Miracles — Part II: Discernibility and Probative Force

Art. III.—Discernibility of a Miracle.

I.—Question involved.

Renan in the introduction to the Life of Christ writes: “We do not say that a miracle is impossible: we say that up to the present time no miracle has been proved.” Kant and his Agnostic followers hold the same view.

Mr. H. W. Paul in his sketch of the life and writings of Matthew Arnold passes the following criticism in regard to educated laymen of the Established Church (p. 173): “Christianity without miracles and without dogmatic theology is not only practicable, but has sufficed for some of the best Christians that ever lived. It is probably the religion of most educated laymen in the Church of England to-day.”

M. E. Le Roy and some Modernists hold that Faith alone can discern a miracle.

The principal objection against the discernibility of a miracle is: “We do not know all the powers and laws of nature.”

Hermes following Kant maintained that only a “practical moral certitude” can be obtained regarding miracles (D. 1637).

II.—Teaching of the Church.

The Vatican Council teaches that miracles can be certainly known, and are most certain signs of Divine Revelation accommodated to the intelligence of all (D. 1790, 1813).

III.—Degrees of Certitude.

Certitude is a “firm adhesion of the mind to a truth without fear of error, the exclusion of fear of error being due to a suitable motive.” It is not the same as persuasion which is sometimes erroneous.

Certitude admits of degrees, not as regards the exclusion of doubt, but as regards the firmness of adhesion. This firmness may be founded either on metaphysical, physical or moral necessity.

• Certitude
  • metaphysical
    • intrinsic: e.g., whole is greater than part.
    • extrinsic: e.g., a contingent being is caused.
  • physical
    • regarding a present fact, e.g., the Sun has risen.
    • regarding a future fact, e.g., the Sun will rise to-morrow.
  • moral
    • speculative: regarding truth.
    • prudential: regarding action.

In metaphysical certitude, the relation between subject and predicate is absolutely necessary. It is intrinsic when directly founded on metaphysical necessity; it is extrinsic, when some fact physically or morally certain cannot be denied without indirectly involving some metaphysical impossibility, e.g., that a contingent being should be without a cause. Physical certitude is based on physical necessity of the laws of nature, which are hypothetically necessary. Moral certitude is based on moral necessity, e.g., I am certain that my father, whose truthfulness I know, does not speak falsely, when he tells me of the death of my brother.

Moral certitude may sometimes be resolved into extrinsic metaphysical certitude, e.g., a moral certitude based on the testimony of mankind, if false, would be without a reason of being.

IV.—Discernibility of a miracle in regard to its supernatural character.

“We do not know all the powers of nature.”

(1) Reply of some recent Apologists.

It is not necessary that we should know all the powers of nature, it is sufficient that we should be able to judge practically what in certain circumstances cannot be done. The laws of nature in certain circumstances are fixed for the production of one effect, whereas in the case of a miracle the agent in the same circumstances produces quite a different effect. Diseases which are clearly organic (the dividing line between the organic and the functional is not always clearly marked, but in some cases there is not the slightest doubt as to classification) are not cured by the power of imagination, nor by hypnotic influence. As regards diabolic power, the following signs should be considered:

(a) The nature of the work accomplished, which sometimes (as in the case of restoration to life) exceeds all created powers.

(b) The moral character of the work, personality of the agent, manner of performance, effects, teaching with which it is connected.

Critique

This reply is true, but it does not argue sufficiently deeply from the nature of miraculous work. Moreover some of these Apologists affirm too much when they judge a miracle from the prayer whereby in their opinion it has been obtained.

It is suggested that prayer is the moral cause of a particular miracle, and that God is the physical cause. Antecedent prayer is considered generally by theologians as one of the circumstances whereby a miracle is discerned, but it does not constitute the primary criterion for the discernment of a fact which exceeds even the unknown powers of nature.

(2) Deeper solution.

We do not know positively all the powers of nature, but we know negatively what nature cannot do. From the combination of oxygen and hydrogen we do not get chlorine; by sowing wheat, we do not obtain roses; a human voice will not calm storms, or resuscitate the dead. Certain effects can be produced only by God; they exceed all created powers, even those that are unknown.

1° Proof from natural reason, i.e., common consent of mankind.

Common consent of mankind of every time and nation cannot be false. But this universal consent recognises that certain effects postulate the action of God, such as raising from the dead, giving sight to one born blind, healing of incurable diseases, multiplying a material substance, instantaneous change of one substance into another, knowing secrets of hearts and future contingent things, sudden strengthening of a human will to the performance of heroic acts, etc.

2° Proof from philosophic reason.

(A) Evidence to shew that the supernatural character of many miracles of first, second, and third order is metaphysically certain.

Major: It is metaphysically certain that God alone can produce and change immediately being as such, e.g., matter, material substances without the help of accidents, intellectual soul, etc.

Minor: But many miracles of the first, second and third order necessarily and clearly imply these immediate changes.

Conclusion: Therefore it is metaphysically certain that these miracles can be wrought by God alone.

The Major is proved:

For the proof of the Major, it is necessary to shew that the effects enumerated belong to God alone, and that no inferior cause can produce them. It is well to note that only a universal cause, which can immediately produce a universal effect, can immediately change the effect, because immediate change of being presupposes the same universality of causal power as immediate production.

(a) God alone can produce being as such, i.e., create. A universal effect must be ascribed to a universal cause. Being is the most universal effect. Hence it must be ascribed to the most universal cause, i.e., God.

Moreover more power is required in an agent in accordance with the potentiality which in the given case is remote from achievement. It follows that the power must be infinite, if there is no potentiality, as in the case of creation, i.e., “productio totius rei ex nihilo sui et subjecti”—the production of substantial being without the aid of pre-existing material. Hence creation postulates an infinite cause, and God alone, who creates, can change being as such.

(b) Divine power is also required to exercise immediate subjective influence on the substance of the intellectual soul, and upon faculties of intellect and will. An immediate action upon the soul (e.g., reunion of body and soul at the general resurrection) requires the power of Him who created the soul. Intellect and will are essentially directed to universal truth and universal good. They can be subjectively moved only by the sole universal agent, i.e., God.

The Minor is proved: “Many miracles of first, second, and third order, necessarily and clearly imply immediate changes of being.”

Miracles of the first order:

The Catholic Church teaches that in the Mass the miracle of transubstantiation is wrought. Here we are concerned only with the implication of this teaching. (Elsewhere the teaching is vindicated.)

(a) Transubstantiation¹ essentially implies change of being as such. The change is not merely formal, the matter remaining the same, but it is a change of the whole being of bread into the whole substance of the Body of Christ. Created agents can effect only changes of form. All changes made in conformity with the laws of nature are only formal changes. But God is infinite, and His action extends to the whole nature of being.

(b) Co-existence of two bodies in the same place (e.g., Christ’s entry into the Cenacle, the doors being closed) requires Divine power, so that a material substance may remain distinct from another substance without a place of its own.

It is interesting to note that St. Thomas holds that bi-location is not possible by miracle, as it involves a contradiction. In recorded cases (the credibility of which depends on testimony) where testimony justifies belief, the body is really present in one place, and only its appearance (produced by God or by an angel) in another.

Miracles of the second order:

The implication of (e.g.) the resurrection of Lazarus may be set forth in syllogistic form.

Major: The soul is united to the body by its substantial being as the form of the body.

Minor: But resurrection is a substantial union of a separated soul with the matter of a body without the mediation of previous accidental dispositions.

Conclusion: Hence resurrection implies immediate power on matter and the substantial being of the soul, and therefore postulates Divine action.

The Minor gives the recognised definition of resurrection. The truth of the Major is established by the following principles:

(1) The soul is the radical principle of vegetative, sensitive, and rational action.

(2) From the soul the specific difference of man is derived.

(3) Unless the soul is united to the body by its substantial being, the natural unity of man would be destroyed.

Miracles of the third order:

Sudden change of water into wine is the immediate production of the form of wine from the potentiality of matter, and cannot be accomplished except by One who has immediate power over matter.

St. Thomas is of opinion that probably the multiplication of loaves was accomplished not by creation, but by addition of matter changed into bread, i.e., by a formal change of extraneous matter, not a transubstantiation which is a change of the whole being, formal and material.

(B) The supernatural character of other miracles of the third order is generally known with moral certitude from physical and moral circumstances.

Wonderful achievements can in some cases be accomplished by created beings. Hence the question arises, is the agent good or bad? The question is solved by a consideration of physical and moral circumstances.

1° Good agents are recognised as instruments of God by a threefold mark:

(1) Efficacy of power; simulated miracles (so-called) wrought by evil agents do not last.

(2) Utility; simulated miracles are useless or hurtful.

(3) End; miracles accomplished by good agents make for edification.

2° Benedict XIV in his great work On the beatification of the servants of God, lays down the following physical conditions as criteria of a true miraculous cure:

1. Grave illness, the cure of which is impossible or difficult.
2. The illness must not be in a stage when a favourable change may be expected.
3. Medicine either not taken, or useless.
4. Cure sudden.
5. Cure perfect.
6. Without preceding notable decrease or crisis.
7. No return of disease.

3° The moral circumstances, which help to determine the character of a miracle, are shewn in answer to the well-known queries: Cur, quis, quid, ubi, quibus auxiliis, quomodo, quando.

1. Cur: End or object of the miracles should be the glory of God.

(a) Miracles wrought in the name of God, in confirmation of some revealed truth to be accepted by all, cannot be false.

(b) True miracles are known by their fruits: e.g., if worship of God is promoted, and reformation of morals accomplished.

2. Quis: By whom is the miracle worked? Is his or her virtue and teaching beyond suspicion?

3. Quid: If the work accomplished be contrary to truth or virtue it cannot come from God.

4. Ubi: Environment and associates must be blameless.

5. Quibus auxiliis: Has the miracle been accomplished through invocation of Divine name?

6. Quomodo: How accomplished? With reverence and humility?

7. Quando: It is not a miracle, if there is no necessity nor usefulness in the work accomplished.

V.—Discernment of a miracle as to its real existence.

(1) The supernatural character of a miracle regards only its mode of production. The fact (restoration of sight, speech, etc.) is obvious to the senses.

(2) The existence of certain miracles was physically certain to those who witnessed them.

(3) Some miracles of the third order seem to be only morally certain, both as to their existence, and as to their supernatural character.

(4) Human testimony gives moral certitude of the existence of miracles. If the testimony regarding Our Lord’s resurrection be disbelieved, all historical certitude disappears.

(5) Some miracles (e.g., the resurrection of Christ) were known to witnesses with physical certitude as to their real existence, and with metaphysical certitude as to their supernatural character. We have moral certitude of these miracles based on adequate historical testimony.

VI.—False miracles.

I.—Magic, Spiritism and Hypnotism.

(a) Magic may be either natural (due to sleight of hand, etc.) or diabolic. Some diabolic achievements deserve belief (Cf. Ex. vii. 9; Acts viii. 9, xiii. 8; xvi. 16).

(b) Phenomena of Hypnotism and Spiritism may be classified as follows:

(1) Mechanical phenomena: table-turning, movement of heavy bodies, etc.

(2) Physiological and sensitive phenomena. In the hypnotic state the senses are sometimes morbidly acute.

According to the La Salpêtrière school hypnotism induces a threefold state: lethargy, catalepsis, and somnambulism.

(3) Intellectual phenomena: power of declamation, of speaking fluently in languages imperfectly known, etc.

Critique

Many so-called achievements of Spiritism are cases of fraud; but some are so well attested that they cannot be questioned. The answers given through mediums are usually trivial, sometimes impious and heretical, and cases have been known of downright obscenity. The origin of such communications is manifest: “by their fruits you shall know them.”

II.—Theories in explanation of hypnotism and spiritism.

Many theories, such as the materialistic theory of magnetic fluid, theory of the power of imagination, theory of animism (occult powers of the soul), theory of metempsychosis, fail to explain the phenomena. When, in cases of spiritualistic séances, the element of fraud is eliminated, the residue must be attributed to evil spirits.

III.—Powers of spirits to produce wonderful effects.

(1) Existence of spirits is proved by Scripture and reason.

(2) There are good and bad spirits (2 Pet. ii. 4).

(3) Evil spirits can simulate miracles.

(a) They can move bodies locally.

(b) They can attempt and sometimes succeed in influencing the human imagination extrinsically.

Art. IV.—Probative force of a miracle.

I.—Teaching of the Church.

The Vatican Council defined that miracles are most certain signs of Divine Revelation (D. 1790, 1813), (Cf. John x. 25-38, xv. 24).

II.—Nature of the proof.

Proof by miracle is neither à priori nor à posteriori, but indirect proof from a most certain sign. “When one brings letters signed by the royal seal, the subject matter of the letters manifestly comes from the Sovereign” (Cf. III.ᵃ q 43, a 1).

III.—Miracle—a most certain motive of Credibility.

(A) Foundation of its probative force.

Should a miracle be wrought in confirmation of false doctrine, God, Source of truth and holiness, would witness to that which is false.

(B) Condition of its probative force.

The condition is the declaration, explicit or implicit, of the connexion of the miracle with the truth to be confirmed.

Notes

Footnotes

1. Transubstantiation not being a sensible miracle cannot be quoted for apologetic purposes. It is mentioned here to show that God’s action may extend to the whole nature of being. ↩