man was dead; I know, because I saw, a dead man live again'? If
testimony can do that, I think we may safely leave the verbal sophism
that it cannot reach to the miraculous to take care of itself.

And, then, with regard to the other assumption--miracle is
impossible. That is an illogical begging of the whole question in
dispute. It cannot avail to brush aside testimony. You cannot smother
facts by theories in that fashion. Again, one would like to know how
it comes that our modern men of science, who protest so much against
science being corrupted by metaphysics, should commit themselves to
an assertion like that? Surely that is stark, staring metaphysics. It
seems as if they thought that the 'metaphysics' which said that there
was anything behind the physical universe was unscientific; but that
the metaphysics which said that there was nothing behind physics was
quite legitimate, and ought to be allowed to pass muster. What have
the votaries of pure physical science, who hold the barren word-
contests of theology and the proud pretensions of philosophy in such
contempt, to do out-Heroding Herod in that fashion, and venturing on
metaphysical assertions of such a sort? Let them keep to their own
line, and tell us all that crucibles and scalpels can reveal, and we
will listen as becomes us. But when they contradict their own
principles in order to deny the possibility of miracle, we need only
give them back their own words, and ask that the investigation of
facts shall not be hampered and clogged with metaphysical prejudices.
No! no! Christ made no mistake when He built His Church upon that
rock--the historical evidence of a resurrection from the dead, though
all the wise men of Areopagus hill may make its cliffs ring with
mocking laughter when we say, upon Easter morning, 'The Lord is risen
indeed!'