268 
Proceedings of the Royal Society 
assume the contrary, — let us not speak or think as if the forces of 
nature were either independent of, or even separate from. His power. 
The idea of Creation by Law leaves these questions exactly where 
it found them. It has no adverse bearing on theology; and those 
who prize it under the notion that it has this bearing, as well as 
those who dread it on the same account, are equally forgetful of 
what Law,” in a scientific sense, must be defined to be. 
But there is still another sense in which the word “Law” is 
habitually used in science ; and this is perhaps the most common 
and the most important of all. It is used to designate not merely 
an observed order of facts — not the bare abstract idea of force — not 
mere individual forces, according to ascertained measures of opera- 
tion — but forces as combined with each other, and fitted to each 
other for the attainment of special ends. The whole science of 
mechanics, for example, deals with Law in this sense — with 
natural forces as related to purpose and subservient to intention. 
And here we come upon “ Law ” in a sense which is more per- 
fectly intelligible to us than in any other ; because, although we 
know nothing of the nature of force, even of that force which is 
resident in ourselves, we do know for what ends we exert it, and 
what is the “ law” governing our devices for its use. That law is — 
combination for the accomplishment of purpose. The universal 
prevalence of this idea in nature is indicated by the irresistible 
tendency which we observe in the language of science to personify 
the forces, and the combinatious of force, to which all natural 
phenomena are in the first instance due. It is a great in- 
justice, too often committed, to suspect scientific men of unwill- 
ingness to accept the idea of a personal Creator, merely because 
they try to keep separate the language of science from the 
language of theology. The separation may sometimes be due 
to such unwillingness, but quite as often — I hope much oftener 
— it is a separation which is maintained for other and better 
reasons. But it is curious to observe how the attempt breaks 
down, — that is, how impossible it is, in describing physical phe- 
nomena, to avoid the phraseology which identifies them with 
the phenomena of mind, and is moulded on our own conscious 
personality and will. It is impossible to avoid this language, 
simply because no other language conveys the impression which 
