2G5 
a physical substance, then would physics be the first and the 
only philosophy ; but if there be an immaterial and unmoved 
essence which is the ground of all being, then must there be 
also an antecedent, and, because antecedent, an unmoved philo- 
sophy.^ We agree in the doctrine that nature does nothing 
]3gt saltum ; theology, a term given by Aristotle occasionally 
to what he called the first philosophy, has no hostile bear- 
ing to physical science, it recognizes to the full the state- 
ment natiira non o^peratur per saltum ; but then it does not 
exclude mind and intelligence when it seeks a basis for the 
unity of science ; on the contrary, it teaches that such unity 
is to be found solely in mind and intelligence, that is say, in 
the Supreme Will oe God. 
f, 0 T£ yap 0£OC SoK£l TO aiTLOV TTO.GLV £LVUL /<CU d< 0 v// Tig. 
(Arist. Met., lib. i. cap. 2.) 
Objections drawn prom Moral Considerations. 
Having stated the principles underlying a belief in miracles, 
it remains that I notice some of the main objections to them, 
drawn from moral, metaphysical, and physical considerations. 
In doing this, I must study brevity as much as possible, lest I 
should exhaust your patience. 
Necessity of Miracles . — Lord Bacon said “that a miracle 
was never yet performed to convert Atheists, because these 
might always arrive at the knowledge of a Deity by the light 
of nature.” This remark was just. Upon the hypothesis 
of the fall of man, however, and his consequent need of 
redemption, miracles were antecedently probable* And upon 
the further hypothesis (I put the case in the least dogmatic 
form possible) of a revelation having been given, miracles 
weic absolutely necessary. MChether Mr. PowelPs remark that 
I aley took too exclusive a view in asserting that we cannot 
conceive a revelation substantiated in any other way,” be true 
or false, it is self-evident that a revelation could not have been 
gn cii except by miracle. It implies in its very nature miracles, 
the communication of truth otherwise unattainable. The call 
of Abram, which I take to be the origin of the visible Church, 
was supernatural, but not impossible upon the principles of 
this paper. The communication of sacred truth to be written 
down and deposited with the Church w T as supernatural, but 
not impossible. (I am not hero careful to draw any distinction 
between the supernatural and a miracle.) Revelation began of 
necessity by miracle, was continued and ended by miracle. 
An outward visible Church, divinely called, and an outward 
