the lions that are sent out free, these incarnate and make visible all of God their several natures will admit. If Man were not spiritual, and could yet conceive of the aggregate of invisible things, he might call it God, for he could go no further.
Now, as God is Infinite, imperfection is not to be spoken of Him. His Will therefore—if we may so use that term—is always the same. As Nature has of itself no power, and God is present and active therein, it must obey and represent his unalterable will. Hence, seeing the uniformity of operation, that things preserve their identity, we say they are governed by a Law that never changes. It is so. But this Law-what is it but the Will of God? a mode of divine action? It is this in the last analysis. The apparent secondary causes do not prevent this conclusion,
The things of Nature, having no will, obey this law from necessity.[1] They thus reflect God's image and make real his conception—if we may use such language with this application. They are tools, not Artists. We never in Nature see the smallest departure from Nature's law. The granite, the grass, keep their law; none go astray from the flock of stars; fire does not refuse to burn, nor water to be wet. We look backwards and forwards, but the same law records everywhere the obedience that is paid it. Our confidence in the uniformity of Nature's law is complete, in other words, in the fact that God is always the same; his modes of action always the same. This is true of the inorganic, the vegetable, the animal world.[2] Each thing keeps its law with no attempt at violation of it.[3] From this obedience comes the regularity and
- ↑ I use the term obedience figuratively. Of course there is no real obedience without power to disobey.
- ↑ M. Leroux, an acute and brilliant but fanciful writer, thinks the capabilities of man change by civilization, and, which is to the present point, that the animals advance also; that the Bee and the Beaver are on the march towards perfection, and have made some progress already. However he may make out the case metaphysically, it would be puzzling to settle the matter by facts. But if his hypothesis were admissible, it would not militate with the doctrine in the text.
- ↑ From this view it does not follow that animals are mere machines, with no consciousness, only that they have not free-will. However, in some of the superior animals there is some small degree of freedom apparent. The Dog and the Elephant seem sometimes to exercise a mind, and to become in some
