OF MIRACLES[10]
As men are accustomed to call Divine the knowledge which transcends
human understanding, so also do they style Divine, or the work of God,
anything of which the cause is not generally known: for the masses think
that the power and providence of God are most clearly displayed by
events that are extraordinary and contrary to the conception they have
formed of Nature, especially if such events bring them any profit or
convenience: they think that the clearest possible proof of God's
existence is afforded when Nature, as they suppose, breaks her
accustomed order, and consequently they believe that those who explain
or endeavor to understand phenomena or miracles through their natural
causes are doing away with God and His providence. They suppose,
forsooth, that God is inactive so long as Nature works in her accustomed
order, and _vice versa_, that the power of Nature and natural causes are
idle so long as God is acting: thus they imagine two powers distinct one
from the other, the power of God and the power of Nature, though the
latter is in a sense determined by God, or (as most people believe now)
created by Him. What they mean by either, and what they understand by
God and Nature they do not know, except that they imagine the power of
God to be like that of some royal potentate, and Nature's power to
consist in force and energy.
The masses then style unusual phenomena "miracles," and partly from
piety, partly for the sake of opposing the students of science, prefer
to remain in ignorance of natural causes, and only to hear of those
things which they know least, and consequently admire most. In fact, the
common people can only adore God, and refer all things to His power by
removing natural causes, and conceiving things happening out of their
due course, and only admires the power of God when the power of Nature
is conceived of as in subjection to it.
This idea seems to have taken its rise among the early Jews who saw the
Gentiles round them worshiping visible gods, such as the sun, the moon,
the earth, water, air, etc., and in order to inspire the conviction that
such divinities were weak and inconstant, or changeable, told how they
themselves were under the sway of an invisible God, and narrated their
miracles, trying further to show that the God whom they worshiped
arranged the whole of nature for their sole benefit. This idea was so
pleasing to humanity that men go on to this day imagining miracles, so
that they may believe themselves God's favorites and the final cause for
which God created and directs all things.
What pretensions will not people in their folly advance! They have no
single sound idea concerning either God or Nature, they confound God's
decrees with human decrees, they conceive Nature as so limited that
they believe man to be its chief part! I have spent enough space in
setting forth these common ideas and prejudices concerning Nature and
miracles, but in order to afford a regular demonstration I will show:
1. That Nature cannot be contravened, but that she preserves a fixed and
immutable order, and at the same time I will explain what is meant by a
miracle.
2. That God's nature and existence, and consequently His providence,
cannot be known from miracles, but that they can all be much better
perceived from the fixed and immutable order of Nature.
3. That by the decrees and volitions, and consequently the providence of
God, Scripture (as I will prove by Scriptural examples) means nothing
but Nature's order following necessarily from her eternal laws.
4. Lastly, I will treat of the method of interpreting Scriptural
miracles, and the chief points to be noted concerning the narratives of
them.
Such are the principal subjects which will be discussed in this chapter,
and which will serve, I think, not a little to further the object of
this treatise.
Our first point is easily proved from what we showed in Chapter V about
Divine law--namely, that all that God wishes or determines involves
eternal necessity and truth, for we demonstrated that God's
understanding is identical with His will, and that it is the same thing
to say that God wills a thing, as to say that He understands it; hence,
as it follows necessarily from the Divine nature and perfection that God
understands a thing as it is, it follows no less necessarily that He
wills it as it is. Now, as nothing is necessarily true save only by
Divine decree, it is plain that the universal laws of Nature are decrees
of God following from the necessity and perfection of the Divine nature.
Hence, any event happening in nature which contravened Nature's
universal laws, would necessarily also contravene the Divine decree,
nature, and understanding; or if any one asserted that God acts in
contravention to the laws of Nature, he, _ipso facto_, would be
compelled to assert that God acted against His own nature--an evident
absurdity. One might easily show from the same premises that the power
and efficiency of Nature are in themselves the Divine power and
efficiency, and that the Divine power is the very essence of God, but
this I gladly pass over for the present.
Nothing, then, comes to pass in Nature[11] in contravention to her
universal laws, nay, everything agrees with them and follows from them,
for whatsoever comes to pass, comes to pass by the will and eternal
decree of God; that is, as we have just pointed out, whatever comes to
pass, comes to pass according to laws and rules which involve eternal
necessity and truth; Nature, therefore, always observes laws and rules
which involve eternal necessity and truth, although they may not all be
known to us, and therefore she keeps a fixed and immutable order. Nor is
there any sound reason for limiting the power and efficacy of Nature,
and asserting that her laws are fit for certain purposes, but not for
all; for as the efficacy and power of Nature are the very efficacy and
power of God, and as the laws and rules of Nature are the decrees of
God, it is in every way to be believed that the power of Nature is
infinite, and that her laws are broad enough to embrace everything
conceived by the Divine intellect. The only alternative is to assert
that God has created Nature so weak, and has ordained for her laws so
barren, that He is repeatedly compelled to come afresh to her aid if He
wishes that she should be preserved, and that things should happen as He
desires: a conclusion, in my opinion, very far removed from reason.
Further, as nothing happens in Nature which does not follow from her
laws, and as her laws embrace everything conceived by the Divine
intellect, and, lastly, as Nature preserves a fixed and immutable order,
it most clearly follows that miracles are only intelligible as in
relation to human opinions, and merely mean events of which the natural
cause cannot be explained by a reference to any ordinary occurrence,
either by us, or at any rate by the writer and narrator of the miracle.
We may, in fact, say that a miracle is an event of which the causes
cannot be explained by the natural reason through a reference to
ascertained workings of Nature; but since miracles were wrought
according to the understanding of the masses, who are wholly ignorant of
the workings of Nature, it is certain that the ancients took for a
miracle whatever they could not explain by the method adopted by the
unlearned in such cases, namely, an appeal to the memory, a recalling of
something similar, which is ordinarily regarded without wonder; for most
people think they sufficiently understand a thing when they have ceased
to wonder at it. The ancients, then, and indeed most men up to the
present day, had no other criterion for a miracle; hence we cannot doubt
that many things are narrated in Scripture as miracles of which the
causes could easily be explained by reference to ascertained workings of
Nature. We have hinted as much in Chapter III, in speaking of the sun
standing still in the time of Joshua, and going backwards in the time of
Ahaz; but we shall soon have more to say on the subject when we come to
treat of the interpretation of miracles later on in this chapter.
It is now time to pass on to the second point, and show that we cannot
gain an understanding of God's essence, existence, or providence by
means of miracles, but that these truths are much better perceived
through the fixed and immutable order of Nature.
I thus proceed with the demonstration. As God's existence is not
self-evident, it must necessarily be inferred from ideas so firmly and
incontrovertibly true that no power can be postulated or conceived
sufficient to impugn them. They ought certainly so to appear to us when
we infer from them God's existence, if we wish to place our conclusion
beyond the reach of doubt; for if we could conceive that such ideas
could be impugned by any power whatsoever, we should doubt of their
truth, we should doubt of our conclusion, namely, of God's existence,
and should never be able to be certain of anything. Further, we know
that nothing either agrees with or is contrary to Nature, unless it
agrees with or is contrary to these primary ideas; wherefore if we would
conceive that anything could be done in Nature by any power whatsoever
which would be contrary to the laws of Nature, it would also be
contrary to our primary ideas, and we should have either to reject it as
absurd, or else to cast doubt (as just shown) on our primary ideas, and
consequently on the existence of God, and on everything howsoever
perceived. Therefore miracles, in the sense of events contrary to the
laws of Nature, so far from demonstrating to us the existence of God,
would, on the contrary, lead us to doubt it, where, otherwise, we might
have been absolutely certain of it, as knowing that Nature follows a
fixed and immutable order.
Let us take miracle as meaning that which cannot be explained through
natural causes. This may be interpreted in two senses: either as that
which has natural causes, but cannot be examined by the human intellect;
or as that which has no cause save God and God's will. But as all things
which come to pass through natural causes come to pass also solely
through the will and power of God, it comes to this: that a miracle,
whether it has natural causes or not, is a result which cannot be
explained by its cause, that is a phenomenon which surpasses human
understanding; but from such a phenomenon, and certainly from a result
surpassing our understanding, we can gain no knowledge. For whatsoever
we understand clearly and distinctly should be plain to us either in
itself or by means of something else clearly and distinctly understood;
wherefore from a miracle or a phenomenon which we cannot understand we
can gain no knowledge of God's essence, or existence, or indeed anything
about God or nature; whereas when we know that all things are ordained
and ratified by God, that the operations of Nature follow from the
essence of God, and that the laws of Nature are eternal decrees and
volitions of God, we must perforce conclude that our knowledge of God
and of God's will increases in proportion to our knowledge and clear
understanding of Nature, as we see how she depends on her primal cause,
and how she works according to eternal law. Wherefore so far as our
understanding goes, those phenomena which we clearly and distinctly
understand have much better right to be called works of God, and to be
referred to the will of God than those about which we are entirely
ignorant, although they appeal powerfully to the imagination, and compel
men's admiration.
It is only phenomena that we clearly and distinctly understand which
heighten our knowledge of God and most clearly indicate His will and
decrees. Plainly, they are but triflers who, when they cannot explain a
thing, run back to the will of God; this is, truly, a ridiculous way of
expressing ignorance. Again, even supposing that some conclusion could
be drawn from miracles, we could not possibly infer from them the
existence of God; for a miracle being an event under limitations is the
expression of a fixed and limited power, therefore we could not possibly
infer from an effect of this kind the existence of a cause whose power
is infinite, but at the utmost only of a cause whose power is greater
than that of the said effect. I say at the utmost, for a phenomenon may
be the result of many concurrent causes, and its power may be less than
the power of the sum of such causes, but far greater than that of any
one of them taken individually. On the other hand, the laws of nature,
as we have shown, extend over infinity, and are conceived by us as,
after a fashion, eternal, and Nature works in accordance with them in a
fixed and immutable order; therefore, such laws indicate to us in a
certain degree the infinity, the eternity and the immutability of God.
We may conclude, then, that we cannot gain knowledge of the existence
and providence of God by means of miracles, but that we can far better
infer them from the fixed and immutable order of Nature. By miracle I
here mean an event which surpasses, or is thought to surpass, human
comprehension: for in so far as it is supposed to destroy or interrupt
the order of Nature or her laws, it not only can give us no knowledge of
God, but, contrariwise, takes away that which we naturally have, and
makes us doubt of God and everything else.
Neither do I recognize any difference between an event against the laws
of Nature and an event beyond the laws of Nature (that is, according to
some, an event which does not contravene Nature, though she is
inadequate to produce or effect it), for a miracle is wrought in, and
not beyond Nature, though it may be said in itself to be above Nature,
and, therefore, must necessarily interrupt the order of Nature, which
otherwise we conceive of as fixed and unchangeable, according to God's
decrees. If therefore anything should come to pass in Nature which does
not follow from her laws, it would also be in contravention to the order
which God has established in Nature forever through universal natural
laws. It would, therefore, be in contravention to God's nature and laws,
and, consequently belief in it would throw doubt upon everything, and
lead to Atheism.
I think I have now sufficiently established my second point, so that we
can again conclude that a miracle, whether in contravention to, or
beyond, Nature, is a mere absurdity; and therefore that what is meant in
Scripture by a miracle can only be a work of Nature, which surpasses, or
is believed to surpass, human comprehension. Before passing on to my
third point, I will adduce Scriptural authority for my assertion that
God cannot be known from miracles. Scripture nowhere states the doctrine
openly, but it can readily be inferred from several passages. Firstly,
that in which Moses commands (Deut. xiii.) that a false prophet should
be put to death, even though he work miracles: "If there arise a prophet
among you, and giveth thee a sign or wonder, and the sign or wonder come
to pass, saying, Let us go after other gods ... thou shalt not hearken
unto the voice of that prophet; for the Lord your God proveth you, and
that prophet shall be put to death." From this it clearly follows that
miracles could be wrought even by false prophets; and that, unless men
are honestly endowed with the true knowledge and love of God, they may
be as easily led by miracles to follow false gods as to follow the true
God; for these words are added: "For the Lord your God tempts you, that
He may know whether you love Him with all your heart and with all your
mind."
Further, the Israelites, from all their miracles, were unable to form a
sound conception of God, as their experience testified: for when they
had persuaded themselves that Moses had departed from among them they
petitioned Aaron to give them visible gods; and the idea of God they had
formed as the result of all their miracles was a calf!...
I now go on to my _third_ point, and show from Scripture that the
decrees and mandates of God, and consequently His providence, are merely
the order of Nature--that is, when Scripture describes an event as
accomplished by God or God's will, we must understand merely that it was
in accordance with the law and order of Nature, not, as most people
believe, that Nature had for a season ceased to act, or that her order
was temporarily interrupted. But Scripture does not directly teach
matters unconnected with its doctrine, wherefore it has no care to
explain things by their natural causes, nor to expound matters merely
speculative. Wherefore our conclusion must be gathered by inference from
those Scriptural narratives which happen to be written more at length
and circumstantially than usual. Of these I will cite a few.
In the first book of Samuel (ix. 15, 16), it is related that God
revealed to Samuel that He would send Saul to him, yet God did not send
Saul to Samuel as people are wont to send one man to another. His
"sending" was merely the ordinary course of Nature. Saul was looking for
the asses he had lost, and was meditating a return home without them,
when, at the suggestion of his servant, he went to the Prophet Samuel,
to learn from him where he might find them. From no part of the
narrative does it appear that Saul had any command from God to visit
Samuel beyond this natural motive....
But perhaps some one will insist that we find many things in Scripture
which seem in nowise explicable by natural causes, as, for instance,
that the sins of men and their prayers can be the cause of rain and of
the earth's fertility, or that faith can heal the blind, and so on. But
I think I have already made sufficient answer: I have shown that
Scripture does not explain things by their secondary causes, but only
narrates them in the order and the style which has most power to move
men, and especially uneducated men, to devotion; and therefore it speaks
inaccurately of God and of events, seeing that its object is not to
convince the reason, but to attract and lay hold of the imagination. If
the Bible were to describe the destruction of an empire in the style of
political historians, the masses would remain unstirred, whereas the
contrary is the case when it adopts the method of poetic description,
and refers all things immediately to God. When, therefore, the Bible
says that the earth is barren because of men's sins, or that the blind
were healed by faith, we ought to take no more notice than when it says
that God is angry at men's sins, that He is sad, that He repents of the
good He has promised and done; or that on seeing a sign He remembers
something He had promised, and other similar expressions, which are
either thrown out poetically or related according to the opinion and
prejudices of the writer.
We may then be absolutely certain that every event which is truly
described in Scripture necessarily happened, like everything else,
according to natural laws; and if anything is there set down which can
be proved in set terms to contravene the order of Nature, or not to be
deducible therefrom, we must believe it to have been foisted into the
sacred writings by irreligious hands; for whatsoever is contrary to
Nature is also contrary to reason, and whatsoever is contrary to reason
is absurd, and, _ipso facto_, to be rejected.
There remain some points concerning the interpretation of miracles to be
noted, or rather to be recapitulated, for most of them have been already
stated. These I proceed to discuss in the fourth division of my subject,
and I am led to do so lest any one should, by wrongly interpreting a
miracle, rashly suspect that he has found something in Scripture
contrary to human reason.
It is very rare for men to relate an event simply as it happened,
without adding any element of their own judgment. When they hear or see
anything new, they are, unless strictly on their guard, so occupied with
their own preconceived opinions that they perceive something quite
different from the plain facts seen or heard, especially if such facts
surpass the comprehension of the beholder or hearer, and, most of all,
if he is interested in their happening in a given way.
Thus men relate in chronicles and histories their own opinions rather
than actual events, so that one and the same event is so differently
related by two men of different opinions, that it seems like two
separate occurrences; and, further, it is very easy from historical
chronicles to gather the personal opinions of the historian.
I could cite many instances in proof of this from the writings both of
natural philosophers and historians, but I will content myself with one
only from Scripture, and leave the reader to judge of the rest.
In the time of Joshua the Hebrews held the ordinary opinion that the sun
moves with a daily motion, and that the earth remains at rest; to this
preconceived opinion they adapted the miracle which occurred during
their battle with the five kings. They did not simply relate that that
day was longer than usual, but asserted that the sun and moon stood
still, or ceased from their motion--a statement which would be of great
service to them at that time in convincing and proving by experience to
the Gentiles, who worshiped the sun, that the sun was under the control
of another deity who could compel it to change its daily course. Thus,
partly through religious motives, partly through preconceived opinions,
they conceived of and related the occurrence as something quite
different from what really happened.
Thus in order to interpret the Scriptural miracles and understand from
the narration of them how they really happened, it is necessary to know
the opinions of those who first related them, and have recorded them for
us in writing, and to distinguish such opinions from the actual
impression made upon their senses, otherwise we shall confound opinions
and judgments with the actual miracle as it really occurred; nay,
further, we shall confound actual events with symbolical and imaginary
ones. For many things are narrated in Scripture as real, and were
believed to be real, which were in fact only symbolical and imaginary.
As, for instance, that God came down from heaven (Exod. xix. 28, Deut.
v. 28), and that Mount Sinai smoked because God descended upon it
surrounded with fire; or, again, that Elijah ascended into heaven in a
chariot of fire, with horses of fire; all these things were assuredly
merely symbols adapted to the opinions of those who have handed them
down to us as they were represented to them, namely, as real. All who
have any education know that God has no right hand nor left; that He is
not moved nor at rest, nor in a particular place, but that He is
absolutely infinite and contains in Himself all perfections.
These things, I repeat, are known to whoever judges of things by the
perception of pure reason, and not according as his imagination is
affected by his outward senses,--following the example of the masses who
imagine a bodily Deity, holding a royal court with a throne on the
convexity of heaven, above the stars, which are believed to be not very
far off from the earth.
To these and similar opinions very many narrations in Scripture are
adapted, and should not, therefore, be mistaken by philosophers for
realities.
Lastly, in order to understand, in the case of miracles, what actually
took place, we ought to be familiar with Jewish phrases and metaphors;
any one who did not make sufficient allowance for these would be
continually seeing miracles in Scripture where nothing of the kind is
intended by the writer; he would thus miss the knowledge not only of
what actually happened, but also of the mind of the writers of the
sacred text. For instance, Zachariah, speaking of some future war, says
(chap, xiv., verse 7): "It shall be one day which shall be known to the
Lord, not day nor night; but at even time it shall be light." In these
words he seems to predict a great miracle, yet he only means that the
battle will be doubtful the whole day, that the issue will be known only
to God, but that in the evening they will gain the victory. The
prophets frequently used to predict victories and defeats of the nations
in similar phrases. Thus Isaiah, describing the destruction of Babylon,
says (chap. xiii.): "The stars of heaven, and the constellations
thereof, shall not give their light; the sun shall be darkened in his
going forth, and the moon shall not cause her light to shine." Now I
suppose no one imagines that at the destruction of Babylon these
phenomena actually occurred any more than that which the prophet adds,
"For I will make the heavens to tremble, and remove the earth out of her
place."
So, too, Isaiah in foretelling to the Jews that they would return from
Babylon to Jerusalem in safety, and would not suffer from thirst on
their journey, says: "And they thirsted not when He led them through the
deserts; He caused the waters to flow out of the rocks for them; He
clave the rocks, and the waters gushed out." These words merely mean
that the Jews, like other people, found springs in the desert, at which
they quenched their thirst; for when the Jews returned to Jerusalem with
the consent of Cyrus, it is admitted that no similar miracles befell
them.
In this way many occurrences in the Bible are to be regarded merely as
Jewish expressions. There is no need for me to go through them in
detail; but I will call attention generally to the fact that the Jews
employed such phrases not only rhetorically, but also, and indeed
chiefly, from devotional motives. Such is the reason for the
substitution of "bless God" for "curse God" (in 1 Kings xxi. 10, and Job
ii. 9), and for all things being referred to God, whence it appears
that the Bible seems to relate nothing but miracles, even when speaking
of the most ordinary occurrences, as in the examples given above.
Hence we must believe that when the Bible says that the Lord hardened
Pharaoh's heart, it only means that Pharaoh was obstinate; when it says
that God opened the windows of heaven, it only means that it rained very
hard, and so on. When we reflect on these peculiarities, and also on the
fact that most things are related very shortly, with very little detail,
and almost in abridgments, we shall see that there is hardly anything in
Scripture which can be proved contrary to natural reason, while, on the
other hand, many things which before seemed obscure, will after a little
consideration be understood and easily explained.
I think I have now very clearly explained all that I proposed to
explain, but before I finish this chapter I would call attention to the
fact that I have adopted a different method in speaking of miracles to
that which I employed in treating of prophecy. Of prophecy I have
asserted nothing which could not be inferred from premises revealed in
Scripture, whereas in this chapter I have deduced my conclusions solely
from the principles ascertained by the natural light of reason. I have
proceeded in this way advisedly, for prophecy, in that it surpasses
human knowledge, is a purely theological question; therefore, I knew
that I could not make any assertions about it, nor learn wherein it
consists, except through deductions from premises that have been
revealed; therefore I was compelled to collate the history of prophecy,
and to draw therefrom certain conclusions which would teach me, in so
far as such teaching is possible, the nature and properties of the
gift. But in the case of miracles, as our inquiry is a question purely
philosophical (namely, whether anything can happen which contravenes, or
does not follow from the laws of Nature), I was not under any such
necessity: I therefore thought it wiser to unravel the difficulty
through premises ascertained and thoroughly known by the natural light
of reason. I say I thought it wiser, for I could also easily have solved
the problem merely from the doctrines and fundamental principles of
Scripture: in order that every one may acknowledge this, I will briefly
show how it could be done.
Scripture makes the general assertion in several passages that nature's
course is fixed and unchangeable. (In Ps. cxlviii. 6, for instance, and
Jer. xxxi. 35.) The wise man also (in Eccles. i. 10) distinctly teaches
that "there is nothing new under the sun," and (in verses 11, 12),
illustrating the same idea, he adds that although something occasionally
happens which seems new, it is not really new, but "hath been already of
old time, which was before us, whereof there is no remembrance, neither
shall there be any remembrance of things that are to come with those
that come after." Again (in chap. iii. 11), he says, "God hath made
everything beautiful in his time," and immediately afterwards adds, "I
know that whatsoever God doeth, it shall be for ever; nothing can be put
to it, nor anything taken from it."
Now all these texts teach most distinctly that Nature preserves a fixed
and unchangeable order and that God in all ages known and unknown has
been the same; further, that the laws of Nature are so perfect that
nothing can be added thereto nor taken therefrom; and, lastly, that
miracles only appear as something new because of man's ignorance.
Such is the express teaching of Scripture. Nowhere does Scripture assert
that anything happens which contradicts, or cannot follow from the laws
of Nature; and therefore we should not attribute to it such a
doctrine....
The conclusion, then, that is most plainly put before us is, that
miracles were natural occurrences, and must therefore be so explained as
to appear neither new (in the words of Solomon) nor contrary to Nature,
but, as far as possible, in complete agreement with ordinary events.
This can easily be done by any one, now that I have set forth the rules
drawn from Scripture. Nevertheless, though I maintain that Scripture
teaches this doctrine, I do not assert that it teaches it as a truth
necessary to salvation, but only that the prophets were in agreement
with ourselves on the point; therefore every one is free to think on the
subject as he likes, according as he thinks it best for himself, and
most likely to conduce to the worship of God and to single-hearted
religion.
FOOTNOTES:
[10] From the _Tr. Th.-P._, ch. vi, same title.
[11] N.B. I do not mean here by "Nature," merely matter and its
modifications, but infinite other things besides matter.