Miracle

Please help support the mission of New Advent and get the full contents of this website as an instant download. Includes the Catholic Encyclopedia, Church Fathers, Summa, Bible and more — all for only $19.99...

(Latinmiraculum, frommirari, "to wonder").

In general, a wonderful thing, the word being so used in classical Latin; in a specific sense, theLatin Vulgate designates bymiracula wonders of a peculiar kind, expressed more clearly in the Greek text by the termsterata,dynameis,semeia, i.e., wonders performed bysupernatural power as signs of some special mission or gift and explicitly ascribed toGod.

These terms are used habitually in theNew Testament and express the meaning ofmiraculum of theVulgate. Thus St. Peter in his first sermon speaks ofChrist as approved ofGod,dynamesin, kai terasin kai semeiois (Acts 2:22) andSt. Paul says that the signs of hisApostleship were wrought,semeiois te kai terasin kai dynamesin (2 Corinthians 12:12). Their united meaning is found in the termerga i.e., works, the word constantly employed in theGospels to designate the miracles ofChrist. Theanalysis of these terms therefore gives thenature and scope of the miracle.

Nature

(1) The wordterata literally means "wonders", in reference to feelings of amazement excited by their occurrence, hence effects produced in the material creation appealing to, and grasped by, the senses, usually by the sense of sight, at times by hearing, e.g., thebaptism ofJesus, theconversion ofSt. Paul. Thus, though the works ofDivine grace, such as theSacramental Presence, are above the power ofnature, and due toGod alone, they may be called miraculous only in the wide meaning of the term, i.e., assupernatural effects, but they are not miracles in the sense here understood, for miracles in the strict sense are apparent. The miracle falls under the grasp of the senses, either in the work itself (e.g. raising the dead tolife) or in its effects (e.g., the gifts of infusedknowledge with theApostles). In like manner thejustification of asoul in itself is miraculous, but is not a miracle properly so called, unless it takes place in a sensible manner, as, e.g., in the case ofSt. Paul.

The wonder of the miracle is due to the fact that its cause is hidden, and an effect is expected other than what actually takes place. Hence, by comparison with the ordinary course of things, the miracle is called extraordinary. In analyzing the difference between the extraordinary character of the miracle and the ordinary course ofnature, theFathers of the Church andtheologians employ the termsabove, contrary to, andoutsidenature. These terms express the manner in which the miracle is extraordinary.

A miracle is said to be abovenature when the effect produced is above the native powers and forces in creatures of which the knownlaws ofnature are the expression, as raising a dead man tolife, e.g.,Lazarus (John 11), thewidow's son (1 Kings 17). A miracle is said to be outside, or beside,nature when natural forces may have the power to produce the effect, at least in part, but could not of themselves alone have produced it in the way it was actually brought about. Thus the effect in abundance far exceeds the power of natural forces, or it takes place instantaneously without the means or processes whichnature employs. In illustration we have the multiplication of loaves byJesus (John 6), the changing of water into wine atCana (John 2) — for the moisture of the air by natural and artificial processes is changed into wine — or the sudden healing of a large extent of diseased tissue by a draught of water. A miracle is said to be contrary tonature when the effect produced is contrary to the natural course of things.

The termmiracle here implies the direct opposition of the effect actually produced to the natural causes at work, and its imperfect understanding has given rise to much confusion in modern thought. ThusSpinoza calls a miracle a violation of the order ofnature (proeverti, "Tract. Theol. Polit.", vi). Hume says it is a "violation" or an "infraction", and many writers — e.g., Martensen, Hodge, Baden-Powell, Theodore Parker — use the term for miracles as a whole. But every miracle is not ofnecessity contrary tonature, for there are miracles above or outsidenature.

Again, the termcontrary to nature does not mean "unnatural" in the sense of producing discord and confusion. The forces ofnature differ in power and are in constant interaction. This produces interferences and counteractions of forces. This istrue of mechanical, chemical, andbiological forces. So, also, at every moment of the day I interfere with and counteract natural forces about me. I study the properties of natural forces with a view to obtainconscious control by intelligent counteractions of one force against another. Intelligent counteraction marks progress in chemistry, inphysics — e.g., steam locomotion, aviation — and in the prescriptions of the physician.Man controlsnature, nay, can live only by the counteraction of natural forces. Though all this goes on around us, we never speak of natural forces violated. These forces are still working after their kind, and no force is destroyed, nor is anylaw broken, nor does confusion result. The introduction of human will may bring about a displacement of the physical forces, but no infraction of physical processes.

Now in a miracleGod's action relative to its bearing on natural forces is analogous to the action of humanpersonality. Thus, e.g., it is against thenature of iron to float, but the action ofEliseus in raising the axe-head to the surface of the water (2 Kings 6) is no more a violation, or a transgression, or an infraction of naturallaws than if he raised it with his hand. Again, it is of thenature of fire to burn, but when, e.g., the Three Children were preserved untouched in the fiery furnace (Daniel 3) there was nothing unnatural in the act, as these writers use the word, any more than there would be in erecting a dwelling absolutely fireproof. In the one case, as in the other, there was no paralysis of natural forces and no consequent disorder.

The extraordinary element in the miracle — i.e. an event apart from the ordinary course of things; enables us to understand the teaching oftheologians that events which ordinarily take place in the natural orsupernatural course ofDivine Providence are not miracles, although they are beyond the efficiency of natural forces. Thus, e.g., thecreation of thesoul is not a miracle, for it takes place in the ordinary course ofnature. Again, thejustification of the sinner, theEucharistic Presence, thesacramental effects, are not miracles for two reasons: they are beyond the grasp of the senses and they have place in the ordinary course ofGod's supernatural Providence.

(2) The worddynamis, "power" is used in theNew Testament to signify:

Hence the miracle is calledsupernatural, because the effect is beyond the productive power ofnature and impliessupernatural agency. ThusSt. Thomas teaches: "Those effects are rightly to be termed miracles which are wrought by Divine power apart from the order usually observed innature" (Contra Gent., III, cii), and they are apart from the natural order because they are "beyond the order orlaws of the wholecreatednature" (ST I-II:113:10). Hence dynamis adds to the meaning of terata by pointing out the efficient cause. For this reason miracles inScripture are called "the finger ofGod" (Exodus 8:19,Luke 11:20), "the hand of theLord" (1 Samuel 5:6), "the hand of ourGod" (Ezra 8:31). In referring the miracle toGod as its efficient cause the answer is given to the objection that the miracle is unnatural, i.e., an uncaused event without meaning or place innature. WithGod as the cause, the miracle has a place in the designs ofGod's Providence (Contra Gent. III, xcviii). In this sense — i.e., relatively toGod —St. Augustine speaks of the miracle as natural (City of God XXI.8).

An event is above the course ofnature and beyond its productive powers:

God's power is shown in the miracle:

In the latter case the effects must be ascribed toGod, for He works in and through the instruments; "Ipso Deo in illis operante" (Augustine,City of God X.12). HenceGod works miracles through the instrumentality

Hence the contention of some modern writers, that a miracle requires an immediate action of Divine power, is nottrue. It is sufficient that the miracle be due to the intervention ofGod, and itsnature is revealed by the utter lack of proportion between the effect and what are called means or instruments.

The wordsemeion means "sign", an appeal to intelligence, and expresses the purpose or final cause of the miracle. A miracle is a factor in theProvidence of God over men. Hence theglory ofGod and thegood of men are the primary or supreme ends of every miracle. This is clearly expressed byChrist in the raising ofLazarus (John 11), and theEvangelist says thatJesus, in working His first miracle atCana, "manifested hisglory" (John 2:11). Therefore the miracle must be worthy theholiness,goodness, andjustice ofGod, and conducive to thetruegood of men. Hence they are not performed byGod to repair physical defects in Hiscreation, nor are they intended to produce, nor do they produce, disorder or discord; do they contain any element which is wicked, ridiculous, useless, or unmeaning. Hence they are not on the same plane with mere wonders, tricks works of ingenuity, or magic. The efficacy, usefulness, purpose of the work and the manner of performing it clearly show that it must be ascribed to Divine power. This high standing and dignity of the miracle is shown, e.g., in the miracles ofMoses (Exodus 7-10), ofElias (1 Kings 18:21-38), ofEliseus (2 Kings 5). The multitudes glorifiedGod at the cure of the paralytic (Matthew 9:8), of the blind man (Luke 18:43), at the miracles ofChrist in general (Matthew 15:31,Luke 19:37), as at the cure of the lame man by St. Peter (Acts 4:21). Hence miracles are signs of thesupernatural world and our connection with it.

In miracles we can always distinguish secondary ends, subordinate, however, to the primary ends. Thus

Thisanalysis shows that

Errors

Deists reject miracles, for they deny theProvidence of God.Agnostics also, andPositivists reject them: Comte regarded miracles as the fruit of thetheologicalimagination. ModernPantheism has no place for miracles. ThusSpinoza heldcreation to be the aspect of the onesubstance, i.e.,God, and, as he taught that miracles were a violation ofnature, they would therefore be a violation ofGod. The answer is, first thatSpinoza's conception ofGod andnature isfalse and, secondly, that in fact miracles are not a violation ofnature. ToHegelcreation is the evolutive manifestation of the one Absolute Idea, i.e.,God, and to the neo-Hegelians (e.g., Thos. Green)consciousness is identified withGod; therefore to both a miracle has no meaning.

Erroneous definitions of thesupernatural lead toerroneous definitions of the miracle. Thus

The mechanical view of Babbage (Bridgewater Treatises)

In Babbage's view, which was later advanced by the Duke of Argyll (Reign of Law),nature is presented as a vastmechanism wound up in the beginning and containing in itself the capacity to deviate at stated times from its ordinary course. The theory is ingenious, but it makes the miracle a natural event. It admits the assumption of opponents of miracles, viz., that physical effects must have physical causes, but this assumption is contradicted by common facts of experience, e.g., will acts onmatter.

The "unknown" law of Spinoza

Spinoza taught that the termmiracle should be understood with reference to the opinions of men, and that it means simply an event which we are unable to explain by other events familiar to our experience. Locke,Kant, Eichhorn, Paulus Renan hold the same view. Thus Prof. Cooper writes "The miracle of one age becomes the ordinary working ofnature in the next" ("Ref. Ch. R.", July, 1900). Hence a miracle never happened in fact, and is only a name to cover ourignorance. Thus Matthew Arnold could claim that allBiblical miracles will disappear with the progress ofscience (Lit. and Bible) and M. Muller that "the miraculous is reduced to mere seeming" (in Rel., pref., p. 10). The advocates of this theory assume that miracles are an appeal toignorance.

The "higher law" theory of Argyll of "Unseen Universe"

Trench, Lange (on Matt., p. 153), Gore (Bampton Lect, p. 36) proposed to refuteSpinoza's claim that miracles are unnatural and productive of disorder. Thus with them the miracle is quite natural because it takes place in accordance withlaws of a highernature. Others — e.g., Schleiermacher andRitschl — mean by higherlaw, subjective religious feeling. Thus, to them a miracle is not different from any other natural event; it becomes a miracle by relation to the religious feeling. A writer in "The Biblical World" (Oct., 1908) holds that the miracle consists in the religious significance of the natural event in its relation to the religious appreciation as a sign of Divine favour. Others explain higherlaw as amorallaw, orlaw of thespirit. Thus the miracles ofChrist are understood as illustrations of a higher, grander, more comprehensivelaw than men had yet known, the incoming of a newlife, of higher forces acting according to higherlaws as manifestations of thespirit in the higher stages of its development. The criticism of this theory is that miracles would cease to be miracles: they would not be extraordinary, for they would take place under the same conditions. To bring miracles under alaw not yet understood is to deny theirexistence. Thus, when Trench defines a miracle as "an extraordinary event which beholders can reduce to nolaw with which they are acquainted", the definition includeshypnotism and clairvoyance. If byhigherlaw we mean the highlaw of God'sholiness, then a miracle can be referred to thislaw, but the higherlaw in this case isGod Himself and the use of the term is apt to create confusion.

Antecedent improbability

The great problem of moderntheology is the place and value of miracles. In the opinion of certain writers, their antecedent improbability, based on the universal reign oflaw is so great that they are not worthy of serious consideration. Thus his conviction of the uniformity ofnature led Hume to deny testimony for miracles in general, as it led Baur, Strauss, and Renan to explain the miracles ofChrist on natural grounds. The fundamental principle is that whatever happens is natural, and what is not natural does not happen. Onbelief in the uniformity ofnature is based the profound conviction of the organic unity of theuniverse, a characteristic trait of nineteenth-century thought. It has dominated a certainschool of literature, and, with George Eliot, Hall Came, and Thomas Hardy, the natural agencies ofheredity, environment, andnecessarylaw rule the world ofhumanlife. It is the basic principle in modern treatises onsociology.

Its chief exponent issciencephilosophy, a continuation of theDeism of the eighteenth century without theidea ofGod, and the view herein presented, of an evolvinguniverse working out its own destiny under the rigid sway of inherent naturallaws, finds but a thin disguise in thePantheistic conception, so prevalent among non-Catholictheologians, of animmanentGod, who is the active ground of the world-development according tonatural law — i.e.,Monism ofmind or will. Thisbelief is the gulf between the old and the modernschool oftheology. Max Muller finds the kernel of the modern conception of the world in theidea that "there is alaw and order in everything, and that an unbroken chain of causes and effects holds the wholeuniverse together" ("Anthrop. Relig.", pref., p. 10). Throughout theuniverse there is amechanism ofnature and ofhumanlife, presenting anecessary chain, or sequence, ofcause and effect, which is not, and cannot be, broken by an interference from without, as is assumed in the case of a miracle. This view is the ground of modern objections toChristianity, the source of modernscepticism, and the reason for a prevailing disposition amongChristian thinkers to deny miracles a place inChristian evidences and to base theproof forChristianity on internal evidences alone.

Criticism

(1) This view ultimately rests upon the assumption that the materialuniverse alone exists. It is refuted:

(2) This view is also based on anerroneous meaning of the termnature.Kant made a distinction between thenoumenon and thephenomenon of a thing, he denied that we canknow thenoumenon, i.e., the thing in itself; all weknow is thephenomenon, i.e., the appearance of the thing. This distinction has profoundly influenced modern thought. As a TranscendentalIdealist,Kant denied that weknow the real phenomenon; to him only the ideal appearance is the object of themind. Thusknowledge is a succession of ideal appearances, and a miracle would be an interruption of that succession. Others, i.e., the Sense-School (Hume, Mill, Bain, Spencer, and others), teach that, while we cannotknow thesubstance oressences of things, we can and do grasp the real phenomena. To them the world is a phenomenal world and is a pure coexistence and succession of phenomena, the antecedent determines the consequent. In this view a miracle would be an unexplained break in the (so-called) invariablelaw of sequence, on whichlaw Mill based hisLogic. Now we reply that the real meaning of the wordnature includes both the phenomenon and the noumenon. We have theidea ofsubstance with an objective content. In reality the progress ofscience consists in the observation of, and experimentation upon, things with a view to find out their properties or potencies, which in turn enable us toknow the physical essences of the various substances.

(3) Through theerroneous conception ofnature, the principle ofcausality is confounded with thelaw of the uniformity ofnature. But they are absolutely different things. The former is a primary conviction which has its source in our innerconsciousness. The latter is aninduction based upon a long and careful observation of facts: it is not a self-evidenttruth, nor is it a universal andnecessary principle, as Mill himself has shown (Logic, IV, xxi). In fact uniformity ofnature is the result of the principle ofcausation.

(4) The main contention, that the uniformity ofnature rules miracles out of consideration, because they would imply a break in the uniformity and a violation ofnatural law, is nottrue. Thelaws ofnature are the observed modes or processes in which natural forces act. These forces are the properties or potencies of the essences of natural things. Our experience ofcausation is not the experience of a mere sequence but of a sequence due to thenecessary operation of essences viewed as principles or sources of action.

Now essences are necessarily what they are and unchangeable, therefore their properties, or potencies, or forces, under given circumstances, act in the same way. On this,Scholastic philosophy bases thetruth thatnature is uniform in its action, yet holds that constancy of succession is not an absolutelaw for the succession is only constant so long as the noumenal relations remain the same. ThusScholastic philosophy, in defending miracles, accepts the universal reign oflaw in this sense, and its teaching is in absolute accord with the methods actually pursued by modernscience inscientific investigations. Hence it teaches the order ofnature and the reign oflaw, and openly declares that, if there were no order, there would be no miracle.

It is significant that theBibleappeals constantly to the reign oflaw innature, while it attests the actual occurrence of miracles. Now human will, in acting on material forces, interferes with the regular sequences, but does not paralyze the natural forces or destroy their innate tendency to act in a uniform manner. Thus a boy, by throwing a stone into the air, does not disarrange the order ofnature or do away with thelaw of gravity. A new force only is brought in and counteracts the tendencies of the natural forces, just as the natural forces interact and counteract among themselves, as is shown in the well-knowntruths of the parallelogram of forces and the distinction between kinetic and potential energy. Theanalogy fromman's act toGod's act is complete as far as concerns a break in the uniformity ofnature or a violation of itslaws. The extent of the power exerted does not affect the point at issue. Hence physicalnature is presented as a system of physical causes producing uniform results, and yet permits the interposition of personal agency without affecting its stability.

(5) Thetruth of this position is so manifest that Mill admits Hume's argument against miracles to be valid only on the supposition thatGod does not exist for, he says, "a miracle is a new effect supposed to be produced by the introduction of a new cause . . . of the adequacy of that cause, if present, there can be nodoubt" (Logic, III, xxv). Hence, admitting theexistence of God, Hume's "uniform sequence" does not hold as an objection to miracles. Huxley also denies that physicists withholdbelief in miracles because miracles are in violation of naturallaws and he rejects the whole of this line of argument ("Some Controverted questions", 209; "Life of Hume", 132), and holds that a miracle is a question of evidence pure and simple. Hence the objection to miracles on the ground of their antecedent improbability has been abandoned. "The Biblical World" (Oct., 1908) says "The old rigid system of 'Laws of Nature' is being broken up by modernscience. There are many events whichscientists recognize to be inexplicable by any knownlaw. But this inability to furnish ascientific explanation is no reason for denying theexistence of any event, if it is adequately attested. Thus the olda priori argument against miracles is gone." Thus in modern thought the question of the miracle is simply a question of fact.

Place and value of miracles in the Christian view of the world

As the great objection to miracles really rests on narrow andfalsephilosophical views of theuniverse, so thetrue world-view isnecessary to grasp their place and value.

Christianity teaches thatGodcreated and governs the world. This government is His Providence. It is shown in the delicate adjustment and subordination of the tendencies proper to material things, resulting in the marvellous stability and harmony which prevail throughout the physical creation, and in themoral order, which throughconscience, is to guide and control the tendencies ofman'snature to a complete harmony inhumanlife.Man is a personal being, with intelligence andfree-will, capable of knowing and servingGod, andcreated for that purpose. To himnature is the book ofGod's work revealing the Creator through the design visible in the material order and throughconscience, the voice of themoral order based in the very constitution of his own being. Hence the relation ofman toGod is a personal one.God's Providence is not confined to therevelation of Himself through His works. He has manifested Himself in asupernatural manner throwing a flood of light on the relations which should exist betweenman and Himself. TheBible contains thisrevelation, and is called the Book of God's Word. It gives the record ofGod's supernatural Providence leading up to theRedemption and the founding of theChristian Church. Here we are told that beyond the sphere ofnature there is another realm ofexistence — thesupernatural, peopled by spiritual beings and departedsouls. Both spheres, the natural and thesupernatural, are under the overrulingProvidence of God. ThusGod andman are two great facts. The relation of thesoul to itsMaker is religion.

Religion is theknowledge,love, and service ofGod; its expression is called worship, and theessence of worship isprayer. Thus betweenman andGod there is constant intercourse, and inGod's Providence the appointed means of this intercourse isprayer. Byprayerman speaks toGod in acts offaith,hope,love, andcontrition and implores His aid. In answer toprayerGod acts on thesoul by His grace and, in special circumstances, by working miracles. Hence the great fact ofprayer, as the connecting link ofman toGod, implies a constant interference ofGod in the life ofman. Therefore in theChristian view of the world, miracles have a place and a meaning. They arise out of the personal relation betweenGod andman. The conviction that the pure of heart are pleasing toGod, in some mysterious way, is worldwide; even among theheathens pure offerings only are prepared for the sacrifice.

This intimate sense ofGod's presence may account for the universal tendency to refer all striking phenomena tosupernatural causes.Error and exaggeration do not change thenature of thebelief founded in the abiding conviction of theProvidence of God. To thisbeliefSt. Paul appealed in his discourse to the Athenians (Acts 17). In the miracle, therefore,God subordinates physicalnature to a higher purpose, and this higher purpose is identical with the highestmoral aims ofexistence. The mechanical view of the world is in harmony with theteleological, and when purpose exists, no event is isolated or unmeaning.Man iscreated forGod, and a miracle is theproof and pledge of Hissupernatural Providence. Hence we can understand how, in devoutminds, there is even apresumption for and an expectation of miracles. They show the subordination of the lower world to the higher, they are the breaking in of the higher world on the lower ("C. Gent.", III, xcviii, xcix;Benedict XIV, 1, c,1,IV, p. l.c.I).

Some writers — e.g.,Paley, Mansel, Mozley, Dr. George Fisher — push theChristian view to the extreme, and say that miracles arenecessary to attestrevelation.Catholictheologians, however, take a broader view. They hold

Testimony

A miracle, like any natural event, is known either from personal observation or from the testimony of others. In the miracle we have the fact itself as an external occurrence and its miraculous character. The miraculous character of the fact consists in this: that itsnature and the surrounding circumstances are of such a kind that we are forced to admit natural forces alone could not have produced it, and the only rational explanation is to be had in the interference ofDivine agency. The perception of its miraculous character is a rational act of themind, and is simply the application of the principle ofcausality with the methods ofinduction. The general rules governing the acceptance of testimony apply to miracles as to other facts of history. If we havecertain evidence for the fact, we are bound to accept it. The evidence for miracles, as for historical facts in general, depends on theknowledge andveracity of the narrators, i.e., they who testify to the occurrence of the events mustknow what they tell and tell thetruth. The extraordinarynature of the miracle requires more complete and accurate investigation. Such testimony we are not free to reject; otherwise we must deny all history whatsoever. We have no more rational warrant for rejecting miracles than for rejecting accounts of stellar eclipses. Hence, they who deny miracles have concentrated their efforts with the purpose of destroying the historical evidence for all miracles whatsoever and especially the evidence for the miracles of the Gospel.

Hume held that no testimony couldprove miracles, for it is more probable that the testimony isfalse than that the miracles aretrue. But

The attack by Hume on miracles in general has been applied to the miracles of theBible, and has received added weight from the denial ofDivine inspiration. Varying in form, its basic principle is the same, viz., thehumanism of theRenaissance applied totheology. Thus we have:

The interpretation theory

The oldrationalism of Semler Eichhorn, de Wette, and Paulus, who held the credibility of theBible records, but contended that they were a collection of writings composed by natural intelligence alone, and to be treated on the same plane with other natural productions of thehumanmind. They got rid of thesupernatural by a bold interpretation of miracles as purely natural facts. This is called the "interpretation" theory, and appears today under two forms:

Modifiedrationalism, which teaches that we are warranted in accepting a very considerable portion of the Gospel narratives as substantially historical, without being compelled tobelieve in any miracles. Hence they give credence to the accounts of thedemoniacs and healings, but allege that these wonders were wrought by, or in accordance with,natural law. Thus we have the electric theory of M. Corelli, the appeal to "moral therapeutics" by Matthew Arnold, and thepsychological theory advanced by Prof. Bousset of Gottingen, in which he claims thatChrist performed miracles by naturalmental powers of a superior kind (cf. "N. World", March 1896). But the attempt to explain the miracles of the Gospel either by the natural powers ofChrist, i.e.,mental ormoral superiority, or by peculiar states of the recipient,faith cure, and allied psychic phenomena, is arbitrary and nottrue to facts. In many of the miraclesfaith is not required, and is in fact absent this is shown, in the miracles of power, by the expressedfear of theApostles, e.g., atChrist stilling the tempest (Mark 4:40), atChrist on the waters (Mark 6:51), at the draught of fishes (Luke 5:8), and in the miracles of expelling demons. In some miraclesChrist requiresfaith, but thefaith is not the cause of the miracle, only thecondition of His exercising the power.

Others, like Holstein, Renan, and Huxley, follow de Wette, who explains the miracles as the emotional interpretation of commonplace events. They claim that the facts which occurred were substantially historical, but in the narrating were covered over with the interpretations of the writers. Hence, they say that, in studying theGospels, we must distinguish between the facts as they actually took place and the subjective emotions of those whowitnessed them, their strong excitement, tendency to exaggeration, and vividimagination. Thus they appeal not to the "fallacies of testimony" so much as to the "fallacies of the senses". But this attempt to transform theApostles into nervous visionaries cannot be held by an unbiasedmind. St. Peter clearly distinguished between a vision (Acts 10:17) and a reality (Acts 12), andSt. Paul mentions two cases ofvisions (Acts 22:17;2 Corinthians 12), the latter by way of contrast with his ordinary missionary life of labours and sufferings (2 Corinthians 11). Renan even goes so far as to present the glaring inconsistency of aChrist remarkable, as he says, formoral beauty of life anddoctrine, who nevertheless is guilty ofconscious deception, as, e.g., in the make-believe raising ofLazarus. This teaching is in reality a denial of testimony. The miracles ofChrist must be taken as a whole; and in the Gospel setting where they are presented as a part of his teaching and his life. On the ground of evidence there is no reason to make a distinction among them or to interpret them so that they become other than they are. The real reason is prejudgment onfalsephilosophical grounds with a view to get rid of thesupernatural element. In fact the conjectures and hypotheses proposed are far more improbable than the miracles themselves. Again, how thus explain the great miracle that the hero of a baseless legend, the impotent and deceitfulChrist, could be come the founder of theChristian Church and ofChristian civilization? Finally, this method violates the first principles of interpretation; for theNew Testament writers are not allowed to speak their own language.

The theory of Biblical Humanism

The fundamentalidea ofHegel'smetaphysic (viz., that existing things are the progressive manifestation of theidea, i.e., the absolute) gave aphilosophical basis for the organic conception of theuniverse, i.e., the Divine as organic to thehuman. Thusrevelation is presented as ahuman process, and history — e.g., theBible — is a record ofhuman experience, the product of ahumanlife. Thisphilosophy of history was applied to explain the miraculous in theGospels and appears under two forms: the Tübingen School and the "Mystical" School.

(a) the Tübingen School

Baur regards theHegelian process in its objective aspect, i.e., the facts as things. He held the books of theNew Testament to be states through which thehuman life and thought of earlyChristianity had passed. He attempted to do with reference to the origin what Gibbon tried with reference to the spread ofChristianity — i.e., get rid of thesupernatural by the tacit assumption that there were no miracles and by the enumeration of natural causes, chief of which was theMessianicidea to whichJesus accommodated Himself. The evolution element in Baur'sHumanism, however, constrained him to deny that we possess contemporaneous documents ofour Lord'slife, to hold that theNew Testament literature was the result of warring factions among the earlyChristians, and therefore of a much laterdate than tradition ascribes to it, and thatChrist was only the occasional cause ofChristianity. He accepted as genuine only the Epistles to theGalatians,Romans,1 and2 Corinthians, and theApocalypse. But the Epistles admitted by Baur show thatSt. Paulbelieved in miracles and asserted the actual occurrence of them as well-known facts both in regard toChrist and in regard to himself and the otherApostles (e.g.,Romans 15:18;1 Corinthians 1:22;12:10,2 Corinthians 12:12,Galatians 3:5, especially his repeated references to theResurrection of Christ,1 Corinthians 15). The basis on which the Tübingen School rests, viz., that we possess no contemporaneous records ofChrist's life, and that theNew Testament writings belong to the second century, has been proved to befalse by the higher criticisms. Hence Huxley admits that this position is no longer tenable (The Nineteenth Century, Feb., 1889), and in fact there is no longer a Tübingen School atTübingen. Harnack says: "As regards the criticisms of the sources ofChristianity, we stand unquestionably in a movement of return to tradition. The chronological framework in which tradition set the earliest documents is to be henceforth accepted in its main outlines" (The Nineteenth Cent., Oct., 1899). Hence Romanes said that the outcome of the battle on theBible documents is a signal victory forChristianity (Thoughts on Religion, p. 165). Dr. Emil Reich speaks of the bankruptcy of the higher criticism ("Contemp. Rev.", April, 1905).

(b) The "Mythical" School

Strauss regarded theHegelian process in its subjective aspect. The facts as matters ofconsciousness with the earlyChristians concerned him exclusively. Hence he regardedChrist within theChristianconsciousness of thetime, and held thatChrist of theNew Testament was the outcome of thisconsciousness. He did not deny a relatively small nucleus of historical reality, but contended that theGospels, as we possess them, are mythical inventions or fabulous and fanciful embellishments and are to be regarded only as symbols for spiritualideas, e.g., theMessianicidea. Strauss thus attempted to remove the miraculous — or what he considered the unhistorical matter — from the text. But this view was too fanciful long to hold currency after a careful study of the truthful, matter-of-fact character of theNew Testament writings, and a comparison of them with theApocrypha. Hence it has been rejected, and Strauss himself confessed to disappointment at the result of his labours (The Old and New Faith).

The Critical Agnostic School

Its basis is the organicidea of theuniverse, but it views the world process apart fromGod, becausereason cannotprove theexistence of God, and therefore, to theAgnostic, He does notexist (e.g., Huxley); or to theChristianAgnostic, Hisexistence is accepted onFaith (s.g., Baden-Powell). To both there is no miracle, for we have no way of knowing it. Thus Huxley admits the facts of miracles in theNew Testament, but says that the testimony as to their miraculous character may be worthless, and strives to explain it by the subjectivementalconditions of the writers ("The Nineteenth Cent.", Mar., 1889). Baden-Powell (in "Essays and Reviews"), Holtzmann (Die synoptischen Evangelien), and Harnack (The Essence of Christianity) admit the miracles as recorded in theGospels, but hold that their miraculous character is beyond the scope of historicalproof, and depends on themental assumptions of the readers.

Criticism

The real problem of the historian is to state well-authenticated facts and give an explanation of the testimony. He should show how such events must have taken place and how such a theory only can explain them. He takes cognizance of all that is said about these events by competentwitnesses, and from their testimony he draws the conclusion. To admit the facts and to deny an explanation is to furnish very great evidence for their historicaltruth, and to show qualities not consistent with thescientific historian.

The theory of liberal Protestantism

(a) Older form

In its older form, this was advocated by Carlyle (Froude's "Life of Carlyle"), Martineau (Seal of Authority in Religion), Rathbone Greg (Creed of Christendom), Prof. Wm. H. Green (Works, III pp. 230, 253), proposed as a religious creed under the title of the "newReformation" ("The Nineteenth Cent.", Mar., 1889) and popularized by Mrs. Humphry Ward in "Robert Elsmere." As the oldReformation was a movement to destroy the Divine authority of theChurch by exalting thesupernatural character of theBible, so the newReformation aimed at removing thesupernatural element from theBible and restingfaith inChristianity on the highmoral character ofJesus and the excellence of Hismoral teaching. It is in close sympathy with some writers on thescience of religion who see inChristianity a natural religion, though superior to other forms. In describing their position as "a revolt against miraculousbelief", its adherents yet profess great reverence forJesus as "that friend ofGod andMan, in whom, through all human frailty andnecessary imperfection, they see the natural head of their inmost life, the symbol of those religious forces inman which are primitive, essential and universal" ("The Nineteenth Cent.", Mar., 1889). By way of criticism it may be said that thisschool has its source in thephilosophical assumption that the uniformity ofnature has made the miracle unthinkable — an assumption now discarded. Again, it has its basis in the Tübingen School which has beenprovedfalse, and it requires a mutilation of theGospels so radical and wholesale that nearly every sentence has to be excised or rewritten. The miracles ofJesus are too essential a part of His life and teaching to be thus removed. We might as well expurgate the records of military achievements from the lives of Alexander or of Caesar. Strauss exposed the inconsistencies of this position, which he once held (Old Faith and the New), and von Hartmann considered theLiberaltheologians as causing the disintegration ofChristianity ("Selbstersetzung des Christ", 1888).

(b) Newer form

In its recent form, it has been advocated by the exponents of thepsychological theory. Hence, where the old school followed an objective, this pursues a subjective method. This theory combines the basic teaching ofHegel, Schleiermacher, andRitschl.Hegel taught that religioustruths are the figurative representation of rationalideas; Schleiermacher taught that propositions offaith are thepious states of the heart expressed in language;Ritschl, that the evidence ofChristian doctrine is in the "value judgment", i.e., the religious effect on themind; on this basis Prof. Gardner ("A Historical View of the New Test.", London, 1904) holds that no reasonableman would profess to disprove theChristian miracles historically; that in historical studies we must accept the principle of continuity as set forth by evolution, that the statements of theNew Testament are based mainly onChristian experience, in which there is always an element offalse theory; that we must distinguish between thetrue underlying fact and its defective outward expression; that this expression is conditioned by theintellectual atmosphere of thetime, and passes away to give place to a higher and better expression. Hence the outward expression ofChristianity should be different now from what it was in other days. Hence, while miracles may have had their value for the earlyChristians, they have no value for us, for our experience is different from theirs. Thus M. Réville ("Liberal Christianity", London, 1903) says: "Thefaith of a liberalProtestant does not depend upon the solution of a problem ofhistorical criticism. It is founded upon his own experience of the value and power of theGospel of Christ", and "TheGospel of Jesus is independent of its local and temporary forms" (pp. 54, 58). All this, however, isphilosophy, not history, it is notChristianity, butRationalism. So it inverts thetrue standard ofhistorical criticism — viz., we should study past events in the light of their own surroundings, and not from the subjective feeling on the part of the historian of what might, could, or would have occurred. There is no reason to restrict these principles to questions ofreligious history; and if extended to embrace the whole of past history, they would lead to absolutescepticism.

The fact

TheBible shows that at all timesGod has wrought miracles to attest the Revelation of His will.

(1) The miracles of theOld Testamentreveal theProvidence of God over His chosen people. They are convincingproof for the commission ofMoses (Exodus 3:4), manifest to the people thatJehovah is Sovereign Lord (Exodus 10:2,Deuteronomy 5:25), and are represented as the "finger ofGod" and "the hand ofGod."God punishesPharaoh for refusing to obey His commands given byMoses and attested by miracles, and is displeased with the infidelity of theJews for whom He worked many miracles (Numbers 14). Miracles convinced thewidow of Sarephta thatElias was "aman ofGod" (1 Kings 17:24), made the people cry out in the dispute betweenElias and theprophets ofBaal, "the Lord he isGod" (1 Kings 18:39),caused Naaman to confess that "there is no otherGod in all the earth, but only inIsrael" (2 Kings 5:15), ledNabuchodonosor to issue a public decree inhonour ofGod upon the escape of the Three Children from the fiery furnace (Daniel 3), and Darius to issue a like decree on the escape ofDaniel (Daniel 5). Theethical element is conspicuous in the miracles and is in consonance with the exaltedethical character ofJehovah, "a king of absolutejustice, whoselove for his people was conditioned by alaw of absolute righteousness, as foreign toSemitic as to Aryan tradition", writes Dr. Robertson Smith ("Religion of the Semites", p. 74, cf. Kuenen, Hibbert Lect., p. 124). Hence the tendency among recent writers on the history of religion to postulate the direct intervention ofGod throughrevelation as the only explanation for the exalted conception of theDeity set forth byMoses and theprophets.

(2) TheOld Testament reveals a highethical conception ofGod who works miracles for highethical purposes, and unfolds a dispensation ofprophecy leading up toChrist. In fulfillment of thisprophecyChrist works miracles. His answer to the messengers ofJohn the Baptist was that they should go and tellJohn what they had seen (Luke 7:22; cf.Isaiah 35:5). Thus theFathers of the Church, inproving thetruth of theChristian religion from the miracles ofChrist, join them withprophecy (Origen,Against Celsus I.2,Irenaeus,Against Heresies I.2.32;St. Augustine,Reply to Faustus XII).Jesus openly professed to work miracles. He appeals repeatedly to His "works" as most authentic and decisiveproof of His Divine Sonship (John 5:18-36;10:24-37) and of His mission (John 14:12), and for this reason condemns the obstinacy of theJews as inexcusable (John 15:22, 24). He worked miracles to establish theKingdom of God (Matthew 12;Luke 11), gave to theApostles (Matthew 10:8) anddisciples (Luke 10:9, 19) the power of working miracles, thereby instructing them to follow the same method, and promised that thegift of miracles should persist in theChurch (Mark 16:17). At the sight of His marvellous works, theJews (Matthew 9:8),Nicodemus (John 3:2), and the man born blind (John 9:33) confess that they must be ascribed to Divine power.

Pfleiderer accepts thesecond Gospel as theauthentic work ofSt. Mark, and this Gospel is a compact account of miracles wrought byChrist. Ewald and Weiss speak of the miracles ofChrist as a daily task. Miracles are not accidental or external to theChrist of theGospels; they are inseparably bound up with Hissupernaturaldoctrine andsupernatural life — a life anddoctrine which is the fulfillment ofprophecy and the source ofChristian civilization. Miracles form the verysubstance of the Gospel narratives, so that, if removed, there would remain no recognizable plan of work and no intelligent portrait of the worker. We have the same evidence for miracles that we have forChrist. Dr. Holtzmann says that the very traits whose astonishing combination in oneperson presents the highest kind of historical evidence for Hisexistence are indissolubly connected with miracles. Unless we accept miracles, we have no Gospel history. Admit thatChrist wrought many miracles, or confess that we do notknow Him at all — in fact, that He never existed. The historicalChrist of theGospels stands before us remarkable in the charm ofpersonality, extraordinary in the elevation of life and beauty ofdoctrine, strikingly consistent in tenor of life, exercising Divine power in varied ways and at every turn. He rises supreme over, and apart from, His surroundings and cannot be regarded as the fruit ofindividual invention or as the product of the age. The simplest clearest, only explanation is that the testimony istrue. They who deny have yet to offer an explanation strong enough to withstand the criticism of thesceptics themselves.

(3) The testimony of theApostles to miracles is twofold:

(4) Dr. Middleton holds that all miracles ceased with theApostles. Mozley and Milman ascribe later miracles topious myths,fraud, andforgery. Trench admits that few points present greater difficulty than the attempt to determine the exact period when the power of working miracles was withdrawn from theChurch. This position is one of polemical bias against theCatholicChurch, just as presumptions of various kinds are behind all attacks on the miracles ofscripture.

Now we are notobliged to accept every miracle alleged as such. The evidence of testimony is our warrant, and for miracles ofchurch history we have testimony of the most complete kind. If it should happen that, after careful investigation, a supposed miracle should turn out to be no miracle at all, a distinct service totruth would be rendered. Throughout the course ofchurch history there are miracles so well authenticated that theirtruth cannot be denied.

Hence Gibbon says, "TheChristian Church, from thetime of theApostles and theirdisciples, has claimed an uninterrupted succession of miraculous powers, thegift of tongues, ofvisions and ofprophecy, the power of expelling demons, of healing the sick and of raising the dead" (Decline and Fall, I, pp. 264, 288), thus miracles are so interwoven with our religion, so connected with its origin, its promulgation its progress and whole history, that it is impossible to separate them from it. Theexistence of theChurch, thekingdom of God on earth, in whichChrist and HisHoly Spirit abide, rendered illustrious by the miraculous lives ofsaints of all countries and all times, is a perpetual standingwitness for the reality of miracles (Bellarmine, "De notis eccl.", LIV, xiv). The well-attested records are to be found in the official Processes for thecanonization ofsaints. Mozley held that an enormous distinction exists between the miracles of the Gospel and those ofchurch history, through thefalse notion that the sole purpose of miracles was the attestation ofrevealedtruth:Newman denies the contention and shows that both are of the same type and as well-authenticated by historical evidence.

Place and value of the gospel miracles

In studying the Gospel miracles we are impressed by the accounts given of their multitude, and by the fact that only a very small proportion of them is related by theEvangelists in detail; theGospels speak only in the most general terms of the miraclesChrist performed in the great missionary journeys throughGalilee andJudea. We read that the people, seeing the things which He did, followed Him in crowds (Matthew 4:25), to the number of 5000 (Luke 9:14) so that He could not enter the cities, and His fame spread fromJerusalem throughSyria (Matthew 4:24). Hisreputation was so great that the chiefpriests in council speak of Him as one who "doth many miracles" (John 11:47), thedisciples atEmmaus as the "prophet, mighty in work and word beforeGod and all the people" (Luke 24:19), and St. Peter describes Him toCornelius as the wonder-working preacher (Acts 10:38). Out of the great mass of miraculous events surroundingour Lord's person, theEvangelists made a selection.True, it was impossible to narrate all (John 20:30). Yet we can see in the narrated miracles a twofold reason for the selection.

(1) The great purpose of theRedemption was the manifestation ofGod'sglory in thesalvation ofman through thelife and work of HisIncarnate Son. Thus it ranks supreme among the works ofGod's Providence over men.

This explains thelife and teaching ofChrist; it enables us to grasp the scope and plan of His miracles. They can be considered in relation to the office andperson ofChrist as Redeemer. Thus

The relief whichChrist brought to the body represented the deliverance He was working onsouls. His miracles of cures and healings were the visible picture of His spiritual work in thewarfare withevil. These miracles, summarized in the answer ofJesus to the messengers of John (Matthew 11:5), are explained by theFathers of the Church with reference to the ills of thesoul (ST III:44). The motive and meaning of the miracles explain the moderationChrist showed in the use of Hisinfinite power. Repose in strength is a sublime trait in thecharacter of Jesus; it comes from theconscious possession of power to be used for thegood of men. Rousseau confesses "All the miracles ofJesus were useful without pomp or display, but simple as His words, Hislife, His whole conduct" (Lettr. de la Montag., pt. I, lett. iii). He does not perform them for the sake of being a mere worker of miracles. Everything He does has a meaning when viewed in the relationChrist holds to men. In the class known as miracles of powerJesus does not show a meremental andmoral superiority over ordinary men. In virtue of His redeeming mission Heproves that He is Lord and Master of the forces ofnature. Thus by a word He stills the tempest, by a word He multiplied a few loaves and fishes so that thousands feasted and were filled, by a word He healedlepers, drove outdemons, raised the dead tolife, and finally set the great seal upon His mission by rising from death, as He had explicitly foretold. Thus Renan admits that "even the marvellous in theGospels is but sobergood sense compared with that which we meet in the Jewishapocryphal writings or theHindu orEuropean mythologies" (Stud. in Hist. of Relig., pp. 177 203).

Hence the miracles ofChrist have adoctrinal import. They have a vital connection with His teaching and mission, illustrate thenature and purpose of His kingdom, and show a connection with some of the greatest doctrines and principles of HisChurch. Its catholicity is shown in the miracles of thecenturion's servant (Matthew 8) and the Syro-phoenicianwoman (Mark 7). The Sabbatical miracles reveal its purpose, i.e., thesalvation of men, and show thatChrist's kingdom marks the passing of theOld Dispensation. His miracles teach the power offaith and the answer given toprayer. The centraltruth of His teaching was life. He came to give life to men, and this teaching is emphasized by raising the dead tolife, especially in the case ofLazarus and His ownResurrection. Thesacramental teaching of the miracles is manifested in the miracle ofCana (John 2), in the cure of the paralytic, to show he had the power to forgivesins [and he used this power (Matthew 9) and gave it to theApostles (John 20:23) ], in the multiplication of the loaves (John 6) and in raising the dead. Finally, the prophetic element of the fortunes of theindividual and of theChurch is shown in the miracles of stilling the tempest, ofChrist on the waters, of the draught of fishes, of the didrachma and the barren fig tree.Jesus makes the miracle ofLazarus the type of theGeneral Resurrection, just as theApostles take theResurrection of Christ to signify the rising of thesoul from the death ofsin to the life of grace, and to be a pledge andprophecy of the victory oversin and death and of thefinal resurrection (1 Thessalonians 4).

(2) The miracles ofChrist have an evidential value. This aspect naturally follows from the above considerations. In the first miracle atCana He "manifested Hisglory", therefore thedisciples "believed in Him" (John 2:11).Jesus constantly appealed to His "works" as evidences of His mission and His divinity. He declares that His miracles have greater evidential value than the testimony ofJohn the Baptist (John 5:36); theirlogical andtheological force as evidences is expressed byNicodemus (John 3:2). And to the miraclesJesus adds the evidence ofprophecy (John 5:31). Now their value as evidences for the people then living is found not only in the display ofomnipotence in His redeeming mission but also in the multitude of His works. Thus the unrecorded miracles had an evidential bearing on His mission. So we can see an evidential reason for the selection of the miracles as narrated in theGospels.

Thus, for us, who depend on the Gospel narratives, the evidential value ofChrist's miracles comes from a comparatively small number related in detail, though of a most stupendous and clearlysupernatural kind, some of which were performed almost in private and followed by the strictest injunctions not to publish them. In considering them as evidences in relation to us now living, we may add to them the constant reference to the multitude of miracles unrecorded in detail, their intimate connection withour Lord's teaching andlife, their relation to theprophecies of theOld Testament, their own prophetic character as fulfilled in the development of His kingdom on earth.

Special providences

Prayer is a great fact, which finds expression in a persistent manner and enters intimately into the life ofhumanity. So universal is the act ofprayer that it seems aninstinct and part of our being. It is the fundamental fact of religion, and religion is a universal phenomenon of thehuman race.Christianphilosophy teaches that in his spiritualnatureman is made to the image and likeness ofGod, therefore hissoul instinctively turns to hisMaker in aspirations of worship, ofhope, and ofintercession.

The real value ofprayer has been a vital subject for discussion in modern times. Some hold that its value lies only in its being a factor in the culture of themoral life, by giving tone and strength tocharacter. Thus Professor Tyndall, in his famous Belfast address, proposed this view, maintaining that modernscience hasproved the physical value ofprayer to be unbelievable (Fragments of Science). He based his contention on the uniformity ofnature. But this basis is now no longer held as an obstacle toprayer for physical benefits. Others, like Baden-Powell (Order of Nature) admit thatGod answersprayer for spiritual favours, but denies its value for physical effects. But his basis is the same as that of Tyndall, and besides an answer for spiritual benefits is in fact an interference on the part ofGod innature.

NowChristianphilosophy teaches thatGod, in answer toprayer confers not only spiritual favours but at times interferes with the ordinary course of physical phenomena, so that, as a result, particular events happen otherwise than they should. This interference takes place in miracles and special providences.

When we kneel topray we do not always begGod to work miracles or that our lives shall be constant prodigies of His power. The sense of our littleness gives anhumble and reverential spirit to ourprayer. Wetrust thatGod, through HisInfiniteknowledge and power, will in some way best known to Him bring about what we ask. Hence, by special providences we mean events which happen in the course ofnature and oflife through the instrumentality of naturallaws. We cannot discern either in the event itself or in the manner of its happening any deviation from the known course of things. What we doknow, however, is that events shape themselves in response to ourprayer. Thelaws ofnature are invariable, yet one important factor must not be forgotten: that thelaws ofnature may produce an effect, the sameconditions must be present. If theconditions vary, then the effects also vary. By altering theconditions, other tendencies ofnature are made predominant, and the forces which otherwise would work out their effects yield to stronger forces. In this way our will interferes with the workings of natural forces and with human tendencies, as is shown in our intercourse with men and in the science of government.

Now, if such power rests with men, canGod do less? Can we notbelieve that, at ourprayer,God may cause theconditions of natural phenomena so to combine that, through His special agency, we may obtain our heart's desire and yet so that, to the ordinary observer, the event happens in its ordinary place andtime. To the devoutsoul, however, all is different. He recognizesGod's favour and is devoutly thankful for the fatherly care. He knows thatGod has brought the event about in some way. When, therefore, wepray for rain or to avert a calamity, or to prevent the ravages of plague, we beg not so much for miracles or signs ofomnipotence: we ask that He who holds the heavens in His hands and who searches the abyss will listen to our petitions and, in His owngood way, bring about the answer we need.

CONTACT US |ADVERTISE WITH NEW ADVENT