first lies in the words "law of nature." What is a law of nature? Who enacted that law? What Parliament met together, and by a majority of votes decided there should be that law? Why use the term "law"? Because it is something written down? But you must remember, that though "written," it is not enacted. Where is it written? It is written in our own minds. From the observation of a certain set of phenomena, we find underlying them a certain principle; and we write that down on the tables of our mind or on paper, and call it a "law of nature." But you must not argue that it is to be treated as a human law passed amongst men. It is not something to which a punishment is attached for violation;—it is not vindicated by the Lawgiver-we speak of a law of nature indeed; but there is the fallacy. A law of nature is, we must remember, not something by which, as people would seem to say, the Deity is bound, but something belonging to ourselves: it is a part of our own thought and of our own consciousness. We, having analyzed certain phenomena, find a certain principle, as I said, underlying them, and we register it in our minds as a law. But we have no business to impose it on others; it is part of ourselves. Therefore, when a person says, "I do not believe a miracle takes place, because it is a violation of the laws of nature," he means that a miracle is something which is different from his own especial observation; he merely asserts the limited character of his own observations. If a person tells me that no testimony can be sufficient to make him believe that such a thing as a miracle ever happened, he is in fact saying, "I am so convinced of the superiority of my intellect and of my own generalization, that no testimony shall prove to me there is an intellect superior to mine." We know how that was answered in early times, and a hundred years ago, when Hume brought forward his argument against miracles as being "contrary to experience." The answer was plain. What do you mean by contrary to experience? Do you mean that miracles are not what people observe every day? That is what we mean, something not met with in every-day experience; but if you mean to say they are contrary to experience in this sense, that no person has ever seen one, you are begging the question; you are assuming what you ought to prove; you say these things did not occur, and when asked why, your answer is the not very convincing one, "Because they did not.” The next fallacy to which I should like to call attention resides in the word "Causation." What do you mean by causation? The term is used in two senses, which are apt to be confounded. In the first place, causation is taken to mean, and really does mean, the sequences of phenomena which, as far as our limited observation goes, are invariable. When we find that invariably in our experience one phenomenon follows another, we say the first is the cause of the second. That is the first mode in which the term causation is used. There is another sense in which it is used, and a much higher one, which is this-the operation of superior intellect on inferior existence. Now opponents of miracles confound these two together. They say, no superior existence can have exerted itself in a manner to which we are unaccustomed, upon the works of creation. Why? Not because they deny the power of intel

lect; but they argue in the other sense, that no phenomenon has power in itself to alter the phenomenon which follows it. It is on a confusion between these two meanings that I think some of the arguments alleged against miracle are founded. I repeat, therefore, that we should guard ourselves carefully against the confusion which exists in the words "law of nature," and the other confusion which exists in the word "causation." I think we can understand what a miracle really is. It is where a superior intellect asserts itself in order to command the respect of an inferior intellect. The inferior has attained to a certain "law," by such generalization as it is capable of, but the superior at certain times steps in and introduces a phenomenon which is not recorded in that generalization, and by displaying that phenomenon shows its superiority. Let those who reject miracles

beware; because in rejecting them, they say their intellect is superior to any other intellect that can exist. They are, in point of fact, raising matter nearly, if not quite, to Deity.

Rev. JOHN MANNERS.-Since I have had the pleasure of joining this Society, this is the first meeting I have been able to attend, and I wish to make a few observations upon the excellent papers we have just heard; and first to "men of science" just a few words. I think it has been well said that we are surrounded by a continuation of miracles in nature, using that word in the fullest sense. Let us look at some of these mysterious agents for a moment or two. There is what we call the principle of fire,- there is light, and there is electricity, for instance. Now it really seems to be contrary to the principle of light that two rays or waves should produce darkness; and yet two undulations of light, one following the other by half a length or a multiple of half a length, do produce darkness. And so with heat :-two waves of heat produce cold. And so of sound :-two waves of sound produce silence. Now, this is in accordance with what may be termed the acting of recondite powers, and is in order and harmony with the general principles by which we are surrounded. I recollect when at Cambridge, after reading the Third Book of Newton's Principia, there was something seemed wanting. We talk of the law of gravitation; but what is gravity? Newton said, "With regard to what it is, I do not pretend to understand, I won't venture to say; but with regard to the phenomena, I say, such and such things are produced by it." But when we come to ask-What is it? How came it about? What is the origin of all these forces of nature? How is it that fire should burn? How is it that this electrical force does pass here and there? How is it all these effects are produced? We must answer,-Not per se. There must be something that pervades, that directs all these wonderful, beautiful, and glorious powers. I would ask men of science to tell us why, if a little bit of sodium is thrown into water, we see the wonderful effect of fire and light brought into action? How is it these pieces of potassium and sodium accomplish this? Why this strange affinity for oxygen that it actually seems to set fire to water? I want men of science to tell me in plain words how these things are produced; and I want to know why are these things so beautifully harmonized I want to know how it is there is

such order and harmony? It is not enough to tell me, it is; we can see that. But we want the living presence; and this living presence (the solution to all the questions with regard to miracles) is the Most High, who created all things according to His own will. Can you tell me how light is produced? Or what, on the other hand, is darkness? Why (for a third instance) are all things in nature circular? Whence these wonderful powers? We use the term "nature," it is true, as if we understood what is natural and what supernatural; but all these things can only be understood when connected with one beautiful order and harmony by the Almighty. Now, for one moment again, to look at our individual selves, it is quite true, what was said in one of the papers read, there must be connected with man somewhat of all the principles of the material and spiritual universe, centred in him in one way or another. How is it that words, for instance, declare "my will," and that my thoughts spring up into ideas, and are embodied in the words I now utter in this assembly? Here are beautiful mysteries, proving that my origin is not mere matter, not a merely temporary thing, not merely an advance on a monkey; but rather is it not in this way, that man is "made in the image and likeness of God"? Man feels that nothing is impossible with Him. When I go to the Gospels, I see the manifestation of the Creator on the earth, in the marvellous things done by Christ's word. When He speaks to the fig-tree, and commands it to bear no fruit; there is a power from Himself which goes forth-the thing is done; and so in all His miracles. He is thus a true light to me, and He solves all mysteries in creation by the mysteries of redemption; He brings to light the things of darkness, and leads me and brings me home to that Paradise which I lost in the Fall. So we say, again, that men of science, if asked the cause of electricity, answer they do not enter into causes, and that we must be content with phenomena. But that is no answer, and I know the best men of science will admit that there must be a mysterious power besides, which they cannot reach. That leads us up to the Eternal. In Him we live and move and have our being; and His living Presence alone is the solution of the whole question.

Dr. GLADSTONE.---I should like to express the great admiration with which I listened to the first of the papers read this evening. The second was also interesting; but I think we ought to avoid using the term miracles in the sense in which it was employed in that paper, a totally different sense to that used in the first, and not miracles in the true sense of the word. Accepting, therefore, miracles in the proper sense in which the term is employed in the paper of Mr. English, I may perhaps be allowed to make one or two remarks. The first is, that the paper scarcely went beyond showing (that, however, it proved most conclusively) the possibility of miracles. It also stated, that supposing God to give a revelation to man, not only were miracles à priori possible, but also probable and necessary, because revelation itself was a miracle. But it appears to me that supposing God is about to communicate anything to His creature man, miracles are, à priori, probable in another sense besides that which is spoken of in the paper. It is quite clear, considering the power of man's imagination and the large number of false

religions which have come into the world, that if the Supreme Being wishes to give a revelation to man, He must in some way authenticate that revelation; He must authenticate it to the man to whom He speaks, in order to give him the power of convincing his contemporaries and successors that he is actually speaking from God. Both for the man's own satisfaction and for the satisfaction of those to whom he is sent, there is required some testimony, something which the man cannot of himself produce; and it appears to me. that there is no notice of this in the paper. Now, I cannot conceive of any better credentials of a revelation than miracles-miracles in the sense which includes prophecy, which is only a species of miracle

The CHAIRMAN.-It is so stated in the paper.

Dr. GLADSTONE. If we look through the Bible, we shall find, I think, that miracles are spoken of almost universally in that way. They are the testimony which God has given to His servants; and when there has been no revelation there has been no miracle. Trace throughout the whole history of the Bible, and I think you will find this is almost always the case. There may be a few instances in which miracles are wrought, not for testimony, but to preserve the Church, and for certain purposes of goodness towards man; and it is possible we may extend the use of the word miracle to some of those cases of recent times, wherein God seems to have interposed in the history of the Church, so as to bring about what appears as a miracle, in answer to prayer, or to serve some great purpose for the extension of the Church. I do not know exactly, but it is matter for consideration, how far the great change of heart that is wrought by the operation of God's Spirit should be regarded as a miracle or not. As to what has led to such observations upon miracles as Mr. Powell put forth, I think I can better understand that feeling, perhaps, than the writer of the Essay. There is no doubt in my mind it has arisen from the great attention paid recently to the uniformity of Nature's laws. Now, that has an effect upon the mind, if we consider it too exclusively. We begin to feel that a miracle comes in as something interfering with the grand march of Nature; that it belongs to something alien, which does not come within our philosophy. We know this can be upset most thoroughly by reasoning such as has been brought forward this evening. And what is the result of this? It shows us how difficult it is to perform miracles; and therefore, supposing we have, on the ground of sufficient testimony, proof that miracles have been performed, it proves with increasing force that those miracles are not the action of chance or of evil spirits, but of Him who rules all things.

Mr. WARINGTON.-I may say that I think the first paper read this evening deals with the question of miracles more fully and impartially than I ever remember hearing it before treated of. I do not mean, that the subject is exhausted, nor the matter put everywhere in the best point of view, for it strikes me it might be expressed better and clearer; but that there is no one element necessary for the right understanding of miracles overlooked. The remarks I have to make refer to some expressions of preceding speakers, and a few points in the paper which I think will bear a slight amendment. First,

as to the preceding speakers Dr. Thornton argued, that because we could not assert our generalizations, on which our conceptions of law were founded, to be complete, we had no right to assume there were any laws at all; and therefore to assert any event to be opposed to natural laws was impossible — The CHAIRMAN.—I think Dr. Thornton stated nothing of that kind. I do not disagree with your statement, but it is only fair for me to say so, in justice to Dr. Thornton, who has now left the room.

Mr. WARINGTON.-Dr. Thornton stated that our knowledge of phenomena was necessarily imperfect in every case; and he seemed to think that as that fact made our generalization equally imperfect, therefore we could not regard the generalization as equivalent to law. I ask is that true practically? Of course, I agree with him theoretically, but not practically; and the question of miracles is a practical question. We have no absolute demonstration that miracles were performed; we have merely a certain number of probabilities. We cannot then demand demonstration against miracles if we cannot give it for them-I mean mathematical demonstration. For what does our knowledge depend on? For instance, I heard Dr. Thornton speak. How did I know what he meant by what he spoke? Simply from a limited amount of observation as to what certain words signified. I cannot pretend to lay down as a fact that those words never could mean anything else. My generalization is imperfect. I cannot say it is a mathematical law that a certain word means a certain thing. I have only probability to guide me; I take that and act upon it; and I am practically right. Theoretically, however, I am not certain of the meaning of the words said to me; yet, practically, I am right in acting as if I was. Just so with miracles. It is quite sufficient if the objector can show us a certain amount of probability against them without being able to give demonstration, for that is impossible. This is the great fallacy that runs through Mr. Mozley's otherwise able book on miracles. He has assumed that because all laws of science are founded on imperfect generalizations, therefore they cannot be taken as proper reasons for coming to any conclusion. If that is admitted, we have no real reason for coming to any conclusion on any subject; because in every case our reasons are simply dependent on probability, and not on mathematical demonstration. Then,―to take a point mentioned by a speaker before Dr. Thornton,—Why do not men of science inquire into the reason of things?

The CHAIRMAN.-It was not asked "Why do not men of science inquire into the reason of things?" You are imputing an expression never used by Mr. Manners.

Mr. WARINGTON.-I mean the reason why bodies have certain properties— why laws exist. I understood he asked why men of science did not go further, and ask why bodies have certain properties? If it is the fact, however, that we are unable to go back to this primal cause, is that any reason for our not taking the amount of scientific knowledge we have, as a fair ground and basis of reasoning? Can we arrive at the primal cause of anything? No. In any subject, the instant you go back to what is the primal cause why such and such a thing is, you are at sea; and therefore there is no blame to