291 
as our own existence, is a miracle. Of course our life is marvellous,— all 
God’s works are ; but still this is not what we mean by a miracle — 
The Chairman. — I think that the creation of matter out of nothing is a 
miracle. 
Mr. Reddie. — As a fact, when we speak of “ the miracles of Scripture,” 
we do not include creation. Bishop Butler properly argues that creation is 
antecedent to law ; but the “ miracles ” we speak of were wrought after crea- 
tion, and so they come after law ; and therefore they are not the same as the 
“ miracle of creation,” if you will call creation a miracle — 
Rev. Dr. Irons.— T hey might belong to another law, although not that 
law. I pointed out two laws at least. 
Mr. Reddie. — I am prepared to maintain that miracles do not belong to 
any “ law ” whatever ; and I shall be glad to hear what can be said in reply, 
when I have finished my argument. Then we come to what Mr. English 
calls “ providential miracles ” — the swarms of flies and of locusts in Egypt. 
Now, I say that these, but for the intervention of Moses in having put forth 
his rod and summoned them, as it were, and they having come when called, 
would not have been miracles at all. A cloud of locusts or a swarm of flies 
now, however great, would not be considered as miraculous ; and, in fact, 
such things are not in themselves miracles. Besides, if we take the whole 
facts of the case, these miracles^ as defined by Mr. English himself, simply re- 
solve themselves into what he calls “ mediate miracles ,” for they “were wrought 
by God through the instrumentality of a chosen agent,” Moses. Those 
“mediate miracles,” I contend, are the only “miracles” we have to deal with; 
for I know of nothing which is commonly called a miracle, except what has 
been wrought in that way. — But it is a mistake to suppose that scientific men 
have invented the statement that miracles are violations of the laws of nature. 
It is the language of our own orthodox and best theologians. And on that 
point I must agree with Mr. Warington, I must differ from Mr. English, 
and I must defend Mr. Baden Powell. It is not often that I find myself on 
the same side of an argument with that writer; but truth is truth ; and I 
think I shall be able to prove him right, and, in justifying him, I shall give 
such high authority for the statement that miracles are necessarily violations 
of the laws of nature, as will not be lightly disputed by any theologian 
present. That language, in fact, was only adopted by Mr. Powell, and not 
invented by him ; ior, in addition to the passage Mr. English has quoted, — in 
which Bishop Butler says that “the only distinct meaning of the word natural 
is stated, fixed or seized, ’’—there is another passage in_the Analogy (Part II. 
chapter 2, § 2,) which defines the word miracle in these terms : — “ A miracle, 
-in its very notion, is relative to a course of nature, and implies somewhat 
different from it, considered as being so .” In other words, if it were 
not contrary to nature, it would not be a miracle. But to turn water 
into wine is a miracle. You may deny the fact of the miracle ; but 
if you admit it, its character is unquestionably this, that it is contrary 
to that stated course of nature by which the water would remain in 
statu quo : it is a violation of this ordinary course, or “ law,” of nature ; and 
