examine the guard; in fact they had unrivalled opportunities of sifting the whole matter on the spot, and no doubt they did so. The result was that they not only believed, but were ready to die for their belief. They became the most devoted of missionaries. These men were Jews, the most bigoted and obstinately conservative people the world has ever known." Nor would hallucination tally, under the circumstances, with the extraordinary spread of the new religion as recorded by Tacitus and other writers, this new religion not only giving to men the highest morality, but also wonderfully affecting their intellectual and spiritual perceptions. The theory of hallucination cannot be accepted by science, for it is not adequate to the supposed effect. Nor can the belief in the Christian miracles be accounted for by what has been termed the Mythopoetic theory. It has been pointed out that myths and accretions require for their success several conditions: they require a considerable lapse of years, a people in a very rudimentary state of intelligence and training, and a very great dearth of historical information concerning the age in which the myth was supposed to originate. But in the case we are considering not one of these was fulfilled. The narrative of Christ's life and death and resurrection has been told and quoted from the beginning just as it is to-day. The times were those of a high civilization and literary culture, in which the Roman province of Judea shared. The age was specially that of history, of Tacitus, Pliny, Josephus, Philo, Livy. The mythic theory is negatived by the facts. Science declares that every effect presupposes an adequate cause. The spread of Christianity presupposes an adequate cause. The truth of the testimony is an adequate cause, and no other can be found! A geologist, looking at a rock, observes certain markings. He knows that these striæ might be produced by ice, and in the absence of ice is unaware of any competent cause, and he therefore decides that ice is actually the cause. Similarly, in view of the spread of Christianity, science decides that the testimony to the Christian miracles (of which this was an effect) was true, and therefore that these miracles were true. We here complete our scientific investigation of Bible * Drawbridge. + E.g., the Hebrews and the philosophical Greeks both denoted "wind and "spirit" by one and the same word; similarly there was but one word for "breath" and "soul." They had not the distinctive words, because they had not the distinctive ideas; Christianity has given them to us. Miracles. It has embraced* (1) the nature of the phenomenon ; (2) the conditions under which it is alleged to have occurred; (3) the character of the testimony to its occurrence. To the inquiry-Were the Bible miracles probable? science answers in the affirmative. To the further inquiry-Did they actually occur? the answer of science is again, and very emphatically, in the affirmative. If we liken them to gold, she has made her assay and says the gold is pure. Or the Bible miracles may be compared to a string of pearls. If science seeks to know whether the pearls are genuine, she may apply chemical and other tests to the examination of their character; she may search into the conditions and circumstances in which the alleged pearls were found. Were they first found in an oyster, or in some manufacturing laboratory? And she may investigate the testimony of experts. Should the result of any one of these examinations affirm the genuineness of the pearls, science will be slow to believe that they are "paste"; if all the results declare their genuineness, science will not hesitate to say that they are true pearls. This, as we have seen, is the case of the Bible miracles. Science, therefore, affirms their actual occurrence. With regard to other "miracles," science is ready to investigate them and apply her tests. She welcomes every new fact, bidding her disciples not to neglect it, not to permit prejudice to block the way of truth. Her exhortation, to-day not less than in the past, is Ερχεσθε καὶ Ἴδετε. APPENDIX. On Miraculous Occurrences and "Miracles" other than those Recorded in Holy Writ. From time to time events have taken place in human history which have been called "miracles," but when scientifically investigated have been discovered to be no miracles at all. Of such were the supposed marvels in connection with the Punic War related by Livy, the prodigies described by Virgil,† the "miracles" wrought in the ages most appropriately termed dark," "miracles" by Apollonius, and those performed at the tomb of the Abbé Paris, etc.,-the etc. including various modern * See p. 99. To the actual witnesses the class of evidence (3) would be even stronger than it is to us. But on the other hand, the class of evidence (1) is stronger to us than to them. + Georgics, Line 461 in Book i. impostures. False miracles are frequently counterfeits or absurdities, or ascribable to collusion, and performed in the interest of some powerful class. Commonly they are published in times and places far distant from those when and where they are alleged to have occurred. They shun investigation. They never require the supernatural for their explanation. If not impudent impostures they are accounted for by natural causes (including psychic and mental forces). They are well discussed by Lias,* and also by Bishop Douglas in The Criterion. They fail to satisfy the tests of science. Among really miraculous occurrences are some prayer-answers, fulfilments of prophecy going on before our eyes, and special providences. Of a false, or at any rate doubtful, character are second-sight and clairvoyance, as also what are known as spiritualistic phenomena. See, on these subjects, an interesting paper by Dr. Schofield on "Science and the Unseen World." None of them is to be rejected without examination, none is to be condemned without a fair trial. Science is ready with her tests; her attitude towards Miracles-true, or false-is always that of investigation. Ερχεσθε καὶ Ἴδετε. DISCUSSION. The Rev. A. IRVING, D.Sc., B.A., thought that, having had no share in the competition for "the Gunning Prize," he could the more readily propose a vote of thanks to the author of the essay just read, and congratulate the Victoria Institute upon the considerable value, the wide range of thought which it covered, and the catholic fairness of its tone in arriving at general conclusions. As the result of many years of study of such questions as were dealt with his interest in them having been stimulated many years ago by the personal influence of Archbishop Benson of Canterbury, and continually refreshed and invigorated by his own scientific work at Wellington College-he had arrived at, and for years advocated, views similar to those of the author of the essay. He had, in years gone by, observed with much satisfaction a * Are Miracles Credible? + Printed in the Strand, in 1754. Read before the Victoria Institute, January 18th, 1909. tendency in the young keen minds of some, who had been serious students of science at the Universities, to turn away from the narrow materialism of the last generation towards a more reverent hesitancy in asserting anything like dogmatic certainty or finality in conclusions, which seemed for the time to be warranted with the advance of scientific discovery and thought, and yet seemed to present insuperable difficulties to the acceptance of the great Christian verities, because these rested upon evidence which appealed to a præterscientific range of consciousness. He would remind those present that within the range of the human consciousness there are many things which appeal to what transcends those generalisations and conceptions at which the student of nature and of natural laws arrived from the study of material things; laws of the universe of being, which in fact appeal to the powers of spiritual perception in man, which constitute the region of a reasoned faith. The speaker went on to say that he could not accept the reasoning of Spinoza, which had been quoted, because a petitio principii underlies it in common with the general dictum of Herbert Spencer as to "the unknowable," in the assumption that we know enough of the Author of the Universe to be able to postulate what He can or cannot do-the fallacy of measuring the Infinite by the finite. It savoured of the intrusion of ideas of human legislation into the region of the Divine. It may fairly be contended that in nature there is no place for "Divine decrees" (humano sensu); that on fuller thought and reflection the notion of a Divine "decree" or fiat resolves itself into the working of Divine thought realising itself in life and form; and (with Mosley) that the idea of Divine creative thought ceasing to act is unthinkable. There is, therefore, infinitely more room for the introduction into the order of nature (so far as it is known to us) of modifications through the direction (by creative will) of tendencies obscured from scientific observation, than there is for the admitted fact of the modification, within more limited regions, of the course of natural events by the action of the human will. Spinoza and Herbert Spencer, in different ways, seem to fall into the logical snare of adopting a universal negative, based in the last resort on the limitations of their own powers of conception of the possible; the more reverent and safer attitude of the present scientific spirit, among the younger and more cultured scientific school, is to be ready, if necessary, to say-" We don't know." Dr. W. WOODS SMYTH said: I have great pleasure in seconding the vote of thanks to Professor Orchard for his important and interesting paper. He has clearly shown that science and men of science are not opposed to the possibility or even the probability of miracles. In one sense, therefore, the paper is rather misplaced, because while science accepts miracles it is the Church which rejects them. Therefore we should have had a paper on the attitude of the Church towards miracles. I may illustrate my meaning by pointing to the fact that Professor Huxley said that the Incarnation and the Resurrection offered no difficulty to him as a man of science, yet some of our leading divines are telling us of how difficult it is for them to accept these miraculous occurrences. Again, even in the case of Joshua's miracle of the sun standing still, Huxley said it presented no difficulties. The moment we admit the existence of an Infinite Being, it was as easy for Him to alter the movements of the solar system, as for the Professor to alter the hands of his watch. I may mention here that the eminent astronomer, Mr. E. W. Maunder, says that the astronomical, topographical and military data given in regard to Joshua's miracle all point to a truthful record. However, there is a point which arises here and negatives all attempts to explain miracles. We, as created beings, are not competent to explain the mode of operation of uncreated Infinite Being. It is out of the question to try to explain Joshua's miracle by the Lord slowing the rotation of the earth, etc., because it is unphilosophic to imagine that the universe presents to an Infinite Being merely ponderous bodies governed by the law of gravitation, as it does to us. Neither men nor angels may ever be able to explain how this and other miracles have been accomplished. In reply to an objector who contended that the miracles of the New Testament were alleged to have taken place in credulous times, he said, the days of our Lord's miracles were the most sceptical the world has yet seen. J. SCHWARTZ, Esq.-While congratulating the lecturer on his interesting paper, I would point out that there is a large and growing section of modern Christians who realise perhaps more intensely than was ever done before the inspired ethical beauty of Christ's teaching and personality, but regard the miraculous |