Page images
PDF
EPUB
[ocr errors]

It would carry us greatly too far out of our way, to enter here into an examination of the facts and therefore, especially as our Author has not even attempted to prove the contrary, I fhall content myself with referring him to the confideration of those arguments, by which it has, in my opinion, been proved from the relation itself, that All the Magicians did amounted to nothing more than fuch poor attempts to imitate in fome meafure the real miracles of Mofes, as mere human artifice, might accomplish *.

C

In Deut. xiii 15. the cafe is put not of a real, but a mere falfe, pretended prophet; not of one who by real infpiration foretold fomething that came to pafs, and of which nothing but infpiration could have affured him; but of one, who by means either of fome knowledge not common, fome accidental concurrence of circumftances, fecret contrivance, or some other fuch human, but undifcovered means; fhould foretell fomething, which did eventually come to pass; but which did not need inspiration to foretell it, though they might fuppofe it did. This is evident from hence, that the perfon giving them any fuch fign, which actually came to pafs, to perfuade them into Idolatry, is there directed to be put to death, as a falfe prophet; which it is incredible he fhould have been, if actually infpired by God for this very purpose. So that here the expreffion-The Lord your God proveth you, to know whether you love the Lord your God, &c +; can fignify no more, than that God permits fuch a Deceiver to make use of fuch artifices with a

[ocr errors]

*The Author will do well to confult particularly Le Moine's Treatife on Miracles; not only for the cafe of the Magicians, but for the feveral Texts likewife concerned in this question; from p. 140, to p. 204, 8vo..

* Deut. xiii. 3.

view

view to deceive you; not that he infpires him, and commiffions him to do what he does, or that he does any thing that really requires any fupernatural powers, as the Author fuppofes.

As to Micaiak's addrefs to Abab +, it is plainly nothing more than a parabolical defcription.

The perfons mentioned by our Lord (Matth. xxiv. 24,) are there exprefly styled, false Chrifts and falfe Prophets; that is, perfons who would not really be poffeffed of divine powers and authority, though they would pretend to be poffeffed of them: and it is directly afferted, that every one would be deceived, who fhould pay regard to the great figns and wonders they would fhew. And does not this manifeftly imply, that whoever regarded them would be deceived in fuppofing their figns and wonders to be real miracles; as well as in fuppoing Them, on that account, to be real Chrifts or real Prophets? What other equitable conftruction can be put upon the words? And, at all events, certainly nothing is here faid, capable of being alleged to fhew, that these great figns and wonders would be any thing more, than the effects of mere human cunning and deceit. And thus likewife the figns and wonders fpoken of by St. Paul; (2 Theff. ii. 9.) are exprefly described, as ying figns and wonders; or mere impofitions.

-46

66

When therefore the Author affirms, without proof, "That God is faid fometimes to have permitted real Miracles to be wrought by the agency of Evil Spirits ;" he afferts as an acknowledged fact, what it is not in his power to produce any inftance in fupport of; and what therefore I must take leave to deny; together with the consequence he means to draw from it.

Į Kings xxii. 19-23.

But

But befides, fuppofing it had been said, though it really is not, that God fometimes permits real miracles to be wrought by the agency of Evil Spirits; how would this prevent Miracles from being man's only proper criterion, whereby to judge of Divine Revelations? The perfect holiness, justice, veracity, and goodness of God, render it a contradiction to fuppofe, that he can permit any Being, whether good or evil, fo to authenticate any thing for a Revelation, as to lay his Rational Creatures under a morai neceffity of receiving, as a Revelation from him, what really is not. If therefore God fhould ever permit, what we have no grounds for believing he ever did, or ever will; and great reason to think, from our Saviour's argument concerning Beelzebub *, that he never can; but if God fhould ever permit an Evil Being to work real miracles, in order to deceive mankind into a rational, but at the fame time mistaken belief, that fomething is a Revela, tion from God, which really is not; he would, it should feem, over-rule thofe miracles, by caufing others to be wrought in oppofition to them, and fo plainly fuperiour to them; as to leave mankind without excufe, if they did not prefer the Laft to the Firft; and thus diftinguish the true revelation from the falfe.

Or fhould we for mere argument's fake suppose, that God might at any time permit an Evil Being to work miracles, in fupport of fomething evil; without caufing other miracles to be wrought, in oppofition to them, and plainly capable of overpowering them; it fhould feem, that the miracles of this Evil Being must be worked, either to recommend fome practice, which our own reason is capable of informing us is notoriously vicious;

* Mark iii. 22-26.

or

125 or to inculcate the belief of fome doctrine, which our own reafon may inform us, is notoriously falfe. In either of which cases it must be manifeft, that fuch miracles can only be permitted to try us; and confequently, that it would be our duty to regard them as nothing more, than an extraordinary fummons from God, to adhere to That practice which we ourselves know to be evidently virtuous and right; and to That belief which our own reason informs us is manifeftly just.

But if it were poffible, in the nature of the thing, for God to permit an Evil Being to work real miracles, to prove fomething to be a Revelation from God, which really was not; fo as to leave mankind deftitute of any means to discover the deception; if this was poffible, which moft certainly it is not; ftill would it be the absolute duty of mankind, as Rational Creatures, to admit as a Revelation from God, whatever came duly authenticated to them as fuch; though by this means they should unavoidably be led into an error: becaufe it is in every inftance the indispensable duty of Man, to confult and govern himself by the dictates of his reafon; and an error fo adopted would not only be abfolutely innocent, but our conduct in thus adopting it, would be truly virtuous and praiseworthy.

Had it therefore been faid, as the Author affirms, though we have feen it is not, That "God fometimes permits miracles to be wrought "by Evil Spirits," ftill would it be certain, that MIRACLES, of which Prophecies fulfilled are one fpecies, muft ever be, from the very nature of the thing, the only poffible criterion for man to judge by, whether fuch a Religion as may be a Revelation from God, actually is one *.

SECT.

* It would be unpardonable to quit this subject, without

SECT. VIII.

The Author's principles, that Revelation must be UNIVERSAL, and cannot stand in need of EXPLANATION, confidered.

T

HE Author has ftill another argument against Revelation in general, and we must therefore confider it.

"Let us, fays he, turn our thoughts inwards, "and afk ourselves seriously, Whether it be proba"ble that God has given to mankind any written "Revelation immediately from himself, and un"der his special and particular direction; in doing which he effectually reftrained the publihers of it, from blending any of their own

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

opinions and fentiments with the pure and per

"fect word thus delivered to them? Will not our "confciences anfwer, that it is highly probable "no fuch written Revelation has been made †?"

Here, at one ftroke, the Author utterly overthrows the very fundamental principle for which chiefly he all along contends. For, if our con-fciences tell us, that probably no pure unmixed Revelation was ever written; and if, as he likewife contends, pure morality is the only pure unmixed Revelation; how can it be probable, much lefs credible, that the books of the New Teftament

taking notice of a curious principle laid down by the Author's friend in the Preface. 66 Nothing, fays he, can prove the "divine authority of any revelation, but its internal moral "excellence." What is this but afferting, that the very identical circumftance, which makes a doctrine capable of having been difcovered by human reafon only, without being revealed; is the only poffible proof, that it could not be dif covered by human reafon only, but must have been revealed? + P. 370.

originally

« PreviousContinue »