283 
Gocl originally designed to give him, and this without any infraction of law, 
hut by restoring the true harmony of relation. I am not putting this forth 
{is a new idea, for I ^believe it is in essence the same as that advocated by 
Professor Kirk, only expressed in other words. But what is it that is meant 
by law ? I do not think we can take law to exclude usage, as Professor Kirk 
wishes ; that is, the generalization of an observed order of phenomena. We 
observe a certain thing always follows on something else. And such a 
generalization we call a law. Although we do not know why it follows, yet 
we call it a law. But this surely includes usage as much as anything else. It 
seems to me, therefore, that we must still hold that miracles are an infraction 
and suspension of natural law, in the ordinary sense of the word. It is 
contrary to the law of nature, as far as we have means of knowing it, that a 
man by his voice should call another from his grave. The means by which it 
is done may be in accordance with law. I believe that, in cases of this kind, 
we should expect to find God violating law to as little extent as possible ; but 
still there is a violation of law : it is not a natural thing that a man’s voice 
should be sufficient. If you say it is no infraction, I fail to see how, in such 
an event, you get any proof of the supernatural. If you say you do not know 
what is natural, I fail to see how we are ever to know which are miracles 
and which not. At the same time, we must bear in mind that law with us is 
not an absolute thing, but relative. There may be far higher laws, of which 
we know nothing, and we have therefore no right to say that God is 
infringing law absolutely, but simply natural law as known to us. (Hear, 
hear.) One hint, in conclusion, as to the way in which the comparison is 
drawn between man’s prayer to his fellow-man and man’s prayer to his 
Maker. I think the analogy between the two has been put too strongly by 
Professor Kirk. And in this way everything which a man asks his fellow- 
man is not within his powder, even if within his wish, because he has only a 
limited authority over nature. He has to conform himself to the laws of 
nature. Now, what are these law’s ? I believe that these laws of nature are 
simply our mode of expressing the uniformity which marks God’s constant and 
immediate action upon nature. I do not think we have any right to suppose 
they are laws implanted and imposed by God on matter, but rather the 
natural tokens of His own immediate working. Now, grant that to be the 
true meaning of law, you see at once how different are the two cases. Man, in 
order to grant any request, must bring himself into conformity with those 
law’s produced by God’s immediate action. God has no limits, there is no 
difficulty on His part, no possibility of infraction of law, because the law is 
simply Himself, and He cannot infringe His own nature. The difficulty of 
the question that appears to arise from the existence of natural laws and the 
uniformity of nature thus falls away entirely, and we perceive that the 
answer to prayer is really the proper and inevitable result of that same 
unchangeableness of the Divine nature to which the uniformity is due. 
Rev. W. Mitchell. — At this late hour of the evening I feel it necessary 
to make my observations as brief as possible. All must acknowledge that 
Professor Kirk has given us a most important paper on a most important 
