THE THEOLOGY OF MIRACLES - Dialnet · 2 Le miracle signe de salut, Bruxelles 1959. 3 This is...

TH E THEOLOGY OF M IRACLES

The question of miracles and, especially that of the finality of miracles, has, w ithin the last few years, once again come into vogue. This is due mainly to the efforts of theologians to renew many of the forms of presentation current in theology by a fundam ental rethinking of the m ain problems. As an example we can consider the change of emphasis which has occurred in the consideration of the Resurrection of Christ h Theology has come to realize more and more tha t the resurrection is not only the greatest apologetic proof of faith but also, and principally so, a cause of our salvation. This aspect is now given its rightful place in theology as opposed to the almost exclusive apologetic aspect. In like manner, theologians are beginning to seek an organized theology of the miracle as opposed to, or rather as an integration of, the simple apologetic consideration.

L. Monden, in a work containing many excellent pages2, shows tha t the theology of the miracle, the finality of the miracle for the theologian, is synthesised by viewing it as a sign of salvation, as an introduction to the supernatu ra l3. This is the commonly accepted view of our day. Thus it is that an integral theology of the miracle m ust include, not alone a consideration of the nature of the miracle, but also a thorough study of its finality.

St. Thomas is accused of having neglected this la tter aspect of the miracle and of having confined himself to the plane of essences: to the notion of the miracle and to its sole apologetic

1 With regard to the Resurrection cf. Rom. 4, 25; ST III, 56; F. X. D u r w e ll , La resurrection de Jesus, mystère de salut, Paris 1955 etc.

2 Le miracle signe de salut, Bruxelles 1959.3 This is apparent already from the title of Monden’s book. He writes:

« Tout autre est la cas (that is, from the supernatural illumination of faith), quand Dieu, sans cesser de s’adresser à la raison naturelle, veut cependant lui entr’ouvrir la perspective du surnaturel et se servir d’elle pour frayer le chemin à la foi. Le surnaturel doit alors comme renoncer à lui-même sans toutefois rien perdre de sa transcendance. Ce paradoxe n’est réalisable que si Dieu laisse transparaître le surnaturel à travers le naturel: Dieu agit donc sur la nature de manière à suggérer un au-delà à la signification courante du signe, par une manifestation inhabituelle; le caractère tout autre et le contexte religieux qui l’entoure, constitueront, au coeur même du naturel, une référence au surnaturel. Tel est le miracle: point n’est besoin d’une révélation divine ou d’une vue de foi pour en découvrir le sens... C’est un acte-symbole divin où le surnaturel se prête pour ainsi dire à une saisie naturelle... » p. 44.

Ephemerides Carmeliticae 20 (1969/1) 3-51

4 LIAM S. O'BRÉARTÜIN

function4. In the great cycle: exitus a Deo — reditus ad Deum: which is the plan underlying St. Thomas’ main theological works 5, the working of God w ithin m an and m an’s response to this are of capital importance. In his commentary on the Gospel according to St. Matthew, the Angelic Doctor writes: « Magnum est facere m iracula sed maius est virtuose vivere » 6; this ju s t about sums up the attitude which permeates the treatm ent of miracles in his theological synthesis. Miracles were wonderful events awakening people to the supernatural. The gift of miracles was a great gift; it was a special grace granted to some members of the Church as an external help to the faith; it did not, however, involve a higher degree of personal sanctity in the person exercising it. In contrast to this we have the example of the m an who lived virtuose: he possessed God interiorly; he was moved by the spirit of God and by his interior attractions and impulses.

From this point of view, miracles were, at most, useful; they had been necessary in the early days of the Church but now the Church itself is the living miracle; of itself, it proves that miracles have taken place. Thus miracles are no longer necessary; what is to be stressed is the life of God w ithin the soul.

If we are to explain this m entality we must project ourselves back into the thirteenth century. I t is very im portant to realize the theological ' atmosphere ’ of St. Thomas. Times have changed much since then and the theological terminology used by him has become so charged with new meanings over the intervening years that, in truth, one can say that many technical term s used by him, no longer have exactly the same sense. St. Thomas, the theologian of the actual economy of grace, was essentially a speculative and not a polemical theologian; he was even less interested in the a rt of apologetics as understood today.

4 Fr. Monden complains that in the middle ages, under the influence of Aristotelian concepts, theologians ceased to consider theology as a science of faith nourished by piety. They began to study its nature, function, method etc. all in terms of cause and effect. « Cessant d’être une sagesse de foi nourrie de piété, elle se met à réfléchir sur sa nature, sa fonction, sa méthode et, progressivement, conquiert son statut de science. Son indagation s’appuie désormais sur la raison éprise de métaphysique plutôt que sur la docilité du coeur » ibid. p. 49. Thus the transcendence of the miracle —• quod sotus Deus facere potest — was insisted upon to the almost complete neglect of its function as a sign.

5 The two Summae; the other works are occasioned treatises governed therefore, in their plan, by circumstances; e. g. disputae, commentaries etc.

6 Matt. 10, 1: 819.

THE THEOLOGY OF MIRACLES 5

This was due mainly to circumstances. The world of his day was essentially Christian. The reasonableness of the faith had been proved once and for a l l7, and hence he did not need to occupy himself too much w ith the apologetical p rob lem 8. The real St. Thomas shines out through his magisterial Sum m a Theo- logiae.

The secondary part played by miracles in St. Thomas’ works is also explained by a consideration of his treatm ent of the question of supernatural faith. All through his works, miracles, which on the natural plane show tha t faith is reasonable, are sharply distinguished from what he calls the interior instinctus; this latter, of much greater im portance9, produces the assent of faith by causing man to adhere to God because of his evident trustw orthiness. This is a consideration of faith in its most formal sense and it is the point of view constantly adopted by St. Thomas; since miracles are extrinsic to this formal cause of faith, they are justly called adminicula fidei and no m o re10.

The Angelic Doctor is typical of the theologians of his day; their outlook, as Aubert has pointed out, difFers extremely from that of the theologians of the present day. They viewed everything more from a theological and objective point of view than from the apologetical, critical and subjective one prevalent today. Moreover, and this is of great importance, for them the supernatural was an accepted fact, whereas today, the admission of the supernatural is often considered as a first-fruit of the faith 11. This is one of the crucial religious problems of our day and the one which de facto governs the theologian’s approach to theology in general and to miracles in particular.

7 cf. Matt. 10, 1: 818; I Cor 15, 1: 890.8 This is not to say, however, that he has no apologetics.9 Cf. ST. II. II, 2, 9 ad 3.10 Cf. 3 Sent d. 21, q. 2, a. 3; De Pot 6, 9 ad 18.11 R. A u bert , Le problème de l’acte de foi, Louvain 1958 pp. 647-87. The first

case is sufficiently illustrated by the change of emphasis in the tract De Fide. For St. Thomas, it was the virtue possessed from infancy that was studied whereas for modern theologians it is the genesis of the act of faith in an adult convert. For the second case, we must remmber that in the middle ages, when a theologian attacked an infidelis this term indicated either a jew, a moslem (the heathen) or a heretic; all of these believed in God and in thesupernatural order in general. The denial of the supernatural came about gradually under many and varied influences: rationalists, deists, historians, scientists, biblical ' scholars all contributed. Under this pressure it was not surprising that man began to doubt the evistence of the supernatural; the result is that the first task in religious instruction nowadays is often a rediscovery of the supernatural.

6 LIAM S. 0 ’BR£ARTI)i N

We are children of our age and it is difficult to shed the forma mentis acquired by years of study, form ation and observation. One brings this m entality w ith him when he studies authors of another age and hence it is not surprising to find oneself interpreting an author’s words in a sense not intended by h im 12.

The question of the finality of miracles according to St. Thomas is one to which modern theologians have not paid a great deal of attention. A quick reading of his most im portant texts would apparently justify the assum ption that he did not consider the question. However, this is not entirely true. The miracle had an im portant part to play in St. Thomas’ concept of the universe and of how God ruled it providentially. I t is in this context tha t he deals with the finality of the miracle and it is here that we can hope to find the key to St. Thomas’ theology of miracles. Van Hove, in his monumental work on the notion of the miracle according to St. Thomas, has devoted approximately 35 pages, out of a total of over four hundred, to the questionI3. Since then, it has not been seriously examined except by Garrigou-Lagrange, who unfortunately, does not treat of the nature of this finality14.

In the forty years since the publication of Van Hove's work, the spirit animating apologetics has greatly altered; apologetics has become less polemical and, especially as a result of the present day ecumenical movement, more serene and objective 15. Under the influence of catholic w riters like Blondel and Rousselot, apologetics has become less ' rational ’ and more ’ spiritual ’ in

12 It would be a mistake, for example, to imagine that the problem of credibility, as it is expressed and understood nowadays, was visualized by St. Thomas whenever he wrote of credibilis, evidenter credibile etc. Cf. L ang H., Die Lehre des hi. Thomas von Aquin von der Gewissheit Übernatürlichen Glaubens. Augsburg 1929 pp. 25-37.

13 A. V an H ove La doctrine du miracle chez St. Thomas et son accord avec les principes de la recherche scientifique. Paris 1927. The pages in question' are to be found in chapter 2, article 4 and in chapter 4, articles 14.

14 This work was originally written in 1964 but for unavoidable reasons could not be published before now. In 1968 Prof. V. Boublik published his work: L ’azione divina « praeter ordinem naturae » secondo S. Tommaso d ’Aquino (Roma) dealing with the philosophy of the miracle. He treats of the finality of the miracle in the third chapter. While the work is undoubtedly of great scholarship we do not fully agree with the author as we shall see in the course of this paper.

15 Cf. G. O g g io n i i n « Problemi e Orientamenti di Teologia Dommatica» vol I, p. 97.


its method. A classical example of this new approach is to be found in Monden’s book where he deals w ith miracles as signs of salvation. Van Hove’s work was essentially aimed at the scientific objections of his day, as is evident from the second part of the title. This problem is of little interest now. The preoccupation of theologians at present is w ith the miracle as a sign, as an introduction to the supernatural. I t is mainly w ith this aspect in mind that this present paper was undertaken. Granted these changes and bearing in mind these present-day problems, a reexam ination of St. Thomas’ doctrine does not appear to be w ithout value.

The plan of the paper is simple. First we shall present a brief analysis of all the passages (both text and context) in St. Thomas’ works where he treats of m iracles16. This will inevitably involve some repetition if we are to get a full view of his doctrine. As we noted, the background of the question of miracles and of their finality has greatly changed over the intervening centuries; if then we are to really comprehend or grasp the true thom istic doctrine of the finality of miracles, the first step m ust be a study of the context in which he treated miracles and of his teaching on miracles in general. With this notion of a miracle at hand one can hope to come to a clearer view of its finality since the means is a deciding factor in the attainm ent of any end. As St. Thomas writes: « non sequi- tu r perfecta actio alicuius agentis per instrum entum , si instru- mentum non sit bene dispositum, quantumcumque principale agens sit perfectum » 17; namely, if God uses the miracle as an instrum ent to attain some end, and if this end is actually attained, then the instrum ent m ust have been « convenies ». Thus if we can come to understand the precise nature of the miracle, we shall better be able to understand how it can be used in the attaining of the desired end. We shall see tha t miracles are treated of constantly in the actual order of divine providence — hence in a supernatural context. Thus this analysis will prepare us to understand the nature and the finality of the miracle according to St. Thomas. These two elements, nature and finality, will enable us to present the doctrine of the Angelic Doctor on

16 One of the criticisms which can be made of Boublik’s work is the restriction he imposes with regard to St. Thomas’ writings. He takes only the major texts into consideration.

17 ST I. II, 58, 3 ad 2; cf. SCG 2, 21 praeterea.

8 LIAM S. O’BRfiARTUIN

miracles, which, we hope to show, was essentially a theology and not a philosophy 18. For St. Thomas, miracles are part of God’s actual providential plan and, as such, they point to the supernatural.

This paper, as the reader will see from even the most superficial reading, while it profits from various treatises on miracles, is based on a direct study of the writings of St. Thomas. We have tried to give a faithful interpretation of his mind according to both text and context. We have limited ourselves to St. Thomas’ theory on the finality of miracles. If our conclusion that for St. Thomas the miracle was a sign of the supernatural serves to stimulate a reconsideration of the sanity and sobriety of St. Thom as’ position as regards Christian apologetics, the work will not have been without its value.

For the purely practical reason of having some basis for ordering our presentation we shall take his theological works in their chronological o rd e r19. In each case we shall present the elements given and the occasion which gave rise to the question. In this may we hope to get the ' feel ’ of St. Thomas’ mind. It will necessarily involve some repetition but such, as we noted, cannot be avoided in an analytical work of this kind.

w In dealing with the philosophy of the miracle it is difficult to see howa chapter on its finality can be justified when dealing with the doctrine ofSt. Thomas. Cf. Boublik o. c. cap. 3.

19 The dates given for the various works are based on P. A. W a l z Chro-notaxis vitae et operum S. Thomas in « Angelicum » 16 (1939) 463-473. With regard to the commentaries on St. Paul’s epistles we must note that St. Thomas commented on these twice in the course of his scholastic activities: the first time was during his stay in Italy between the years 1259-68; the second during his stay in Naples 1272-73. The first commentary was collected by R ay- naldus de P ip e r in o : they are thus conserved as class notes taken by a student during the course of a lecture and are called lectura. The second commentary was written by St. Thomas and is called an expositio. The commentary on the Epistle to the Romans and that on the first Epistle to the Corinthians as far as chapter 7 are all that are extant of the expositio and this is all that W alz includes in his tables. The text for the first Epistle to the Corinthians from chapter 11 onwards and for all the other epistles is that of the lectura. Since there is no text in the early part of his commentary on the first epistle to the Corinthians of interest to us, we are justified in in treating St. Thomas’ commentaries on all the Epistles except that of the Romans under one heading. Since the text is that of the lectura is belongs to the period 1259-68; P. M aldonnet (Chronologic des escrits scripturaires de S. Thomas •d'Aquin in « Revue Thomiste » 33 (1928); 34 (1929) passim) gives 1259-65 which we have adopted.


I. An a l y s is of th e w r it in g s of S t . T h o m a s

1. Commentary on the Sentences 1254-125620.

/&. Context:In St. Thomas’ first theological work we find the miracle dealt

w ith in some detail in three different places.— In his commentary on the second book of the Sentences,

dealing with the question of the form ation of Eve’s body the subject of the ' rationes seminales ’ is introduced; in the text upon which he is commenting, Peter Lombard had w ritten tha t what is done beyond these « rationes seminales » is miraculous and so, St. Thomas asks what works are to be called miracles. The article is entitled: Utrum ea quae fiunt praeter rationes seminales sint m iracula2!.

— The second text is found when he is dealing with the Incarnation, in the third book. After having shown to what degree Our Lady had an active part in Christ's conception, he asks w hether the generation of Christ was natural or miraculous 22.

— Finally, dealing with the nature of justification in the fourth book, his first question is whether the justification of a sinner is miraculous or n o t23. Of these texts the second is the ieast interesting from our point of view; the first and the third agree substantially.

b. N ature of the miracle.A miracle, properly speaking, is w hat is surprising in itself

and simpliciter: « haec proprie miracula dicuntur quasi in seipsis et simpliciter m ira ». Surprise arises as a result of the action of a hidden or unknown cause: « causa occulta », when it is coupled with a subjective expectation of an effect different from that which is actually produced 24 The same effect thus need not necessarily cause universal surprise since this can depend on an individual's knowledge: « videtur secundum suam aestimationem aliquid obviare, quare ita esse non deberet ».

20 This work may have been re-edited after the year 1260. For details cf. A. H a yen , St. Thomas a-t-il édité deux fois son Commentaire sur le livre des Sentences in RTAM 9 (1937) 219-236. A. Dondaine however, in Bull. Thom. 6 (1940-42) pp. 100-108, rejects the theory as being unfounded.

21 2 Sent. d. 18, q. 1, a. 3.22 3 Sent d. 13, q. 12, a. 2.23 4 Sent d. 17, q. 1, a. 5, q. la 1.24 Cf. 2 Sent I. c. ad 1.

10 LIAM S. O’BRgARTtflN

To be simpliciter surprising — surprising of its very nature — we have to ignore individual subjective qualities and arrive at something absolute; for this, the cause m ust be unknowable (to all creatures): « causa simpliciter occulta » and objectively there must exist some real disposition which would, of its own accord, produce a different effect. As St. Thomas writes: « in re est aliqua virtus secundum veritatem rei per quam aliter debeat con- tingere ». This unknowable cause is God: « a virtute divina cau- santur »; the second condition is fulfilled when he acts beyond the « ordo causarum naturalium » or « praeter virtutes activas in natura » 25. If an effect does not meet both these requirements it is not a miracle. Thus, « creatio, quamvis causam occultam habeat, tamen non est in re unde aliter esse deberet ». The creation of a soul or the justification of a sinner, ordinarily speaking are not miraculous since usually there are certain dispositions present, a certain process takes place according to a set plan leading to these results.

These two requirements are expressed differently in his commentary on the fourth book of the Sentences. Here he states that for a miracle there are three requirements: — that it be above the power of a created agent; — that there be no natural disposition in the subject favouring the reception of the m iraculous effect; —■ and that this effect be produced in an abnormal manner. The first condition in both texts is the same; all created causes are de facto knowable; hence the only unknowable or simpliciter hidden cause in the uncreated cause, God, who alone can produce miracles. This being the case, they are above the power of any created agent26.

The second requirem ent found in the second book is somewhat restricted in the fourth book. Here something is considered as being beyond the « ordo causarum naturalium » in either of two cases: when in nature there is no positive subjective disposition for the miraculous effect; or when nature has no positive disposition to receive the miraculous effect in this particular manner. These two latter conditions are of greater o r lesser importance according to the type of miracle involved bu t « aliquo- modo semper concurrunt » 27, This la tter distinction of miracles

25 All the above quotations are from 2 Sent d. 18, q. 1, a. 3. Cf. also 1 Sent d. 47, q. 1, a. 4.

26 This divine prerogative is insisted upon elsewhere also. Cf. e. g., 3 Sentd. 3, q. 2, a. 2 ad 5; d. 13, q. 3, a. 1 obj. 4 etc.

rt 4 Sent. d. 17, q. 1, a. 5, q. la 1. Cf. Boublik o. c., pp. 29 sqq. The analy-


does not quite correspond to the division of miracles given in the commentary on the second book. There miracles are divided according as they are supra naturam — the effect produced is beyond the capacities of natural powers both as regards the effect itself and as regards its production28; praeter naturam — the effect produced is not beyond natural capacities absolutely speaking but nature could not produce the effect in this particular way; in other words, nature cannot produce the effect in this way even though it could produce it in another w ay29; contra naturam »— the effect again is not beyond natural powers, absolutely speaking, but there remains a subjective disposition contrary to this effect; in other words, nature cannot produce the effect granted the condition of this subject, even though it could produce it in another sub jec t30. The first and second conditions mentioned in the fourth book correspond, broadly speaking, to the division of supra naturam. The third condition is the specifyng element of miracles praeter naturam; whereas miracles contra naturam are not directly considered. However, every miracle, depending on the point of view considered, is at the same time supra, praeter and contra naturam; they are classified in one or other of these categories depending on the more appropriate element.

Hence in the fourth book there is a slight change of emphasis, and miracles are considered in a more restricted m anner31. However, this change is of no great consequence. The miracle is essentially something produced « praeter communem cursum naturae » 32. Finally, we may note that the miracle is not something static; it is an activity, something dynamic, by which some result (natural or praeternatural) is produced. This is quite clear

sis on pp. 31-33 of this division of miracles seems to attribute more importance to the Angelic Doctor’s text than what it actually contains. As Van Hove writes: « Tout permet de supposer que ces classifications étaient un objet de discussion dans les écoles, mais on ne devait pas exagérer leur importance »o. c., p. 66.

28 « Supra naturam dicitur esse miraculum, quando natura non potest in ipsam substantiam facti ».

29 « Praeter naturam dicuntur (miracula) fieri in quae quidem natura potest quantum ad substantiam facti, sed tamen praeter operationem naturae fiunt iussu divino ».

30 « Contra naturam dicitur fieri, quando in re est aliquid contrarium ei quod fit ».

31 Cf. Boublik, o. c., p. 2 9 ; Van Hove o. c., p. 60.32 2 Sent d. 10, q. 1, a. 2. He adds « sed non praeter ordinem gratiae ». It

is important to notice this detail: miracles are performed outside the common providence governing the world of nature but are part and parcel of the supernatural order.

1 2 LIAM S. O’BREARTUIN

from the text of the article in the fourth book: « et haec tria aliquo modo semper concurrunt ad actum miraculosum » and more so from St. Thomas' discussion of the resurrection of the b o d y 33.

In his commentary on the th ird book the same ideas are expressed by their opposites; for something to be miraculous it m ust be done either in a way tha t is not naturaliter, namely according to the established order of things, or from material which has no natural disposition for this effect34. Thus there are two ways in which we can have a miracle: firstly, when the efficient cause acts in a ’ supernatural ’ way — outside the ordinary course of things — on material which shows no disposition; and secondly when the efficient cause acts, again in a ' supernatural ’ way but on material with no contrary disposition. In both cases, corresponding to the division of miracles supra and praeter naturam which we have just seen, the im portant element is the agens supernaturale — of infinite power and freedom. The efficient cause of miracles differs from natural causes in so far as this cause has infinite power whereas the natural causes are limited: « Agens autem naturale, cum sit finitae virtutis, non potest ex materia non naturaliter proportionata effectum producere: agens vero supernaturale cum sit infinitae virtutis... » 35.

We noted above that St. Thomas insists on the divine prerogative in the question of miracles. In these commentaries, however, he has an interesting question about evil spirits which m erits a mom ent’s attention In the first two argumenta contra he argues against the power of these spirits to produce true bodily effects. Basing his thought, in the first case, on the false signs of the Antichrist, he notes that at the moment of his greatest trium ph the signs that he will produce are said to be false signs; hence, a fortiori, they cannot be true signs

33 Cf. 4 Sent d. 43, q. 1, a. 1, q. la 3. From this article it is clear that the actual miracle is a motio or actio and not the effect. Cf. also, 1 Sent d. 47, q. 1, a. 4 « miraculosam operationem »; 2 Sent d. 18, q. 1, a. 3 and especially ad 4 where there is a contrast between the substantiam facti and the modus faciendi.

54 « Ad hoc enim quod ... naturalis dicatur, oportet quod fiat ab agente naturaliter, et ex materia naturali ad hoc proportionata. Quodcumque autem horum defuerit, non potest dici naturalis, sed miraculosa, si virtute fiat su- pernaturali » 3 Sent d. 3, q. 2, a 2.

35 Ibid. Cf. d. 13, q. 3, q. 1, obj. 4: « In his quae fiunt per miraculum, non requiritur aliqua dispositio ex parte facti, sed totum est ex parte infinitae virtutis agentis ».

36 2 Sent d. 7, q. 3, a. 1: Utrum daemones possint inducere in materia corporali verum effectum corporalem?


at present. In the second case he bases his argument on the finality of miracles: « datum est in manifestationem et conhrmatio- nem fidei »; hence these sensible effects are necessarily beyond the powers of the evil ones. In the body of the article he concedes that the demons can produce wonderful effects but only in those cases where there is some positive potentiality in nature itself which they can use: « virtute propria nullam formam influere possunt... nisi adminiculo proprii agentis naturalis... Effectus se- quuntur ex causis quidem naturaiibus sed praeter consuetum cursum naturae. Effectus qui non sunt in potestate alicuius virtutis activae naturalis producere non possunt » and hence they cannot produce miracles 37.

In his reply to the first difficulty he adm its that at the time of the Antichrist the world will see wonderful things — mirabi- lia; however, there are two qualifications added which exclude these from the category of true miracles; they are done virtute propria w ith the purpose to deceive; because of this they are m endacia38. In his reply to the second difficulty he points out that even though the demons can counterfeit some miracles (and thus only those miracles, « ad quae virtus activa naturae nullo modo se evtendit », are clearly of divine origin), these can be distinguished from true miracles, from those worked by God, by means of the actual circumstances. The true miracle can be discerned from the false by a study of the concom itant utility and of the finality which they actually attain. Thus even miracles praeter and those contra naturam of which the devil can produce a likeness, can be discerned as true miracles.

c. Finality of miracles.In none of these questions is the problem of the finality di

scussed or, excluding the first argumentum contra of the second book of the Sentences and the point ju st discussed, even alluded to. The context in which the miracle is treated, however, is sufficient explanation; in each case the work of God is being discussed from the point of view of the efficient cause — that is, ontologically. One general principle is given, however, in the third book where he writes that all extraordinary works are performed -.< secundum quod congruit ordini sapientiae eius » 39. In other

37 Cf. 3 Sent d. 16, q. 1, a. 3.33 Note that they are done permissione divina. God permits them to use

their natural powers only in so far as these are not used to the detriment of men.

39 3 Sent d. 1, q. 1, a. 3 ad 4.

14 LIAM S. O'BRÉARTÙIN

words, miracles have a definitive finality in God's overall plan for his creation. The actual finality of the miracle is touched upon in seven different texts which we can group under two headings:

i. The miracle is an argum ent which is used to confirm the tru th of the faith or to build up the faith; « quasi argumentum confirmans fidei veritatem » 40; « ad confirmationem fidei ea quae creduntur quodammodo miraculis probantur » 41; « ad aedificatio- nem fidei »42. However, they do not of themselves prove the articles of faith; they testify to the veracity of him who preaches this fa ith 43.

ii. They prove that Christ was God: « hoc fuit signum deitatis Christi quod imperando signa perficiebat » 44; « per miraculum ostensum... probatur quod ille homo esset Deus » 4S. The finis effectus of the miracle is that it manifests God’s omnipotence: « est signum omnipotentiae » 46, because only he who instituted the laws governing natural phenomena can change them.

Miracles nevertheless are only adminicula fide i47, if we take faith in the strict sense of a supernatural infused virtue. They provide a very forceful argum ent for natural faith, this being an « opinio fortificata rationibus » or an assent given without seeing the internal evidence of the object to which the intellect assents but of which, due to circumstances, the person is convinced 49.

As it is evident, the elements provided as regards the finality of the true miracle are not very abundant; the notion of the miracle though, is already clear and well-defined and, as we shall see, remains unvaried in all St. Thomas’ works.

40 1 Sent d. 16, q. 1, a. 2 ad 3. Miracles are no longer necessary since « illius cuius probatio semel perfecta est non oportet probationem iterari; sed ex suppositione prioris probationis procedere ».

44 1 Sent d. 43, q. 1, a. 2 ad 3.42 2 Sent d. 7, q. 3, a. 1 ad 2; 4 Sent d. 44, q. 2, a. 2, q. la 2. Cf. 2 Sent

d. 29, q. 1, a. 3: « Donorum gratuitorum quaedam ordinantur absolute in per- fectionem eius cui conferuntur, quaedam autem ad utilitatem aliorum... Uti- litas autem quaedam est, ut defectibus proximorum subveniatur, sicut per operationem signorum infidelitati succuritur ».

43 3 Sent d. 24, q. 1, a. 2, q. la 2 ad 4. Cf. 3 Sent d. 25, q. 2, a. 1 q. la 4 ad 4.44 3 Sent d. 16, q. 1, a. 3.43 4 Sent d. 5, q. 1, a. 1 ad 1.43 3 Sent d. 16, q. 1, a. 3.42 3 Sent d. 21, q. 2, a. 3.48 Prol 1 Sent q. 1 a. 3, q. la 3.49 Cf. 3 Sent d. 23 q. 3 ,a. 3, q. la 1.


2. Quaestiones disputatae de V en ta te : 1256-1259

a. Background.The « quaestiones disputatae » arose out of the disputationes

ordinariae which were held every week or fifteen days during the scholastic year. Thè m atter selected for dispute was usually treated a t length and exhaustively. In the question De V entate however, the miracle was not formally discussed; even the number of obiter dicta is surprisingly small, especially when we realize tha t twelve articles are devoted to the question of faith and that the question of the justification of sinners is also treated, a question which elsewhere almost invariably acts as a catalyst for a definition, or, at least, for a clarification, of the notion of a miracle.

b. Notion of a miracleThe nearest we come to a definition of a miracle is in the

question on prophecy where he writes: « Ilia enim quae fiunt divinitus sine causis naturalibus mediis, (non) dicuntur esse (na- turalia sed) miraculosa » in other words, a miracle is a divine action performed outside the concourse of natural causes. This is made more precise in the question on the intellect: « potest divina omnipotentia aliqua corpora perducere ad effectus quorum dispositio in praedictis corporibus non invenitur » 51. The « sine causis naturalibus mediis » is thus clarified; the effect is produced in nature in circumstances where natural causes would not have produced this precise result. Nature has only a passive potency — a potentia obedientialis — to receive these effects 9!a.

c. Finality of miracles.The treatm ent of the finality of miracles is much richer in

these question. One element introduced in these disputed questions which we have not seen in the Sentences is the reason ju stifying the miracle: it is done « propter aliquid melius » 52. The

m 12, 3. si 10, 11.5ia Cf. 12, 3 ad 18. The divine prerogative is mentioned again in the question

on prophecy: 12, 3; in the question on the intellect: 10, 11; and in the question on grace: 27, 3. The reason given in the latter text corresponds to what we saw in the Sentences. Cf. also Boet de Trin lect 1, q. 2, a. 3 ad 1; this commentary belongs, more or less, to the same period as de Veritate. Note also that in both 10, 11 and 12, 3 it is evident that the miracle is considered as an action producing a miraculous effect.

52 9, 2

16 LIAM S. O'BRÉARTtilN

miracle is justified in God's all-wise plan by its finality — a finality which belongs to a higher order than the natural order: « propter aliquid quod pertinet ad gratiam vel ad gloriam » 53.

The order established by God is something which does not change or vary; and God does not intervene to suppress temporarily any order unless he intends some greater good. For this reason miracles are possible in the statum naturae since there is a higher order to which this state is subject — that of grace.

The results achieved by the miracle are variously expressed as: « utilitas Ecclesiae » M; a dem onstration of the 'veritas pro- phetiae ’ if performed by a p ro p h e t5S; a divine testimony in favour of the Apostles and P rophets56. Thus the concept of argum ent um fidei, seen in the Sentences, is again present: here it is called a testimony. Their dem onstrative power as testimonies is such that, at least in the case of the demons, they can force the assent of the intellect: « coacti evidentia signorum, credere dicuntur » 57. However, it is a special kind of proof since no intrinsic evidence is provided: « quamvis ilia signa non faciant apparere id quod creditur » M.

In these questions De Veritate, even though the nature of the miracle is hardly touched upon, its finality is treated in greater detail than in the Sentences; the elements given are essential but, as yet, the reason for the efficiency of the miracles in attaining its end is not noted.

3. Super Evangelium S. Matthaei lectura: 1256-59

a. Background:In his scriptural commentaries St. Thomas generally di

scusses the question of miracles whenever the occasion is offered him by some apparent contradiction in the text upon which he is commenting. Thus in the present commentary the occasion is offered by in Christ’s eschatologicai sermon made on leaving the temple. Christ said: « Surgent enim pseudochristi et pseudopro- phetae et dabunt signa magna et prodigia ita u t in errorem indu-

53 Ib.; cf. ad 354 12, 555 12, 13 ad 6.56 14, 10, ad 11; cf. 12, 14 and ib. ad 3. The division of miracles « quantum

ad substantiam facti » ad « quantum ad modum faciendi » repeats what we have already seen in 2 Sent d. 18, q. 1, a. 3. ad 4.

57 14, 9 ad 4.5« Ibid


cantur, si fieri potest, etiam electi » 59; St. Thomas immediately poses the question: « num quid daemones possunt facere miracula » 60.

b. Nature of a miracle.Strictly speaking (proprie) a miracle is something which

exceeds, not only the order of one particular class, bu t of all created beings; thus it is something which God alone can do 61. This is the only noticeable clarification to be derived from this commentary, regarding the nature of the miracle.

c. Finality of miracles.Christ used miracles both as a pledge to guarantee his

work: « confirmabat actus suos miraculis » 62, and as a proof that the Promised One had come63. He worked miracles, and also gave his first disciples power to work them, to confirm the message they preached64. These miracles of Christ and of his disciples were sufficient in themselves to prove the faith: « ad probationem fidei » 65, and hence no further proof is needed; this explains the lack of visible miracles at the present day in the C hurch66. Discussing the reason for the failure of the disciples to cast the devil out of the possessed boy while Christ was tran sfigured on the mountain, St. Thomas gives the motives which led Christ, generally, to work miracles: to relieve someone’s needs or to show the holiness of a person 67. This point however, is not developed.

The same doctrine is found as in his earlier works. However, we m ust note two new elements which appear here for the first time. The reasonableness of the faith was proved once and for all by miracles in the early Chuch and thus there is no need of new miracles to support the faith of individuals a t the present time.

59 24, 24.» 24, 3; 1945.51 Ibid. cf. 17, 2; 1467. The treatment of the prodigia produced by the de

mons and the consequent clear distinction of only one class of miracles corresponds to that of the Sentences.

62 11, 2; 940.M 11, 1; 905.M « Quomodo confirmabimus quae dicemus? Certe, miraculis, sicut ipse

(Christus) fecit» 10, 1; 818.65 Ibid.66 He writes, however: « sicut facta fuerunt alia miracula corporalia, ita

hunt quotidie spiritualia, quia infirmi spiritualiter curantur» ibid. The latter are evidently miracles in an improper sense.

67 17, 2; 1467.

18 LIAM S. O'BRÉARTÚIN

Secondly a finality of the miracle, which we shall meet again, is introduced: a miracle can be worked to show the holiness of a person.

(4. Commentaries on all the Pauline epistles except ad Romanos:

1259-65;

a. Background.In his commentaries on St. Paul’s epistles, St. Thomas usual

ly treats of miracles in connection w ith the gratiae gratis datae which were so much in evidence in the early Church. One of these gifts was precisely the gift of miracles — the operatio vir- tutum.

b. Finality of miracles:In his commentary on St. Paul's first epistle to the Corinthians

the miracle is presented w ith a finality similiar to that which we have already seen: it is a proof that the doctrine of the faith is true or it is a testimony to the sanctity of someone who is proposed as an example for o th e rs68. Miracles are produced to confirm the fideles in what they already believe and to convert the infideles 69. However, they are not apodictic proofs; the most the miracle can do is to assist externally in persuading one of the tru th of revelation70; as regards the salvation of others God alone can move them in teriorly71.

In these epistles he explains for the first time the reason why this type of proof is necessary. « Ea vero quae pertinent ad salutarem doctrinam non possunt confirm an seu probari ratio- ne, quia rationem humanam excedunt » 72. Since the doctrines revealed by faith are beyond hum an powers, they cannot be proved rationally; thus they need a special sign from God to authenticate them; just as an envoy requires a special sign to prove that an order is from his sovereign73. The sign given by God

68 I Cor 12, 2; 725; cf. on first point 15, 1: S90; 2 Thess 2, 2; 49; 3, 1; 65.® I Cor 12, 2; 725; 2 Thess 2, 2: 47.70 Thus they are presented in the same light as the adminicula of the

Sentences in contrast to the persuasive and convincing proof of De Veritate.71 Cf. I Cor ibid. 727.72 I Cor 12, 2: 728; this is not to say that the obscurity of the faith is not

mentioned in his former works; that would be untrue. It is, however, the first time he explicitely postulates the miracles as a proof of the truth of the faith. Cf. 3 Sent d. 21, q. 2, a. 3; d. 23, q. 3, a. 3, q. la 1.

73 I Cor ibid; Gal 3, 2: 128; cf. I Cor 14, 1: 812. The same is true of thegift of prophecy. Its nature is such as to require the power of miracles to


guaranteeing the doctrine as his can either be a sign proving that he is God the Creator: in this case it is a miracle; or a sign that he is God the Saviour: in this case it is the giving of the Holy Ghost (by a laying-on of h ands)74. God thus authenticates something by acting in a manner proper to him alone: by a miracle; o r by revealing something from the fu ture naturally unknowable to man: a miracle of cognition or prophecy75. The motive dominating the economy of this gift of miracles is the utilitas Eccle- siae, as we saw above76.

In his second epistle to the Thessalonians, however, he gives a curious expression to his thought writing: « Sed si aliquis adest gloria m iraculorum et non u ta tu r eis ad hoc, m iracula quidem sunt vera quo ad rationem rei factae, et quo ad rationem mira- culi, sed sunt falsa quantum ad hnem debitum, et intentionem Dei » (2, 2: 49). Here he is either dealing w ith miracles understood in an im proper sense, since God alone can be the principle cause of a real miracle and m an cannot be more than an intercessor or an instrum ent; or he is thinking of the abuse made of a true miracle post factum; tha t is, a person using it to prove something which was not in God’s intention; this however, is difficult to visualize.

Finally, St. Thomas gives quite a few divisions of miracles in the course of these commentaries; they are mainly, however, w ritten endeavouring to explain satisfactorily the term s used by St. Paul. As often as not they appear rather artificial: an example is the etymology of « portentum »: « dicitur autem portentum quasi porro vel procul tensum, quod scilicet aliquid in longin- quum dem onstrat » 77.

substantiate it. If the prophet cannot surpass nature with his actions then there is little hope that he will be believed as regards something he declares to know by extra-natural powers. Cf. I Cor 14 ibid.

74 Gal 3, 2: 128. This distinction is also insinuated in Hebrews 2, 1: 99.75 I Cor 12, 2: 728. In these commentaires there is nothing new as re

gards his treatment of the nature of the miracle: surprise and the causa occulta simpliter (2 Thess 2, 2: 47) are as in the Sentences; thd second requirement mentioned there is, however, lacking here. The divine power is mentioned in I Cor 12, 2; 728; 15, 6: 983; 13, 1: 765. The finitness of creatures as the reason they cannot produce miracles in found in I Cor 15, 6: 983; 2 Cor 12, 4: 491; 2 Thess 2, 2: 47.

™ I Cor 12, 2: 726; cf. 13, 1: 765.77 Hebr 2 ,1: 99; Cf. 2 Thess 2, 2: 49. «Procul a digito » Commenting on

St. Paul's appeal to the Corinthians in his second letter: « Signa tamen apos-tolatus mei facta sunt super vos in omni patientia in signis et prodigiis et virtutibus» (12, 12) he gives four possible interpretations and evidently the divisions are of little importance. The divisions contra and secundum naturam are, however, mentioned. The secundum naturam would correspond to the

2 0 LIAM S. O'BRÉARTÜIN

5. Sum m a contra Gentiles: B k I: 1259 — Bks I I - IV: 1261-64

a. Background.St. Thomas' intention in this work was to expound the ca

tholic faith — to make a synthesis of catholic doctrine — in response to the difficulties proposed by those intellectuals of his day who were, more or less, infected by arabian philosophies. The Summa contra Gentiles was w ritten at the request of Pope Alexander IV and of St. Raymond de Penafort; it was mainly intended to help the la tter in his apostolic activities. Bearing these circumstances in mind one might be led to expect much importance to be given to miracles as pledges, proofs, of the tru th of the Christian message. Therefore, it may come as a surprise to find so little on their argumentative aspect; we find long chapters on the nature, the possibility and the efficient causes of miracles, but only a few passing rem arks on their demonstrative value. Much thought, however, is given to the place of miracles in God's providential plan and it is in this context tha t they are treated. This aspect is very im portant and gives us the key to St. Thomas' theology of miracles. The finality of miracles is touched upon also when dealing w ith the gratiae gratis datae and in connection with the Incarnation.

b. Context.The third book of the Summa contra Gentiles could be entit

led: on divine providence and government. St. Thomas expounds the mystery of God in this work. In the first book he explains God's being in so far as it is comprehensible by unaided reason; in the fourth book he deals w ith the mystery of the redemptive incarnation. The second and th ird books deal with the action of God: the second his power and the th ird his wisdom. This third book is not a mere philosophical w ork but a true theological treatise. In his introduction, St. Thomas says that it is his intention to use the theologians methods in expounding the tru ths of the catholic fa ith 78. We m ust keep this intention in mind when reading the chapters which mainly interest us — those on divine providence.

praeter naturam of the second book of the Sentences (d. 18, q. 1, a. 3). One of the examples given for the miracles contra naturam though, the suscitatio mortui, corresponds to an example of a miracle supra naturam in the same passage. For the question concerning the varied terminology used by St. Thomas in discussing the division of miracles cf. A. V an H ove, o . c ., pp. 55-66.

78 SCG 1 2.


The th ird book can be divided into thee general themes: chapters 2-63 deal with the return of creatures to God, the process by which creatures — especially spiritual creatures, — attain their final goal. Chapters 64-110 deal w ith God’s action in so far as it assists creatures to reach their goal: namely, his providence and government in general. Chapters 111-163 deal with God’s particular providence w ith regard to man. Miracles are dealt with under the second theme.

Nothing escapes from God’s providential plan, nothing happens which is not governed by him. God gives to creatures, not alone their existence, bu t also their capacity to act; his action in the world respects these secondary causes, however. His providence is infallible, wise and absolutely free. I t is in dealing with this la tter attribute — the fact that God’s providence is something which is free, which is not tied to one design — tha t we come to trea t of the place of miracles in God’s plan and consequently of their nature.

c. Nature of the miracle.As regards the nature of the miracle three problems are

discussed: — the possibility of a preternatural activity; — the notion and division of miracles; — and the miracle as something specifically divine.

The same fundamental explanation for the word miracle that we have seen in the second book of the Sentences is repeate d 79. The reason why creatures cannot work miracles, however, is more clearly explained. The fundamental principle is: « omnis creaturae potentia est lim itata ad aliquem determ inatum effectum » « agunt per necessitatem naturae »: this applies even to superior created causes. God, on the other hand, « cum eius virtus sit omnino infinita non determ inatur ad aliquem specialem effectum neque ad hoc quod effectus illius pro- ducatur aliquo determinato modo vel ordine »; « agit secundum

79 SCG 3, 101. To the fact that God alone can work miracles he devotes two entire chapters: 3, 102 and 103; cf. also 1, 6: « operatio quae non potest esse nisi divina»; 3, 154; 4, 27; 55. Again it is clear that the miracle is essen- ttially an activity and not what is produced by this activity.

Boublik writes: « L’introduzione nella descrizione dei miracoli affermache nell’ordine creato, l'azione preternaturale si limita all’azione miracolosa, perché Dio opera, con i suoi interventi preternaturali, soltanto gli effetti accessibili alla conoscenza umana » (35). It is difficult to see how this conclusion follows from the actual text upon which he is commenting. When St. Thomas writes that the miracle is « admiratione plenum » he is treating of an objective quality — its unknowableness — and he does not touch upon the fact whether the effects are actually known or not.

2 2 LIAM S. O’BRÉARTÚIN

voluntatem » 80. However, God can use angels and men as his instrum ents giving them the power to work miracles as secondary agents »81.

d. Finality of miracles.God’s perfection is so great that it can be reflected in an in

finity of ways in his creation. Hence when God chose to create the actual natural order, he did it simply because he so willed it — he was in no way constricted; hence, in so far as we consider what was actually created, God can (or better, could) act in a different way (« praeter ordinem suae providentiae »).

If we consider the actual natural order from the point of view of the creator, in so far as it depends on his knowledge and wisdom, then God cannot act outside this order. The actual text of St. Thomas reads:

« Si autem considerem us praedictum ordinem quantum ad rationem a principio dependentem, sic praeter ordinem ilium Deus facere non potest. Ordo autem ille procedit ex scientia et volúntate Dei omnia ordinante in suam bonitatem sicut in finem... Nihil igitur Deus facere potest quin sub ordine suae providentiae cadat... Potest tamen alia facere quam ea quae subduntur eius providentiae vel operationi, si absolute consideretur eius potestas; sed nec potest facere aliqua quae sub ordine providentiae ipsius ab aetem o non fuerint, eo quod m utabilis esse non p o te st» 82.

In other words, God’s providence is all-embracing and absolutely free; however, once a certain order is determined, God binds himself to that order.

The importance of this will be seen later. For the present it is sufficient to point out tha t God's actual plan included the supernatural order with m an’s elevation to grace; it also included

so 3, 102.81 « Agunt virtute divina » 3, 103. Of their own power these superior beings can,

using natural principles, produce surprising effects « tales effectus simpliciter miracula dici non possunt quia ex naturalibus causis proveniunt » (ibid.); these effects are similar to miracles and thus a special gratia gratis data is required to discern between true and false miracles of this kind (3, 154). This corresponds to the teaching in 2 Sent d. 7, q. 3, a. 1 ad 2. Note finally that miracles are divided according to a scale of grades: the highest grade is held by those effects which nature can in no way accomplish. The second grade of miracles includes those effects within the ambit of nature’s capacities but produced in a way which nature could never have produced them. The lowest grade is when God produces some natural effect without using the natural causes (3, 101). This division corresponds substantially to that of 4 Sent d. 17, q. 1, a. 5. He insists again that none of these effects are contrary to nature, « etsi videatur esse contra ordinem proprium alicuius naturae ». (3, 100).

82 3, 98.


miracles: these are not after-thoughts. The whole history of salvation is included in the ordo divinae providentiae and it is in the context of this order that St. Thomas treats of miracles.

He goes on to show that God can act outside the order he imposed on his creation by dispensing w ith secondary causes — the reason being that he acts per voluntatem and not per necessitatem naturae. When God created beings, he gave them a certain limited ability to act; therefore they can only act in this restricted manner. He is free and can act in any m anner whatsoever he wishes. After showing that sometimes rare occurrences are observed in nature itself w ithout in any way implying a change in God’s providence, he goes on to say:

« Si ergo per aliquam virtutem creatam fieri potest ut ordo naturalis m utetur ab eo quod est frequenter ad id quod est raro, absque mutatione providentiae divinae; m ulto magis divina virtus quandoque aliquid facere potest, sine suae providentiae praeiudicio, praeter ordinem naturalibus inditum rebus a Deo. Hoc enim ipsum ad suae virtutis m anifestationem facit interdum. Nullo enim modo m elius m anifestari potest quod tota natura divinae subiecta est voluntati, quam ex hoc quod quandoque ipse praeter naturae ordinem aliquid operatur: ex hoc enim apparet quod ordo rerum processit ab eo non per necessitatem naturae, sed per liberam voluntatem » 83.

In other words, when God acts outside the order which he imposed on nature he clearly shows that he is absolutely free and unfettered. This is a point which often enough is neglected by commentators. St. Thomas' insistence on the liberty of God in nearly all the arguments is very impressive.

The miracle is thus a manifestation of God’s absolute power; bu t in St. Thomas’ mind it is much more. By giving m iracles a place in his providential plan God saw fit to remind man of the free choice he made of this ordo naturae creatae and maybe open m an’s eyes to his dignity and responsibility; and perhaps to something even higher. I t is precisely at this point that he insists:

« Nec debet haec ratio frivola reputari, quod Deus aliquid facit in natura ad hoc quod se m en tibus hom inum m an ifeste t; omnes creaturae cor- porales ad naturam intellectualem ordinantur sicut in finem; ipsius autem intellectualis naturae finis est divina cognitio. Non est mirum si ad cognitionem de Deo intellectuali naturae praebendum, fit aliqua im mutatio in substantia corporali» M.

83 ibid.ibid.

24 LIAM S. O’BRÉARTOIN

God works miracles to bring m an to a knowledge of him self; the type of knowledge is left undefined85, bu t from other parts of this book we could surmise that he understands a supernatural knowledge86. In the foreword to the work, having shown that there exist certain tru ths outside the power of the intellect which m ust be accepted by faith and that this state of affairs is appropriate for many reasons, he goes on to show that it is not unreasonable. The tru th of something revealed by God which cannot be dem onstrated by reason, is confirmed by visible effects which exceed the natural powers of efficiency87, The reasons for the existence of miracles, which we have seen before, are repeated again in this work; the miracle is an evidently divine argument m ost fittingly used to confirm the faith; they are necessary, granted the nature of the doctrine8S; and, finally, miracles show that Christ was divine89.

6. Quaestiones disputatae de Potentia: 1265-67:

a. Background:We have here another result of the disputationes ordinariae.

Since the m aterial treated usually had some relation to the actual lectures being held at that time, one would expect a certain underlying unity in these disputes: it is difficult to find that here. The first six questions can be conceived under the one heading of modes of divine operation. In a comprehensive study of this kind it is natural to include a note on the nature of God’s power in itse lf90; this is logically followed w ith a study of the actio ad intra: generation, and the actio ad extra: creation 91; creation m ust be organized and so we have questions on conservation and divine government or providence92. Questions 7-

85 3, 99.8« Cf. cc. 17, 22, 25, 39, 47, 52, etc.87 1, 5. Cf. Boublik o. c. p. 36-37.88 Cf. « tarn evidenter divinitus confirmans... » 1, 7; «manifeste ostenderetur

sermonem processisse a Deo»; 3, 154; «divinitus esse ostendit » De Rationibus Fidei contra Saracenos, Graecos et Armenos, c. 7; Opuscula I, 996. (This latter work belongs to the same period as the SCG having been written c. 1264) « Convenientissime probatur aliquid esse divinum per (miracula) » 4, 55 ; « necessarium fuit... » 3, 154.

89 4, 55.90 q. 1.91 qq. 24.91 qq. 5 and 6.


10 seem heterogenous to this schem e93. Question 6, which deals w ith the extraordinary government of the world, is what is mainly of interest to us; it is entitled de Miraculis. I t is composed of ten articles, seven of which deal w ith miracles and the remainder act as scholia explaining the natural capacities of angels and demons. Granted the underlying conception governing this question, we would not expect too much attention to be given to the finality of miracles; some thought-provoking texts are however, to be found.

b. Nature of miracles.There is a striking similarity between the way in which the

nature of the miracle is treated here in article 2, and tha t of the second book of the Sentences. In places the words used are almost identical and the only noticable difference is the more extensive treatm ent given, which results in greater c la rity94.

A miracle is « quae sola virtute divina hunt in rebus illis in quibus est naturalis ordo ad contrarium effectum vel ad contrarium effectum vel ad contrarium modum faciendi » 9S; both these conditions are necessary since, if the « ordo naturalis » is not violated, even though it is something which God alone can do, it is not a m iracle96. The miracle is thus something outside the

92 This may be explicable by a change of the material of lectures, due to thecompletion of one of the materiae.

94 Note especially the causa ocultissima from our senses, God « quae in rebus omnibus secretissime operatur » (6, 2). As elsewhere, this divine prerogative is insisted upon; cf. aa. 3-6 passim.

95 6, 2. Cf. 6, 1 where the possibility of miracles is proved by the fact that God does not act ex necessitate naturae.

96 « Coelum et terra et etiam animae rationales non sunt secundum ordinem naturalem nata creari ab alia causa quam a Deo et ideo huiusmodi rerum crea- tiones non sunt miracula » 6, 2 ad 5. Note that there is a slight contradiction between the conclusion of the body of this article and the ad 2 with regard to the explanation of the meaning of the word insolitum. In the first case it is taken for unusual in that sense of lack of habitual knowledge; this state is eliminated by a miracle which occurs often: « nam per consuetudinem aliquid in riostram notitiam familiarius venit ». In ad 2 he gives, in agreement with 2 Sent d. 18, q. 1, a. 3 ad 2, insolitum as being contrary to habitual occurance: « dicitur insolitum quia est contra consuetum cursum naturae ». Note also that the miracle is evidently the production of the effect and not the effect itself: « operando praeter causas creatas Deus potest operari eosdem eifectus... » (6. 1); « ad faciendum mirabiles effectus » (6, 4); « operatio miraculosa» (6, 5). The clearest expression of this idea is found in the following passage: « Supra naturam quidem, in quantum in ilium effectum, quern Deus facit, natura nullo modo potest» (6, 2 ad 3). The use of the accusative in place of the ablative — in ilium effectum; — clearly indicates that he is not dealing with the effect and that something has to be supplied to give the complete sense which is more or less as follows: « ...in quantum in ilium effectum, quem Deus facit, producendum, natura nullo modo potest ».

26 LIAM S. O’BRfiARTtflN

natural o rd e r” ; it is not contary to nature however, understood as that which depends on G od98. It is contary to the cursum naturae", but this does not destroy the ordo universi10°. In this order he explicitly includes the angels; these can produce mi- rabilia or mira, bu t it is always per modum artis. They use the latent potencies of nature — the « semina naturae » — to produce surprising effects 101. The miracle, on the other hand, is produced « absque actionibus naturalibus »; this does not, however, exclude that God uses creatures as his instrum ents; he can give them special graces (the gratiae gratis datae) according to their various capacities and ruled by the dictates of his wisdom 1


in the present economy, argumenta fide iI04, being a testimony to the tru th of what is preached1J05 because they manifest God’s pow er106. They are classed as « adminicula » also 107.

The following are the only novel expressions for the finality of miracles: « ad hoc enim m iracula fiunt u t homines conver- tan tu r ad Deum » or, in other words, « ad salutem hominis » I08.

The reply to the 21st. objection of the first article is important. After repeating that when God acts beyond the established laws in a certain case, this does not impede the totus ordo universi, he justifies the possibility of the miracle — an action beyond the natural course of events — by stating tha t it is for the salvation of man. This salvation consists « in ordinatione ipsius ad ultim um finem universi ». I t is clear therefore that we are not dealing with possible universes but w ith the one actual order established by God in which grace plays an essential p a r t109.

7. Sum m a Theologiae: Pars Prima and Pars Prima Secundae:1266 sqq.:

a. Background.The Sum m a Theologiae is the most organic and comprehen

sive of all St. Thomas’ works, even though it remains incomplete;

yond the natural visible causes, is justified in that it can cause one to suspect a higher cause; acting beyond the angelic or spiritual order, since they are invisible, would not obtain this effect. However, God can act outside the laws of the spiritual order: whether it should be considered a miracle or not is not discussed by St. Thomas.

104 5, 4; « quaedam » 6, 9; « in fidei protestationem » ad 2; « ad confirmandam fidem » ad 17.

tos 6, 5 ad 9; cf. « quoddam testimonium divinum indicativum divinae virtutis et veritatis » 6, 5 and « per ea facta quae naturam excedunt illorum veritas com- probatur quae naturalem transcendunt rationem » 6, 9.

106 6, 1 ad 4; cf. 6, 5; 6, 9 arg. 12.to? 6, 9 ad 18.i»8 6, 2 arg. 6; 6, 1 ad 21.In all the above cases he is discussing « apologetic » miracles — visible mi

racles (6, 1 ad 4; he uses this to deny the actuality of changes in the established angelic order). There is one text, however, which requires some explanation. He writes: « ...ad istud miraculum (incarnatio Verbi) omnia alia ordinantur: et propter hoc non solum est inducens ad alia credendum, sed etiam alia miracula inducunt ad hoc quod ipsum credatur » (6, 2 ad 9). In other words all miracles are ordained to the Incarnation, to establish the faith in it. But how are we to explain the reciprocal relation? The Incarnation is only a miracle for those who have the faith; and precisely this miracle is inducens ad alia credendum. We shall return to this later. Note finally, that his division of miracles corresponds to that of the second book of the Sentences-, he divides them according as they are supra, contra and praeter naturam. However a greater degree of precision is evident.

Again in ad 7.

28 LIAM S. O’BRgARTtilN

in it the mature theologian expresses his personal synthesis of fheology. In this synthesis the question of miracles is not of such importance as to m erit special treatm ent; in one article only does he treat of their nature and this is a scholion to his examination of God’s action on created nature. However, miracles have a definite part to play in his synthesis; this part can only be discovered by a study, not alone of the main texts treating of m iracles 1,0 but also of the many m inor texts to be found widely dispersed in the Summa. St. Thomas began this work about the year 1266 and was still working at it when he died 1,1; thus it covers eight years of his most intensive intellectual activity. Since we are following a chronological order in our analysis, we think it convenient to treat in this section of the Pars Prima and of the Pars Prima Secundae alone, both of which were w ritten about the years 1266-67, leaving the other two parts, which pertain to a later period in his life, to another section. In this first section therefore we shall trea t of the three places in which, as we have seen, St. Thomas treats of the miracle.

After dealing with the creation and distinction of creatures he goes on to trea t of their conservation and of their ruling or ordering — God's Providence. Divine action in nature is exercised to conserve creatures and to change or move them. In dealing with this la tter point he asks what God does or can do with creation and here he treats of miracles. He is dealing w ith the power, the efficient causality of God; miracles are studied here under this aspect alone. God has established a fixed order in nature; he has arranged that each creature should have its capacity for action and a capacity to receive or to react to the actions of other creatures. He has thus endowed nature with a created causality. Since created nature depends on His will — he could have made it differently — he is not subject to it and so he can act outside the established order; for example, he can produce effects w ithout using the secondary causes which, in the regular course of nature, would have been used to produce them; or again, he can cause effects which nature could in no way produce; this m anner of acting is not contrary to n a tu re m . Having laid this foundation he asks if everything produced in this m anner is a miracle, completing his doctrine w ith an arti

110 These can be reduced to five or six: I, 105, 7 and 8; 110, 4 and 114, 4;I. II, 113, 10; II. II, 178, 1 and 2; III, 43 and 44; maybe we should add 1, 104, 4 and 106, 3 also,

in 1274.112 C f. I , 105, 6.


cle about the relative greatness of the various miracles ni. Thus he shows that the miracle is a revelation of God’s freedom as regards created nature.

The second text is found where he is dealing with what creatures can do with nature. He begins w ith a study of the ef- iicient power of angels — creatures which are pure spirits; after having studied how they react on one another, he asks about their action or their active capacities w ith relation to corporeal nature; here he asks w hether they can work miracles 114. Then, after having studied the guardian angels, who are provided by God to defend man, he goes on to study the powers of the fallen angels; he enquires w hether they can seduce m an with true miracles 115. Due to the similarity between both cases we treat of them together.

Finally, towards the end of the Prima Secundae where he is dealing w ith God as the exterior principle of a human act in so far as he assists m an with his grace, we hnd another text. He asks if the justification of a sinner, which is one of the effects of grace and, under certain aspects is God's greatest work, is miraculous U6.

b. N ature of a miracle.The nature of the miracle is treated in I, 105, 7 in a similar,

but much briefer, fashion to the Sentences and to De Potentia; no m ention is made however, of the contraria dispositio. In I. II, 113, 10 he repeats the essential requisites, but he insists more on and clarifies the second one. God alone can work miracles. However, there are many things which God alone can do — the justification of a sinner is an apt example —• but which he cioes in a manner known either by observation or by revelation; this is the communis et consuetus cursus. Thus the action of God alone is not sufficient in itself. The second requisite is that the effect be caused w ithout using those causes which naturally would have to be used to produce the effect or w ithout using them in their natural way; in other words the miracle is something produced outside the consuetus et communis ordo causandi. The true notion of a miracle implies that it be worked in an unusual manner; that the effect be brought about in a way which is diverse from the norm al m anner in which it would be produced by its appropriate cause.

1« Cf. I, 105, 7 and 8.114 I, 110, 4. us I, 114, 4.115 I. II, 113, 10.

30 LIAM S. O'BRlJARTtJIN

In replying to the objections arising out of St. Augustine’s definition of a miracle as « aliquid arduum et insolitum supra facultatem naturae e t spem adm irantis proveniens »-117 — he explains that a miracle is beyond the power of nature. God acts beyond the ordo rerum bu t he does not act against it m. The miracle is beyond the norm al natural course of action either in tiie m anner or in the order of its production.

This in clarified in the last article of question 105 where he gives the hierarchy of miracles. The degree of ' miraculosity ’ of a miracle is measured by the manner in which the capacities of nature are surpassed. This can happen in the following ways:

1. The effect could never have been produced by nature; this is called a miracle substantially 119.

2. The effect could have been produced by nature bu t not in the subject in which it is actually produced; naturally there was no apt recipient for the effect. This is called a m iracle with respect to the subject in which it takes place 12°.

3. The effect would have been produced by nature but not in the manner in which it actually was produced. This is called a miracle with respect to the mode of operation121.

Thus the miracle is the production by God alone of an effect w ithout its appropriate cause. I t is not sufficient that the effect be an exclusive product of God; neither is it sufficient that the effect be contrary to the natural inclination of the subject, since both these conditions can be verified outside of a miracle.

117 The exact text of St. Augustine is: « Miraculum voco quidquid arduum aut insolitum supra spem vel facultatem mirantis apparet » De Util. Credendic. 16, n. 34: PL 42, 90.

118 « Si ordo rerum consideretur prout dependet a prima causa sic contra rerum ordinem Deus facere non potest... Si vero consideretur rerum ordinem prout dependet a qualibet secundarum causarum, sic Deus potest facere praeter ordinem rerum... Potuisset enim et alium ordinem rerum instituete » I, 105, 6 et ad 1. The possibility of miracles and the possibility of anotheil order are intimately linked in St. Thomas’ mind since the present order is not something necessary: « ab eo (Deo) procedit non per necessitatem naturae sed per arbitrium voluntatis ».

119 From the examples it is clear that he is speaking of the production of some effect which nature, left to its own resources, would have been unable to produce. The examples are: two bodies in the same place, the glorification of bodies etc.

120 For example, the resurrection of the body.121 For example, a sudden cure. Various efforts have been made to reconcile

St. Thomas' varying terminology with regard to miracles; we avoid this question as being of no interest to the problem we are studying. Note that the criterion governing this above division is the productive power, the productibility of nature, and not the product or the effect itself, as one at first sight would be inclined to believe, especially from a consideration of the first division. Cf. also 105, 7 and ad 2.


What is really im portant (and w hat is insisted upon mostly in the question of the Prima Secundae) is tha t the effect is produced outside the usual order: this order includes both the mode of production and the appropriate causes for this specific effect. In other words, the cause gives rise to a definite expectancy which is not realized, or, if it is realized, then the m anner of realization is u n usualm.

The teaching found above in the Sum m a contra Gentiles w ith regard to the angels and their active capabilities is made even more explicit in the Pars Prima of the Summa. In both articles dealing with this question, the oft-repeated principle is found: « solus Deus miracula facere potest » m.

The fundamental reason for this assertion is given as follows:

« ... non sufficit ad rationem miracull, si aliquid fiat praeter ordinem naturae alicuius particularis: quia sic, cum aliquis proiicit lapidem sur- sum miraculum faceret, cum hoc sit praeter ordinem naturae laplds. Ex hoc ergo aliquid dicitur esse miraculum, quod fit praeter ordinem to tius naturae creatae m . Hoc autem non potest facere nisi D eus: quia quidquid facit angelus, vel quaecumque alia creatura, propria virtute hoc fit secundum ordinem naturae creatae; et sic non est m iraculum » 125.

It is evident that the question of miracles has so far been treated on the ontological level. Difficulties arise however when we come to the gnoseological asp ec tm. We do not know all the powers of nature; hence we can have some effect produced (by some agent whose powers we do not know), w ithin the ordo na

122 Due to the circumstances of I. II, 113, 10, where St, Thomas is dealing with a work which is specifically divine, the first requisite for a miracle is not insisted upon. Note also that the body of this article, while proposing to give the elements required for a miracle, gives, in fact, the general requisite and then describes two classes of miracles; these correspond to classes 2 and 3 in the division given in I, 105, 8. The justification of a sinner, when it is miraculous, falls into the third category. Cf. A. V an H ove, Le doctrine dti miracle... p. 62. We must note also before concluding this section, the striking simililarity between the objections proposed in I, 105, 7 and those of Da Potentia 6, 2; thisextends even to the Scriptural quotations. The briefer treatment in the Summacan only be fully appreciated by a reading of both texts in conjunction.

123 I, 110, 4; 114, 4. Cf. also 91, 2 ad 1 I. II, 111, 4; II. II, 104, 4 ad 2; 154, 2 ad 2; 171, 1; III, 28, 1 ad 4; 2 ad 3; 40, 1 ad 1; 78, 4 ad 2 etc.

U4 The same expression in contained in 114, 4 with the following clarification: « sub quo ordine continetur omnis virtus creaturae ».

125 I, 110, 4. For St. Thomas the fundamental requisite for the notion of miracle is the « fieri praeter iotius ordinem naturae creatae ». Only one agent can satisfy this condition; God, however, can use creatures as his instruments in the performance of these miracles (I, 91, 1 ad 2).

126 Cf. I, 110, 4 ad 2, where he deals with this latter.

32 LIAM S. O'BRfiARTlJlN

turae (ontologically) while this, due to m an’s ignorance, appears to be outside this order and consequently appears to be a miracle. This type of miracle is qualified by St. Thomas w ith the title miraculum quoad nos or miraculum large 127. He defines this type of miracle as: « cum aliquid fit praeter ordinem naturae creatae nobis notae, per virtutem creatam nobis ignotam » 128. This undoubtedly causes difficulties in the discernment of m iracles; however, St. Thomas has provided some definite principles as regards the powers of spiritual or higher beings, and thus, also with regard to their limitations. He teaches that there are certain things which they cannot do; actions to which their powers do not ex tend1Z9. However, he has nothing to say about how de facto these marvellous effects produced by angels can be discerned from miracles of the same kind worked by God.

c. Finality of miracles.In all three sections seen so far, there has not been any

mention of the finality of miracles. Again the context is sufficient explanation for this; all the questions deal w ith efficient causality. However, this does not mean that there is nothing to be found on finality in these parts of the Summa. The doctrine is similar to that of previous works. The presence of miracles in the present order of providence is justified by the existence of the order of grace; miracles exist to m anifest this order 13°. They do this by confirming the faith m, being a m anifestation of divine pow er132. They lead to a knowledge (evidently supernatural) of G od133, and introduce m an to his final end m. The utilitas Eccle-

127 Cf. I, 110, 4; 114, 4.!28 This is beyond the ken of human knowledge de facto but, evidently, it is

not beyond its possibilities.us Cf. I, 106; 110; 114 passim.As above, he explains that by activating the latent capacities of nature —

the corporalia semina — which they know so well because of their superior intellect they can produce certain natural effects in an unusual manner: just as, for example, the metal worker appears to produce a marvellous effect — molten metal — whereas he is only using' the latent capacities of fire. Writing of thepower of the devils, he says that they can bring about all those changes in material things which nature itself can produce using all its capabilities (114, 4 ad 2). There is no mention however, that these powers can only be used when God permits; cf. De Potentia 6, 5.

130 Cf. I, 104, 4; 112, 2; « ad gratias manifestationem »; « praetermittitur ordo naturae propter ordinem gratiae ».

Bi Cf. I, 43, 7 ad 6; 112, 2.B2 Cf. I. II, 111, 4; 51, 4.t33 cf. I, 106, 3; « ad ordinandum homines in eius cognitionem »; « ad ordina-

tionem hominum in Deum ».134 « Per miracula ... homines inducuntur ad hoc quod ultimo fini coniungan-

tur» I. II, 111, 5; cf. I ll, 4.


siae 135 as the finis for the extraordinary graces — « operatio vir- tutum » -— is repeated. Summing up then, the miracle shows that God has intervened to confirm the doctrine which has been preached; thus man is led to a knowledge of God, his final end, and to the faith.

There is nothing really new to be found in this section as regards doctrine. His presentation does not lack originality though. There are two salient points resulting from the analysis; the insistence tha t for a true miracle the action m ust be « praeter ordinem totius naturae creatae »; and the clearly defined justification for the presence of the miracle in God’s providential plan: « propter ordinem gratiae ».

8 Som e minor works: c. 1270:

Under this general title we include three of St. Thomas’ minor works: the Compendium Theologiae; the result of a dispu- tatio extraordinaria entitled Quodlibetum II; and, finally, St. Thomas’ judgement on some articles sent to him for examination by a confrère, Bassianus Laudensis: Responsio ad lectorem Venetum de articulis XXXVI .

In the Compendium Theologiae, which is a brief vademécum of theology for his faithful secretary fra Reginald, the doctrine of the first part of the Sum m a Theologiae is repeated w ith limpid clarity and sim plicity136. Christ, by his miracles, showed himself to be G od137. When a creature appears to produce a miracle, in reality it is God who works it using the intercessor as an instrum ent because of his prayers 138. Due to the evidently divine origin of miracles they are a very telling (indeed there cannot be a more convenient) argum ent in favour of the faith 139. They are not an unm istakable sign of grace; they are, however, an unmistakable sign of the tru th of what the one who works them preaches, since otherwise « Deus esset falsitatis testis, quod est impossible ». Thus St. Peter’s miracles proved that

•35 Cf. I, 43, 7 ad 6.136 Cf. c. 136. As regards God alone being capable of producing miracles cf.

cc. 154, 219 and Quodl II, q. 4, a. 1 ad 4. The demons cannot produce real miracles; cf. c. 136.

137 Quodl. ibid.138 In the Resp. ad Led. Ven. he deals mainly with the instrumentality of

creatures in the working of miracles; the angels are used in alia miracles « quantum ad aliquod ministerium » cf. aa. 15, 16.

139 Cf. Comp. Theol., c. 136; Quodl. ibid.

34 LIAM S. 0'BRSARTOlN

Christ was God since this is w hat he preached 140. In the Quodli- betum II he brings out the fact that miracles are a help, though not indispensible, in leading one to make an act of faith 141.

There is nothing new mentioned in these passages. The concise and accurate synthesis of the Compendium Theologiae is, however, w orth noting.

9. Super Evangelium Ioannis lectura: 1269-72:

a. Background.Granted the nature of St. John’s gospel and St. Thomas’

treatm ent of miracles, one would be led to expect his commentary on St. John to be a rich source of inform ation for our work. As he himself writes:

« Primo proponit Joannes signum visibile, in quo m anifestatur virtus Christi factiva et reparativa vitae, secundum consuetud inem huius Evan- gelii, in quo semper doctrinae Christi adiungitur aliquod visibile factum, pertinens ad illud de quo est doctrina, u t sic ex visibilibus invisibilia in notescan t» 142.

However, nowhere does he trea t in an organized m anner of the nature of the miracle.

b. Nature of miracles.The nearest he comes to dealing w ith the nature of the mi

racle is in his commentary on: « num quid daemonium potest caecorum oculos aperire? » 14i, where he repeats in summary form what we have already found in his other works I44. The constant insistence on the miracle as a work of God in this comm entary is s trik ing145.

c. Finality of miracles.Because of its nature, the miracle is an argumentum divi-

140 Quodl ibid.wi q. 4, a. 1.1« 5, 1: 699.M3 10, 19.144 However, the expression used with regard to the ordo naturae is supra

naturam, supra ordinem naturae cf. 10,5: 1431.145 cf. 10, 6; 1465. The miracle is something done virtute divina (2, 1: 335; 5,

4: 760 ; 5, 6: 817; 9, 3: 1345 sqq; 12,7 1700 ; 20, 4: 2527); something which God alone can do (5, 2: 724; 2, 3: 396; 9, 3; 1348 sqq) and no creature, sua virtute, can work a true miracle (ibid.). Cf. however: « miracula quaedam sunt quae possunt


n ita tis146, a demonstratio d iv in ita tis147, an expressum signum virtutis divinae 148. Since God alone can work miracles in support or doctrine, any doctrine so substantiated is evidently of divine origin 149 and since God « nunquam est testis mendacii » 15°, it is evidently t r u e 151.

Every miracle is a testimony of some kind 152 depending on the reason governing its enactment. As St. Thomas writes:

« Quandoque ergo miraculum fit in testim onium veritatis praedicatae; quandoque autem in testim onium personae facientis. Est autem attenden- dum, quod nullum verum miraculum fit nisi virtute divina; et quod Deus nunquam est testis mendacii. Dico ergo quod, quandoque miraculum fit in testim onium doctrinae praedicatae, necessarium est doctrinam illam esse veram, etsi persona praedicans non sit bona. Quando etiam fit in testim onium personae, necesse est sim iliter quod persona ilia sit bona » 153.

In other words, the miracle is such that, of its very nature as a divine work, it testifies to the necessary tru th of a doctrine involved w ith it or to the real goodness of the person for whom it is a guarantee154. The m anner in which Christ performed miracles led to a knowledge of him 155, as G od156.

As regards the effects actually produced by Christ’s m iracles, we have a constant relation to the faith. However, we m ust always keep in mind the actual background to a particular part of the commentary; it is im portant to realize whether he is dealing the turba — the ordinari Jews — or w ith the Pharisees. Christ

fieri virtute daemonum et angelorum » (10, 5: 1431). These miracula qua.ed.am are secundum ordinem naturae and thus they are not miracles at all; the word miracle is applied in an improper sense. This is the only indication of a division of miracles which is to be found in this work; it is evidently an allusion to mo- racles by which an effect at which nature could not arrive, is produced — miracula supra naturam; and to those miracles by which an effect within the power of nature but not in this particular manner, is produced — praeter naturam; this is confirmed by the examples.

146 14 _ 3 ; 1898 . Cf. 5, 3: 817: « Sciendum est enim, quod naturale est homini virtutem et naturas rerum ex eorum actionibus cognoscere: et ideo convenienter Dominus per opera quae ipse facit, dicit se posse cognosci qualis sit. Cum ergo ipse propria virtute divina faceret, credendum erat in eo esse virtutem divi- nam ». Cf. also 10, 6: 1465.

1« 11, 7: 1564.1« 9, 3: 1345.M9 5, 2: 724.iso 9, 3: 1348.151 Cf. 10, 37-38: lectio 6, nn. 1464 sqq. for his method of arguing.152 « Testimonium quoddam » 9, 3: 1348: « testimonium Dei » 5, 6: 817.153 9, 3: 1348.154 Cf. 4, 7: 684.155 5, 6: 817.156 9, 3: 1348.

36 LIAM S. O’BRiARTÜIN

worked his miracles to confirm the faith of his disciples 157 and to convert the Jews to the fa ith 158. In this way the gloria Dei was realized 1S9. The miracle was one way used by Christ to draw the infideles to him 16°. However, beyond one text which states the actual conversion to the faith due to m iracles161, St. Thomas insists that by miracles, in reality, only the first step was realized; namely, miracles did not cause faith in the divinity of Christ, but only in the fact tha t he was a ju s t m an 162.

Those who believed propter miracuia are regarded as less spiritual — « grossiores et magis sensibiies »; those on the other hand who believed propter doctrinam attained to the divinity163. th e Pharisees could not be brought to the faith because they did not consider the miracles sufficiently1M, since they were set on evil th u s there are two steps on the journey to faith in Christ: the apt dispositions by which one is prepared to accept and examine the miracles and thus come to see Christ as the envoy or God: the ju st man; grace or an interior illumination oy wmch one believes that this ju s t m an is God. As he writes:

« Inducunt autem nos ad lidem Christi tria... Sed quando per hoc homo m anuauctus credit, tunc potest dicere, quod prop ter nuU um istorum credit: nee propter rationem naturaiem, nec propter testlm om a iegis, nec propter praeaicationem aiiorum sed p rop ter ipsam verita tem ia n tu m » l06.

In this work the nature of the miracle, as explained in his earlier writings is plainly a presupposition; his attention w ith respect to miracles is mainly focussed on the part they play wit

THE THEOLOGY OF MIRACLES - Dialnet · 2 Le miracle signe de salut, Bruxelles 1959. 3 This is...

Documents

Transcript of THE THEOLOGY OF MIRACLES - Dialnet · 2 Le miracle signe de salut, Bruxelles 1959. 3 This is...