392 COSMIC PHILOSOPHY. [rr. in. 



The last of the &amp;lt;i priori arguments which it is necessary 

 to notice in this connection, is that which infers the exist 

 ence of an intelligent Lawgiver from the omnipresence of 

 Law. &quot;The proofs of necessary law and of an intelligent 

 will .... remain undeniable/ says Mr. Adam, &quot; and no 

 hardihood of assertion can annul them ; and when an at~ 

 tempt is made to bring both into logical connection, the 

 mind, not only without violence to its powers, but on the 

 contrary with a clear perception of necessary congruity, 

 believes that law must proceed from a lawgiver, beneficent 

 laws from a moral ruler. To disjoin an intelligent will from 

 necessary law is to shake our confidence in the perpetuity 

 and salutary operation of law itself. The conception of law 

 without will is that of agency without an agent : the con 

 ception of will without law is that of an agent without agency. 

 Necessary law is the constant expression of the divine will.&quot; 

 Upon this point Mr. Adam repeatedly insists in the course 

 of his work, 1 asserting again and again that, without admit 

 ting &quot; this great central conception of a Supreme Will,&quot; the 

 laws of nature must for ever remain unintelligible. Let us 

 not fail to note that Mr. Adam s conception of theism, as 

 here illustrated, is far more refined, and far less hostile to 

 scientific inquiry, than the conception of theism embodied in 

 the accepted creeds of theologians, and officially defended 

 from the pulpit. Those who adopt Mr. Adam s conception 

 will, if consistent, welcome, instead of opposing, every scien 

 tific interpretation of phenomena hitherto deemed super 

 natural ; since, in the above passage, God is clearly regarded 

 as manifesting himself in order and not in disorder, in 

 method and not in caprice, in law and not in miracle. With 

 this view our Cosmic Philosophy thoroughly coincides ; and, 

 eliminating the anthropomorphism from Mr. Adam s state 

 ment, I, for one, will heartily join in the assertion that 



1 Adam, Theories of History, pp. 92. 130, 180, 189, 209, 222, 281, 284, 

 404, The passage just cited is to be iou id on p. 192. 



