Finding a recognizable purpose and goal to miracles

Second in a series of occasional articles about Cardinal John Henry Newman

Because John Henry Newman has been recognized by the Vatican as instrumental in the miraculous healing of American deacon Jack Sullivan, it seems pertinent to examine the theologian’s views on miracles. It is an apt piece for discussion because it sheds light on a number of other elements within Newman’s overall theology and theological method.

In 1870, Newman republished two of his articles, an encyclopedia entry on the miracles of Scripture and an “Essay on the Miracles Recorded in the Ecclesiastical History of the Early Ages,” as a volume which he titled Two Essays on Biblical and Ecclesiastical Miracles. In this work, he provides a number of reflections on the Christian tradition of viewing God’s intervention in the normal course of world history.

In the first, more philosophical essay, Newman explains that “miracle” is a relative term. It need not be understood as a violation of the laws of nature, but rather “while they are exceptions to the laws of one system, they may coincide with those of another” (“The Miracles of Scripture,” 4).

To view the miraculous as merely interruptions in the harmonious working of the cosmos is an incomplete perspective. “An event is a miracle if it is exceptional in the order of nature, but intelligible as part of a redemptive economy” (Dulles, “Newman,” 53).

There is a recognizable purpose and goal to miracles, they are outside the scope of the laws of one system (the natural), but well within the determinable laws of another (the supernatural). As Newman puts it “For, while nature attests the being of God more distinctly than it does His moral government, a miraculous event, on the contrary, bears more directly on the fact of His moral government, of which it is an immediate instance, while it only implies His existence. Hence, besides banishing ideas of Fate and Necessity, Miracles have a tendency to rouse conscience, to awaken to a sense of responsibility, to remind of duty, and to direct the attention to those marks of divine government already contained in the ordinary course of events” (“TMoS,” 12). They are far from random skips in the linear history of space and time.

Newman’s views are a direct refutation of David Hume’s contention that skepticism proves a more intelligent and fertile ground for knowledge than belief. “Newman would concede this if a miracle were a mere anomaly. But he contends that the biblical miracles constitute a coherent system that shows them to be parts of a higher dispensation” (Dulles, “Newman,” 53). The goal lies in not perceiving miracles as exceptions to a natural system, but shifting one’s perspective to recognize their suitability and role within a spiritual one.

Many of Newman’s views on miracles stem from a common and integral part of his theological thought, the theory of antecedent probability.

Such a theory argues that given premise(s) A, B, and C…Premise X is likely (probable, even necessary) to follow, without any empirical evidence yet adduced in favor of X. When such antecedently probable events occur in a large scale, there is rationally founded confluence of probability which argues for the likelihood of similar future experiences.

Such an inductive approach to miracles would argue for their continued existence and role in the life of the church. Thus, the argument for the likelihood of miracles is cumulative, based on the probability of their existence in both the biblical and subsequent ecclesiastical periods, and supported by their role in the economy of salvation.

“It would be inconsistent, therefore, to deny the miracles while affirming the moral and religious teaching of the Bible” (Dulles, “Newman,” 54). For Newman, miracles are a rational and sure sign of God’s redemptive activity in the course of human history.

As many of us can attest, miracles need not always be extraordinary. Small interventions and inspirational nudges occur at every step of the road in one’s spiritual journey. It is not merely the blind fideist who can recognize their role in his or her life. If one accepts that God is all good and seeks the salvation of all (cf 1 Tim 2:4), it is logical and even necessary to accept the possible existence of his unexplainable, but never random, intervention upon his handiwork of creation on sound philosophical principles.

Michael M. Canaris of Collingswood is a Ph.D. candidate in systematic theology at Fordham University.