94 PROF. H. LANGHORNE ORCHARD, M.A., B.SC., ON 
phenomena may even appear to be quite contrary to each other, 
when in reality they work in harmony and are in fact mutually 
promotive; for example, the motion of any part of a carriage 
wheel is continually taking opposite directions, yet these 
opposite motions assist each other, and harmoniously work to 
set forward the motion of the carriage in a straight line. 
It is interesting to notice, as illustrating the cogency of his 
argument, that Hume himself admits that (according to his 
principles) “the Indian who refused to believe that water 
could freeze reasoned justly.” His error lay, Hume thinks, 
in bis not taking account of the new* conditions, conditions 
different from those of Siam ; and Hume’s own error lies in the 
same direction. 
Spinoza also answers himself when he declares that by 
an impossible thing he means anything supposed to happen 
‘in nature at large” repugnant to its laws, for the laws of 
nature being the laws of God, such an event would be “ equally 
repugnant to the decrees and intelligence of God”; and tells 
us that by “nature at large” he means not matter merely but 
“an infinity of other things as well.”’f 
Another argument, besides those which have been considered, 
is sometimes adduced against the possibility of miracles, namely, 
that they are inconceivable. Although H. Spencer sought to 
erect conceivability into the decisive test of truth, Mill has 
shown shat it is not anything of the sort, and therefore there is 
nothing in the argument based upon it. He points out that 
our conceivability varies with our knowledge. Things now 
familiar, ¢g., antipodes, and talking by lightning, once seemed 
inconceivable. 
There remains yet an objection—it cannot be termed an 
argument—against the possibility of miracles, which is 
cherished by a certain type of mind. It consists in simple 
denial. “Miracles do not happen.” By a sweeping statement 
devoid of all proof the question is settled. Even M. Arnold 
was not ashamed to resort to alogism of this description. 
Another alogist, R. W. Macan (in his essay on The Resurrection 
of Christ, 1877, p. 116, note) asserts that “If miracles are 
possible, history is impossible,’—an assumption which begs 
the question. Westcott (in his Gospel of the Resurrection, 4th 
* See Lnquiry, Sec. X. 
t “Me hic per Naturam non intelligere solam materiam, ejusque 
affectiones, sed preter materiam, alia infinita” (Zractatus . . De Miraculis, 
Cc. Vi). 
