199 
and this is surely in direct opposition to the words we accept 
as revealed truth : “ In the beginning God created the heavens 
and the earth.” Now, let me ask this question, bearing upon 
the public enunciation of such views of nature : In what learned 
or scientific society in this great metropolis, excepting our 
own, could or would this subject be discussed ? And remember 
that although this speculative theory was put forward in the 
British Association, it was spoken from the presidential chair, 
at a general meeting, where no discussion, of course, was 
possible, or intended* Moreover, there is no “philosophical 
section ” in the British Association, and none in which a paper 
upon such a subject would be allowed to be read, or in which 
it could be discussed. I think it therefore to be regretted, 
and even deprecated, that any such speculation should have 
been enunciated in an address from the presidential chair at 
our great scientific congress. It was not quite fair. It is that 
kind of thing which unhappily brings science into disrepute. 
It was little else than preaching “ the doctrine of continuity,” 
ex cathedra, without permitting any right of reply. 
Mr. Mitchell well described this theory as being founded 
upon an evident unreasoning dislike of all that is miraculous 
in nature, or reminds us of the hand of God and of special 
Providence. That, also, is a subject which no other society in 
London but our own can take up and discuss ; and we have 
already discussed it. The Rev. W. W. English has contri- 
buted to our proceedings a most able paper. On Miracles , 
their Compatibility with Philosophical Principles, which I am 
certain was heard or has been read by all our members with 
the greatest satisfaction. Mr. Penny's Thoughts on Miracles, 
read the same evening, gave us what might be called the ex- 
treme of the anti-sceptical view ; and the two papers, taken 
together, served as an admirable basis for the discussion that 
followed. But, completely as the subject was handled in these 
papers and in the discussion upon them, it is not entirely ex- 
hausted. The important volume put forth recently on The 
Reign of Law, by the Duke of Argyll— one of the most im- 
portant philosophical works that has been published for years 
— -reopens this question, and is likely to call forth some 
rejoinder, and to bring the matter again before the Institute. 
In the past discussion here there was no essential difference of 
opinion as regards principles, though we managed to differ in 
our mode of viewing certain things and in our mode of expres- 
sion. I might almost say the terminology of the subject was 
proved to be unsettled. In Mr. English's reply he said — - 
(< Nature, if it includes Deity, (and I see not how it can exclude it,) com- 
prises all that is possible as well as actual .” — (i Those 1 higher laws ’ I referred 
