Hostname: page-component-77f85d65b8-lfk5g Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-04-17T17:37:37.616Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Miracles, Early Modern Science, and Rational Religion

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 July 2009

Peter Harrison
Peter Harrison
Affiliation:
a professor of History and Philosophy in the Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences at Bond University, Australia.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Readers of the New Testament could be excused for thinking that there is little consistency in the manner in which miracles are represented in the Gospels. Those events typically identified as miracles are variously described as “signs” (semeia), “wonders” (terata), “mighty works” (dunameis), and, on occasion, simply “works” (erga). The absence of a distinct terminology for the miraculous suggests that the authors of the Gospels were not working with a formal conception of “miracle”—at least not in that Humean sense of a “contravention of the laws of nature,” familiar to modern readers. Neither is there a consistent position on the evidentiary role of these events. In the synoptic Gospels—Matthew, Mark, and Luke—Jesus performs miracles on account of the faith of his audience. In John's Gospel, however, it is the performance of miracles that elicits faith. Even in the fourth Gospel, moreover, the role of miracles as signs of Christ's divinity is not straightforward. Thus those who demand a miracle are castigated: “Unless you see signs and wonders you will not believe.” Finally, signs and wonders do not provide unambiguous evidence of the sanctity of the miracle worker or of the truth of their teachings. Accordingly, the faithful were warned (in the synoptic Gospels at least) that “false Christs and false prophets will rise and show signs and wonders [in order] to deceive.”

Information

Type
Articles
Information
Church History , Volume 75 , Issue 3 , September 2006 , pp. 493 - 510
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of Church History 2006

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

1. See relevant entries in Kittel, G., ed., Theological Dictionary of the Neiv Testament, 10 vols. (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1977), 2:284–317; 7:200–261; 8:113–26Google Scholar; Lattke, M., “New Testament Miracles Stories and Hellenistic Culture of Late Antiquity,” Listening 20 (1985): 54–64.Google Scholar

2. This is hardly surprising, but is frequently overlooked in modern philosophical discussions of miracles. For David Hume's classic definition, see An Enquiry concerning Human Understanding, ed. Selby-Bigge, L. A. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1982), 114, 115, n.Google Scholar

3. “And Jesus said to them, ‘A prophet is not without honour, except in his own country and in his own house.’ And he did not do many mighty works [δυνάμεισ] there because of their unbelief” (Matt. 13:57 f.); “But when he was in Jerusalem at the Passover, during the feast, many believed in his name when they saw the signs [σημεια] which he did” (John 2:23). On differences between John and the synoptic Gospels, see Perrin, Norman, The New Testament: An Introduction (New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1974), 225.Google Scholar

4. John 4:48. See also Matt. 12:38 f.; 16:4; Mark 8:11 f.; Luke 11:16, 29.

5. Mark 13:22. See also Matt. 24:24; Deut. 13:1–2; Rev. 13:1.

6. For previous treatments of miracles in relation to the natural sciences during this period, see Dear, Peter, “Miracles, Experiments, and the Ordinary Course of Nature,” Isis 81 (1990): 663–83CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Daston, Lorraine, “Miraculous Facts and Miraculous Evidence in Early Modern Europe,” Critical Inquiry 18 (1991): 93–124CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and “Baconian Facts, Academic Civility, and the Prehistory of Objectivity,” Annals of Scholarship 8 (1991): 337–63Google Scholar; Harrison, Peter, “Newtonian Science, Miracles, and the Laws of Nature,” Journal of the History of Ideas 56 (1995): 531–53CrossRefGoogle Scholar, and “Prophecy, Early-Modern Apologetics, and Hume's Argument against Miracles,” Journal of the History of Ideas 60 (1999): 241–57.Google Scholar

7. On the origins of the notion of laws of nature, see Henry, John, “Metaphysics and the Origins of Modern Science: Descartes and the Importance of Laws of Nature,” Early Science and Medicine 9 (2004): 73–114CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Steinle, Friedrich, “The Amalgamation of a Concept—Laws of Nature in the New Sciences,” in Laws of Nature: Essays on the Philosophical, Scientific and Historical Dimensions, ed. Friedel, Weinert (Berlin: De Gruyter, 1995), 316–68Google Scholar; Zilsel, E., “The Genesis of the Concept of Scientific Law,” The Philosophical Review 51 (1942): 245–67CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Needham, Joseph, “Human Laws and the Laws of Nature in China and the West,” Journal of the History of Ideas 12 (1951): 3–32, 194–231CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Ruby, Jane, “The Origins of Scientific Law,” Journal of the History of Ideas 47 (1986): 341–59CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Milton, J. R., “Laws of Nature,” in The Cambridge History of Seventeenth-Century Philosophy, 2 vols., ed. Daniel, Garber and Michael, Ayers (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998), 1:680–701Google Scholar. Specifically on theological influences, see Oakley, Francis, “Christian Theology and the Newtonian Science: The Rise of the Concept of Laws of Nature,” Church History: Studies in Christianity and Culture 30 (1961): 433–57CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Foster, M. B., “The Christian Doctrine of Creation and the Rise of Modern Natural Science,” Mind 43 (1934): 446–68CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Padgett, Alan, “The Roots of the Western Concept of the ‘Laws of Nature’: From the Greeks to Newton,” Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith 55 (2003): 212–21.Google Scholar

8. See, for example, Hardon, John, “The Concept of Miracle from St. Augustine to Modern Apologetics,” Theological Studies 15 (1954): 229–57CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Ward, Benedicta, Miracles and the Medieval Mind: Theory, Record and Event 1000–1215 (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1982), 3–5Google Scholar; Grant, Robert M., Miracle and Natural Law in Graeco-Roman and Early Christian Thought (Amsterdam: North-Holland, 1952), 214–20.Google Scholar

9. Augustine, City of God, X.12: “Isn't the daily course of nature itself a miracle, something to be wondered at? Everything is full of marvels and miracles, but they are so common that we regard them as cheap and of no account.” Augustine, , Sermons VII, in Works of Saint Augustine, 20 vols., ed. Rotelle, John E. (New York: New City, 1997–), III/2:109.Google Scholar

10. Augustine, , De utilitate credendi XVI.34, in Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Series I (hereafter NPNF I), 14 vols., ed. Philip, Schaff and Henry, Wace (Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 1994), 3:364.Google Scholar

11. Augustine, , City of God XXI.8, trans. Dods, Marcus (New York: Modern Library, 1950), 776Google Scholar. “For we give the name nature to the usual common course of nature; and whatever God does contrary to this, we call a prodigy, or a miracle. But against the supreme law of nature, which is beyond the knowledge both of the ungodly and of weak believers, God never acts, any more than He acts against Himself.” Contra Faustum, XXVI.3 (NPNF I, 4:321 f.). Cf. Sermons VII, in Works III/2:78, 86.

12. Augustine, , Confessions XXI.29–30Google Scholar; XXVII, 42; Answer to the Pelagians XXXII.52Google Scholar; The Trinity II.vii.12Google Scholar; Expositions on the Psalms 9, 9Google Scholar; Sermons III; De utilitate credendi XVI.34.Google Scholar

13. Greer, Rowan, The Fear of Freedom: A Study of Miracles in the Roman Imperial Church (Durham, N.C.: Duke University Press, 1989), esp. 171–79Google Scholar. See also Marcus, R. A., The End of Ancient Christianity (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991), 149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

14. Aquinas, , Summa Contra Gentiles (hereafter SCG) 3b, 101, 5 vols., trans. English Dominican Fathers (London: Burns, Oates, and Washbourne, 1934), 4:60.Google Scholar

15. Aquinas, , SCG 3b, 100 (Dominican, Fathers ed., 4:58).Google Scholar

16. Aquinas, , SCG 3b, 99 (Dominican, Fathers ed., 4:57)Google Scholar. Cf. Commentary on Aristotle's Physics II.viii.208Google Scholar. These events, while they take place within the sphere of nature, cannot be the subject of a “science” since they are accidental. See Aquinas, , Commentary on the Metaphysics of Aristotle II.xi.8.2276.Google Scholar

17. Aquinas, , SCG 3b, 103Google Scholar. For a helpful discussion of the category of the preternatural, see Daston, , “Miraculous Facts and Miraculous Evidence.”Google Scholar

18. Aquinas, , SCG 3b, 99 (Dominican, Fathers ed., 4:57).Google Scholar

19. Aquinas, , Summa theologiae (hereafter ST) Ia2ae.lll, 4; 2a2ae. 171, 1; 2a2ae. 178, 1; 3a. 43, 1; SCG 4, 208.Google Scholar

20. Aquinas, , Commentary on the Gospel of Saint John, chap. 6, lec. 1, sct. 843, trans. Weisheipl, James A. and Larcher, Fabien R. (Toronto: Pontifical Institute of Medieval Studies, 1980), 341.Google Scholar

21. Hence, “one believes and another does not, when both have seen the same miracle.” ST 2a2ae. 6, 1, 60 vols., trans. English Dominican Fathers (London: Eyre and Spottiswoode, 1964–1976), 31:167.Google Scholar

22. Aquinas, , ST la. 43, 3; Ia2ae. Ill, 5.Google Scholar

23. Those things that God requires us to believe “which surpass human intelligence … are to be proved by the authority of Holy Writ.” SCG 4.1 (Dominican, Fathers ed., 5:5); Cf. ST la.l, 8.Google Scholar

24. Augustine, , Against the Epistle of Manichaeus V.6, NPNF I, 4:131.Google Scholar

25. On medieval testing of miracle reports, see Smoller, Laura, “Defining the Boundaries of the Natural in Fifteenth Century Brittany: The Inquest into the Miracles of Saint Vincent Ferrer (d. 1419),” Viator 28 (1997): 333–59CrossRefGoogle Scholar. The Council of Trent further formalized procedures for determining whether claimed miracles could be sanctioned as genuine. See Canons and Decrees of the Council of Trent, ed. and trans. Schroeder, H. J. (London: Herder, 1941), 217.Google Scholar

26. 1 John 4:1; 1 Cor. 12:10. Cf. Luke 12:56; Matt. 16:1–4; 1 Cor. 2:14; 14:29.

27. Aquinas, , SCG 3b, 154 (Dominican, Fathers ed., 4:201). Cf. ST Ia2ae. Ill, 4; 2a2ae, 171Google Scholar; Augustine, , The Trinity III.ii.18, in Works 1/5:137.Google Scholar

28. Foster, M. B., “The Christian Doctrine of Creation and the Rise of Modern Natural Science”Google Scholar; Oakley, Francis, “Christian Theology and the Newtonian Science: The Rise of the Concept of Laws of Nature”Google Scholar; Osler, Margaret, Divine Will and the Mechanical Philosophy: Gassendi and Descartes on Contingency and Necessity in the Created World (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Harrison, Peter, “Voluntarism and Early Modern Science,” History of Science 40 (2002): 63–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

29. Sibiuda [Raymond Sebonde], Raymon, Theologia naturalis seu liber creaturarum, ed. Stegmüller, F. (Stuttgart-Bad Canstatt: F. Frommann, 1966), PrologusGoogle Scholar. The “Apology for Raymond Sebonde” may be found in The Complete Essays of Montaigne, trans. Frame, Donald (Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press, 1958), 318–457.Google Scholar

30. Walker, D. P., “The Cessation of Miracles,” in Hermeticism and the Renaissance: Intellectual History and the Occult in Early Modern Europe, ed. Ingrid, Merkel and Alan, Debus (Washington, D.C.: Folger Shakespeare Library, 1988), 110–24Google Scholar. There were patristic precedents for this view. See Marcus, R. A., Gregory the Great and His World (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997), 62–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

31. Calvin, John, Institutes of the Christian Religion, 2 vols., ed. McNeill, J., trans. Battles, F. (Philadelphia, Pa.: Westminster, 1960), Prefatory Address, 1:17–18, 136; 2:1467Google Scholar. Cf. Calvin, , Tracts and Treatises on the Reformation of the Church, 3 vols., trans. Beveridge, H. (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 1844), 1:92Google Scholar; Commentary on the Gospel According to John, in Calvin's Commentaries, 22 vols. (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2003), 17:89 f., 180 f.; 18:281.Google Scholar

32. Aquinas, ST 2a2ae. 81, 5–6. In the same work, incidentally, Aquinas observes that “science” (scientia) also is primarily a habit of mind, and only secondarily a method or body of organized propositions. ST Ia2ae. 49, 1; Ia2ae. 50, 3; Ia2ae. 52, 2; Ia2ae. 53, 1.

33. Ficino, MarsilioOpera, 2 vols. (Basel: Ex officina Henrici Petrina, 1576), 1:6.Google Scholar

34. Zwingli, Ulrich, De vera et falsa religione commentarius [1525], in Huldreich Zwinglis sämtliche werke, 14 vols., ed. Emil, Egli and others (Berlin: Nachfolger, 1905–), 3:622–912.Google Scholar

35. See, for example, Smith, W. C., The Meaning and End of Religion (London: SPCK, 1972)Google Scholar; Harrison, Peter, “Religion” and the Religions in the English Enlightenment (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Despland, Michel, La religion en accident: évolution des idées et du vécu (Montréal: Fides, 1979)Google Scholar; Lash, Nicholas, The Beginning and End of Religion (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Feil, Ernst, “From the Classical Religio to the Modern Religion: Elements of a Transformation between 1550 and 1650,” in Religion in History: The Word, the Idea, the Reality, ed. Michel, Despland and Gérard, Vallée (Waterloo, Ont.: Wilfred Laurier University Press, 1992), 31–43Google Scholar, and Religio: Die Geschichte eines neuzeitlichen Grundbegriffs vom Frühchristentum bis zur Reformation (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht, 1986).Google Scholar

36. Crouch, Nathaniel, The Strange and Prodigious Religions, Customs, and Manners, of Sundry Nations (London: Printed for Henry Rhodes, 1683), 27 fGoogle Scholar. Cf. Prideaux, Humphrey, A Letter to the Deists (London: Edward Castle, 1696), 30 f. and passim.Google Scholar

37. See, for example, Burnet, Gilbert, An Impartial Survey and Comparison of the Protestant Religion (London: R. Chiswell, 1685)Google Scholar; Owen, John, A Brief and Impartial Account of the Nature of the Protestant Religion (London: J. A., 1682)Google Scholar; Bradley, John, An Impartial View of the Truth of Christianity (London: W. Downing, 1699)Google Scholar; Jenkin, Robert, The Reasonableness and Certainty of the Christian Religion (London: P. B. and R. Wellington, 1700)Google Scholar; Stillingfleet, Edward, A Rational Account of Protestant Religion (London: D. White for H. Mortlock, 1665).Google Scholar

38. Locke, , Third Letter concerning Toleration, in The Works of John Locke, 12th ed., 10 vols. (London: Thomas Tegg, 1823), 6:401.Google Scholar

39. Boyle, , The Christian Virtuoso, in The Works of the Honourable Robert Boyle, 6 vols., ed. Thomas, Birch (Hildesheim: Olms, 1966), 5:531. Cf. 5:524: There are “three grand arguments, that jointly evince the truth of the Christian religion in general… the excellency of the doctrine, which makes it worthy to have proceeded from God; the testimony of divine miracles, that were wrought to recommend it; the great effects produced in the world by it.”Google Scholar

40. Clarke, Samuel, “The Evidences of Natural and Revealed Religion,” in Works, 2 vols. (London: J. and P. Knapton, 1738), 2:695Google Scholar. See also Jenkin, Robert, The Reasonableness and Certainty of the Christian Religion, 33–38Google Scholar; Sprat, Thomas, History of the Royal Society (London: T. R. for M. Martyn and J. Allestry), 352.Google Scholar

41. See Gaskin, J. C. A., Hume's Philosophy of Religion (London: Macmillan, 1988), 149 f.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

42. Shapiro, Barabara, “Testimony in Seventeenth-Century English Natural Philosophy: Legal Origins and Early Development,” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 33 (2002): 243–63CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed; Sargeant, R. M., “Scientific Experiment and Legal Expertise: The Way of Experience in Seventeenth-Century England,” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 20 (1989): 19–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

43. Bacon, , The Advancement of Learning and A New Atlantis, ed. Arthur, Johnston (Oxford: Clarendon, 1974), 222.Google Scholar

44. Sprat, Thomas, History of the Royal Society, 358 f.Google Scholar

45. Boyle, , The Christian Virtuoso, in Works, 5:538. Cf. 5:531Google Scholar. For similar assertions of the role of natural philosophers in the assessment of miracle reports, see Anon, A Short Discourse concerning Miracles (London: Matt. Wotton, 1702)Google Scholar; Filmer, Robert, An Advertisement to the Jurymen of England touching Witches (London: I. C. for Richard Royston, 1688)Google Scholar; Gaule, John, Select Cases of Conscience touching Witches (London: W. Wilson for Richard Clutterbuck, 1646).Google Scholar

46. Aristotle, , Metaphysics 1027aGoogle Scholar; Aquinas, , SCG 3b, 99 (Dominican, Fathers ed., 4:57)Google Scholar. See also Daston, , “Marvellous Facts and Miraculous Evidence,” 108–10.Google Scholar

47. More strictly, in Baconian terms, these subjects were appropriate for natural histories that would provide the foundation for a natural philosophy.

48. See, for example, Fuller, Thomas, The Holy State and the Profane State, 3rd ed. (London: R. Daniel for J. Williams, 1652), 39Google Scholar; White, John, The Way to the True Church, 2nd ed. (London: Richard Field for John Bill and William Barret, 1610), 301 f.Google Scholar; Scot, Reginald, The Discoverie of Witchcraft [1584] (Totowa, N.J.: Rowman and Littlefield, 1973), 125–34Google Scholar; Whiston, William, Mr. W's Account of the Exact Time when Miraculous Gifts Ceas'd in the Church (London: For the author, 1749), 7, 9–11Google Scholar. For the persistence of contemporary miracles amongst radical Protestants, see Thomas, Keith, Religion and the Decline of Magic (New York: Scribners, 1971), 126–28Google Scholar; Moore, Rosemary, “Late Seventeenth-Century Quakerism and the Miraculous,” in Signs, Wonders, Miracles: Representations of Divine Power in the Life of the Church, ed. Kate, Cooper and Jeremy, Gregory (Woodbridge, U.K.: Boydell, 2005), chap. 24.Google Scholar

49. See Harriso, , “Prophecy, Early-Modern Apologetics, and Hume's Argument against Miracles.”Google Scholar

50. Bacon, , The Great Instauration, in The Works of Francis Bacon, 14 vols., ed. James, Spedding, Robert, Ellis, and Douglas, Heath (London: Longmans, 1857–1874), 4:28.Google Scholar

51. On the role of witness and testimony in experimental natural philosophy, see Shapin, Steven, The Social History of Truth: Civility and Science in Seventeenth-Century England (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1994), esp. 211–42Google Scholar; Schaffer, Simon, “Godly Men and natural Philosophers,” Science in Context 1 (1987): 55–85CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Dear, Peter, “Miracles, Experiments, and the Ordinary Course of Nature,” Isis 81 (1990): 663–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

52. Augustine, , Contra Faustum Manichaeum XXVI, 3 (NPNF I, 4:322). Miracles never transgress “the supreme law of nature, which is beyond the knowledge both of the ungodly and of weak believers” (NPNF I, 4:321).Google Scholar

53. Glanvill, Joseph, Philosophia Pia (London: J. Macock for James Collins, 1671), 84.Google Scholar

54. See, for example, Boyle, , A Disquisition about the Final Causes of Natural Things (London: H. C. for John Taylor, 1688), 213.Google Scholar

55. Boyle, , Some Physico-Theological Considerations about the Possibility of the Resurrection (London: T. N. for H. Herringman, 1675), preface.Google Scholar

56. Boyle, , Some Considerations touching the Usefulness of Experimental Natural Philosophy, in Works, 2:15; cf. 2:6, 20.Google Scholar

57. Boyle, , Usefulness of Experimental Natural Philosophy, in Works, 2:63.Google Scholar

58. Shapin, Steven, The Scientific Revolution (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1996), 2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

59. Shapin, , Social History of Truth, 209.Google Scholar

60. There are happy exceptions. See, for example, the historical treatment of Burns, R. M., The Great Debate on Miracles: From Joseph Glanvill to David Hume (London: Bucknell University Press, 1981)Google Scholar. More philosophical, yet still historically informed, is Earman, John, Hume's Abject Failure: The Argument against Miracles (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000).CrossRefGoogle Scholar