MIRACLES, works which excite wonder, because they are beyond ordinary human ex perience and appear to contravene the known laws of nature.
The well-known argument of Hume against the credibility of a miracle has often been re futed. A miracle, he said, was contrary to ex perience, but false witnesses in history are not contrary to experience; it is less probable that the miracle is true than that the witness is false. There are two fallacies in this reasoning; it begs the question by the use of the words con trary to experience, for the point at issue is whether miracles are contrary to experience or no. If they are contrary to Ilume's experi ence, may it not he because his experience is limited? He has not lived at an age when a new religion was instituted and extraordinary guarantees demanded in order to accredit it with a hostile world. Even mankind's experi ence in nature is becoming widened every year, and many wonderful things take place at this moment which our ancestors of a century ago would have looked upon as magical or miracu lous, such as wireless telegraphy, communi cation by telephone, the effects of the Roentgen rays, the power of radium, etc. For miracles are not to be looked upon as a violation of the laws of nature, but merely as the interposition of a higher law overruling a lower one. To those who believe in an intelligent creator and conserver of the world there can be no difficulty in apprehending the possibility of the miracu lous; even those who like Herbert Spencer have a vague belief in what they style Force or Power underlying all the operations of nature should not hesitate in admitting that the force which keeps up the multitudinous activi ties of the universe may manifest itself at times in unprecedented fashions, even as the new discoveries and combinations of science are constantly revealing new powers in the domain of natural law.
Pascal has said that the certainty and gen uineness of certain miracles is proved by the falsity of others, meaning presumably that the very fact that general human consent has been given to the idea of miracles proves that sued idea has a counterpart in reality. There are of course certain concomitant circumstances which may be taken as affecting the credibility of a miracle. Most of the miracles of history may be put aside as inventions; such are many of the stories told by Livy and Herodotus, and the wild fables of Hindu history, as well as many miraculous incidents in the life of Mohammed. Christian apologists lay particular emphasis on the moral aspects of the miracle. To those who deny or doubt the existence of a supreme being, the moral ruler of the universe, a miracle is an impossibility. On the other hand, without miracles the revelation of God is impossible. Hence, a miracle with a moral object is most in accordance with the character of a Supreme Being governing the world with a moral end. All idle or superfluous miracles are to be re jected as at variance with the character of such a being. Equally to be rejected are miracles which are merely tentative, that is, sometimes successfully accomplished, sometimes ending in failure; as well as others which are doubtful in their nature and those which are merely ex aggerations of natural events.
In the early Church those who defended Christianity against the attacks of those outside laid great stress on the evidence of miracles, and claimed that miraculous power still existed among Christians. Irenmus asserted that this power was universal among Christian churches. Saint Augustine asserts the reality of the mi raculous on the testimony of his own experi ence. He makes the acute remark that a miracle is not contrary to nature but to whaT we know of nature. The schoolmen agree with Augustine on this point. Thomas Aquinas defines a miracle as "something out of the order of nature." Albcrtus Magnus declares that God has implanted the possibility of miracles in the very nature of things, al though denying that he can do anything con trary to nature. Luther puts the miracle of grace in the heart far above any physical miracle, while he assigned the Bible miracles their proper place in the development of the faith. The Roman Catholic Church has always
claimed the possession of miraculous powers and continues to do so to this day. The So cinians and Arminians maintain that God has always revealed himself by means of super natural works, and Grotius in his defense of Christianity makes miracles the foundation of his argument. There has always, however, been a school of rationalists or philosophers who have opposed or attacked the belief in miracles, although Leibnitz admitted this belief into his philosophical system. He defines a miracle as an event inexplicable by natural causes. The laws of nature, he says, are for rats own purpose stisperil them; the miraculous is included in The divlice filiand forms a part of "the pre-established harmony.* Spinoza made the statement that miracles are impossible. In his pantheistic phi losophy nature and her laws are identical with the will, intelligence and nature of God, who cannot work contrary to the laws of material nature. Kant like the English Deists did not deny the possibility of miracles, for they might be wrought by powers and in accordance with laws of nature with which we are unacquainted, but believed that such laws were never exer cised. Schleinnacher contests the apologetic value of miracles and endeavors to eliminate the miraculous from the Christian scheme, which he thinks is lowered by this supernatural element. The modern agnostic claims that the advance of science has made a belief in the miraculous impossible. Some !lave tried _to the recorded miracles of Scripture_ by a reference to natural causes; others would treat frerrias allegories or legendary_ accretions or folktales, or attribute them to self-deception, or the credulous bystanders and Miracles as an essen tial part of Christianity which cannot be explained away or eliminated without destroy ing its authority. The more advanced theo logians claim the right to question the reality of miracles, even including the virgin birth of Christ and the resurrection, and they regard as the matter of supreme importance the fact that Christ spiritually still lives and is trans figuring the life of mankind. Certain it is that miracles no longer hold the place they once did as Christian evidences; conversion, the "expulsive power of a new affection" vivifying and transforming the soul, the divine response to prayer, communion with God and the su preme miracle of Christ himself as the spiritual regenerator of mankind — these have placed outward signs and evidences into a subordinate place.
Bibliography.— There is an inexhaustible list of works on the subject; but in addition to authorities named in the article consult Arnold, Matthew, 'Literature and Dogma' (new ed., London 1902) ; Balfour, A. T., 'Foun dations of Belief' (1895) ; Bonney, T. G., 'The Present Relation of Science and Religion' (ib. 1913); Bruce, A. B., The Miraculous Element in the Gospels' (ib. 1886) ; Davies, E. 0., Miracles of Jesus' (ib. 1913) ; Gordon, G. A., (Religion and Miracle' (Boston 1910) ; Head lam, A. C., (The Miracles of the New Testa ment' (ib. 1914) ; Illingworth, J. R., (Divine Immanence'(ib. 1898) ; 'The Gospel Miracles' (ib. 1915) ; Figgis, J. N., (The Gospel and Human Needs' (New York 1910) ; Lecky, (Rise of Rationalism' (London 1865); Lodge, Sir Oliver, (Man and the Universe' (ib. 1908) ; McCosh, Supernatural in Relation to the Natural' (ib. 1862) ; Mozley, J. B., Lec tures on Miracles' (ib. 1865); Newman, J. H., (Two Essays on Miracles' (ib. 1873) ; Orchard, 'The Attitude of Science Toward Miracles' (ib. 1910) ; Pfleiderer, and De velopment of Religion' (ib. 1894); Early Christian Conception of Christ' (ib. 1905) ; Saintyres, discernement du miracle' (Paris 1909) ; Trench, R. C., (Notes on the Miracles of Our Lord' (London 1847); Wallace, A. R., 'Miracles and Modern Spiritualism' (ib. 1896); Wendland, and Christianity' (ib. 1911).