From the Christian Remembrancer. Eight Lectures on Miracles preached before the University of Oxford, on the Foundation of the late Rev. John Bampton, M.A. By J. B. MOZLEY, B.D., Vicar of Old Shoreham. London: Rivingtons. 1865. were equally valid against the remnant of religious faith which was still upheld. Thus the opponents of the supernatural have been forced into a continued downhill course. Position after position has been abandoned, till they now stand shivering on the very brink of the bottomless pit. In short, no tenable position has been found between supernatural faith and utter atheism—so signally has the light wherewith we were to be enlightened turned into gross darkness. THE recent attack upon the supernatural when it first broke upon the public had all the character of a surprise. The general public were unprepared for it; and those The strength of Christianity lies in occuwho had the character of leaders were for pying the field from which the enemy has the moment at a loss how to meet it. The thus been driven. It is a wide and bound consequence was, that unbelief gained at the less field- - a world more vast and varied outset great advantages; it secured to its than the outer world of physical science. side a large part of the irreligious press; It is a world of realities, of great ideas, and and many well-meaning Christians, ignorant high hopes a world of freedom as opof the real character of the matters at stake, posed to slavery, and self-immolation as were animated by a false liberalism. We opposed to selfishness. Let us show how were openly taunted with our silence, and this world, so essential to humanity, has challenged to answer our opponents if we been conquered for it by Christ; how its dared, it being taken for granted that no existence is bound up in Him; and how, answer could be given. But what is the without Him, man must resign himself to present position of the question? Possibly hopeless bondage. Redemption will thus our estimate might not be considered an un-assume a new and striking light, which will biassed one. But we may point to two no- especially come home to the nineteenth centable facts which have some meaning. In tury. At all events, we have here got hold the first place, the challenge has been an- of something tangible. We are not mere swered beyond the expectation of our op- dreamers and sentimentalists. We have ponents. A succession of able writers have facts and possessions for the human race from time to time appeared on the side of which have at least an equal value, in a faith writers whose comprehensiveness of practical point of view, with anything which mind will contrast favourably with that science can bring. If we cannot annihilate of their opponents, whose inherent vice has science (which we do not desire), so neither been one-sidedness inability to look at will science be able to annihilate us. We the question except from one point of view. can wait in patience for a deeper philosophy, Many of the arguments at first paraded as which will reconcile both. Such a philosounanswerable have been sifted and exposed; phy cannot be far distant, and when it comes and the general effect has been that the dis- it will show the world that the truths of scicussion has changed from scientific to phil-ence are only outward and phenomenal ; osophical ground. Arguments brought forward as resting on truths of science have been found not to rest on science at all, but on extreme forms of the sense-philosophy. On the whole, it has been found that the Christian religion has something to say for itself, and is not to be overthrown by ignorant dictation or coarse sneers. But, in the second place, perhaps the most noteworthy result has been the gradual dislodging of our opponents from the positions from which they assailed us. They professed to make war on unnecessary appendages; to retain the kernel while they cast away the shell; but it was discovered that they had planted their batteries on Christian ground, and that their shot, if successful at all, must slay not only their enemies, but themselves. In effect, the arguments brought forward against miracles that they do not touch the world of real existence; and that they have nothing permanent in them. The world with which religion deals is the only real and permanent world. And it will profit a man but little if he gain the outer world, and lose that which is inner and true. Mr. Mozley has gained a high place in the list of those who have come forward in defence of the faith. His book has a wonderful solidity about it; and it is very characteristic of the English mind, being of a practical rather than a speculative kind. Though extremely logical, and acutely argumentative, still he never for a moment quits the standpoint of practical humanity. From this point he measures the great problems with which he deals. His inquiry is not, What is absolutely and certainly true? but, What means have we, placed as we are, of judging of these matters? What extent a special revelation of Himself, and are the probabilities of the case? While who yet think miracles unnecessary! What this method will not satisfy some minds, is most needed is to point out what kind of there are others to which it is specially faith requires a miracle, and what kind does adapted. And in this consists the value not. Let it be distinctly understood that and strength of his work. He will influ- the faith which finds its expression in the ence a large class of readers who take the Apostles' Creed, or accepts the dogma of a pains to master his arguments, who could personal God, must stand or fall with miranot be reached by other means. At the cles. If this is once made clear, then all same time, the result of his labours, consid- possibility of mistake is avoided. It is seen ered as a whole, is not such as we could ac- that those who discredit miracles are to the cept. His theory of the supernatural, both same extent, it may be unconsciously, distheologically and philosophically, would crediting the Apostles' Creed. break down, we believe, under the pressure In a former article we entered pretty fully of facts. But this by no means destroys the upon this point. Mr. Mozley adopts in genutility of his book. The bulk of his argu- eral the same line of argument, and his conments are of such a solid kind, that with a clusion is the same. Miracles and the little alteration in point of form they could supernatural contents of Christianity must easily be adapted to a more perfect system. stand or fall together' (p. 22.) Why is this The question as to the supernatural is so so? If we ask ourselves why we believe extensive, that Mr. Mozley has done wisely our Lord to be the Son of God, we shall in limiting himself to the consideration of easily see. No doubt we have this faith reone point the intrinsic credibility of mira-garding Him because He testified this of cles. The difficulty of the present day is not so much taken up with the question of evidence as with the prior question, how a miracle is possible at all. On the one hand, we have science, like an angry farmer, violently vociferating, and warning us off its territory; on the other, the philosophers or the enlightened' would equally exclude us from the moral and spiritual worlds. The most pressing need of the present day is thus the vindication of a place for the supernatural in God's universe. Mr. Mozley, from his own point of view, addresses himself with great success to this task. After, in his first lecture, discussing the question as to the necessity of miracles, he proceeds in his second and third to grapple with the scientific difficulty; then follow in subsequent lectures discussions on the relation in which miracles stand to belief in a God,' to' testimony, to unknown law,' and 'practical results. The last lecture is devoted to an attempt to distinguish between the Scripture miracles and the running miraculous' of ordinary religious life. The question of the necessity of miracles, meaning thereby the higher or more marked kind of miracles, is one which, as preliminary, ought not to be overlooked. On this point the public are especially liable to be imposed upon. General language is often used, plausible in itself, to show their non-necessity; and this not only by men whose religious conceptions are in accord with their arguments, but by a class of well-meaning Christians whose intellectual position is a marvel to us-men who distinctly confess a personal God, and to some Himself. But would our faith have sufficient ground if it rested simply on this testimony? Mr. Mozley in answer to this question brings out from his own point of view, in a very able way, a line of argument used by ourselves: — 'If, then, a person of evident integrity and loftiness of character rose into notice in a particular country and community eighteen centu ries ago, who made these communications about himself that he had existed before his natural birth, from all eternity, and before the he was the only-begotten Son of God; that the world was, in a state of glory with God; that world itself had been made by him; that he had, however, come down from heaven and assumed the form and nature of man for a particular purpose, viz. to be the Lamb of God that taketh away the sins of the world; that he thus stood in a mysterious and supernatural relation to the whole of mankind; that through him alone mankind had access to God; that he was the head of an invisible kingdom, into which he should gather all the generations of righteous men who had lived in the world; that on his departure from hence he should return to heaven to prepare mansions there for them; and, lastly, that he should descend again at the end of the world to judge the whole human race, on which occasion all that were in their graves should hear his voice, and come forth, they that had done good unto the resurrection of life, and they that had done evil unto the resurrection of tions about himself, and all that was done was damnation if this person made these asser itable conclusion of sober reason respecting that to make the assertions, what would be the inevperson ? The necessary conclusion of sober reason respecting that person would be that he was disordered in his understanding. What thrown into a different shape. It is to be borne in mind that the advance both of science and philosophy in recent years has, rightly or wrongly, altered our conception other decision could we come to, when a man, looking like one of ourselves, and only exemplifying in his life and circumstances the ordinary course of nature, said this about himself, but that when reason had lost its balance, a of the world as a whole. Neither scientific dream of extraordinary and unearthly grandeur might be the result? By no rational being men nor philosophers look at nature in the could a great and benevolent life be accepted as same way as our fathers did; and it is to be proof of such astonishing announcements. remembered that the conception we form of Miracles are the necessary complement, then, nature largely influences our conception of of the truth of such announcements, which, the supernatural. It stands to reason, without them, are purposeless and abortive, the therefore, that a rationale of the supernatunfinished fragments of a design which is noth- ural which was perfectly adapted for coming unless it is the whole. They are necessary bating Deism is no longer applicable to the to the justification of such announcements, present war with science. Even if we sucwhich indeed, unless they are supernatural ceed in establishing it by the strength of and its guaranty are the two parts of a revela- our reasons, it will, in its old form, have to tion, the absence of either of which neutralizes the scientific mind a forced aspect. It will and undoes it.'*-P. 13. truths, are the wildest delusions. The matter But, besides this, the very form which the statement of our faith takes in the Apostles' Creed is the assertion of miracles. To assert that God created the heaven and the earth (and belief in a personal God involves the dogma of creation) is to assert a most stupendous miracle. What else is it to assert that Jesus Christ is His only Son our Lord? that He rose again? that He ascended into heaven? Miraculous facts thus form the essence, so to speak, of our faith in Christ. And if this is so, of what use is it for any one to argue that our Lord's goodness, or the response which His Gospel finds in our hearts, are enough to determine our faith? If, on examination, we find that the things which we believe in are themselves miracles, what do we gain by dispensing with miraculous aid? A believer in a personal God or in the Apostles' Creed cannot discredit miracles without the grossest act of selfstultification. Assuming, then, the necessity of miracles, they being involved in the only kind of Christianity we care to contend for, an important question arises. In what light are we to look upon them as a whole? How, considered as a system, do they fit into the general system of the universe? Or, in other words, what is the definition of a miracle? How are we to conceive the supernatural in its relation to the natural? Here we regret to find ourselves totally at issue with Mr. Mozley. He has seen no reason to depart from those conceptions brought to maturity in the last century, which are now received traditionally. We think the time has come when the whole question of the supernatural ought to be re-examined and * See Christian Remembrancer, October, 1863, p. 272, et seq. And suggest, and seem to be bound up with, a But, besides this, there are other reasons purely theological which point the same way. The present form in which we express the supernatural is the growth of Protestantism, and that too of the very narrowest kind. It is no longer adapted to the theological conceptions which prevail. The tendency of the present age has been to the abandonment of old Protestant modes of thought: on the one hand, in the direction of Latituon the other, towards a fuller dinarianism appreciation of Catholic truth. It is an faith. For these reasons we think that the time has now come when the question ought to be re-examined. We would throw out a few hints of the kind of modification we suggest they will, in some respects, be a repetition, but also an enlargement, of what we advanced before. It will be more convenient in the first place to discuss the point in its theological aspect. Mr. Mozley has stated with singular abil ity and clearness the old evidential theory; and it will be best to give it in his own words: 'I enter upon the consideration of the posi- | the extraordinary coincidence which was 'contion which I have chosen as the subject of these tained in it. And hence it follows that, could Lectures viz. that miracles, or visible suspen- a complete physical solution be given of a whole sions of the order of nature for a providential miracle, both the marvel and the coincidence to, purpose, are not in contradiction to reason. it would cease from that moment to perform its And first of all I shall inquire into the use and functions of evidence. Apparent evidence to purpose of miracles, especially with a view to those who had made the mistake, it could be ascertain whether, in the execution of the Divine none to us who had corrected it.' — P. 6. intentions toward mankind, they do not answer a necessary purpose, and supply a want which could not be supplied in any other way. There is one great necessary purpose, then, which divines assign to miracles, viz. the proof of a revelation. And certainly, if it was the will of God to give a revelation, there are plain and obvious reasons for asserting that miracles are necessary as the guaranty and voucher for that revelation. A revelation is, properly speaking, such only by virtue of telling us something which we could not know without it. But how do we know that that communication of what is undiscoverable by human reason is true? Our reason cannot prove the truth of it, for it is by the very supposition beyond our reason. There must be, then, some note or sign to certify to it, and distinguish it as a true communication from God, which note can be nothing else than a miracle. The evidential function of a miracle is based upon the common argument of design as proved by coincidence. The greatest marvel or interruption of the order of nature occurring by it self, as the very consequence of being connected with nothing, proves nothing; but if it takes place in conne tion with the word or act of a person, that coincidence proves design in the marvel, and makes it a miracle; and if that person professes to report a message or revela tion from heaven, the coincidence of the miracle with the professed message from God proves design on the part of God to warrant and authorize the message. The mode in which a miracle acts as evidence, is thus exactly the same in which any extraordinary coincidence acts; it rests upon the general argument of design, though the particular design is special and appropriate to the miracle. And hence we may see that the evidence of a Divine communication cannot in the nature of the case be an ordiFor no event, in the common nary event. order of nature, is, in the first place, in any coincidence with the Divine communication; it is explained by its own place in nature, and is connected with its own antecedents and conse quents only, having no allusion or bearing out of them. It does not, either in itself or to human eye, contain any relation to the special communication from God at the time. But if there is no coincidence, there is no appearance of design, and therefore no attestation. It is true that prophecy is such an attestation; but though the event which fulfils prophecy need not be itself out of the order of nature, it is an indication of a fact which is, viz. an act of superhuman knowledge. And this remark would apply to a miracle which was only miraculous upon the prophetical principle, or from Now this whole rationale we conceive to be radically wrong, and to lead to the most deplorable consequences. It rests upon the fundamental position that a miracle is a suspension of a law of nature, or an extraordinary and unwonted event. Now it is sufficiently obvious, if we take up this position, that we are involved in a whole train of corresponding conceptions. The end of the miracle is attestation, to the exclusion of other ends. This again involves a corresponding narrowing of our conception of the Bible. It is a revelation, or, more appropriately still, a message from Almighty God, which the miracle attests. This, in its turn, affects our idea of the relation in which we stand to Almighty God. We might pursue the inquiry through other branches of theology; and if we do, we shall find that we have contracted our theological conceptions in a way which is thoroughly repugnant to Catholic truth. But let us rather examine some of these conceptions, and see how far they are tenable. To think of Almighty God as a lawbreaker is to our mind on the very verge of blasphemy. But to pass over that for the present- Is it an adequate statement of the end of the miracle to say that it is simply for purposes of attestation? or an adequate conception of the contents of the Bible to call them a revelation? Let us not be misunderstood. We do not deny to the miracle its evidential function, nor that some miracles have been wrought for that end only; nor do we deny that one aspect of the Bible is that of a revelation, or that portions of it are pure revelations and nothing else. We would give full significance to the words of the Apostle, when he describes God's relation to man under this aspect : 'God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in times past unto the fathers by the prophets, hath in these last days spoken unto us by His Son.' But the question is, not whether this point of view is correct, but whether it is the primary or the only one whether, when we look at the miracle and the Bible in this light, we form to ourselves an adequate conception of what In most books on evidences this they are. is assumed. The formula is, 'A miracle is a violation of a law of nature, and it is the proof of a revelation.' Mr. Mozley, as we have seen, accepts this formula. His view of the Bible and its evidence never rises above this level; and the consequences, as we think, are very disastrous. He is placed at a singular disadvantage in arguing against science: at a still greater in dealing with Spinoza. He is driven into awkward positions and untenable distinctions, as may be seen from his Lectures on Testimony' and False Miracles.' But let us see how the matter stands when put to the test of fact. In the first place, with regard to 'revelation:'-if we take into consideration the whole events of Bible history, and continue our survey through the history of the Christian Church, does the conception of revelation' cover the field of view? Is it an adequate idea of the Bible to call it a revelation? To have an adequate conception of a thing is to have a full idea not only of what it is in itself, but also of its relations to other things the ends and purposes to which it is adapted. Well, then, in regard to the events of Bible history, do we adequately comprehend their purport when we call them a revelation? Is not the contrary very evident? Take for instance the mission of Moses. Should we have an accurate idea of the purpose of God in raising him up, if we said, He did it, that he might communicate a revelation? Would not this be completely to misunderstand the principal end of the mission of Moses? In point of fact, Moses added very little by way of revelation. God was known and worshipped by sacrifice much in the same way before as after the time of Moses. True, he did add something to the stock of Divine knowledge; and if you like you may look at his mission as a whole, and, under a certain aspect, speak of it accurately enough as a revelation. But in doing so you will only have a partial and inadequate idea of the purpose of God in Moses. The purpose or end of the mission of Moses was the establishment of the Theocracy, and in so far as God revealed through him, the revelation was but a means to this higher end. vine knowledge; but it is a perversion to describe His mission as directed to the end of revelation, and not rather to the higher end, in respect of which the revelation was subordinate. Let no one suppose that this distinction is a matter of small moment. The absence of it will tell with amazing force in all à priori arguments as to the credibility of the faith. Let us suppose two disputants whose subject is the verisimilitude of the mission of Christ: and let them set out from the position expressed or implied that the end of His mission was the revelation of God's will; do we not see what a strong case might be constructed for the negative on à priori grounds? When the facts of His life are duly weighed it is seen that they are not adapted, or only very clumsily, to the end presupposed. If God's purpose was simply revelation, a hundred ways might be imagined in which the end might be more directly attained. This case indeed is hardly an imaginary one: it turns up under many aspects in modern books against the faith. Revelation therefore is not the end of the events recorded in the Bible. God aimed at a higher end through them. But now the question arises, With which of these ends is the miracle connected? In the evidential school, in whose footsteps Mr. Mozley follows, it is exclusively connected with the inferior end. A miracle is the proof of a revelation. It exists and has its place simply and solely for this evidential purpose. Now let us again put this to the test of fact. We would simply remark, to avoid misunderstanding, that we are not denying that evidence is an end attained by the miracle: nor are we denying that some miracles were adapted exclusively to this end. All those miracles that were worked as signswere worked simply as proof. But the ques-tion is, Is evidence the exclusive end of miracles considered as a class or whole? Do they exist simply and solely for this end? Or is not evidence after all but a collateral result? Do not miracles aim at something higher, and only hit the end of evidence as it were in passing? Let us again put the matter to the test of fact: the miracles of Christ, as they are the most important, will best serve for this purpose. We thus see in respect of the work of Moses, that it is an inadequate and consequently a perverted view of it to call it a How is it, then, with the miracles of revelation. The same thing will be even Christ? Were they worked exclusively more glaringly evident in respect of our with a view to evidence? We do not think Blessed Lord. Did God send Him to reveal, any one who studies their character could or did He not rather send Him to redeem for a moment suppose so. Whether they the world and establish His kingdom? It had an evidential value or not, it is maniis true these high ends involved and re-fest that that was not the end for which quired a certain amount of additional Di- they were worked. They had a much higher |