صور الصفحة
PDF
النشر الإلكتروني

of the prophet may have led him, perhaps, with some reason, to suspect that he was now to consider that commission as superseded, it must yet have been his duty to pray to God for illumination, and that he may have owed his death to the not having done so. But if he had means afforded, either by prayer, or otherwise, to rebut the temptation, it matters not what was the nature of the temptation, or what may have been those particular means. If, moreover, he may have prayed to God for illumination, why may he not, or rather must he not, have prayed to be guided aright between two inconsistent superhuman authorities?

So in the similar case of apparently opposite Christian miracles. The truth of the revelation is here supposed by both parties: and if means are given either by revelation, or reason, to determine which teacher promulgates doctrines in accordance with, and which promulgates doctrines in clear opposition to, those truths natural or revealed which we suppose, it matters not whether both, or only one of them, be permitted the power of quoting miracles on his side.

And let me here observe farther, with regard to the case alleged from the Old Testament, that

though we may apparently argue from it that, supposing a contest between opposite miracles, their authority must be strongest when they are declared in direct attestation of, or with an immediate copula to, the doctrine declared; yet this particular case, if it prove any thing more, must go to an extent which does not seem to have been anticipated. This case is produced in order to oppose the position, that “the miracles of a prophet may be performed first, and his doctrine be delivered afterwards". Now the prophet of Bethel, at the time of his misdirecting the other prophet, was certainly not so far forsaken by all divine illumination and influence, as to be debarred from any future reception of it. We do not know but that he was under its influence habitually, and we read immediately afterwards, that "as they sat at the table, the word of the Lord came unto him”. The language which is in general used in speaking of him is such as we expect to see used of a person of eminent virtue, not of one abandoned by the holy spirit of God: and the last thing we hear of him, is that he declared a pro

a

Farmer, ubi supra.

b1 Kings, xiii. 20.

E

phecy, which is one of the most noted and signal of all those which have no immediate reference to the future Redeemer.

If then we deny this prophet to have possessed a clear title to the credit of prophetic authority, and this even in the case in which he falsely assumed it, we must be prepared to go much further than merely to say, that because at one time an individual may have been entrusted with a superhuman commission, he still may not be entitled to plead that commission in behalf of all doctrines which he may subsequently declare. If we argue on the case at all, we must say that a person who may have habitual, or who may at least have frequent, communications of divine or superhuman light or authority, and these also kept up subsequently to his communications with us, yet has no right to expect that we should credit his plea of superhuman authority, unless he work a miracle to prove the specific authority of every specific doctrine delivered by him. On this footing, or principle, we might have refused to credit even St. Paul in every thing not proved by him with the immediate copula of a miracle.

But as no person will, I presume, carry the

objection this length, or deem such suspicion to be at all consistent with that rational faith which religion justly demands, the objection must consequently fall at once to the ground. It must remain true that every act of superhuman power, when appealed to in proof of a divine commission, confers on the agent a superhuman authority. We must then concede that all such authority cannot be asserted as being necessarily divine. But we then argue further that, as it cannot be distinguished from the divine, except by some incredibility in the doctrine af firmed, or, at least by some express refutation, so it must be certain that every credible doctrine vouched by any evidently superhuman power, and not refuted by any at least equal authority, does rest ultimately on the divine sanction.

CHAPTER I.

THAT THE SCRIPTURE MIRACLES, IF REALLY PERFORMED, OR IF PERFORMED IN THE MANNER RELATED, were ACTS OF A POWER UNEQUIVOCALLY SUPERHUMAN.

IT has been sufficiently proved in the foregoing dissertation that every act of superhuman power, if appealed to in proof of a divine authority, is a conclusive evidence of the authority claimed, unless the doctrine affirmed on that authority be a doctrine incredible, or inconsistent with reason, or with truths otherwise known and admitted; or unless the authority be expressly refuted by some other equal or superior authority.

Now that the Scripture miracles are appealed to is plain. Our Saviour declares: "The works that I do, they bear witness of me. If I do not the works of my Father, believe me not; but if I do, though ye believe not me, believe the works". No appeal can be expressed more distinctly. And so also Moses, in attes

a John, v. 36, x. 25, 37, 38.

« السابقةمتابعة »