92 PROF. H. LANGHORNE ORCHARD, M.A., B.SC., ON 
Maxwell* points out that “if we attempt to ascend the stream 
of time by giving to its symbol continually diminishing values, 
we are led up to a state of things in which the formula has 
what is called a critical value ; and if we inquire into the state 
of things the instant before. we find that the formula becomes 
absurd.f We thus arrive at the conception of a state of things 
which cannot be conceived as the physical result of a previous 
state of things, and we find that this critical condition actually 
existed at an epoch not in the utmost depths of a past eternity, 
but separated from the present time by a finite interval.” 
If scientists and nature herself are producers of modifications 
in phenomena, a supernatural being may be soalso. Therefore, 
Hume’s assertion that “a firm and unalterable experience” has 
established the laws of nature, that a miracle is a “ violation ” 
of these laws, and that consequently “the proof against a 
miracle from the very nature of the fact is as entire as any 
argument from experience can possibly be imagined,” must be 
regarded as no more tenable than some other confident assertions 
to which we have had to listen. An endeavour to prove that an 
alleged occurrence is contrary to experience, by the shallow 
device of excluding that part of experience which is alleged to 
embrace it, 1s a pretty conspicuous instance of bad logic. 
“ All,” says Mill,t “ which Hume has made out is that (at least 
in the imperfect state of our knowledge of natural agencies, 
which leaves it always possible that some of the physical 
antecedents may have been hidden from us) no evidence can 
prove a miracle to anyone who did not previously believe the 
existence of a being or beings with supernatural power, or 
who believes himself to have full proof that the character of 
the Being whom he recognizes, is inconsistent with His having 
seen fit to interfere on the occasion in question.” Lord 
Grimthorpe observes that Hume’s “experience” “is only the 
one-sided experience of all the non-miraculous events in the 
world. ‘A man who propounded a new scientific theory on the 
ground that it explains all the known phenomena except one 
obstinate set of them which he cannot get rid of, would be 
laughed at—or rather ought to be, and would be if so-called 
science had not become so depraved by prejudice and timidity.” 
An argument against the possibility of miracles which is 
more plausible than Hume’s, though not so well known, was 
* Bradford Lecture, see Vature, viii, p. 441. 
+ This is in agreement with Mill’s remark that a uniformity may cease 
to be a uniformity, as when a white blackbird was discovered. 
t Logic, 7th Edition, p. 165. 
