Article 2 — Whether everything that God does without natural causes or contrary to the course of nature can be called a miracle

The second point of inquiry is whether everything can be called a miracle that God does without natural causes or against the order of nature. (Parallel texts: ST I.105.7; SCG III.101; In II Sent. 18.1.3; Commentary on 2 Thessalonians, ch. 2, lect. 2.)

Obj. 1: And seemingly, the answer should be in the negative. For we may gather from Augustine that a miracle is something difficult which seldom occurs, exceeding the faculty of nature and so far surpassing our hopes as to compel our astonishment. (Augustine, Tractates on the Gospel of John 8 (PL 35:1450–58); Augustine, On the Trinity 3.5 (PL 42:874).) Now, God sometimes acts against the course of nature even in very little things; for instance, when he made wine from water (John 2), and yet he did this without natural causes. Therefore, not everything that God does independently of natural causes should be called a miracle.

Obj. 2: That which often happens should not be described as occurring seldom. Yet, at the time of the apostles God often wrought works without natural causes; thus, it is related that they brought forth the sick into the streets (Acts 5:15), etc. Therefore, such things were not of rare occurrence and consequently were not miracles.

Obj. 3: What nature can do is not above the faculty of nature. Now, sometimes without natural causes God does things that could be done by nature, as when our Lord healed Peter’s mother-in-law of the fever with which she was stricken (Luke 4:38). This, then, was not beyond the faculty of nature and was not miraculous.

Obj. 4: A dead man cannot live again through the action of a natural cause. Now, the saints look forward to the resurrection of the dead when God will raise all the dead to life at the end of the world; therefore, we say in the creed: I look for the resurrection of the dead. Therefore, not everything that God does beyond the faculty of natural causes surpasses human hope; therefore, such a thing is not a miracle.

Obj. 5: The creation of heaven and earth, and even the creation of rational souls, is a work of God surpassing other active causes, for God alone can create, as we have proved above. (Q. 3, aa. 1, 4; cf. ST I.45.5.) Yet these cannot be called miracles, since they are not done for the manifestation of grace, for which purpose alone miracles are wrought, according to Augustine, but for the establishment of nature. Therefore, not everything that God does beyond the faculty of nature is a miracle.

Obj. 6: The conversion of a sinner is a work of God beyond the faculty of nature; yet it is not a miracle, but rather the end of a miracle, since miracles are wrought in order that men may be converted to God. Therefore, not everything that God does beyond the faculty of nature is a miracle.

Obj. 7: It is more astonishing if a thing be done by one who is less powerful than if it be done by one who is more powerful. Now, God is more powerful than nature; yet nature’s works are not called miracles, for instance, the healing of a sick man, or the like. Much less then should it be called a miracle when it is wrought by God.

Obj. 8: Monsters are contrary to nature, and yet, they are not described as miraculous. Therefore, not everything that is contrary to nature is miraculous.

Obj. 9: Miracles are wrought in confirmation of the faith. Now, the Incarnation of the Word was not intended as an argument in confirmation of the faith, but to be an object of faith. Therefore, it was not a miracle; and yet it was the work of God alone without the action of any other cause. Therefore, not everything that God does beyond the faculty of nature is a miracle.

On the contrary (1), Augustine (Anselm of Canterbury, On the Virginal Conception and Original Sin 11 (PL 158:445–46).) says that things follow a threefold course: they may be either natural or voluntary or wondrous. Now, those things which God does beyond the faculty of natural causes belong neither to the course of nature, nor to the course of voluntary things, since neither nature nor created will has any effective part in them. Therefore, they belong to the order of wonders, and thus, they are miracles.

Furthermore (2), Richard of Saint Victor (Richard of St. Victor (d. 1173 AD): originally from Scotland and then a student of Hugh of St. Victor before eventually becoming the prior of the Abbey of St. Victor in Paris; he wrote many theological and mystical works, in which he beautifully describes the theory of contemplation (see PL 196).) says that a miracle is a work of the Creator that manifests divine power. Now, this applies to those of God’s works which surpass natural causes. Therefore, they are miracles.

I answer that the word miracle is derived from mirari (“to be astonished”). Now, two things concur in making us astonished, as we may gather from the Philosopher. (Aristotle, Metaphysics 1.2, 982b11–24, 983a11–22.) One is that the thing which astonishes us has a hidden cause; the second is that in what astonishes us we perceive something that would seem to be in contradiction with the cause of our wonder; thus, someone might be astonished if he saw iron rising towards a magnet through not knowing the magnet’s power, since apparently the iron ought by its natural movement to tend downwards.

This happens in two ways, for a thing may be wonderful in itself, or it may be wonderful to us.

A thing is wonderful to us, when the cause of that which astonishes us is hidden, not simply, but to this or that individual, and when the thing at which we marvel has in reality no disposition inconsistent with the marvelous effect, but only in the opinion of the person who marvels. The result is that what is wonderful or astonishing to one person, is not wonderful or astonishing to another; thus, one who knows about the magnet’s power through having been taught or had experience of it is not astonished at the aforesaid effect, while an ignorant person is astonished.

A thing is wonderful or marvelous in itself when its cause is simply hidden, and when the thing has a contrary disposition to the visible effect. Such things may be called not only actually or potentially wonderful, but also miracles, as having in themselves a cause for admiration. Now, the most hidden cause and the furthest removed from our senses is God, who works most secretly in all things; therefore, those effects are properly called “miracles” which are produced by God’s power alone on things that have a natural tendency to the opposite effect or to a contrary mode of operation; but effects produced by nature, the cause of which is unknown to us or to some of us, or even those effects produced by God that are naturally apt to be produced by none but God, cannot be called miraculous but only marvelous or wonderful.

For this reason, a miracle in its definition is described as being above the order of nature in the words exceeding the faculty of nature, to which on the part of the thing done corresponds the word difficult. Again, it is described as transcending our knowledge, in the words so far surpassing our hopes as to compel admiration, to which on the part of the thing done correspond the words which seldom occurs, since when we are accustomed to an occurrence, it becomes more familiar to our knowledge.

Reply Obj. 1: The difficulty mentioned in the definition of a miracle refers to the greatness of the thing not in itself, but in comparison with the faculty of nature; therefore, every effect is reckoned to be difficult that God works in any little thing, if that effect surpasses the faculty of nature.

Reply Obj. 2: A miracle is described as seldom occurring because it is contrary to the usual course of nature, even were it to be repeated day after day. Thus, the transubstantiation of bread into Christ’s body occurs every day, yet it ceases not to be miraculous, because the things that happen generally in the whole order of the universe are to be described as usual occurrences, rather than what happens in one individual thing alone.

Reply Obj. 3: It is customary to divide the miraculous works of God into those which are done above, those which are done against, and those which are done without nature.

A miracle is above nature when God produces an effect which nature is wholly incapable of producing. This happens in two ways. First, when God induces into matter a form which nature is utterly unable to induce, for instance, the form of glory which God will induce into the bodies of the elect; and again, the Incarnation of the Word. Second, when nature, although able to induce a particular form into some matter, is unable to induce it into this particular matter; thus, nature is able to produce life, but not to produce it in this corpse.

A miracle is contrary to nature when nature retains a disposition contrary to the effect produced by God: for instance, when he prevented the three youths in the furnace from being hurt while the fire retained the power to burn (Dan. 3:19–29); and when the waters of the Jordan stood while the heaviness remained in it (Josh 3:16); and again when the Virgin gave birth.

A miracle is done by God without nature when he produces an effect that nature can produce but in a manner of which nature is incapable. This may be either through lack of the instruments which nature is wont to employ, (as when Christ changed water into wine (John 2), for nature can do this in a certain way, the water absorbed by the vine for the purpose of nourishment being converted in due time into the juice of the grape by the process of assimilation); or because the effect is produced by God more copiously than when produced by nature, for instance, the frogs that were brought forth in Egypt (Exod 8:6); or because it is produced in less time than nature can produce it, as when a person is instantly cured through the prayer of a saint, for nature could have done this, yet not at once but by degrees, not now but at another time, for instance, the miracle already quoted wrought on Peter’s mother-in-law. Evidently, then, all such works, if we take into account both the substance and the manner of the thing done, surpass the faculty of nature.

Reply Obj. 4: The coming resurrection of the dead is beyond the hope of nature, but not beyond the hope of grace. This twofold hope is mentioned: who against hope believed in hope (Rom 4:18).

Reply Obj. 5: Heaven, earth, and even rational souls in the natural order are not naturally apt to be created by any cause other than God; therefore, the creation of these things is not a miracle.

Reply Obj. 6: The same answer applies as regards the conversion of a sinner.

Reply Obj. 7: Nature’s works are also God’s works, but the miracles wrought by God are not wrought by nature; and thus, the argument does not conclude. Moreover, the action of nature is manifest to us, whereas God is a hidden cause, for which reason God’s works are more wonderful to us than the works of nature.

Reply Obj. 8: Monsters are a result that is contrary to a particular nature, but not to universal nature.

Reply Obj. 9: In the words of the saints, the Incarnation is the miracle of miracles, because it is greater than all other miracles, and because all other miracles are ordered to it. For this reason, not only does it lead us to believe in other articles of faith, but other miracles lead us to believe in it, since nothing prevents one miracle from leading to faith in another, as, for instance, the raising of Lazarus leads us to believe in a future resurrection.