up after him for the guidance and instruction of the Israelites; in short, to all his inspired ministers.

There is indeed one passage in Scripture apparently inconsistent with this view; but so far from being really so, it furnishes, when examined, the strongest confirmation of it. "If there arise among you (declares the law of Moses) a prophet, or a dreamer of dreams, and giveth 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, which thou hast not known, and let us serve them; thou shalt not hearken unto the words of that prophet, or that dreamer of dreams for the Lord your God proveth you, to know whether ye love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul"." It might seem then from these words, that the prophet's doctrine was to be the test of the sign coming from God, not the sign the test of the doctrine being from God. But a very little reflection enables us to explain this. That Israel was to worship Jehovah, and Him alone, was the main principle of the Mosaic Law; and the divine authority of

b Deut. xiii. 1—3.

this great commandment had been proved, and impressed on the whole people, by a series of public miracles and national interpositions. It was to keep up the habitual impression of this evidence, and the eminent importance of the point attested by it, that the warning was given. The Israelites were reminded that it could not be God's miracle, if it were wrought for the purpose of contradicting that which God had established by so many awful signs and wonders; and that if supernatural agency ever were exhibited for this purpose, it could only be permitted by God as a trial of their faith in that evidence on which the Law rested'. On the same principle, it would seem, our Saviour warned his disciples against certain pretenders who were to arise, and work signs and wonders indeed; but as these signs were to be given in confirmation of assertions opposed

i This will account for the fact, that the Jews admitted the reality of Christ's miracles, and yet disbelieved his assertions. They regarded his case as coming under this provision of their Law, and rested their decision against him, on the charge that his doctrine was opposed to that of Moses. "We are Moses disciples, we know that God spake unto Moses." John ix. 28, 29.

66

to his, they could not come from the same source as his own miracles. Hence too he gives them the general rule respecting all pretenders, by their fruits ye shall know them'." St. Paul, in like manner, tells the Galatians", that if he himself—if an angel from heaven, were to preach to them a different doctrine from that which he had already preached, they were to hold him accursed. It could not be God's message, it could not be God's miracle, if it contradicted assertions which God had already confirmed by miracle.

This careful inculcation then of a principle, which throughout God's extraordinary dealings with mankind enabled all to distinguish between

Matt. xxiv. 23, 24. Mark xiii. 21, 22.

Matt. vii. 15, 16. To this rule St. John seems to be referring in the fourth chapter of his first Epistle," Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world. Hereby know ye the Spirit of God; every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God: and every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of Antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come."

I Gal. i. 8.

the testimonial miracles of his messengers, and those of impostors, is of itself the strongest argument that the claim to inspiration and the performance of miracles always went together. Belief indeed built on any other foundation would have been credulity; and to suppose such belief required and commended, would be to suppose that the weakest minds and the most ready to yield to every new impression, were the most eminent for faith.

Miracle, it is to be further observed, must have been requisite, not only to obtain credence from others to the assertion of one inspired, that he was under the extraordinary guidance of God's Spirit; but also to assure the person himself, that this was so. How else indeed could Moses or Isaiah or Paul have been sure that they were authorized to speak as the oracles of the Most High? How else could they have satisfied themselves that the revealing voice was not some imposition practised on them? that the holy dream or vision was not the natural results of a disordered mind or body? that the impression of a divine call to perform miracles and to do God's errand, was

more than high wrought enthusiasm and zeal for his honour?

In truth, so far was the call from always finding the chosen servant ready to anticipate and welcome it, that history represents many, slow to believe themselves called, demanding of the Lord the fullest miraculous asurance of his appointment, and having their request granted. Thus, in the account of Gideon's extraordinary commission to deliver the Israelites from the army of the Midianites, the Spirit of the Lord is said to have come upon him; "And Gideon said unto God, If thou wilt save Israel by my hand, as thou hast said, behold, I will put a fleece of wool in the floor; and if the dew be on the fleece only, and it be dry upon all the earth beside, then shall I know that thou wilt save Israel by mine hand, as thou hast said. And it was so for he rose up early on the morrow, and thrust the fleece together, and wringed the dew out of the fleece, a bowl-full of water. And Gideon said unto God, Let not thine anger be hot against me, and I will speak but this once: Let me prove, I pray thee, but this once with the fleece; let it now be dry only upon the fleece, and upon all the ground