ON MIRACLES. 229 



mtstiike of Professor Huxley, professing to correct Hume, who was right .so 

 far. He was also right in saying that undoubtedly it is a miracle if a dead 

 man came to life (though he himself did not believe it, or attempt to 

 account for the general belief in it) ; and in ray opinion it is a waste of time 

 to argue about definitions in such a case as that. The Resurrection is either 

 true or false, and there is no middle way. Moreover, if it is false, no 

 conceivable ingenuity of theologians, who fancy they can make things 

 pleasant all round by inventing clever phrases to reduce miracles to nature. 

 Can escape the conclusion that there is no such thing as Christianity, except 

 in the same sense as there is Mahometanism or Mormonism. Christianity is 

 not a ' moral philosophy,' though its moral philosophy is the best the world 

 has had. It is i2}so facto, if the Founder of it knew His own doctrine, a 

 belief in three events or facts all contrary to the regular course of nature : 

 His birth without a human father, which from the nature of things cannot 

 be directly proved, but is easily credible on the evidence if the others are ; 

 and they were amply proved by more abiding evidence of results than the 

 acts of Julius Cfesar, or even of Napoleon Bonaparte within the last 90 

 years. No rational way of accounting for the present state of the world and 

 its history for 1900 years has ever been invented, except that the miracles 

 are true. And therefore they are true." 



The second communication is from the Reverend J. J. Lias, M.A., who, as 

 Professor Lias, has already contributed more tlian one jmper to the Institute : — 



" The subject of miracles is one which, in the present changing condition of 

 science, ought to be kept continually in view. I am glad that an able paper 

 has been contributec" to the Institute on the subject. In criticising its posi- 

 tions, I do not wish to weaken but to strengthen its general testimony to 

 the truth. Mr. Watson's definition of a miracle is combined with some- 

 what of an attack on those who have defined the word diff'erently. I 

 myself, in a published Avork, have ventured to give a diff'erent definition. 

 I have defined it as ' an exception to the observed order of nature, brought 

 about by God in order to reveal His will or purpose.' But in giving this 

 definition I have not been actuated by any desire to 'get rid of its 

 miraculous character,' though, I confess, I have been exceedingly desirotis, 

 as far as possible, of ' minimising the force of the objections that are raised 

 against it.' For those objections are frequently aimed, not so much at the 

 Divine power itself overruling nature, as at the entirely unnecessary propo- 

 sitions which are introduced into the definition. The fact that miracles 

 have occurred is one which cannot be denied without overthrowing Chris- 

 tianity (at least, as far as I can see). The question how they occurred is not 

 a matter of faith at all. And, therefore, I think the defender of miracles 

 should avoid encumbering himself with any theories which may involve him 

 in unnecessary difficult}^, such as that miracles are ' violations,' or 'suspen- 

 sions ' of the order of nature. I can hardly agree to Mr. Watson's apparent 

 view that definitions are of no consequence. For, on the one hand, as I 



