ON MIRACLES, FROM mmm F. V. REINHARD'S OPUSCULA ACADEMICA. TRANSLATED FROM THE LATIN BY GEORGE C. BECKWITH, ASSISTANT INSTRUCTER IN THE THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY, REINHARD ON MIRACLES; &c. &c. THE authority of the Bible as a revelation from heaven rests on the evidence of miracles. To these Christ* and his Apostlest appealed for proof of their claims to be received as "teachers sent from God." This is the grand argument in support of the Scriptures; and those "mighty works," if actually performed, and really miraculous, place the divine origin of Christianity beyond the possibility of a doubt. But on carefully examining this subject, I met with unexpected difficulties. I saw, that the argument from the miracles of Christ, if valid, furnished the most decisive evidence of his claims; but it seemed, nevertheless, to be in certain points liable to serious objections. If the works, ascribed to him in the Gospels, were truly miraculous, they afforded to my mind overwhelming proof of his divine mission; for they must have been the voice of God attesting the claims of his Son, and commending him to mankind as a messenger from heaven. But the questions-what is a miracle?—and how distinguishable from other extraordinary but natural phenomena ?-seemed so obscure, and of so doubtful solution, that I found much difficulty in meeting the objections of those who ascribe all events apparently miraculous to natural *John ii. 11, 23; v. 17, 20, 21; vi. x. 25, 37, 38; xi. 42; xiv. 11. Luke x. 13-17. Matt. xi. 3—5, 20-24. The Apostles assert this to have been the object of his miracles: John xx. 30, 31. Acts ii. 22; x. 38. That Jesus expressly appealed to his miracles in proof of his divine mission, see a dissertation of Storr in Flatt's Magazine, Part IV. No. IV. Also Storr's Bib. Theol. B. I. § 8. Ill. 2.-Translator. Matt. x. 1, 8. Luke ix. 1; x. 1, 17. John xiv. 12. Acts iii. 6. 12, 16; v. 12-16; xiv. 8-11; xix. 11, 12. Rom. xv. 17-19. Mark xvi. 17 -20. (TR.) causes, and assert that we are unable to prescribe limits to the latent powers of nature. Nor has any one, to my knowledge, entirely removed this difficulty. I am quite sure that the considerations commonly adduced will not obviate it. I found much difficulty on this point when attempting in a recent public discussion, to ascertain the exact force of the argument for Christianity drawn from the miracles of our Lord. I resolved, therefore, after having investigated the subject with some care, and arrived at results that satisfied my own mind, to lay my thoughts on this difficult point before the public. To this I have been induced by several reasons. After all that has been written on the subject of miracles by S. R. Less,* Farmer,† and others of great genius and erudition, I find, that the question-can we determine whether any extraordinary event proceeds immediately from the hand of God, and not from the latent powers of nature?-has not been discussed in a manner so full and satisfactory as to need no further investigation. At the present day the argument from the miracles of Christ seems among us not only to be ridiculed by infidels, but to be abandoned by the very friends and professed champions of Christianity. Recent works in this country, especially those critical journalst which profess to judge and proclaim the merits of new publications, maintain that the moral excellence of our religion, so conspicuous in its doctrines and precepts, is the surest and the only decisive evidence of its divine origin. The * In an excellent work entitled: Wahrheit der Christlichen Religion. 1776. Farmer's work on Miracles has been translated by the famous Bamberger under the title: Abhandlung ueber die Wunderwerke. 1777. See a variety of essays in Staeudlin's Theologische Baeytrage, Eckermann's Theol. Beytr., Eichhorn's Bibliotheca, &c. &c. Storr's Bib. Theol. B. I. 6—10. (TR.) miracles of Christ they consider as liable to so many ob jections, and involved in so much obscurity and doubt, that they choose to relinquish and discard them altogether. But I can by no means consent to give up the argument from miracles. It is certain, that Christ appealed to them in support of his claims, and rested his authority principally on the works which he wrought. However often and strongly he may have insisted on the singular excellence of his instructions, he settled the great point of difficulty with the Jews, the divinity of his mission and doctrines, by appealing to his mighty works.* The Apostles imitated his example, and by miracles also confirmed their authority.t It is obvious, then, that those who explain and vindicate the argument from miracles, defend the very citadel of Christianity. I shall endeavour, therefore, to clear this argument from some of its difficulties. Nor will the attempt be useless; for even should I fail, I may induce abler minds to give the subject a more thorough and satisfactory investigation. I shall therefore endeavour, in the following discussion, first, to ascertain and fix the point in dispute by examining the arguments of those who deny the possibility of our determining what events are miraculous. I shall next explain, at some length, the nature of miracles, in order to remove all ambiguity of terms, and avoid being led astray by equivocal language. I shall then proceed to show, that we are able, without a perfect knowledge of all the laws and latent energies of nature, to determine what phenomena are miraculous. I shall conclude by evincing, that, however ignorant we may be of the nature of miracles, they nevertheless furnish a valid and *Farmer's Dissertation on Miracles, ch. iii. Sec. 5. I. pp. 249-262. (TR.) + Ib. II. pp. 262-281. Storr's Bib. Theol. B. I. ch. 9, 10. (TR.) |