297 
miracles, or Butler’s, however much we may bow to their great intellects. 
But then we must remember there is another aspect of miracles in Scripture. 
Scripture brings before us the important fact that these, what we call in 
common language supernatural events, which force themselves on the mind 
of the observer as from something higher than man, emanate not from a 
good source alone, but many also proceed from an evil one. I think this 
was distinctly brought forward by Dr. Irons and another gentleman, and it is 
important for the consideration of the subject. I believe that Satan did take 
our Saviour by a miracle from the wilderness where He was, and placed 
Him upon a pinnacle of the Temple. I believe that by as great a miracle 
he also showed Him on a high mountain, whither he conveyed Him from a 
pinnacle of the Temple, all the glory of this world in one moment of time, 
though I may have but a very faint conception what the marvellous deed 
■was. And I know that the same Scriptures have also told me, for my instruc- 
tion and my warning, that the time will come when signs and wonders— the 
same terms used precisely in the original, for the good miracles of Christ 
and His followers— will be used by the Father of Lies for the purpose 
of deceiving even the elect. But I am afraid I am breaking the law I laid 
dow T n for others. It is late, and there is a great deal I should like to say 
on this subject of miracles from the point of view which seems to be the 
grand stand-point of many natural philosophers. I believe their difficulties 
arise from a misconception and misuse of the term “law of nature. I may 
give such a definition of a law of nature that a miracle is no violation of it at 
all ; or I may give you another definition, such as Mr. Reddie has given, 
in which there is a violation. There are things, which we need not be 
acute physiologists to know ; for though the most advanced could not tell 
exactly what life is, the merest tyro could distinguish, in most instances, a 
living from an inanimate, or an organic from an inorganic object. There is 
a general sense of the term “ nature ” which may lead us to acquire a definite 
idea of the expression <f law T of nature.” What is the distinction between a 
work of nature and a work of art ? You might find it hard to define them ; 
but if I brought before you a brick, or any other work of man, — any work 
of art, a microscope, a telescope, a watch, a chronometer, or anything like 
that — you would have no difficulty in saying, “ That is a work of art, and not 
a work of nature.” What do you mean by a work of art $ It is the result 
of the human mind acting upon the productions of nature — 
Dr. Irons. — That is the definition of Cuvier. 
The Chairman. — We have that definition, and it appeals at once to our 
intellect. I know, if I wanted to puzzle a man, I might bring a certain thing 
and say, “ Is that animal or vegetable, animate or inanimate, living or dead ? ” 
and if you take an extreme case, you might puzzle any one. I might, for 
instance, bring a model of a crystal, which I might cut out of a certain sub- 
stance, and it would be a work of art, and contrast it with a work of nature, 
a real crystal. Let us reflect upon a work of art. It leads us up to some- 
thing, it teaches us a power in mind, (and I think that is the definition Dr. 
Thornton wanted to express) — power in man’s mind controlling the powers 
