The truth is, no consistent theist can possibly maintain such a position. The real question, when it comes to that pass, as we said before, is simply this: are we atheists, or have we still a God? And he who coolly shuts the door in the face of Deity, and shuts him out of his own creation, by assuming that nature's laws are absolutely invariable, universal, and eternal, and therefore any departure from them is impossible, under whatever cloak of science or inductive philosophy he may hide himself, is logically and practically an atheist.

But granting that a miracle is not impossible, still is it not, in the highest degree improbable, so much so that no amount of evidence is sufficient to establish the fact of its occurrence? That depends on circumstances, on the end to be accomplished, on the reason for the thing. Not under all circumstances and on all occasions is a miracle improbable

even.

We can suppose cases in which such an occurrence would be highly probable. If the occasion, the end to be accomplished, be something extraordinary and of unusual moment, especially if it be something not likely to be attained by ordinary methods, it is not, in such a case, a pri

beings, had passed away, is another clear case of miraculous interposition in

nature.

Should it be objected to this reasoning that the appearance of any new phenomenon, as the introduction of a new species of plants or animals, for which we cannot account by any known laws, or trace its connection with any previously existing circumstances, does not of itself prove miraculous interposition, it may be replied that we have as good evidence of divine interposition in the cases referred to, as we have of direct creation in any case. If the first existence of life on a planet does not imply creative power and divine interposition, neither does the first appearance of the planet itself in hitherto empty space imply such agency. The development theory of Lamarck and of the "Vestiges," and also the theory of Crosse on spontaneous generation, and the more recent theory of Darwin on the origination of new species by natural causes, could they be substantiated, would indeed set aside the argument for divine interposition in the cases above cited; but we see not why they would not also set it aside in all other cases, reducing what we have hitherto, in our ignorance, called creation, to mere development, and origination of new species by laws and forces already existing. It remains only, with Powell and other naturalists, to claim for these laws and forces an universal and eternal existence, and the circuit is complete. This point reached, and we have no further evidence of, nor indeed occasion for, a God, whether in or out of nature. Blank atheism is the upshot.

ori improbable that extraordinary means may be employed to effect that end.

Suppose, for example, that it were proposed to make a divine revelation to man of truths not to be learned from nature a case certainly supposable-how can this be done save in some way beyond and above the ordinary course of nature's operations? Such a revelation will be in itself a miracle, in the highest sense;1 and therefore there is no improbability that the mode of its communication may be something miraculous. Or suppose the greatest of all mysteries and miracles that God himself should see fit to become incarnate; is it improbable that a lesser and subordinate miracle should be wrought to accomplish this incarnation?

But even supposing a miracle were wrought, is it possible to establish the fact by evidence? Is a miracle capable of proof? No, says Powell, for it is either within nature, and so is really not a miracle at all; or it is beyond nature, and so beyond the range of evidence, and within the domain of faith. No, says Hume, for it is contrary to human experience, and therefore incredible. No, says Strauss, for the case is insupposable; a miracle is an impossibility; the inviolability of the chain of second causes is a self-evident truth, and no amount of evidence is sufficient to set aside such a truth.

This latter position we have already sufficiently consid ered. It is a position which only the atheist can consist ently hold. Nor is it to be admitted as a self-evident truth that the laws of nature are inviolable and invariable. We demand proof of this. It is a position assumed by Strauss, and those who agree with him, but nowhere proved, So far from being a self-evident truth, it is not a truth at all. The power that makes can unmake, vary, suspend. Nor even if this were so would it render miracles impossible, since, as

As Olshausen has well remarked respecting Christ: "He himself was the wonder (Tépas); his wonderful works were but the natural acts of his being."(Com. I. p. 335.)

we have already shown, a miracle does not of necessity imply any contradiction or violation of natural law.

The position of Hume, that a miracle is contrary to human experience, and therefore incredible, deserves a more careful consideration than it has, in all cases, received from those who have undertaken to answer it. We do not propose here to discuss the matter in all its bearings; it is sufficient to our present purpose to say, that neither the major nor minor premise of this argument is admissible. It is not true, as the minor premise asserts, that miracles are contrary to all human experience. This is assumed, and it is an assumption which begs the whole question in dispute. That miracles are contrary to general experience is very true; else they would not be miracles. That they are contrary to all human experience, we deny. So far from this, if we may believe anything which does not fall under our own immediate observation, instances of divine interposition have been occurring, from time to time, along a large part of the course of human history. It is beyond all reasonable doubt, that such instances occurred in connection with the promulgation, both of the Jewish, and afterward of the Christian systems. Just where it would be, a priori, probable that they would occur; just where they were needed to give authority to a religious system purporting to be of divine. origin; just where we should reasonably expect to find them. if such things ever do occur, just there we meet with them. The facts are well attested and unquestionable. The statements clear, full, explicit. The instances, though rare, yet in the aggregate, are numerous. The witnesses are many.

They were men of honesty and sobriety, of good character and good sense. They testify to plain facts, about which there could well be no mistake. They appeal to their cotemporaries for the truth of their statements; and that testimony goes uncontradicted, nay, is confirmed, by their enemies. There can be no reasonable doubt that the remarkable events to which they testify did really occur; and as little doubt that the occurrences in question were such as come under our definition of a miracle. They are

such as certainly do not occur in the ordinary course of nature; inexplicable by any known laws and forces to be accounted for only by admitting special divine interposition.

Now it is quite too late, in the face of all these facts, for the sceptic to come in with the cool assumption, that miracles are contrary to human experience. They may be contrary to his experience, and to ours; but why should we set up our individual experience against that of all past ages, and of so many witnesses. The fact that Mr. Hume, or any number of men, did not see a miracle, does not prove that nobody has ever seen one. Mere negative testimony cannot outweigh positive. At all events, it is a sheer beg ging of the question for any man to assert that miracles are contrary to human experience, when so many witnesses testify positively to the occurrence under their own observation of events, which, if they really did occur as stated, must be admitted to be miraculous.

Nor is the major premise of Mr. Hume's argument tenable. It is not true, that whatever is contrary to human experience, is, on that account, and of necessity, incredible An event is not necessarily incredible because not known to have occurred before. Is it quite certain that nothing can take place in the world which has not already taken place? Can nothing occur for the first time? If nothing miracu lous had ever occurred, in the whole history of our world previous to the introduction of Christianity, it would not follow that some events of that sort might not then occur; or that they would be altogether incredible if they should occur. Even if it were conceded, then, as it is not, that miracles are contrary to human experience, it by no means fol lows that they are, on that account, necessarily incredible.

But what shall we say to the position of Baden Powell, that a miracle is incapable of proof, because in and from nature there can be no evidence of the supernatural, while that which is beyond and above nature is beyond the domain of reason, and ceases to be capable of investigation. but must be received by faith?

True, we reply, that which is from nature, that is, pro

duced by natural causes, cannot be supernatural; but not true that in nature, that is, within the limits and domain of nature, there can be no occurrence of the supernatural; not true that God cannot, if he pleases, work a miracle in nature, that is, among material, sensible things. This point we have already sufficiently discussed. Nor is it true, that whatever is beyond the power of natural causes to produce is therefore beyond the domain of reason to investigate, and must be received, if at all, only by a blind and unques

The progress of natural science in the direction of scepticism, if we may credit recent indications, is one of the most strongly marked features of the present time. To those of us who have been accustomed to entertain the oldfashioned notion of creation and a Creator, it is somewhat startling to be informed, as we are by Mr. Baden Powell, that this idea is now in a fair way to be exploded, in fact, is already rejected by philosophic minds; that, on the high authority of Mr. Owen, creation is, in fact, only another name for our ignorance of the mode of production; that, according to the unanswerable argument of another writer, new species must have originated either by developement out of previously organized forms, or by spontaneous generation; that, while naturalists have been disposed to deny the development theories of Lamarck and the "Vestiges of Creation," and have refused their belief to the experiments of Crosse or of Weekes in regard to spontaneous generation, a work has appeared by a naturalist of the highest authority, - Darwin, on the Origination of Species, which substantiates, on undeniable grounds, the principle of the origination of new species by natural causes,· -a work, we are assured, "which must soon bring about an entire revolution of opinion in favor of the grand principles of the self-evolving forces of nature (Recent Inquiries, p. 156, 157); that the grand law of conservation, and the stability of the heavenly movements, a principle now recognized by all sound cosmical philosophers, is only a type of the grand, eternal, self-sustaining, self-evolving powers of nature (p. 151); that so clear and indisputable has the great truth become of the invariable order and necessary connection of nature's operations, moving on by grand, universal, eternal law, that not only all philosophical enquirers are now compelled to admit it as the basis of their investigations, but even "minds of a less comprehensive capacity," as, for example, theological and moral reasoners, are constrained to acknowledge its force (ib.).

We might be disposed to raise a question as to the correctness of these sweeping statements, and startling facts and principles of science; but as we belong to that class of minds which is of a "less comprehensive capacity," and as we are distinctly assured that the subject is really quite beyond our comprehension, and that it is "hazardous ground for any general moral reasoner to take, to discuss subjects of evidence, which essentially involve that higher appreciation of physical truth which can be attained only from an accurate and comprehensive acquaintance with the connected series of the physical and mathematical sciences " (ib.), we see no way but to make our bow and retire, with the best grace possible, from a vicinity so dangerous.