THE UNIFORMITY OF NATURE. 253 



into the truth of alleged phenomena lying apparently outside the circle 

 of ordinary experience, to have argued that there might be causes of 

 which ordinary physical science takes no account, and that you can 

 not logically deny the occurrence of what may be called conveniently 

 the " supernatural," unless you assert that the causes which are included 

 in what we call Nature exhaust all possible forms of causation. Such 

 an assertion would probably be rash, even if we took into account only 

 the results which may be produced by the action of the human will. 

 But so far as the physical investigator, the scientific discoverer, the 

 man of science in the ordinary sense of the phrase, is concerned, he 

 may consistently say that all causation of a spiritual or supernatural 

 kind is outside his domain. He may say, " I neither affirm nor deny 

 the possibility of events and phenomena which are not according to 

 the ordinary course of Nature. I am content to take what is called the 

 uniformity of Nature as prescribing the limit of my inquiries " ; and 

 he may be able to add, with Professor Huxley, that he has never yet 

 found it to fail him. If it should fail him, the result might possibly 

 be similar to that which mathematicians call the failure of Taylor's 

 theorem, and might indicate, not that the theorem was faulty, but that 

 in certain critical cases the ordinary law of the theorem would not 

 apply.* 



The discussion which precedes has been longer than I expected, 

 but I could not well shorten it. Hitherto I have been chiefly engaged 

 in what has been offered by others on the subject of the uniformity of 

 Nature ; I now proceed to suggest a view which, if it fails to give the 

 reader's mind as much satisfaction as it affords my own, will at least, 

 I trust, be deemed worthy of some consideration. 



Strict views concerning the uniformity of Nature appear to me 

 to date from the pei'iod when Newton first showed that the motions 

 of the heavenly bodies could be made the subject of mathematical 

 calculations, or rather of dynamical, for I am not speaking of those 

 which are merely empirical. Newton, in fact, founded what we now 

 call physical astronomy. If we look a little back from this period, 

 we find the opinions of men of the most educated class very loose on 

 the subject of Nature and Nature's laws. It is sufficient to refer to 

 Sir Thomas Bi'owne's belief, that intercourse was possible between 

 human creatures and evil spirits,f and Sir Matthew Hale's often-quoted 

 opinions and consequent judicial action in the case of witchcraft. 

 There was much in popular superstition, much even in orthodox re- 

 ligious belief, and perhaps much in the tendencies of the human intel- 

 lect, to suggest views of Nature which would now present insuper- 

 able obstacles to minds even of ordinary powers and proficiency, but 

 which presented no such obstacles in what may be called the pre-sci- 



* There are some passages in pp. 217-219 of the Bishop of London's lectures to which 

 I would have referred had space permitted, 

 f " Keligio Medici ; " chap. xxx. 



