60 DE. LUDWIG VON GERDTELL, ON NATURAL LAW AND MIRACLE. 



of inquiry impels us to seek a cause for all we see. But the belief 

 that everything that happens ha^ a cause is the outcome of 

 experience exalted into a method. 



When we read the Biblical scriptures or contemplate the world, 

 our instinct of inquiry impels us to ask, Who is the author of these 

 scriptures 1 What is the cause of this world '? The fad^ however, 

 that every document has an author and every work of art a maker, is 

 a commonplace of experience. From this point of view Mr. Leslie's 

 suggestion that I am demolishing the foundation of theism and of 

 Christianity is refuted. I ask, then, in complete logical harmony 

 with these convictions of mine, on the basis of my instinct of inquiry 

 and of my experience. What are the roots of the principle of 

 causation 1 My instinct of inquiry impels me to ask the question 

 as to the roots of the principle of causation, and all my experience 

 leads me to expect confidently on the ground of the psychic 

 mechanism of the association of ideas that the principle of causation 

 itself has its " roots." 



To Mr. Leslie's assertion that, according to my views, the day 

 must be considered to be the cause of the night, my answer is : The 

 night certainly does follow the day regularly, but it precedes the day 

 with equal regularity. By the term " cause " I understand only an 

 event which always follows the cause, and never precedes it. When 

 a chemist makes a new experiment he expects that in accordance 

 with his general experience the experiment will succeed in all future 

 repetitions, as all the previous experiments have done. 



Finally, Mr. Leslie asserts that in my view the ancients (Homer, 

 etc.) did not believe in the inviolability of the principle of causation, 

 as they supposed their gods to intervene in the course of nature 

 and history. As a matter of fact, they believed that the supposed 

 miracles were caused, though super naturally caused. 



I assert, therefore, on page 43, only that Homer " knows nothing 

 of an absolutely inviolable natural causation." 



Aristotle and Ipicar no doubt did not go so far as to suppose 

 that a field of corn grew up without any cause. But my statements 

 above about them are nevertheless simply historical facts, which we 

 haA'-e to accept. 



