made narrowly, because it takes into consideration only the physical half of the problem.

That these convictions are only presumptions resting on a philosophy and a science too narrow for the Universe they attempt to expound, and that they are faced by other presumptions of more breadth and solidity, are cardinal preliminary facts to be established in this controversy. These being established, the way is prepared at once for a fair discussion of the critical and historical evidence on which any miracles are offered. They can no longer be waved aside as already ruled out of the court of reason.

(1.) A philosophy that banishes reasons, banishes all grounds of presumption one way or the other; the Empirical Philosophy is not entitled to any presumptions: a philosophy that recognizes reasons, must recognize all the reasons that bear upon the case, whether they spring from the physical or spiritual bearings of the problem; the Empirical Philosophy frames a one sided presumption. Reasons are either the premises of an argument or the motives of an action; causes as causes are neither the one nor the other, but the sources of effects. There are no causes which as causes create presumptions against miracles. If causes as causes occasion the present feeling against them, causes as causes also occasion the existing feeling for them. Causes are in conflict with themselves, and we can only sit by and see the issue. Plainly no philosophy can use causes both as causes and reasons, cannot ground a presumption on the nature of causes, and then enforce it with the force of reasons.