THE COURSE OF NATURE. 



487 



view of Nature when you say that the world is 

 governed by inexorable laws. These laws are 

 not governors, but only the instruments of gov- 

 ernment by which the real Governor executes 

 his purposes. With them, but without subvert- 

 ing or violating them, he can reward or punish, 

 bring on prosperity or call down disaster, accord- 

 ing to the dictates of his sovereign will. The 

 child and the peasant call the thunder the voice 

 of God. The modern philosopher attempts to 

 correct them by showing that it is the product 

 of evaporation and of atmospheric electricity. 

 But the view of the child is really the more 

 correct of the two, because he ascends at once 

 to the first cause, and thus sees further than the 

 philosopher who corrects him, because the lat- 

 ter stops short at the immediate or secondary 

 cause, without even trying to raise his eyes to the 

 higher source of power. I think I am not far 

 wrong in giving this as the substance of the 

 most cogent objections which may be anticipated 

 in any quarter against the mechanical theory of 

 the course of Nature. 



Now, if these views referred only to inscru- 

 table first causes of things, or to the intelligent 

 but invisible substratum which underlies the 

 whole course of Nature, we should have no oc- 

 casion to discuss them, because they would lie 

 outside the field I have assigned as that of our 

 contemplation at the present time, and which I 

 have sought to describe as the field of phenom- 

 ena. The doctrines that all things go on in ex- 

 act accordance with the will of the Creator ; that 

 he has certain ends which the laws of Nature 

 are designed to bring about, and that an intelli- 

 gent cause lies behind the whole universe of 

 phenomena, are of a class which science has no 

 occasion whatever to dispute. If it were made 

 clearly to appear that the field of the teachings 

 in question was thus limited, and was entirely 

 distinct from that of phenomena, with which 

 alone science is occupied, there would be no oc- 

 casion for dispute between the two schools. I 

 have no disposition to throw a single stone across 

 what I consider the sacred boundary-line, nor to 

 enter a field which I am by natural and acquired 

 habits of thought unfitted to cultivate. As men 

 of science, let us by no means attempt to pene- 

 trate a region in which the eye of Science can 

 see nothing but darkness. If we thus subject 

 ourselves to the imputation of being "of the 

 earth, earthy," we may console ourselves that our 

 edifice is firm and durable, because it does not 

 seek to rise into regions of serener air, nor to 

 rear its dome above the clouds. 



I can hardly be mistaken in saying that the 

 objections to the mechanical theory of Nature 

 which I have just tried to formulate are not 

 always confined to the field of inscrutable first 

 causes. There is a part of the boundary-line 

 over which the stones are flying very thickly. 

 While some of the combatants may profess to 

 make no attack on the doctrine of the uniform- 

 ity of natural law, I cannot but think that these 

 professions often arise from a misapprehension of 

 the scientific side of the question. 



Indeed, I must confess that I have met with 

 a difficulty from my inability to form a clear idea 

 of the views really entertained by the school now 

 under consideration. I have made a somewhat 

 careful study of some of the most elaborate 

 works of the writers of the theological school 

 devoted to this very topic, and I have left them 

 without being able to decide in my own mind 

 whether the writers do or do not hold unreserv- 

 edly to the mechanical theory of the course of 

 Nature. That nearly all intelligent men do really 

 believe in this theory — at least so far as the pres- 

 ent time and dispensation are concerned — we 

 have abundant reason for believing. Nor is 

 there even among advanced theologians any lack 

 of profession of a belief in the uniformity and 

 supremacy of the laws of Nature. 



But when thinkers of the other school main- 

 tain the doctrine, and trace it to its logical con- 

 sequences, undisguised by sentimental language 

 or figure of speech, they are met with criticism, 

 which I can account for only by supposing that 

 the theologian understands by the laws of Na- 

 ture something different from what is understood 

 by the man of science. Let us try to condense 

 the questions at issue into the smallest possible 

 space. The scientific philosopher maintains that 

 the natural course of events goes on in invariable 

 accordance with "what I have described as the 

 mechanical theory of Nature. He asks the theo- 

 logian, in the words of Pope : 



"Think'st thou like some weak prince the Eternal 

 Cause 

 Prone for his favorites to reverse his laws ? 

 Shall burning Etna, If a sage requires, 

 Forget to thunder and recall her fires J 

 On air or sea new motions be impressed, 

 O blameless Bethel, to relieve thy breast? 

 When the loose mountain trembles from on high, 

 Shall gravitation cease if you go by ? 

 Or some old temple, nodding to its fall. 

 For Chartres 1 head reserve the hanging wall ? " 



To all these questions the other answers No ; 

 and thus all occasion for dispute ought to end. 

 But it does not end, by any means ; for he pro- 



