232 REV. H. C. M. WATSON 



Having read these communications, may I make one quotation from a 

 communication in reference to miracles sent by Professor Huxley to the 

 Spectator (Feb. 10, 1866) :— 



"It is, and always has been, a favourite tenet of mine, that atheism is as 

 absurd, logically speaking, as polytheism; and that denying the possibility 

 of miracles seems to me quite as unjustifiable as speculative atheism." 



The Author. — All those who have kindly undertaken to criticise my paper, 

 agree that discussion on the subject of miracles is highly desirable. The 

 Chairman's remarks about the denial of miracles in various classes of society 

 find confirmation in daily experience. The diffusion of a certain kind of 

 scientific education has taught j)eople the uniformity of nature, and has 

 indisposed them to believe that that uniformity has ever been violated. This 

 fact is one of the present-duy difficulties in the way of Christianity. All, 

 again, give a general approval of the paper, and some are good enough to 

 speak of it in high terms of praise. I am grateful for the kind reception 

 that has been accorded to it. In regard to Lord Grimthorpe's remarks 

 about my adoption of the a priori method, rather than the Paleyan, I would 

 say, that my argument had not reached that stage which permitted the 

 adoption of the Paleyan method (which I value fully as highly as the noble 

 lord himself). My immediate purpose (the present paper forming one of a 

 series) was merely to get the evidence into court. In order to do so, it was 

 necessary to show that the subject matter came within the jurisdiction of 

 the court. Unbelievers say, " No amount of [evidence can prove a miracle; 

 therefore, we will not waste time in hearing evidence." My chief object in 

 this paper is to show that the three principal objections relied upon to ex- 

 clude the evidence itself, cannot be sustained. In other words, that the 

 unbeliever's case breaks down ; and that the evidence is admissible. The 

 next step is to produce the evidence, and to illustrate its force. In regard to 

 the remarks of the Kev. J. J. Lias, who is so well qualified to speak on the 

 ■ subject under consideration, I have but little to say, beyond thanking him 

 for the careful way in which he has discussed my paper, and guarding 

 myself against some slight misapprehension. Professor Lias' purpose is so 

 entirely in sympathy with my own, that I accept his criticism as an 

 endeavour to strengthen the positions of my paper. I should be sorry to be 

 understood as undervaluing definitions. This is by no means the case. The 

 definitions I disparage are such only as Lord Grimthorpe so caustically 

 describes in his criticism of this paper, — definitions invented by the 

 " ingenuity of theologians, who fancy they can make things pleasant all 

 round by inventing clever phrases to reduce miracles to nature." I heartily 

 agree with Professor Lias as to the value of definitions carefully drawn, and 

 have used the term "universe " (p. 202) in such a way as to require no formal 

 definition : — " A comprehensive conception of the universe must be con- 

 sistent with all the authenticated facts of the universe." The facts of the 

 universe include — the facts of history, the facts of testimony and mental 



