Introduction (pp. xiii - xvi)
B. Mozley, B.D., on
Miracles; Bampton Lectures, 1865, 2nd ed., p. 4.
Part 1, Chapter 1 (pp. 1-17)
[2:1] M. Müller, Chips from a German Workshop, 1867, vol. i., p. 18.
[2:2] J.B. Mozley, B.D., Bampton Lecturer in 1865, on Miracles, 2nd ed., 1867, p. 6 f.
[2:3] Ib., p. 30, cf. Butler, Analogy of Religion, pt. ii., chap. vii., § 3; Paley, A View of the Evidences of Christianity, ed. Whately, 1859, p. 324 ff.
[2:4] Ib., p. 31.
[3:1] Ib., p. 32.
[3:2] The Analogy of Religion, pt. ii., ch. vii., § 3.
[3:3] Ib., pt. ii., ch. vii.
[3:4] lb., pt. ii., ch. ii., §1.
[3:5] A View of the Evidences of Christianity, "Preparatory Considerations," p. 12.
[3:6] Ib., p. 14
[3:7] Moral Philosophy, book v. Speaking of Christianity, in another place, he calls miracles and prophecy "that splendid apparatus with which its mission was introduced and attested" (Book iv.).
[4:1] Sermons, etc. Sermon viii., "Miracles the Most Proper Way of Proving any Religion" (vol. iii., 1766, p. 199).
[4:2] Replies to Essays and Reviews, 1862, p. 151.
[4:3] Aids to Faith, 4th ed., 1863, p. 35.
[4:4] Two Essays on Scripture Miracles and on Ecclesiastical, by John H. Newman, 2nd ed., 1870, p. 6.f
[5:1] Bampton Lectures, 1865, p. 14
[5:2] Ib., p. 23
[6:1] Aids to Faith, 1863, p. 3.
[6:3] Ib., p. 5
[6:4] Bampton Lectures, 1865, p. 21 f.
[6:5] Replies to Essays and Reviews, 1862, p. 143
Gospel of the
Resurrection, 3rd ed., 1874, p. 34.
[7:2] Witness of History to Christ, Hulsean Lectures for 1870, 2nd ed., p. 25.
[7:3] Judges 6:17
[7:4] 2 Kings 20:8 f.
[8:1] Deut. 13:1 ff.
[8:2] Deut. 13:3.
[8:3] Ezek. 14:9. The narrative of Godís hardening the heart of Pharaoh in order to bring other plagues upon the land of Egypt is in this vein.
[8:4] 1 Kings 23:14-23.
[8:5] The counter miracles of the Egyptian sorcerers need not be referred to as instances. Ex. 7:11, 12, 22.
[8:6] Matt. 7:22, 23.
[8:7] Mark 13:22.
[8:8] Matt. 12:27.
[8:9] Mark 9:38.
Tertullian saw this difficulty, and in his
work against Marcion he argues that miracles alone, without
prophecy, could not sufficiently prove Christ to be the Son of God;
for he points out that Jesus himself forewarned his disciples that
false Christs would come with signs and wonders, like the miracles
which he himself had worked, whom he enjoined them beforehand not
to believe. Adv. Marc. 3:3. So also the Author of the
[9:2] Two Essays on Miracles, p. 31.
[9:3] Ib., p. 50 f.
Essays on Scripture
Miracles, p. 51
[10:2] Opera, ed Tauchnitz, vol iii., cap. vi., 24.
[10:3] Notes on the Miracles of our Lord, 8th ed., 1866, p. 22.
[11:1] Notes etc., p. 25. Dr. Trench's views are of considerable eccentricity, and he seems to reproduce in some degree the Platonic theory of Reminiscence. He continues: "For all revelation presupposes in man a power of recognising the truth when it is shown him -- that it will find an answer in him -- that he will trace in it the lineaments of a friend, though of a friend from whom he has been long estranged, and whom he has well-nigh forgotten. It is the finding of a treasure, but of a treasure which he himself and no other had lost. The denial of this, that there is in man any organ by which truth may be recognised, opens the door to the most boundless scepticism -- is, indeed the denial of all that is god-like in man." (Ib., p. 25). The Archbishop would probably be shocked if we suggested that the god-like organ of which he speaks is Reason.
[11:3] Ib., p. 33.
[11:4] Bampton Lectures, 1865, p. 25.
to Faith, p.
[12:2] Life of Arnold, ii, p. 226.
[12:3] Lectures on Modern History, p. 137. Those who hold such views forget that the greatest miracles of ecclesiastical Christianity are not external to it, but are the essence of its principal dogmas. If the "signs" and "wonders" which form what may be called the collateral miracles of Christianity are only believed in consequence of belief in the Gospel, upon what basis does belief in the miraculous birth, the Incarnation, the Resurrection, Ascension, and other leading dogmas, rest? These are themselves the Gospel. Newman, the character of whose mind leads him to believe every miracle the evidence against which does not absolutely prohibit his doing so, rather than only those the evidence for which constrains him to belief, supports ecclesiastical miracles somewhat at the expense of those of the Gospels. He points out that only a few of the latter now fulfil the purpose of evidence for a Divine revelation, and the rest are sustained and authenticated by those few; that "The many never have been evidence except to those who saw them, and have but held the place of doctrine ever since; like the truths revealed to us about the unseen world, which are matters of faith, not means of conviction. They have no existence, as it were, out of the record in which they are found." He then proceeds to refer to the criterion of a miracle suggested by Bishop Douglas: "We may suspect miracles to be false the account of which was not published at the time or place of their alleged occurrence, or, if so published, yet without careful attention being called to them." Newman then adds: "Yet St. Mark is said to have written at Rome, St. Luke in Rome or Greece, and St. John at Ephesus; and the earliest of the Evangelists wrote some years after the events recorded, while the latest did not write for sixty years; and moreover, true though it be that attention was called to Christianity from the first, yet it is true also that it did not succeed at the spot where it arose, but principally at a distance from it." (Two Essays on Miracles, etc., 2nd ed., 1870, p. 232 f.). How much these remarks might have been extended and strengthened by one more critical and less ecclesiastical than Newman need not here be stated.
[13:1] Newman says of a miracle: "Considered by itself, it is at most but the token of a superhuman being." (Two Essays, p. 10).
[13:2] Two Essays, etc., p. 51.
place, however, Newman, contrasting the "Rationalistic" and
"Catholic" tempers, and condemning the former, says: "Rationalism
is a certain abuse of reason -- that is, a use of it for purposes
for which it never was intended, and is unfitted. To rationalise in
matters of revelation is to make our reason the standard and
measure of the doctrines revealed; to stipulate that those
doctrines should be such as to carry with them their own
justification; to reject them if they come in collision with our
existing opinions or habits of thought or are with difficulty
harmonised with our existing stock of knowledge" (Essays, Crit,
and Hist., 1872, Vol. i., p. 31); and a little further on: "A
like desire of judging for oneís self is discernible in the
original fall of man. Eve did not believe the Tempter any more than
Godís word, till she perceived 'the fruit was good for
food'" (Ib., p. 33). Newman, of course, wishes to limit his
principle precisely to suit his own convenience; but in permitting
the rejection of a supposed revelation in spite of miracles, on the
ground of our disapproval of its morality, it is obvious that the
doctrine is substantially made the final criterion of the
[14:2] Two Essays, etc., p. 51 f., note (k).
[14:3] Bampton Lectures, 1865, p. 19.
8th ed., 1766, vol.
iii., p. 198.
[15:2] Bishop Butler says: "Christianity is a scheme quite beyond our comprehension" (Analogy of Religion, Part ii., ch. 4., §1).
[15:3] Bampton Lectures, 1865, p. 15.
Lectures, p. 25
[16:2] Ib., p. 25
[16:3] Ib., p. 25