259 
science, (said Dugald Stewart) the established order in the 
succession of physical events is commonly referred (by a sort 
of figure or metaphor) to the general laws of nature. It is a 
mode of speaking extremely convenient from its conciseness, 
but it is apt to suggest to the fancy a groundless, and indeed 
absurd analogy between the material and moral worlds. In 
those political associations from which the metaphor is 
borrowed, the laws are addressed to rational and voluntary 
agents, who are able to comprehend their meaning, and regu- 
late their conduct accordingly ; whereas, in the material 
universe the subjects of our observation are understood by all 
men to be unconscious and passive. * . . . If the word law 
therefore, be in such instances literally interpreted, it must 
mean a uniform operation, prescribed by the Deity to Himself ; 
and it has accordingly been explained in this sense by some of 
our best philosophical writers, particularly by Dr. Clarke.”* “A 
law (said Dr. Whewell) supposes an agent and a person ; for it 
is the mode according to which the agent proceeds, the order 
according to which the power acts. Without the presence of 
such a power, conscious of the relations on which the law 
depends, producing the effects which the law prescribes, the 
law can have no efficacy, no existence. Hence we infer that 
the intelligence.by which the law is ordained, the power by 
which it is put into action must be present at all times and in 
ah places, where the effects of the law occur ; that thus the 
knowledge of the agency of the Divine Being pervades every 
portion of the universe, producing all action and passion, all 
permanence, and change. The laws of matter are the laws 
which He, in His wisdom, prescribes to His own acts ; His 
universal presence is the necessary condition of any course of 
events ; His universal agency, the only organ of any efficient 
force. ”f 
Taking, then, “ law ” in this, its true philosophical sense, 
and the term “ nature”, as including both mind and matter, it 
will be. difficult to conceive in what sense a miracle can be said 
to “violate the laws of nature,” or be “contrary to nature.” 
Ihe.la^s of nature are not causes, but courses — they are not 
efficient forces. Yet they are often spoken of in this decep- 
tive sense. They cannot, with strictness or propriety, be con- 
fined to the material world. Yet this appears to be the sense 
m which they are Commonly understood when miracles are said 
to be opposed to them. The mind of man has its “ natural” 
laws, as well as the material world ; hence we have a philosophy 
* Phil, of the Human Mind, pp. 393-4. 
f Astron., p. 361. 
