* 28. But to all this it may possibly be replied, “When you bring your credentials with you, when you prove by _miracles_ what you assert, then we will acknowledge that God hath sent you.”
What is it you would have us _prove_ by _miracles_? That the _doctrines_ we preach are true? This is not the way to prove that: (as our first _reformers_ replied to those of the church of _Rome_, who, you may probably remember, were continually urging them with this very demand). We prove the _doctrines_ we preach, by scripture and reason: and, if need be, by antiquity.
What else is it then we are to prove by _miracles_?
Is it, 1. That _A. B._ was for many years without God in the world, a common swearer, a drunkard, a sabbath-breaker?
Or, 2. That he is not so now?
Or, 3. That he continued so till he heard us preach, and from that time was another man? Not so. The proper way to prove these facts, is by the testimony of competent witnesses: and these witnesses are ready, whenever required, to give full evidence of them.
Or would you have us prove by miracles,
4. That this was not done _by our own power or holiness_? That God only is able to raise the dead, those who are dead in trespasses and sins? Nay, _if_ you _hear not_ Moses _and the prophets_ and apostles on this head, _neither would you believe tho’ one rose from the dead_.
It is therefore utterly unreasonable and absurd to require or expect the proof of _miracles_, in questions of such a kind, as are always decided, by proofs of quite another nature.
29. “But you relate them yourself.” I relate just what I saw, from time to time: and this is true, that some of those circumstances seem to go beyond the ordinary course of nature. But I do not peremptorily determine, whether they were supernatural, or no? Much less do I rest upon them, either the proof of other _facts_, or of the _doctrines_ which I preach. I prove these in the _ordinary_ way; the one by testimony, the other by scripture and reason.
“But if you can work _miracles_ when you please, is not this the surest way of proving them? This would put the matter out of dispute at once, and supersede all other proof.”
You seem to lie under an entire mistake, both as to the nature and use of _miracles_. It may reasonably be questioned, whether there ever was that man living upon earth, except the man Christ Jesus, that could work miracles _when he pleased_. God only _when he pleased_, exerted that power, and by whomsoever it pleased him.
But if a man could work _miracles when he pleased_, yet is there no scripture authority, nor even example for doing it in order to satisfy such a demand as this. I do not read, that either our Lord, or any of his apostles, wrought any miracle on such an occasion. Nay, how sharply does our Lord rebuke those who made a demand of this kind? When _certain of the scribes and of the pharisees answered, saying, Master, we would see a sign from thee_; (Observe, this was their method of _answering_ the strong reasons whereby he had just proved the works in question to be of God.) _He answered and said to them, an evil and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign. But there shall no sign be given to it, but the sign of the prophet_ Jonas, _Matthew_ xii. 38, 39. _An evil and adulterous generation!_ Else they would not have needed such a kind of proof. Had they been _willing to do his will_, they would, without this, have known that the doctrine was of God.
* _Miracles_ therefore are quite needless in such a case. Nor are they so conclusive a proof as you imagine. If a man could and did work them, in defence of any doctrine, yet this would not _supersede other proof_. For there may be τερατα Ψευδους _lying wonders_, miracles wrought in support of falshood. Still therefore his doctrine would remain to be proved, from the proper topicks of scripture and reason. And these even without _miracles_ are sufficient. But _miracles_ without these are not. Accordingly our Saviour and all his apostles, in the midst of their greatest miracles, never failed to prove every _doctrine_ they taught, by clear scripture and cogent reason.
30. I presume, by this time you may perceive the gross absurdity, of demanding _miracles_ in the present case: seeing one of the propositions in question, (over and above our general doctrines) _viz._ “That sinners are reformed,” can only be proved by testimony: and the other, “this cannot be done but by the power of God,” needs no proof, being self-evident.
“Why, I did once myself rejoice to hear, (says a grave citizen, with an _air_ of great _importance_) that so many sinners were reformed, till I found they were only turned from one wickedness to another: that they were turned from cursing or swearing, or drunkenness, into ♦a no less _damnable_ sin ♣that of _schism_.”
♦ insert “a” per Errata
♣ delete “than” per Errata