5. Post-Reformation Theories
invisible spiritual miracles wrought by
Reformation
the Word and the sacraments. Other
early Protestants considered miracles
Theories. as divine suspensions of the ordinary
course of nature, while Leibnitz main
tained that miracles, like the hearing of prayer,
were components of the original plan of the cosmos
which must
necessarily be realized. Spinoza, on
the other hand, denied the possibility of miracles,
except on the impossible hypothesis that the will
of God and the law of nature, although identical,
are different. The term miracle can, therefore, be
applied only relatively to a phenomenon the cause
of which is unknown. Hume made a still more
vital attack on miracles by declaring the testimony
for them too feeble to make them credible. During
the period of the Enlightenment belief in mira
cles was gradually surrendered, and they were ex
plained either as natural phenomena or as adapted
to the views of their time, very much as Spinoza
had explained them as projections of the mental
processes of those who recorded them or as making
God the first cause to the exclusion of mediate
causes. Like Strauss, many modern theologians
discredit miracles in the strict sense of the term,
though positing the operation of marvelous powers
of a higher order. Even though the great religious
revival early in the nineteenth century rehabilitated
belief in miracles, opposition to this belief hag
never disappeared, and still constitutes to many
the great barrier to faith in Christianity. Once the
foundation of all apologetics,. miracles have now
become the great apologetic crux.
A study in the concept of miracles can not begin
with a general discussion of their possibility or impossibility, but with the problem whether the assertion of their existence is essential to the
religious
life of the Christian. The authority of the Bible,
which affirms miracles, can not be appealed to, for
this depends solely on religious experience, which
is not concerned with historic events, natural phe
nomena, or Biblical cosmology. The investigator
must pass thus from the Bible to im-
4. Theory mediate religious experience where,
and Proof through
the preaching of the Word,
of Miracles. the Christian experiences a non-natural
istic power of an almighty will which,
continuing and ever increasing, in itself constitutes
a miracle in that it is by no means identical with
the earthly agency through which it works, and re
veals a power exalted above its surroundings. This
coexistence of divine operation and natural phe
nomenon must be considered the chief character
istic of every sort of miracle. Revelation thus be
comes a miracle, and miracle becomes revelation.
Accordingly, in all the phases of life the Christian
is convinced that God orders the world for the good
of them that believe on him, and this in the small
est as in the greatest details. Even events which
may be explained on purely natural grounds-as
when Augustine heard the words Tolle, lege (see
Augustine,1., 1, ยง 9)-may be considered miracles
in so far as God is regarded as operating through
them. From this point of view any event may be
regarded as
either miraculous or natural, according
to the sensations which it evokes. If the experience
of the revelation of God is thus experience of
the miraculous, the divine revelation in question,
operative through previous ages in a complex of
concepts, naturally entered at a definite point in
history. If, moreover, these concepts were per
manent vehicles of the marvelous operation of God,
those who first advanced them could form them
only on the basis of their experience of the miracu
lous works of God. In confirmation of this, history
shows that the Gospel bears witness to great historic
facts judged from a specific point of view. In other
words, the Gospel arose from witnessing miraculous
facts, and is simply a record and explanation of these
facts. Therefore the Christian takes a very different
attitude toward them than toward other ancient
religious records. The miracles here considered
are almost invariably phenomena diverging from
the regular course of nature. While it may be denied
that some of the recorded miracles actually occurred,
while it may be supposed that circumstances at
tending some of them were not quite those which
were described, and while it may be alleged that
they have been more or less modified involuntarily
in transmission, it must be remembered that they
were all wrought to proclaim knowledge of God or
of Christ. Herein they were successful. The critic,
on the other hand, has merely a report of an ex
ternal event and of the impression upon the witness
that this event was divine. The actual proc
esses which led these witnesses to adjudge the
events in question to be miraculous the critic can
never know with certainty, and this lack of knowl
edge must be reckoned as a factor in the criticism
of miracles. If, however, the uniform impression
received by Christ's disciples from his many mira
cles be considered, it may be regarded as certain
that this impression represents the true understanding
of the miraculous works of Christ.
Two general objections may be alleged against
the historicity of the miracles recorded in the Bible:
their violation of natural law; and the fact that
they occurred in a credulous age. Considering the
latter objection first, it is
true that the ancients,
including the Jews, not only did not
5. Arguments
consider divine intervention of the
deity to be suspicious or impossible,
against but they absolutely required such vis-
Miracles. ible divine manifestations. Especially
was this the case if they were to be
lieve that Christ was really divine. Again, the history
of divine
revelation shows that God has always
given it the forms best adapted to the requirements
of the age. The fact, therefore, that exter
nal miracles no longer occur implies simply that
they are no longer needed for faith; but this does
not militate in the least against the occurrence of
miracles in periods of an entirely different character.
Neither does the theory that miracles were
merely types of attitude molded by the needs of
ancient gods disprove the actuality of miracles. All
these hypotheses are based on the unhistorical ra
tionalistic notion that things must always have
been as it is now thought they should be. It is
also alleged that miracles are contrary to the law
of nature. The laws of nature, however, are nothing
but formulas describing the regular operations
of natural phenomena; but if the concept of God
be introduced, they may then be regarded as ex
pressing the divine will, so that the course of the
world in conformity with the laws of nature is in
no way opposed to the will of God. Yet even as
man, by attentively studying the laws of nature,
is enabled to rise above nature and to produce re
sults which nature itself can not produce, since he
unites regular processes of nature in new combinations
for the attainment of the end which he de
sires without annulling or impairing the original
potencies or laws of nature, so miracles should not
be construed as abrogations or violations of the
laws of nature, but as special adaptation of the
forces of nature for a specific and divine purpose.
In the present article three classes of miracles
have been postulated: the constant miracle of the
revelation of God; the operation of
6. Classification
God in purely natural and orderly
of events of human life; and the revela-
Miracles. tion of God by irregular natural phe
nomena at a specific period. The
question now arises as to
the relation
between these
three classes, the first of which is usually ignored,
while the second and the third are distinguished as
subjectively and objectively miraculous respec
tively. At the same time, the great characteristic
of a miracle, the arousing of consciousness of an
external process, is common to all three classes, so
that they all share in miraculousness. In the first
and second class the miraculous process is in accordance
with natural law, while in the third class it is
irregular. Since, however, it can not be shown
that the abnormal events in question are either op
posed to nature or subversive of cosmic order, it
follows that a miracle is not the producing of a more
or less regular phenomenon, but the divine adaptation
of an earthly event to make the presence of
God immediately operative or to convince man of
the divine presence in the event in question. The
essential difference between the third class of mira
cles and the other two classes can not, therefore, be
maintained. A distinction may, however, be drawn
between the miracles of the period of divine
revelation
and the later miracles manifested in the outworking
of this revelation in the history of the human
race. From this point of view there are four classes
of miracles, the first two comprising immediate rev
elation and the last two mediate revelation; the
spiritual miracle of the revelation which produced
the Word of God (inspiration); the miracles mani
fested in history and nature to bring forth the Word
of God; the miracles of the spiritual operation of
the Word of God; and the miracles of faith worked
by the divine guidance of the life of man.
(R. Seeberg.)
