The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1903-03-01

There has recently been some discussion
in the columns of the Journal as to the
possibility or credibility of miracles, but
it has not brought those who believe in
them and those who do not any nearer to-
gether. The truth is il is altogether a
matter of faith. The argument that mir
ace is impossible because ii implies
suspension of the laws of nature has no
force for him who believes in God and in the
Of nature are simply the laws of God, and
the power or the will that established
them can suspend them or change their OPP
Grafton in any particular case. 1t is hard
ly necessary for one who denies the ex-
istence Of God to deny the possibility of
miracles. From his point of view there
can, Of course, be no such thing as mir
acle. On the other hand, he who believes
in the existence of God and that Christ
was of divine origin finds no difficulty
in believing in miracles, because the great
er includes the less. From logical point
of view to say that a miracle cannot ex-
list because it is contrary to the laws of
nature is begging the question, because it
assumes that the laws of nature are just
as we think them to be, and never differ
ent. 1t assumes that the power which
established them cannot suspend them with
out knowledge and consent. a writer
on the subject says:
We know absolutely nothing of the mode
of operation in any recorded miracle; we
only see certain results. To affirm that
these results either impossible in them
selves or necessarily violations OF natural
law Is to pronounce judgment on i'm
perfect data We can only say that, un-
der an impulse which We must believe pro-
ceeds from the divine will, in which all law
exists, the phenomena which we have
been accustomed to expect have not fol-
lowed on their ordinary conditions. But
from our point of view We cannot affirm
that the question as to how this happens
is>Tone of interference or violation; it is
rather probably one of higher and lower &C
sion of one divine order and benefcent
will In new shape-the law Of greater
freedom swallowing UP the law of a lesser.
Any discussion as to the credibility of
the miracles recorded In the New Tesla
ment is defective that does not take ac-
count of the circumstances under which
they were performed-recorded by con-
temporaneous writers-and of the strong
corroborative testimony by which they are
supported. The personal testimony by
which some of them are supported would
be sufficient, IL given verbally, to estab-
lish them to the satisfaction of any i'm
partial jury. None of them was performed
| in private. nor in the dark, nor behind a
| door. They were performed for the most
| part in the open light of day. and in the
| presence Of avowed enemies of Christ. II
| the disciples were credulous or deceived
| why did not the enemies Of the miracle
worker expose Him? Christ did not claim
1 that they were miracles. He simply did
them, and let 1t go at that. They who
| saw them called them miracles because
they could not explain them. From their
point of view they were miracles. but from
Christs point of view they were merely
unusual exercises of supernatural power
for a certain purpose. 1t is a significant
fact that not one of the disciples nor OF
the early Christians or fathers of the church
| ever doubted the occurrence of the acts
called miracles. They accepted them with.
out question as part of the true record OF
the life of Christ. The argument that the,
could not have occurred because they vic.
| lated the laws of nature is of comparative.
| ly modern origin.