286 
were of sufficient importance to make it worth while to add these re- 
marks. 
Captain Fishbourne. — It strikes me that Mr. Warington has misunder- 
stood Dr. Thornton. Dr. Thornton said this ; — that we observe phenomena 
and deduce a law from that ; but this was a “ law,” he said distinctly, with 
reference only to us, and not binding upon the Creator ; that it was, after alb 
the law merely of our finite faculties and observations, and might not be true 
theory, but that by further observation we might arrive at the fact that we 
had not known the law at all, and therefore our arguments would fall 
to the ground. He specifically said that the tendency to measure the 
Infinite by our finite conceptions was tending to deify man and lower the 
Deity. That I think was his view ; and surely that is the tendency of such 
reasoning. 
Rev. Dr. Irons. — I should be sorry that a subject of such importance should 
come before us without receiving grave consideration, and you will readily 
believe that it is one which could not but have occupied my mind frequently 
in the closest way. I feel that much that Mr. Warington said was extremely 
valuable ; but from one part of his speech I must beg to differ, because his view 
seems to me almost to destroy the very essence of volition in the Deity. I sup- 
pose it is quite competent for the All-Perfect Being to make His own creation 
according to His own choice, and all “ very good.” But I cannot conceive 
of the All-Perfect Being being so fixed in one volition as to be unable to make 
another creation. That seems to me to be almost an Atheistic conclusion. 
I must be forgiven for saying that, because I am sure nothing was further 
from Mr. Warington’s thoughts than any such conclusion ; but it seems to 
annihilate God, if we deprive Him of volition or choice. Passing from this, 
which was the principal if not the only point from which I differ, in Mr. 
Warington’s remarks, I would address myself for a few moments to the great 
question which is before us ; because if this Institute is in any degree to 
affect the general course of thought in the scientific world, or the world of 
literature, it must deal carefully and closely with such a subject as the present. 
It appears to me that we overlook the fact that the whole course of dis- 
cussion and controversy on this subject seems as if intended to place the 
advocate of Christianity at a disadvantage. It is assumed at the outset that 
there is one and only one “ order of nature.” In the next place, it is taken for 
granted that the order of nature is linked together by inexorable conse- 
quence, — a law of causation absolutely inviolable. Then it is concluded that 
any revelation that comes forward must put in the foreground a violation of 
that order of nature as the very guarantee which it produces for itself. And 
lastly, it seems to be assumed that we are bound to accept the word of any 
violator of a law of nature, as though the power of his violating that law 
constituted him a teacher for our consciences. On all these points, I take 
my stand. I decidedly object to that way of putting the whole question. I 
do not think that there is only one law or order of nature. W e may grant 
that there is already ascertained by the observation of mankind one general 
and pervading physical law, as we term it, extending not only throughout 
