CHAPTER VI. THE OBJECTION THAT MIRACLES ARE CONTRARY TO REASON CONSIDERED.

Under this head are included the whole of that class of objections which extend from the direct assertion of the impossibility of miracles to the affirmation that even if their possibility is conceded, they are so extremely improbable that it is a violation of the first principles of our reason to believe in their actual occurrence. They are alleged to be violations and contradictions of the laws of nature, and as such to be incredible, as the stability of its laws is founded on a universal experience. This unquestionably forms the most formidable difficulty in the way of the acceptance of miracles, as actual occurrences, at the present day, and therefore demands a careful consideration.

The question of the abstract impossibility of miracles need not occupy us long. Such an affirmation can only be made on the assumption that our reason is inadequate to affirm the existence of such a being as a personal God. If this can be established, the whole argument is ended for all practical purposes. It may be conceded that the occurrence of some anomalous event as a bare objective fact is quite possible, even on the principles of pantheism or atheism. But such objective fact would be no miracle in any sense in which the word can be used in this discussion. If the evidence was sufficiently strong to attest it as a fact, it would be explicable on the supposition of some unknown force in nature, or even as a purely chance occurrence. A miracle, in any sense in which it enters into the present argument, is not only an abnormal objective fact, but one which takes place at the bidding of a moral agent. It is the union of these two which imparts to a miracle any power to attest a revelation. If, therefore, there is no evidence of the existence of a God, miracles may be pronounced impossible for all practical purposes in this controversy, and we need not further discuss the question.

The whole argument as to whether the occurrence of a miracle is or is not contrary to reason must proceed on the assumption of the existence of a personal God. It is also a proposition so clear as to render all proof of it superfluous, that if a personal God exists who has created the universe and governs it by His Providence, miracles are possible.

First, I observe that a miracle cannot be pronounced incredible, on the ground that it is an effect without an adequate cause. On this point I may refer to the high authority of Mr. Mill, that the idea of a miracle contradicts no law of causation. “In order,” says he, “that any alleged fact should be contradictory to a law of causation, the allegation must be not simply that the cause existed without being followed by the effect, for that would be no uncommon occurrence, but that this happened in the absence of any adequate counteracting cause. Now in the case of an alleged miracle the objection is the very opposite of this. It is that the effect was defeated, not in the absence, but in consequence, of a counteracting cause, viz., a direct interposition of an act of will of some being who has power over nature; and in particular of a being whose will being assumed to have induced all the causes, with the powers by which they produce their effects, may well be supposed able to counteract them.” (_Logic_, vol. ii. p. 167.)

A miracle therefore may not be the result of the action of any force which falls within the range of our knowledge. It may be necessary for its performance to neutralize the action of all existing forces by the calling into energy of more powerful ones. But their operation need not even be suspended. An adequate force, or power, or cause (it matters not by what name we call it) is present to effectuate the result; viz. the power which rules the universe, _i.e._ God. As Mr. Mill justly observes, the only question which can be raised if the existence of God is assumed, is, not the want of the presence of an adequate cause, for the supposition pre‐ supposes the presence of one, but the want of will on the part of God to bring about the result. Thus it may be fairly argued that God will not work a miracle, from the fact that He has not done so in the course of previous observation.

It has been frequently affirmed that a miracle is an act which is contrary to the laws of nature, or a violation of them, or a suspension of them, or a violation of the order of nature; and that its occurrence is therefore incredible, as being contrary to reason. A miracle need involve neither of these. The laws of nature as conceived by physical science are a set of antecedents followed by a set of invariable consequents. A miracle does not interfere with this. Its very conception involves a new antecedent followed by its consequent. The utmost that can be urged is that we have never before witnessed the presence of that particular antecedent and consequent, or that the antecedents which we have witnessed have been followed by totally different consequents. The only mode in which such a law could be violated would be, if a particular antecedent was present and no other capable of modifying its action, and it failed to be attended with its proper consequent. But this is not involved in the conception of a miracle.

Let us now suppose that the expression “laws of nature” is extended so as to comprise the forces of nature as well as its invariable sequences. Such a use of the term is very common. In this point of view, it is impossible to affirm that the laws of nature are violated by the performance of a miracle. This could only be the case if they were made to produce the opposite results to those which they actually produce. Thus, if a boiler were filled with water and a fire kindled under it, and no other force was present capable of neutralizing the action of the fire; if, instead of the temperature of the water being raised, it gradually froze, there would be a clear violation of the laws of nature, _i.e._ its forces would cease to produce their usual results. But there is nothing in the idea of a miracle that involves this. It postulates the presence of a force or forces which are adequate to counteract the action of those already in existence, and to produce the adequate result.

It will be objected that we have never recognized the existence of such forces in our previous experience. Such an objection would be valid only on the assumption that there is no force in the universe besides those which have been already recognized by us. This, however, science will in the present state of our knowledge hardly venture to affirm. Besides, it is contrary to the supposition with which we started, viz. the existence of a power able to control nature, that is, God.

Nor is the assertion correct that the performance of a miracle necessarily involves even a suspension of the laws of nature. This may be the mode of the divine acting; but it is most important to observe that it by no means follows that it must be so. A miracle may be performed by the introduction of a force which has sufficient power to counteract the forces of nature even while they are in the fullest operation. To take an illustration: It has been frequently said that the force of gravity must have been suspended in favour of Peter’s body when he walked on the water, and in favour of that of our Lord when he ascended into heaven. But this is by no means the case. The mere suspension of the law of gravitation would not in either case have effected the results in question. The presence of other forces was necessary. The law of gravitation might have been in the fullest operation, and the miracle might have been performed by the action of other forces adequate to neutralize it. The narrative itself implies that this force was so far from being suspended, that it was in full operation at the time when the miracle was performed, for the moment the power which supported Peter’s body ceased to act he began to sink.

But further: even if we assume that any natural forces have been suspended in the performance of a miracle, we are not called on to assume their general suspension, but only in favour of the particular case in question. This observation is rendered necessary because it has been frequently urged against the possibility of miracles that their performance must have thrown the whole mechanism of the universe into confusion, and involved an extensive reconstruction of the processes of nature. This would unquestionably be the case if the working of a miracle involved the difficulty in question. But I have shown that it need not involve even the suspension of any natural law whatever, and if such suspension took place in any particular case, the force might have been acting with full energy everywhere else.

The counteraction or modification of one force by the agency of another is an event which we witness every day. The force of gravity is in the fullest operation whenever we lift a weight from the ground—it is not suspended for a single moment. The ability to modify the results of the action of one force by the agency of another, or to combine many forces so as to produce a definite result, constitutes the essence of all mechanical contrivance. The self‐determining power of the human will is that which calls all these particular modifications of existing forces into activity. By means of it, the entire aspect of external nature has been changed from the appearance which it would have presented, if no other agency had existed besides the forces of nature which belong to matter. Man has been a power manifested in the midst of them. I am quite aware that he can create no new force, and that he can only control or modify the action of those which exist, but is never capable of suspending them. Yet this power has produced marvellous results on the external world, so that it presents a wholly different aspect from that which it would have done if the forces of nature had simply continued acting uncontrolled by the influence of mind. Even in material nature itself, we meet with repeated instances of such modifications of the results of one force by the action of another, as for example when the force of gravitation is counteracted by that of magnetism, or of capillary attraction. The action of no force is suspended, it is only modified.

The assertion therefore is inaccurate which affirms that the performance of a miracle involves the suspension of a single force in nature. It is consequently so far no violation of any natural law. All that the idea of it involves is the presence of a force which is capable in a particular instance of counteracting the action of those forces which would produce a contrary result if left to themselves. It is quite unnecessary for us to determine, in reference to the subject under consideration, whether the result may be brought about by a combination of forces which energize within the visible sphere of things, or by bringing into action some latent force, or one which only occasionally manifests itself, or by the immediate action of the divine mind, which, having in itself all the forces necessary to produce the universe, must possess those which are necessary to effect the miracle.

It is a fact worthy of observation that in the case of the miracles recorded in the Bible, the materials out of which the new results were produced already existed in nature, as in the miracle of the multiplication of the loaves and fishes. No act of creation was necessary. All that was required was the presence of a force or forces, able to build up these materials into the forms in question. God does this in ordinary course by what we designate natural forces, by means of which corn is grown and flesh produced. Can it be pretended that no other forces are under the control of, or exist in God, which are able to produce these results in a different manner, even while the ordinary forces of nature continue in activity?

It has been further urged that a miracle involves a violation of the laws of nature, because as it cannot be effected by any of the forces of nature with which we are acquainted, the presence of an unknown force adequate to produce one must be a violation of the laws of nature.

I reply that any apparent force which this objection may possess is due to an ambiguous use of the word “law.” It is here used to denote the order of the various occurrences in nature, and not its antecedents and invariable consequents. If there are forces in nature beyond those with which we are acquainted, how can their action be a violation of nature’s order? If God is always present energizing in nature’s forces, how can any fresh putting forth of his energy be a violation of nature’s laws? In a certain sense of the words the order of nature may be said to be violated whenever one of its forces is modified by the action of another, that is to say, an order of events results from the modified action different from that which would have resulted from the unmodified one. In this sense man is daily violating the order of nature. But this has no bearing whatever on the question at issue.

It will perhaps be urged that the resurrection of a dead man, or the cure of a man born blind by a word is a violation of the laws of nature. Whether this be so can only be determined when we are acquainted with the means by which such an event may be brought about. The assertion itself is a mere general statement that, as far as human observation has gone, dead men have never returned to life; and that blindness has never been cured at any person’s command.

But with respect to a resurrection it may be objected that it is an observed fact amounting to a complete induction, that all men die and that after death has taken place it is a fact no less universal that with the exception of a few alleged instances to the contrary no resurrection has ever taken place. It may therefore be said to be a law of nature that all men die, and that death is followed by no resurrection. This, however, if put into other language amounts to the following proposition. That it is a law of nature that these results must follow, as long as the present forces which we observe and no others are in energy. But it would cease to be so as soon as any others capable of producing such a result were brought into activity. The truth is that death is a phenomenon which is caused by the joint action of a multitude of natural forces. But if these were overborne by any force of nature, or by the Author of nature calling any unknown force into activity, or even by the energy of his own creative will, it would be absurd to call such an event either a violation of the laws or of the order of nature, and therefore to affirm that it was incredible. Death is the result of the action of the natural forces which we observe around us. No natural force with which we are acquainted can effect a resurrection. If it be affirmed that in this sense a resurrection is contrary to the laws and order of nature, the expression is ambiguous and misleading, for it is intended to be inferred that such a violation would be contrary to reason and therefore incredible.

But the affirmation that a miracle is contrary to the order of nature requires further consideration. What do we intend to affirm when we speak of an order of nature or of an event being contrary to it?

In a scientific sense the order of nature can only mean the results of forces energizing in conformity with invariable law. Every event which occurs is the result of a combination of such forces and the product of their joint action. These results necessarily follow an orderly arrangement; _i.e._ the orderly result always occurs when precisely the same antecedents and no other are present, and is invariably altered whenever the antecedents are modified to the precise extent of the modification. As far then as the results in nature are the effect of known forces unmodified in their action by other forces, they follow a definite order. Thus all the motions of the heavenly bodies present themselves to the scientific mind as the perfection of order, because they are the results of the action of known forces acting in conformity with invariable law. Whenever a fact is observed which deviates from the order which these known forces would produce, the action of another force which has hitherto been unknown is inferred. The order of nature therefore means that the same forces always produce the same results. There is nothing inconsistent with this in the correct conception of a miracle. Viewed as a physical event only, it would be due to the action of a force which has hitherto been outside the sphere of our observation.

It is clear therefore that whenever a fresh combination of forces takes place, their combined action will modify the result, and a very different order of events will take place from that which would have resulted from their unmodified action. Such modification therefore must produce a different order of nature from that which would have otherwise resulted. But such modifications frequently take place through the agency of man. It therefore follows that man has the power of effecting modifications in the order of nature, without causing any violation of nature’s laws.

But various other influences, and among them those usually designated as chances, exert a powerful influence in changing the order of nature. It is necessary that its forces should not only be combined, but combined at the right time and place, or the effect which is due to their combination will not take place; _i.e._ a different order of natural events would have happened. An illustration will make this clear. Let us take the case of a disintegrating rock; according as the different forces, which act on it, meet at the suitable time and place, the progress of disintegration is greatly lengthened or shortened. Such concurrences of events are what we view as pure contingencies. _E.g._ water penetrates into one of its fissures; this takes place in summer, and no appreciable result follows. But if in winter a frost happens immediately afterwards, it will produce an order of events widely different from that which would have happened if either no rain had fallen or frost occurred. By their joint agency the fissure is widened, or the rock split asunder. It follows therefore that the concurrence of these two forces is necessary at a particular time and place to produce the particular result. Such concurrences, though due to natural causes, are what we call fortuitous. Yet their occurrence or non‐ occurrence occasions a different order of natural events.

Further, let us suppose that a bird with a seed in its mouth, in the course of its flight casually drops it into a fissure in the rock, which has been opened by the frost; and also that another concurrence of forces has supplied the conditions suitable for its taking root and growth. This produces a new series of events, which occasions a more rapid disintegration, and modifies the whole of the results which follow. If the casual act of the bird had taken place at any other time or place, the whole series would have been different, varying with the causes which produced the seed, and the contingencies which brought the bird to the spot, and induced it to drop it. Let us now suppose that man with his rational agency intervenes. He deliberately watches for the prospect of a frosty night, pours water into the fissures, and plants seeds in fissures where he knows that suitable material has been prepared for their growth. Here a new order of events has been introduced, which, originating in human agency, entirely modify the order of the results.

It is important to observe that all theories which attempt to account for the production of living organisms by the principle of development are compelled at almost every step of the process to postulate the concurrence of forces of this description at the suitable time and place to render their production possible. These must have taken place in past time in numbers passing all comprehension. In the case of many vegetable structures the result has been entirely modified by the contingency of some insect choosing to enter one flower and not to enter another; and according as this takes place a wholly different order of events follows. Whether we choose to designate such concurrences of events at the suitable time and place fortuitous or not, the law which regulates them is wholly unknown, even if they are regulated by law. So far it is impossible to affirm that these results follow a known and definite order in nature. The concurrence of two or more such causes introduces a new series, and occasions a break in the previously existing order of nature.

Still more completely has this happened when man with his reason and powers of volition is introduced on the scene. It will doubtless be objected by our materialistic philosophers, that the forces which energize in mind act with the same uniformity as those that energize in matter, and that volition exerts no appreciable influence on the results of our actions. These theories, however, contradict the experience of an overwhelming majority of mankind. Such as do so require that the strongest proof should be given before their truth can be considered as established. Such proof certainly yet remains to be given. Its advocates, however, tell us that it will be forthcoming at some future time. In the meanwhile the fact is sufficient for our purpose that man is capable of acting on nature and of producing most important changes in the results of the action of its forces. This being so, it is certain that an order of events takes place through the interference of man, quite different from that which would have taken place apart from his interference. But these interferences take place in conformity with no known law, and their results occasion a break in the previously existing series of events, by the introduction of a new one. Man, therefore, is capable of interfering with and effecting changes in the order of nature. It will be objected that all the agencies by which such results are brought about are forces energizing in nature in conformity with invariable law, and consequently that the order of nature is preserved intact. It is unquestionably true that the actual forces at work are forces in nature. But there is another principle at work which interferes with the regular course of their action, and brings out a series of results quite different to that which would have been produced if they had not been interfered with. This is man’s reason and intelligent volition. It is impossible to reduce the action of this to any known law of invariable sequence. It follows therefore that man is a power either in or out of nature, which is capable of interfering with the order of the results of its material forces, or, in the language of those with whom I am reasoning, of violating the order of nature.

But it will be further objected that man in his action on nature can only use or combine such natural forces as come within his knowledge; and this proves nothing about the possibility of the action of a power outside nature which is able to employ its known and unknown forces for the purpose of producing such results as miracles. I answer that this objection can have no validity unless it is first assumed that man is a portion of nature in the sense in which we are now speaking of it. But the proof of this has certainly yet to be given. By the word “nature,” as it is used by this philosophy, is meant the sum total of known material forces, acting on matter in conformity with invariable laws; that is to say, of forces which are devoid of intelligence and volition. It is impossible in this sense of the word to include man in it, until his entire intellectual and moral being can be shown to be the result of material forces. Nor even if this could be done, would it avail for the present argument; for however it may have originated, man’s power to modify the action of material forces is an existing fact, and produces results quite different in kind from the action of the unintelligent forces of nature.

The fact that the mind acts through a material organism, and is incapable of calling into existence any new force, does not alter the position above taken. I am quite ready to take either of the following alternatives. Man is either in nature, or he is outside of it. If he is in it, then a power exists within it which is capable of compelling its unintelligent forces to effectuate the determinations of rational volition. If he is outside nature, then a power exists outside it which is capable of effectuating these results. It follows, therefore, that in either case a power exists which is capable of modifying the order of nature. Now it would be absurd to deny that whatever man can effect, God is able also to effect; and that He is so much the more able, in proportion as His knowledge is more perfect. Whether, therefore, God works in nature, or outside it, a power exists which is capable of varying the order of nature without interrupting the action of any of its forces, or violating its laws. He also must have other forces at His command beyond those which are known to man, and can combine them and thereby modify their action in conformity with His pleasure. He must also be the primary force everywhere underlying nature, which imparts to every other force its energy and power. It follows that He can work a miracle without even suspending any of the existing forces of nature, and that the allegation that miracles are contrary to reason, because they are contrary to nature, and a violation of its laws and order, is disproved.

I will now proceed to adduce examples of these contradictions to our reason which are said to be involved in the occurrence of a miracle, for the purpose of illustrating the confusion arising from the various senses in which the words “nature” and “natural law,” and other similar expressions have been employed. Although the instances will be taken from the opponents of Revelation, I by no means wish to imply that they alone have been guilty of this ambiguous use of language. Its defenders are equally obnoxious to the charge.

After quoting a brief passage from Dr. Newman, the author of “Supernatural Religion” urges the following objections: “Miracles are here described as ‘beside, beyond, and above’ nature, but a moment’s consideration will show that in so far as these terms have any meaning at all, they are simply evasions, and not solutions of a difficulty. If the course of nature be interrupted in any way, whether the interruption be said to proceed from some cause which is said to be beyond, or beside, or above nature, it is certain that the interruption is not caused by nature itself; and every disturbance of the order of nature, call it by whatsoever name we may, is contrary to nature, whose chief characteristic is invariability of law. It is clearly unnatural for the ordinary course of nature to be disturbed, and indeed were this not the case, the disturbance would be no miracle at all.”

It is by no means my purpose to defend Dr. Newman’s use of the expressions, “natural,” “beside nature,” “beyond nature,” or “above nature.” But while the author criticises Dr. Newman, it is clear that in this passage he has fallen into a number of very singular confusions of thought.

First: The words “nature” and “natural,” are used as though they had one clear, simple, and invariable meaning, whereas in this passage they are used so as to include phenomena which widely differ from one another. We are not told what is included under the term “nature,” whether it is restricted to matter, its forces, and its laws, or whether it also includes mind and all its phenomena. When we speak of interruptions in the order of nature, we usually intend it to be assumed that volition is the cause of these interruptions. This being so, the author has included in nature phenomena which differ so widely from one another as those of mind and matter. He then speaks of the chief characteristic of nature being invariability of law. The laws and forces which regulate matter are distinguished by this invariability. But the action of mind is very different. All men habitually speak of some portions of it as capricious. Whether they are so or not, nothing is more certain than that many of our mental phenomena have not been reduced to the action of known laws.

When, therefore, such expressions as “beside, beyond, and above nature,” and “natural,” are used, I ask what nature is intended? Is it matter, its forces and laws; or mind, including the principle of volition; or both? If man is included in nature, then there is a power in nature which is capable of controlling other portions of nature, and even of acting on itself. If man is excluded from nature, then there must exist a power outside nature, which is “beyond and above nature,” and is capable of acting on it. But if by nature is meant the sum total of all the forces which exist, whether material or immaterial, then it is clear that a power must exist in nature which is capable of controlling the forces of material nature, and of compelling them to effectuate its purposes. Whichever point of view we take of it, the objection falls to the ground.

But, says the author, “If the course of nature be interrupted in any way, whether the interruption proceed from a cause beyond, beside, or above nature, such interruption cannot be caused by nature; and every disturbance in the order of nature is contrary to nature.” This passage seems to imply that an interruption in the order of nature cannot proceed from nature itself. But this is certainly incorrect. Natural forces, that is to say, material ones, modify one another; and by their combined action, they produce a series of events quite different from what would be the result of their separate action. Such a new series of events is to all intents and purposes an interruption of the previous order of nature and the introduction of a new one. Such results are produced by fortuitous combinations taking place, in the manner which I have already illustrated, at the right time and place. The fortuitous combination of forces in nature is capable of producing a new order “contrary to” the previous order of nature.

This, as I have shown, is still more evidently the case if we include the phenomena of mind in nature.

But it is affirmed, “if the interruption be due to a cause either beyond, beside, or above nature, the interruption cannot be caused by nature.” This is of course a self‐evident truth. But then it is inferred that such interruption is a disturbance of the order of nature; and that every disturbance of its order is contrary to nature. The inference which the reader is left to draw, and which is directly stated in other parts of the work, is, that what is contrary to nature is contrary to reason; that a miracle is thus contrary to nature, and therefore contrary to reason.

I observe that, although the interruption here referred to cannot be caused by nature (for it is contrary to the conditions of the case that it should be), yet it by no means follows that it is a breach of the order of nature in any other sense than that which I have already discussed. Such disturbances occur every day. It is, therefore, misleading to designate them as contrary to nature, as they neither necessarily suspend any natural force nor violate any natural law. I have already proved that there is nothing in such disturbances, or, if we persist in so designating them violations of the order of nature, that is contrary to reason. Such a use of the terms “course and order of nature” is full of ambiguities and certain to betray us into fallacious reasonings.

But, adds the writer, “it is clearly unnatural that the ordinary course of nature should be disturbed.” Here the ambiguity of the expressions used, and the consequent fallacy of the reasonings, are brought to a culmination.

What, I ask, is intended by the ordinary course of nature? Is it the invariable action of its forces, or the invariable sequences of their results, or the orderly arrangement of its parts; or does it include mind and all its phenomena, of the precise nature of the forces, laws and order of which we are ignorant, and its action on the physical universe? What, again, is the precise meaning which can be attached to the word “unnatural” in such a context, where it is evident that its meaning must vary according as we include in nature one, several, or all of these phenomena? If by the word “unnatural” the meaning intended to be conveyed is unusual or impossible, it is then clearly not unnatural that the course of nature should be interrupted in the manner I have previously pointed out. Nor if man is included in nature, is it unnatural that the results produced by its physical forces should be greatly modified by his action?

The remark of the author in connection with this subject is perfectly true, that a grain could never of itself, nor according to the law of natural development, issue in a loaf of bread; but it is wholly aside from the issue which he raises. It is unquestionable that forces purely physical could not effect this result; but does it follow from this that the production of a loaf of bread is an event contrary to nature? The result can only be produced by the combination and controlling of a number of material forces by human reason. The grain of wheat must be planted by man at the proper season. It must be cared for by him. Various physical forces must contribute to the growth and development of the plant. The ears produced must be reaped in harvest‐time. This process must be repeated until the grains are sufficient in number to produce our intended loaf. Then they must be threshed, ground, prepared for the oven, baked. In one word, the miller and the baker must be invoked to control, combine, modify and give a new direction to the forces of nature under the direction of intelligence. All this involves something more than the action of material forces. The forces of nature carry on the work to a certain point. Then man takes it up and interrupts their order, although he does so by compelling other forces to effectuate the purposes of his will. The ordinary course of material nature is disturbed in the production of a loaf of bread. A new order of events is introduced. Man is either within or without nature. In either case a power exists which is capable of producing innovations in its order.

But how stands the case of the feeding of five thousand persons on seven loaves and two fishes? The seven loaves and two fishes had been previously produced, by the action of material forces out of materials already existing in the ground, in water, and in the air. Of such materials there was abundance at hand to produce the requisite amount of food for the feeding of the multitude. The only question was how to build them up into the forms of bread and fish. There was no occasion to create one single particle of matter. As to the nature of the forces employed to work the miracle the narrative says nothing. Nor does it imply that one of the ordinary forces of nature was suspended on the occasion. All that it asserts is the presence of a force adequate to build up the materials already existing into the forms of bread and fish, that force being God. In the manufacture of the loaves and in the catching of the fish, man had interfered with nature’s order by the blending of her powers. God interfered with nature’s order at a higher stage by building up the particular forms of bread and fish out of materials already in existence, by means of forces differing from those which come under our cognisance. The act of man is evidence of the presence of a being who is able to control the forces of external nature for his own purposes. The miracle would be evidence of the presence of a Being who is able to exert a mightier influence over them in order to effect his own.

Equal ambiguity prevails in the use of the term “law.” What do we mean by law when we apply the term to nature? In physical philosophy, the Duke of Argyll tells us it is used in a great variety of senses. Its proper meaning is to denote an invariable sequence of phenomena. It is frequently made to include the conception of the forces at work which produce the phenomena. This ambiguous use of the word has been a source of endless confusion. The following quotation will furnish us with an example:—

“If in animated beings we have the solitary instance of an efficient cause acting among the forces of nature and possessing the power of initiation, this efficient cause produces no disturbance of physical law. Its existence is as much a recognised part of the infinite variety of form within the order of nature, as the existence of a crystal or a plant; and although the character of the force exercised by it may not be clearly understood, its effects are regulated by the same laws as govern all the other forces of nature. If the laws of matter are suspended by the laws of life, each time an animated being moves any part of its body, one physical law is suspended in precisely the same manner and to an equivalent degree, each time another physical law is called into action. The law of gravitation, for instance, is suspended by the law of magnetism each time a magnet suspends a weight in the air. In each case a law is successfully resisted precisely to the extent of the force employed.... No exercise of will can overcome the law of gravitation or any other law to a greater extent than the actual force exerted, any more than a magnetic current can do so beyond the action of the battery. Will has no power against exhaustion. Even Moses in the sublimest moments of faith could not hold up his arms to heaven after his physical force was consumed.” P. 44, vol. i.

First: it is alleged “that an efficient cause” (man for example) “acting among the forces of nature, and possessing the power of initiation, produces no disturbance of physical law.” What is here meant by disturbance of physical law? It is plain that physical forces would work out a wholly different result apart from the action of man upon them. Though he suspends no physical force, the action of man has produced an order of events in nature different from that which would have taken place without it, but by balancing one against the other he modifies their action. What is more, he possesses a power of self‐determination. Other forces are unintelligent. Man is an intelligent force capable of introducing an order of nature quite different from that which the material forces of nature would have produced without his intervention.

Next: we are told that the existence of man “is as much a recognised part of the infinite variety of form within the order of nature as the existence of a plant or a crystal.” I again ask, what nature? Is the order spoken of that of blind unintelligent forces, or does it include intelligence and free agency? Unless man is a blind unintelligent force, although he be supposed to exist within nature, he belongs to an order wholly different from that of a plant or a crystal. To assert the contrary is to assume the whole question. The results produced by intelligent volition differ completely in character from those effected by the unintelligent forces of nature. The one follows an order of necessity: the other of freedom. The affirmation that the results of the latter belong to the same order as those of the former is directly contrary to facts.

Again: “the laws of matter are suspended by the laws of life.” If laws are the invariable sequences of phenomena how is it possible that one law can suspend another law? It is not even true that one force can suspend another force. All that it can do is to neutralize its action. Physical philosophy is constantly attributing to laws what can only be true of forces, and even frequently ascribes to them what is only true of intelligent forces. It must never be overlooked in this controversy that the laws of nature can effectuate nothing. Forces, not laws, produce results. The following sentence will be a correct expression of a truth, if we substitute “force” for “law:” “The law of gravitation is overcome by the law of magnetism each time a magnet suspends a weight in the air.” Immediately after, we are told that the arm falls in obedience to law. It falls by the force of gravitation. When theologians use metaphors of this description they are charged with anthropomorphism. Such a charge is equally valid against the language in which physical philosophy expresses itself.

Again: The author affirms “that the solitary instance of an efficient cause, if it be distinguished from the other forces of nature by the possession of an initiatory impulse, is from the moment when that power is exerted subject to physical laws like all other forces; and there is no instance producible, or even logically conceivable, of any power whose effects are opposed to the ultimate ruling of the laws of nature. The occurrence of anything opposed to these laws is incredible.” p. 48.

What is meant, I ask, by “the intimate ruling of the laws of nature”? Even if we substitute forces for laws, the meaning is sufficiently obscure. Probably the expression is intended to mean the combined result effected by the energy of all the forces in nature. If these include all mental as well as all material forces, then the assertion is a simple truism, that nothing can be contrary to itself. But if they exclude mental force, then the results which they produce are clearly opposed to the ultimate ruling of the forces of unintelligent nature. Numerous instances are not only logically conceivable, but actually producible. The occurrence, therefore, of anything opposed to the ultimate rulings of these unintelligent physical forces is not incredible. It is perfectly true that man can only produce results through the agency of these physical forces; but he can modify their results, and so use them as to make them the means of effectuating his purposes. It is quite true that nothing can occur opposed to the forces of nature; that is to say, that, while the force of gravitation is in energy, and no other force is present capable of overcoming its power, the ascension of a human body into heaven is impossible. But who has ever affirmed that it was possible? Those who affirm that an ascension has taken place, also assert that another force was in active energy, which was capable of counteracting the force of gravitation. This assertion, therefore, is totally irrelevant to the point at issue.

The consideration of the next question before us may very properly be introduced, by quoting the following passage of the same author:

“Our highest attainable conception of infinite power and wisdom is based on the universality and invariability of law, and inexorably excludes as unworthy and anthropomorphistic any idea of its fitful suspension.”

This at once raises the very important question, whether there is anything in the performance of a miracle inconsistent with the divine character and perfections. It has been often alleged by those who deny the possibility of miracles, that God energizes in the universe in conformity with invariable laws, which express the uniform mode of the divine working. From these, as the result of his wisdom, He will never deviate. To alter or vary from this mode of acting implies that the machinery of the universe, through which He acts, is imperfect. The supposition that He has worked a miracle therefore involves the assumption that He has ceased from one mode of action and adopted another; or, in other words, that the forces of the universe fail to effectuate his purposes; or that the whole machine has got out of order and requires rectification. Any action of this kind in the case of a Being possessed of all power, is a reflection both on his wisdom and his immutability. Still further: it is affirmed by some that the love of order is an attribute so inherent in Deity, that it is inconceivable that any alteration in the existing order of the universe should take place under his government.

One objection raised in the above quotation I may dismiss summarily, viz. the idea that God interposes with any fitful interventions in the universe. The idea of fitful intervention is quite foreign to the conception of a miracle, which is described in the New Testament as one of the means by which he realizes his deliberate purposes. I shall elsewhere disprove the allegation that Revelation is an intervention of the Creator to rectify a miscarriage in his creative work.

It will also be desirable in this place to answer the charge of anthropomorphism so frequently urged against the defenders of Christianity. When they speak of God as a person, they are charged with manufacturing a gigantic man. When they ascribe to Him a moral character, or describe Him as acting in nature, they are then accused of making a God out of a number of conceptions which are purely human. This fault, if it be one, must be shared alike by philosophers, men of science, and theologians. The plain fact is, that man has no conceptions but human ones. To abandon these is to cease to think altogether. When philosophers and men of science speak of nature, they are obliged to apply to it conceptions which are strictly true only of man. We are obliged to do precisely the same with respect to God. So far all thought, the most elevated and the most ordinary, is anthropomorphic. The term can be fairly used as a reproach only when certain material conceptions or degraded passions are directly affirmed to exist in the divine mind.

The author, in the following passage, places the objection before us in a still more striking light: “Being therefore limited to reason for our feeble conceptions of the divine Being of which we are capable, and reason being totally opposed to an order of nature so imperfect as to require or permit repeated interference, and rejecting the supposition of arbitrary suspension of law, such a conception of the Deity as is proposed by theologians must be pronounced irrational, and derogatory to the wisdom and perfection which we recognize in the invariable order of nature. It is impossible for us to conceive the supreme Being acting otherwise than we actually see in nature; and if we recognize in the universe the operation of his infinite wisdom and power, it is in the immutable order and regularity of all phenomena, and the eternal prevalence of law that we see their highest manifestation.”

It is asserted by this writer and a great number of others, that the most perfect conception of the universe is that of a machine, which when once set into action shall go on eternally grinding out its results without the smallest occasion for the intervention of its Maker. According to this view, all the He has to do for the future after the machine is once set into operation, is to retire from the scene of His creative work, and to contemplate the results of its wonderful operations. Any intervention on His part would imply a defect in the construction of the machine. It follows therefore that the most perfect conception of God (if there be one) is that of a perfect mechanist and chemist, who has originally formed matter with its properties and forces acting in conformity with invariable law, and that this has been done by Him with such perfection, that they have gone on ever since evolving whatever has existed, without the need of His intervention or supervision; or to put it in other words, after the original act of creation, His presence in the universe may be dispensed with as unnecessary. The universe is therefore a self‐acting machine which goes on in an eternal series of self‐evolutions.

Such a conception may be the most worthy one that we can form of a perfect mechanist or chemist, though it may be doubtful how far the idea of having his services dispensed with for the future would be wholly satisfactory to him. It is far from clear, however, that it is the most perfect conception we can form of God. The creations of the mechanist and of the chemist are destitute alike of feeling, reason and volition, a moral nature, conscience, and spiritual affections. They may therefore when completed be left to themselves; and the more perfect the irrational machine may be, the more perfectly it will grind out its results. But many of the constructions of God possess attributes, which exhibit other qualities in their maker than those of a perfect mechanist or chemist. It follows, therefore, that this is not the most perfect nor the most worthy conception which we can form of God.

But it will be objected that even if we concede that the Creator is ever present energizing in the works of nature, and even if the forces of nature are viewed as the expressions of His energy, His action in conformity with unchanging order is the worthiest conception of Him, and to assert that He ever has varied from this mode of action is to degrade Him. Such being the case, to affirm that miracles have been wrought by Him, is to introduce a degraded view of the character of God, one alike inconsistent with His wisdom, immutability and power.

I reply: that the objection overlooks the existence of purpose in the divine mind, and that it may not be confined to the realization of a mechanical result. The purpose or idea of creation in God includes the production of both the material and the moral worlds. If this be so, one harmonious purpose, including the divine manifestations, both in the material and moral universe, may be carried out by a succession of progressive manifestations, each forming a portion of one great divine plan. A miracle, therefore, as a part of such a moral intervention, would be no interruption of the orderly action of the divine mind, but a portion of it.

But further: if God exists, He must have other attributes besides those of a mechanist or a chemist. He has created not only the material universe, but a moral one. God, therefore, must be a moral being, and a person, for moral attributes can only be conceived of as belonging to a being who is possessed of personality. It follows, therefore, that manifestations of Himself, under aspects suitable to moral beings, are as much to be expected as manifestations of His power or of His wisdom addressed to an intellectual nature. The supposition, therefore, that all His manifestations can only be made through the laws of material nature, and in an unchanging series, and that it is not a portion of His purpose to manifest Himself as a moral being, is only valid on the denial that He is one. It involves the absurdity of denying to God that freedom from the trammels of necessary law which as matter of fact He has bestowed on man.

If therefore God be a moral being and not an impersonal force, it is perfectly consistent with the highest conceptions of Him, that He should manifest Himself in the moral as well as in the material universe. This is the more necessary, because philosophy is never wearied with telling us, that we can know little or nothing of His moral attributes from material nature. As a part of such manifestation a miracle is addressed to our highest reason.

It is absurd to argue on the assumption that there is a God, and then to found our reasonings on principles which are inconsistent with it. If there is a God, He must be the creator of the universe. It must, therefore, have been consistent with His perfection and immutability to create. It follows, therefore, even on the assumption of the truth of the Darwinian theory of creation, that a new order must have been introduced, when God first breathed life into the lowest forms of matter. But if He introduced a new order then, that is to say, when He first deviated from the previous order of His existence, and performed His first creative act, how can it possibly be contrary to reason to affirm that He has repeated it. A miracle would be such a repetition, or, in other words, the introduction of a new series of events.

I fully admit that reason is opposed to the supposition of such an order of nature as to require repeated interferences with it, assuming that what is intended is a frequent meddling with it to set it right, not constant presence and superintendence. Still more is it opposed to the idea of arbitrary interruption of law. The entire validity of these reasonings which we have been considering proceeds on the assumption that the argument requires this. I care not what some Christian apologists may have said on this subject. The New Testament affirms in the most unequivocal language that revelation is the steady carrying out of a pre‐determined purpose in God to make a manifestation of Himself not only to man, but to other rational beings besides man. The objection therefore falls to the ground.

The assertion that it is impossible to conceive of the supreme Being acting otherwise than we see him act in nature, may be met by a direct denial. On the contrary the presence of evil, moral and physical, forms the greatest difficulty connected with the belief in theism. The elder Mill was so capable of conceiving that if a supreme Being existed, the order of the universe would have been so wholly different from its present order, that it led him to affirm that the proof of His existence was altogether wanting.(3) But intelligent Christians fully recognize in the immutable order and regularity of the universe and the eternal prevalence of law, the operation of His infinite wisdom and power. Unless there was such a general regularity and order in the universe, the evidential force of miracles would be deprived of all value.

It follows therefore, whichever views we may take of the mode in which a miracle may be performed, that there is nothing in the idea of it which is contrary to our reason. Whenever it is affirmed to be so, the assertion originates in an ambiguity in the use of terms, or in partial views of nature, or of the mode of the divine working, or from confounding under a common name phenomena so different in character as those of mind and matter, or by making assumptions respecting the divine operations which contradict the laws of the universe, or respecting the divine character, which reason refuses to endorse. How far the known or unknown forces of nature may be employed in the performance of a miracle is an abstract question that we have no means of determining. The agency of some of the known forces of nature is unequivocally asserted in the Old Testament to have been the media employed in the performance of some of its miracles. No such affirmation is made in the New Testament. Still there is not one word to imply that any of the forces of material nature were for a single moment suspended in their action. The only assertion made is the presence and active energy of a force capable of producing them. That force is the Creator of the universe bearing witness to the divine mission of Jesus Christ. “The Father himself, which hath sent me, hath borne witness of me.” “The works which the Father hath given me to finish, the same works that I do, bear witness of me, that the Father hath sent me.” (John v. 36, 37.)