New Orleans Republican., 1875-11-21
" MIRACLES AND THE LAWS OF
NATURE,
BY REV. JAMES MORROW.

Inc terms OF the proposition which ar
| to discuss limit me to one ASPECT of tn
vexed question of the natural and the su
pernatural. The unhappy looseness of pop
ular language requires that l must stat
| with exactness and scientific precision wha
l mean by the title.
"a miracle ia an effect not explicable b,
the laws of nature, produced by Divin,
agency, to accredit personal or officia
claims and to authenticate Divine revela
| ton. But IN this definition term is useC
needing itself to be explained. AS used
here the claws of nature mean those fixed
| qualities and relations of things which de
termine the conditions and limits OF second
ary causatiOn as distinguished from the
primary and Divine. By causation mean
instrumental agency or anything not of God
The relation OF miracles to the laws OF
nature is topic full of attraction to all
thoughtful minds. COleridge, the greatest
name in speculative theology within this
century, thought to overcome all difficul.
ties by simply absorbing the miraculous in
the natural; that is, by enlarging the circle
which we call nature so that all now called
miraculous phenomena would be embraced
10 it. Dr. Bushnell, his most influential
disciple on this side of the Atlantic, has
given this theory the weight of his great in.
ftuepce But carefully examined, this
scheme is but a jugglery of words. We
should have the same facts to encounter
and classify, whether we named them
natural or supernatural, as rose, if called
by any other name, would smell as sweet,
This theory, by avoiding the facts, NAV
fairly deserve to be regarded as cloud Of
sophistry raised by Coleridge in an hour of
laborious idleness.
In the recent use which has been
made by rationalists of the term claws
OF nature we recognize change
OF front on the part of the enemies
OF our faith. The attempt to pit .he
Gospel, with its array of miraculous fact.,
against science and the reign of law, is diff.
ferent from the old objection of the deists
who said: "We do not want the gospel"
But even Jean Jacques Rousseau, while re-
Jectlng much of the Christian revelation
could write thus: "if man should venture
to assert that God can not work a miracle,
It would be too great compliment to punish
him as criminal; it would be best to put
him up under lock and key as lupatic." I
can not undertake to say how large an asy-
ium would be required to accommodate all
the unhappy ones in our land If Jean
jacques ideas were carried out
The apparent demand of NJ. Renap that
miracles should be performed at Paris be-
fore competent witnesses, perhaps before
the Academy, makes valuable the following
facts This body rejected in former times:
uo uSo Va 4ululuo.
2. Vaccination.
3. Lightning conductors.
Z. Ihe steam engine.
S, MeteorOlites.
Morsl-Never refuse to verify an ale ged
fact because you think you can explain il
away.
On every hand we hear the blatant dis.
chalmers OF unbelief. With pitiful power.
ty OF thought. but in every variety of
phrase, We are told that miracles ara
simply impossible, and do not admit of proof:
that the very idea of the miraculous is an
absurdity; miraculous facts, Q mere cock
and bull story, or the laws of nature are set
against them laws with the claim that the
laws are unchangeable. But this surely
would make law above the lawgiver and
nature above God.
The dehnition which 1 have given of a
mirscls excludes absolutely all diabolicsi
agency. A miracle ia q work of God. But
no also the author OF nature and the
giVer OF its laws. These laws are too firmly
nxed for God to disturb frequently. Con
unnity OF action and perpetuated order and
harmony are necessary to create and sus-
tam human confidence. Here, therefore, we
ask: "'
l. Has God frequently disturbed the laws
2. Have miracles shaken our confidence
in their fixityi -
IN answer to the first inquiry the reply is
simple and short. Miracles were rare. One
word used by the author of the Epistle Ia
the Hebrews to describe their effect upon
the beholders was ferdta, "wonders." To
Moses the burning bush was marvel. That
fire should burn and not consume; that 4
bush should burn for q long time (this is re-
quired BY the case) and yet not waste, was
such Q wonder that Moses turned aside to
sec the great sight. But had miracles been
As thick as leaves in Vallambrosa," they
would have ceased TO surprise and could
not have been regarded a. exceptionsI in.
terRositions for special purpose. .4f7
Tho second question, "Have miracles
shaken our confidence in the laws of ma
tureF' = best answered BY "No" They are |
exeeptions which prove and confirm the
rule. When l say that they are excep-