(Latin miraculum, from mirari, "to wonder").

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

These terms are used habitually in the New Testament and express the meaning of miraculum of the
Vulgate. Thus St. Peter in his first sermon speaks of Christ as approved of God, dynamesin, kai terasin
kai semeiois (Acts 2:22) and St. Paul says that the signs of his Apostleship were wrought, semeiois te kai
terasin kai dynamesin (2 Corinthians 12:12). Their united meaning is found in the term erga i.e., works,
the word constantly employed in the Gospels to designate the miracles of Christ. The analysis of these
terms therefore gives the nature and scope of the miracle.

Nature

(1) The word terata 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., the baptism of Jesus, the conversion of St. Paul.
Thus, though the works of Divine grace, such as the Sacramental Presence, are above the power of nature,
and due to God alone, they may be called miraculous only in the wide meaning of the term, i.e., as
supernatural 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
to life) or in its effects (e.g., the gifts of infused knowledge with the Apostles). In like manner the
justification of a soul 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 of St. 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 of nature, the Fathers of the Church and theologians employ the terms above, contrary to,
and outside nature. These terms express the manner in which the miracle is extraordinary.

A miracle is said to be above nature when the effect produced is above the native powers and forces in
creatures of which the known laws of nature are the expression, as raising a dead man to life, e.g.,
Lazarus (John 11), the widow'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 which nature
employs. In illustration we have the multiplication of loaves by Jesus (John 6), the changing of water into
wine at Cana (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 to nature when the effect produced is contrary to the natural course of things.

The term miracle 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. Thus Spinoza
calls a miracle a violation of the order of nature (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 of necessity contrary to nature,
for there are miracles above or outside nature.

Again, the term contrary to nature does not mean "unnatural" in the sense of producing discord and
confusion. The forces of nature differ in power and are in constant interaction. This produces
interferences and counteractions of forces. This is true of mechanical, chemical, and biological 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 obtain conscious control by intelligent counteractions of one
force against another. Intelligent counteraction marks progress in chemistry, in physics — e.g., steam
locomotion, aviation — and in the prescriptions of the physician. Man controls nature, 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 any law 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 miracle God's action relative to its bearing on natural forces is analogous to the action of human
personality. Thus, e.g., it is against the nature of iron to float, but the action of Eliseus 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
natural laws than if he raised it with his hand. Again, it is of the nature 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 of theologians that events which ordinarily take place in the natural or
supernatural course of Divine Providence are not miracles, although they are beyond the efficiency of
natural forces. Thus, e.g., the creation of the soul is not a miracle, for it takes place in the ordinary course
of nature. Again, the justification of the sinner, the Eucharistic Presence, the sacramental effects, are not
miracles for two reasons: they are beyond the grasp of the senses and they have place in the ordinary
course of God's supernatural Providence.

(2) The word dynamis, "power" is used in the New Testament to signify:

 the power of working miracles, (en dymamei semeion — Romans 15:19);

 mighty works as the effects of this power, i.e., miracles themselves (al pleistai dynameis autou —
Matthew 11:20) and expresses the efficient cause of the miracle, i.e., Divine power.

Hence the miracle is called supernatural, because the effect is beyond the productive power of nature and
implies supernatural agency. Thus St. Thomas teaches: "Those effects are rightly to be termed miracles
which are wrought by Divine power apart from the order usually observed in nature" (Contra Gent., III,
cii), and they are apart from the natural order because they are "beyond the order or laws of the whole
created nature" (ST I:102:4). Hence dynamis adds to the meaning of terata by pointing out the efficient
cause. For this reason miracles in Scripture are called "the finger of God" (Exodus 8:19, Luke 11:20), "the
hand of the Lord" (1 Samuel 5:6), "the hand of our God" (Ezra 8:31). In referring the miracle to God 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 in nature. With God as the cause, the miracle has a place in the designs of God's
Providence (Contra Gent. III, xcviii). In this sense — i.e., relatively to God — St. Augustine speaks of the
miracle as natural (City of God XXI.8).

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

 with regard to its substantial nature, i.e., when the effect is of such a kind that no natural power
could bring it to pass in any manner or form whatsoever, as e.g., the raising to life of the widow's
son (Luke 7), or the cure of the man born blind (John 9). These miracles are called miracles as to
substance (quoad substantiam).
 With regard to the manner in which the effect is produced i.e., where there may be forces in
nature fitted and capable of producing the effect considered in itself, yet the effect is produced in
a manner wholly different from the manner in which it should naturally be performed, i.e.,
instantaneously, by a word, e.g., the cure of the leper (Luke 5). These are called miracles as to the
manner of their production (quoad modum).

God's power is shown in the miracle:

 directly through His own immediate action or

 mediately through creatures as means or instruments.

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

 of angels, e.g., the Three Children in the fiery furnace (Daniel 3), the deliverance of St. Peter
from prison (Acts 12);
 of men, e.g., Moses and Aaron (Exodus 7), Elias (1 Kings 17), Eliseus (2 Kings 5), the Apostles
(Acts 2:43), St. Peter (Acts 3:9), St. Paul (Acts 19), the early Christians (Galatians 3:5).
 In the Bible also, as in church history, we learn that animate things are instruments of Divine
power, not because they have any excellence in themselves, but through a special relation to God.
Thus we distinguish holy relics, e.g., the mantle of Elias (2 Kings 2), the body of Eliseus (2 Kings
13), the hem of Christ's garment (Matthew 9), the handkerchiefs of St. Paul (Acts 19:12); holy
images, e.g., the brazen serpent (Numbers 21) holy things, e.g., the Ark of the Covenant, the
sacred vessels of the Temple (Daniel 5); holy places, e.g., the Temple of Jerusalem (2 Chronicles
6:7), the waters of the Jordan (2 Kings 5), the Pool of Bethsaida (John 5).

Hence the contention of some modern writers, that a miracle requires an immediate action of Divine
power, is not true. It is sufficient that the miracle be due to the intervention of God, and its nature is
revealed by the utter lack of proportion between the effect and what are called means or instruments.
The epistemic theory of miracles is the name given by the philosopher William Vallicella to the
theory of miraculous events given by St. Augustine and Baruch Spinoza. According to the
theory, there are no events contrary to nature that is no "transgressions", in Hume's sense, of the
laws of nature. An event is a miracle only in the sense that it does not agree with our
understanding of nature, or fit our picture of nature, or that it thwarts our expectations as to how
the world should behave. According to a perfect scientific understanding there would be no
miracles at all.

The name of the theory is derived from the Greek word - episteme, meaning "well-founded
knowledge".

In The City of God, Book XXI, Chapter 8, Augustine quotes Marcus Varro, Of the Race of the
Roman People

Augustine argues that there can be no true transgression of the laws of nature, because
everything that happens according to God's will happens by nature, and a transgression of the
laws of nature would therefore happen contrary to God's will. A miracle therefore is not contrary
to nature as it really is, but only contrary to nature as our current understanding supposes it to be
Portentum ergo fit non contra naturam, sed contra quam est nota natura .

For example, if we were to see a man walking on water, and the man really were walking on
water, that would not be possible given the laws of nature as we understand them. The surface
tension of water is not great enough to support a man's weight. But it is logically possible that
our understanding of the laws of nature is incomplete, and that there are special psychophysical
laws, unknown to us, that allow certain human beings possessing great powers of concentration
to affect by force of will alone the surface tension of water. If that were so in the case of Jesus,
there would be nothing truly miraculous about his walking on water.In Chapter Six of Spinoza's
Theologico-Political Treatise "Of Miracles" , Spinoza claims that the universal laws of nature are
decrees of God. Hence, any event happening in nature which contravened nature's universal
laws, would necessarily also contravene the Divine decree, nature, and understanding or if
anyone asserted that God acted 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 2 .

Augustine on Miracle, De C. D. xxi. 8.

Augustine writes, "We say that all miracles (portenta) are contrary to nature, but they are not. For how
can that be contrary to nature which takes place by the will of God, seeing that the will of the Great
Creator is the true nature of everything created. So miracle is not contrary to nature but only to what is
known of nature (Portentum ergo fit non contra naturam sed contra quam est ncta natura)." Professor
Sanday {Life of Christ in Recent Research,
ON THE CITY OF GOD 1 1 3 p. 216) describes this as "a remarkable, far-sighted, philosophical
passage, which shows that we moderns have no monopoly of deeper thought on the relation of miracles to
the uniformity of nature." Bishop Bernard (Hastings' Diet. iii. 381, Miracles} says "the distinction is as
old as Augustine and must be carefully borne in mind. Nature as we know it is not to be identified with
nature as God knows it, with the nature of which He is a part, and it is only of the latter that we can say
that its laws are universally valid." Sanday seems to think that Augustine meant that miracles may be
found to be in accordance with physical nature, as some day it may be known when science has made
further strides. Bernard, on the other hand, seems to include the "natura naturans"in the " natura naturata."
Augustine used the term in a wider sense than understood by Sanday, for he embraces all that may be
God's will, for every created thing is explained by that will. "Dei voluntas natura rerum est."

THE CONCEPT OF MIRACLE FROM ST. AUGUSTINE TO MODERN APOLOGETICS

JOHN A. HARDON, SJ.
West Baden College
PHYSICAL miracles as divine interventions in the visible world are as old as the history of
God's revelation to man. At the dawn of the Old Testament they were the instruments used by
Yahweh to organize the chosen people under Abraham; in the time of Moses and Aaron they
were the heavenly aids by which the Jews were liberated from the bonds of Egypt; in the days of
Elias and Eliseus they were the signs and wonders which the Lord showed through His prophets
to ratify their divine commission. With the opening of the New Covenant, miracles served to
announce the coming of the Savior; during His public life on earth Jesus appealed to His works
of power in confirmation of His divinity; and before He ascended into heaven He gave to His
Church the power to do the same miraculous works which He did, as a pledge of His assistance
and a proof of her authority. During the first three centuries after Christ, Christian apologists and
the early Fathers more than once referred to the miracles of the Gospel to establish the rational
foundations of the faith. For example, around the year 125 a certain Quadratus presented an
Apology to the Emperor Hadrian, in the course of which he said:
But the works of our Savior were always present, for they were genuine: those who were
healed and those who rose from the dead—who were seen not only when they were healed and
when they were raised but were constantly present; and not only while the Savior was living, but
even after He had gone they were alive for a long time, so that some of them survived even to
our own day.1
Some years later, still in the second century, Melito of Sardis invoked the miracles of Christ as
an argument for His divinity: "The deeds which Christ performed after His baptism, especially
His miracles, conclusively prove to the world that underneath the flesh was hidden the
1
divinity." *
^his fragment has been preserved by Eusebius, Hist, eccl., IV, 3 (GCS, Eusebius, II, 302; PG,
XX, 308). For the thesis of P. Andriessen that the lost Apology of Quadratus is actually the
Epistle to Diognelus, cf. Reckerches de thSologie ancienne et meditvale, XIII (1946), 5-39,
125-49; XIV (1947), 121-56; also the English summary of the argument in Vigiliae christianae,
I (1947), 129-36.