IT is an interesting fact, too little known, that what are termed miracles are rejected by professed Christians almost as much as by those who deny in toto the Scriptural statements and who take the position that miracles would be violations of law, and therefore impossible. It is also interesting to note that the reasons assigned by scholars, philosophers, and natural scientists for their rejection of so-called miracles, are repeated by those who are not acquainted with their writings, but who fail to see that they are thus not only denying revealed truth but placing an entirely needless and foolish limit upon man's possibilities. It is hardly necessary to point out that a general acceptance of the bare assertion that any right thing is impossible would have most effectually shut the door on all human progress. Half a century ago this kind of unreasoning logic was much more prevalent than it is today, so far at least as material things are concerned, for the dearly bought victories of the great inventors are proving conclusively that nothing which is right is impossible of realization.
It has of course seemed necessary for theologians to defend the miracles, especially those of the New Testament, but their explanations have failed to satisfy either heart or intellect. Too often were sufferers told that while Jesus undoubtedly healed the sick and raised the dead, we must not look for any recurrence of such experiences at this day. This was indeed cold comfort to those in distress, those who, as frequently happens, had exhausted all material means before they began to think of the possibilities of cure on the divine side. It was also peculiarly unfortunate if the sufferers were reasoners and close students of the Bible, since the great Teacher gave no hint that the healing work which he had inaugurated was to cease until the new heaven and new earth appeared, and sin, sorrow, pain, and death were annihilated. So far from this being the case, the thoughtful were confronted with the emphatic declaration of Christ Jesus that not only should we look for works (or miracles) such as the Father had performed through him, but even "greater works."
Happily for humanity, one was found spiritual enough and brave enough to launch out upon the deep in order to discover the law by which the miracles of Christ Jesus were wrought, and as a result we have this statement by Mrs. Eddy, the correctness of which has been proved in the healing of unnumbered thousands. It reads: "A miracle fulfils God's law, but does not violate that law. . . . The miracle introduces no disorder, but unfolds the primal order, establishing the Science of God's unchangeable law" (Science and Health, p. 134). It is quite true that some theologians have admitted the operation of a divine law in the healing work of Christ Jesus, but they have failed to see that there can be no divine laws which are antagonistic to each other. Trench comes very near to the truth when he says that sickness, not health, is abnormal, but he goes on to say that we should see in a miracle "the neutralization of a lower law, the suspension of it for a time by a higher." With this in view, one would naturally fail to see the logical demand for the perpetual operation of the law which heals, and one who believes in the "lower law" might be tempted to fall back upon "suggestion" in seeking to account for the works of Christ Jesus, or those which are done in Christian Science through the spiritually scientific understanding of his teachings.
