Why does Mrs. Eddy reject miracles? Because she is more philosophic than Biblical. She is following the Neoplatonists who, as we have seen, allow nothing to be preternatural or supernatural. Speaking of the healings of Jesus and of Christian Science, she says: “Now, as then, these mighty works are not supernatural but supremely natural.”[1] Speaking of the resurrection of Christ, she says: “It was not a supernatural act. On the contrary it was a divinely natural act;”[2] “A miracle fulfills God's law but does not violate that law.”[3]
Now who said that a miracle is something supernatural? Who has defined a miracle as an event that is superior to or contrary to or a violation of the laws of nature? May be some loose-speaking theologian did that in the hearing of Mrs. Eddy, but as she philosophizes about the matter just as Spinoza does I prefer to think she is indebted to him for her “revelation" on this subject.
Spinoza discussing the question of miracles says: “Nature cannot be contravened, * * * she preserves a fixed and immutable order.”[4] So if we define a miracle as an event contrary to the laws of nature, there is no miracle.
Some delight so to reason. Stated in syllogistic form the argument is as follows: Nature includes all reality and all events past and present.
- ↑ S. and H. Preface, p. xi.
- ↑ S. and H. p. 44.
- ↑ S. and H. p. 134f.
- ↑ Theo.-Pol. Treat. Chap. 6.
