authors know, after all, what are the laws of nature which miracles infringe; and that it is only a mode of speech when they say that nature is not violated:

"For although the Divine wisdom hath with great stability settled the laws of His general Providence, so that ordinarily or lightly they are not altered, yet it could never stand with the Divine administration of the world, that He should be eternally mancipated to those laws He hath appointed for the ordinary administration of the world. Neither is this, if it be rightly considered, an infringing of the law of nature, since every created being is most naturally subject to the sovereign will of his Creator; therefore, though He is sometimes pleased by extraordinary interposition, and, pro imperio voluntatis, to alter the ordinary method of natural or voluntary causes and effects to interpose His own immediate power, He violates no law of nature, since it is the most natural thing in the world that everything should obey the Will of Him that gave it being, whatever that Will be, or however manifested."—Prim. Orig. of Mankind, p. 36, folio ed., 1677.

From the whole tenour of this passage," the law of nature" being used in the singular, and explained to mean "the Will of the Creator," while it is admitted that "the ordinary method of natural causes and effects" is altered or infringed, it would seem that the author did not intend to deny (in the modern or literal sense) that "the ordinary courses (or laws) of nature are violated" by the "extraordinary interposition" of "God's own immediate power." But, if he did, then another passage in Sir Matthew Hale's work shows us that he could not stick to his own proposition; for the truth crops up in him as in Mr. English's essay, and enables us to see that miracles must refer us to Deity and the Divine Will, and not to mere imagined "higher laws." He says:

"In that administration of special Providence which is miraculous, God commanded the fire not to burn, stopped the mouths of lions, and prohibited the natural operation and agency of natural causes.”—Ibid., p. 41.

If Dr. Thornton had remained here, I would have told him that the Author of nature does vindicate His laws, when not miraculously suspended; for if Dr. Thornton were to put his finger in the fire, he knows that naturally, and without a miracle, it would burn. I will now only say, in conclusion, that I think Mr. English's paper a most valuable one, although in some respects I differ from him, and have been obliged to criticise his arguments. But I am glad to think that Mr. English himself is of opinion that fair criticism can never do any harm.

Mr. WARINGTON.-May I say one word in explanation of my remarks? I am quite aware that the expressions I made use of as to the unchangeableness of God, if taken by themselves, would be capable of the construction of Dr. Irons. I made them simply in correction of what I thought was an exaggeration the other way in the paper, saying at the same time that Mr. English had urged reasons quite sufficient to account for a change in the action of God taking place.

Mr. REDDIE. Let me also add one word which I omitted as to the miracles of the loaves and fishes. Christ fed 5,000 people with five loaves,

and 4,000 with seven loaves, and how many baskets of fragments remained? Twelve and seven. Now, had it been by any "law" that the food was multiplied, the basketfuls over would have borne some proportion to the original quantities of food and the numbers of the people, whereas it was just the reverse; and our Lord seems to have drawn special attention to this circumstance, as if by anticipation to refute this theory of possible "higher laws."

Rev. Dr. IRONS.-In this order of things, that would be so; but is there no other order of things?

The CHAIRMAN.-A very important subject has been brought before us, if not the most important subject that could be brought, because it is one now coming before all the scientific, and all the thoughtful minds in the country. It is the one of all others that thoughtful men now want to hear about. Some men require to have their faith strengthened, and others to be converted to a right faith in the matter. I must say I do think a great deal of the discussion about miracles arises from the infirinity of our human intellect, and the great difficulty we have in defining things; or, when defined, in reasoning strictly upon our definitions. It may be, and it has been said against the theologian, that he does not give a strict definition of miracle; but I want to know where we have strict definitions, even in science? If we are to wait for knowledge on most scientific subjects until we have strict definitions, I maintain we shall find we have but little knowledge left. I would ask physiologists what is their definition of life? I have heard the best-reputed physiologists of the day confess that they could give no definition of life; and we may be excused if we can give no very correct or logical definition of miracles. We have to regard certain facts and phenomena which are brought before us in Scripture; and, if from God, we should conceive they would be such things in their nature as to force themselves, not upon the attention of the philosopher merely, but of every observer. I think a great deal of the argumentation against miracles has arisen from the definitions which men have given of miracles. A miracle in itself, taking the word in its ordinary sense, means something wonderful; and we can understand, with the author of the second paper, how everything around and about us that is marvellous is to some extent also miraculous-a thing to be admired and wondered at. But on the point under discussion, in what way does Scripture speak of miracles? They are spoken of in Hebrew, I believe, under three or four distinct words; in the Greek Scriptures by as many, and we find these terms used co-relatively and synonymously, and translated in our version by the words "miracle," "signs," and "wonders." Miracles are signs, or wonders,-that is, signs or wonders of such a character that the most casual observer sees there is something in them more than man can do. There is no definition in Scripture about nature or violation of laws of nature; but there is something that strikes the observation, and shows the presence of supernatural power. That is the scriptural character of a miracle. I

think it is that character of miracle which the defender of Revelation is called upon to defend. He is not called upon to defend Hale's definition of

miracles, or Butler's, however much we may bow to their great intellects. But then we must remember there is another aspect of miracles in Scripture. Scripture brings before us the important fact that these, what we call in common language supernatural events, which force themselves on the mind of the observer as from something higher than man, emanate not from a good source alone, but many also proceed from an evil one. I think this was distinctly brought forward by Dr. Irons and another gentleman, and it is important for the consideration of the subject. I believe that Satan did take our Saviour by a miracle from the wilderness where He was, and placed Him upon a pinnacle of the Temple. I believe that by as great a miracle he also showed Him on a high mountain, whither he conveyed Him from a pinnacle of the Temple, all the glory of this world in one moment of time, though I may have but a very faint conception what the marvellous deed was. And I know that the same Scriptures have also told me, for my instruction and my warning, that the time will come when signs and wonders-the same terms used precisely in the original, for the good miracles of Christ and His followers-will be used by the Father of Lies for the purpose. of deceiving even the elect. But I am afraid I am breaking the law I laid down for others. It is late, and there is a great deal I should like to say on this subject of miracles from the point of view which seems to be the grand stand-point of many natural philosophers. I believe their difficulties arise from a misconception and misuse of the term "law of nature." I may give such a definition of a law of nature that a miracle is no violation of it at all; or I may give you another definition, such as Mr. Reddie has given, in which there is a violation. There are things, which we need not be acute physiologists to know; for though the most advanced could not tell exactly what life is, the merest tyro could distinguish, in most instances, a living from an inanimate, or an organic from an inorganic object. There is a general sense of the term "nature" which may lead us to acquire a definite idea of the expression "law of nature." What is the distinction between a work of nature and a work of art? You might find it hard to define them; but if I brought before you a brick, or any other work of man, any work of art, a microscope, a telescope, a watch, a chronometer, or anything like that you would have no difficulty in saying, "That is a work of art, and not a work of nature." What do you mean by a work of art? It is the result of the human mind acting upon the productions of nature-Dr. IRONS.-That is the definition of Cuvier.

The CHAIRMAN. We have that definition, and it appeals at once to our intellect. I know, if I wanted to puzzle a man, I might bring a certain thing and say, "Is that animal or vegetable, animate or inanimate, living or dead?" and if you take an extreme case, you might puzzle any one. I might, for instance, bring a model of a crystal, which I might cut out of a certain substance, and it would be a work of art, and contrast it with a work of nature, a real crystal. Let us reflect upon a work of art. It leads us up to something, it teaches us a power in mind, (and I think that is the definition Dr. Thornton wanted to express)-power in man's mind controlling the powers

of nature; but we use these terms in a subordinate sense. This conception of a "work of art" leads to that of a "work of nature." If I go to the highest conception of nature, I must go to this, that the law of nature ends in the will of Deity, and that is the highest. If the law of nature ends in the will of Deity, no miracle can be contrary to that law, because all the miracles of revelation are wrought in perfect accordance with the will of the Deity. If we grant Him infinite knowledge-His own book says He foresaw these things, that they are done and must be done, because all along determined upon in the counsels of the Almighty-therefore miracles are in accordance with that higher and grander view of the law of nature. But there may be a lower view; there is something so distinct in miracles from the ordinary transactions that occur in the world, that the one thing differs as much from the other, and infinitely more, than a work of art from a work of nature. All our Saviour's miracles, all those of the Bible, are of this class. But we must remember other miracles which were wrought for evil, and therefore you must import, if you follow the Scripture, moral considerations when you come to questions of miracle. Our Saviour Himself does it. The Jews said of Him, "By Beelzebub he casteth out devils." They did not deny the miraculous effect; that was admitted by the people. But how did He defend Himself? "Look at the works I do; they are not wrought for the power of evil, but for good. I appeal to my works; did any man ever do the works I have done for evil? If so, Satan is fighting against himself. But I am fighting against Satan." And here you have the moral responsibility of every man who saw these miracles, of choosing good from evil. There the moral responsibility was forced upon man, whether he would accept or reject revelation. Now let us go back to the consideration of what natural philosophers tell us of the laws of nature, and see how confined are the notions they can give us. A law of gravitation, or any other law of nature, is nothing more than the general expression of the observation of a succession of phenomena in a certain order of sequence. It is nothing more than that. If you can group a certain class of phenomena and their sequence, and express them in mathematical terms, you say you have a law. For instance you say that ponderable matter every where and always attracts ponderable matter with a force varying directly as the mass and inversely as the square of the distance of the attracting matter that you call the law of gravitation. What do we call the law of reflexion in light? A ray of light, if it strike an object so as to be reflected, will be reflected always in the plane of its incidence, and make the reflected angle equal to the angle of incidence. We talk of the law of refraction--we say that a ray of light, except its incidence is perpendicular, will have its direction changed, though it will remain in the same plane; but according to what we call the law of sines, the sine of the angle of incidence will be to the sine of the angle of refraction in a certain ratio. We might be disposed to regard this as a universal law, and it was supposed to be so, until it was found that the law was broken, and that there was a class of substances which divided the ray into two parts, and one followed the ordinary law and the other the extraordinary law. Now, all the

philosopher can do is to point out certain phenomena and include them in some general formula, and when he has included a certain amount of phenomena in one hypothesis, he calls it a law. Now it is assumed, and that I maintain shows the fallacy of the argument against miracles from natural philosophy, it is assumed with regard to any related fact in the world's history, that we can say from what we know of these laws, such and such a thing could not occur. That we can say, for instance, a man could not be raised from the dead-such an event could not occur.

Now I am prepared to maintain, upon strictly mathematical and philosophic principles, philosophy cannot say that; that it cannot even tell us that such a law as that of gravitation is universal. It is said, as a grand triumph,

that we know it proceeds to the last planet discovered; it is said it proceeds to the binary stars. Are you sure, with regard to the latter, that it is the exact law? Are you sure it is a law not varying directly as the distance? We will now test this assumption by mathematics or mechanics. If I put on the 1st horizontal row of wheels of the calculating machine in Somerset House, the number 41, under that the number 2 on the 2nd row, and again the number 2 on the 3rd row; the machine could then be set to produce a certain series of numbers for thousands of terms, in due sequence, according to a certain mathematical law; each term in succession being calculated and recorded in stereotype by simply turning the handle of the machine. A mathematician ignorant of the numbers originally placed on the machine, and looking only at the recorded results, would find the series 41, 43, 47, 53, 61, &c., printed in succession. Observing every one of these numbers to be primes, that is numbers indivisible by any other number but 1, he might assume the machine to be set so as to record prime numbers only. The correctness of this assumption would increase in probability till the 40 and 412 terms were reached, when it would be broken by the appearance of numbers not primes. Again the mathematician regarding the law of sequence of these numbers might find that they could all be included in the general algebraical formula x+x+41, by giving successive integral values to x from 0, 1, 2, 3, &c., upwards. This would enable the mathematician to predicate the numbers I had placed on the machine. But I will now give you a case in which he could not do so. I might start by putting on the machine, once for all, such a series of numbers that the recorded results should be the squares or cubes of the numbers 1, 2, 3, &c., in due sequence for any number of terms I pleased, but that at some predetermined term, say the 7,345,671st, the law should be broken. The odds that this breach of law should occur, so far as observation could determine, would be estimated mathematically by millions to one against its occurrence. In this case, contrary to the example I gave in the instance of the prime numbers, nothing in the sequence of the numbers, or in any mathematical formula which would express that sequence, could give the mathematician the slightest clue as to the possibility of the occurrence of this breach of continuity in the law of sequence. Now when man is observing the laws of nature, he does not know what is put on the original machine of the universe. There is no interposition