Miracles

As men are accustomed to call Divine the knowledge which transcends human understanding, so also do they style Divine, or the work of God, anything of which the cause is not generally known: for the masses think that the power and providence of God are most clearly displayed by events that are extraordinary and contrary to the conception they have formed of nature, especially if such events bring them any profit or convenience: they think that the clearest possible proof of God's existence is afforded when nature, as they suppose, breaks her accustomed order, and consequently they believe that those who explain or endeavour to understand phenomena or miracles through their natural causes are doing away with God and His providence. They suppose, forsooth, that God is inactive so long as nature works in her accustomed order, and vice versa, that the power of nature and natural causes are idle so long as God is acting: thus they imagine two powers distinct one from the other, the power of God and the power of nature, though the latter is in a sense determined by God, or (as most people believe now) created by Him. What they mean by either, and what they understand by God and nature they do not know, except that they imagine the power of God to be like that of some royal potentate, and nature's power to consist in force and energy.

People commonly call knowledge beyond human understanding divine. In the same way, they call anything whose cause is not widely known divine, or the work of God. For ordinary people think God's power and providence appear most clearly in extraordinary events that contradict their understanding of nature. They think so especially if those events bring them some benefit or convenience. They believe God's existence is proved most clearly when nature, as they suppose, breaks its usual order. Consequently, they believe that explaining or trying to understand phenomena or miracles through natural causes denies God and his providence. They suppose, of course, that God does nothing as long as nature follows its usual order. Conversely, they suppose that nature's power and natural causes do nothing as long as God is acting. So they imagine two distinct powers: God's power and nature's power. Yet nature's power is in some sense determined by God, or, as most people now believe, created by him. They do not know what they mean by either power, or what they understand by God and nature. They merely imagine God's power as resembling a king's power, and nature's power as consisting of force and energy.

The masses then style unusual phenomena, "miracles," and partly from piety, partly for the sake of opposing the students of science, prefer to remain in ignorance of natural causes, and only to hear of those things which they know least, and consequently admire most. In fact, the common people can only adore God, and refer all things to His power by removing natural causes, and conceiving things happening out of their due course, and only admires the power of God when the power of nature is conceived of as in subjection to it.

The masses, then, call unusual phenomena "miracles." Partly out of piety, partly to oppose those who study science, they prefer to remain ignorant of natural causes. They want to hear only about things they understand least and therefore admire most. In fact, ordinary people can worship God and attribute all things to his power only by excluding natural causes. They must imagine events happening outside their natural course. And they admire God's power only when they imagine nature's power as subject to his.

This idea seems to have taken its rise among the early Jews who saw the Gentiles round them worshipping visible gods such as the sun, the moon, the earth, water, air, &c., and in order to inspire the conviction that such divinities were weak and inconstant, or changeable, told how they themselves were under the sway of an invisible God, and narrated their miracles, trying further to show that the God whom they worshipped arranged the whole of nature for their sole benefit: this idea was so pleasing to humanity that men go on to this day imagining miracles, so that they may believe themselves God's favourites, and the final cause for which God created and directs all things.

This idea seems to have originated among the early Jews. They saw the Gentiles around them worshipping visible gods, such as the sun, moon, earth, water, air, and others. To convince people that such gods were weak and unreliable, or changeable, the Jews described their own invisible God's rule. They recounted their miracles, also trying to show that their God arranged all of nature solely for their benefit. This idea appealed so much to humanity that people still imagine miracles today. They do so to believe themselves God's favourites and the ultimate purpose for which God created and directs all things.

What pretension will not people in their folly advance! They have no single sound idea concerning either God or nature, they confound God's decrees with human decrees, they conceive nature as so limited that they believe man to be its chief part! I have spent enough space in setting forth these common ideas and prejudices concerning nature and miracles, but in order to afford a regular demonstration I will show -

What claims will people not make in their foolishness! They have not a single sound idea about either God or nature. They confuse God's decrees with human decrees. They see nature as so limited that they believe humans are its most important part! I have spent enough time explaining these common ideas and prejudices about nature and miracles. But to give a systematic proof, I will show:

I. That nature cannot be contravened, but that she preserves a fixed and immutable order, and at the same time I will explain what is meant by a miracle.

I. Nature cannot be violated, but maintains a fixed and unchanging order. At the same time, I will explain what is meant by a miracle.

II. That God's nature and existence, and consequently His providence cannot be known from miracles, but that they can all be much better perceived from the fixed and immutable order of nature.

II. God's nature and existence, and therefore his providence, cannot be known through miracles. But all three can be understood much better through the fixed and unchanging order of nature.

III. That by the decrees and volitions, and consequently the providence of God, Scripture (as I will prove by Scriptural examples) means nothing but nature's order following necessarily from her eternal laws.

III. By God's decrees and acts of will, and consequently God's providence, Scripture means nothing but nature's order. I will prove this meaning with examples from Scripture. Nature's order follows necessarily from nature's eternal laws.

IV. Lastly, I will treat of the method of interpreting Scriptural miracles, and the chief points to be noted concerning the narratives of them.

IV. Finally, I will discuss how to interpret miracles in Scripture. I will also discuss the main points to note about accounts of these miracles.

Such are the principal subjects which will be discussed in this chapter, and which will serve, I think, not a little to further the object of this treatise.

These are the main subjects to be discussed in this chapter. I think they will do much to advance the purpose of this treatise.

Our first point is easily proved from what we showed in Chap. IV. about Divine law - namely, that all that God wishes or determines involves eternal necessity and truth, for we demonstrated that God's understanding is identical with His will, and that it is the same thing to say that God wills a thing, as to say, that He understands it; hence, as it follows necessarily, from the Divine nature and perfection that God understands a thing as it is, it follows no less necessarily that He wills it as it is. Now, as nothing is necessarily true save only by Divine decree, it is plain that the universal laws of nature are decrees of God following from the necessity and perfection of the Divine nature. 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 acts 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. One might easily show from the same premises that the power and efficiency of nature are in themselves the Divine power and efficiency, and that the Divine power is the very essence of God, but this I gladly pass over for the present.

Our first point is easily proved from what we showed in Chapter IV about Divine law. Everything God wills or determines involves eternal necessity and truth. For we demonstrated that God's understanding is identical with his will. To say that God wills something is the same as saying that he understands it. God's nature and perfection necessarily mean that he understands a thing as it is. So, just as necessarily, he wills that thing as it is. Now, nothing is necessarily true except by Divine decree. Clearly, then, the universal laws of nature are God's decrees, following from the necessity and perfection of his nature. Therefore, any event in nature that violated nature's universal laws would necessarily also violate God's decree, nature, and understanding. Or if anyone claimed that God acts against the laws of nature, that claim would force a further conclusion. They would have to say that God acted against his own nature, an obvious absurdity. From the same premises, one could easily show that nature's power and activity are themselves God's power and activity. One could also show that Divine power is God's very essence. But I gladly leave these points aside for now.

Nothing, then, comes to pass in nature (N.B. I do not mean here by "nature," merely matter and its modifications, but infinite other things besides matter.) in contravention to her universal laws, nay, everything agrees with them and follows from them, for whatsoever comes to pass, comes to pass by the will and eternal decree of God; that is, as we have just pointed out, whatever comes to pass, comes to pass according to laws and rules which involve eternal necessity and truth; nature, therefore, always observes laws and rules which involve eternal necessity and truth, although they may not all be known to us, and therefore she keeps a fixed and mutable order. Nor is there any sound reason for limiting the power and efficacy of nature, and asserting that her laws are fit for certain purposes, but not for all; for as the efficacy and power of nature, are the very efficacy and power of God, and as the laws and rules of nature are the decrees of God, it is in every way to be believed that the power of nature is infinite, and that her laws are broad enough to embrace everything conceived by, the Divine intellect; the only alternative is to assert that God has created nature so weak, and has ordained for her laws so barren, that He is repeatedly compelled to come afresh to her aid if He wishes that she should be preserved, and that things should happen as He desires: a conclusion, in my opinion, very far removed from reason. Further, as nothing happens in nature which does not follow from her laws, and as her laws embrace everything conceived by the Divine intellect, and lastly, as nature preserves a fixed and immutable order; it most clearly follows that miracles are only intelligible as in relation to human opinions, and merely mean events of which the natural cause cannot be explained by a reference to any ordinary occurrence, either by us, or at any rate, by the writer and narrator of the miracle.

Nothing, then, happens in nature against its universal laws. (Note: By "nature," I do not mean merely matter and its modifications, but infinitely many other things besides matter.) On the contrary, everything agrees with nature’s laws and follows from them. For everything happens by the will and eternal decree of God. As we have just explained, everything therefore happens according to laws and rules involving eternal necessity and truth. Nature always follows such laws and rules, although we may not know them all. Nature therefore maintains a fixed and changeable order. There is no sound reason to limit nature’s power and effectiveness. Nor is there reason to claim that nature’s laws serve certain purposes but not all purposes. For nature’s power and effectiveness are the very power and effectiveness of God. And nature’s laws and rules are God’s decrees. We must therefore believe that nature’s power is infinite. We must also believe that nature’s laws are broad enough to cover everything conceived by the Divine intellect. The only alternative is to claim that God created nature so weak, and gave it such inadequate laws, that he must repeatedly come to its aid. He must do so if he wishes nature to survive and events to unfold as he desires. In my opinion, such a conclusion is very far from reasonable. Furthermore, nothing happens in nature without following from its laws. Those laws cover everything conceived by the Divine intellect, and nature maintains a fixed and unchanging order. It therefore follows with complete clarity that miracles can be understood only in relation to human opinions. Miracles simply mean events whose natural causes we cannot explain by referring to any ordinary occurrence. Or, at least, the person who writes about and recounts the miracle cannot explain its natural cause in that way.

We may, in fact, say that a miracle is an event of which the causes annot be explained by the natural reason through a reference to ascertained workings of nature; but since miracles were wrought according to the understanding of the masses, who are wholly ignorant of the workings of nature, it is certain that the ancients took for a miracle whatever they could not explain by the method adopted by the unlearned in such cases, namely, an appeal to the memory, a recalling of something similar, which is ordinarily regarded without wonder; for most people think they sufficiently understand a thing when they have ceased to wonder at it. The ancients, then, and indeed most men up to the present day, had no other criterion for a miracle; hence we cannot doubt that many things are narrated in Scripture as miracles of which the causes could easily be explained by reference to ascertained workings of nature. We have hinted as much in Chap. II., in speaking of the sun standing still in the time of Joshua, and to say on the subject when we come to treat of the interpretation of miracles later on in this chapter.

We may, in fact, call an event a miracle when natural reason cannot explain its causes through known natural processes. But miracles were performed in ways suited to the understanding of ordinary people, who knew nothing about how nature works. So the ancients certainly considered anything a miracle if they could not explain it as uneducated people usually did. Their method was to search their memory for something similar that ordinarily caused no wonder. For most people think they understand something well enough once they stop wondering at it. The ancients, then, and indeed most people even today, had no other standard for identifying a miracle. So we cannot doubt that Scripture describes many events as miracles whose causes known natural processes could easily explain. We suggested as much in Chapter II, when discussing the sun standing still in the time of Joshua. We will have more to say about this subject later in this chapter, when we discuss how to interpret miracles.

It is now time to pass on to the second point, and show that we cannot gain an understanding of God's essence, existence, or providence by means of miracles, but that these truths are much better perceived through the fixed and immutable order of nature. I thus proceed with the demonstration. As God's existence is not self-evident⁶ it must necessarily be inferred from ideas so firmly and incontrovertibly true, that no power can be postulated or conceived sufficient to impugn them. They ought certainly so to appear to us when we infer from them God's existence, if we wish to place our conclusion beyond the reach of doubt; for if we could conceive that such ideas could be impugned by any power whatsoever, we should doubt of their truth, we should doubt of our conclusion, namely, of God's existence, and should never be able to be certain of anything. Further, we know that nothing either agrees with or is contrary to nature, unless it agrees with or is contrary to these primary ideas; wherefore if we would conceive that anything could be done in nature by any power whatsoever which would be contrary to the laws of nature, it would also be contrary to our primary ideas, and we should have either to reject it as absurd, or else to cast doubt (as just shown) on our primary ideas, and consequently on the existence of God, and on everything howsoever perceived. Therefore miracles, in the sense of events contrary to the laws of nature, so far from demonstrating to us the existence of God, would, on the contrary, lead us to doubt it, where, otherwise, we might have been absolutely certain of it, as knowing that nature follows a fixed and immutable order.

It is now time to turn to the second point. We cannot understand God's essence, existence, or providence through miracles. These truths are much better understood through nature's fixed and unchanging order. I will prove this as follows. Since God's existence is not self-evident⁶, we must infer it from ideas whose truth is firm and beyond dispute. No power can be supposed or imagined capable of undermining these ideas. If we want our conclusion beyond doubt, these ideas must certainly seem beyond dispute when we infer God's existence from them. For if we could imagine any power undermining these ideas, we would doubt their truth. We would then doubt our conclusion, namely, God's existence, and could never be certain of anything. Furthermore, we know that something agrees with or contradicts nature only if it agrees with or contradicts these basic ideas. So suppose we imagined that any power could make something happen in nature contrary to nature's laws. Such an event would also contradict our basic ideas. We would therefore have to reject the event as absurd or question our basic ideas, as just shown. Questioning those ideas would also cast doubt on God's existence and on everything we perceive, however we perceive it. Therefore, miracles understood as events contrary to nature's laws would not demonstrate God's existence. On the contrary, such miracles would lead us to doubt God's existence. Otherwise, we could have been absolutely certain of God's existence, knowing that nature follows a fixed and unchanging order.

Let us take miracle as meaning that which cannot be explained through natural causes. This may be interpreted in two senses: either as that which has natural causes, but cannot be examined by the human intellect; or as that which has no cause save God and God's will. But as all things which come to pass through natural causes, come to pass also solely through the will and power of God, it comes to this, that a miracle, whether it has natural causes or not, is a result which cannot be explained by its cause, that is a phenomenon which surpasses human understanding; but from such a phenomenon, and certainly from a result surpassing our understanding, we can gain no knowledge. For whatsoever we understand clearly and distinctly should be plain to us either in itself or by means of something else clearly and distinctly understood; wherefore from a miracle or a phenomenon which we cannot understand, we can gain no knowledge of God's essence, or existence, or indeed anything about God or nature; whereas when we know that all things are ordained and ratified by God, that the operations of nature follow from the essence of God, and that the laws of nature are eternal decrees and volitions of God, we must perforce conclude that our knowledge of God, and of God's will increases in proportion to our knowledge and clear understanding of nature, as we see how she depends on her primal cause, and how she works according to eternal law. Wherefore so far as our understanding goes, those phenomena which we clearly and distinctly understand have much better right to be called works of God, and to be referred to the will of God than those about which we are entirely ignorant, although they appeal powerfully to the imagination, and compel men's admiration.

Let us define a miracle as something that cannot be explained by natural causes. We can understand this definition in two ways. A miracle may have natural causes that the human mind cannot investigate. Or a miracle may have no cause except God and God's will. But everything that happens through natural causes also happens solely through God's will and power. So, whether a miracle has natural causes or not, it is an effect that cannot be explained by its cause. In other words, a miracle is a phenomenon beyond human understanding. But we can gain no knowledge from such a phenomenon, and certainly none from an effect beyond our understanding. For whatever we understand clearly and distinctly must be clear either in itself or through something else clearly and distinctly understood. Therefore, a miracle, or a phenomenon we cannot understand, gives us no knowledge of God's essence or existence. Nor does such a phenomenon teach us anything else about God or nature. By contrast, we know that God orders and confirms all things. We know that nature's workings follow from God's essence. And we know that nature's laws are God's eternal decrees and expressions of his will. From this knowledge, we must conclude that our knowledge of God and God's will grows with our clear understanding of nature. We gain this understanding as we see how nature depends on its first cause and operates according to eternal law. Therefore, as far as our understanding goes, phenomena we understand clearly and distinctly deserve to be called God's works far more. We have far more reason to attribute these phenomena to God's will than phenomena about which we know nothing. This remains true even though unexplained phenomena strongly appeal to the imagination and compel people's admiration.

It is only phenomena that we clearly and distinctly understand, which heighten our knowledge of God, and most clearly indicate His will and decrees. Plainly, they are but triflers who, when they cannot explain a thing, run back to the will of God; this is, truly, a ridiculous way of expressing ignorance. Again, even supposing that some conclusion could be drawn from miracles, we could not possibly infer from them the existence of God: for a miracle being an event under limitations is the expression of a fixed and limited power; therefore we could not possibly infer from an effect of this kind the existence of a cause whose power is infinite, but at the utmost only of a cause whose power is greater than that of the said effect. I say at the utmost, for a phenomenon may be the result of many concurrent causes, and its power may be less than the power of the sum of such causes, but far greater than that of any one of them taken individually. On the other hand, the laws of nature, as we have shown, extend over infinity, and are conceived by us as, after a fashion, eternal, and nature works in accordance with them in a fixed and immutable order; therefore, such laws indicate to us in a certain degree the infinity, the eternity, and the immutability of God.

Only phenomena we understand clearly and distinctly increase our knowledge of God and most clearly reveal his will and decrees. Clearly, people who fall back on God’s will whenever they cannot explain something are merely being frivolous. This is truly a ridiculous way to express ignorance. Even supposing we could draw some conclusion from miracles, we could not infer God’s existence from them. A miracle is a limited event, so it expresses a definite, limited power. We therefore could not infer from such an effect the existence of a cause with infinite power. At most, we could infer a cause with greater power than the effect. I say “at most” because a phenomenon may result from many causes acting together. Its power may be less than their combined power, yet far greater than the power of any single cause. On the other hand, as we have shown, the laws of nature extend to infinity. We also conceive of these laws as, in a sense, eternal. Nature follows these laws in a fixed, unchanging order. These laws therefore reveal to us, to some degree, God’s infinity, eternity, and unchanging nature.

We may conclude, then, that we cannot gain knowledge of the existence and providence of God by means of miracles, but that we can far better infer them from the fixed and immutable order of nature. By miracle, I here mean an event which surpasses, or is thought to surpass, human comprehension: for in so far as it is supposed to destroy or interrupt the order of nature or her laws, it not only can give us no knowledge of God, but, contrariwise, takes away that which we naturally have, and makes us doubt of God and everything else.

We may conclude, then, that miracles cannot give us knowledge of God's existence and providence. We can infer both far better from the fixed and unchanging order of nature. By a miracle, I mean an event that exceeds, or is thought to exceed, human understanding. For if a miracle is supposed to destroy or interrupt nature's order or laws, it cannot give us knowledge of God. On the contrary, such a miracle takes away the knowledge we naturally have. It also makes us doubt God and everything else.

Neither do I recognize any difference between an event against the laws of nature and an event beyond the laws of nature (that is, according to some, an event which does not contravene nature, though she is inadequate to produce or effect it) - for a miracle is wrought in, and not beyond nature, though it may be said in itself to be above nature, and, therefore, must necessarily interrupt the order of nature, which otherwise we conceive of as fixed and unchangeable, according to God's decrees. If, therefore, anything should come to pass in nature which does not follow from her laws, it would also be in contravention to the order which God has established in nature for ever through universal natural laws: it would, therefore, be in contravention to God's nature and laws, and, consequently, belief in it would throw doubt upon everything, and lead to Atheism.

Nor do I see any difference between an event against nature’s laws and an event beyond those laws. Some describe an event beyond nature’s laws as one that does not violate nature, though nature cannot produce it. But a miracle occurs within nature, not beyond it, though the miracle itself may be said to be above nature. A miracle must therefore interrupt nature’s order, which we otherwise understand as fixed and unchangeable, according to God’s decrees. So if anything happened in nature that did not follow from nature’s laws, that event would violate God’s established order. God has established this order in nature forever through universal natural laws. Such an event would therefore violate God’s nature and laws. Consequently, belief in such an event would cast doubt on everything and lead to atheism.

I think I have now sufficiently established my second point, so that we can again conclude that a miracle, whether in contravention to, or beyond, nature, is a mere absurdity; and, therefore, that what is meant in Scripture by a miracle can only be a work of nature, which surpasses, or is believed to surpass, human comprehension. Before passing on to my third point, I will adduce Scriptural authority for my assertion that God cannot be known from miracles. Scripture nowhere states the doctrine openly, but it can readily be inferred from several passages. Firstly, that in which Moses commands (Deut. xiii.) that a false prophet should be put to death, even though he work miracles: "If there arise a prophet among you, and giveth thee a sign or wonder, and the sign or wonder come to pass, saying, Let us go after other gods . . . thou shalt not hearken unto the voice of that prophet; for the Lord your God proveth you, and that prophet shall be put to death." From this it clearly follows that miracles could be wrought even by false prophets; and that, unless men are honestly endowed with the true knowledge and love of God, they may be as easily led by miracles to follow false gods as to follow the true God; for these words are added: "For the Lord your God tempts you, that He may know whether you love Him with all your heart and with all your mind."

I think I have now established my second point well enough. So we can again conclude that a miracle, whether contrary to nature or beyond nature, is simply absurd. Therefore, a miracle in Scripture can only mean a natural event that exceeds, or is believed to exceed, human understanding. Before moving to my third point, I will offer evidence from Scripture that God cannot be known through miracles. Scripture never states this teaching openly, but we can readily infer it from several passages. The first passage is Deuteronomy 13, where Moses commands that a false prophet be put to death, even if he performs miracles: "If a prophet arises among you and gives you a sign or wonder, and the sign or wonder comes true, saying, Let us follow other gods . . . you must not listen to that prophet. For the Lord your God is testing you, and that prophet must be put to death." This passage clearly shows that even false prophets could perform miracles. It also shows that, unless people genuinely possess true knowledge and love of God, miracles may mislead them. Miracles may just as easily lead such people to follow false gods as to follow the true God. For the passage adds these words: "For the Lord your God tests you, to know whether you love him with all your heart and all your mind."

Further, the Israelites, from all their miracles, were unable to form a sound conception of God, as their experience testified: for when they had persuaded themselves that Moses had departed from among them, they petitioned Aaron to give them visible gods; and the idea of God they had formed as the result of all their miracles was - a calf!

Furthermore, all their miracles failed to give the Israelites a sound understanding of God, as their own experience showed. For when the Israelites convinced themselves that Moses had left them, they asked Aaron to give them visible gods. And the idea of God the Israelites had formed from all their miracles was a calf!

Asaph, though he had heard of so many miracles, yet doubted of the providence of God, and would have turned himself from the true way, if he had not at last come to understand true blessedness. (See Ps. lxxxiii.) Solomon, too, at a time when the Jewish nation was at the height of its prosperity, suspects that all things happen by chance. (See Eccles. iii:19, 20, 21; and chap. ix:2, 3, &c.)

Although Asaph had heard of so many miracles, he still doubted God's providence. He would have left the true path if he had not finally come to understand true blessedness. (See Psalm 83.) Solomon, too, suspects that everything happens by chance, even when the Jewish nation is at its most prosperous. (See Ecclesiastes 3:19, 20, 21 and 9:2, 3, etc.)

Lastly, nearly all the prophets found it very hard to reconcile the order of nature and human affairs with the conception they had formed of God's providence, whereas philosophers who endeavour to understand things by clear conceptions of them, rather than by miracles, have always found the task extremely easy - at least, such of them as place true happiness solely in virtue and peace of mind, and who aim at obeying nature, rather than being obeyed by her. Such persons rest assured that God directs nature according to the requirements of universal laws, not according to the requirements of the particular laws of human nature, and trial, therefore, God's scheme comprehends, not only the human race, but the whole of nature.

Finally, nearly all the prophets struggled to reconcile nature’s order and human affairs with their understanding of God’s providence. By contrast, philosophers who seek understanding through clear ideas rather than miracles have always found this task extremely easy. At least, this is true of philosophers who find true happiness only in virtue and peace of mind. These philosophers aim to obey nature rather than make nature obey them. They are certain that God directs nature according to universal laws, not according to the particular laws of human nature. Therefore, God’s plan includes not only the human race but all of nature.

It is plain, then, from Scripture itself, that miracles can give no knowledge of God, nor clearly teach us the providence of God. As to the frequent statements in Scripture, that God wrought miracles to make Himself plain to man - as in Exodus x:2, where He deceived the Egyptians, and gave signs of Himself, that the Israelites might know that He was God,- it does not, therefore, follow that miracles really taught this truth, but only that the Jews held opinions which laid them easily open to conviction by miracles. We have shown in Chap. II. that the reasons assigned by the prophets, or those which are formed from revelation, are not assigned in accordance with ideas universal and common to all, but in accordance with the accepted doctrines, however absurd, and with the opinions of those to whom the revelation was given, or those whom the Holy Spirit wished to convince.

Scripture itself, then, makes clear that miracles can give us no knowledge of God or clearly explain his providence. Scripture often says that God performed miracles to make himself known to people. For example, Exodus 10:2 says he deceived the Egyptians and gave signs of himself so the Israelites would know he was God. But these statements do not mean that miracles actually taught this truth. They mean only that the Jews held beliefs that made them easy to convince through miracles. As we showed in Chapter II, the reasons prophets give, or those drawn from revelation, do not follow universal ideas common to everyone. Instead, these reasons reflect accepted doctrines, however absurd those doctrines may be. They also reflect the opinions of those who received the revelation, or those whom the Holy Spirit wished to convince.

This we have illustrated by many Scriptural instances, and can further cite Paul, who to the Greeks was a Greek, and to the Jews a Jew. But although these miracles could convince the Egyptians and Jews from their standpoint, they could not give a true idea and knowledge of God, but only cause them to admit that there was a Deity more powerful than anything known to them, and that this Deity took special care of the Jews, who had just then an unexpectedly happy issue of all their affairs. They could not teach them that God cares equally for all, for this can be taught only by philosophy: the Jews, and all who took their knowledge of God's providence from the dissimilarity of human conditions of life and the inequalities of fortune, persuaded themselves that God loved the Jews above all men, though they did not surpass their fellows in true human perfection.

We have illustrated this with many examples from Scripture. We can also cite Paul, who was a Greek to the Greeks and a Jew to the Jews. But although these miracles could convince the Egyptians and Jews on their own terms, the miracles could not give them true knowledge or understanding of God. The miracles could only make them acknowledge a Deity more powerful than anything they knew. They could also make them acknowledge that this Deity took special care of the Jews. Just then, everything had turned out unexpectedly well for the Jews. The miracles could not teach them that God cares equally for everyone, for only philosophy can teach this. The Jews judged God's providence by differences in people's living conditions and inequalities of fortune. Like all who judged God's providence this way, the Jews convinced themselves that God loved them above all other people. Yet the Jews did not surpass others in true human perfection.

I now go on to my third point, and show from Scripture that the decrees and mandates of God, and consequently His providence, are merely the order of nature - that is, when Scripture describes an event as accomplished by God or God's will, we must understand merely that it was in accordance with the law and order of nature, not, as most people believe, that nature had for a season ceased to act, or that her order was temporarily interrupted. But Scripture does not directly teach matters unconnected with its doctrine, wherefore it has no care to explain things by their natural causes, nor to expound matters merely speculative. Wherefore our conclusion must be gathered by inference from those Scriptural narratives which happen to be written more at length and circumstantially than usual. Of these I will cite a few.

I now turn to my third point. I will show from Scripture that God's decrees and commands, and therefore his providence, are simply the order of nature. When Scripture says that God or God's will brought about an event, we must understand only one thing: the event followed the laws and order of nature. Most people believe instead that nature stopped acting for a time, or that its order was temporarily interrupted. But Scripture does not directly teach matters unrelated to its doctrine. So Scripture makes no effort to explain things through their natural causes or to discuss purely speculative matters. We must therefore infer our conclusion from scriptural accounts that happen to be longer and more detailed than usual. I will cite a few of these accounts.

In the first book of Samuel, ix:15, 16, it is related that God revealed to Samuel that He would send Saul to him, yet God did not send Saul to Samuel as people are wont to send one man to another. His "sending" was merely the ordinary course of nature. Saul was looking for the asses he had lost, and was meditating a return home without them, when, at the suggestion of his servant, he went to the prophet Samuel, to learn from him where he might find them. From no part of the narrative does it appear that Saul had any command from God to visit Samuel beyond this natural motive.

The first book of Samuel, 9:15, 16, says God revealed to Samuel that he would send Saul to him. Yet God did not send Saul to Samuel in the way people usually send one person to another. God's "sending" was simply the ordinary course of nature. Saul was looking for his lost donkeys and was thinking of returning home without them. But at his servant's suggestion, Saul went to the prophet Samuel to learn where he could find the donkeys. Nothing in the account suggests that Saul had any command from God to visit Samuel beyond this natural motive.

In Psalm cv. 24 it is said that God changed the hearts of the Egyptians, so that they hated the Israelites. This was evidently a natural change, as appears from Exodus, chap.i., where we find no slight reason for the Egyptians reducing the Israelites to slavery.

Psalm 105:24 says that God changed the hearts of the Egyptians so that the Egyptians hated the Israelites. This change was clearly natural, as Exodus, chapter 1, shows. That chapter gives substantial reasons why the Egyptians enslaved the Israelites.

In Genesis ix:13, God tells Noah that He will set His bow in the cloud; this action of God's is but another way of expressing the refraction and reflection which the rays of the sun are subjected to in drops of water.

In Genesis 9:13, God tells Noah that he will set his rainbow in the clouds. This act of God is simply another way of describing how sunlight is refracted and reflected in water droplets.

In Psalm cxlvii:18, the natural action and warmth of the wind, by which hoar frost and snow are melted, are styled the word of the Lord, and in verse 15 wind and cold are called the commandment and word of God.

In Psalm 147:18, the wind’s natural action and warmth melt frost and snow and are called the Lord’s word. In verse 15, wind and cold are called God’s command and word.

In Psalm civ:4, wind and fire are called the angels and ministers of God, and various other passages of the same sort are found in Scripture, clearly showing that the decree, commandment, fiat, and word of God are merely expressions for the action and order of nature.

In Psalm 104:4, wind and fire are called God’s angels and servants. Various similar passages appear elsewhere in Scripture. These passages clearly show that God’s decrees, commandments, commands, and words are merely expressions for nature’s activity and order.

Thus it is plain that all the events narrated in Scripture came to pass naturally, and are referred directly to God because Scripture, as we have shown, does not aim at explaining things by their natural causes, but only at narrating what appeals to the popular imagination, and doing so in the manner best calculated to excite wonder, and consequently to impress the minds of the masses with devotion. If, therefore, events are found in the Bible which we cannot refer to their causes, nay, which seem entirely to contradict the order of nature, we must not come to a stand, but assuredly believe that whatever did really happen happened naturally. This view is confirmed by the fact that in the case of every miracle there were many attendant circumstances, though these were not always related, especially where the narrative was of a poetic character.

It is therefore clear that all the events described in Scripture happened naturally. Scripture attributes these events directly to God because, as we have shown, Scripture does not aim to explain natural causes. Instead, Scripture aims only to tell stories that appeal to the popular imagination. It tells these stories in the way most likely to inspire wonder and, through wonder, devotion among ordinary people. So if we find events in the Bible whose causes we cannot explain, we must not stop there. Even if these events seem to contradict the order of nature entirely, we must firmly believe they happened naturally. That is, whatever really happened took place through natural processes. This view is supported by the fact that every miracle involved many surrounding circumstances. Those circumstances were not always described, especially when the story was poetic.

The circumstances of the miracles clearly show, I maintain, that natural causes were needed. For instance, in order to infect the Egyptians with blains, it was necessary that Moses should scatter ashes in the air (Exod. ix: 10); the locusts also came upon the land of Egypt by a command of God in accordance with nature, namely, by an east wind blowing for a whole day and night; and they departed by a very strong west wind (Exod. x:14, 19). By a similar Divine mandate the sea opened a way for the Jews (Exo. xiv:21), namely, by an east wind which blew very strongly all night.

I maintain that the circumstances of the miracles clearly show that natural causes were needed. For example, to infect the Egyptians with boils, Moses had to scatter ashes in the air (Exod. ix: 10). The locusts also came upon the land of Egypt at God’s command, through natural means. An east wind brought the locusts after blowing for a whole day and night. A very strong west wind then carried the locusts away (Exod. x:14, 19). By a similar command from God, the sea opened a path for the Jews (Exo. xiv:21). This happened through an east wind that blew very strongly all night.

So, too, when Elisha would revive the boy who was believed to be dead, he was obliged to bend over him several times until the flesh of the child waxed warm, and at last he opened his eyes (2 Kings iv:34, 35).

Similarly, when Elisha sought to revive the boy believed to be dead, he had to bend over him several times. He did so until the child’s body grew warm, and at last the child opened his eyes (2 Kings iv:34, 35).

Again, in John's Gospel (chap. ix.) certain acts are mentioned as performed by Christ preparatory to healing the blind man, and there are numerous other instances showing that something further than the absolute fiat of God is required for working a miracle.

Again, John's Gospel (chapter 9) describes certain actions Christ performed in preparation for healing the blind man. And numerous other examples show that working a miracle requires more than God's absolute command alone.

Wherefore we may believe that, although the circumstances attending miracles are not related always or in full detail, yet a miracle was never performed without them.

So we may believe that although accounts of miracles do not always describe all the surrounding circumstances, no miracle ever occurred without those circumstances.

This is confirmed by Exodus xiv:27, where it is simply stated that "Moses stretched forth his hand, and the waters of the sea returned to their strength in the morning," no mention being made of a wind; but in the song of Moses (Exod. xv:10) we read, "Thou didst blow with Thy wind (i.e. with a very strong wind), and the sea covered them." Thus the attendant circumstance is omitted in the history, and the miracle is thereby enhanced.

Exodus 14:27 confirms this. It simply states, "Moses stretched out his hand, and the sea returned to its full strength in the morning." No wind is mentioned. But in the song of Moses (Exodus 15:10), we read, "You blew with your wind, and the sea covered them." Here, "your wind" means a very strong wind. Thus, the historical account leaves out the accompanying circumstance, making the miracle seem greater.

But perhaps someone will insist that we find many things in Scripture which seem in nowise explicable by natural causes, as for instance, that the sins of men and their prayers can be the cause of rain and of the earth's fertility, or that faith can heal the blind, and so on. But I think I have already made sufficient answer: I have shown that Scripture does not explain things by their secondary causes, but only narrates them in the order and the style which has most power to move men, and especially uneducated men, to devotion; and therefore it speaks inaccurately of God and of events, seeing that its object is not to convince the reason, but to attract and lay hold of the imagination. If the Bible were to describe the destruction of an empire in the style of political historians, the masses would remain unstirred, whereas the contrary is the case when it adopts the method of poetic description, and refers all things immediately to God. When, therefore, the Bible says that the earth is barren because of men's sins, or that the blind were healed by faith, we ought to take no more notice than when it says that God is angry at men's sins, that He is sad, that He repents of the good He has promised and done; or that on seeing a sign he remembers something He had promised, and other similar expressions, which are either thrown out poetically or related according to the opinion and prejudices of the writer.

But perhaps someone will insist that Scripture contains many things that seem impossible to explain by natural causes. For example, human sins and prayers can cause rain and make the earth fertile, or faith can heal the blind. But I think I have already answered this objection sufficiently. I have shown that Scripture does not explain things through their secondary causes. Instead, Scripture tells events in the order and style most likely to inspire devotion, especially among uneducated people. Scripture therefore speaks inaccurately about God and events. Its purpose is not to persuade through reason, but to capture and hold the imagination. If the Bible described an empire’s destruction in the style of political historians, ordinary people would remain unmoved. But poetic descriptions that attribute everything directly to God have the opposite effect. So when the Bible says the earth is barren because of human sins, we should give those statements no more weight than similar expressions about God. The same applies when the Bible says that faith healed the blind. Such statements are like saying that God is angry at human sins, or that he is sad. They are like saying that he regrets the good he has promised and done. Or they say that, on seeing a sign, God remembers something he promised. These and similar expressions are either poetic or reflect the writer’s opinions and prejudices.

We may, then, be absolutely certain that every event which is truly described in Scripture necessarily happened, like everything else, according to natural laws; and if anything is there set down which can be proved in set terms to contravene the order of nature, or not to be deducible therefrom, we must believe it to have been foisted into the sacred writings by irreligious hands; for whatsoever is contrary to nature is also contrary to reason, and whatsoever is contrary to reason is absurd, and, ipso facto, to be rejected.

We can therefore be absolutely certain that every event truly described in Scripture necessarily happened according to natural laws. In this respect, these events are like everything else. If anything in Scripture can be clearly proved to contradict nature’s order or not to follow from it, we must draw a conclusion. We must believe that irreligious people inserted that passage into the sacred writings. For whatever is contrary to nature is also contrary to reason. And whatever is contrary to reason is absurd and must therefore be rejected.

There remain some points concerning the interpretation of miracles to be noted, or rather to be recapitulated, for most of them have been already stated. These I proceed to discuss in the fourth division of my subject, and I am led to do so lest anyone should, by wrongly interpreting a miracle, rashly suspect that he has found something in Scripture contrary to human reason.

Some points about interpreting miracles remain to be noted, or rather reviewed, since most have already been stated. I will discuss these points in the fourth part of my subject. My purpose is to prevent anyone from misinterpreting a miracle and rashly suspecting they have found something in Scripture contrary to human reason.

It is very rare for men to relate an event simply as it happened, without adding any element of their own judgment. When they see or hear anything new, they are, unless strictly on their guard, so occupied with their own preconceived opinions that they perceive something quite different from the plain facts seen or heard, especially if such facts surpass the comprehension of the beholder or hearer, and, most of all, if he is interested in their happening in a given way.

People very rarely describe an event exactly as it happened without adding their own judgments. When people see or hear something new, their existing opinions dominate their attention unless they are very careful. As a result, they perceive something quite different from the plain facts they saw or heard. This is especially true if the facts are beyond their understanding. It is most true if they have an interest in events happening a certain way.

Thus men relate in chronicles and histories their own opinions rather than actual events, so that one and the same event is so differently related by two men of different opinions, that it seems like two separate occurrences; and, further, it is very easy from historical chronicles to gather the personal opinions of the historian.

Thus, people record their own opinions in chronicles and histories rather than actual events. As a result, two people with different opinions can describe the same event so differently that it seems like two separate events. Moreover, it is very easy to identify a historian’s personal opinions from historical accounts.

I could cite many instances in proof of this from the writings both of natural philosophers and historians, but I will content myself with one only from Scripture, and leave the reader to judge of the rest.

I could give many examples to prove this from the writings of both natural philosophers and historians. But I will give just one from Scripture and leave the reader to judge the rest.

In the time of Joshua the Hebrews held the ordinary opinion that the sun moves with a daily motion, and that the earth remains at rest; to this preconceived opinion they adapted the miracle which occurred during their battle with the five kings. They did not simply relate that that day was longer than usual, but asserted that the sun and moon stood still, or ceased from their motion - a statement which would be of great service to them at that time in convincing and proving by experience to the Gentiles, who worshipped the sun, that the sun was under the control of another deity who could compel it to change its daily course. Thus, partly through religious motives, partly through preconceived opinions, they conceived of and related the occurrence as something quite different from what really happened.

In Joshua’s time, the Hebrews shared the common belief that the sun moves daily while the earth stands still. They fitted the miracle during their battle with the five kings to this preconceived belief. They did not simply report that the day was longer than usual. Instead, they claimed that the sun and moon stood still, or stopped moving. At that time, this claim would have greatly helped them convince the Gentiles, who worshipped the sun. It would have provided evidence from experience that the sun was controlled by another deity. This deity could force the sun to change its daily course. Thus, partly because of religious motives and partly because of preconceived beliefs, the Hebrews understood and described the event differently. Their understanding and account were quite different from what really happened.

Thus in order to interpret the Scriptural miracles and understand from the narration of them how they really happened, it is necessary to know the opinions of those who first related them, and have recorded them for us in writing, and to distinguish such opinions from the actual impression made upon their senses, otherwise we shall confound opinions and judgments with the actual miracle as it really occurred: nay, further, we shall confound actual events with symbolical and imaginary ones. For many things are narrated in Scripture as real, and were believed to be real, which were in fact only symbolical and imaginary. As, for instance, that God came down from heaven (Exod. xix:28, Deut. v:28), and that Mount Sinai smoked because God descended upon it surrounded with fire; or, again that Elijah ascended into heaven in a chariot of fire, with horses of fire; all these things were assuredly merely symbols adapted to the opinions of those who have handed them down to us as they were represented to them, namely, as real. All who have any education know that God has no right hand nor left; that He is not moved nor at rest, nor in a particular place, but that He is absolutely infinite and contains in Himself all perfections.

To interpret the miracles in Scripture, we must understand from the accounts how those miracles really happened. We therefore need to know the opinions of those who first reported the miracles and recorded them for us. We must distinguish those opinions from what the narrators actually perceived through their senses. Otherwise, we will confuse opinions and judgments with the miracle as it actually happened. Worse still, we will confuse actual events with symbolic and imaginary ones. For Scripture presents many things as real, and people believed them, although they were only symbolic and imaginary. For example, Scripture says that God came down from heaven (Exod. xix:28, Deut. v:28). It also says that Mount Sinai smoked because God descended upon it surrounded by fire. Another example is the account of Elijah ascending into heaven in a chariot of fire, with horses of fire. All these things were certainly only symbols suited to the opinions of those who passed the accounts down to us. The narrators passed these symbols down as they had been presented to them, namely, as real. All educated people know that God has no right hand or left hand. They know that he neither moves nor rests, and that he is not in any particular place. Rather, he is absolutely infinite and contains all perfections within himself.

These things, I repeat, are known to whoever judges of things by the perception of pure reason, and not according as his imagination is affected by his outward senses. Following the example of the masses who imagine a bodily Deity, holding a royal court with a throne on the convexity of heaven, above the stars, which are believed to be not very, far off from the earth.

These things, I repeat, are known to anyone who judges by pure reason, not by imagination shaped by the senses. Judging by imagination follows the example of the masses, who picture God with a physical body. They imagine him holding a royal court, with a throne on the curved surface of heaven, above the stars. They believe the stars are not very far from the earth.

To these and similar opinions very many narrations in Scripture are adapted, and should not, therefore, be mistaken by philosophers for realities.

Very many stories in Scripture are shaped to fit these and similar opinions. So philosophers should not mistake these stories for reality.

Lastly, in order to understand, in the case of miracles, what actually took place, we ought to be familiar with Jewish phrases and metaphors; anyone who did not make sufficient allowance for these, would be continually seeing miracles in Scripture where nothing of the kind is intended by the writer; he would thus miss the knowledge not only of what actually happened, but also of the mind of the writers of the sacred text. For instance, Zechariah speaking of some future war says (chap. xiv:7): "It shall be one day which shall be known to the Lord, not day, nor night; but at even time it shall be light." In these words he seems to predict a great miracle, yet he only means that the battle will be doubtful the whole day, that the issue will be known only to God, but that in the evening they will gain the victory: the prophets frequently used to predict victories and defeats of the nations in similar phrases. Thus Isaiah, describing the destruction of Babylon, says (chap. xiii.): "The stars of heaven, and the constellations thereof, shall not give their light; the sun shall be darkened in his going forth, and the moon shall not cause her light to shine." Now I suppose no one imagines that at the destruction of Babylon these phenomena actually occurred any more than that which the prophet adds, "For I will make the heavens to tremble, and remove the earth out of her place."

Finally, to understand what actually happened in accounts of miracles, we must know Jewish expressions and metaphors. Anyone who failed to account for these would constantly see miracles in Scripture where the writer intended none. Such readers would therefore misunderstand both what actually happened and what the writers of the sacred text meant. For example, Zechariah says of a future war (chapter 14:7): "There will be one day known to the Lord, neither day nor night, but in the evening there will be light." These words seem to predict a great miracle. Yet Zechariah only means that the battle’s outcome will remain uncertain throughout the day, known only to God. But in the evening, they will win the battle. The prophets often used similar expressions to predict the victories and defeats of nations. Thus Isaiah, describing the destruction of Babylon, says (chapter 13): "The stars of heaven and their constellations will give no light. The sun will be darkened as it rises, and the moon will not shine." Now I suppose no one imagines that these events actually happened when Babylon was destroyed. Nor, I suppose, does anyone take literally what the prophet adds: "For I will make the heavens tremble and move the earth out of its place."

So, too, Isaiah in foretelling to the Jews that they would return from Babylon to Jerusalem in safety, and would not suffer from thirst on their journey, says: "And they thirsted not when He led them through the deserts; He caused the waters to flow out of the rocks for them; He clave the rocks, and the waters gushed out." These words merely mean that the Jews, like other people, found springs in the desert, at which they quenched their thirst; for when the Jews returned to Jerusalem with the consent of Cyrus, it is admitted that no similar miracles befell them.

Similarly, Isaiah foretells that the Jews would return safely from Babylon to Jerusalem without suffering from thirst on their journey. He says: "They did not thirst when he led them through the deserts. He made water flow from the rocks for them. He split the rocks, and water gushed out." These words mean only that the Jews, like other people, found springs in the desert and quenched their thirst there. For it is acknowledged that no similar miracles happened when the Jews returned to Jerusalem with Cyrus’s consent.

In this way many occurrences in the Bible are to be regarded merely as Jewish expressions. There is no need for me to go through them in detail; but I will call attention generally to the fact that the Jews employed such phrases not only rhetorically, but also, and indeed chiefly, from devotional motives. Such is the reason for the substitution of "bless God" for "curse God" in 1 Kings xxi:10, and Job ii:9, and for all things being referred to God, whence it appears that the Bible seems to relate nothing but miracles, even when speaking of the most ordinary occurrences, as in the examples given above.

In this way, many passages in the Bible should be understood simply as Jewish expressions. I do not need to discuss them in detail. But I will point out that the Jews used such phrases not only for rhetorical effect, but chiefly from devotion. This devotion explains why "bless God" replaces "curse God" in 1 Kings 21:10 and Job 2:9. It also explains why all things are attributed to God. As a result, the Bible seems to describe nothing but miracles, even when discussing the most ordinary events. The examples given above illustrate this.

Hence we must believe that when the Bible says that the Lord hardened Pharaoh's heart, it only means that Pharaoh was obstinate; when it says that God opened the windows of heaven, it only means that it rained very hard, and so on. When we reflect on these peculiarities, and also on the fact that most things are related very shortly, with very little details and almost in abridgments, we shall see that there is hardly anything in Scripture which can be proved contrary to natural reason, while, on the other hand, many things which before seemed obscure, will after a little consideration be understood and easily explained.

So we must understand the Bible’s statement that the Lord hardened Pharaoh's heart as meaning only that Pharaoh was stubborn. When the Bible says that God opened the windows of heaven, it means only that it rained very hard. The same applies to similar expressions. We should reflect on these features of the Bible. We should also remember that most events are described very briefly, with few details, almost as summaries. We will then see that hardly anything in Scripture can be shown to conflict with natural reason. On the other hand, a little thought will make many things that once seemed obscure understandable and easy to explain.

I think I have now very clearly explained all that I proposed to explain, but before I finish this chapter I would call attention to the fact that I have adopted a different method in speaking of miracles to that which I employed in treating of prophecy. Of prophecy I have asserted nothing which could not be inferred from promises revealed in Scripture, whereas in this chapter I have deduced my conclusions solely from the principles ascertained by the natural light of reason. I have proceeded in this way advisedly, for prophecy, in that it surpasses human knowledge, is a purely theological question; therefore, I knew that I could not make any assertions about it, nor learn wherein it consists, except through deductions from premises that have been revealed; therefore I was compelled to collate the history of prophecy, and to draw therefrom certain conclusions which would teach me, in so far as such teaching is possible, the nature and properties of the gift. But in the case of miracles, as our inquiry is a question purely philosophical (namely, whether anything can happen which contravenes or does not follow from the laws of nature), I was not under any such necessity: I therefore thought it wiser to unravel the difficulty through premises ascertained and thoroughly known by the natural light of reason. I say I thought it wiser, for I could also easily have solved the problem merely from the doctrines and fundamental principles of Scripture: in order that everyone may acknowledge this, I will briefly show how it could be done.

I think I have now explained very clearly everything I set out to explain. But before ending this chapter, I want to note that I have treated miracles differently from prophecy. In discussing prophecy, I made no claim that could not be inferred from premises revealed in Scripture. In this chapter, however, I have drawn my conclusions solely from principles established by the natural light of reason. I chose this approach deliberately. Prophecy goes beyond human knowledge, so it is a purely theological question. I therefore knew that only deductions from revealed premises could justify claims about prophecy or teach me its nature. So I had to gather and compare the accounts of prophecy. From those accounts, I drew conclusions about the nature and properties of the prophetic gift, insofar as these can be learned. But our inquiry into miracles is purely philosophical: can anything happen that violates nature’s laws or does not follow from them? So I was not required to follow the same method. I therefore thought it wiser to resolve the difficulty using premises established and thoroughly understood through the natural light of reason. I say I thought this approach wiser because I could also easily have solved the problem from Scripture’s teachings and fundamental principles alone. So that everyone may recognize this possibility, I will briefly show how it could be done.

Scripture makes the general assertion in several passages that nature's course is fixed and unchangeable. In Ps. cxlviii:6, for instance, and Jer. xxxi:35. The wise man also, in Eccles. i:10, distinctly teaches that "there is nothing new under the sun," and in verses 11, 12, illustrating the same idea, he adds that although something occasionally happens which seems new, it is not really new, but "hath been already of old time, which was before us, whereof there is no remembrance, neither shall there be any remembrance of things that are to come with those that come after." Again in chap. iii:11, he says, "God hath made everything beautiful in his time," and immediately afterwards adds, "I know that whatsoever God doeth, it shall be for ever; nothing can be put to it, nor anything taken from it."

Scripture states in several passages that nature’s course is fixed and unchangeable. Examples include Ps. 148:6 and Jer. 31:35. The wise man also clearly teaches in Eccles. 1:10 that "there is nothing new under the sun." In verses 11 and 12, he develops the same idea. He adds that although something occasionally happens that seems new, it is not really new. Rather, it "already existed long ago, before our time. Those things are not remembered, nor will future things be remembered by those who come after." Again, in chapter 3:11, he says, "God has made everything beautiful in its time." Immediately afterward, he adds, "I know that whatever God does will last forever. Nothing can be added to it, and nothing can be taken away from it."

Now all these texts teach most distinctly that nature preserves a fixed and unchangeable order, and that God in all ages, known and unknown, has been the same; further, that the laws of nature are so perfect, that nothing can be added thereto nor taken therefrom; and, lastly, that miracles only appear as something new because of man's ignorance.

All these texts clearly teach that nature follows a fixed and unchanging order. They also teach that God has remained the same in all ages, known and unknown. Further, nature's laws are so perfect that nothing can be added to them or taken away. Finally, miracles seem to be something new only because of human ignorance.

Such is the express teaching of Scripture: nowhere does Scripture assert that anything happens which contradicts, or cannot follow from the laws of nature; and, therefore, we should not attribute to it such a doctrine.

Scripture clearly teaches this: nowhere does Scripture say that anything happens that contradicts or cannot follow from nature’s laws. So we should not attribute such a teaching to Scripture.

To these considerations we must add, that miracles require causes and attendant circumstances, and that they follow, not from some mysterious royal power which the masses attribute to God, but from the Divine rule and decree, that is (as we have shown from Scripture itself) from the laws and order of nature; lastly, that miracles can be wrought even by false prophets, as is proved from Deut. xiii. and Matt. xxiv:24.

We must also add that miracles require causes and accompanying circumstances. Miracles do not result from some mysterious royal power that the masses attribute to God. Instead, miracles follow from God's rule and decree, that is, from the laws and order of nature. We have shown this from Scripture itself. Finally, even false prophets can perform miracles, as Deut. xiii. and Matt. xxiv:24 prove.

The conclusion, then, that is most plainly put before us is, that miracles were natural occurrences, and must therefore be so explained as to appear neither new (in the words of Solomon) nor contrary to nature, but, as far as possible, in complete agreement with ordinary events. This can easily be done by anyone, now that I have set forth the rules drawn from Scripture. Nevertheless, though I maintain that Scripture teaches this doctrine, I do not assert that it teaches it as a truth necessary to salvation, but only that the prophets were in agreement with ourselves on the point; therefore everyone is free to think on the subject as he likes, according as he thinks it best for himself, and most likely to conduce to the worship of God and to singlehearted religion.

The clearest conclusion, then, is that miracles were natural events. They must therefore be explained as neither new, in Solomon’s words, nor contrary to nature. Instead, explanations must show miracles agreeing as fully as possible with ordinary events. Anyone can easily do this now that I have laid out the rules drawn from Scripture. Still, although I maintain that Scripture teaches this doctrine, I do not claim it is a truth necessary for salvation. I claim only that the prophets agreed with us on this point. Everyone is therefore free to think about miracles as they choose. Each person may follow whatever view they consider best for themselves and most likely to encourage worship of God and wholehearted religion.

This is also the opinion of Josephus, for at the conclusion of the second book of his "Antiquities," he writes: Let no man think this story incredible of the sea's dividing to save these people, for we find it in ancient records that this hath been seen before, whether by God's extraordinary will or by the course of nature it is indifferent. The same thing happened one time to the Macedonians, under the command of Alexander, when for want of another passage the Pamphylian Sea divided to make them way; God's Providence making use of Alexander at that time as His instrument for destroying the Persian Empire. This is attested by all the historians who have pretended to write the Life of that Prince. But people are at liberty to think what they please."

Josephus shares this opinion. At the end of the second book of his "Antiquities," he writes: No one should find this account of the sea dividing to save these people unbelievable. Ancient records tell us that such an event has happened before. Whether it happened through God's extraordinary will or through the course of nature makes no difference. The same thing once happened to the Macedonians under Alexander's command. Since they had no other route, the Pamphylian Sea divided to let them pass. God's providence was then using Alexander as his instrument to destroy the Persian Empire. All the historians who have undertaken to write that prince's life confirm this account. But people are free to think what they please."

Such are the words of Josephus, and such is his opinion on faith in miracles.

These are Josephus’s words, and this is his view on belief in miracles.