“The narrative of God’s hardening Pharaoh’s heart in order to bring more plagues upon the land of Egypt is in this vein. God, in fact, is represented as exerting his almighty power to deceive a man and then destroying him for being deceived. In the same spirit is the passage in which Micaiah describes the Lord as putting a lying spirit into the mouths of the prophets who incited Ahab to go to Ramoth-gilead. ([1 Kings 22 : 14–23].)
“The miracles wrought by the Egyptian sorcerers in competing with Moses were done by another power than God. We have notable instances of the belief in signs and wonders wrought by this other power. Jesus is represented as warning his disciples against false prophets, who work signs and wonders.
‘Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? of whom he should say, I never knew you, depart from me, ye that work iniquity.’ ([Mat. 7 : 22, 23].)
‘For false prophets shall arise, and shall work signs and wonders, to seduce, if it were possible, the elect.’ ([Mark 13: 22].)
Also, when the Pharisees accuse him of casting out devils by Beelzebub, the prince of the devils, Jesus asks: ‘By whom do your children cast them out?’ a reply which would lose all its point if they were not admitted to be able to cast out devils. In another passage John is described as saying: ‘Master, we saw one casting out devils in thy name, who followeth not us, and we forbade him.’ Without multiplying instances, however, there can be no doubt of the fact that the reality of false miracles and lying wonders is admitted in the Bible. The obvious deduction from this representation of miracles is that the source and purpose of such supernatural phenomena must always be exceedingly uncertain. Their evidential value is, therefore, profoundly affected, ‘it being,’ as Dr. Newman has said of ambiguous miracles, ‘antecedently improbable that the Almighty should rest the credit of his Revelation upon events which but obscurely implied his immediate presence.’ As it is affirmed that other supernatural beings exist, as well as an assumed personal God, by whose agency miracles are performed, it is impossible to argue with reason that such phenomena are at any time especially due to the intervention of the Deity. Dr. Newman recognizes this, but passes over the difficulty with masterly lightness of touch. After advancing the singular argument that our knowledge of spirits is only derived from scripture, and that their existence cannot be deduced from nature, whilst he asserts that the being of a God—a personal God be it remembered—can be so discovered, and that, therefore, miracles can only properly be attributed to him, he proceeds: ‘Still it may be necessary to show that on our own principles we are not open to inconsistency. That is, it has been questioned whether, in admitting the existence and power of the spirits on the authority of Revelation, we are not in danger of invalidating the evidence upon which that authority rests. For the cogency of the argument for miracles depends on the assumption, that interruptions in the course of nature must ultimately proceed from God; which is not true, if they may be effected by other beings without his sanction. And it must be conceded, that, explicit as scripture is in considering miracles as signs of divine agency, it still does seem to give created spirits some power of working them; and even, in its most literal sense, intimates the possibility of their working them in opposition to the true doctrine ([Deut. 13 : 1–3]; [Mat. 24 : 24]; [2 Thes. 2 : 9–11]).’ (Dr. Newman’s Two Essays on Miracles, p. 31.)
“Dr. Newman repudiates the attempts of various writers to overcome this difficulty by making a distinction between great miracles and small, many miracles and few, or by referring to the nature of the doctrine attested in order to determine the author of the miracles, or by denying the power of spirits altogether, and explaining away scripture statements of demoniacal possession and the narrative of the Lord’s temptation. ‘Without having recourse to any of these dangerous modes of answering the objection,’ he says, ‘it may be sufficient to reply, that, since, agreeably to the antecedent sentiment of reason, God has adopted miracles as the seal of a divine message, we believe he will never suffer them to be so counterfeited as to deceive the humble inquirer.’ (Ibid. p. 51.)
“This is the only reply which even so powerful a reasoner as Dr. Newman can give to an objection based on distinct statements of scripture itself. He cannot deny the validity of the objection, he can only hope or believe in spite of it. Personal belief independent of evidence is the most common and the weakest of arguments; at best it is prejudice masked in the garb of reason. It is perfectly clear that miracles being thus acknowledged to be common both to God and to other spirits they cannot be considered a distinctive attestation of divine intervention; and as Spinoza finely argued, not even the mere existence of God, can be inferred from them; for as a miracle is a limited act and never expressed more than certain and limited power, it is certain that we cannot from such an effect, conclude even the existence of a cause whose power is infinite.
“This dual character obviously leads to many difficulties in defining the evidential function and force of miracles, and we may best appreciate the dilemma which is involved by continuing to follow the statements and arguments of divines themselves. To the question whether miracles are absolutely to command the obedience of those in whose sight they are performed, and whether upon their attestation, the doer and his doctrine are to be accepted as of God, Archbishop French unhesitatingly replies: ‘It cannot be so, for side by side with the miracles which serve for the furthering of the kingdom of God runs another line of wonders, the counter-workings of him who is ever the ape of the Most High.’ (Dr. French’s ‘Notes on the Miracles of Our Lord.’) Eighth ed., p. 22.
“‘This fact,’ he says, ‘that the kingdom of lies has its wonders no less than the kingdom of truth, is in itself sufficient evidence that miracles cannot be appealed to absolutely and finally, in proof of the doctrine which the worker of them proclaims.’