270 
think for one moment npon the fact of absence or defect in the 
powers and capacities of ten thousand created beings, even 
in this age, when progress has got so far as to have forwarded 
man, according to some, from an ape or monkey beginning, to 
what he is now. The different grades of animals beneath us 
are wanting in that higher enjoyment which, with a more 
“ perfect ” nature, they might have had. All sentient and 
living beings are “imperfect” and limited in their natures. 
What follows then ? Why we have, according to the Theist’s 
objection to miracles, ground to impeach the “Divine wisdom ;” 
the “established order of things” bears marks of “imper- 
fection,” that is to say, metaphysical evil ; for 
There’s nothing situate under heaven’s eye, 
But hath its hounds in earth, in sea, in sky. 
But we find, besides “ imperfection,” also pain ; here again, 
therefore, the “ Divine perfections ” are at variance, according 
to the objector, with the “ established order of things,” for it 
is “clogged” with physical evil. There are, it is true, com- 
pensating considerations ; enjoyment may be heightened by 
suffering, and even death itself rendered easy by a little pre- 
paration on a bed of pain ; yet the fact of death and previous 
suffering remains, that is to say, physical evil. And, further, 
the Theisfc has also moral evil to “ clog ” his own system. He 
is troubled, not only with imperfections , with suffering , but 
also with sin. Man came into existence like other organized 
beings, we believe, under a law suited to him as a moral agent ; 
he was endued with knowledge and understanding, with free- 
dom to obey or disobey. But he did not follow the law of his 
nature — he does not do so now — he violates that law and falls 
into sin. “ What then shall we say to these things ? Shall 
the thing formed (man with a free-will leading him into sin) 
say to Him who formed it, Why hast thou made me thus?” 
This charge would be as reasonable as that against “ Divine 
wisdom,” against “ our ideas of the Divine perfections,” on 
the hypothesis of miracles. “ The order of things ” is not 
freed from “ imperfections ” when miracles are taken out of 
the way. 
As to the unchangeableness of God, it has no special bearing 
upon the question of miracles. The Theist, or the advocate 
of “ continuity,” is as much open to its difficulties as the 
Christian apologist. If God, from all eternity, purposed that 
the race of man should make progress from an obscure begin- 
ning, He may also have purposed that miracles should have 
their place and use on the great theatre of time. God must 
have a purpose, and that purpose must be fixed ; but it may 
