MIRACLES
whether
in
any
cases
this
obscure
psychic
force
was
an
unknown
condition
of
His
miracles
is
a
matter
of
secondary
importance.
(6)
A
second
suggestion,
made
by
the
late
Duke
of
Argyll
(Reign
of
Law,
p.
16),
is
that
God
chooses
and
uses
laws
unknown
to
man,
or
laws
which,
even
it
he
knew,
he
could
not
use.
He
thinks
that
this
would
meet
the
prejudice
of
scientific
thought
against
effects
without
causes.
This
explanation
recognizes
that
miracles
are
not
explicable
by
the
laws
of
nature
as
known
to
man,
and
that
it
is
of
God's
free
choice
that
for
certain
ends
He
uses
means
otherwise
unknown.
As
these
laws
are
quite
hypothetical,
and
as
this
use
of
them
only
occasionally
is
not
at
all
probable,
this
explanation
does
not
appear
to
make
miracles
any
more
credible.
(c)
We
may
now
attempt
to
define
more
closely
what
we
mean
by
a
miracle.
It
does
seem,
on
the
whole,
desirable
to
restrict
the
term
'miracle'
to
an
external
event
of
which
there
is
sensible
evidence.
Inward
changes,
such
as
in
the
prophetic
inspiration,
or
the
religious
conversion
of
an
individual,
however
manifest
the
Divine
presence
and
action
may
be
for
the
person
having
the
experience,
should
not
be
described
as
miracles,
unless
with
some
qualification
such
as
spiritual
or
moral.
The
negative
feature
of
the
external
event
which
justifies
our
describing
it
as
a
miracle
is
that
it
is
inexpUcable
by
the
natural
forces
and
laws
as
known
to
us.
The
will
of
man
is
a
force
in
nature
with
which
we
are
familiar,
and
therefore
the
move-ments
of
the
body
under
the
control
of
the
will
are
not
to
be
described
as
miraculous.
We
say
more
than
we
are
justified
in
saying
if
we
describe
a
miracle
as
an
interference
with
the
laws
and
forces
of
nature,
or
a
breach
in
the
order
of
nature;
for
just
zs
the
physical
forces
and
laws
allow
the
exercise
of
human
will
in
the
movements
of
the
body,
so
the
power
that
produces
the
miracle
may,
nay
must,
be
conceived
as
so
closely
related
to
nature
that
its
exercise
results
in
no
disturbance
or
disorder
in
nature.
The
miracle
need
not
interfere
with
the
continuity
of
nature
at
all.
The
modem
theory
of
Evolution
is
not
less,
but
more,
favourable
to
the
belief
in
miracle.
It
is
not
a
finished
machine,
but
a
growing
organism,
that
the
world
appears.
Life
transcends,
and
yet
combines
and
controls
physical
forces
(Lodge's
lAt^
and
Matter,
p.
198).
Mind
is
not
explicable
by
the
brain,
and
yet
the
will
directs
the
movements
of
the
body.
There
is
a
creative
action
of
God
in
the
stages
of
the
evolution,
which
attaches
itself
to
the
conserving
activity.
Applying
the
argu-ment
from
analogy,
we
may
regard
the
Person
of
Christ
and
the
miracles
that
cluster
round
His
Person
as
such
a
creative
action
of
God.
If
we
adequately
estimate
the
significance
of
the
Exodus
in
the
history
of
mankind,
the
providential
events
connected
with
it
will
assume
greater
credibility.
But
there
is
a
final
consideration.
The
purpose
of
God
in
Christ
is
not
only
perfective
—
the
completion
of
the
world
's
evolution
;
it
is
also
redemp-tive
—
the
correction
of
the
evil
sin
had
brought
on
the
human
race.
It
was
fitting
that
the
redemption
of
man
from
sin
should
be
acco-npanied
by
outward
remedial
signs,
the
relief
of
his
need
and
removal
of
his
sufferings.
God
is
without
variation
and
shadow
that
is
cast
by
turning
in
His
purpose,
but
His
action
is
conditioned,
and
must
necessarily
be
conditioned,
by
the
results
of
man's
use
of
the
freedom
which
for
His
wise
and
holy
ends
He
bestowed.
He
may
in
His
action
transcend
His
normal
activity
by
a
more
direct
manifestation
of
Himself
than
the
natural
processes
of
the
world
afford.
The
consistency
of
character
of
a
human
personality
is
not
disproved
by
an
excep-tional
act
when
a
crisis
arises;
and
so,
to
deal
effectively
with
sin
for
man's
salvation,
God
may
use
miracles
as
means
to
His
ends
without
any
break
in
the
con-tinuity
of
His
wisdom,
righteousness,
and
grace.
4.
Objections.
—
It
seemed
desirable
to
state
the
facts.
MIRACLES
the
proofs
for
them,
and
the
reasonableness
of
them,
before
taking
up
the
objections
that
are
made.
These
objections
refer
to
two
points,
—
the
possibility
of
miracle
at
all,
and
the
sufficiency
of
the
evidence
for
the
miracles
of
the
Bible.
Each
of
these
may
be
very
briefly
dealt
with,
(o)
For
materialism,
which
recognizes
only
physical
forces;
and
pantheism,
which
so
identifies
God
and
man
that
the
order
of
nature
is
fixed
by
the
necessity
of
the
nature
of
God
;
and
even
for
deism,
which
confines
the
direct
Divine
activity
to
the
beginning,
and
excludes
it
from
the
course
of
the
world,
miracles
are
impossible.
Agnosticism,
which
regards
the
ultimate
reality
as
an
inscrutable
mystery,
is
under
no
logical
compulsion
to
deny
the
possibility
of
miracles;
Huxley,
for
instance,
pronounces
such
denial
unjustifiable.
Two
reasons
against
the
possibiUty
of
miracles
may
be
advanced
from
a
theistic
standpoint.
In
the
interests
of
science
it
may
be
maintained
that
the
uniformily
of
ncUure
ex-cludes
miracle;
but,
as
has
just
been
shown,
the
theory
of
Evolution
has
so
modified
the
conception
of
uni-formity
that
tills
argument
has
lost
its
force.
Life
and
mind,
when
first
appearing
in
the
process
of
evolution,
were
breaches
in
the
uniformity.
The
uniformity
of
nature
is
consistent
with
fresh
stages
of
development,
inexplicable
by
their
antecedents;
and
only
when
science
has
resolved
life
and
mind
into
matter
'wiU
the
argument
regain
any
validity.
In
the
interests
of
philosophy,
it
may
be
argued
that
miracles
interrupt
the
continuity
of
thought:
the
world
as
it
is
is
so
reasonable
(idealism)
or
so
good
(optimism)
that
any
change
is
unthinkable.
But
the
affirmation
ignores
many
of
the
problems
the
world
as
it
is
presents:
sin,
sorrow,
death
are
real
;
would
not
the
solution
of
these
problems
give
both
a
more
reasonable
and
a
better
world?
and
if
miracles
should
be
necessary
to
such
a
solution,
they
are
thinkable.
Again,
is
it
not
somewhat
arrogant
to
make
man's
estimate
of
what
is
reasonable
and
good
the
measure
of
God's
wisdom
and
grace?
(6)
The
more
usual
objection
is
the
insufftctencu
of
the
evidence.
Hume
laid
down
this
criterion:
'No
testi-mony
is
sufficient
to
establish
a
miracle
unless
the
testimony
be
of
such
a
kind
that
its
falsehood
would
be
more
miraculous
than
the
fact
which
it
endeavours
to
estabUsh.
Or
briefly,
it
is
contrary
to
experience
that
a
miracle
should
be
true,
but
not
contrary
to
experience
that
testimony
should
be
false.'
But
to
this
statement
it
may
properly
be
objected,
that
it
assumes
what
is
to
be
proved
;
for,
while
it
may
be
contrary
to
ordinary
experience
that
miracles
happen,
what
the
defenders
of
miracles
maintain
is
that
there
have
been
exceptional
experiences
of
miracles.
If
miracles
were
common,
they
would
cease
to
be
so
described;
their
uncommon-ness
does
not
prove
their
incredibiUty.
Although
the
test
is
one
that
has
no
warrant,
yet
it
may
be
argued
that
Christ's
character
and
resurrection
would
stand
it.
It
is
less
credible
that
the
portrait
of
Jesus
given
in
the
Gospels
was
invented,
than
that
Jesus
lived
as
there
depicted.
It
is
less
credible
that
the
Apostolic
faith
in
the
risen
Lord,
and
all
it
accomplished,
should
have
its
origin
in
illusion,
than
that
He
rose
from
the
dead.
The
improbability
of
miracle
is
usually
the
tacit
assump-tion
when
the
sufficiency
of
the
evidence
is
denied.
If
the
relation
of
God
to
the
world
is
conceived
as
a
constant,
immanent,
progressive,
perfective,
redemptive
activity,
the
probabiUty
of
miracles
will
be
so
great
that
the
evidence
sufficient
to
prove
an
ordinary
event
will
be
regarded
as
satisfactory,
provided
always
that
this
test
is
met,
that
the
miracle
is
connected
with
the
fulfilment
of
the
Divine
purpose,
and
is
congruous
in
its
character
with
the
wisdom,
righteousness,
and
grace
of
God.
5.
Value.—
A
few
words
may
in
conclusion
be
added
regarding
the
value
of
the
miracles.
The
old
apologetic
view
of
miracles
as
the
credentials
of
the
doctrines
of
Christianity
is
altogether
discredited.
It
is
the
truth
of
the
doctrines
that
makes
the
fact
of
the
miracles
