163 
not called for ; since science throws no light upon the subject ; but few 
persons who have read sec. 247 will fail to infer that their conception of 
future happiness is something very different from that of “ being an eternal 
molecule in a luminiferous ether ” (paper, sec. 52). 
The most startling proposition attributed to the authors is to be found 
in the Appendix, sec. 66. “ Our authors’ conception of a miracle, for 
instance, is that it is an unaccountable breach of continuity.” Now the 
authors say distinctly, that a miracle is not a breach of continuity at all- 
“If,” say they (sec. 237), “the invisible was able to produce the present 
visible universe with all its energy, it could, of course, a, priori, very 
easily produce such transmutations of energy from the one universe into the 
other, as would account for the events which took place in Judea. Those 
events are therefore no longer to be regarded as absolute breaks of con- 
tinuity, a thing which we have agreed to consider impossible, but only 
as the result of a peculiar action of the invisible upon the visible universe. 
When we dig up an ant-hill, we perform an operation which, to the 
inhabitants of the hill, is mysteriously perplexing, far transcending their 
experience ; but we know very well that the whole affair happens without 
any breach of the continuity of the laws of the universe. In like manner 
the scientific difficulty, with regard to miracles, will, we think, entirely 
disappear if our view of the invisible universe be accepted ; or, indeed, 
if any view be accepted that implies the presence in it of living beings 
much more powerful than ourselves.” 
Whether the views of the principle of continuity, which the paper 
attributes to the authors, are what they would indorse may well be ques- 
tioned ; and many more points might be mentioned in which the reviewer 
appears not to have rightly understood their positions. I cannot but think 
that if he had taken a more correct view of the scope of the work, he would 
have treated it in a different spirit. 
The charge that the authors make the Deity impersonal, and place Him as 
far oft as possible, is of more weight, as it appears to be supported by some 
expressions in the work which naturally tend to that conclusion. If, how- 
ever, we take the book as a whole, I think that such is not the view to be 
derived from it. The authors consider (sec. 240) that there is no sufficient 
ground for denying the objective efficacy of prayer. Now, the objective 
efficacy of prayer addressed to an impersonal god appears simply inconceiv- 
able, and if it be admitted that God can hear and answer prayer, it can 
hardly be said that for any purpose material to Christian faith He is placed 
“ as far oft as possible ” (sec. 85), or at the end of “ an illimitable avenue ” 
(sec. 86). These expressions, when taken in their context, seem to express 
in substance little more than the principle which leads us to such conclusions 
as (to take an instance given by the authors) that fossiliferous deposits came 
into their place through the operation of natural forces, and were not created 
at once as they are. 
It is most important, in considering a treatise of this nature, to distinguish 
M 2 
