than that it should not be so subjected. . . . The class of laws subject to interruption is far more extensive than that of laws which are uninterrupted. It is, in fact, infinitely more numerous. Therefore the probability of any law with which we have become acquainted by observation being part of a much more extensive law, and having, to use mathematical language, singular points or discontinuous functions contained within it, is very large." " Miracles are not deviations from the laws assigned by the Almighty for the government of matter and of mind. . . . They are the exact fulfilment of much more extensive laws than those we suppose to exist. In fact, if we were endued with acuter senses and higher reasoning faculties, they are the very points we should seek to observe, as the test of any hypothesis we had been led to frame concerning the nature of those laws. Even with our present imperfect faculties we frequently arrive at the highest confirmation of our views of the laws of Nature by tracing their action under singular circumstances." "A miracle may be only an exact fulfilment of a general law of Nature, under such singular circumstances that, to those imperfectly acquainted with that law, it appears to be in direct opposition to it." "All miracles are prophecies; . . . they are revelations, more or less in advance, of events which, although in real accordance, are apparently in direct contradiction to the laws of Nature."
The work from which the above extracts are taken[1] forms probably the best introduction in our language to the art of inductive reasoning. It is simple in style, almost entirely free from technicalities, and very reverent
- ↑ Ninth Bridgewater Treatise. Murray.
