1. That apparent violations may not be real violations of the laws of nature. Examples: The Arab emir in “The Talisman” who was told that water sometimes became solid, so as to support a man on horseback; a steamboat sailing against wind and current; the telegraph; the daguerrotype. In all such cases the laws of nature are not violated or suspended, but new powers come in. 2. Christ appeals to the moral character of his miracles, and not merely to their supernatural character. They are miracles of benevolence. 3. If the proof of Christ’s mission depends on this view of miracles, it can never be proved. We can never be sure that the event is a violation of a law of nature. 4. On this view the sceptic’s objections to miracles are unanswerable. So says Dr. Thomas Brown, in an article reprinted by Dr. Noyes, of Cambridge, in the “Theological Essays” published by the American Unitarian Association. He admits the principle of Hume’s Essay on Miracles, but says that his error lies in the false definition of the miracle as a violation of the laws of nature. False, because,— (_a._) On the principle of continued uniformity of sequence our whole belief of causation, and consequently of the divine Being, is founded. (_b._) Gives an air of inconsistency, and almost of absurdity, to a miracle. (_c._) Laws of nature are not violated when a new antecedent is followed by a new consequent, but when, the antecedent being exactly the same, a different consequent is the result. (_d._) No testimony could prove such a miracle. Suppose testimony so strong that its falsehood would be an absolute miracle; then we should have to believe, in either case, that a law of nature has been violated. No ground of preference between them. 5. A miracle may be supernatural, or above nature, without being unnatural, or against nature. 6. The greatest church teachers have maintained that miracles were not against law or without law, but above common law. Hahn, after mentioning the view of a miracle as a suspension of law, and calling it one neither scriptural nor conceivable, proceeds to quote Augustine and other writers, who held that miracles were by no means opposed to law.(9) III. _The Preternatural View of Miracles._—This view admits the reality of the phenomena, but explains them as resulting from mysterious forces, which are neither divine on the one hand, nor human on the other, but which are outside of nature. This is the demoniacal view, or that which supposes that evil spirits, departed souls, or spirits neither good nor bad, surround the earth, and can be reached by magic, witchcraft, sorcery, magnetism, or what is now called Spiritualism. This theory supposes that the works of Jesus were performed by the aid of spiritual beings. The objections to this view are,— 1. If it is supposed, as it was by the Jews, that Jesus had the aid of evil spirits, the sufficient answer is, that his works were _good_ works.