98 PROF. H. LANGHORNE ORCHARD, M.A., B.SC., ON 
laws.” But, as is acutely remarked by McCosh*, the objection 
“assumes that because nature is an expression of God’s will, 
there can be no other expression.” What is the meaning of 
consistency ? The objection finds it in natural laws, but not in 
miracles. Yet, as is pointed out by Liast, “not only is the 
principle of the counteraction of force by force a principle of 
nature, but the same forces sometimes act in the most opposite 
way.” Heat, for instance, usually expands, but it contracts 
iodile of silver and some other bodies. A charge of electricity 
sometimes attracts, sometimes repels. Virgil told us long ago 
that “This wax softens, and that clay hardens, through one and 
the self-same fire.” Itis not that heat acts inconsistently ; it is 
that it acts consistently. The force acts consistently, the differ- 
ence (or contrast) in the resulting phenomena is produced through 
the difference of the conditions in which the action takes place. 
Water when being cooled down to 0° C. becomes denser and 
denser until it reaches 4° C., and then becomes rarer. The 
change is not in the force, it is in the conditions. If, the 
essential conditions remaining the same, the effect was a 
ditferent phenomenon, this would argue inconsistency in the 
acting force; but inconsistency would be no less indicated if, 
the essential conditions being changed, the resulting phenomenon 
were not changed also. If from the sphere of matter, we rise 
to that of psycholoey and ethics, and consider human conduct, 
we recognize that the man whose outward actions are always 
the same toward the same persons, irrespective of any change 
in them and taking no account of altered relations and conditions, 
is not a consistent man but an inconsistent fool. The really 
consistent man is he whose outward action embodies consistent 
principle, who regulates conduct by consistent character. If 
this be true of man and by parity of reasoning, of any rational 
and spiritual creature, may we not reverently believe that it is 
true with regard to God that His actions are not cast in a rigid 
monotony, but are ever accordant with His character, and 
therefore take account of the varying circumstances and special 
needs of His creatures? If, then, the special circuinstances 
arose, God, in working a miracle, would be perfectly consistent 
with Himself. 
We may look briefly at yet another argument adduced to 
prove the improbability of miracles. 
From time to time in human history “ miraculous ” occurrences 
* The Supernatural in Relation to the Natural, p. 128. 
t Are Miracles Credible? p. 23. 
