285 
physical or natural science, if it also fails in this particular. Thus there is no 
valid reason why the deductions of science may not be used in considering 
miracles. I notice this point, because I am loath to see arguments put 
forward which will not bear scrutiny. There are so many at the present 
day who are inclined to scrutinize everything put forward on behalf of 
miracles, that it behoves the defenders of miracles to be cautious what argu- 
ments they use. Then to come back to the paper itself ; there was one point 
which seemed to be a little overdrawn— that which referred to the un- 
changeableness of God. Mr. English argued, because man was free, God 
must be free ; because man in his freedom did not always do the same 
things, but his actions were varied, there must be a larger latitude of freedom 
and of variableness assigned to God. If you look at the two statements, the 
parallel seems striking ; but go lower, and it seems to me the parallel drops 
out. Why is it, that man having a free will, produces variable results ? Because 
his knowledge is imperfect, and he does not know what is best for himself. 
If his knowledge of nature was perfect, if he was perfectly aware what was 
the best thing to be done, his will would be unchangeable ; he would do one 
thing and never swerve from it, and with all his freedom of will there would 
be absolute uniformity. Is not that the case with God ? Has not God not 
only perfect freedom, but also perfect knowledge, perfect acquaintance with 
what is best ? Does it not therefore arise from the nature of God, that His work 
is uniform and unchangeable, just as that from the nature of man his work 
is un-uniform and changeable ? It seems to me that this point was overlooked 
by Mr. English. I am quite aware that he adduced reasons further on in his 
paper, which account for God’s interference with the uniformity of nature, 
but I submit that this one point of comparison was overdrawn. Then I 
will make two further remarks ; first, on the essence of a miracle. What is 
the essence of a miracle ? It is, that it contradicts the uniformity of 
nature ; for if not, it would be no miracle at all. And further : that it not 
only contradicts the uniformity of nature as seen in outward phenomena, 
but as the result of scientific law. For if we can show that miracles thus 
regarded were not contrary to nature, but were really in harmony with law, 
they would at once cease, upon this view, to be miracles at all. Therefore, 
it was essential to the very nature of miracles that they should be contrary 
to law ; and so when advocates of miracles endeavour to reject the idea of 
a violation of the uniformity of nature, they are really cutting their own 
throats. One word more, as to the purpose of miracles. I take it that every 
miracle was performed, not as matter of evidence for another thing, but as 
matter of evidence in itself. I think that point has been too much over- 
looked. When you find in the Gospel history one miracle following rapidly 
after another, you cannot say each was performed as an evidence of something 
beside itself ; but you can say that there was always an object for the miracle 
in itself , — a direct object, which we must hold as the true one, the indirect 
object merely as a subordinate one. I believe these two points have not been 
thrown out in the paper itself, nor in the remarks of those who have 
spoken. I do not say they are original : it struck me however that they 
Y 
