286 THE REV. CHANCELLOR LIAS, M.A., ON 



Tliey will not even discuss it as reasonable, asserting it to be 

 wholly unreasonable ; nor will they fnirly consider historic 

 evidence. Let us, therefore, cease endeavouring to convince 

 the unwilling by enforcing the fact — -that these very men who 

 deny that there was or is any miracle are not able to exhibit 

 one fact, in heaven or earth, that is not mirp.ctilous. 



Briefly I put it thus— Nature, on the whole and in every part, is 

 a miracle. Kafcure, I mean the universe, if we speak of mechanical 

 principles — -began, if accepted science is correct, where and when 

 the laws known to us were not in bting, and could not have been 

 originated except by energy from without. Hence, the whole of 

 nature is miraculous in every part. 



The proof is easy. No sooner do we examine matter, force, and 

 the various combinations of matter and force, than immediately 

 below their surface we find matter and forces resting upon eternal 

 energy. All phenomena represent that energy can only be 

 explained by it, and are therefore natural temporal forms of the 

 supernatural and eternal. 



To be rid of this, the exponents of physical science refuse to 

 deal with essence-^with cause ; indeed, can only partially explain 

 modes. Now, these modes are neither more nor less than forms in 

 nature of that which causes and transcends nature. 



It may be answered — " The Laws of Nature, so soon as they are 

 laws, are uniform, universal, and unchangeable." Such statement 

 is unproveable, therefore unscientific. Indeed, the contrary is 

 shown by Mr. Lias in his last two pages. 



The ai'gumeiit is fully stated in The Mystery of Miracles. 



If all and ever^'thing is miraculous, it is peculiarly weak to 

 challenge the same piinciple when it appears in Revelation and 

 Redemption. 



The Rev. J. P. SaNDLANDs, M.A., writes :— 



I have read this paper with very much interest aud pleasure. 

 I think it calculated to do great good in counteracting the 

 influence of the " clever peeple," and it should be circulated far 

 and wide. Personally, I am very grateful for the opportunity of 

 reading it. 



If I may, I should be glad to put his arguments in another 

 form. We cannot understand Law apart from Lawgiver. A 

 Lawgiver must have a Will. This Will accounts for the working 

 of the Law. But also we cannot think of Law without thinking 



i 



