293 
and the ending ” — “ which is, and which was, and which is to come— the 
Almighty .” So there is a Scriptural definition that expressly applies the 
past, the present and the future to God’s very existence ; and surely the 
very idea of eternal duration implies the past and future as much as the 
present. — Now I come to my new argument, and to what I consider the best 
way of treating this subject. We have not, as I have said, to deal with the laws 
of nature generally. Miracles never professed to set them aside ; but yet they 
have never happened without violating some particular and ordinary law. For 
instance, take the second miracle of our Lord in Cana of Galilee — the healing 
of the nobleman’s son. I am aware that the fact, that some of our Lord’s 
miracles were performed by the imposition of hands, has led to some foolish 
modern speculations that perhaps they were all accomplished by some kind of 
mesmeric operation. But, in this instance, any such notion is at once 
refuted ; for here Christ only speaks a word, when at a distance from the 
person healed ; He merely says, “ Thy son livetli.” There is no medicine, 
no natural means, not even a touch employed : only a word, and the natural 
progress of the disease is at the instant arrested. Now, I put it to any 
man, whether this can be even imagined to be the result of anything but 
the mere fiat and will of Deity ? And then, when we come to consider the 
great majority of Christ’s miracles, what were they 2 Did they violate or 
infringe the laws of nature ? Yes ; but what laws ? Net the mere physical 
laws which are invariable ; but those that atfect moral agents, and are, I may 
say, out of gear. There is evil as well as good around us : the moral system, 
we know, has gone wrong ; and, as a consequence, some of the physical laws of 
nature, especially those that affect moral agents, are also awry. Now, Christ’s 
miracles were mainly wrought to put these straight ; — not to violate or infringe 
God’s original laws of nature, but to vindicate and restore them to what they 
were at first. Evil is permitted in this world, but its author is not God. The 
laws of nature affecting moral agents are not “ invariable ” and congruous. 
For instance, there is health and disease, beauty and deformity. Let me 
interrogate any sceptic upon this point. Do you call disease natural ? But, 
if so, is not health also natural ? But they are contradictories— health and 
disease are opposites and which of them was God’s original law of nature ? 
When Christ told the man with the withered hand to stretch it forth, and 
made it whole with a word, was that to violate an original law of nature 2 
No ; it was to restore one which was already violated, to set right a law of 
nature that had gone wrong. Philosophers, whether they choose or not, in 
some cases, only to recognize the physical laws affecting inanimate things, 
cannot shut their eyes to the existence of those other laws and operations 
which affect moral agents. They cannot deny that health and disease, though 
both in a sense natural, are nevertheless at issue, and contrary and con- 
flicting. They may not ignore the existence of moral evil and of disease. 
They must go into that question if they will discuss miracles. It is not a 
matter of choice that they may overlook these things, and only regard such 
laws as those of light, heat, electricity, or gravitation ; about which we are 
always changing our opinions after all, and are perhaps most profoundly 
