By rejecting the concept of an order of nature which lay behind Spinoza's criticism, Clarke in fact went beyond the Christian Aristotelianism of High Scholasticism back to the view of Augustine, who saw no invasion of the divine world order in miracles but related them simply to our limited knowledge of this order. Unusual events do not breach natural laws but manifest the working of hitherto concealed parameters. According to Augustine, the existence of the world and humanity is a much greater miracle than all the spectacular events that astonish us because they are unusual. The only problem is that our minds are too dulled to perceive the miracle of creation in what takes place every day. The contingency of creation as a whole expresses itself in each detailed event. Since every moment and every event is contingent, it is ultimately nonderivable. Its occurrence is thus a miracle.
Essentially, Augustine argued that God's sovereign preservation of the world meant that the burning bush was no more "miraculous" than the blooming of flowers in the Spring time. Both occur by the preserving work of a sovereign God. Because we see flowers bloom every Spring, we are dulled to its miraculous nature.
I can't wait to see where Pannenberg goes with this, because I have heretofore argued that "miracles" are the proof of God's intervention in history. But, if Augustine is right, then the resurrection of Jesus wasn't a "miracle," it was just an instance of "the way the world works" for which we previously lacked a category.
I have to say, the logic makes sense, but I don't know where that leaves me apologetically.