the works of Satan and his angels. But the question is, Are they to be regarded as true miracles ? The answer to this question depends on the meaning of the word. If by a miracle we mean an}^ event transcending the efficiency of physical causes and the power of man, then they are miracles. But if we adhere to the definition above given, which requires that the event be produced by the immediate power of God, they of course are not miracles. They are " lying wonders," not only because intended to sustain the kingdom of lies, but because they falsely profess to be what they are not. Thus Thomas Aquinas says:^ " Demones possunt facere miracula : qu£e scilicet homines mirantur, in quantum eorum facultatem et cognitionem excedunt." They are only wonders in the sight of men.
The difficulty of discriminating between miracles and these lying wonders, i. e., between the works of God and the works of Satan, has been anticipated and provided for by the sacred writers them- selves. In Deut. xiii. 1-3, Moses says, " If there arise among you a prophet .... and givetli thee a sign or a wonder, and the sign or the wonder come to pass, whereof he spake unto thee, saying, Let us go after other gods, .... thou shalt not hearken unto the words of that prophet." In Matt. vii. 22, 23, our Lord says, " Many will say to me in that day. Lord, Lord, have we not proph- esied in thy name ? and in thy name have cast out devils ? and in thy name done many wonderful works ? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you : depart from me, ye that work in- iquity." Matt. xxiv. 24, " There shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders ; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect." In 2 Thess. ii. 9, the Apostle teaches us that the coming of the man of sin shall be " after the working of Satan, with all power and signs and lying wonders." These passages teach that supernatural events, i. e., events transcending the power of material causes and the ability of man, may be brought about by the agency of higher intelligences ; and that no such supernatural events are to be re- garded as of any authority if produced by wicked agents, or for a wicked purpose. It was on this principle our Lord answered the Pharisees who accused Him of casting out devils by Beelzebub the prince of devils. He appealed to the design for which his miracles were wrought to prove that they could not be referred to a Satanic influence. Satan will not cooperate to confirm the truth or to pro- mote good. God cannot cooperate to confirm what is false or to 1 Summa, part i. quest, cxiv. art. 4, edit. Cologne, 1640, p. 208-
632 PART I. — IHEOLOGY. [Ch. XH. — Miracles.
promote evil. So that the character of the agent and the design for which a supernatural event is brought about determine whether it is truly a miracle, or whether it is one of the lying wonders of the devil. From the Scriptures this criterion of miracles was adopted by the Church. Luther says, " Against authenticated doctrines, no signs' or wonders, however great or numerous, are to be admitted ; for we have the command of God, who said from heaven, ' Hear him,' to listen only unto Christ." Chemnitz^ says, " Miracula non debent prseferri doctrinse .... neque enim contra doctrinam a Deo revelatam ulla miracula valere debent." Gerhard ^ says, " Miracula, si non habeant doctrinaB veritatem conjunctam nihil probant." Brochmann also says,^ " Ut opus aliquod sit verum miraculum duo requiruntur. Unum, est Veritas rei ; alterum, Veritas finis."
To this it may be objected, that it is reasoning in a circle to prove the truth of the doctrine from the miracle, and then the truth of the miracle from the doctrine. We answer, however, (1.) That this moral criterion is needed only in the doubtful class of miracles. There are certain events which from their nature can have no other author than God. They transcend not only the powers of matter and of man, but all created power. The efficiency of crea- tures has known limits, determined, if not by reason, at least by the Word of God. (2.) It is not unusual nor unreasonable that two kinds of evidence should be dependent and yet mutually confirma- tory. In the case of a historian, we may believe his authorities to be what he says they are, on account of his character ; and we may believe his statements on account of his authorities. So we may believe a good man, when he says that the wonders which he performs are not tricks, or effects produced by the cooperation of evil spirits, but by the power of God, and we may believe his teachings to be divine because of the wonders. The Bible assumes that men have an intuitive perception of what is good ; and it assumes that God is on the side of goodness and Satan on the side of evil. If a wonder, therefore, be wrought in favour of what is good, it is from God ; if in support of what is evil, it is from Satan. This is one of the grounds on which Protestants give themselves so little cencern about the pretended miracles of the Romish church. They do not feel it to be necessary to disprove them by a critical examination of their nature, or of the circumstances under which
1 Lod Theohffici, m. edit. Frankfort and Wittenberg, 1653, p. 121.
2 /bid. loc. xxiii. cap. 11, § 276, edit. Tubingen, 1774. vol. ii. p. 107.
8 Theol. Syst. ; de Ecchs. n. vii. dub. 12, Ulm and Frankf., 1658, vol. ii. p. 276, b.