34 Human: Levitation. (January, 
that ‘‘consequently” the other is called up? What is 
their connection ? We never could see more than between 
the questions whether a writing is true and whether the 
ink is good. Mr. Lucas goes on, “It is not the gentle 
whisper of quiet, nor the louder utterance of agitated, 
nature, but the thunder-voice of Almighty God which 
speaks in it.” (Elijah, then, greatly erred, it seems, in his 
estimates of what was in the wind, earthquake, and still 
small voice). But if some things are done by “agitated 
nature,” and others are beyond her power, and yet done, 
how many Creators or Lords have we? Evidently two, 
according to Mr. Lucas, a scientist who, like Daubeny, is up 
to the Faradayan standard, having apprehension of “ the 
naturally possible and impossible.” 
This ditheism, and the said knowledge or faculty, though 
doubtless extant long ago, our reading traces no further 
back than Dr. Newman’s ‘“‘ Essay on Miracles,” published 
about 1830, or fifteen years before his change of religion. 
He makes it one “criterion” of a miracle to have no 
physical cause. ‘The second of his classes of doubtful ones 
is “*(2.) Those which from suspicious circumstances attending 
them may not unfairly be referred to an unknown physical cause.” 
Now, granting for the sake of argument, that it is de fide 
that some events happen with no physical cause, how are 
we to distinguish these? A most important task, because 
they are claimed as the miraculous credentials of various 
opposed creeds; and any physical cause, known or unknown, 
according to Dr. Newman, vitiates their claim. Whoever 
is to apply this criterion plainly needs, no less than the 
very requirement of Faraday, the very attainment of the 
above authors—an exhaustive knowledge of the universe 
and its contents. This is only possible by inspiration, as 
Dr. Newman would doubtless allow; and as high a degree 
thereof as ever was ascribed to any; for, surely, to know 
what is in nature would he a gift nowise inferior to His who, 
we are told, ‘‘ knew what was in man.” But no less a 
facuity does Dr. Newman make necessary to any and every 
learner who will know whether to regard a given faét as 
miraculous ; though the sole use of miracle is to attest to 
him another’s occasional and limited inspiration. What it 
is to prove is the inspiration of certain words; but to find 
whether it is any proof, you must first have inspiration un- 
limited. 
Locke said, ‘‘ To discourse of miracles, without defining 
what one means by the word” (which is all I find present 
writers doing) ‘‘1s to make a show, but in effect to talk of 
