431 
English had been more careful in the use of these expressions. Then he 
pulls up Professor Tyndall for substituting the word “ doubtful ” for 
“ invisible ” in some argument which he does not tell us anything more 
about than that the Professor proceeded “to argue upon the change of 
terms, as if it were warrantable.” Everybody knows that this is un- 
warrantable in logic ; but Mr. English himself is guilty of the very 
same fault on the next page, in a very important matter, namely, as 
to whether miracles are to be considered as coming under laws or not. 
He says : — “ Law, in the sense of order, may be said to be common to 
all branches of philosophy. There is an order of thought as well as an order 
of material sequence.” But there is no connection between the material 
sequence by which a heavy body falls to the ground and the order of human 
thought. I only wish we were all as steady in our thinking as a stone is in 
falling ! But Mr. English, by looking at all sorts of things in nature, and 
seeing that there is an “ order ” which belongs to them, tries to bring them 
all into the category of the same order. Then he says : — “ Law denotes 
order, not force, and it is common to all branches of philosophy, metaphysical, 
moral, and material.” But before that, he says he has been asked — (and I 
remember it was I who asked him the question in my Annual Address two 
years ago) — “ Do you, in fact, use the term law in the same sense as when 
you speak of physical law ? ” He says he was asked that question when 
speaking of miracles, “as coming under a system of moral law.” Now I 
never made any allusion to moral law at all : I was speaking of regular laws, 
invariable in their action. He says : — “ Law denotes order, and not force.” 
But nobody ever said it did mean force. It was, in fact, I who argued that 
it meant order ; and I quoted Bishop Butler in defence of that, to show that 
the laws of nature had only a meaning by being understood to mean some- 
thing settled and fixed ; that is, “ orderly.” If any one applied the sense 
of force to them, it was Mr. English himself, when he spoke of the force 
of nature intercepting the fall of a stone. He rings the changes upon these 
words, and in point of fact does just that which he says is wholly unwarrantable 
in Professor Tyndall ! Again he tells us : — “ Every one truth is connected 
with some other truth.” Now I am not quite sure of that ; I should like to 
see it proved as well as stated, though no doubt there are many truths that 
are thus correlated. Further on Mr. English speaks of the atonement as 
“ the highest form of that friendly help and mediation which by nature God 
has taught us to render to each other.” But of course he does not suppose 
that that is all that is meant by the atonement, — and as that is perhaps the 
least thing it implies, I think it is rather a pity that he has introduced that 
sentence. In the same page Mr. English tells us : — “There is a Christian 
as well as a natural philosophy.” We know the Saturday Review has recently 
had an article on Christian Science, sneering at the very notion ; and I am 
glad Mr. English makes a stand for it, and am quite prepared to make 
allowance for his mode of advocating the thing, so that we get the thing 
done. He alludes to the main object of this Society as being “the con- 
sideration of the mutual bearings of the different branches of science and 
