474 The Possibility of a Future Life. [OGtober, 
principle which has slowly and gradually attained recognition, 
and which is known to some as the Law of Uniformity and to 
others as the Principle of Continuity. This principle is at 
once valuable and dangerous, safe-guiding and misleading. 
Without it science would be impossible, but with it grievous 
errors may gain recognition. The danger of the principle 
is that every theorist pronounces events or facts that suit 
his views in perfect harmony with its requirements. ‘‘Con- 
tinuity, in fine,’ say two able modern writers, ‘‘ does not pre- 
clude the occurrence of strange, abrupt, unforeseen events in 
the history of the universe.” The principle is commonly based 
upon our almost instin¢tive tendency to expect that what 
has happened once will, under the same circumstances, hap- 
pen again. It is a curious fact that those least willing and 
able to recognise the law of uniformity, as a general prin- 
ciple, are often most premature in expecting the recurrence 
of any particular case. The very dog or cat whom you have 
once fed expects a repetition of the gift whenever you 
appear. 
The authors just quoted place it, however, on a new and 
strange basis: ‘“* Assuming,” they say, “‘ the existence of 
a Supreme Governor of the Universe, the principle of Con- 
tinuity may be said to be the definite expression in words of 
a trust that He will not put us to permanent intellectual 
confusion.” We cannot see that the principle—common in 
its outlines to man and beast—can be fairly connected with 
the God-idea at all. Nor must it be forgotten that its general 
application has been strongly insisted on by atheists and 
pantheists, and as strongly resisted by theists as being in- 
consistent with the belief in a special Providence and in the 
efficacy of prayer. 
This brings us to the interesting and subtle attempt made 
by the late Charles Babbage, in his ‘‘ Ninth Bridgewater 
Treatise,” to reconcile miracles with law by showing that 
they were not infractions, but cases foreseen and pre- 
ordained after the manner illustrated in his calculating 
engine. But it seemsto us that our confidence in uniformity 
is equally violated by any exceptional case, as faras we are 
concerned, whether such case has been pre-arranged by any 
higher power or not. If we had the misfortune to see on 
some particular day a solid block of iron floating in the 
Thames, our confidence in what is called ‘“‘law” would be 
at anend. For we should never be able to foresee whether 
such a case—pre-arranged if you will—might not recur on 
any future occasion. If once you show to us solid iron 
swimming, the idea of specific gravity has no longer for us 
