217 
opposed to such definition of a miracle as that which is proposed 
and exemplified in articles 34 and 35. The reason of this diver- 
sity may be stated in few words. It arises altogether from a gra- 
tuitous rejection, on the part of these philosophers, of the physical 
doctrine, that the essences of matter and force are cognizable by 
sensation and experience, and their inability, in consequence, to 
admit the existence of the class of facts which Newton asserts to be 
the foundation of philosophy. 
(To prevent misapprehension, I take occasion to explain that I 
have made no allusion to what the authors of the above-mentionod 
work say respecting Newton’s mechanical philosophy, which they 
make much of, and about which there is no room for dispute. I 
refer only to their persistent opposition to Newton’s Third Rule 
of Philosophy at the beginning of his Third Book, in consequence 
of which, as it seems to me, they deviate from the prescribed path of 
physical theory , and are compelled to have recourse to arbitrary 
speculation. In justification of this remark I may appeal to the 
vast amount and singularity of the speculations which the authors 
of that work, and others who think with them, have recently 
promulgated. See what I have said in pp. 73 — 81 of the publication 
cited in art. 32.) 
After what has now been said on the question of miracles, in 
addition to the views expressed in articles 8 — 11, and considering 
that the same subject is discussed in my remarks appended to the 
Rev. Prebendary Row’s Paper on “ The Principles of Modern 
Pantheistic and Atheistic Philosophy ” (contained in No. 31 of 
the Journal of the Transactions of the Institute), to which 
remarks I beg to call the attention of readers of this essay, 
there is no need to say more on the relation of Scriptural 
Metaphysics to the department of science designated as Physics. 
I shall now proceed to analogous inquiries relative to other 
departments of Natural Science, as especially Geology , Botany , 
and Natural History. 
37. There is this particular advantage in having treated of 
Physics first, that as being more completely understood than the 
other branches of science, it furnishes a pattern whereby the dis- 
cussion of these for the purposes of our argument will have to be 
regulated. Accordingly it may be presumed that in each depart- 
ment there will be both primitive and derivative facts, and we shall 
have to employ all available means to distinguish one kind from 
the other. Also, arguing analogously from the conclusions arrived 
at in Physics, we might say that in all cases the primitive facts 
exist by immediate creation , and that by this criterion they are 
distinguished from the derivative facts, which are results of the 
operation of laws. Now, the first chapter of Genesis professedly 
