curse*. And when king Ahaziah sent to consult Baalzebub about his recovery, God by his prophet Elijah stopped his messengers, reproved their master, and denounced his death. And why might not God in like manner interpose in the case of Saul, in order to disappoint his hopes of divine protection, and to denounce his doom; the foreknowledge of which had so great an effect upon him, that he instantly fell down into a swoon, and could no longer bear up against the bitter agonies of his mind? What is there in this conduct, inconsistent with the justice or sanctity of the great Governor of the world? Could Saul complain of being sentenced to die for having recourse to those impious arts, the exercise of which he himself had heretofore punished with death? How proper was it that his death should appear to be the punishment of his guilt! His death, if it had not been foretold, would have been considered as a common event, rather than as the execution of the divine displeasure. He had certainly disregarded the threatenings of God to depose him, and to appoint David in his stead; and very probably he had taken occasion, from his suspending their execution, to turn them into ridicule. Finding that he continued in the full possession of his kingdom many years after Samuel had foretold it should be taken from him, he might ascribe the prediction to the disaffection and enmity of the prophet, and his attachment to David. To clear the character of Samuel from all suspicion, and vindicate the credit of his predictions; to evidence the divine designa+2 Kings i. 2-4. · *Numb. xxiii. tion of David to the throne of Israel; and in the most affecting manner to display the righteous vengeance of God against the practice of necromantic divinations, by which Saul had now filled up the measure of his guilt; seems to have been the design of God in this miraculous appearance of his prophet. I have now laid before the reader what occurred to me upon this difficult subject; and supported in the strongest manner I was able, from the reasonings of others, and my own reflections, the two different explications of it which carry with them the greatest appearance of probability. I pretend not to decidé which explication is true. Neither of them countenances the opinion that miracles are performed by evil spirits; which is all I contend for. That which was proposed last seems to me to be best supported; though on this, as on every other point, I leave every one to form his own judgment. The case of the devil's appearing to our Saviour in the wilderness, and transporting or accompanying him from one place to another, and shewing him all the kingdoms of the world, would naturally fall next under our consideration. But if the explication I have elsewhere given of this history be just, it is no exception to the principle we have hitherto been endeavouring to establish. In confirmation of that explication, I would observe, that if it be true that the Scripture appropriates all miracles to God, then the common interpretation of our Saviour's temptations, which ascribes so many miracles to the devil, must be false. We ་ We have now examined the sense of revelation concerning the author of miracles; produced many arguments to shew that the Scriptures represent them as works peculiar to God, and attempted to solve the several objections against this account. The numberand eminence of those Christian writers who have taught that the Scriptures allow to evil spirits a miraculous power, and the use made of that doctrine by unbelievers in sapping the foundation of the Jewish and Christian revelations, together with the nature and importance of the subject itself, will excuse the compass with which it has been treated. I will add, that deists should not avail themselves of the errors of Christians, which are arguments only against the persons who advance them, not against their religion. And even for them much allowance will be made, by those who consider that the opinion entertained at present concerning the miraculous power of evil spirits prevailed very generally amongst the antient Heathens: and Jews; was early engrafted into the Scriptures themselves by false translations of them; and during the triumph of popery was deemed an essential article of the Christian faith.. For how many ages were men prevented by their prejudices from understanding the volume of nature, as well as that of revelation! At the revival of learning, and the glorious æra of the Reformation, when men began to recover the use of their understandings, and to apply the true rules of criticism to the study of the Scriptures; they at the same time began to call in question the empire of Satan over the natural world. Luther abolished the practice practice of exorcisms, and many others no longer gave credit to idle stories of fascinations and magic. Much was then done to clear revelation from various corruptions which had been introduced into it. And much (says one of the most capable judges* of the subject) still remains to be done. No empire so durable as that of error and prejudice over the human mind; and it may still require a length of ages totally to subvert it. In the mean time, no one can complain of the obscurity of the Scriptures in any neces sary article of faith or practice.. * Dr. Lowth, bishop of Oxford, in his Sermon at the Visitation of the Bishop of Durham, p. 24. CHAPTER CHAPTER V. Shewing that Miracles, considered as divine Interpositions, are a certain Proof of the Divinity of the Mission and Doctrine 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 to prove, that. Miracles require an immediate act or order of God, and are his peculiar works. We are now to shew, what is a necessary consequence from this principle, that these works, when properly applied, are a divine testimony to the person on whose account they are wrought, and to that doctrine or message which he delivers in the name of God. It was for the sake of this important conclusion that we undertook to prove, in the preceding chapters, by arguments drawn both from reason and revelation, that miracles are divine interpositions. Miracles may be performed by God without the intervention of men, and for other purposes besides that of attesting the mission of a prophet. Nor can they serve as testimonials to a prophet, but under such circumstances as point out a relation between those works and his mission. If it does not clearly appear that they are wrought at his instance, or in his favour, they will not be known to bear any more relation |