ON MIRACLES. 201 



objects made five of a similar character, we would not 

 believe the evidence of our senses. We should know, 

 either that we had been deceived by some sleight of hand, 

 or that our senses had deceived us. Testimony, thei-e- 

 fore, cannot prove that which is admittedly a contradiction 

 in terms. Thus much must be conceded. Jiut short of such 

 a proposition testimony, competent testimony, can prove the 

 occurrence of any phenomenon. It is asserted that a miraculous 

 occurrence cannot be proved by testimony ; and that, there- 

 fore, testimony in proof of alleged miraculous occurrences is to 

 be waived aside, or that the explanation of the alleged pheno- 

 "menon is to be sought in the operation of natural causes. 

 With this objection 1 purpose to deal. 



Definition op a Miracle. 



A miracle has been variously defined. It has seemed to 

 many writers that by altering the definition of a miracle they 

 get rid of its miraculous character, or, at least, minimise the 

 force of the objections which are urged against it. I cannot 

 see that, whatever definition be accepted, any verbal change 

 can evade the plain objection which lies against the thing. 

 If a man tells me that he saw a dead man raised to life, 

 my difficulty lies, not in defining what he tells me, but in 

 believing that the thing to which he deposes really occurred. 



Hume^'s definition of a miracle is that it is a violation of the 

 order of nature ; and although exceptions have been taken to this 

 definition, yet it seems to meet the case of every miracle, except 

 the miracle of prevision. The order of nature may be shortly 

 described as a succession of uniformities. Antecedents are 

 followed by consequents in orderly succession, without break, 

 or, when the succession is bi^oken, the break is due to the action 

 of a higher law, whose existence is recognised, and included 

 in our conception of nature. A miracle suspends some natural 

 consequent, or introduces some supernatural antecedent. It 

 is a violation of the order of nature. 



AVhile I accept Hume's definition as sufficient, I should 

 prefer to define a miracle as an instance of the suspension of 

 the laws of nature, or the quickening of the operations of 

 nature ; or of the suspension and quickening of those opera- 

 tions, by a supernatural agent. When the action of the agent 

 is coincident with, and in attestation of, certain statements or 

 assertions, it is a sign, and is an authentication of the 



