"The light was about the size of a goose's egg across his forehead, of a dim nature not at all bright, but there it was. Shortly afterwards the medium was again made to write 'Pray.' We all knelt down, and I prayed aloud, 'O Father, grant that we all may be under a good and gracious influence, so that we may receive light and truth, that we may do nothing contrary to Thy holy will. Open our brother's eyes that he may also receive light as well as us, to Thy honour and glory, for Thy name's sake, amen.' We had no sooner risen from our knees and taken our seats, than he said, 'I also see the light.' The medium then wrote on the paper, "Thank God you have seen the spirit-light, now we shall be able to show ourselves to you. I turned up the light, and read out the paper, and then put it down again. After remaining a little longer quiet, the medium again wrote, "Mr. K., mark well the medium's action from his head to his waist, and keep very quiet." We all sat very quiet in great expectation, waiting for what was to come. We heard a great rattle like some electrical machine and the room began to tremble. The medium stood up, we could see him distinctly, he stood erect, his arms stretched out in the form of a cross; then he lifted his hand to his head, slipping his fingers through his hair some half dozen times. Presently he turned to the wall and shook hands apparently with some one, then he turned right round, and appeared to do the same with some one else, then with another also, then he appeared to embrace a fourth, then shook hands with some one else, and so on for a considerable time, as if he had been meeting with a considerable number of friends, who had all met together for some gladsome occasion. Then, after having saluted them all, he again stood quiet. We could now see from his head to his waist quite clearly; the light was clearer. Presently his appearance was changed, and there stood before us a man of about middle age, with a bushy beard of sandy colour, broad face, high cheek bones, broad full forehead, and benevolent countenance.

"He looked round with a pleased air at each of us, and then disappeared. Next came a young, pale, thin-faced man, with no beard and but very little whisker, black hair, and mild, pleasantlooking countenance. He had a pair of bands round his neck, as a clergyman would have at times. I thought I knew him, but to this day I cannot recall him to my recollection. After staying about the same time before us, he disappeared, and then a female of a most beautiful appearance took his place. She was standing as if in the attitude of prayer, with a heavenly countenance brightly beaming forth, her eyes looking upwards, and her hair nicely done up as with a coronet, but it was all hair, and she had a sweet flower at one side of her head. My

เ

wife cried out, Surely I have seen her before; is she not an actress?' She disappeared, and the medium wrote on a bit of paper, No; she was no actress, but a pure and simple-minded girl, who loved her God and her fellow-creatures. Go you and do likewise." I then turned up the light, read the writing, and again lowered it. The next that came was a female-one that I had good reason to know while she was in the form. As soon as she appeared the master of the house exclaimed, 'Oh, Mr. K., is not that your daughter?' I replied, "You forget that my daughter is in the flesh; she is very like her; I know her well." She came near to me and smiled sweetly. My wife knew her at once, having been intimate with her while in the body, and she said to her, If you are she whom I think you are, let me know.' She drew near to her, and stooped down quite close to her, bowing her head and smiling, she stopped with us longer than any of the others, and after again bowing, disappeared. She was my first wife, and the mother of her Mr. S. thought she was so like. After she went, we saw one after another, male and female, as many as three dozen. All seemed heavenly and happy, apparently delighted that they could thus manifest themselves to us. When all had gone, the medium wrote again, "Now, Mr. K., we have fulfilled our promise to you; we have shown you one-third of our circle. The arrangements were not prepared for the others to show themselves. Go on and let the truth be known, and we shall always be with you. Good night."

NO ANTECEDENT IMPOSSIBILITY IN MIRACLES. A REPLY TO MODERN OBJECTORS.*

By ALFRED R. WALLACE, F.Z.S., F.R.G.S.

THE SUPERNATURAL AND MODERN THOUGHT.

It is now generally admitted, that those opinions and beliefs in which men have been educated generation after generation, and which have thus come to form part of their mental nature, are especially liable to be erroneous, because they keep alive and perpetuate the ideas and prejudices of a bygone and less enlightened age. It is therefore in the interest of truth, that

*This Paper was read before the London Dialectical Society, and subsequently at one of the Winter Soirées in the Beethoven Rooms, Harley Street. As only an extract from it is given in the Dialectical Society Committee's Report on Spiritualism, we publish it in extenso, as a fitting pendant to our review of the Report in previous numbers.

every doctrine or belief, however well established or sacred they may appear to be, should at certain intervals be challenged to arm themselves with such facts and reasonings as they possess, to meet their opponents in the open field of controversy, and do battle for their right to live. Nor can any exemption be claimed in favour of those beliefs which are the product of modern civilisation, and which have for several generations been held unquestioned by the great mass of the educated community; for the prejudice in their favour will be proportionately great, and, as was the case with the doctrines of Aristotle, and the dogmas of the schoolmen, they may live on by mere weight of authority and force of habit, long after they have been shown to be opposed alike to fact and to reason. There have been times when popular beliefs were defended by the terrors of the law, and when the sceptic could only attack them at the peril of his life. Now we all admit that truth can take care of itself, and that only error needs protection. But there is another mode of defence which equally implies a claim to certain and absolute truth, and which is therefore equally unworthy and unphilosophical-that of ridicule, misrepresentation, or a contemptuous refusal to discuss the question at all. This method is used among us even now, for there is one belief, or rather disbelief, whose advocates claim more than papal infallibility, by refusing to examine the evidence brought against it, and by alleging general arguments which have been in use for two centuries to prove that it cannot be erroneous. The belief to which I allude is, that all alleged miracles are false; that what is commonly understood by the term supernatural does not exist, or if it does, is incapable of proof by any amount of human testimony; that all the phenomena we can have cognizance of depend on ascertainable physical laws, and that no other intelligent beings than man and the inferior animals can or do act upon our material world. These views have been now held almost unquestioned for many generations; they are inculcated as an essential part of a liberal education; they are popular, and are held to be one of the indications of our intellectual advancement; and they have become so much a part of our mental nature, that all facts and arguments brought against them are either ignored as unworthy of serious consideration, or listened to with undisguised contempt. Now this frame of mind is certainly not one favourable to the discovery of truth, and strikingly resembles that by which, in former ages, systems of error have been fostered and maintained. The time has therefore come when it must be called upon to justify itself. This is the more necessary, because the doctrine, whether true or false, actually rests upon a most unsafe and rotten

N.S.-VII.

H

foundation. I propose to show you that the best arguments hitherto relied upon to prove it are, one and all, fallacious-and prove nothing of the kind. But a theory or belief may be supported by very bad arguments, and yet be true; while it may be supported by some good arguments, and yet be false. But there never was a true theory which had no good arguments to support it. If therefore all the arguments hitherto used against miracles in general can be shown to be bad, it will behove sceptics to discover good ones; and if they cannot do so, the evidence in favour of miracles must be fairly met and judged on its own merits, not ruled out of court as it is now.

It will be perceived therefore, that my present purpose is to clear the ground for the discussion of the great question of the so-called supernatural. I shall not attempt to bring arguments either for or against the main proposition, but shall confine myself to an examination of the allegations and the reasonings which have been supposed to settle the whole question on general grounds.

DAVID HUME, AND HIS FALSE DEFINITION OF A MIRACLE.

One of the most remarkable works of the great Scotch philosopher, David Hume, is An Inquiry concerning Human Understanding, and the tenth chapter of this work is "On Miracles," in which occur the arguments which are so often quoted to show that no evidence can prove a miracle. Hume himself had a very high opinion of this part of his work, for he says at the beginning of the chapter-"I flatter myself that I have discovered an argument which, if just, will with the wise and learned be an everlasting check to all kinds of superstitious delusion, and consequently will be useful as long as the world endures; for so long, I presume, will the accounts of miracles and prodigies be found in all history, sacred and profane."

After a few general observations on the nature of evidence, and the value of human testimony in different cases, he proceeds to define what he means by a miracle. And here, at the very beginning of the subject, we find that we have to take objection to Hume's definition of a miracle, which exhibits unfounded assumptions and false premises. He gives two definitions in different parts of his essay. The first is "A miracle is a violation of the laws of nature." The second is " A miracle is a transgression of a law of nature, by a particular volition of the Deity, or by the interposition of some invisible agent.' Now both these definitions are bad or imperfect. The first assumes that we know all the laws of nature that the particular effect could not be produced by some unknown law of nature

overcoming the law we do know; it assumes also, that if an invisible intelligent being held an apple suspended in the air, that act would violate the law of gravity. The second is not precise; it should be "some invisible intelligent agent," otherwise the action of galvanism or electricity, when these agents were first discovered, and before they were ascertained to form part of the order of nature, would answer accurately to this definition of a miracle. The words "violation" and " transgression" are both improperly used, and really beg the question by the definition. How does Hume know that any particular miracle is a violation of a law of nature? He assumes this without a shadow of proof, and on these words, as we shall see, rests his whole argument.

THE TRUE DEFINITION OF A MIRACLE.

Before proceeding further, it is necessary for us to consider what is the true definition of a miracle, or what is most commonly meant by that word. A miracle, as distinguished from a new and unheard-of natural phenomenon, supposes an intelligent superhuman agent either visible or invisible;-it is not necessary that what is done should be beyond the power of man to do. The simplest action, if performed independently of human or visible agency, such as a tea-cup lifted in the air at request, as by an invisible hand and without assignable cause, would be universally admitted to be a miracle, as much so as the lifting of a house into the air, the instantaneous healing of a wound, or the instantaneous production of an elaborate drawing. My definition of a miracle therefore is as follows:"Any act or event implying the existence and agency of superhuman intelligences," considering the human soul or spirit, if manifested out of the body, as one of these superhuman intelligences. This definition is more complete than that of Hume, and defines more accurately the essence of that which is commonly termed a miracle.

HUME'S FIRST ARGUMENT A RADICAL FALLACY.

We now have to consider Hume's arguments. The first is as follows:

A miracle is a violation of the laws of nature; and as a firm and unalterable experience has established these laws, the proof against a miracle, from the very nature of the fact, is as entire as any argument from experience can possibly be imagined. Why is it more than probable that all men must die; that lead cannot of itself remain suspended in the air; that fire consumes wood, and is extinguished by water; unless it be, that these events are found agreeable to the laws of nature, and there is required a violation of these laws, or, in other words a miracle, to prevent them? Nothing is esteemed a miracle, if it ever happened in the common course of nature. It is no miracle that a man seemingly