THE NEW SCHAFF-HERZOG
essential difference between the third class of miracles and the other two classes can not, therefore, be maintained. A distinction may, however, be drawn between the miracles of the period of divine revelation and the later miracles manifested in the outworking of this revelation in the history of the human race. From this point of view there are four classes of miracles, the first two comprising immediate revelation and the last two mediate revelation; the spiritual miracle of the revelation which produced the Word of God (inspiration); the miracles manifested in history and nature to bring forth the Word of God; the miracles of the spiritual operation of the Word of God; and the miracles of faith worked by the divine guidance of the life of man.
(R. Seeberg.) Aside from the Ritschlian conception of miracles as striking occurrences with which the experience of God's special help is connected, are two other positions, not wholly to be distinguished from each other, by which miracles are explained. (1) They are regarded as extraordinary events coincident with a religious message, the events being of such a
character as to justify the conviction 7. Present that God wrought them in attestation Tendencies, of the message. This view, suggested
by J. B. Mozley (Miracles, pp. 5-6, 168, London, 1886), finds many adherents (cf. W. N. Clarke, Outline of Christian Theology, p. 133, New York, 1898; G. P. Fisher, Grounds of Theistic and Christian Belief, pp. 163 sqq., New York, 1902; E. Y. Mullins, Why Is Christianity True? pp. 170- 179, Chicago, 1905; G. F. Wright, Scripture Confirmations of Old Testament History, pp. 87 sqq., "mediate miracles," Oberlin, 1906; A. H. Strong, Systematic Theology, i. 118-119, Philadelphia, 1907). According to this view, miracles are extraordinary events in nature wrought by the same God who is everywhere present and active. They may be traced to natural causes and thus be naturally explained: miracles and natural causes are only different names for the one will of God. All sorts of physical antecedents of miracles are possible; and these antecedents, as well as the miracles, are themselves signs of the authorization of the commission of the leader or teacher. The essential element here is the coincidence. In this way it is supposed that the claims of science and religion are fully acknowledged. (2) The other explanation, akin to the Ritschlian, distinguishes between two aspects of events, according as they occur in a system of law conditioned by antecedent causes — the how; and as they reveal purpose — the wherefore; the causal and the teleological aspect of reality, (a) From the causal point of view, two affirmations are made: first, that of a uniform and comcomitant variation among phenomena; secondly, that of the origination of all phenomena in the immanent activity of God. All events are both natural and supernatural—natural in the mode of their appearance, supernatural in their ultimate ground. Thus a metaphysical basis is laid for the manifestation of free intelligence in the order of the world, and for uniformity in nature which includes even the alleged miracle. If law is the expression of the divine purpose, then no interference from beyond the
law is possible. If all the antecedents of an event were known, even the miracle would be explained; for the "all" contains not only the phenomenal antecedents but also the divine will and purpose (cf. B. P. Bowne, Theism, pp. 199-247, New York, 1902). (b) Thus the teleological point of view is reached, which admits a different interpretation of events from that offered by the causal relation. Here the question is that of meaning or end. The interest centers in the significance of the event- for the religious life. The degree of the significance will determine whether it shall be regarded as a miraculous or as a common event.
The present-day emphasis on the ethical and religious content of Christianity is withdrawing attention from the aspect of miraculousness long associated with it. Irrespective of the difficulties concerning miracles which have arisen from the side of history, science, philosophy, and comparative religion, the tendency is to find what is essential to Christianity in the type and power of the life which Christ both initiates and completes. Hence, it is affirmed that forgiveness of sins, comfort in sorrow, hope in eternal life, impulse to social service, and communion with God are in no way dependent on the common doctrine of miracles as interruptions of the order of nature, or interventions or suspensions of the laws of nature (cf . G. A. Gordon, Religion and Miracle, Boston, 1909). c. a. b.
Bibliography: Besides the literature on the life of Christ, in which generally the subject of miracles is fully discussed, and the works on dogmatic theology and Biblical theology, consult: G. Campbell, A Dissertation on the Miracles, London, 1846; R. Wardlaw, On Miracles, New York, 1853; F. De Quincey, Hume's Argument against Miracles, in Theological Essays, vol. i., Boston, 1854; B. Powell, The Order of Nature Considered in Reference to the Claims of Revelation, London, 1859; B. F. Westcott, Characteristics of the Gospel Miracles. Sermons preached before the University of Cambridge, Cambridge, 1859; W. Beyschlag, Die Bedeutung des Wunders im Christentum, Berlin, 1863; A. Harvey, The Miracles of Christ as Attested by the Evangelist*, Boston, 1864; W. M. Taylor, The Miracles, Helps to Faith, not Hinderances, Edinburgh, 1865; F. L. Steinmeyer, Die Wunderthaten des Herrn, Berlin, 1866, Eng. transl., The Miracles of Our Lord in Relation to Modern Criticism, Edinburgh, 1875; J. B Mozley, Eight Lectures on Miracles, London, 1867; E. A. Litton, Miracles, London, 1868; O. Flugel, Das Wunder und die Erkennbarkeit Gotles, Leipsic, 1869; W. Mountford, Miracles, Past and Present, Boston, 1870; John H. Newman, Two Essays on Scripture Miracles, and on Ecclesiastical, London, 1870; W. Bender, Der Wunderbegriff des N. T., Frankfort, 1871; J. H. Newman, Two Essays on Miracles, London, 1873; J. S. Mill, Nature, the Utility of Religion, Theism; Being Three Essays on Religion, London, 1874 (against miracles); R. C. Trench, Notes on the Miracles of Our Lord, London and New York, 1874; W. R. Cassels, Supernatural Religion, 3 vols., London, 1879 (against miracles); W. M. Taylor, The Gospel Miracles in their Relation to Christ and Christianity, New York, 1880; J. W. Reynolds, The Mystery of Miracles, London, 1881; D. Hume, An Essay on Miracles, republished, London, 1882; R. Kubel, Ueber den christlichen Wunderglauben, Stuttgart, 1883; J. J. Lias, Are Miracles Credible? London, 1883; E. C. Brewer, A Dictionary of Miracles: Imitative, Realistic and Dogmatic, Philadelphia, 1884; S. Cox, Miracles: an Argument, London, 1884; A. B. Bruce, The Miraculous Element in the Gospels, New York, 1886; B. Maitland, Miracles, London, 1886; T. W. Belcher, Our Lord's Miracles of Healing Considered in Relation to Some Modern Objections and to Medical Science, with Preface by Archbishop Trench, London, 1890; E. A. Abbott, Philomythus, London, 1891 (a reply to Newman); G. Stokes, Natural Theology, Edinburgh, 1891; J. Hutchinson, Our Lord's Sign* in St. John's Gospel. Discussions