Harrison-miracles and the Laws of Nature

7/28/2019 Harrison-miracles and the Laws of Nature

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/harrison-miracles-and-the-laws-of-nature 1/24

Newtonian Science, Miracles, and the Laws of NatureAuthor(s): Peter HarrisonReviewed work(s):Source: Journal of the History of Ideas, Vol. 56, No. 4 (Oct., 1995), pp. 531-553Published by: University of Pennsylvania Press

Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2709991 .

Accessed: 20/01/2013 11:17

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

University of Pennsylvania Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to

Journal of the History of Ideas.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded on Sun, 20 Jan 2013 11:17:25 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=upenn

http://www.jstor.org/stable/2709991?origin=JSTOR-pdf






http://www.jstor.org/stable/2709991?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=upenn



Newtoniancience,Miracles,

andtheLawsofNature

PeterHarrison

Introduction

"Newton,"writesRichardWestfall, both believed in and did notbelieve nmiracles."t can onlybe concluded,Westfall ontinues,hat hegreat cientist,nwilling o relinquish isbelief n a providentialnd nter-posingDeity, abandoned imself oambiguitiesnd nconsistencies,hichgavethe ppearance fdivine articipationnnature,utnot he ubstance."'

Newton's pparentmbivalence owardsmiracles ighlights hat omanycommentatorss one of the most curiousfeatures f seventeenth-centurynatural hilosophy.eading cientistsfthis ra, lmostwithoutxception,had a dual commitmentn the one handto a sciencepremised pon amechanical niverse overnedy mmutableaws of nature nd ontheotherto a omnipotentodwho ntervenedn thenatural rder romime o time,breachinghese laws"of nature.2hispuzzle s heightenedythefact hat(in England t east)those igures ho were t theforefrontfanadvancing

mechanical ciencewere lso themost taunch efendersf miracles.3heChristian irtuosiftheRoyalSociety-RobertBoyle,ThomasSprat, ndJohnWilkins, o takethemostprominentxamples-insisted otonlythatmiracles ouldtakeplacebut hat hey layed vitalrole nestablishinghetruthfChristianeligion.4

1 Richard Westfall, cience and Religion in Seventeenth entury ngland (New

Haven, 1970), 204.2 See, e.g., bid.,5, 89; James orce, The Breakdown f thetheNewtonianynthesisof Science and Religion," n Force and RichardPopkin eds.), Essays on the Context,Nature, nd Influence f saac Newton'sTheologyDordrecht,990).

3 R. M. Burns,TheGreat Debate on MiraclesfromJosephGlanvill oDavid Hume(London,1981), 12.

4 Boyle,The Christian irtuosonThe Works,d. ThomasBirch 6 vols.;Hildesheim,1966), V, 531; ThomasSprat, heHistory f theRoyal SocietyLondon,1667),352; JohnWilkins,Of thePrinciples nd Duties of NaturalReligion London,1675),402.

531Copyright995 by Journal ftheHistory f deas, nc.







532 PeterHarrison

It is now often ssumed hat uchdevout eventeenth-centurycientistsled strangeichotomous entalivesor,more haritably,hat heir elicitousreconciliationf scientificnd religious ursuitswas builtupon a set of

assumptions hich nly ater,nlight fargumentsroposed yHumeandhissuccessors, roved o bemutuallyonflicting.nthis aper hopeto shedlight pononeaspect f thispuzzle by showinghatNewton, longwith ismost prominentisciples,WilliamWhiston nd Samuel Clarke,came tounderstand iraclesna way quitedifferentrom heir eventeenth-centurypredecessors,nd that ndevelopinghisnewconceptionfthemiraculoustheymanaged o avoid thoseconceptual onfusionswhich re thought oafflict he cognitiveworldsof their arliercontemporaries.he central

featuref theNewtonians' osition nthis uestion oncerns hedefinitionof "miracle."As we shallsee,theNewtoniansejected hat tandardefini-tion fmiracle,ccordingo which miraclemust nvolve violation f awsof nature. heir alternativeonception, ignificantly,ould stillserve theinterests f Christianpologetics ut without ndermininghe foundationuponwhich he cientificnterpriseas constructedndwithoutommittingits dherentso the mbiguitiesnd nconsistenciesf which hey re so oftenaccused.

Defining"Miracle"

Modern iscussions f miracles enerally eginby defining "miracle"as "a violation f the aws of nature." o thisbasicdefinition aybe addedtheconditionhat hebreach f the aws of nature ccur s a result f theactivityfGodor someotherupernaturalgent; ccasionallyt s specifiedas a furtherequirementhat he breachoccur n order o confirm ome

religiousdoctrine r to establish he authorityf some person.5t hasfrequentlyeenpointed utthat, iven uch definition,hevery oncept f"miracle" uffersrom n inherentogical nstability.iracles,tseems, reparasitic ponthe dea that here re aws of nature:withoutaws of nature,there an be nomiracles; owever,fthere remiracles,his ends odestroythevery oncept f a law ofnature.6orpresenturposes,hemorenterest-ing question o arise from hisdefinition as to do with heconceptionfmiraclewhich xisted efore he advent fmodem ciencewith tsclearly

formulatedaws of nature.Miracles,notherwords, ave alwayshad someapologetic unctionnChristianheology, function hich hey xercised

5The classic statementf thisdefinitionppears n David Hume's "Of Miracles,"AnEnquiry oncerning umanUnderstanding,d. L. A. Selby Bigge (Oxford, 9753),X.I.90(114f.)Fora more ecent iscussion f thisdefinitionee Richard winburne, heConceptofMiracle London,1970), ch. 3.

6 See, e.g., Antony lew, God andPhilosophyLondon,1966), 148f.Fora response oobjections fthiskind, eeMiracles, d. R. SwinburneLondon,1989), 9f, nd Paul Dietl,"On Miracles," n Contemporaryhilosophy f Religion,ed. Steven Cahn and DavidShatz Oxford, 982), 146-53.







Newtonian cience 533

quite atisfactorilyithoutecourseo a science ommittedo explanationnterms f laws of nature.Augustine,ndafter imAquinas,helped hape apremodernonceptionf miracles, conception hichdid not andindeed

couldnot nvolve eferenceo lawsof nature utwhich ame to be directlyrelevant o theNewtonian edefinitionf "miracle."Augustinewas actuallythe first o attempt formaldefinition f

"miracle."7 miracle, e wroten a letter o his Manichaean riend on-oratus,s "anything hich ppears rduous runusual, eyond he xpecta-tion r abilityfthe ne whomarvelst t."8 uch marvellousvents, e wasto say elsewhere,re not "contraryo nature" utrather contraryo ourknowledgefnature."9gnorancef thecausesofan event, owever,was a

necessary ut insufficientarkof the miraculous. or Augustine ll thephenomenafnature-"the hanges fdayandnight,hevery onstantrderof heavenly odies,the fourfoldhangeof the seasons"-were in a sensemiraculous. ut theywerenotregarded s suchbecausethey re part f ourconstant xperience.10n Augustine's ather ubjective iew of miracles,then, miracle ad to have an unknown ause and t had to be unusual.Yettherewas no intrinsic ifference etween he miraculous nd the mun-dane-miraclesweredistinguishednly y their ffect n observers.

Aquinaswas concerned o arrivet a more recise efinition,ne whichlocated he ssence fmiraclenthe vent ndnot n the bserver. e didthisby yoking hereligious ense of miracle o the Aristotelianoctrinef theintrinsicqualities"or "powers"of substances.WhileagreeingwithAu-gustinehat miracle s not ontraryonature, quinas rgued hat miraclewasnonethelessapart romheordermplantednthings."11t follows hatmiraclesnvokewonder Augustine's efinition)ecause their ause defiesexplanationn terms f the natural ropertiesf theobjects nvolved: n

event s a miracle f"we observe he effect ut do not know ts cause."2Aquinasfurtherlarified is position y specifyinghree lasses of eventwhich eemtofit hisdescriptionndyet renotgenuinemiracles. irst reevents hecauses of which re known o some butnotothers. neclipseofthesun,forexample, s not miraculous ecause althoughmost men areignorantf tscause,the stronomers not.A miracle anonlybe somethingthathas "a completely idden ause inanunqualified ay .. notsimplyn

7 For a briefhistory f conceptions f the miraculous ee JohnA. Hardon, TheConceptofMiracle from t. Augustine o ModernApologetics," heological tudies,15(1954), 229-57. Specificallyn Augustine,ee R. M. Grant,MiracleandNaturalLaw inGraeco-Romannd Early Christian houghtAmsterdam,952), 215-20.

8 De utilitateredendi, 6.34,in The FathersoftheChurch,V (New York,1947),437.

9Augustine, e civitate ei,XXI.8; ContraFaustum,XXVI.3 (myemphasis).10De civitate ei,XVI.34; cf.Cicero,De divinatione,i, 49.11Aquinas,Summacontragentiles, r. VernonBourke New York, 1955-57), III,

100.1.12 Ibid., II, 101.1.







534 PeterHarrison

relation o one person ranother:t musthave a cause hidden rom veryman."-13 second class of non-miraculousvent whichseemsto fitthedescription oncerns heoperation f occultqualities.Aquinasgave two

stock xampleshere-themagnetwhich ttractsron ndthe mallfishtheEcheneis)whichwasthoughto be able to mpede hepassageof arge hips.Althoughhe causes of theseobserved henomenareunknown, quinasstates hat he ffect f suchobjects re "limited o somedefiniteffect."14notherwords he ffectsrerepeatable nd tosomeextent redictable.here-fore,while he ause shidden,roccult, he ffects notmiraculous.inally,certain emarkableventshave causes unknown o us because they reperformedysuperior eings-angelsordemons. hesearenot ruemiracles

because t s within hecreated ower fthesefree gents operformheseacts.Just s it s within hepower fa human gent othrow stone pintotheair,causing t to act "unnaturally,"o invisible gents an bring boutunusual ffects venthough hey o not ct abovetheir reated atures. fthese ventsAquinas ays:

now since he ntire ower fcreated aturesunknowno us, whenanythingccurs utside heusual run fthings hroughomepower

unknownous, we assume hatt smiraculousestmiraculumuodnos]. So when hedemons o somethingytheirwnnatural ower,we saythat his s a miracle ot n the trictense,butrelativelyous.15

Aquinas hus rovides clear ccount f what genuinemiraclesbut tthe ametime oncedes hat nobserver,elying nunaided eason,maynotbe able to distinguishhegenuinefrom he"relative"miracle. n other

wordsAquinas'sdefinitionnablesus tospecifyheformalonditions ortruemiracle venthoughnpracticewe might otbe ina position o knowwhethernygiven ventmeets hose onditions:t s alwayspossible hat nunusualeventhas causes which re naturali.e., notbeyond he createdpowers fthings)ndyetunknown.

With heonset fthe cientificevolution,he tandard homistccountofmiracles ecame nadequate or wo reasons. irst, heAristotelianoc-trine hatndividualubstances adinherentowerswas abandoned.n the

new philosophy, atural bjectswere stripped f thosenatural ualitieswhichhad hithertorovidedhebasisof causalexplanationsftheir ctivi-ties. Scientific ccounts feventswere no longer ouched n terms f theformal nd material auses orthecreated owersoftheobjects nvolved.Nowexplanationselied pon xternally-actingfficientauses.Theregular

13 Ibid.14 Ibid., II.102.3.

15Summatheologiae London, 1964-76), la.110, 4. (XV, 17) (my emphasis). Cf.Summa ontragentiles,II, 102.








operationsfthese econdaryauses weredescribedn aws ofnature.n thenew mechanical orld rdermiracles ameto beunderstoods violations rsuspensions f these aws.Robert oyle,for xample,wrote hatwhileGod

establishedawsofnature,yethe has notbound phis own handsby them,butcan invigorate,uspend, verrule,nd reversenyof them s he thinksfit."'-6 ohnWilkins, ne ofthefoundersf theRoyal Society, greed hatmiraclewas a "violation" or "disordering" f "theuniversalLaws ofNature.""7homasSprat, irst istorian f theRoyalSociety, pokesimi-larly fGod's prerogativeo "change he wonted aws of theCreation."'8Thisunderstandingf miraclenjoyedwideacceptancen both cientificndtheological ircles.'9 rom hismodem onceptiontfollowed hat, arring

God's interventionr "interposition,"verythinghich ook place in theworld ouldbe accounted or n terms f regular econdary auses. Thus,whileGodwas theultimate ause of all things, e was the mmediateauseonlyof themiraculous. ll hisotherworkswerebroughtbout hroughheoperationfsecondaryauses.20

It was notonly thescientific evolution hich highlightedhe inad-equacyof theThomist ccount fmiracles. hanges nthevery onceptionof "religion"meantthatnow miracleswere to play a vitalrole in the

confirmationfthose octrinesresumedo constitutehe ssenceofChristi-anity. he two centuriesollowingheProtestant eformation itnessedremarkablehiftnemphasis rom aith o knowledge.ncreasinglyhristi-anitywas thoughto be aboutassenting o certain evealedpropositionswhich ogetheronstitutedsavingknowledge."Miracles, longwithful-filledprophecies, ame to be the most mportantriteriony whichtheauthenticityfputativeevelationsouldbe assessed. t s for his eason hatapologetic rgumentsasedonmiracles ecameprominenturinghe arly

modern eriod.2'Again,Robert oyle s typical. he evidence f miracles,he argued, is little ess than absolutely ecessary o evince ... that he

16 Boyle Manuscripts, oyal Society, ondon,VII, fols. 113-14,citedbyBurns,TheGreat Debate, 54. Cf. Boyle,A Disquisition bout the Final Causes ofNatural Things(London,1688), 96.

17 Wilkins, rinciples nd Duties of NaturalReligion, 02.18 Sprat,History f theRoyal Society, 57.19For theological ses of thisdefinitionee, e.g., RobertJenkin,he Reasonableness

and Certainty f the ChristianReligion London, 1698), 34; ThomasBrowne,MiraclesWork'sAbove and Contrary o Nature London, 1683); EdwardStillingfleet,riginesSacrae (Cambridge, 7027),170.

20Boyle,A Free Inquiry nto heVulgarly eceivedNotion fNature,Works, , 252f.;The ChristianVirtuoso,Works, , 532.

21 Admittedly, iracles nd prophecy ad in the past been exploited s argumentsnfavor ftheChristian evelation. ee Aquinas, umma heologica, 2ae.111,4. However,in no previous eriod f history ad they chieved heprominence hich heywere o enjoyin the ate seventeenthnd earlyeighteenthenturies. ee Bums, The GreatDebate, 12.The use of miracles s evidences,moreover,s typically rotestant.atholicdiscussions fmiracles re as much bout criteria or anonization.







536 PeterHarrison

Christianreligion] oes really roceed rom od."22 ut fmiracleswere operformhis pologetic unction,here ad to be clearcriteria hichdistin-guishedthemfromthe merelyremarkable-fromAquinas's "relative

miracles"-as well as from hespuriousmiracles f Catholics nd enthusi-asts.23 n theunderstandinghatmiracleswere violations f the laws ofnature,t followed hat hosemostfamiliar ith hese awswould be bestplaced to judge whether nygiven eventwarrantedhe label "miracle."Aquinas,whilesubscribingo a differentonceptionf scientificxplana-tion,had already rguedforthe special expertise f thescientistn thediscernmentftruemiracles.

This viewwasto be vigorouslyestatednseventeenth-centuryngland

bythevirtuosi ftheRoyalSociety.Robert oylewas thus oargue hat hepractitionerf thenewphilosophy will examinewithmore trictnessndskill, han rdinary en reable, miracles, rophecies,rother roofs, aidto be supernatural,hat reallegedtoevince realreligion" nd so discern"the ertain ndgenuineharactersf truth."24prat ndorsed oyle's view,arguing or heunique ompetencef the xperimentalhilosopher:

He cannotsuddenly oncludeall extraordinaryventsto be the

immediat inger fGod,because he familiarlyeholds he nwardworkingfthings,ndthence erceiveshatmany ffects, hich seto affrighthe gnorant, rebrought orth y the commonnstru-ments fNature.25

So it was that he eading dvocates fthemechanical hilosophynEnglandspecifiedlearformal onditionsor heoccurrencefmiraclesnd, quallyimportantly,ade theunprecedentedlaim that hey ould ascertainwhen

these onditions ad been satisfied. othreligious ndscientifichinkersnmid-seventeenth-centuryngland eemed to be adequately ervedby thisconceptionfmiracle, emaining lissfullynaware f what o later om-mentatorsas a glaringnconsistencyn theirpproach. oyle andthose fhis fellow scientistswho vociferously dvocated the apologeticuse ofmiracles aw onlythepositivefeatures f their pproach-thatonce the

22 Boyle, TheChristianVirtuoso,Works,V, 531. Cf. Sprat,History f the RoyalSociety, 52; JohnWilkins, rinciples nd DutiesofNaturalReligion, 02.

23 Thisremained problem ormoderate roponents f theargument rommiracles.Stillingfleet,orexample, while favouring he argument rommiracles,despairedthat"there e no certain prlpua ornotes fdifference,herebyo knowDivineMiraclesfromDelusions .." (Origines acrae, 225).

4 Boyle,TheChristianVirtuoso,Works, , 538, 531.25 Sprat,History ftheRoyal Society, 58f. Cf.Anon,A ShortDiscourseconcerning

Miracles London,1702),26f;Robert ilmer, nAdvertisementotheJurymenfEnglandtouchingWitchesLondon,1688), 8; JohnGaule, Select Cases of Consciencetouching

Witches London, 1646), 98; FrancisBacon, The Advancementf Learning and NewAtlantis, d. Arthur ohnston,Oxford, 974),222.








immutableawsofnature ad beenuncoveredherewouldbe no doubtwhatsorts f eventswouldbe miraculous. heir lindness othe pparentogicalinstabilityf theconcept s what has led contemporaryommentatorso

speakof the "absolute ontradiction"n their hought.26he Newtonianswho followed hem, articularlyichard entley,Whiston, larke, nd evenNewtonhimself,werefar more awareof thedifficultiesn reconcilingmechanistic orldwith n nterposingod.Yet they oo were o find placeintheir cientific orld ormiracles.

The Newtonian onception f "Miracle"

In the inaugural eries of Boyle Lecturesheld in the years1691-92Richard entley ad proposed newargumentor he xistence f a provi-dentialGod. Here he announced hat all thepowersof mechanism redependentn theDeity,"for gravity,hegreat asis ofall mechanism,snot itselfmechanical, ut the mmediateiat and finger f God, and theexecution f divine aw."27WilliamWhiston ookup Bentley'scue andargued imilarlyhatgravityepended pon"theconstantnd efficacious,and, if you will,thesupernaturalnd miraculous nfluence f Almighty

God."28 amuel Clarke ikewise nsisted hat all thosethingswhich wecommonlyayare theEffectsftheNatural owersofMatter,nd LawsofMotion; fGravitation,ttraction,r the ike;are indeed .. theEffects fGod's acting ponMatter ontinuallyndeverymoment."29venNewtonwas reporteds havingobserved that continualmiracle s neededtopreventheSun and thefixed tars romushingogetherhrough ravity."30For the Newtonians,hen,t followed hat conception f miraclewhichrelied ponGod's interpositionrtheoperationf his mmediateowerwas

unavailable, or hemundaneperationfgravityellunder hat escription.If theoperation f gravity as, as Whiston ndicated, supernaturalndmiraculous ccurrencen terms f the prevailing efinition,hena newunderstandingf miraclewasrequired,orwithoutuch definition,ravita-tion,and the whole mechanical ystem t supported, ould be deemedmiraculous. o Samuel Clarke, hatredoubtable pologistfor Newtonian

26 Westfall, cience and Religion, 9.27 RichardBentley,Boyle Lectures, ermon V, in The Works f Richard Bentley,

D.D., ed. AlexanderDyce (London, 18386), II, 74, 75. Cf. SermonVI, Works, II, 163f.God's active presencewas requiredn themutual ttractionf bodies in order o shieldNewton rom hecharge f reviving ither ccultqualities of whichLeibnizaccusedhim)or atheistic picureanism. ee Newton'scorrespondence ithBentley,n Works fRich-ard Bentley, II, 21 f.; cf. The Leibniz-ClarkeCorrespondence, d. H. G. Alexander,(Manchester, 976), 92.

28 WilliamWhiston, New Theory f theEarth London, 1696), 218.29 SamuelClarke,TheEvidencesof Natural nd Revealed Religion,n TheWorks f

SamuelClarke,D.D. (2 vols.; London,1738), II, 697, cf. 601.30

Memoranda y David Gregory1694), The Correspondencef saac Newton, d. H.W. Turnbull t al. (7 vols.; Cambridge, 959-77), II, 336.







538 PeterHarrison

science,fell the taskofredefiningmiracle" n such a way as to excludesuchmundane perations fGod's immediate ower s gravity,nd yet omaintainomecontinuityith he raditionalenseofmiracle nd ts apolo-

getic ole.To retainhehistoricalenseof "miracle," larke evived heAugustin-ian notion hat hekeyfeature fa miracle s its unusualness. hisunder-standingfmiracleswas developedn both heBoyleLectures f 1704-5 ndinthe elebratedorrespondenceith eibniz. n theformer eargues hat

absolutely peaking,n This strict nd Philosophical ense; eithernothings miraculous, amely,f we haverespect o thePower of

God; or, fweregardurownPower ndUnderstanding,hen lmostevery hing,s well whatwe call natural,s whatwe call supernatu-ral,is in thisSense reallymiraculous; nd 'tis onlyusualnessorUnusualnesshatmakes hedistinction.

There s, Clarke asserts, no such thing, s whatMen commonlyall thecourseof Nature,or thePower ofNature...."He concludes: "'Tis notthereforeright istinction;o define Miracletobe Thatwhich s against

the CourseofNature."31It is worthmentioningt this tage hatnadditiono this philosophi-cal" definition,larke also offered "theological efinition"n whichheappears oreturno thetraditionalonceptionf the nterpositionf God.32Commentatorsave usually aken histo mean that n the finalanalysis,Clarke akes traditionaliew of miracles.What eemsmore ikely s thatClarkeholds hat he ameeventmay dmit oth hilosophicalndtheologi-cal explanations-the ormerealingwith auses,the atterwithpurposes.

How these wodefinitionsfmiraclemightonsistentlye held s an ssuetowhichwe shall return.or themoment et us note that n the protractedcontroversyith eibniz, nwhich significantroportionf thediscussionwas givenoverto thenotion fmiracle, larke'swholecase is based uponthephilosophical nderstandingf miracle. Natural" nd "supernatural,"he again nsists,re "distinctions erelyn our conceptions f things."33miracle, e later oints ut, doesnotconsistnanydifficultynthenatureof thethingobe done,butmerelyn theunusualnessf God's doing t."34

31Clarke,EvidencesofNatural nd Revealed Religion,Works, I, 697f. Cf. Leibniz-ClarkeCorrespondence,14; and SermonCLVIII, "Of theDutyof Prayer,"Works, I,281.

21"[T]he trueDefinitionf a Miracle, n the TheologicalSense of the Word, s this;that t is work ffectedn a mannerUnusual,or differentrom he common nd regularMethodofProvidence, y the nterpositionither f God himself, r of some IntelligentAgent superiour o Man, for theProofor Evidence of some particular octrine, r inattestationo theAuthorityf some particularerson" Evidences fNatural ndRevealedReligion,Works, I, 701).

33 Leibniz-Clarke orrespondence,4, 29, 35, 42.34 Ibid., 14.








Leibnizwas to respondhat larke'sdefinitionf miracle ifferedrom he"received otion" ndwouldprove nacceptableoboth ivines ndphiloso-phers.fmiraculousventsweredistinguishedromhemundanemerely y

thesubjective riteria roposed y Clarke, hen, oncluded eibniz, therewillbe no internalealdifference,etween miracle nd what s natural,ndat thebottom, very hingwill be either quallynatural,requallymiracu-lous."35 As it turnedut, hismplicationadalready een nticipatedyClarke,Whiston,ndNewton s well.

Whiston greedwith larke hatwhat onstitutesmiracle s a functionof ourknowledge fcauses, ndthe ameeventmay hus e bothmiraculousandnatural epending ponthestateofknowledge f theobserver.Al-

mighty od,"he says,"has so constitutedheWorld hatno Bodycan tellwherein t differs rom ne, where ll weresolely brought o pass by amiraculous ower."36hisalso seems o havebeentheviewof Newton. nashort npublishedoteNewtonwrote,

[M]iracles reso callednotbecausethey retheworks f God butbecausetheyhappen eldom ndfor hat eason reatewonder.fthey houldhappen onstantlyccordingo certainaws impressed

upon the nature f things, heywould be no longerwonders fmiracles utwouldbe considerednphilosophys part f thephe-nomena of naturenotwithstandinghatthecause of their ausesmighte unknownoUS.37

Armedwith his onceptionfmiracles,heNewtoniansnd a number ftheir ellow ravellers ent nto show hatmanymiracles,nparticularhoserecorded n the Old Testament,weremerely relative." n one way or

anotherhemarvellousvents etdownbyMoses in thePentateuchouldbedemonstratedofallwithinhemechanisticrder f nature. homasBurnet,for xample, etouta naturalisticccount ftheOld Testament eluge inTellurisTheoria acra (1681).38 In thisworkhe set out a "first ule con-

35 bid., 91.36 Whiston, ewTheory, 19.37 Cited nWestfall, cienceandReligion, 03f.Similar onceptionsf miraclewere

espoused by NehemiahGrew and JohnLocke. Grew thought hat "Nature t self is aStandingMiracle, heOperations hereof, e should s muchwonder t,as anyMiracle, fwe did not ee them very ay." Cosmologia acra: or,a Discourse oftheUniverse s it stheCreature ndKingdom f God (London,1701), 195,316. In hisDiscourseofMiracles(1706), Locke describedmiracles s eventswhichwere"above the comprehensionfthespectator, nd in his opinion ontraryo theestablished ourseof nature" nd which re,"takenby him to be divine" (Works [London, 180110], X, 256, my emphasis). Forcontemporaryiscussion of these definitions ee William Fleetwood,An Essay uponMiracles. n TwoDiscourses London, 1701), 2, 139; Anon.,A ShortDiscourse, 3f. andpassim; SamuelChandler, Vindication f theChristian eligion London, 1725), 7-10.

38 Englishtr.,The Theory f the Earth .. the FirstTwo Books (London, 16912);cf.Correspondence f saac Newton, I, 319-34.







540 PeterHarrison

cerningmiracles"-"That we mustnot flie to miracles,whereMan andnature re sufficient."39he Mosaic account,he insisted, bears n it theevidentmarks f an accommodationo thevulgarnotions oncerninghe

formftheWorld." trippedfthesemarks faccommodation,heGenesisaccount f the world'soriginsmeshed uiteneatlywithhisownscientificaccount f theCreation.WilliamWhistondopted he ameprinciplenhisNewTheory f he arth1696).Numerousvents ecordednsacredhistory,whilepresumed o result rommiraculousnterventions,erenot in factagainst he rdinaryourse fnature:

For those vents r Actions re nHolyScripturettributedmmedi-

atelyto thePowerof Providence f God, whichyetwereto alloutwardppearance ccordingo theconstant ourseofthings,ndwould, bstracted rom uchAffirmationftheHolyBooks,havebeenesteem'd o moremiraculoushan he therommon ffects fNature, rusualAccidentsf HumaneAffairs.40

This,Whiston,aterobserves,s "the SecretofDivineProvidence n theGovernmentf theWorld,wherebyheRewards ndPunishmentsfGod's

mercy nd Justice re distributedo his RationalCreatureswithout nydisturbancefthe etledCourseofNature, ra miraculousnterpositionnevery ccasion."41Whiston estated isview nAstronomicalrinciples fReligion,Natural nd Reveal'd (1717), wherehe againaskswhether ex-traordinaryndmiraculous ases" might ottakeplace "withouthedirectAlterationfthosefixed ndConstant aws ofNature."Herehe providesfurtherxamples fapparentmiracleswhich dmit fnaturalisticxplana-tions.42

TheCosmologia acra (1701) of Nehemiah rew the tated urpose fwhichwas, ironically,o refute hehermeneuticalrinciples f Spinoza)proposed imilar xplanationsf Old Testamentmiracles. he plaguesofEgypt, o use but neof Grew's xamples,were llbroughtboutby "sundryNatural auses."Moses' turningf theriver oblood waseffected hen heunfortunatequatic nhabitantsftheNilesimultaneouslyontractedratherunpleasant astric omplaint:all theFish, mall ndgreat,with heHippo-potamus,Crocadile,and otherAmphibious reatureswereseiz'd with

Dysenterick urrain."43t was thecombined ffluvia f this ndisposedmenagerie hich hanged hewaters f thegreat iver o blood.

39ThomasBumet,The Theory f theEarth .. theLast Two Books London,1691), II,ch. viii.

40 Whiston, ewTheory, 18f.41 Ibid., 359. Cf. John onne, Essayes inDivinity Oxford, 952), 81-84.42 Whiston,Astronomical rinciples of Religion, Natural and Reveal'd (London,

1717), 127f.43Grew,CosmologiaSacra, 196f.







NewtonianScience 541

Not surprisingly,ritics f such accounts omplainedhat he ntroduc-tion fmechanical hilosophyntohermeneuticsot nlydid violence otheliteral ense of Scripture,ut did away withthe traditional eanings f

"ordinary"nd "extraordinaryrovidence,"nd "miracle."44his in turnthreatenedhe whole apologetic nterprise hich ooked to miracles ovalidate he laimsoftheChristianevelation.f miracleswerenotdifferentin a philosophicalense,frommundane vents, nd if the abels "natural"and "supernatural"mounted o thesame thing, s Clarkeadamantlyn-sisted, hen miraculous" vents ould not be enlisted s support ortheChristianevelation.45

Miracles s Evidence

The standardse of miraclesnthe eventeenth-centurypologeticswasnot quite as straightforwards critics ave sometimesssumed.46 iracleswere mostusuallyused as proofs n conjunction ith number f otherarguments.he basic tenets f natural eligion-the xistence f God,theimmortalityf the soul and so on-could be established yrational rgu-mentssometimes eferredo as "internal vidences").However, octrines

specific o Christianity,uch as Incarnationnd Trinity, ere"beyond" r"above"reason, nd their ruth ould notbe directlyroved.The truth fthesedoctrineshen, ecamedependent pontheauthorityf those whopromulgatedhem.The argumentrommiracleswas essentiallyhatthedoctrines aught y Christ nd his discipleswere truebecausetheywereaccompanied y theworking f miracles. ince miracleswere superna-tural-beyond ragainst ature-theyouldonlybe direct ctivitiesfGod,wroughtn order o signifyhedivine rigin f themessage eingpreached.

Traditionally, iracleswereyoked oprophecieswhich lso functioneds"external vidences," he twolendingmutual upporto each other.47he

" See, e.g.,JohnKeill,AnExaminationftheReflectionsn TheTheory ftheEarthtogether ith DefenceoftheRemarks nMr.Whiston's ewTheoryOxford, 699), 1 f.and passim;John dwards,BriefRemarks ponMr. Whiston'sNew Theory f theEarth(London, 1697), 27-30 and passim;JohnBeaumont, onsiderationsf a Book,EntituledThe Theory f theEarth London,1693), 44; WilliamNicholls,Conference ith Theist,Part I (London,1697), 193-209;Cf. Whiston, VindicationftheNewTheoryf theEarth(London,1698), 30. Keill, incidentally, as himself Newtonian,lbeitone whoclearly

subscribedo the traditionalnderstandingfmiracles.45 This dilemmahas beensuccinctly xpressedmorerecently y AlastairMcKinnon,

"'Miracle' and 'Paradox,'" AmericanPhilosophicalQuarterly, (1967), 309. Here hearguesthatwhentheterm miracle" s used "expressively"to expresswonder) nd not"descriptively"to describe violation),t is difficulto see how it retains ny religiousforce.Cf. Flew, God and Philosophy, 48.

46 For a guide to the standardrguments,ee Burns,TheGreatDebate, chs.3 and 5.47 The fulfillmentf a prophecy emonstratedhedivineoriginof theprophetic

message, inceonly God has certainknowledge f future ontingents.or typical tate-mentsof the dual argument ee Robert Jenkin, easonablenessand Certainty f theChristianReligion, 29-42; Stillingfleet, riginesSacrae, Bk. II, chs. viii, ix. Jenkin







542 PeterHarrison

context nd tendency f miracles rovided mportantndications f theirauthenticity.iraclesneeded o bewroughtnsupportf a message, nd themessagehad tobe consonant ithnatural nowledgef divine ruths.48or

miraclesto function s proofs, he heartsof the observershad to bereceptive-as ChancellorBacon had put it, "Therewas never a miraclewrought y God to convert n atheist."49he performancef miracles,moreover,ad a cumulative ffect: number f miracles erformedythesame personwas a more onvincing isplay f divinepower han singlemiracle.50inally,miracles, espite heimmoderatelaimsof theirmorevocaladvocates, onstitutednly "moral" roof-a proofwhich ossessedless thanmathematicalertainty,utto whichunprejudiced enof reason

would ssent."1Despite hesemportantualificationsndsafeguards,owever,hebasicargumenttill equiredmiracles obe violationsf naturalaws. On thefaceof it,miracles n the Newtonianense couldnot be substitutedntothesetraditionalrgumentsas critics fthemechanisticheories f theearth adalready ointed ut). t is surprising,hen, hat hosewithinheNewtonianclique andClarke nparticulartill eemed o want oretainome pologeticrole formiracles.Clarkefirmlynsisted hattheChristian evelation s

"positivelynd directly roved o be actually nd immediatelyentto usfrom od"on account f miracles,ulfilledrophecies,nd the estimonyfJesus'disciples.52ither larkewas dissembling,r he was using heargu-ment rommiraclesnquite newway. n a sensehe wasactually oing oth,as we shall ee.Forthemoment,etus turn ur ttentiono theway n whichbothClarke ndWhiston evelopednovelstrategies hich nabled hem oretain n apologetic se for hose vents ommonlyhoughto be miracles.

First, heywereable to put forwardn indirect roof f theChristian

revelations containednscripture,y actuallynvertinghe tandardrgu-ment rommiracles. pinoza, longwith number f theEnglish deists,"had asserted hatmiracles re a priorimpossible. t followed hatmiraclenarrativesnscripture erenot obe read iterallynd, f taken eriouslytall, wereto be interpretedn a "figurative"ense."3 he upshotwas that

actuallynotesthatmiracles lone are nota sufficientestimonyo a doctrine: Thoughmiracles re a mostfit ndproperMeans toprovetheTruth fReligion;yetthey re notonlytobe consider'd lone, but n conjunction ith ther roofs" 43).

48 Ibid., 42. Cf.Augustine, e utilitateredendi, 6.34."1 FrancisBacon, Advancementf Learning, I.vi.1 (86). Cf. Boyle, The Religious

Virtuoso,Works, , 514, 524. Bentley, oyleLectures, th d., SermonVI, in Works,II,125; Aquinas, umma heologica, a2ae. 6, 1 (XXXI, 167).

50 ee Locke,A DiscourseofMiracles,Works,X, 25951 On "moral ertainty,"ee Wilkins, rinciples ndDutiesofNaturalReligion, -10,

88-93, andClarke,Works,I, 600.52 Clarke,Evidences f Natural ndRevealedReligion,Works,I, 697.53Thus CharlesBlount:"For in Scripturemany hings rerelated s real,and which

were also believ'dto be real evenbytheRelators hemselves;hatnotwithstandingereonlyRepresentationsorm'd n theBrain, ndmeerlymaginary"Miraclesno Violations








Scripture,s a supposedrecord f divinerevelation, as unreliable. heNewtonians esponded y arguing hatmanyof the remarkablevents e-cordedntheOld Testament ere onsonant ithhenew cience, nd ndeed

were hemost ikely cientificxplanationsf ertain eaturesf heworld.Aswehave already een, uch vents s theCreation,heFlood, ndtheplaguesofEgyptwere usedbythe Newtonians o showthat hedetailsof sacredhistory erecompatiblewith he newphilosophy. ut more han his, hereliability f Scripture s a whole was vindicated y demonstratinghatnarratives hichon thefaceof itwere highlymplausible, ere actuallyconfirmedya mechanical cience.As Whiston ut t:

So certainlyheEstablishmentf theVerity ftheScripturesnthemostharsh nddifficultssertionsouching heNaturalWorld theproper ase inwhich he mprovementfPhilosophy as likely oaffordmeansfor urDetermination)ught o assureus ofthe ikeverity f the ame Scripturen theother oints,morepeculiarly heSubjectsof DivineRevelation,ess capableof affordingny othermeansofSatisfaction.54

Clarke rticulatedhe sameargument,eclaringhatntheChristiancrip-tures loneis found scientificallyeliable ccount ftheworld'sorigins."AMONG thewritingsfall, even themost ncient nd learnedNations,"hewrote,there reNonebut hebooks of theJews,which have] .. givenany olerable ccountnparticular,ftheFormationfthis ur earth nto tspresent abitable tate."55 hus,despite uttinghegroundrom eneathhetraditionalrgumentrommiracles, cientificndorsementf miracle c-counts unctionedikethe therxternalvidences y attestingothegeneral

authorityfthe

ource f a putative evelation.A secondapologetic rgumentroposedby the Newtonianswas that,despite hefact hat he causes of some "miracles"might e known, hetimingnd combinationfvarious atural ausesrevealed hehandofGod:some events remiraculous ecausetheynvolveremarkableoincidenceswhich an be givenplausible eligious nterpretations.hus,even grantingthat miracles" reno differentrom ther ventsn terms fthecausation,the ynchronizationf these nusual ventswith he ourse fhuman istory

testifiedothe

presciencend

providentiallanof

God. Forexample, venthoughhenaturalausesoftheDeluge, heplagues fEgypt,ndtheparting

of theLaws of Nature London,1683], 23). Blount's work, s Thomas Brownetactlesslypointed ut,wasplagiarized rom pinoza and others. rowne,Miracles Work'sAbove ndContraryo Nature, 1-3. Cf. Spinoza, Tractatus heologico-politicus,n Works 2 vols.;London, 18892), 1, 84, 92-94; JohnToland, TetradymusLondon, 1720). Also see theargumentsf "Philologus" n Nicholls,Conference ith Theist, art I.

54 Whiston, ewTheory, 81f.Cf. Burnet's reface o The Theory f theEarth,BooksI andII (London,16973).

55Clarke,Evidences f Natural ndRevealedReligion,Works I, 705.







544 PeterHarrison

of theRed Sea couldbe enumerated,t wasthefact hat heywereunusual,and had occurred reciselywhentheydid,whichmade themmiraculous.Whydid creaturesftheNile contractheir istempert suchanopportune

time?Whydid theFlood coincidewith hegrowthf humanwickedness?Whydid theRed Sea part or he sraelitesnd then nundateheir gyptianpursuers? he answers o thesequestions ould not be found olely n theexaminationf nature ut required eferenceo God's purposes, r to the"moral rder f theworld."n Whiston'swords, thecoincidence fthingsfrom irst o last, hrougho many tages nd periods f Nature"s what sremarkablend "miraculous."56nd nthe iming fthese oincidencesstobe found hereasonwhy uch miracles"mightunctions evidences.God,

says Whiston, so previously djustedand contemper'd he Moral andNaturalWorld o one another,hat heMarks nd Tokens f hisProvidenceshould e inallAges egible nd conspicuous, hatsoeverhevisible econd-ary Causes or Occasions mightbe... "5 Thus the eventsofhistory,whetherwe wishtostyle ertain f them providential"r"miraculous,"ll tend othe ameend.

Futuredivine"interventions"rophesiedn scriptureould sustainsimilar nalysis. urnet's onjecturesegardinghefinal onflagrationfthe

world rea clear example.Burnet onsidered rangeofpossibilitiess tohow this onflagrationight e broughtbout-the earth's rbit pproach-ingtooclose to thesun ortheerruptionftheearth's entral ire-beforeconcluding hatthe conflagrationould be caused by a combinationfvolcanoes, lammablematerialsntheearth's ore, nd fierymeteors."8etdespite his cientificxplanation, od's handwas visible n thetiming fthe event: andtho' the Causes maybe sufficient hen ll united, ettheunion fthem tsuch time, nd n such manner,lookupon s the ffect

of a particularrovidence."59It s hard ooveremphasizehe ignificancefthis ccount fmiraculousevents. ydeletingllreferenceobreaches f awsofnature ndby ocatingthe ssenceof themiraculousnthe oncatenationfnaturalauses,miracleaccounts ould become mmune o the standard riticisms hichhave be-come familiaro us since Hume's "Of Miracles."60 oreover,ucha con-ception llows for farmoredurable ynthesisf science nd religion hanhad beenpossiblewiththeconception f nature romoted y Boyle and

others. Coincidencemiracles" nable both scientificnd theological e-scriptionso applyto the same eventwithoutompeting ith ach other.Miracles nd awsof nature ouldnowpeacefullyoexist.

56 Whiston, ewTheory, 03 (myemphasis).Cf.Grew,Cosmologia acra, 200.57 Whiston, ewTheory,19 (myemphasis).58 TheTheory f theEarth,bk. III, chs. vi, vii.59Burnet, he Theory f theEarth .. theLast TwoBooks,bk. III, ch. iv.60 The notion of a "coincidence"miracle has been rehabilitatedn the twentieth

century y R. F. Holland ("The Miraculous,"American Philosophical Quarterly,2[1965], 43-51).







Newtoniancience 545

RelativeMiracles,Accommodation,ndTwo-Fold hilosophy

The evidencewhichwe examined o thispoint s intendedo showthat

the Newtonians ejected utrighthe standard eventeenth-centuryssump-tion hat iolations fthe awsof nature an takeplace. However, f we setaside for the momentClarke's "philosophical"definitionf "miracle"(which priorieems o rule utviolationsfthe aws ofnature),t might earguedthatall we have established o far s thattheNewtonianswereskeptical bout ome accounts fmiracles ndthat hey einterpretedheseevents ccordingly,ven going o far s to find lternativepologetic unc-tionsfor hem.tremains possibilityhat hey etainedomethingike the

standard onception f miracle, eservingt forvery pecial occurrences.Indeed, fair ase couldbemade hatwhile heNewtoniansegardedhevastbulk ofputativemiracles s having ccurredwithin he normal ourse ofnature, fewdramaticvents-theCreation,hemiraclesndresurrectionfChrist,ndthe pproachingschaton-these hings enuinely arrantedhelabel"miracle" s used nthe raditionalense.TheNewtonians,ccording othis nterpretation,ereconcerned o reducedramaticallyhe number feventswhich ellunder hedescriptionmiracle" utwerenot ommittedo

dispensing ith he oncept ompletely.6"his nterpretationerives mea-sure fsupportrom hefact hatNewton, larke, nd Whiston o appear ttimes o concede hat, uring ivotal eriods fhistory,enuinemiracles adactually ccurred.

For example,Newtonwrote o Burnetn 1680, speculatingbout thedaysof theCreation: Wherenatural auses are at handGod uses them sinstrumentsn hisworks, ut doe no think hem lone sufficientoryecreation therefore aybe allowed to suppose hat mongst ther hings

God gave the earth t's motionby ... degrees."62Whistonwas similarlypersuaded hatGod acteddirectlyntheformationfthesublunary orld,butthereafterested: Thedaysof creation re signally istinguish'dromthosefollowing,nwhichGod is saidtohaverestedwhenyethisordinaryConcurrencend theCourse of naturewas continued ithoutnterruption)and mustbe reckon'd s suchon whichhe trulyxerted Powerdifferentfrom heother."63

A second periodin which the Newtonians eem to allow genuine

miracleswas the postolic ge,whenJesus ndhisdiscipleswroughtariouswonders.Newtonwrote o Locke in 1691-92that Miracles fgoodcreditcontinuedn theChurch or bout woorthree undred ears."64he more

61James orce, for xample,writes hat LikeWhiston,... larkeultimatelyommitshimself, owever eluctantly,o thepossibility f miracles s transgressionsf natural awby a speciallyprovident od" ("The Breakdown f theNewtonian ynthesis," 49).

62 Newton o Burnet, anuary680/81, orrespondencef saac Newton,I, 334.63

Whiston, ew Theory, 11.64 Newton o Locke, 16 February 691/92 Correspondencef saac Newton,II, 195).







546 PeterHarrison

outspokenWhistonwrote completeworkexpressinghesamepointofview-that miraclesbegan withChrist nd ceased "just at, or after hesecondGeneralCouncil, hat fConstantinople."65hewaning f miracle-

working adadditionalignificanceor heNewtonians. hedenialof con-temporary iracleswas an importantomponentf anti-Catholicolemic.With he essation f wondersllRomishmiracles,nd ndeed ll purportedmiracles nlisted n support f other evelations,ould be discounted simpostures.66oreover,hewithdrawalf thegift f miracle-workingromthe Church oincidedwith heascendancy f Athanasianheologynd itstriumphverArianism-the referredrinitarianiew ofNewton,Whiston,and Clarke.67or theNewtonianshe essation fmiracleswas thusnpart

token fdivine isapprovalfwhat ecame he rthodoxheological ositionwith espectotheTrinity.Finally, hethird age of miracles," n which aws of naturewould

undergo n apparent hange,was theEschaton.Whiston bservedhat Thestateof Natureduring he Milleniumwill be verydifferentrom hat tpresent."68ewton imself adsuggested, otoriously,hat hepresent olarsystemwould ventually rind oa halt, equiringhedirect nterventionfGod to reformt-a reformationhich, ncidentally,ewtonmost robably

regardeds thedestructionndrenovationf theearth rophesiedn Scrip-ture.69

All ofthisseems to favor he view that n the final nalysisNewton,Whiston, nd Clarke were still committed o the traditional iew thatmiracles, ua violations f the aws ofnature, ouldtakeplace, albeitnotwith hefrequencylaimed ytheirmore nthusiasticdvocates. hese pas-sages, however, eed notsupporthe"ambiguitynd inconsistency" y-pothesis. he key o reconcilinghese dmissions ithwhat ppears o be an

outrightejectionfmiraclesnother laces sprovided yanunderstandingofClarke'smotivationnprovidingwoapparentlyontradictoryefinitionsof "miracle." larke,we recall, tated hatmiracles n the"philosophical"sense,cannot e violations f the aws of naturebecausetheres no suchthing s the course of nature), orcan theybe singular nterpositionsfDivinepower becauseGod's immediate ower s constantlyperatingn theuniverse).Once Clarke's"philosophical" efinitionf miracle s accepted,no event,nprinciple,an be an objectivemiracle, ncluding he signs nd

wonders ecordedntheNewTestament. tbestthere an be eventswhich

65 Whiston,Mr.W.'sAccount ftheExactTimewhenMiraculousGiftsCeas'd in theChurchLondon,1749), 7. Cf.Whiston'sA Collection fAuthentic ecordsbelonging othe Old and New Testament London, 1727-28), 939-48, and An Account of theDaemoniacks London,1737), 59-73.

66 Whiston,bid., 9-11.67 Whiston,bid.Also see Westfall, ever t Rest Cambridge, 980),345.68 Whiston, ewTheory, 14.69

Newton,Optics New York,19524), 402; David Kubrin, Newton nd theCyclicalCosmos," JHI, 28 (1967) 325-46.







Newtoniancience 547

are miracles orus-miraculum uod nos,to use thephrase fAquinas-inthatweare, t somegivenpointntime, nable o offerxplanationsftheircauses. The reasonClarke lso provides n apparentlyontradictoryefini-

tion fmiracleswhich lludes othe nterpositionfGod s not naccount fa failure f nerve n hispart, ut becauseof a commitmento notions f"accommodation"nd the two-foldhilosophy."

Accordingotheprinciplefaccommodation,od and hismessengershad,throughouthe course ofhistory,accommodated" ivinerevelationsto theconceptions ndmental apacities f therecipientsf thoserevela-tions.Miracles, ua apparentnterpositionsntothenatural rder, re evi-dence ofdivine ccommodationn that heyhave an immediateppeal to

people ofall capacities.Had Judeo-Christianeligion een exclusively orthosecognoscenti apableofgraspinghetruths f natural eligion, longwith variety f intricateheological ogmas,miracleswould have beenunnecessary. owever, or hoseof moremodest ntellect-the imple ndthe lliterate-miraclesouldprovide convincing emonstrationf "super-natural" ower.

The appealofmiracles othose acking ntellectualifts ad already eennotedby a number f theologians. ugustine addisparaginglyemarked

thatmiracleswerenotfor hewise butfor oolswho weremore nclined orely upon their enses thantheirntellects.70 welve hundred ears aterRobert oyle,while ess dismissive f themiraculous,everthelessointedoutthat Miracles re a properwayto appealtomenof all capacities; ubtleargumentsmayconvincephilosophers,ut Christianitys meantfor allmen.71 Locke, too,hadstressed hatmiraclesmust ppealto "all sorts nddegreesof people,"not least "thesimpleand illiterate,"nd thatconse-quentlyt was their pparent ontradictionfthe normal ourseofnature

whichwas crucial.72 ewton,Burnet,Whiston, nd Clarkeall assumedsimilarlyhat hevulgar hroughoutistoryither ailed ocomprehendhestandingmiracle videntnthenatural ourseofthings,r had simply osttheir we ofthewonders fnaturehroughamiliarity.iracles, n the enseofunusual vents,werenecessaryor uchpeople nd ndeedwere mark fGod's accommodation f his messageto the capacitiesof its intendedrecipients.73

70 Augustine, e utilitateredendi, 6.34.71 Boyle,unpublished S, "SomeconsiderationsboutMiracles s they rePleadable

for heChristian eligion," uoted n R. M. Bums, TheGreatDebate, 53.72 Locke,DiscourseofMiracles,Works,X, 264. Cf.Fleetwood, ssay uponMiracles,

78f.; ConyersMiddleton, Free Inquiry ntotheMiraculousPowerswhich re supposedto havesubsistedntheChristian hurchLondon, 1749),xli.

73 See, e.g., Newton oBurnet, anuary 680/1Correspondencef saac Newton, I,331); Burnet oNewton, 3January 680/1Correspondencef saac Newton,I, 323). Cf.

WilliamNicholls,A Conferencewith Theist, art V (London,1699), 238f;AbrahamLemoine,A Treatise nMiracles London, 1747),359.







548 PeterHarrison

A furtheronsequence f theprinciplefaccommodation as that fthecapacities f thehuman acehadchanged ver ime,God's methodsfself-communicationouldalter ccordingly.n an age ofadvancingcience he

need formiracleswas far ess,andnotonlybecause scientificxplanationscouldbe offeredor vents reviouslyhoughtobemiraculous. or Newtonand his peers theorderingfnature tselfwas sufficientestimonyo thesovereigntyf God; forthe scientificallymmature,nusualeventsper-formedhe amefunction. s John ockburnxpressedhematter:

Under hePatriarchalndJewish economy, oddidrevealhimselfmore requentlyhannow: TheJews ada succession fProphets....

ThisPrivileges withdrawnow,notbecauseGodcarethessfor heWorld, utbecausethere s not uchoccasionfor tnow, s then: oomit ther easonsat this ime,Men were henn a kindof nfant-state, heydidnot understandlearly ither he Methods fProvi-dence, r God's Will andPurpose owardsMankind....74

Improvementsnknowledge,hemostmportantf whichwas arguably asNewton'sdiscoveryfthe aw of universal ravitation,adnotonlymade

manymiracles cientificallyxplicable, uthaduncovered hemiraculousnature ftheeveryday orkingsftheuniverse,making miracles" uper-fluous.The march f science had indeednullifiedheconcept, ut fortu-itously ad at the ametimeprovided more ophisticatedlternative.

It is importanto note hatwhileClarke,Whiston,nd Newtonwere llveryconscious of the scientific rogressmade since thewriting f thePentateuch,heynonetheless ealizedthat heseventeenth-centuryaturalphilosopher as onlyrelativelyetterff han herude sraelites owhomMoseshadfirstxpoundedhe

historyftheCreation.While he

Newtoniansinsisted hatnprincipleoevent ouldbe a truemiracle, hey ouldconcedethat ertain emarkablevents till vaded cientificxplanation.t s for hisreason hat hey sethe amiliaranguage fmiracles or heCreationndtheEschaton.But as Clarke was at painsto pointout to Leibniz,thisusagerequires areful nalysis.The latter,s is well known, ook exception oNewton's claim thatthe irregularitiesn the solar system, wingto themutual ttractionsfthe variousbodies,"willbe aptto increase, ill thissystemwants Reformation...."7seibnizobjected hat hisreflectedatherbadly ntheCreator, ho must ave ackedforesightnframinghe awsoftheuniverse.76larke prangothedefense fNewtoniancience, xplainingtoLeibniz hat theword orrection,ramendment,s tobeunderstood,otwith egardoGod, but o us only."He continues:

74 John ockburn,nquirynto heNature,Necessitynd Evidenceof Christian aith(London, 16992),187. Cf. JohnDonne, Essayes in Divinity, 4; AlexanderCalcott,ATreatise n theDeluge (London,17682),10; ConyersMiddleton, ree Enquiry, xii.

7 Newton,Optics, 02.76 Leiibniz-Clarkeorrespondence,.







Newtonian Science 549

The present rame fthe olar ystemfor nstance,)ccordingo thepresentaws of motion, ill n time all nto onfusion;nd perhaps,after hat,will be amended rput nto new form. ut this mend-

ment s onlyrelative, ith egard o ourconception.n reality,ndwith egard o God; thepresent rame, nd theconsequent isorder,and thefollowing enovation,re all equally partsof thedesignframedn God's original erfectdea.77

Godinterferesr nterposeso reformhe olar ystem utonlywith especttoour imited cientificonceptions-our resent aws ofmotion s Clarketellinglyescribes hem. herewillbe nothingfthegenuinemiraclen the

dissolution foursolar system,merely he operation f"natural" orces syetnotfully nderstood. ll events,without xception,repart f "God'soriginal erfectdea," and nasmuch s science, or heNewtonianst least,was directed t the discovery f thesedivine deas, all events,withoutexception,allunder hepurviewfscience.Whiston avea similarccountof the Eschaton: thisCatastrophemay naturally ndregularly efalourEarth .. accordingothe rue ystem f theWorld, ndwithout miracle."78Even the miraculous" esurrectionf human odies whichwas tocoincide

with heend oftheworldwas, nWhiston's iew,"very greeable o someknown henomena f Nature."79y implication,hereferencesfWhistonandNewton o "direct" ivineactivityn theoriginalCreation re to besimilarlynderstoods "interventions"rom ur imited erspective nly.Miracles hushaveepistemological,ndnotontologicaltatus.

Clarke'sdual definitions renderedven more xplicablewhenwetakeinto ccount he"two-fold hilosophy,"tself fundamentalssumptionftheprinciple f accommodation.ubscriptiono the two-fold hilosophy

was almostuniversal mongst he earned f the seventeenthenturyndinvolved he view that n science and religion,ndeed n all spheres flearning,hereretwoformsfknowledge,ne for hevulgarndonefor helearned. t was more r ess a synchronicersion f the heoryfaccommo-dation, ccordingo which herewouldbe inevery ge,despite he dvanceofscience, hosewhorequired simple ersion f events.n the pirit f thetwo-foldhilosophy ewtonwrote f thephilosophersfthepastthat hey"loved so tomitigateheirmystical iscourses hat n thepresence f the

vulgar hey oolishly ropoundedulgarmattersor he akeof

ridicule,nd

hidthe ruthehind iscourses fthiskind."80s wehaveseen,Moses, too,practiced he two-fold hilosophy, ritingn "unfeigned" et "unphilo-sophical" accountof the Creation. ven theFathers f the Churchhadsuccumbedo this endency,ropoundingwoversions fChristianity.The

77 Ibid., 2f.78 Whiston, stronomicalrinciples f Religion,153.79 Ibid.,152.80 Newton,GregoryMS. 247, fols. llf. Also see FrankE. Manuel,TheReligionof

Isaac Newton Oxford, 974), 39, 46.







550 PeterHarrison

multitude,"verredOrigen, cannot omprehendhecomplex heology fthewisdom f God" and must ettle or the psedixit f Jesus.""8 hus twas notwithoutrecedenthat he earned f the eventeenthentury ith-

held their peculations n sensitivedoctrinalmatters romhoi polloi.82ThomasBumet, or nstance, elt t libertyoexpresshis doubts bouttheeternityfhell na Latinwork utcautioned isreader hat whatever oudecide in yourownBreastof theseEternal unishments,hepeople,tooeasilyprone oVice andeasily errifiedrom vilmusthavethecommonlyreceivedDoctrine."83 histonharacteristicallydmittedo a similarlyib-eral viewof thetormentsf hell and even confidedo his readers hat othClarkeand Newton neither f whom had seen fit to makepublictheir

opinions n this ssue) sharedhis views.84 ewton, s is wellknown, lsokepthisArian iewsprivatendevenwent ofar s to preventhe dmissionof his friendWhiston nto theRoyal Societyon accountof Whiston'singenuous dmission fa commitmento that rinitarianeresy.Whiston'soffence as clearly othis Arianism er e but hepolitically-fraughtublicprofessionf a heterodoxreed.

It is hardly urprising,ivenan intellectualulture f thiskind, hatClarkewoulddeem tnecessaryo at leastgivea nod nthedirectionfthe

"commonlyeceiveddoctrine" oncerningmiracles, ecure n theknowl-edge that t was a harmlessway of lookingat eventswhich did have,subjectivelytanyrate, eligiousignificance.o waver nthis ssue, nanycase, would have beento play ntothehandsof the deisticproponentsfnatural eligion, hose desire twas to do awaywith evelation ltogether.The religious stablishmentould certainlyave taken dim viewofanyattempto underminets chiefbulwark gainst eism-the argumentrommiracles. hus,whereasnonesense he geof miracleswasover,nanother

itwasnecessaryor eligiousndpolitical easons operpetuatehe oncept.For much hereason s Moses hadpropounded non-philosophicalccountof theCreation, o the Newtonians eluctantlyromoted "theological"conception f the miraculous. he trueposition f Clarke,Whiston,ndNewton s most xpresslytatednthecontroversyith eibniz theargu-ments fwhichNewton ersonallyupervised).85n themorepublicBoyle

81Origen,Contracelsum, V.9, 1.7; cf.De principiis, V.ii.6-8; Basil, On the Spirit,

XXVII.66.82 "Even still,"wroteWhiston, those who believe n the trueSystem f the World,

are forc'damongtheVulgar,and in commonConversationo speak as they do, andaccommodateheir xpressionso theNotions ndApprehensionsf thethegeneralityfMankind" New Theory, 0).

83 Burnet, f the tateof theDead and Those that re to Rise, tr.M. Earberry2 vols;London,17282), I, 97. Bumet lso indicated n theLatinoriginal hathewouldtake dimview of any attempto translate is work nto the vernacular...a autionwhichEarberryblithely gnored.

84 Whiston, heEternity fHell Torments onsideredLondon, 1740), lf.85See Cambridge niversityibrary, dd MS. 3965,fol.289r,draft , for vidence f

Newton'seditorialnput ntothepublicationf theClarke-Leibniz orrespondence.








lectures larkehad totreadmorewarily-hencehis nclusion fa "theologi-cal" definitionf miracleswhichwas somewhattodds with hephilosophi-cal account e hadalready utlined.

None ofthis s to say,however,hatNewton nd hisdisciples mbarkedon a campaign fdeliberate uplicity. larke,for nstance,was privatelyaware thatfor even the mostsophisticated hilosophical hinkert washelpfult times othinkfcertainvents s if heywere nterpositionsn thepart f theDeity.To call anevent "miracle"was to nvest twith specialtheological ignificance,nd thiswas something hich, orreligious ea-sons, twasattimes esirableodo.Thisviewofthepsychologicalecessityofretaininghemore raditionalse of "miracle"was shared yWhiston.n

a vindicationf his account f the auses of theDeluge.Whistonddressedthosenumerousriticswhoargued or he ncompatibilityfmechanisticndmiraculous xplanations:'Tis alledg'd against me, ThatmyMechanicalAccount ftheDeluge impliestwas no divineJudgementortheWorld'sWickedness;ut rom heNecessaryMotion f the Comet nd Earth,musthave happen'dwhether enhadrepentedrnot."86Whiston esponded hatneither scientific ora moralaccountof thedelugeare by themselvesexhaustive xplanationsf theevent.God in his prescience new of the

futureinful ctions f men ndso determinedopunish hem. he instru-ments f his udgment, owever, ere henatural auseswhich roughthedeluge-inducingomet. t was trueboth hatGod punished sinful umanraceby sending flood nd that hefloodwasinexorablyroughtnthroughtheoperation f secondary auses. In otherwords t was as ifGod hadinterposed.

In anilluminatingassage,Whiston oesontoexplain hat comparablesituationxistswith espect opetitionaryrayer.Whenwe pray o God to

bringbout futuretate faffairs,aysWhiston, e must ctas ifGod willliterallyntervenenthenatural ourse fevents-"it s best osuppose .. inourDevotions" hat urprayers ependupona "particularnterpositionfProvidence."n offeringetitionaryrayerswe act as if our prayerswillfunctionn somewayas causesoffutureontingentvents. rom philo-sophical as opposedto a devotional) erspective, owever,we knowthatsuch a belief s highly roblematic.hephilosophical xplanationfpeti-tionary rayers thatGod, knowing rom hebeginningf timewhatpeti-

tionswill be offered,o arrangesmattershat hose hingswepray or ccurin accordancewithnature,ndthus hese ventswill nevitablyakeplace,albeit n a ratherpecial sense, inresponseo"ourprayers.87his notwith-

86 Whiston, Vindication,0. The criticwas William Nicholls see his Conferencewith Theist, art I [London,1697], 207).

87 We find imilar olutionsnAugustine e civitate ei,V.9, 10, andAquinasSummacontragentiles, II, 95. Cf.WilliamWollaston, And thustheprayers,whichgood menoffer o theAll-knowing od, and theneglects f others,may findfittingffects lreadyforecraftedn thecourse of nature" TheReligionof NatureDelineated London, 1724],104).







552 PeterHarrison

standing,t s not nreasonableomaintaindistinctionetween philosophi-cal anda devotional erspectivenpetitionaryrayer.

The samemight e argued ormiracles.Whistononcludes,lthoughhe

arguments hardto disentangle rom heprolixprose,that he twokeynotions of "the particular nterpositionf providence"and "miracle"amount o the samething-as willbecomeapparent, e assuresus, when"theother arts fNature et o be discover'd, e found educible o as fixtLaws as thosewe alreadyknoware."88n otherwordswe onlyspeakofmiracles nd particularnterpositionsecause we are ignorantfthefixedlaws which ccount or uchevents,ustas we remaingnorantf the awsgoverninghenaturalmeansbywhichprayer equests regranted.n short

we are similarly lacedto thosewho in previous ges,through lack ofknowledgefnature,ttributedodivinenterpositionhatwe now know ohavebeennatural. llmiracles,hen,rerelativemiracles.

Conclusion

The heroesof seventeenth-centurycience nhabited thought-worldvery ifferentrom urown.However ophisticatedheircientificisions f

theuniverse,hey ften oundhemselvesnable o ettisonspects fa pastworld, worldpopulated yoccultforces, ympathiesndantipathies,ndthe nfluencesfsupernaturaleings.Men ofthehighestcientificeputationcould still clingto the vestigesof medieval beliefs:witches, lchemy,astrology,ndnot east,miracles. rom ur ontemporaryerspective e areinclined o view manysuchbeliefs, ncluding he belief n miracles, sinimical o the cientificutlook.Accordingly, e tend oregard hesemenas having eenfacedwith starkhoice: cience rmiracles utnotboth. t

is because Newton nda numberf his friendsound hemselves nable omake hat hoicethat hey tand hargedwithhaving mbracedmbiguitiesand nconsistencies.haveargued hatNewton,Whiston,ndClarke ejectedthisdichotomyndestablished firmmiddleground, llowing hat hoseevents raditionallyabelled"miracles"had takenplace,butdenyinghatanyphilosophicalensecouldbe made of theclaimthat heywerebreachesof naturalaw.Thisnewconception fthemiraculous as most uccessfullyappliedbyNewton's rotegeWhistonotheDeluge and thefinalConflagra-

tion.Inanunpublished anuscriptn the pocalypseNewton,peakingfthefinal estorationftheworld, eclared hat othings "beyond hepossibil-ityof nature, othing oo hardfor the omnipotent ower of God": thepossibilitiesfnature,orNewton,werenothingess than hepossibilitiesf

88 Whiston, Vindication,1. CompareBumet'sresponse o thesamecriticism, nAnswer othe ateExceptionsmadebyMrErasmusWarrengainst heTheory fthe arth(London,1690), 17-19.








the mnipotenteity.89 ith uch conception fthe rderingfthe osmosthere ould be no divine violation f aws of nature." ewton idnot, ndcould not,believe n miracles n this ense.Yet committeds hewas to the

omnipotence f God, Newton was open to the "strange nd wonder-ful"-those prodigieswhich npast ages,andeveninhis owntimes,menhadreferredoas "miracles."

Bond University.

89 Yahuda MS. 9. 2, fol. 140r.Quoted nManuel,Religion f saac Newton, 01.

Harrison-miracles and the Laws of Nature

Documents

Transcript of Harrison-miracles and the Laws of Nature