58 



DR. LDDWIG VON GERDTELL, ON 



and action." If this be true must not every criticism of that 

 principle rest upon the assumption of its truth 1 

 I conclude in the words of Mill : 



" In every case of alleged miracle, a new antecedent is affirmed 

 to exist ; a counteracting cause, namely, the volition of a super- 

 natural being. To all, therefore, to whom beings with superhuman 

 power over nature are a vera causa, a miracle is a case of the Law of 

 Universal Causation, not a deviation from it." 



Dr. VON Gerdtell, in a considered reply, writes : The Eev. 

 John Tuckwell asserts that " Dr. von Gerdtell's definition of a miracle 

 is inadequate, and of course he did not intend it to be taken as logi- 

 cally and scientifically sufficient," but Mr. Tuckwell gives no proof 

 of his assertion. It has evidently escaped Mr. Tuckwell that I am 

 discussing the actual possibility of miracles not with those who 

 believe in God, but with atheists and agnostics. I can only argue 

 with the latter on a basis that they recognize. 



I think, however, that any declared unbeliever would accept my 

 definition of a miracle, and would reject Mr. Tuckwell's; for he brings 

 the idea of " God " into the discussion, which the unbeliever would 

 summarily reject as an extremely doubtful theological hypothesis. 

 But Mr. Tuckwell's definition of a miracle as "an effect produced 

 in the sphere of the natural by a force in that of the supernatural " 

 would not be sufficient even for a believer in God. According to 

 the Biblical view, which I have fully dealt with in connection with 

 the miracles in a German treatise, all natural events are produced by 

 the direct operation of God. From the Bible point of view, then, 

 the characteristic distinction of the miracle as opposed to the ordin- 

 aiy, regular natural event would be annihilated by Mr. Tuckwell's 

 definition. Mr. Tuckwell's point of view is the scholarly, not the 

 Biblical point of view, when he says, " the miracles of our Lord were 

 the exercise of the Divine freedom to overrule and supersede mere 

 natural laiv hy introduction of the supernatural p}Oicer.''^ But this is 

 beside the point. The whole question in what relation God stands 

 to the cosmos, and especially to the miracles, has nothing to do with 

 out present subject. I shall deal very fully with this important 

 point in my pamphlet " The Early Christian Miracles at the Bar of 

 Modern Views," which will be published this winter by Morgan and 

 Scott in English. 



Professor Orchard touches upon one of the deepest questions of 



