The first had performed its office when Christ came. All men were musing in their hearts upon the expected coming of some Great One. His miracles, his u-orks, the products of his poweis, were the signs that prophecy was in course of fulfilment. The two must not be separated. Our Lord expressly declares that but for his ivorks the Jews woidd have been right in rejecting him (John xv, 24). His claims were too high for any less proof to have sufficed. But the nature of his works did put men under a moral obligation tn ini|utre into his claims; and then he sent tliem to the Scrii)tLn-cs (John v, 39). The miracles were thus not the final proof of Christ's mis- sion. Had they been such, we might have expected that they would still be from time to time vouchsafed, as occasion recpiired, even to the end of the world. The ■agreement of Christ's life and death and teaching with what had been foretold of the Messiah is the leading proof of his mission, and, having this, we need miracles no more. Christ's works called men's attention to this proof, and made it a duty to examine it. They also exalt his person, and give him the authority of a mes- senger accredited from heaven; but the Old Testament remains for all ages the proper proof of the truth of the New. Miracles were signs for the times; prophecy is for all time, and as Christianity no longer requires any- thing especially to call men's attention to its claims, prophecy is proof enough that it is a message from God.
The more clearly to set this before our readers, we repeat that prediction was the distinctive sign of God's presence under the Old -Testament dispensation, and miracles subordinate. Revelation was then a growing light, and was ever advancing onward; and thus the prophets were ever preparing for the future. It was only on special occasions that miracle ^vas needed. But when revelation became perfect and final in the person of One who, according to the terms of prophecy, tran- scended the bounds of human nature, it was necessary that miracle should rise in him to its highest level, both because of the dignity of his person, as one invested with all power, human and divine, and also as tlie proper proof at the time of his being the Son, the last and greatest therefore whom the Father could send; and, finally, to call the attention of men to his claims, and compel them to examine them. For this reason thej' were called signs. But as soon as the dispensa- tion thus given could force its claims on men's atten-
tion by other means, and its divine founder had with- drawn, miracles necessarily ceased, as being inconsistent with man's probation. Look over the list of Scripture names for miracles, and ask what one would be appro- priate now? Of what would they now be signs? Of what person would they be the proper /«c«;^ies? For whom now would they be suitable works? The whole scriptural theory of miracles is contravened by the sup- position of miracles being continued after Christianity had once been established. What history teaches us, namely, that they were rapidly withdrawn, is alone consistent with what we gather from Scripture concern- ing them.
They were an essential part of the proof at the time, and have an essential use now. For we could not be- lieve what is taught us of Christ if he had not been ac- credited by miracles. But the proper evidence for the truth of Christianity now is that of prophecy, not as ex- isting any longer in living force, but as manifested in the agreement of the long list of books forming the Old Testament with one another; and still more in the ful- filment of the Old Testament in the New. It is a proof in everybody's hands, and open to every one to exam- ine. The proof of miracles requires, of course, large historical evidence, and not every one possesses bishop Stillingfleet's Origines Causce, or even Paley ; but every Christian has his Bible, and in it will find the proper proof now of its truth.
Agreeably with this, dean Lyall, in his PropmUa Prophetica, has well remarked that the apostles " scarce- ly allude to Christ's miracles at all, and never in the way of proof" (p. 4). Miracles, he shows, now hold a disproportionate place in the argument from that as- signed to them in the New Testament ; and, in fact, it is very remarkable that Peter but twice refers in his speeches to Christ's miracles, and never but once to those wrought by himself. Paul, in his thirteen epistles, only thrice appeals to his own miraculous powers, and never mentions Christ's miracles, or even directly al- ludes to them. The key of this we have in the names applied to them by the apostles, and especially by John. They were the natural works of one such as M-as Christ, but also signs that in him the long preparation of the Old-Testament dispensation had reached its final pur- pose, and that the new and lastuig dispensation had begun.
In their proper place and degree, however, they were and still remain essential to the proof of a divine reve- lation. We could not accept a revelation, or give it the authority over our conscience due to the direct voice of God, unless we had indubitable proof that it was God's voice. The supernatural can only be proved by the su- pernatural. If, then, a revelation was necessary as well for the present progress of mankind as for their future perfectness, miracle was also necessary, and the believer in revelation cannot possibly discard it from its place among the evidences.