200 
to, are moral and not physical : those principles, in short, according to which 
all things are wisely governed. Miracles may be real or apparent infractions 
of material sequence, but they are, nevertheless, fulfilments of 1 higher laws ’ 
of moral government.” 
Now, agreeing entirely with the spirit and full meaning of 
these passages, I yet beg leave to observe that I doubt 
whether their phraseology will be accepted by the sceptic, 
or can be regarded as strictly accurate. If nature is con- 
sidered as including Deity ; and if moral as well as physical 
“laws” are accepted as ruling in nature, there would 
scarcely be a difference of opinion among men as to miracles. 
But unfortunately those who have denied the possibility of 
miracles do generally deny God y and with them “ the laws 
of nature ” only mean the invariable material sequences, or 
“ laws ” so-called, which they think thev can imagine not 
only to operate but to exist without reference to Deity. 
Now, it is here that a confusion of thought intervenes, 
which may puzzle the honest thinker, and which may tem- 
porarily subserve the arguments of the sceptic or atheist. 
Let us be frank upon such high subjects, and endeavour 
to understand the mode of thought that influences others, 
as well as our own conceptions. Although, then, in the 
works of nature we may see the hand of God, and the deeper 
we study the more clearly may we recognize His nearness, 
and that “ in Him we live and move and have our being ; ” 
yet, let us also remember that in nature God is veiled : “ Who 
by searching can find out God ? He passeth by me, and I see 
Him not.” We conclude, reasoning from what we see, that 
there must be a God, a Great First Cause, but still a Cause 
Invisible. We see His operations around and about us, but 
we cannot trace Him more definitely : “ His path is in the 
great deep ; but His footsteps are not known ! ” We do not 
by nature know God ; we only, as it were, “ feel after Him : ” 
“ Such knowledge is too excellent for us, we cannot attain 
unto it.” But His laws — “ the laws of nature ” — we can see, 
and in a measure learn to know. And it is indeed such know- 
ledge that properly constitutes natural science. Now these 
laws, it cannot be denied, are in many instances, so far as we 
know them, invariable — or they seem to be so. I make this 
qualification for the best of reasons. I know no law of nature 
so evident or apparently so invariable as that of terrestrial 
gravitation, and yet onr most distinguished chemical philo- 
sopher, Professor Faraday, in his treatise on The Conservation 
of Force , thus expresses himself : — “ The usual definition of 
gravity as an attractive force between the particles of matter 
