THE ATYITUDE OF SCIENCE TOWARDS MIRACLES. 97 
This reasoning evidently rests on a petitio principii. It is 
assumed that, because God works in nature, He is limited by 
nature, so that it would be contrary to His perfection to work 
in any other way. This is as absurd as to say that because a 
scientist works in some particular field of activity, therefore he 
cannot, without loss to some extent of character, work in any 
other,—that a mechanician may not be also an astronomer, 
that a biologist may not be a chemist. In fact, the limitation 
in working which Spinoza seeks to attribute to God is even 
more absurd, since God is almighty and His attributes are infinite. 
Another argument made use of by Spinoza against any 
occurrence of miracles is that this would imply an after-thought 
on His part. {t would imply that He found He had made 
some mistake which He desired to correct. It would not imply 
anything of the kind. The assertion has no scintilla of evidence. 
The reasoning is far from convincing. A belief in the 
immutability of “natural laws” requires to be corrected and 
modified. Science instructs us that there are such things as 
earthquakes and other catastrophes, that discontinuity is a 
factor in nature—that all things do not continue as they were 
“from the beginning of the creation.”  Inattention to the 
teaching of nature with regard to God does not unfrequently 
accompany familarity with her laws. And nature worship is 
not among very rare occurrences, nor has idolatry been found 
to be at all dependent upon miracles. Obviously, men’s spiritual 
and moral condition might be such that it might be more 
important that they be reminded of God’s existence than of His 
immutability. There might be urgent need to call their 
attention to the presence and power of the supernatural—to 
impress deeply the forgotten truth that God is the Living God 
and interests Himself in His creatures. It is worth remarking 
that Spinoza, in arguing from miracles wrought by false 
prophets, does tacitly admit that miracles may after all take 
place, and that he has no justification for the assumption that, 
since these miracles are injurious, all miracles are so. 
An argument for the improbability of miracles, that has had 
attraction for some minds, is stated by Wegscheider as follows: 
—Miracles are “irreconcilable with the idea of an eternal God 
consistent with Himself.” Undoubtedly God is consistent with 
Himself. The words of Hooker* are true—“Let no man 
doubt but that everything is well done, because the world 
is ruled by so good a Guide, as transgresseth not His own 
* Heelesiastical Polity, book i, c. 2 sub fin. 
