54 



DR. LUDWIG TOX GERDTELL, OX 



sees fit to create some new fact. But scientific knowledge is 

 continually changing and growing. Hence, an occurrence cannot 

 be described as a " miracle " because it does not come within the 

 circle of our scientific knowledge. Dr. von Gerdtell's definition of 

 a miracle is inadecjuate, and, of course, he did not intend it to be 

 taken as logically and scientifically sufficient. The freezing of 

 water would not be a miracle to the King of Bantam, merely 

 because he did not understand it. If I may venture to describe a 

 miracle, I should say it is an effect produced in the sphere of the 

 natural by a force in that of the supernatural. Our Lord's miracles 

 of healing the blind and restoring limbs to the maimed cannot be 

 explained l)y natural laws, and could not have been an impositiDn 

 upon the ignorance of the observers. It was the power of the 

 supernatural breaking through into the sphere of the natiu'al. 

 There is nothing contrary to reason in this, although it may be 

 above the sphere of reason. Our Creator, having given freedom to 

 our wills, cannot be less free than we are, and if we are able to 

 modify the operation of natural laws, surely we must allow to Him 

 a still greater power. 



The miracles of our Lord were the exercise of the divine 

 freedom to overrule and supersede mere natural law by the intro- 

 duction of. supernatural power. 



A cordial vote of thanks to the Lecturer was put to the meeting 

 and carried unanimously. 



Professor Langhorxe Orchard, M.A., B.Sc, wrote : — In this 

 thoughtful and interesting paper the able author has estabhshed 

 his contention that the " laws of nature," or uniform natural 

 sequences, do not preclude the possibility of miracle. He might 

 have carried the argument further, and shown that science affirms 

 that miracles have actually taken place. AVe shall undoubtedly 

 agree Avith his conclusion (page 45) that " a present system of 

 natural law " can — " strictly speaking — never pledge the past or 

 future." 



The value of the paper is impaired by what is, in my judgment, a 

 serious misnomer. The reasoning process described by the author 

 as springing up from the three roots of association, inquiry, 

 experience, is a very different thing from " the causal principle " or 

 " the law of causation." This principle is innate to the mind. 

 Being a primary intuition, it is the root of inquiry, and is 



