The Suppressed Evidence:

Or, Proofs of the Miraculous Faith and Experience of the Church of Christ In All Ages From Authentic Records, Fathers, Waldenses, Hussites, Reformers, United Brethren, and etc. An Historical Sketch Suggested by the Hon. and Rev. B.W. Noel's Remarks on the Revival of miraculous powers in the Church.

By The Rev Thomas Boys, M.A.
Published -- 1832
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

PROOFS OF THE MIRACULOUS FAITH
AND EXPERIENCE OF THE CHURCH OF CHRIST

CHAP. I.

INTRODUCTION.

If required, by a captious opponent, to define a miracle, we might answer, " A miracle is something very embarrassing to mock professors."

The rejoinder would be at hand: " This is no definition at all. It applies to twenty things as well as to miracles."

It does. For instance, to the doctrine of election; to the objections to Socinian compromise; to the arguments for prayer at meetings of the Bible Society, &c. These are all, as well as miracles, things very embarrassing to mock professors. Nevertheless, this our no-definition is more to the point than some would imagine.—Wherefore?

Great efforts have been made, of late, to draw distinctions as to miracles; and to introduce definitions, by which many miracles would be excluded: which definitions and distinctions, having-exposed them in former works, it is not here my design to dwell upon. But, with all these dis-



2 INTRODUCTION.

tinctions, there is one point of agreement. There is one feature, common to all the recent occurrences alleged as miraculous—namely, that they are VERY EMBARRASSING TO MOCK, PROFESSORS. Our opponents would make it appear, that this is a question whether " gifts " can now be in the church, or only some single wonders; a question whether a miracle can really be called a miracle, if it is an answer to prayer; and so forth. But the point really at issue is, Whether the age of miracles is passed—Whether the Christian dispensation is miraculous or not. They may come with their distinctions; but the fact is, that they are against all present miracles alike.

A miracle is an extraordinary manifestation OF SUPERNATURAL POWER, PERCEPTIBLE TO UNBELIEVERS AS WELL AS BELIEVERS. —

Grace is a manifestation to believers only: Miracles are manifestations to unbelievers. A miracle is something perceptible to the senses, or to the intelligence, of a natural man. A miracle, therefore, may be called something tangible: something that we can lay before him and allege to him: something concerning which we can make an appeal to his natural perceptions: something concerning which we can charge it upon his conscience, that he knows within himself that such a thing has taken place. The world, therefore, is opposed to the doctrine of miracles: and opposed to it for this very reason, because they are tangible or perceptible. And mock professors, in like manner, shrink from the doctrine of miracles: because it brings them, at once, to an issue with the world. They shrink not, equally, from



INTRODUCTION. 3

the profession of spiritual truths; because these may be eluded by the world, and lead to no issue. Doctrines, the world can explain away: miracles, it cannot. Here is something that it cannot get over. It is easy, for instance, to say to a man sick of the palsy, " Thy sins be forgiven thee;" because there is nothing to shew, at the moment, whether they are so or not: the issue stands over to the day of judgment. But it is not so easy to say to him, "Arise, and walk;" because, if the speaker be an impostor, he knows the sufferer will not rise and walk, and he dreads the consequent exposure. Hence it follows, 1. That miracles are opposed by the world; 2. That they are very EMBARRASSING TO MOCK PROFESSORS.

On this principle it is, that I am disposed to regard some occurrences as connected with miracles, to which perhaps the title cannot in strictness be given: for example, when we come to speak of the United Brethren. Their records, indeed, both claim to their church, expressly, the presence of miraculous gifts, and relate some proper miracles, in the strictest sense of the word. I have chosen, however, to take a larger view. I have gone upon the principle of putting the upright reader in possession of the whole of their miraculous experience; even at the risk of relating some things which, an opponent may say, are, properly speaking, no miracles. In doing this, I call to mind the practice of some ancient writers, who, being unembarrassed by definitions, spoke of miracles in a larger and less restricted sense,; and in a setose more sound than that to which modern limitations, had recourse to for a



4 INTRODUCTION,

particular purpose, would tie us up. Here again, then, our antagonists may wish to come in with their definitions and distinctions: but here, again, we fall back upon our old position, that "a miracle is something very embarrassing to mock professors."

Besides some miracles of post-Apostolic date, which must be miracles, draw your definition as tight as you will, the present work comprehends two sorts of occurrences which bear a miraculous or supernatural character: some, which have their origin immediately from the God of truth; others, which are traced to Satan, the father of lies. With respect to the former, every reader may understand this, that there are occurrences which seem less than miracles, but which nevertheless are more than particular providences. But under the same head, as works originating immediately from the Divine power, we reckon some things which, though unbelief might say of them " They are not miracles," yet, in fact, do strictly claim that title. Let me suppose a case in illustration. Neologian interpreters of the Scriptures have pretended, that, in some miracles therein recorded, the phenomenon that took place had in itself nothing miraculous; but the only remarkable circumstance was, that it happened just at the time: for ex ample, that the Red Sea, or Jordan, would, from some natural cause, have divided, under any circumstances, just when they did; and that, therefore, the only thing required, to make the occurrence marvelous, was, that just at the proper moment Moses should stretch forth his rod, or the priests advance with the ark. I need not re-



INTRODUCTION. 5

mark, that this is an abominable perversion of the Scriptural statement, which makes the division, in each case, the direct and express work of God. But suppose the account correct: suppose this had been all: shall we draw the inference, that therefore there was no real miracle? Certainly not. Still, in the strictest sense of the word, there was a miracle performed. True, there was, upon the above supposition, no miracle in the division; for that supposition makes it a natural occurrence. But was it not still a miracle that the thing was predicted and known beforehand? that Moses and Joshua had previous intimation, so as to speak precisely at the proper moment? This speaking or acting was virtually prophetic, was virtually a prediction, and therefore miraculous in itself: " for prophecies, too, are miracles*:" And therefore, let an event be perfectly common and natural in itself, yet, if that event be foretold, in that foretelling we have a miracle wrought, as much as we should have another miracle if the event itself were supernatural. Or take an example from ecclesiastical history—the death of Arius. This event was sudden and dreadful; but, of itself, may not be deemed miraculous. As far as the case itself is concerned, others have died similarly. But there are two things beside, to be viewed in connection with his death. First, he had, just before, been taking a false oath: and the Emperor, half-suspecting this, had prayed, that, if he were really perjured, the Lord, might punish his perjury.



* " Nam et prophetise sunt miracula."



6 INTRODUCTION,

Secondly, the good Bishop Alexander had been praying against him, that, sooner than defile, the church by entering it, he might be taken away. That Arius is then taken away, is the striking circumstance: the dreadful and sudden event, in its coincidence with the prayer at once strikes us as miraculous: here we have an interposition, " perceptible to unbelievers as well as believers:" and with this agrees the view of the occurrence taken by Athanasius, who, we shall see, speaks of it as a miracle; and urges it as a Divine attestation of the true doctrine, which is the very purpose for which, almost exclusively, miracles are supposed to be given, by those who would narrow the definition of them to the utmost.—So, again, when a Christian needs, for his relief, the occurrence of some event that may come " providentially," and prays for it: if that event promptly follows, in direct answer to his prayer, though to all appearance in the ordinary course of providence, still we have something miraculous here also. "We cannot call the event miraculous. No: we call it providential. But that he should have prayed, beforehand, just at the time—a prayer like this has something in it of the nature of a prophecy: that is, he speaks of the event, in his prayer, before it comes to pass, and it does come to pass accordingly; which is what prophecy literally means;— and, if we take his so speaking and the event together, the transaction is still miraculous. To deny a miracle here, because the event itself might be called merely providential, would seem a plausible denial, but it would in reality be a blinking of the question: for how happened he



INTRODUCTION. 7

to pray just at the proper moment? Here also, in the coincidence, there would be something tangible, something to shew the world, and something with, which the world would be staggered and offended. Here, also, there would be something VERY EMBARRASSING TO MOCK PROFESSORS. There is another class of occurrences; which the doctrine of the Church, in its sounder days, traced to Satan, the father of lies, The argument, be it observed, in the present work, is not only concerning miraculous facts, but concerning what has been the miraculous faith of the Church. And, where events of a marvelous or miraculous kind occurred, which could not, from their character, be attributed immediately to God, there the doctrine of the Church attributed them to Satan. Such was the Church's view; and such is the Scriptural view. Miracles of this kind were not pronounced to be no miracles, but miracles of Satan; and when, by the adoption of a phrase of St. Paul's, they were called " lying wonders," this was not because they were all considered unreal, but because they were considered as coming from the father of lies, and as intended to deceive, and to promote a lie.—This point, also, should be understood, in explanation of the course pursued in the present work. The most confident appeals have been made, by the opponents of miracles, to the faith of the Church, downwards, from the Reformation inclusive, as if it had been against miracles. We examine, then; we ascertain what the faith of the Church really was; and we find it to have been this: first, that it



8 INTRODUCTION.

has ever acknowledged some miracles as Divine: secondly, that, with regard to some others, it has not explained them away as natural occurrences, but has viewed them as supernatural works, though of an inferior character, the operations of Satan. —Now then, I suppose you, our opponents, will attempt to get off upon other grounds: no longer appealing to the Church, which you find to be against you, Reformed as well as Roman Catholic; but appealing to reason, to science, &c.: denying that these works have any thing supernatural in their character, or that Satan has any thing to do with them; and crying out that such a supposition is absurd. But I call this shuffling. You, not understanding the subject, but taking it for granted that you know all about it, make your appeal, in a very confident and overbearing manner, to the faith of the Church. Well, then: we have ascertained what it was; and we mean to hold you to that point. This, therefore, is the point which we must first settle. On this point, before we leave it, you must be made to see that you are altogether in the wrong. Then, if you choose to shift your ground, we are ready to follow you.—Our argument, then, upon these principles, will pay some attention to such inferior works, though not, in the highest sense, miracles: and these inferior works, also, as manifestations of a power which is above nature, though not supreme, and of a being whose influence over his slaves derives much support from the denial of his existence, or from the concealment of his agency, will come within our general description, which you will not allow us to call a deft-



INTRODUCTION. 9

nition, as very embarrassing to mock PROFESSORS.

Connected with this point there is another, and one which give a peculiar importance to a discussion respecting the lying miracles resulting from satanic operation. It is this: that we never have such inferior wonders recorded in Scripture, without the coexistence of real miracles opposed to them. With the lying wonders, for instance, of the Egyptian magicians, we have the miracles of Moses: with the diabolical possession and defective dispossession of the Jews, in the first ages of the Gospel, we have the effectual ejection of devils by Christ and his Apostles: (and, by the bye, if men deny diabolical possession in the present day, the reason seems to be, because they cannot dispossess: we deny the existence of the disease, because we cannot cure it.) Observe, then, how this parallel existence, in Scripture, of lying wonders, and of true miracles, bears upon our subject. Wherever we have the one, we may infer the other. For example: was there, in the days of the Reformers, a belief in any such thing as this diabolical possession? Then may we infer, that in the days of the Reformers there was also a belief in dispossession. And, on examination, we find it to have been so: we find this truth recognized, as well as the other. Again: Do we hear the modern opponents of miracles appealing to the warnings of our Lord himself, and saying, "Believe not in these alleged manifestations: are we not told, in the Scriptures, that there shall be false miracles in the last days?" We answer, Yes: but, supposing those to be false miracles,



10 INTRODUCTION.

which, as such, you warn us to beware of, we have an argument for true miracles from this Very circumstance. False miracles, indeed, even of themselves, would be marvelous. Grant them to be even the work of Satan, and you grant a thing denied. And observe, the false miracles, foretold by our Lord, do not mean no miracles at all. That was a point asserted by the Papists, and denied by the Reformers; as you will presently have an opportunity of seeing, by citations express to the point. The Papists, who claimed miracles, wished to make it appear that there could be nothing miraculous except on the side of truth; and therefore asserted that the lying miracles, foretold as one of the signs of Antichrist, were not real. The Reformers, on the contrary, alleged that there might be real, though inferior and lying miracles, on the side of falsehood— namely, those wrought by the Papists themselves. Thus, even if you grant lying miracles alone, as now occurring, you grant something real. But this is not all. In granting lying miracles, you grant, by inference, more. For, according to all evidence of Scripture, there never were the spurious without the genuine: there never were those from beneath, without those from above at the same time. And prophecy agrees with fact. As tokens of the last day, our Lord foretells the signs and wonders of false Christs and prophets, and Joel foretells true ones. It comes, therefore, to this: that wherever we have the one, we must expect the other; so that, alleging the false, you establish the true. For example: prove the alleged " gifts" to be spurious (which, however,



INTRODUCTION. 11

you have not done yet); and you prove aground for expecting other, and real miracles. There never is an imitation, without a pattern. There never is a copy, without something to copy from. There cannot be an anti-type, without a type. There never were beggars, assuming a particular form of misery, without real misery in the same shape. Thus every counterfeit implies something counterfeited; and if you prove counterfeit miracles, you only tell us to open our eyes the wider, and look for the originals.

On the whole, then, we claim to be left unfettered. Some of our opponents have been driven, in their difficulties, to define so closely as almost to make it appear that there is no such thing as a miracle, while others have run ashore in the opposite direction, attempting to muddle the question by exclaiming that all things are miracles alike. We hold our ground, refusing to go after such delusions, either to the right hand or to the left. Some miracles, and those not ancient, we have to allege; such that not even the tightest definition, provided it makes the least pretense to be scriptural, can exclude them. Others we find, equally deserving to be recorded; and coming within any fair "and reasonable definition, not made with a particular object. And others, again, we may cite, of a lower order. If, in consequence of this, some periodical opponent should have recourse to an unworthy trick: should lay hold of some instance, which we do not offer as in the highest sense of the term miraculous: should cite this as one of our examples, keeping back all others: should say, " This is no miracle," when,



12 INTRODUCTION.

in the strictest sense of the terms, we never called one: Let the reader be on his guard. I give this warning, because I apprehend such artifices, from past proceedings. For the plan of some such opponents has been, not to meet the leading facts and proofs of the argument, but to lay hold of some matter of detail, some point of third or fourth rate importance, and thus to elude the necessity of going fairly into the subject. One antagonist—I mean the Christian Observer—has found his chief advantage in catching at particular expressions; and, where they would not quite answer his purpose as they stood, in altering them to bear out his misrepresentations: and, from the advantage of a greater circulation, it is unknown what extraordinary falsehoods and misconceptions have thus obtained general credence. The reader, at least, is now put on his guard against such artifices: and, if those who are aware of the deceptions practiced will make them known, truth will be promoted, and delusion checked.

I must here remark upon the total insufficiency of the plea, where an attempt is made to get rid of some miraculous occurrences, by representing them as " merely" answers to prayer. They may have been answers to prayer. But does that prove that they were not miracles? Far from it: for we have some miracles wrought in answer to prayer in the Bible itself. Peter prayed, and raised Tabitha to life. Paul prayed, and healed the father of Publius. Elijah prayed, and raised the widow's son. Nay, our Lord teaches us that there are some miracles which cannot be wrought without prayer: "This kind goeth not out but by



INTRODUCTION. 13

prayer and fasting." How vain is it, then, to think that a miracle is disposed of, if it can be called an answer to prayer ! Prayer determines nothing one way or the other. One occurrence may be a miracle, with prayer: another may be no miracle, without prayer. The question is, has there been an extraordinary manifestation of supernatural power, perceptible to our senses or to our intelligence? If there has, it is a miracle: there may have been prayer to obtain it, but it is a miracle nevertheless. Prayer is an element that enters not into the definition, for or against: and the introduction of this new and nonessential particular merely answers the purpose of darkening truth, and puzzling the question.

That, of the quotations in the present work, there is, at any rate, one class which relates to miracles strictly so called, is undeniable. I refer to those which have already been cited by my respected and talented opponent, the Hon. and Rev. Baptist W. Noel, in his " Remarks on the Revival of Miraculous Powers in the Church," as making against miracles. By thus quoting them, he has, at any rate, fixed their character so far as this, that whether against, or for, it is to miracles that they relate. This is a point of some importance; especially if on examination we shall find reason to conclude, that some of them do really favour the doctrine, against which he has cited them. I would the more insist upon this point, because it has been supposed, in some quarters (for instance, by the well-intentioned but Committee-ridden Record), that the passages in the Reformers, appealed \o as favouring miracles, do



14 INTRODUCTION.

in fact relate merely to remarkable providences. Well, then: if passages are objected to, on the supposition that they have no real relation to miracles, we must at any rate see if we cannot bring some, which unquestionably do relate to them. And what course more satisfactory than that which I propose? I bring passages which an opponent has quoted, as making against miracles. Therefore they confessedly relate to miracles: this is unquestionably what they are about: to this we have our opponent's own testimony, in his quoting them. And if we find, on examination, that they do, in reality, favour what they seemed to oppose, then have we the testimony of this same opponent, that what they favour is no inferior thing, but actual MIRACLES.

But, having referred to Mr. Noel's pamphlet, let me here give some account of the present work, which partly owes its existence to that publication. I had previously, in " The Christian Dispensation Miraculous," appealed to the authority of the Reformers, as not unfavourable to miracles. Mr. Noel's work contained some citations from the Reformers, which were certainly calculated to convey a very different impression: it contained also the perfectly courteous, though somewhat galling intimation, that the advocates of miracles had used the authority of the Reformers " too hastily." It really looked so: and no doubt many persons, at the sight of Mr. Noel's citations, believed that this was actually the case: that appeals to the Reformers, as favourable to miracles, were too hasty: and, armed with these references, his work was applauded as settling the



INTRODUCTION. 15

question, as far as the opinions of the Reformers were concerned, against all miracles since the first ages. Nay, more. I could but feel that there was some justice in the phrase: not admitting, indeed, that an appeal to the Reformers, as favouring miracles, was too hasty as being opposed to truth; but yet in the sense that all assertions upon contested points, without evidence, may be deemed precipitate: and therefore it seemed but right to get together a few quotations in support of the assertions which I had made. In this pursuit, I was gradually led on. With respect to one of Mr. Noel's quotations, that relating to Luther, and the girl that was brought to him as possessed with a devil, it certainly struck me that the whole of the passage, if cited, might convey a somewhat different impression. Finding this, on examination, to be the case most decidedly, I was led to examine some of the other citations; and there also I could not resist a similar conclusion. On the whole, I came at last to the opinion, that there is scarcely one, if one, of Mr. Noel's citations, of which a very different view might not be taken, from that which it presents in his work; and, therefore, in the present publication, I have gone through the whole, and let the reader judge.

At the same time I am ready, supposing my view of the passages in question to be the more correct one, to make every allowance for the circumstances under which they appear in Mr. Noel's work. It is to be remembered that Mr. Noel does not wholly deny the possibility, or the actual occurrence, of some modern miracles, or supernatural occur-



16 INTRODUCTION.

rences (A); and, in this respect, he comes so much nearer to the Reformers whom he has quoted, than those whose denial is unqualified. The difference between him and the Reformers is that of shades, not that of black and white. For his view, therefore, of the miraculous subject, some countenance might have been found in the Reformers' writings, however he thought fit to cite them. Consequently, by citing them as he has, there is not so much gained to his cause, as there would be if he denied all post-Apostolic miracles; and perhaps the fairest course is to regard the whole matter as merely an abridgment. I am bound, also, while upon this subject, to acknowledge the candour of Mr. Noel: as, in two instances, it would have been out of my power to combat his citations, unless his own urbanity had afforded me the loan of the volumes from which they come.

" But since," it may be said, " though you cannot agree with Mr. Noel in his view of the particular passages in question, you nevertheless acknowledge a certain degree of similarity between his views, and theirs from whom the passages come, why remark on his citations at all? Are not your remarks captious? And do they really tend to the promotion of truth?" I answer, that though the discrepancies as to citation, which I think I have discovered, afford not such great assistance, perhaps, to Mr. Noel himself, they very much help those who totally deny all modern miracles. This is the reason why I now point them out. The passages from the Reformers, as they stand in Mr. Noel's pamphlet, seem opposed to all miraculous manifestations of recent date.





INTRODUCTION. 17

This, in their places, they are not. On this ground it is, that I now make objections, and refer to the original works: and any one who knows how the " Remarks " have been appealed to, and hailed as a work decisive against all miracles since the Apostolic ages, must acknowledge the necessity. If I appear, then, in the following work, to take up the references and citations of Mr. Noel's pamphlet with a minuteness which may be thought invidious, let my real motive be understood. I wish not to be too particular in examining what may have been the labour, perhaps the relaxation, of a few leisure hours; but I do wish to expose the sloth, the effrontery, and the ignorance, which could lay hold of the work, when produced, without examination, and proclaim it abroad as settling questions which it leaves just where it found them.

My present publication is, in part, an appeal to opinions—that is, an attempt to ascertain what Christians have thought in different ages, what has been the doctrine of the Church, on the miraculous subject. Scripture being the Protestant's guide, I would not attach an immeasurable and undue value to human authority, any more than I would slight it. But the opinions of the Church have been appealed to, and therefore it became necessary to investigate this part of the subject. My own views on the miraculous question are founded neither on the Fathers, nor on the Waldenses, nor on the Hussites, nor on the Reformers, nor on the United Brethren; hut on the Bible, and on facts viewed in the light of the Bible. To the opinion of the Church, however, in all ages



18 INTRODUCTION

since the first, our opponents, having been misled , into the idea that this opinion was in their favour, have confidently made their appeal. To this ground they have marched off: there they have taken their stand: and there, in defiance, they toss high their feathered helms, and wave their swords, as who should say, Come on. For us, then, it only remains to follow; and there to try the issue. Although the present work contains citations in different languages, I have endeavoured, as much as possible, to make it a readable book. With this design, the Latin, &c, is for the most part banished to the bottom of the page, and the translation, only, given in the text. And I here beg leave to disavow and deprecate all mock display of learning. It is now thought learned, if an author can fill his pages with great patches of Latin and Greek. Any person, acquainted with books and book-making, may understand how cheap is the winning of such honour: and amongst all the uses for which I would desire real learning, perhaps one of the most important is, to bring it to bear upon the mock learning of the day, and to prove that, after all, there is nothing in it. The present work is called a " Sketch," because it is really nothing more. The evidence, which it brings to light, may be called " Suppressed " in a two-fold sense: first, with a general reference to the suppression, which has taken place on a very large scale; for the tacit conspiracy to keep back miraculous facts and testimonies has extended far and wide: secondly, with a particular reference to the matter contained in this book. For, when editor of the Jewish Expositor, I bestowed some



INTRODUCTION. 19

little time and pains in preparing the series of proofs, now given, for that publication; and that I had been thus occupied was, I believe, well known. Just, however, as I had in this manner got the evidence together, and was prepared to bring it forward, measures were secretly and abruptly taken for the suppression of the work: so that, for a while at least, the evidence was suppressed at the same time; and the Jewish Expositor, like a man that, without seeing the hands that smote him, falls pierced at once by the daggers of two assassins, conjecturally divides the honors of its extinction, between the opponents of miraculous faith, and the upholders of Neologism. I beg leave, in conclusion, to disclaim any wish to assign either to the miraculous question, or to miracles themselves, a higher place than they are entitled to. I can readily consent that grace shall hold the first rank, and miracles the second. At the same time there can be no reasonable ground for a theological doubt, that the views now generally entertained, unfavorable to miracles, are altogether erroneous: what is wrong ought to be set right, even in matters of secondary importance: and if the restoration of truth, in the present instance, should have the happy effect of moderating the great self-conceit and arrogance of some who have opposed it, without aggravating the same qualities in others who have upheld it, the church will receive benefit, and I shall not have laboured or suffered in vain. The good Lord pardon errors on both sides, and to Him be all the glory.

RETURN TO MAIN PAGE