426 COSMIC PHILOSOPHY. [ PT . TII. 



theologians urge either against the theory of evoh.tion ot 

 against any other theory which extends what is called &quot; the 

 domain of natural law.&quot; Take away this conception, and not 

 only do their specific arguments lose all significance, but their 

 entire position becomes meaningless : there ceases to be any 

 reason for their opposing instead of welcoming the new 

 theory. For if &quot;extending the domain of natural law&quot; be 

 equivalent to &quot; extending our knowledge of Divine action,&quot; 

 what objection can the theologian logically make to this! 

 Manifestly his hostile attitude is wholly prescribed by his 

 belief, whether tacit or avowed, that the sphere of natural 

 law and the sphere of Divine action are two different spheres, 

 so that whatever is added to the former is taken from the 

 latter. It is assumed that the universe is a sort of lifeless 

 machine, which tinder ordinary circumstances works along 

 without immediate Divine superintendence, in accordance 

 with what are called natural laws, very much as the steam- 

 engine works when once set going, in accordance with the 

 harmoniously cooperating properties of its material structure. 

 Only by occasional interposition, it is assumed, does God 

 manifest his existence, by originating organic life, or creat 

 ing new species out of dust or out of nothing, or by causing 

 prodigies to be performed within historic times for the edifi 

 cation of gaping multitudes. So deep-seated is this assump 

 tion so vitally implicated is it with all the habits of thought 

 which theology nurtures that we sometimes hear it explicitly 

 maintained that when natural law can be shown to be co 

 extensive with the whole of nature, then our belief in God 

 will ipso facto be extinguished. 



Such a position is no doubt as irreligious as it is unscien 

 tific ; but it is not difficult to see how it has come to be 

 so commonly maintained. Not only is it often apparently 

 justified by the unphilosophical language of scientific men 

 especially of those shallow writers known as &quot; materialists n 

 who speak of &quot; natural law &quot; as if it were something dif- 



