The grand object of the apostles' miracles was precisely the same: They went forth and preached everywhere, the Lord working with them, and confirming the word with signs following." While Paul and Barnabas were at Iconium, they "spake boldly in the name of the Lord, who gave testimony unto the word of his grace, and granted signs and wonders to be wrought by their hands." When the apostleship of Paul was called in question, he appealed at once to his miracles, in vindication of it. "Truly, the signs of an apostle were wrought among you in all patience, in signs, and wonders, and mighty deeds."

It may further satisfy us as to the leading object of miracles, to take into consideration their frequent effect on those who witnessed them. This was to compel an assent, and often an unwilling assent, to the Divine mission and authority of those who performed them. Thus, the miracles of Moses convinced not only Pharaoh, but the magicians themselves. When they saw what was done, they were constrained to acknowledge, "This is the finger of God." The miracle of Elijah, in raising the widow's son, drew from her the following noble confession: "By this I know that thou art a man of God, and that the word of the Lord in thy mouth is truth." A similar effect was produced on the mind of Naaman, when he had been miraculously cured of his leprosy. "He returned to the prophet, he and all his company, and stood before him and said, Behold, now I know that there is no God in all the earth, but in Israel."

Of our Savior's first miracle, it is said, that "it manifested forth his glory, and his disciples believed on him." In Jerusalem, at one of the Passovers, "many believed on his name, when they saw the miracles which he did." It was his miracles which convinced Nicodemus of his Divine mission: "We know that thou art a teacher come from God; for no man can do the miracles that thou doest, except God be with him."

At Paphos, Paul encountered a malicious Jew, a sorcerer, who greatly withstood his words, and endeavored to prevent others from hearing him. And what follows? In an instant, at the word of Paul, the sorcerer is smitten with blindness, and gropes about, seeking some one to lead him by the hand. "And those who saw what was done believed, being astonished at the doctrine of the Lord." So the miracles of Philip at Samaria compelled the assent, not only of the people generally, but of Simon, another miserable. Jewish sorcerer. He continued with Philip and wondered, beholding the miracles and signs which were done."

The above instances of miracles, selected from different parts of the Bible (and they are but a selection), are 'conclusive as to the leading design and object of these remarkable interpositions. It was, as I said, to attest the Divine mission of the inspired teachers, and the Divine authority of their communications; and thus to

establish the faith, not only of those who heard them, but of all who should become acquainted with their words and works.

But if such were the leading and professed object of the miracles recorded in Scripture, the question arises-and it is one of great importance; Were they of a nature to accomplish this object? In other words, is the argument from miracles for the Divine authority of Scripture valid and conclusive?

I do not say, for I do not believe, that the miracles of the Scriptures constitute the only argument for their Divine authority. I am not insensible of the weight and importance of other arguments, more especially those which are drawn from the truths and precepts of Scripture, or from the nature of its contents. But these, it is no part of my present purpose to consider. We inquire now as to the validity and conclusiveness of the argument from miracles.

And I remark, in the first place, that we cannot call in question the soundness of this argument, without impeaching the character of the Savior. That he frequently employed this argument, and urged it home upon the consciences of the Jews, is evident from the passages already quoted. "The works that I do bear witness of me, that the Father hath sent me." "Though ye believe not me," i. e. my simple testimony, "believe the works, that ye may know and believe that the Father is in me, and I in him." The only possible question here is, Did our Savior reason wisely and well? Was the argument which he employed to vindicate his Divine authority, and that of his teachings, conclusive? We cannot answer these questions in the negative, without reproaching the Savior. We cannot answer them in the affirmative, without admitting the validity of the argument in question.

But not to dwell on this point, let us look into the argument itself. Let us bring it to the test, so far as we may, in reference to both the kinds of miracles of which I have spoken. Here is an individual who has performed a mile of knowledge. In other words, he has made a disclosure recting distant future events, and the future actions of creatures, which surpasses the wisdom of man or angel, and which he cannot have made, without special Divine assistance. Now, what are we to think of this disclosure? Is it not in every case, and of necessity, a revelation from God? Whoever may have been the instrument of imparting it, is it not, in fact, a Divine revelation? From the nature of the case, no other conclusion can be formed respecting it. Every proper prediction then (and the Scriptures abound with such predictions) is a revelation from God. It is a disclosure of his secret will, of the great plan of his providence, which no being in the universe can make but himself.

Here is another individual who comes to us, as Moses went to Pharaoh, professing to bring a message from God. We ask him,

as we have a right to do, for his credentials. "How do we know that God has sent you with this message? How do we know that what you tell us is a disclosure of his truth and will?" In answer to these very reasonable inquiries, he performs a proper miracle. Or rather, God performs one by him; for it is by the power of God, in every case, that the miracle is performed. An event is caused to take place before our eyes, in direct contravention of some known law of nature, and which no hand could effect but that of Omnipotence. Now, what are we to think as to the Divine commission and authority of the individual supposed, at whose word the miracle has been performed? I hesitate not to say, that his Divine commission is fully vindicated, and that we are bound to receive his message as a revelation from God. We can come to no other conclusion in regard to it, unless we will suppose that the great Lord of heaven and earth would arrest the regular movements of nature, and cause an event to take place in contradiction to them, to confirm a lie.

And now if it be asked, What if the alleged revelation from God shall prove to be something unworthy of God, or in opposition to his previous revelations? I answer, that such a case is not supposable, or possible. It is no more possible, than it is that God should contradict or deny himself. God's own revelations, confirmed by miracles, have never been found self-contradictory; and they never will be. Indeed, so long as it remains true that God "cannot lie," they never can be.

The argument from miracles, therefore, in proof of the Divine authority of Scripture, I hold to be entirely conclusive. It may be briefly stated as follows: The inspired writers generally, as Moses and the prophets, Christ and his apostles, made their appeal to miracles; and proper miracles were wrought, in attestation of the Divine authority of their communications. But God only can perform miracles, and he certainly would not perform them in attestation of anything but truth; hence, the claims of the inspired writers to a Divine authority are established. Their messages have the broad seal of heaven upon them, and are to be regarded as veritable revelations of the truth and will of God.

If the question be asked here, whether all the revelations that God has made to the world have been confirmed by miracles; I answer, in the general, yes. By this I do not mean, however, that every individual whom God has inspired, has been endowed with miraculous gifts. This is not a necessary supposition; nor is it likely to be true; John the Baptist, for example, "did no miracle." But God's revelations are to be regarded as constituting one great system. And as a whole-a connected, systematic whole, they have been abundantly attested by miracles. A series of miraculous performances has attended them from first to last, from Moses

to the apostle John, by which the whole has been sealed and established as the truth of God.

If it be asked again, whether, in case an individual should now come forward, claiming to have revelations from God-revelations aside from those of our Scriptures, and which the miracles of Scripture cannot be appealed to, to attest ;-whether, in such case, we should have a right to demand of him miraculous performances; I answer again, yes. We undoubtedly should have such a right; and most happy had it been for the church and world, if this right had been understood in former ages, and not only understood, but strenuously insisted on.

God did not blame Pharaoh for demanding a sign from Moses, but for refusing to obey when the sign was granted. Our Savior did not censure the Scribes and Pharisees for expecting miracles, in attestation of his high and peculiar claims, but for not being convinced by the miracles which were actually performed. I am under no obligations to believe that a man has received revelations from God, simply because he says he has; or because he sincerely thinks he has. He must give me satisfactory evidence of the truth of his pretensions; and what evidence of this kind can he give me-at least, in any ordinary case-but to work a miracle? I repeat, then, and I do it in accordance with my most sober convictions, I think men have a right to demand miracles of those who come to them with pretended revelations; and most happy, surely, it had been for the world, delivering it from enormous masses of rubbish and imposition, had this right been strenuously and constantly insisted on.

In the second century, for example, Montanus appeared, professing to be the promised Comforter from heaven, who should teach the disciples all things, and bring all things to their remembrance. He published his revelations, and drew numbers after him, among whom were some of the learned fathers of the church. If Montanus had been put upon the test of working miracles-proper miracles, and if none would have listened to him till these were performed, his career and his delusions might have passed quickly away.

In the third century, Manes arose, with the same pretensions. He declared himself to be the promised Comforter, uttered his revelations, made additions, numerous and strange, to the doctrine of Christ, and drew away multitudes after him. He was the foun der of what was called the Manichean heresy. If Manes had simply been asked for his credentials-his miraculous powers, and no one would have heeded him till these were exhibited, his errors never could have prevailed, and the church had been saved from his corruptions.

In the beginning of the seventh century, Mohammed appeared, professing to have direct intercourse with heaven, and to make

new revelations for the benefit of the world. The story of his life and successes need not be told here. His iron sway has been extended, for centuries, over not less than a fourth of the entire human race. Now it was objection enough to Mohammed, from the first, that he brought with him no proper credentials. The palpable evidence of a Divine mission, which was furnished by Moses and the prophets, by Christ and the apostles, he failed to exhibit. He performed no miracle, he could perform none. Of course, he should not have been listened to for a moment.

In more modern times, we have had numerous pretenders to Divine revelation. We have had an Emanuel Swedenborg in Sweden; a Bockholdt and a Behmen in Germany; Anne Lee and Joanna Southcote in England; and Jemima Wilkinson, Joseph Smith, and others of less name and influence, in our own country. Now to all these pretenders, I have one and the same objection. They had no proper credentials. They wrought no miracles. They furnished no evidence which ought to have satisfied a reasonable mind, that their pretensions were well founded. If the world could have consented to bring them, and hold them to this single test-the performance of miracles, their delusions had injured none but themselves.

Before concluding, I propose to institute one inquiry more, and that relates to the continuance of miracles.

That they were wrought in ancient times, among that wonderful people to whom were committed "the oracles of God," and who were the instruments of communicating his revelations to the world, no Christian can entertain a doubt; and that miracles continued to be performed, at intervals, down to about the middle of the second century, when the canon of Scripture was closed and settled, is the general opinion, I presume, of the Christian world. Some excellent Christians have supposed that they did not cease until as late as the fifth or sixth century, while Roman Catholics, and some sects of fanatics, insist that they have continued to the present time.

It will be seen, from the very nature of this question, that it belongs exclusively to the believers in miracles, and in Divine revelation. With infidels and those who reject all miracles, we have, at present, nothing to do.

In considering the question, we may safely assume, what all Christians admit, that miraculous powers continued in the church, till about the middle of the second century. Is there sufficient reason for believing that they continued later? For one, I must answer this question in the negative.

There are two considerations, a priori, which might lead us to suppose that miraculous powers would cease, near the time that has been mentioned. In the first place, the great and leading object of miracles had then been fully answered. This was, as