70 



CANON R. B. GIRDLESTONE, M.A.^ ON 



"We may group the phenomena and possibilities of existence in 

 some such order as this : — 



(i) What nature, in the ordinary sense of the word, can do 



apart from man. 



(ii) What can be done over and above nature througli the 

 operation of the human wilh 



(iii) AVhat can be done in addition under the influence and 

 direction of the Author of both nature and man. 



Thus we have the sub-human, the human, the superhuman. 

 The second group is not a violation of the first, nor is the third a 

 violation of the second. The three make up nature in its 

 highest sense as signifying God's method of acting on and 

 through His creatures. The importance of this threefold scheme 

 has been recognised by Dean Mansel, Professor Pritchard of 

 Oxford, Professor Challis of Cambridge, and other men of 

 science, but it needs constant reiteration. 



We all acknowledge that the forces detected by science in 

 the material world work systematically, not casually, and that 

 if we knew the rules perfectly we could predict all such things 

 as the time and place of the fall of any particular leaf. But let 

 a child come on the scene. Then a new set of rules comes into 

 action and we cannot predict with the same certainty. Will 

 the child run to catch the leaf before it reaches the ground ? 

 It is no longer a question of calculable physical forces but of 

 mental decision and of consequent muscular action ; and we 

 can only guess. There is no breach of law ; but another kind of 

 force, apparently immaterial, comes into play. So it is when 

 God comes on the scene either to prepare the w^ay for Christ or 

 to exhibit Him and to be manifested in Him. 



The late Professor Cliallis, in writing on this subject* some 

 years ago, cited J. S. Mill to the following effect : — he admits 

 that a cause may be counteracted by the direct interposition of an 

 act of the will of some being who has power over nature, and if 

 the being has endowed all causes with the powers that produce 

 their effects, his will may well be supposed able to counteract 

 them. Thus a miracle (Mill continues) is no contradiction to 

 the law of cause and effect ; it is merely a new effect ])roduccd 

 by the introduction of a new cause (Mill's Lorjic, ii, 167). 

 This being the case, as Professor Challis goes on to say, it 

 becomes solely a question of the credibility of the testimony. 



Letter to tlie Guardian^ November 27tli, 1874. 



