295 
authors know, after all, what are the laws of nature which miracles infringe ; 
and that it is only a mode of speech when they say that nature is not 
violated : — 
“ For although the Divine wisdom hath with great stability settled the 
laws of His general Providence, so that ordinarily or lightly they are not 
altered, yet it could never stand with the Divine administration of the 
world, that He should be eternally mancipated to those laws He hath ap- 
pointed for the ordinary administration of the world. Neither is this, if it be 
rightly considered, an infringing of the law of nature, since every created 
being is most naturally subject to the sovereign will of his Creator ; therefore, 
though He is sometimes pleased by extraordinary interposition, and, pro 
imperio voluntatis , to alter the ordinary method of natural or voluntary causes 
and effects to interpose His own immediate power , He violates no law of nature, 
since it is the most natural thing in the world that everything should obey 
the Will of Him that gave it being, whatever that Will be, or however mani- 
fested.” — Prim. Grig . of Mankind, p. 36, folio ed., 1677. 
From the whole tenour of this passage, — “ the law of nature ” being used 
in the singular, and explained to mean “ the Will of the Creator,” while it is 
admitted that “ the ordinary method of natural causes and effects ” is altered 
or infringed, — it would seem that the author did not intend to deny (in the 
modern or literal sense) that “ the ordinary courses (or laws) of nature are 
violated ” by the “extraordinary interposition” of “God’s own immediate 
power.” But, if he did, then another passage in Sir Matthew Hale’s work 
shows us that he could not stick to his own proposition ; for the truth crops 
up in him as in Mr. English’s essay, and enables us to see that miracles must 
refer us to Deity and the Divine Will, and not to mere imagined “ higher 
laws.” He says : — 
“In that administration of special Providence which is miraculous, .God 
commanded the fire not to burn, stopped the mouths of lions, and prohibited 
the natural operation and agency of natural causes .” — Ibid., p. 41. 
If Dr. Thornton had remained here, I would have told him that the Author 
of nature does vindicate Plis laws, when not miraculously suspended ; for 
if Dr. Thornton were to put his finger in the fire, he knows that naturally, 
and without a miracle, it would burn. I will now only say, in conclusion, 
that I think Mr. English’s paper a most valuable one, although in some 
respects I differ from him, and have been obliged to criticise his arguments. 
But I am glad to think that Mr. English himself is of opinion that fair 
criticism can never do any harm. 
Mr. Warington. — May I say one word in explanation of my remarks ? I 
am quite aware that the expressions I made use of as to the unchangeable- 
ness of God, if taken by themselves, would be capable of the construction of 
Dr. Irons. I made them simply in correction of what I thought was an 
exaggeration the other way in the paper, saying at the same time that 
Mr . English had urged reasons quite sufficient to account for a change in 
the action of God taking place. 
Mr. Reddie. - Let me also add one word which I omitted as to the 
miracles of the loaves and fishes. Christ fed 5,000 people with five loaves, 
