The Supernatural in the New Testament, Possible, Credible, and Historical / Or, An Examination of the Validity of Some Recent Objections Against Christianity as a Divine Revelation

by C. A. Row

Chapter II. Definitions of Terms.

Nothing has more contributed to import an almost hopeless confusion of thought into the entire controversy about miracles than the ambiguous senses in which the most important terms connected with it have been employed, both by theologians and men of science, by the defenders of revelation as well as by its opponents. Of these terms the words “nature,” “natural”, “law,” “force,” “supernatural,” “superhuman,” “miracle,” and “miraculous,” are the most conspicuous. It is quite clear that unless we use these terms in a definite and uniform sense, we shall be fighting the air. The neglect to do so has thrown the greatest obscurity over the entire subject. This vague and uncertain use of them is not confined to writers on theological subjects, but is diffused over a large number of scientific works. My object in the present chapter will be, not to lay down strictly accurate definitions of all the terms used in the controversy (for this in the present state of thought on the subject is hardly possible) but to endeavour to assign a definite meaning to those which it will be necessary for me to employ, and to draw attention to some of the fallacies which a vague use of language has introduced.

First: No terms are more frequently used in this controversy than the words “nature” and “natural.” [pg 027] They are constantly used as if their meaning was definite and invariable. Nothing is more common than to use the expression “laws of nature,” and to speak of miracles as involving contradictions, violations, and suspensions of the laws and order of nature, as though there was no danger of our falling into fallacies of reasoning by classing wholly different orders of phenomena under a common name.

What do we mean by the terms “nature” and “natural”? It is evident that no satisfactory result can come from reasonings on this subject, unless the parties to the discussion agree to attach to those words a steady and consistent meaning. Are we in fact under the expression “nature” to include both matter and its phenomena, and mind and its phenomena? Is nature to include all things which exist, including their causes; laws, and forces; or is it to be restricted to matter, its laws and forces? Or is it to include all things that exist, except God? I need hardly observe that the laying down some clear and definite principles on this subject is vital to the present controversy.

Again: What do we mean by the laws of nature? How do we distinguish between the laws and the forces of nature? Do the laws of nature, in the sense in which that expression is used by science, possess any efficient power whatever; or ought not efficiency to be predicated only of the forces of nature, and never of its laws? Or when we speak of the forces of nature, do we recognise any distinction between material and moral forces, or do we confound phenomena so utterly differing in outward character, and on whose difference some of the most important points of the controversy about miracles rest, under a common name? What again do we mean by the order of nature? Is it its material order; or does it include the order of the [pg 028] moral universe? Until we can agree to attach a definite meaning to these expressions, to argue that miracles are contrary to nature, or involve a suspension of its laws, or a violation of its order, or even to affirm the contrary position, is fighting the air. Yet this I may almost say is the present aspect of the controversy.

Again: What do we intend, when we use the different expressions, “miracles,” “supernatural,” “superhuman,” or events occurring out of the order of nature? It is evident that whether they point to any real distinctions or not, it is necessary to employ them with consistency.

The mere enumeration of these questions makes it clear that by a vague and indefinite use of terms, or by attaching to them meanings which they cannot accurately be made to bear, we may unconsciously assume the entire question at issue.

First: With respect to the terms “nature” and “natural.” What do we include under them? Bishop Butler considers that the latter term is satisfied by attaching to it the meaning “usual.” Nature then would mean the ordinary course of things. But such a meaning would by no means satisfy the requirements of modern science, philosophy, or theology.

One obvious sense to attach to the word “nature” is to use it to denote the entire mass of phenomena as contemplated by physical science. In this point of view it would include matter, its forces, and its laws, and embrace the entire range of those phenomena and forces where action is necessary; and into the conception of which neither volition nor freedom enters. If “nature” and “natural” had been used only in this sense, it would have saved us from a great mass of inconclusive reasoning. But this is far from being the case. [pg 029] Not only are they used to include matter, its laws and forces, but also the whole phenomena of mind.