14 ADDRESS OF 



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 occasion 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 

 penetrate 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 uniformity of natural law, 

 I cannot but think that these professions often arise from a misap- 

 prehension 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 

 tinder 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 unreservedly to the mechanical theory of the course of 

 nature. That nearly all intelligent men really believe in this 

 theory, at least so far as the present 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 maintain the doctrine, 

 and trace it to its logical consequences, undisguised by senti- 

 mental language or figure of speech, they are met with criticism 

 which I can account for only by supposing that the theologian un- 

 derstands by laws of nature 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 natu- 



