296 
and 4,000 with seven loaves, and how many baskets of fragments remained ? 
Twelve and seven. Now, had it been by any “ law ” that the food was multi- 
plied, the basketfuls over would have borne some proportion to the original 
quantities of food and the numbers of the people, whereas it was just 
the reverse ; and our Lord seems to have drawn special attention to this 
circumstance, as if by anticipation to refute this theory of possible “ higher 
laws.” 
Eev. Dr. Irons. — In this order of things, that would be so ; but is there 
no other order of things ? 
The Chairman. — A very important subject has been brought before us, if 
not the most important subject that could be brought, because it is one now 
coming before all the scientific, and all the thoughtful minds in the country. 
It is the one of all others that thoughtful men now want to hear about. 
Some men require to have their faith strengthened, and others to be con- 
verted to a right faith in the matter. I must say I do think a great deal of 
the discussion about miracles arises from the infirmity of our human intellect, 
and the great difficulty we have in defining things ; or, when defined, in 
reasoning strictly upon our definitions. It may be, and it has been said 
against the theologian, that he does not give a strict definition of miracle ; 
but I want to know where we have strict definitions, even in science ? If we 
are to wait for knowledge on most scientific subjects until we have strict 
definitions, I maintain we shall find we have but little knowledge left. I would 
ask physiologists what is their definition of life ? I have heard the best-reputed 
physiologists of the day confess that they could give no definition of life ; 
and we may be excused if we can give no very correct or logical definition of 
miracles. We have to regard .certain facts and phenomena which are 
brought before us in Scripture ; and, if from God, we should conceive they 
would be such things in their nature • as to force themselves, not upon the 
attention of the philosopher merely, but of every observer. I think a great 
deal of the argumentation against miracles has arisen from the definitions 
which men have given of miracles. A miracle in itself, taking the word in 
its ordinary sense, means something wonderful : and we can understand, 
with the author of the second paper, how everything around and about us 
that is marvellous is to some extent also miraculous — a thing to be admired 
and wondered at. But on the point under discussion, in what way does 
Scripture speak of miracles ? They are spoken of in Hebrew, I believe, 
under three or four distinct words ; in the Greek Scriptures by as many, 
and we find these terms used co-relatively and synonymously, and translated 
in our version by the words “ miracle,” “ signs,” and “ wonders.” Miracles are 
signs, or wonders, — that is, signs or wonders of such a character that the 
most casual observer sees there is something in them more than man can do. 
There is no definition in Scripture about nature or violation of laws of nature; 
but there is something that strikes the observation, and shows the presence 
of supernatural power. That is the scriptural character of a miracle. I 
think it is that character of miracle which the defender of Kevelation is 
called upon to defend. He is not called upon to defend Hale’s definition of 
