firming as the Neopatonists do and as Hume does, that all is natural and that nothing is contrary to or above nature they do not reject the New Testament narratives of miracles. No, they were actual events and natural, “divinely” and “supremely” so. But they were also miraculous events, that is, events to be wondered at by the ignorant. The miracles of the Bible are miracles to the unlearned only, not to the initiated and wise ones. They were phenomena that were not understood by the masses but nothing more.
Read the quotations again from Mrs. Eddy and see that I am rightly interpreting her. Whether or not this method of explaining the miracles be regarded as brilliant, it is certain that it is not original with Mrs. Eddy. It is another one of her “revelations” that Spinoza also was favored with. Remember that she says: “All Science is a revelation.” He says: “A miracle is an event of which the causes cannot be explained by the natural reason through a reference to ascertained workings of nature; but since miracles were wrought according to the understanding of the masses, who are wholly ignorant of the working of nature, it is certain that the ancients took for a miracle whatever they could not explain by the method adopted by the unlearned in such cases.”[1]
When we speak then of the miracles of the Bible our attention should be directed not to the greatness of the work that was done but to the ob-
- ↑ Cf. Theo.-Pol. Treat. Chap. 6.
