wo
man was giving Saul this defcription of the appari
tion, Samuel feems to have advanced, forward within
his fight. For it is added, " And Saul perceived that
it was Samuel himfelf J," not merely from the defcrlp-
Y a • tion
this plural term to a fingle^perfon ; yet this term Is applied tp
Mofes, Jlxod. vii, i. as was obferved above, p. 330. And it
is certain that Saul did not underftand the witch as fpeaking
pf more than one perfon, for he a(ks, ¦' What is his form ?"
And (he explains her own meaning in the anfwer fhe returns
to this queftion, " An old man arifeth."
* If. xxix, 4. ch. viii, 19.
f I Sam, XV. 27.
X The Engllfli tranflators, in order to fevour the vulgar fu
perftltion concerning the power of witches to raife ghofts and
fpeftres, have in this paffage funk the word, himfelf; which
feems to have been inferted in the original, on purpofe to dif-
tingui(h this appearance or reprefentation of Samuel, from his
ghoft or ftiadow, over which alone the pythonefs pretended to
have any power.

34^1 No Inftances in Scripture of
tion given of him by the woman, and from the cir
cumftance of his appearing without her intervention,
but by the evidence of his "own fenfes; otherwife why
a,re we told, that " he ftooped with his face to the
ground, and bowed himfelf?" Is not this equivalent
to telling us he faw Samuel * ? Befides, the conver-
fation between Saul and Samuel is Itfelf a ftrong pre-
fpmptlon, tljat they were now in the prefeiice of each
pthet. This converfation was carried on in the abfence
of the pythonefs, who withdrew from a prefence ffie
little expeded : for after the departure of Samuel,
" the woman came to Sault." The behaviour of
Samuel agrees well with the fuppofition of there be-;
ipg, purfuant to a divine command, either a real ap
pearance or miraculous reprefentation of this prophet
of God. He begins with a fevere reproof of Saul,
" Why haft xhou provoked X n*e, to make (occafion) me
* When David bowed to Jonathan, i Sam. xx. 41. and
the man from Saul's camp bowed to David, 2 Sam. i. 2. ; is It
not hereby implied, that each faw the perfon who fpoke to
him I and yet this is not afferted in the text. Now, If it be al
lowed, that Saul faw the perfon who fpoke to him; it will he,
impoffible to deny the reality of Samuel's -appearance, or of
fome miraculous reprefentation of him : fo well known was he
to Saul by hi^ voice, lineaments, and ft^ture.
\ I Sara, xxviii. 21.
X This Is the true rendering of the original word, which Is
derived from l<ln. A i ery learned critic (Dr. Chandler, in his
Life of David, p. 249.) is miftalcen in afferting, that " it ne-
I'pr denotes to provoke, but to move and difturb by violence,".
¦ ' ¦ it

Miracles performed by evil Splits. 34 i
hie to rife up ?" Here his rifing up is not afcribed
to the pythonefs, or to her magic art ; nor ftridly
and properly to Saul, it being cuftomary with the
Hebrews to exprefs the intention by the effed*;) but
to the prophet's indignation conceived againft the kln;:j
on account of his inquiring what to do, in a way
fo exprefsly forbidden by God; to the impoffiblHty
(as it were) of God's paffing over fo great an offence
in filence. Accordingly^ Saul's anfwer is manifeft
ly an apology, and ffiews that he underftood the pro
phet as reproving him; " I am fore diftreffed ; for
*' the Philiftines make war dgainft me, and God Is
" departed from me, and anfwereth me no more,
" neither by prophets, nor by dreams : therefore
" have I called thee f , that thou mayeft make knoWri
" iinto me what I ffiall do X-'
Y 3 Samuel,
It is ufed to defcribe any violent commotion, or concuflion j
(Job. Ix. 6. cb. xxxvii. 2. If. v. 25. Amos viii. 8. Hab. Iii.
^.) and henCe is applied to th'e, violent agitation of any paf
fion, and of ainger in particular. In Prov. xxix. 9. it is ren
dered, ' to rage j' in Ezek. xvi. 43. ' ' to fret ;' (where the
context requires a inuch ftronger word, ' to' provoke even to
furyj') In If. xxviii. 21, * to be wtoth ;' in Job xii. 6. ' to
provoke.' , See likewife Hab. iii. 2. If. xxxvii. 28, 29. Job
xxxix. 24. wh'ere'the noun derived from this*^ verb is tranflated
rage. It cannot therefore be Inferred from the ufe of this
word, that Samuel vi2iS forcibly compelled to appear on this oc
cafion. * See above, ch. 4. feft. i. p. 312. note |].
f This language of Saul does not imply, that he had invok
ed Samueij it expreffes only his defign in applying to' the
^itch. X i Sa-m-. xxviii.- rj."

;'-;2 No Inftances in Scripture of
Samuel, in his reply, firft of all expofes the abfur
dity of Saul's condud in applying to him, when he
found himfelf abandoned' by God ; then explains to
him the true grounds of his defertion, and of the
prefent diftreffed fituatioti of his affairs ; and laftly
denounces farther judgments againft him, as a pu-
niffiment of the guilt he was at that very time con-
trading. " Wherefore then doeft thou alfc" (di-
redlon and affiftance} " of me, feeing Jehovah is
" departed from thee, and is become thine enemy,
" or, is with thine enemy*.? And Jehovah hath
" done (or, nvill do) tp him, (viz. Saul's rival or
" enemy) as he fpake by me :" that is, " prone
'^' as you were to, dotibt of the truth of thofe threat-
" niiigs which God uttered againft you by my mouthy
" they are now ready to be accompHlhed : for Je-
*' hovah has rent the kingdom out of thine hand,
*' and given it to thy neighbour,- even David: be-
'*' caufe thou obeyedft not the voice of Jehovah, nor
" executed his fierce wrath upon Amalek, therefore
*' has Jehovah done this thing unto thee this day.
" Moreover, JehOvah will alfo deliver Ifrael, with
" thee, into the hands of the Philiftines : and to-
" morrow ffialt thou and thy fons be with me," (in
the ftate of death, or of feparate fpirits f .) " Jehovah " ffiall
* Thus the laft claufe of the i6th verfe may be rendered •;
and the meaning is, as Vatablus obferves, " Jehovah favours
thine enemy." This gives an eafy fenfe to' the firft claufe of
the 17th verfe, " And Jehovah has done" (or will do) " to'
him," viz. to thine enemy, &c.
f Probably this is all that Samuel meant by telling Saul,
" he

Miracles performed by evil Spirits. 343
" ffiaU alfo deHveir the hoft of Ifrael into the hands
" of the Philiftines." Is this the language of an art
ful impoftor, whofe bufinefs it was to flatter and de
lude the king, to fodthe his diftrefs, arid gain his fa
vour, and thereby procure from him a larger gratui
ty ? Or if, from a regard tb the credit of her art, ffie
did not chufe to raife his hopes ; why did ffie ftrive
to provoke his refentment, by the freedom of her re
proofs, and the denunciation of the moft dreadful
judgnients ? There is a keennefs and afperity in this
anfwer, abfolutely inconfiftent with the leaft regard
to her own intereft or fafety 5 and not to be account
ed for on the fuppofition of its proceeding from a
perfon of art and addrefs under the circumftances of
this forcerefs. Indeed the very foul of Samuel feems
to breathe in thefe expreffions of dlfpleafilre againft
the difobedience and wickednefs of Saul.
• But it is objeded, '' that this could not be the
'*' language of the' real Samuel, becaufe he has nbt
*' expreffed any difapprobation of Saiil for having
*' peeourfe to the arts of divination,- which were fd
*' offenfive to God : and that it was unworthy of
" God to raife up Samuel from the dead, only to
" confirm a former fentence againft Saul, which
*' was declared irrevocable." The former fentence
Y 4 againft
'' he (hould fee with him." So that there Is here no neceffary
reference to the antient opinion of the Pagans, that the (hades
dwelt together according to their tribes and families ; Homer.
Odyff. A ; nor any affurance given him of happinefs b a future
' ftate, though fome who fuffer the judgments of GoH in. thii
world, ars objefts of his fo'rgivenefs iri the next ; i Cor. xi. 32.

n

344 No Lift ances in Scripture of
againfi;, Saul did not affed his life, but his crown ofi--
ly ; nor was the time fixed for the execution of this
fentence. Saul was fpared, and even permitted to
reign over Ifrael, till the commiffion of this hew
crime of confulting the witch ; which the author of
the book of Chronicles affigns particularly as the
ground of his death, though not exclufively of his
former difobedience : " So Saul died for his tranf-
" greffion which he committed againft the Lord,
" even againft the word ofthe Lord, which he kept
not ; and alfo for aflcjng counfel of one that had a
" famihar fpirit, to inquire of it *." And it is evi-
ii;=nt from the language of Samuel, that, befides con
firming the former fentence, he denounced new and
moft terrible judgments againft Saul, and againft his
family and forces ; and for no other reafon that ap
pears, but the crime he. was at this time committing.
It Is farther objeftedj " that Samuel dexteroufly a-
" voided an anfwer to Saul's principal inquiry," and
that Ms language " has all the air of evafion and ar
tifice f," Sn'ul wanted to be Informed by Santuel,
how he wa« to ad In his prefent critical fituation, or
how he might extricate himfelf from the danger Which
then threatened him. And Samuel, inftead ofhaving
recourfe to any evafion or artifice " to- extricate him
felf from the" (pretended) " difficulty and neceffity
of giving Saul the advice he wanted ;" gave him;
plainly to Underftand, that it was too late to apply for
* I Chron. x, 13,
f Dr, Chandler's Life of David, V. i.- p, 251, 252.

Miracles performed by evil Spirits. 34;
for aiiy fuch advice as he afked ; his doom being al
ready fealed; and his fentence on the point of being
Carried into execution;
Though Samuel's prophecy is called by fome an
eafy conjedure; yet it feems to argue a forefight
more than human. Samuel diftindly foretold the
following remarkable particulars. Firft of all, the
death of Saul. And, Was it certain that Saul would
not ffiun an engagement, when he was fo dejeded,
an^l had been in fo remarkable a manner fore-warned
of his danger ? and that he would even ruffi on his
deftrudion ? Secondly, Samuel farther foretold the
death of Saul's fons. And who but God could cer
tainly forefee that Saul's three fons, who endeavoured
to fave themfelves by flight, ffiould neverthelefs pe-
riffi by the fword of the enemy ? Thirdly, Samuel
foretold, that, together with Saul, God would deli-
ver up Ifrael, the army and people of Ifrael, into the
power of their enemies, and that their camp ffiould
be taken, which made it the more difficult to bring a
new army into the field, and expofed their country to
the inroads of the Philiftines *. Laftly, the exad time
* The laft claufe of the 19th verfe is not, what It Is coni-
monly made to be, a bare repetition of the firft claufe. By
ifrael in the firft claufe, we are to underftand the army (in
cluding the people) of Ifrael ; (compare v, 4. and ch, xxxi. i.) ¦
and by the hoft of Ifrael in the laft plaufe, is meant more efpe
cially their camp; the lofs of which preventing them from"
bringing a new army into the field, " the Philiftines came ani
dwelt In" feveral of " the cities" which belonged to the If
raelites. I Sam. xxxi. 7v

546 Jtig inftances in Scripture of
time is determined, when thefe events were to hap
pen, which was the very next day. Accordingly,
¦within this fpace of time, the feveral parts of this
predidion received a pundual accompliffiment. The
prophecy therefore feems tO argue an unerring and
divine prefcience *.
But here it may be aflced, " Is it likely; that God
" ffiould refufe to anfwer Saul, when he confulted
" him in ways appointed by himfelf, and yet ffiould
*' anfwer him in a forbidden way ; and hereby fa-
*' voiir and encourage necromantic divinations, when
" he had exprefsly ordered thofe who pradifed them
*' to be puniffied with death ?" Saul having beCn re
jeded by God for his ftubborn difobedience to the di
vine orders, had no right tb afli or exped his diredion
Vind prefervdtion in his prefent danger ; nor could God
have granted it, confiftently with his defign of pre
paring the way for the advancement of David to the
throne of Ifrael. For this reafpn, God did not an
fwer
, * Thofe, inftead of fallifying, do really cpftfirm the truth
of this prediftion, who objeft, '* that Saul hardly returned
" to his camp early enough In the morning after he had con-
" fuited the witch, or in fufficient fpirits to prepare for the
*' battle that day, which therefore muft have been fought the
" day after," For what would be with us the fecond day after
the night in which Saul confulted the witch, was the morrow
or next day with the Jews, who reckoned from fun-fet to fun-
fet ; and confequently included what we (hould call the next
day, in the natural day on which he was at Endor. Nay, if
the prophecy was not delivered till after midnight, we (hould
not underftand by to-morrow any part of the day which was
begun.

Miracles perfirmed hy 'evil Spirits, 3 4'?
fWer hini in ways of his own appointment. Nor did
he afterwards anfwer him in a forbidden way ; but
(if the ex;plication here given of this hiftory be juft)
interpofed previoufly to the ufe of magic rites, and
on purpofe to reprove Saul for having i-ecourfe to
ihem, and to pronounce upon him the fentence of
death for this very crime at the inftant he was com
mitting it ; and thus to teftify the divine difpleafure
againft it. How this could encofurage the ufe of ne
cromancy, or indeed how God coUld more effedually
difeourage that moft deteftable art ; I am not able to
conceive. The method of God's ptbceeding on this
, occafion, feems very conformable to what he had
been pleafed to do before, in other cafes of a like na
ture. When the king of Moab had recourfe to for
ceries, God himfelf interpofed, and fo over-ruled the
mind of Balaam, that he was compelled to blefs
thofe whom Balak wanted him to curfe*. And
When king Ahaziah fent to confult Baalzebub about
his recovery, God by his prophet Elijah ftopt his
mSeffengers, reproved their mafter, and denounced
his death f . And why might not God in like manner
interpofe in the cafe of Saul, in order to difappoint
his hopes of divine protedion, and to denounce his
doom; the forekho-wlege of which had fo great an
effed upon him, that he inftantly feH down into a
fwoon, and could no longer bear up againft the bit-i
ter agonies of his mind ? What is there in this con*
dud,
* Nunib. xxiiii
f 2 Eings i. 2 — 4.-

34^ iV» Inftances in Scripture of
dud inconfiftent with the juftice or fandity of the
great Governor of the world .? Could Saul complain
of being fentenced to die for having recourfe to thofe
impious arts, the exercife of which he himfelf had
heretofore puniffied with death ? How proper was
it, that his death ffiould appear to be the puniffiment
of his guilt ? His death, if it had not been foretold,
would have been confidered as a common event, ra
ther than as the execution of the divine difpleafure.
He had certainly difregarded the threatenings of God
to depofe him, and to appoint David in his ftead ;
and very probably he had taken occafion from his
fufpendiiig their execution, to turn them into ridi
cule. Finding that he continued in the full poffef
fion of his kingdom, many years after Samuel had
foretold it ffiould be taken from him ; he might afcribe
the predidion to the difaffediort and enmity of the
rprophet, and his attachment to David. To clear the
charader bf Samuel from aH fufpicion, and vindicate
the credit of his predidions ; to evidence the divine
defignation of David to the throne of Ifrael ; and in
the moft affeding manner to difplay the righteous
vengeance of God againft the pradice of necroman
tic divinations, by which Saul had now filled. up the
meafure of his guilt ; feems to have been the defign
of God in this miraculous appearance of his pro
phet. ¦
I have now laid before the reader what occurred
to me upon this difficult fubjed ; and fupported in
the ftrongeft manner 1 was able, from the reafonings
of others, and my own refledions, the two different
explications of it ^whlch .carry with them the greateft
appearance

Miracles performed by evil Spirits, 34^
appearance of probability. I pretend not to decide
which explication is true. Neither of them counte
nances the opinion, that miracles are performed by
evil fpirits ; which is all I 'contend for. That which
was propofed laft, feems to me the beft fupported j
though on this, as on every pther point, I leave every
one to form his own judgment.
The cafe of the devil's appearing to our Saviour in
the wildernefs, and tranfporting or accompanying
him frorn ope place to another, and ffiewing him all
the kingdoms of the world ; would naturally fall next
under our confideration. But if the explication I
have elfewhere given of this hiftory, be juft ; it Is no
exception to the principle we have hitherto been en
deavouring to eftabliffi. In confirmation of that ex
plication, I would obferve, that if it be true, that
the Scripture appropriates all miracles to God ; then
the common interpretation of our Saviour's tempta
tions, which afcribes fo many miracfes to the devil,
muft be falfe.
We have now examined the fenfe of revelation
concerning the author of miracles; produced many
arguments to ffiew, that the Scriptures reprefent them
as works peculiar to God, and attempted to folve the
feyeral objedions againft this account. The number
and eminence of thpfe Chriftian writers, who have
taught, that the Scriptures allow to evil fpirits a mi:
raculous power, and the ufe made of that dodrine by
unbelievers, in fapping the foundation of the Jewiffi
and Chriftian revelations, together with the nature
and importance of the fubjed itfelf, wiH excufe the
compafg

3j;o No Inftances in Scripture of
compafs with which it has been treated. I will add,
that deifts ffiould not avail themfelves of the errors of
Chriftians, which are arguments only againft the per
fons who advance them, not againft their religion..
And even for them much allowance will, be made by
thofe, who confider, that the opinion entertained at
prefent concerning the miraculous power of evil fpi
rits, prevailed very generally amongft* the ancient
Heathens and Jews j was early engrafted intp the
Scriptures themfelves, by falfe tranflations of them ;
and during the triumph of popery was deemed an 'ef
fential article of the Chriftian faith. For hpw" many
ages were men prevented, by their prejudices, from
underftanding the volume of nature, as well ^s that
of revelation? At the revival of learning, and the
glorious era of the Reformation, when meii begaii
to recover the ufe of their underftandings, and to
apply the true rules of criticifm to the ftudy of the
Scriptures ; they at the fame time began to call in
queftion the empire of Satan over the natural world,
Luther aboliffied the pradice of exorcifms, and many
others no longer gave credit to idle ftories pf fafcina-
tions and magic. Much was then done to clear re
velation from various corruptions which had been in
troduced into it. " And much" (fays one: of the,
moft capable judges * of the fubjed) " ftill remains
to be done." No empire fo durjible as that of error and
* Dr. Lowth, biflipp of Oxford, in hi« fermon at the vifita-
tion of the biftiop of Durham, p. 24.

Miracles performed by evil Spirits. 351
and prejudice over the human mind ; and it may ftill
require a length of ages totally to fiibvert it. In the
mean time, no one can complain of the obfcurity of
the Scriptures, m any neceflary article of faith or
pradice.

CHAP,

352 Miracles, the proper Proofs of

CHAP. V.
SHEWING THAT MIRACLES, CONSIDERED AS DI
VINE INTERPOSITIONS, ARE A CERTAIN PR.OO|'
OE THE DIVINITY OF THE MISSION AND DOC
TRINE OF A PROPHET. THE ADVANTAGES AND
NECESSITY OF "THIS PROOF IN CONFIRMING AND^
PROPAGATING A NEW REVELATION. MIRACLES
USEFUL IN REVIVING AND ESTABLISHING THE
PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL RELIGION.
HITHERTO -we have been endeavouring tp-
proye, that miracles require an immediate
ad or order of God, and are his peculiar works.
We are now to ffiew, what is a neceffary confequence
from this principle, that thefe works, when properly
applied, are a divine teftimony to the perfoii on
whofe account they are wrought, and to that dodrine
or meffage which he deHvers in the name of God.
It was for the fake of this important conplufion, that
we undertook to prove in the preceding chapters, by
arguments drawn both from reafon and revela^on,
that miracles are divine interpofitions.
Miracles may be performed by God, without the
intervention of men ; and for other purpofes, befides
that of attefting the miffion of a prophet- Nor can
they ferve as teftimonials to a prophet, but under fuch
circumftances, as point out a relation between thole.
works

a Revelation frotn God, jjj
works and his miffion. If it does not clearly appear,
that they are wrought at his inftance, or in his fa
vour ; they will not be known to bear any more rela
tion to him, than to any other perfon. Equally ne
ceffary is it, that the prophet ffiould exprefsly affert
his miffidn from God, explain its purport, and al
lege his miracles in proof of it ; that their true inten
tion may neither be overlooked nor miftaken, as tbe
miracle of Sti. Paul at Lyftra was at firft by the Lyca-
onians *i, through their inattendon to the dodrine
which he preachedw If miracles are not declared to
be figns of a divine miffion ; they cannot be intend
ed, nor ought to be regarded as fuch. It feems like-
wife to be farther riequifite, that the perfon who
claims a divine commiffion, and appeals to riiiracles ,
in proof of it, ffiould explain this commiffion, and
deliver his meflage, when going to perform his mi
racles, or while he continues to perform them ; that'
he may not apply them, nor be fufpeded of applying *
them to a wrong purpofe ; and that the connexion
between them, and the point to be proved by them,
may be the more readily difcerned, and-fenfibly felt.
But miracle;s, if they argue a divine imerppfition,
icnuft be efteemed divine Credentials, under the fol
lowing circumftances : when it clearly appears, that
they are wrought at the inftance, or in favour, of a
perfon, who claims a miffion from God, deHvers a
meflage in his name, and appeals to thefe works, be
fore or during the time of their performance, in proof
of the divinity of his miffion and dodrine. The works
Z having

J 54 Miracles, the proper Proofs of
having God for their author, muft, in this cafe, be
confidered as a decoration bf his will, as his imme
diate anfwer to the appeal that had been made to him,
as the figns or teftimonies, of his approbation of the
perfon claiming a miffion frpm him, and- profeffing
tp reveal his wl!|. In this method God may be faid
to feal his commiffion, and to teftify his approbation
of the purport of it ; juft as we teftify our affent to
what another fpeaks In our rfame, by fpme particular
token ;'0T make what is contained in a writing,
though not drawn up by ourfelves, pur own ad and
. deed, by fetting our hand and feal to it. It is evi
dent, that miracles, in the cafe here fuppofed, prove
the divinity of the dodrin^, as well as of the miffion
of the perfon employed in pubHffiing it to the world }
ox God's approbation of him, bath in afferting and
executing his commiffion. It is fcarce neceffary to
add, that If divine interpofitions in favour of a per-
•fon claiming a commiffion from God, prove the di^
.vinity of his dodrine, they likewife prove its truth *,
For it is liiipoffibfe, as all men will allow, that God
ffiould affix his feal to a lie) ; or bear an immediate teftimony
* To the prophet who had raifed up her fon to life, the wo
man of Sarepta faid, " Now by this I know thou art a man of
" God, and that the word of the Lord by thy mouth is truth."
I Kings xvii. 24. This is the language of nature and com-
mon fenfe.
K«T« Aoya?, OUTS X«T» G-tlftiim *«jK3-«S, OllY t-We' «!/§' «»<^. Plat.
Republ, 1, 2. p. 431. ed. Ficini.

' a Revelation from God. 2 ^ r
teftimony in favour of one, who either falfely Claims
a divine commiffion, or is unfaithful in the execution
of it. God is top wife to be deceived himfelf, too
juft and too goOd to deceive his creatures.
This is the manner in which miracles, fuppofing
them tp be divine interpofitions, furniffi out a con
clufive proof of the truth and divine original of a
fupernatural revelation. Before we proceed to con
fider the advantages of this proof, it will be necef
fary to take notice of the different manner in which
the argument is ftated by other writers,
I. By the adverfaries bf revelation it has been af
ferted, " that miracles, of themfelves, are proofs only
*' oi pmver., without having any relation to the doc-
*' trine of the performer." Nay, the advocates of
¦revelation*, though they think " that miracles di^
' " redly prove the cominijjiori of the perfon who does
" them to proceed from him, by whofe power alone
" they could be' performed ;" yet maintain, "that
" miracles cannot prove ijpe truth of any dodrine,''
and that " there is no connexion between any miracles
" and dodrines." If miracles, in thenifelves,, prove
oiily the interpofition of fome fuperiOr being ; it muft
be difficult, we allow, to. difcern any cpmiexipn be
tween thefe -w^orks and the truth of dodrines. But
.it has been Jhewn, that thefe works are proofs of a
4ivine power and interpofition ; and therefore, under
|)roper circumftances, divine teftimonials to a pro-
Z 2 phet ;
, *;See.Bp„ Sherlock's Difcourfes, V, i, p. 2.89, 290, and
Y, 2. p. 10,

2^6 Miracles, the proper Proofs of'
phet ;- teftimonials to his dodrine as well as to his'
miffion. If he declares himfelf to be fent from God,
to deliver a .meffage in his name, or fo teach a new
dodrine ; and performs and appeals to miracles in
proof both of his miffion and dodrine ; will not the
miracles (fuppofing them to be divine works} equally
prove the divinity of both ? Indeed, his dodrine is
included in his- commiffion, and what God principally
intended to atteft. And if the miracles prove the di
vinity oi his dodrine, -they muft prove its truth ;
unlefs proving it to be from- God, be no proof that it
is true. According to this ftate of the cafe, there is
a very ftrid Connexion between miracles, and the
truth of dodrines *. Agreeably hereto, we find
that the prophets of God, both under the Old Tef
tament and the New, at the fame time that they af
ferted their divine miffion, explained the particular
objed of it, or the purpofe for whichthey were fent :
and that they urged their miraclesyas immediate di
vine teftimpnies to their meffage or dodrine -f-, as
well as to their miffion. Nor can we have any higher
evidence of the truth and certainty pf any dodrine,
than the immediate atteftation of God to it. — '¦ — If
. - ferae
* It might have been added, that miracles may be of fiich «
nature as to exemplify, as well as to atteft, the do£lrine of a
prophet. But thisconnexion between doftrines and fuch mi
racles as are proper faraples of thofe doflclnes, could not be
taken notice of here ; as we are noiv confidering miracles only
in their moft general view, as divine interpofitions.
f John xiv. 10, II. JVIatk xvi'. 2a. Afts xiv. 3. See above
¦'1. 3. feft. 6. p. 266. 4,

a Revelation from God. ^iSl
fome have contraded the ufe of miracles within too
narrow limits ; others, running into the oppofite ex
treme, have ftretchfed it too far. For,
2. Miracles have been urged, to, prove the univer
fal and perpetual infpiration of the perfons who per
formed them. .^ By fome learned writers -it has been
afferted*, that " we may be rationaHy affured, that
" a prophet is fent of God ; BEFORE we have
" heard One word of his dodrine ;" and fuppofed fj
that all the miracles bf a prophet may beeper formed
firft, and his dodrine be delivered afterwards. In
proof of this point, they appeal firft to the miracles
of Mofes in Egypt, and at the Red Sea ; which they
allege, proved Mofes to be an oracle, and would have
proved the divinity of all the dodrines and precepts
he afterwards delivered, even if Mofes had performed
no other mir'acfes X- Whereas the ends propofed, or
tl]e-dodrines to be proved by the miracles of Mofes in
Egypt, were diftindly ftated before \\ the works v/ere
performed. Thofe ends were, not the proving Mo
fes tb be an oracle, or a divine lawgiver to the Ifrael-
'/, 3 ites,
'*"By Mr. Hallet on miracles, p. 57, 61, 63. and Dr. Ben-
fon, in his life of Chrift, ch. 6. feft. 6. p. 224.
f Dr. Benfon, p. 225, 228, &c,
X P- 229.
11 " Aaron fpake all the words which Jehovah had fpoken
" unto Mbfes, and (then) did the figns in the fight of the
" people," Exod, Iv, 29, 30, j[n like manner Mofes and
Aaron delivered their meffage to Phaorah, before they proved
their miflion by miracles, Exod. v. i.

5j 8 Miracles^ the proper Proof op
ites, buc the effeding their deliverance out of EgypV
the exemplary puniffiment of oppreffipn and, idolatry,
and the manlfeftation ofjhe true God to the world*.
Nor was it upon this evidence, bpt upon the evidence
ofthe miracles wrought afterwards in the wildernefs,
that the Ifraelites received Mofes as a divine lawgiver,
whofe authority God continued to fupport by a feries
of miracles, even after all his dod-rines and precepts
were delivered^ The learned writers f next appeal
to the miracles wrought by St. Paul at Phllippi;
though we read of his preaching X there fome confi
derable time before we have any account of his
working, miracles^ Thefe ingenious gentlemen aH
along argue on . the fuppofition,^ that the miracles of
a prophet are a general- affurance, that we may fafely'
truft him as an oracle ||,- and depend upon all he fays-
as long as he lives § : a fuppofition altogether ground
lefs, and of a Hke nature with that on which the un
happy man feems to have proceeded, who was flain by
a Hon, for giving too hafty credit to a prophet f .
Hardly any thing has done more prejudice to reve
lation, than the mifapplication of its miracles to pur
pofes they were' never intended to anfwer. What has
* See above, ch, iii. feft. 5,
,f Dr. Benfon, p.~z3<i. Mr. Hallet,- p. •63.-
X Afts xvi. 14-^-18.
jl Mr. Hallet, p. 41, &c.
§ Dr. Benfon, p. 224,. 230. -
^ 1 Kings xiii.-

a Revelation from God. 359
has furniftied iniidelity with more objedions *, and
occafioned fo much perplexity to fincere Chriftians ; as
mens maintaining that a prophet who has once per
formed miracles, is thereby rendered for ever Inca
pable of error and vice f ; and their building articles
of faith on his private opinions with telped to fub-
Z 4 jeds
* Mr. 'Voltaire, in his Treatife on Toleration, fays; " that
" Jephtha's declaration, (Judges xi. ^4.) who was inf^ilred by
'*' God, is at leaft an evident proof, that God permitted the
" worftiip of Chemofti." But this writer mifreprefents thtf
meaning of Jephtha, who is biily arguing with Idolaters upon
their own prlnciple,\ that all nations had a right to keep what
their gods had enabled them to poffefs : which Is very different
from allowing the divinity and worftiip of Chetiiofli. Nor was
Jephtha infpired when he fpoke the words here referred to.
" The Spirit of the LORD came iipon him" afterwards,
(Judges xi. 29.) inciting him to undertake, and enabling hini
to accomplifti, the deliverance ofthe Ifraelites. Can it be in
ferred from hence, that Whenever he fpoke it was by divine
infpiration ?
f An o-plnioti repiignaht to the exprefs declarations of re
velation. Mat. vii. 22) 213. Heb. -vi. 4, '^^ 6. See alfo Afts'
xxiii. 5. chi XV, 12, 39. Gal. ii. 11, 14. 'When our Sa-*iour
fays, Mark ix. 39. " No man, who fljall do a miracle in my
" name, can lightly {fx^v, 'quickly) fpeak evil of me ;" he
means,-that it ought not to be fuppofed concerning any perfon,
who had fo gi-eat faith in him', as to undertake and perform
miracles in a dependance upon his divine power, that he was
at that time difpofed to revile a;nd blafpheme himi. This faith,-
however, did not always, govern mens lives. For to fome,
" who did many wonderful works in ihe name of Chrift, he
" will fay, I never knew (ot' approved) you." The eleveri
apoftles, while their minds were darkened by many prejudices,'
and even Judas, wrought miracles.'

360 ^ Miracles, ihe proper Proofs of
jeds riot included in his commiffion, and with re*
gard to whichf'he might think and fpeak like all other-
men ? '
All the prophets of God did nbt*perform their mi
racles with one view, nor were their commiffions of
the fame eiftent. The commiffion of fome was H-
mited to one particular purpofe or feafon ; that of
others was more general and lafting. Each clearly
ftated the diftind and fpecial purpofes pf his own
miffion and niiracles; and always declared what thofe
purpofes were; before he- performed his miracles, or
(which'is the fame thing) before he ceafed to perform
miracles. And the miracles were defigned to atteft
his commiffion, and the purpofes of it, in their juft
extent, as explained by the prophet himfelf, during '
the time that the mirac^lo^s teftimony was borne to
him^ ' On this plapr, no inconvenience could poffibly
enfue from the errors of a prophet, on fubjeds foreign
to his commiffion ; nor even from his ciding after
wards contrary to his own convidions, with refped
to the fubjed of his comiiilflion ; or on any other
occafion. The evidence of Chrift's divine authority,^
arifing from miracles performed by thofe Who after
wards revolted from the faith or pradice of Chriftian
ity, was not impaired by that revph. Nor did the
culpable timidity of Peter, in withdrawing himfelf
from the fociety of the Gentile Chriftians, that he
might not give offence to the Jews, weaken thofe
proofs of the exemption of the former from the obli
gation of circumcifion, which arofe from the fpecial
miracles by which it was confirmed, in the cafe of
Cornelius and other uncircumcifed Gentiles, In a
/ word,

a Revelation from God. 361
word, miracles muft not be extended beyond their
proper ufe, nor appHed to any other purpofes, than ,
what the nature of ihe works themfelyes, or the de
clarations of the performer, will warrant. Miracles
are the teftimony of God himfelf, to a perfon pro-
feffmg to deliver a meffage from him ; a proof of the
divine original of his miffion and dodrine. But we
are to receive as divine upoigthis evidence, no other
dodrines, than thofe it was defigned to confirm.
Having attempted to fliew, under what circum
ftances miracles, confidered as divine interpofitions,
are a certain proof of dod.rines ; I proceed to point
put the advantages pf this proof, particularly in in
troducing and eftabHffiIng a revelation from God.
We ffiall ,ftin argue on the fuppofition of miracles
being divine works ; though, -»after what has been
urged above, it muft be unneceffary at every turn to
ffiew, that the argument concludes only on this fup
pofition. I. The proof from miracfes of the divine commif-
fion arid dodrine of a prophet, is, in itfelf, decifive
and abfolute. What reafoning can be more conclu
five than thisj " He that does fueh works a« no man
¦' cah do, unlefs God be with him, muft be fent of
" God, and faithfully publiffi his will to the world ?"
The God of trqth cannot bear an immediate tefti
mony to any one as a divine meffenger, vi'hom he has ,
not lent, or who publiffies his own inventions as the
oracles of heaven. No man was ever fo abfurd as to
maintain, that atteftations properly divine can de-
'ceiye us, or that God would immediately interpofe
in fupport of falfe claims. And this proof" of a di
vine

362 ' Miracles, the proper Pr^oofs of
vine commiffion from the credentials we are ndw
fpeaking of, is full and fufficient, withodt taking into
Confideration the dodrine they atteft. The proof
arifes out of the nature of the rairacles, independent
of every thing elfe. This fully vindicates the con
dud of the prophets of God, -who, as Was ffiewn
above *, demanded the immediate affent and regard
of mankind to their divine commiffion, upon the fole
evidence pf their miracfes, and prior to all reafonings
concerning the natiir'al propriety and fitnefs of their
dodrine. It . was only by fuch works, as were fure -
tokens pf a divine miffion, that it was poffible for
them to overcome the objedions and Corrupt prejudi
ces of mankind agaihft their meffage. Had Mofes told
Pharaoh, or Chrift the Jews f, " that before the evi-.
" denceof miracles was admitted, as a proof. of a di-
" vine commiffion, the matter of that commiffion
" muft be examined by mens natural . notions, and
" be made appear to be conformable to them ;" the
miracles of thefe divine prophets would have produ
ced only endlefs debates, inftead of convidion. But
the evidence of their miffions from thefe works, was
in itfelf (as it was neceffary it ffiould be) decifive and
abfolute. To what is here advanced, fome may objed, •* that
" if dodrines are to be received as coming from
" God, upon the bare atteftation of miracles, with-
" out regard to the nature of tfie dodrines them-
" felves ;
1
* Ch. 3. feft. 6.
f See p. 396.

a Revelation from God., 36J
" felves ; we may then be obliged, under the fanc-
" tion of thefe works, to receive the mioft abfurd and
*' immoral dodrines, and there can be no poffible
*' guard, againft, impofture." This objedion fuppofes,
that dodrines immoral and abfurd may receive the
fanction of miracles : a fuppofition which ought not to
be made ; becaufe miracles are works pecuHar to God,
and it is impoffible for God to He. The principle on
which we here argue, that miracles are immediately
to be referred to God, is fo far from leaving us, open
to delufion and impofture, that it contains our great
eft fecurity from it ; it furniffies Us with all the evi
dence we can derive from the wifdom, veracity, and
perfed reditude of the divine Being, that the atteft
ation of miracles cannot accompany any falfe doc
trines. It has never been fliewn, that fuch dodrines
ever have received * the atteftation of miracles : and
inafmuch as miracles are works appropriate to God,
it is impoffible that fuch dodrines ever ffiould receive
this atteftation. Whenever therefore the miracle is
apparent, (there being either ocular demonftration,
or other certairi evidence of its truth ;) it is not ne
ceffary to enquire, whether the dodrine be fuch as
may come from God, or may be true : for the mira
cle (being divine) does alone ~affure us, previous to
fuch enquiry, that it did come from God^ and there
fore that it M true; nay, that it is as impoffible it
fliould be falfe or immoral, or Abfurd, as It is that God
ffiould ad contrary to his own perfedions. If the
miracle be of dubious evidence, and the dodrine fuch a&
* See above,, ch.i2. feft. 2.

364 Miracles, the proper ' Profs of
as could not proceed from God ; the proper infer
ence will be, not that the miracle was performed by
wicked fpirits, but that it was invented by wicked
men. The confideration of the dodrine may ferve,
in this cafe, to deted the falfehood of miracles ; but
is never neceffary to eftabliffi the divinity of thefe
works, or the truth and divinity of the dodrine itfelf
which they are wrought to confirm : the latter muft
be true and divine, becaufe the former can have no
other author but God. The objedion therefore puts
a cafe which can never poffibly happen : it fuppofes"
that God may publiffi and atteft a falfehood to the
world. II. The proof of a divine miffion and dodrine
from miracles, is the moft natural and agreeable to
the common fenfe of' mankind in all ages. The works
of creation are ftanding evidences of the exiftence
and attributes of God, The continued order of the
univerfe Is a fure demonftration of his conftant pro
vidence. It is upon the theatre of nature, that God
is continually manifefting himfelf to mankind. Here,
therefore, it is moft natural to-fuppofe, he will dif
play his- power, and fignify his pleafure ; ffipuld he
fee fit to make any new difcoveries of his will. If
he would evidence to his creatures the interpofition
cf the Lord of nature ; iri what other method can
this be fo fuitably done, as by coiitrouHng the laws
of nature? And when he does this in anfwer to an
immediate appeal to him, made by one who claims a
miffion from him ; does he not declare in the moft
proper and expreffive language, that it is his will,
that that claim ffiould be received and admitted? This

¦a Revelation from God. -36^
This appears to have been the general fenfe 'of man
kind in all ages, concerning genuine miracles ; as ,;
we have had occafion to ffiew *. • "^
The natural fenfe of mankind with regard to this,
as well as other fubjeds, may, no doubt, be in fome
meafure perverted by fophiftry and fuperftltion. And
it has been by fome affirmed, that in the age in which
the Gofpel was pubHffied, both Jews and Gentiles
entertained a very low opinion of miracles in general.
From hence others have been forward to conclude,
that they were not a very proper means of recom-
riiiending the Gofpel to the regard of mankind. It
is not true, however, that genuine and inconteftable
miracles were held in difefteem at the commence
ment of the Chriftian era. The Jews indeed objeded
to Chrift, that he difpoffeffed demoniacs by the affift
ance of the prince of demons ; but it has- been
ffiewn f, that they did not, and could not, pafs the
like judgments on his other miraculous works. Their
own religion being grounded upon miracles ; they
were not fo abfurd as to deny their being proper
proofs of a divine miffion. Miraeles were not only
an evidence, by which they were determined, but
which they preferred to any other : " The Jews re
quire a fign X" With
* Ch. 2. feft. 5.
f Ch. 3. feft. 6. p. 270. Mr, Bifcoe, after others, afferts,.
that both Jews and Heathens afcribed the miracles both of
Chrift and Ills apoftles to the power of magic, - Sermons at
Boyle's Lefture, p. 293. But his authorities will not fupport
his affertion, in this large extent.

366 Miracles, the proper Profs of
With' refped to the Greeks or Gentiles, the learned
amongft them, it is acknoWleged,yo«^A/ after wifdem,
were captivated with curious fpeculadons, fet off with
the charms of eloquence ; and may in fome fenfe be
faid to have held miracles in contempt *, that is, fuck
events as were by them commonly defcribed by this
term. Thefe were of two forts. Some ofthem, though
efteemed miracles by the vulgar,' were not really
fuch, but mere natural eyents; inundations, prodi'-
gies, monfters, together With all the feats of (orCery
and magic : and thefe might very' reafopably be re>
jeded by all who were acquainted with the pOwers, of
nature f and art. Others were events tryly fuper
natural ; but they were , confidered as grofs impof
tures. They were not only fo ift attefted, but fp in
credible in themfelves, fO deftitute of all rational in-
tention and wife contrivance, fp vifibly calculated to
ferve fome poHtical purpofe, fo trifling, or ridiculous,
or abfurd in their own nature ; jhat it cannot be mat
ter of wonder, that the wifer Heathens rejeded thexa,
with difdain. Marcus Antonii^us in particular de-
fpifcd all the ftories of them, under the notion of
their being mere fables. His words are, " I have
" learnt not to believe thofe things which are re-
*' ported concerning wonder-workers, or jugglers arid
" magicians, in relation to their charms, and expul-
,' " fion

* Somnia, terrores magicos, miracula, fagas, ^
' Nofturnos lemures, pottentaque Theffala rides ?- Hor.
f Vid. Tacit. Hift. 1. i. c; 86. & 1. 2. c. 1.

a Revelation from God. 367
f' fion. of demons, and the like *." The followers
of Epicurus were under a neceffity of rejeding' eyery
hiftory of miracles ; becaufe they denied a 'pro\'i-
dence, and thought the gods did not intereft them
felves in the affairs of mankind f . But this very rea
foning ffiews, that they confidered miracles as divine
operations, and therefore were not difpofed to deride
the works themfelves, had they been convinced that
any fuch works had been triily performed.
The proof of revelation therefore from real and
unfufpeded miracles, was not improper to be propo
fed to the Heathen world : for it is one thing to fuf-
ped or deny the truth of miracles ; and quite ano
ther, when we allow' their truth, to difpute their. au
thority X- How well this evidence was adapted to
the
^ Marc. Anton. 1. i. § 6. Plutarch likewife (de Superftit,
p. 171.) ranks yonraa; and fiaySxi amongft the moft ridiculous
parts of Pagan fuperftltion. Qccuuxr* fiii^tii, might well grow
into a proverb, with refpeft to fuch miracles ; which were fit
only to produce the fcorn and averfion which Horace expieffes,
Aut in avem Erqgne vertatur, Cadmus in anguem.
.Quodcunque oftendis mihi fie, incredulus odi.
De Art. Poet. 1. 187.
X  ¦  Credat Judseus Apella,

Non ego ; namque deos didici fec^irum ageije sevura.
Horat. Sat. 1. I. Sat. 5. 1. ioo.
X It in-ay here be objefted, that thofe Heathens who be
lieved a providence, afcribed miracles to demons. But it will
roit follow from hence, that they believed that dertions wrought
miracles in oppofition to heaven, and in confirmation of falfe
hood. 'R»rn «g<« d-^iv^k TO d»ifii]iiisri i^ to 5ao». Plat, de Re-
pub. 1. 2. p. 431, ed. Ficini, Should any al£, How came^it
¦ . to

§68 Miracles, the proper Proofs of
the ftate of the Heathens, appears from its great iviC^
cefs, in converting them from atheifm and idolatry
to the Chriftian faith. 4nd this fuecefs would have
been ftiH greater, had there been no more objedion
to the dodrine, than there was to the miracles of
Chriftianity : for thefe works immediately difgraced
all the artifices or impofture *, and bore upon them
felves fijch charaders of divinity, that the Heathens
regarded the performeirs of .tliem as gods, and were
with difficulty reftrained from paying them divine
honours f . From what has been advanced .under
this head, it in fome meafure appears^ that,
IIL Miracles fbrm the moHeafy and compendious
proof of a new revelation; fuch as lies level to the
capacities of all ttiankind, even of thofe who "have,
little leifure or ability for deep refearches after truth.
That the bulk ofmankihd are not endowed with facuU
ties to apprehend the force of long and intricate rea
fonings ; and that the heceffary duties of their ftation
engrofs almoft all their attention ; are fads too plain
to be difputed. And to thofe. who are at all ac
quainted with the writings oi ihe learned, it is as evi
dent, that thofe abflrad reafonings which are above
the capacity of the vulgar, are often unfatisfadory to
perfons
to pafs th&t the Heathens did not pay mpre regard to the ml-
s-acles of Chriftianity r I would refer them for fatisfaftion to
Dr, Law's " Confiderations," &c, p, 121, i*6te e, 3d ed, who
treats this fubjeft with his ufual candour and judgment.
* See Afts viii. 9 — 24. ch, xiii, 8 — 11. ch. xix. 19.
f Afts xiv. It — 13.

a Revelation from God. ,369
perfons of judgment ; arid may generally be oppo
fed by argunients fo probable, as to caufe perfons of
the beft. abilities to doubt on which, fide truth is
to be found. The fpeculations, which haVe had the
Jandion pf one age, have been exploded in the n§xt ;
nay, thofe which have reigned abfolute over all the
cultivated part? pf the world, for many ages toge-
.jher, are now funk into contempt. . And the new
opinions Which are fubftitiited in. the rooiri of the
former exploded ones, may hereafter undergo the
fame fate with them. For there is very little cer
tainty in any fcience, (exCept mathematical,) any
farther than the reafoning is grounded upon fads,
God therefore intending the Chriftian revelation for
the benefit of all^ founded it ttpon ^n evidence adapt
ed to the capacities of all ; upon fuch fads as clearly
demonftrated his, own interpofition arid coiintenance J
and exl^ibited to the very fenfes, as Well as to th^ tln-
derftandings of marikirid, the dodrines the^ Wei-fe de
figned to itteft, themiracl^ beih^ fjietimens or fam-
ples of thofe dodrines. This teftimony Which God
bore to his Son,, was equaUy fitted to convince th6
learned arid illiterate ; theforcC of* it Was eafily and
immediately apprehended, by all Who werfe vvilling td
open their eyes, and fee the light. Had it been ne
ceffary, that mankind ffiould have been made philo-
fophirs, before they became Chrifiians ; hovn ixnaW^
and how flow i progrefs would the Gofpel have
made ; efpecially as it was to be publiffied fo thpfe,
who had the greateft nefed of fupernatural aiTiIiance,
whofe underftandings had been debafed by fuperftl
tion and'idolatry, and whofe nririds were inflamed by
j& a prejudices

J7'

Miracles, the proper Proofs f

prejudices and bigoti'y, aS Well as undifciplined td'
thought and refledion, and employed about the cares
of life ? But the Gofpel, by being accompanied With
a proof of its diyinity, that was plain and eafy, and
carried inftant convidion, did in a ffiort time efta
bliffi itfelf in every part of the earth. This divine
light, like that of the fun, enlighten? every man with
out any diftindion, and in a moment darts its beams
from one end of the World to: the other..
IV. JMiracles are a very powerful method of con
vidion, making a ftrong impreffion upon the heart,
at the fame time that they carry light to the under
ftanding. Such fenfible and unufual effeds, point
ing out the immediate hand jof God in producing
them, arreft the attention, roufe the niind from the
fupine ftate into -^hich it was funk, ftrike it with an
awe of God, imprefs the convidion of his pecuHar
prefencd, aind carry with them an obllgadon to re
ceive and obey the truths which they confirm. They
add weight and energy to thofe truths, whofe im
portance thus interefts heaven in their behalf. Every
oTle who confiders the wifdom and majefty of the di
vine .Being, muft be fenfible, that no trivial occa
fion, that nothing- but the execution of fome defign
of the higheft importance, can induce him in any in
ftance to fufpend His own laws, and produce events
quite out of the fettled order of his government. I
add, that miracles, wh£n they are not related, but
feen; and when they are performed in bur prefence
in a manner worthy of the Divinity; make a very
peculiar impreffion ; fhey muft ftrike the mind mudi
ihore pewerfully, riian any hiftory (whatever Credit
we

, a Revelatidn froni God'. 3 •( I
^e give it), can do. So that in thefe circumftances,'
ho man can refift their- efficacy, without contrading
a peculiar guilt,' and iriciirririg an high degree.of the
divine difpleafure-; which was accordingly denoun
ced by Chrift and his dpoftles, againft fuch as with
ftood the convidion of thofe nilghty v?orks^, by which
the Gofpel was confirmed *.
V. Powerful as thefe riieans of convidion may be,'
they are not violent iznd tbfnptilfive ; nor do they pro
duce their full effcSd, in engaging men to receive and
, obey a new revelation, without the exercife of right
difpofition^ of nfihd; Whatever fome have fuggefted
to the tantxatyi by miracles God appeals to our res-
foh, to judge whethef they are operations of ' his
- power, and evidences of his will ; and whether thofe
at whofe inftance they are performedj are Commif
fioned to deliver it* And when the iinderftanding ^s
convinced, that the miffion is divine, our compliance
with the meffage is an ad of ^he will. Miracles are
the fame method of addrefs to mankind^ as the works
of nature, confidered as the effeds of God's poWer,
aild the fignifications of his will, which neither pro
duce a full corividion without fome attention and re
fledion, nor obedience." witliout a becoming reverence
of God. ,
Miracles, it may be faid, neceffarily ftrike the mind ¦¦
with aftoniffiment ; but fo likewife do the wonders
of nature^ while they are new : and this, in either
A a 2 cafe,
* John XV. 24. Mat. xi. 21* ch, xii. 31, 32, Heb, vi. 4,
. &c» ch, X. 29* , ..' '

372 Miracles, the proper Proofs of
cafe, (ufeful as it may prove to fomCv) is of little
ufe t6 thofe, who ftudioufly divert their thoughts
from the operations of the divine hand, and are only
looking out for matter of cavil againft them. Miracles
are no remedy for obftinacy ; nor can the ,brlghteft
manifeftations of the Divinity, open thofe eyes which
are wilfully clofed. Signs of an extraordinary divine
interpofition wiU attrad the readleft regard from
thofe, who have cultivated right fentiments towards
God, and are previoufly prepared to obey his will.
So that the. evidence of miracles is not unfuitafele to"
the nature of religion, as a reafonable and voluntary
fervice ; nor to the nature of man, as a moral ageliit ;
and at the fame time it Is peculiarly adapted to gain
thofe over to the faith of the Chriftian revelation,
who are beft difpofed to comply with, its defign *.
VI, The neceffity of miracles is- no lefa. evident,
than their propriety and advantage, in attefting a
divine commiffion^ and propagating a new revela
tion. For how can God. give any evidence of his
will, but by the operations of his power, or the efe
fed-s of his omnlfcience ? By what but, the outwaird
and fenfibk difplays pf bpth, can he bear-^a public
teftimony to an extraordinary meffenger from: hea?-
ven ? The general laws of nature and providence
anfwer the end for which they Were defigned ; but
cannot
* This account of tfeiracles. is confirmed, by the effefts
vi'liich thofe of the Gofpel produced'! Some rejefted this evi*-
dence, others were convinced, but not laftingly reformed by
it, (Mat, vii. 22, 23.) on others it had a perfeft and petma-
siejjf influence": according tb their refp«!ftive difffofltions; "

a Reveluiion from God. -.n-i
-cannot ferve the purpofe of a peculiar atteftation to a
.prophet of God. Nor can the excellent tendency of
the'dodrine, feparately confidered, prove that it came
from God. Had Chriftianity been only a republica
tion of the law of nature, or a^revlval of certain prin
ciples obfcured by fuperftltion, but demonftrable by
reafon, when awakened into exercife ; even then mi
racles would have been ufeful to excite the attention
¦of the world to thofe principles, and to give them,
new evidence and tertainty ; nay, neceffary, though
not to eftabliffi their truth, yet to. prove a particular
¦diyirie commiffion, to revive .the knowlege of them,
and thereby to give thepubllffiers of them the greater
authority to reform the world, and procjure them a
more fpeedy fuecefs. But when a new religion is
(like that of the Gofpel) the freerefult of the divine
•wifdom for the/alvation of finful men, and contains
brighter difplays of the divine philanthropy, than na
tural reafon I« acquainted -with ; how can the divine
original of fuch a new religion be eftabliffied, if np
fupernatural teftimony be borne to it by God ?
The more immediate defign of the miracles of the
Gofpel, was, to prove the divine commiffion pf the
-firft publlfliers of it, and to engage men to receive
it as an immediate meffage from God. They were
more efpecially intended to demonftrate Jefus bf Na
zareth to be the Meffiah, the divinely appointed
prince and faviour : a claim that could not be fup
ported, 'but by the divine teftimony of prophecies
and miracles. 'Chrift not orily affumed the honPur
of a prophet of God, but a far fuperior dignity and
fiuthoiity to any of the prophets ; he fpoke of him-
Aa^ felf

J/-

Miracles, the proper Proofs of

felf as the Son of God, in a fenfe pecuHar and tran-
fcehdent; as one appointed to govern the church,
and to judge the world. Now, the more extraordi
nary his claims were, fo much the more neceffary
was it to confirm them by adequate miracles. Had
: Chrifts reafoned Hke a philofopher, he might have
been efteemed as fuch ; but, without producing pro
per credentials of a divine miffion^" and authority,
he could not have enforced his inftrudions upon the
confcience, as the immediate didates and oracles of
the Diyinity ; nor have been received by the wPrld
under his proper charader, as the Son of God, the
Saviour, Sovereign, and Jydge of mankind. Chrift
had fuffered death, as a malefador. His apoftles af-,
firmed, that God nad raifed him up again, advanced
him to" a flate of the higheft dignity and authority in
his prefence and kingdom, and invefted him with
power to beftow immprtaHty on his followers. But,
who ought or could giye credit to their dodrine and
teftimony, if it had not been confirmed by God him
felf, on whofe good pleafure alone the conftitution
of the Gofpel was founded?. It -was impoffible by
reafon, to prove the antecedent propriety and necef
fity of fuch a conftitution. If any thing can render
the neceffity of miracles to confirm and propagate the
Gofpel, ftill more apparent ; it is the corifideration of
¦' the
* .Tills argunient might receive large illuftration from the
c;,fe of Mofes, both as a divine ambaffador tp Pharaoh, and
a divine legiflator to the Ifraelites. Even his main doftrine,
viz. that the God of t^e Hebrews was the only true God, as
well as his commiffion, could be eftabllflied only by miracles^

a Revelation from God. 375
the great corruption * of the world, at the time of
Chrift's appearance in it, creating in men a difaffec-
tion to the purity of this new revelation ; the difgrace
and danger that attended the public profeffion of it ;
the violent prejudices entertained both by Jews and
Gentiles againft the dodrine of the crofs ; the Gof-
pei's fuperfeding the neceffity of the Jewiffi revela,.
tion, and eftabliffiing itfelf upon the ruins of Pagan
idolatry; and the, ponfequent oppofition it met with
from all the powers of the world. Thefe difficulties
and obftrudlons could not have been furmounted, if
the Gofpel had not been fupported and recommended
by the moft unqueftionable operations of God's
power, and the plajneft teftimonfes of his approba^
<ion. . -
' VII. Miracles, while they are more immediately
and diredly employed in introducing and eftabliffi
ing a new revelation, may ferve to revive apd con-
fi^rm-the principles of natural reHgipn, and to recover
men from thpfe two oppofite extremes of atheifm and
, idolatry. Into the one br other of thefe extremes,
the world was very generally fallen, in the- age of the
Gofpel.. Perfons in the higher ranks ,of life, were
infeded with atheifm ; thofe in the lower, were quite
A a 4 • pyer-run
\
* See what was urged above, to ftiew the neceffity of con-
, firming the Gofpel by miracles, and of confidering- thefe works
as in themfelves' c.ertain evidences of a divine interpofition, from
^the- ponfideration of the ftrong prejudices both of Jews and
Gentiles againft the claim's of Chrift, and from the great cor
ruption of the age in which the pofpel was pubnflied, ch. 3,
jeft. 6, '..-:.

376 Miracks, the proper Proofs of
ov^-run with idolatry. Now, no properer cure of
both thefe evils could be prefcribed, than miracles.
I. Thefe works confute the pretences oi atheifm,
and afford new evidence of thofe firft principles of all
religion, the being and providence of God. It has,
indeed, been often affirnied, that miracles offered in
fiipport of a miffion from God, do only fuppofe, and
cannot denionftrate, his exiftence. Neverthelefs, if
they are his immediate ads, and prove a divine mif
fion ; they riiuft prove that there is a God, from whom
themiffionary comes, and by whofe authority he ads.
Supernatural figns and wonders demonftrate his ex
iftence, ih the fame way of reafoning as the works
of nature do. In both cafes we proceed on one com
nion principle, that every effed muft have fome caufe^
and : argue from the vifib'fe effeds, to an invifible
caufe, by which they were produced. If you confi
der only the grandeur of the works, the exiftence of
the world (fo replete with wonders!) bears a more
ample teftimony to the b«ng of a God, than all the
miracles of the Jewiffi and Chriftian difpenfations.
Neverthelefs, occafional and uncommon operations of
the divine power have this pecuHar advantage to re
commend them, that they ftrike our attention more
forcibly, than that fettled courfe of things, which
falls under our conftant obfervation.
Miracles not only contain a new demonftratiori of
God's exlftence^but ftrengthen the proofs of it drawn
from the frame of the world, and clear Wm froni
the two principal objedions of atheifm, viz. either
that the world is eternal, or elfe owed its exiftence
to the fortuitous concourfe of atoms. Sometime^
'¦  .... ^^^

a Rivelation from God. 377
jfhe atheift affirms, that the world was never juade at
all, but has exifted from eternity juft as it is at pre
fent ; and is fubjed to fate or neceffity : and thus he
endeavours to evade the argument drawn from na
ture, to prove the exiftence of its Creator and Lord.
But the fu,pernatural proof of this important point is
not lialble to the Tame objedion, and is even fervice
able in removing it. No one affirms, that miracles
exifted from eternity ; and if they are really effeded^
jthey muft have a caufe. If they are effeded at the
interceffion of a .prophet, and in atteftation tjf his
commiffion, they muft have a voluntary defigning
caufe ; and cannot be afcribed either to neceflity or
fate. And inafmuch as they controul or fuperfede
the laws' of nature ; their efficient caufe muft be dif-
, tind from nature, and fuperior to It ; and can be no
other than the fovereign Lord of nature, the fame
whom we-caU God. Not tp add, that had the world
- been eternal, the courfe of nature would have conti
nued the fame' without any interruption. Nor can
-yifible figns of an invifible power that commands na
ture", be any more ijeconclled with the formation of
the world by the fortuitous concourfe of atoms, than
with the notion of its eternal neceffary exiftence. In
oppofition to both thefe pleas, they prove the world
to be the Work of a free and almighty Agent *. For
who can controul the fettled courfe of nature, but
' ' that
* So that whether the apoftle confidered the' declaration of
Mofes, Gen. I. J. as that of a. prophet, or the credentials cf
his miipon ; he might fay, " By faith we know that the worlds
w-^ere framed by the word of God," Heb. xi. 3. Faith fup
plies us with new evidence of this truth, without weakening
.' that

37-8 Miracles, the proper Profs of
that great Being that eftabHffied it? If the world
had no creator, it could have no lord. He alone
who caufed it to be what it is, could make what
changes in it he ple'afed. The vifible figns of God's
power do^ fo clearly demonftrate his exiftence, that
- the atheift denies there ever were any miracles, - to
avoid being compelled into the belief of a God.
Miracles alfo bear a noble teftimony to divine pro
vidence. They are adual exercifes of God's jurif-
didion over the world, and therefore a proof of fad
that he governs it, and interefts himfelf in its affairs.
Prophecies likewife are a farther illuftration and evi
dence of this important truth. When they defcribe
the moft contingent events, the adions of free agents}
comprehetid the'fates of various nations and perfons ;
and reach through a great length of ages ; they af-
ford a moft fenfible proof of the univerfal and^ per
petual fuperintendency of an unerring providence.
Thefe miraculous effeds of the divine power and
knowlege, are a very valuable additian to that evi
dence of God's exiftence and government, which
arifes from- the order of nature ; and ferve to vindi
cate and confirm it.
3. Miracles are a remedy againft the evil of idol
atry, as well as that of atheifm. In the opinipn of
idolaters themfelves, thefe* works are a demonftra
tion of a divine power *. And when they are per
formed
Ithat of reafon. And Mofes might clearly and certainly infer
fiom his- miracles, even without an imniediate revelation, that,
" In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth."
i o - ¦
f Afts xiv. II. . .,

a Revelation from God. 370
fdrhied in the name of Jehovah, under the charader
of the only living and true God, in dired oppofition
to aft the claims of idolatry ; they equally eftabHffi
the divinity of Jehpvah, and confute the pretenfic.-ris
of aft his rivals and oppofers. The truth of his claims
neceffarily infers the falfehood pf theirs. Miracles,
being in themfelves exercifes of God's fovereign 00-
ininion over the powers of nature, which were the
principal gods of Paganifm, and from whom the infe
rior deities were fuppofed to derive all their authority ;
overturn the very foundation of the Pagan idolatry,
and bring men to the" knowlege of the true God*.
? ' This
* J Theff. i. 9, 10. I Pet. i. 21. l Cor. xii. 2. Afts
xiv. 15. Mr. Voltaire (in . his Diftionaire Philofophique,
p. 268.) feems to approve of the philofopher, who faid, that
the fight of miracles would convince him of the exiffence of
{wo oppofite principles, one of whom undoes what the other
had been doing. This objedion proceeds on the falfe fuppo
fition, that miracjes cpntradift or defeat the intention of the
laws of nature : whereas they only aim at an end, which could
not be anfwered by the regular operation of thofe laws ; (as
was fliewti above, p. 21.) And it Is eyident, that, wben
they are performed in the name of the true God, aijd in proof
of his fole dominion over nature, or (which Is the fame thing
in effeft) in proof of a miffion from him, under the charafter
of the fole author and fovereign of the world, and are not (as
jhey never can be} controuled by oppofite miracles; inftead
of eftablilhing, they direftly confute the doftrine of two or
rhoie rival deities. Accordingly, the miracles of the Jewifti
and Chriftian revelations were the means of converting men
from polytheifm, to the faith and worftiip, of the true God.
*' By him (Chrift) ye believe in God, th^t laifed him from
" the dead, and gave him glory, that your |aith and hop?
f might be in God." I Pet, i. 21.

3 3o Miraeles, the proper Profs of
This argument might - receive large illuftration
from the peculiar nature of the Scripture miracles,
were this the proper place for entering on the exami
nation of them. But we are here only ffiewing the
.ufe of miracles in general, in bearing teftimony to
the exiftence, unity, and providence of God; and
confidering thefe works in their moft general view,
as divine operations,
- For this reafon, we forbear Hkewife to ffiew, that
when miracles are in their own nature, difplays of
the beneficence and reditude of the divine Being,
jnftances of his favour or difpleafure,. according to
mens different charaders; and ^re likewife fubfer
vient to a fcheme calculated to recover men to piety
aqd virtue; they are then a new confirmation of
'God's moral perfedions and providence, fuch as may
ferve^ for the convidion of all who call tbem into
queftipn, and be of fingular ufe. to thofe who wor
flilp gods of the moft flagitious charaders, and do it
by ads of wickednefs fuitable to their apprehended
natures. Thus the aiitient Heathens did; who ne-»
verthelefs were recovered by fuch miracles as are here
defcribed, to the knowledge and adoration ofthe Holy
One of Ifrael.
The foregoing obfervations are, I hope, fufficient
to ffiew, that how low an opinion foever thofe may
entertain of miracfes, who will not allow them to be
the immediate operation of God ; yet when confider
ed in this their true Hght, their ufe, importance, and
neceffity in introducing and eftabliffiing a new reve
lation, is clearly difcerned ; and that, while they give
authority to a prophet to reveal the divine will to
mankind.

a Revelation from God. jS-t
mankind, they bear a ftriking" teftimony to the erifti
ence and providence of God, and are highly ufeful,
if not neceffary, for the convidion of mankind,, when
funk into atheifm 'and idolatry. They have adually
anfwered this end, when all the works of nature
failed of their effed. I would only obferve farther,
VIII. That the evidence of miracles (whether o£
power or knowlege) is the fitteft to accompany a
ftanding revelation ; becaufe it is not confined to one
age or nation, but may be extended over the whofe
globe, and conveyed to the moft diftant generations.
Miracles of power carry inftant convidion, procure
prefent credit to a prophet ; and muft mal^e a very
peculiar impreffion on the fpedators. Neverthelefs,
their ufe is not confined to them; for they may be
fo credible in themfelves, fo ftrongly attefted, fo faith
fully recorded, and fo neceffarily conneded with
other fubfequent fads, not to be difputed, nor ac
counted for in a natural way, as to leave no' room
for thofe to doubt of their reality, who had not the
il&d vantage of feeing them performed. With refped
to miracles of knowledge ; they ferve in fome inftances
for immediate ufe, particularly the difcoveries * of
diftant and hidden tranfadions, and of the fecrets of
the human heart. There are other inftances of fu
pernatural knowlege, the predidions of future events,
which are digfigned to carry convidion in fomB dif-^
tant period. The diftances between the delivery of
the prophecies and their accompliffiment may be Very
different: fome prophecies, may receive a fpeedy
completion ; , others may be gradually accornpliffiirig^
through many fucceeding ages, to the very end of
time ;

3^2 Mtraclei, the proper Pro fs f, (ifc.
time; and hereby furniffi evidence to the world
through all thefe different periods. Such prophecies
are a ftitnding and perpetual evidence of the miffion
of a prophet ; always lying open to the view and ex
amination of the world. They give credibility to
the hiftory of his other . miracles, being themfelves
one fpecies of miracles, fuch as neceffarily argue a
fpecial divine interpofition. And the evidence ari
fing from them, inftead of being dlminiffied, will
be increafed by their diftance from the time of their
delivery, as the events foretold fucceffively happen.
From the whole of what has been offered, in this
and the feveral foregoing chapters, it appears, I hope,
that it can be no objedion againft the Jewiffi and
Chriftian revelations, that they reft upon the bafisr
of miracles.

THE END.

*',' v ¦• •'-^'¦

.A/

'/,>,¦¦ ¦'*'' " ./-'
i#v'.-W^ i-U^ L^'it^^ ftoL c-'-H.-iL ¦/'¦
fi

'-a

./i.-V

3 9002 00752 4656