3. White's View—Unvarying Law: To the same purpose, Andrew D. White, once professor of History at Cornell University, and President of the University for twenty-five years, published his great work, "A History of the Warfare of Science with Theology,"[A] The title of a few of the chapters will show the drift of the thought: "From Creation to Evolution," "From 'Signs and Wonders' to Law in Heaven," "From Genesis to Geology," "From Magic to Chemistry and Physics," "From Miracles to Medicine," and so following.

[Footnote A: The Work is in Two Volumes, Appleton and Co., 1903.]

4. John Fiske's View—Unvarying Law: Of course John Fiske (and the same may be said practically of all our modern scientists and philosophers) inclines to the same view—government of the universe by "unvarying law." Fiske describes the effect of the modern intellectual movement to be "to discredit more than ever before the Latin idea of God as a power outside of the course of nature and occasionally interfering with it. In all directions the process of evolution has been discovered, working after similar methods, and this has forced upon us the belief in the Unity of Nature. We are thus driven to the Greek conception of God as the power working in and through nature, without interference or infraction of law. We have so far spelled out the history of creation as to see that all has been done in strict accordance with law. * * * So beautiful is all this orderly coherence, so satisfying to some of our intellectual needs, that many minds are inclined to doubt if anything more can be said of the universe than that it is a Reign of Law, an endless aggregate of coexistences and sequences."[A]

[Footnote A: Studies in Religion, pp. 337-8.]

5. Henry Drummond's View—Unvarying Law: Drummond, in 1893, published his "Natural Law in the Spiritual World," with a view, as the title suggests, of bringing the phenomena of the spirit-world into harmony with the modern scientific conceptions that obtain respecting the natural world. His self-imposed task was to "demonstrate the naturalness of the supernatural;" that the natural and the spiritual world are one. Drummond's conception was a noble one, and resulted in the production of a very notable and convincing work, though meeting in some quarters with the impatience that attaches to works of its class, viz., the class that attempts to work out harmony between science and religion; or between the natural and the spiritual world.[A]

[Footnote A: Thus Andrew D. White, in his "Warfare of Science with Theology," speaking of the phases of theological attack upon science, represents the third and the last—as "an attempt" at compromise—"compromise by means of far-fetched reconciliations of textual statements with ascertained fact" (Warfare, Vol. I, p. 218). That Drummond himself was aware that these "attempts at compromise" of the differences between science and religion, or the "natural and spiritual world," is evident from his preface, where he says: "No class of works is received with more suspicion, I had almost said derision, than those which deal with Science and Religion. Science is tired of reconciliations between two things which never should have been contrasted. Religion is offended by the patronage of an ally which it professes not to need; and the critics have rightly discovered that, in most cases where Science is either pitted against Religion or fused with it, there is some fatal misconception to begin with as to the scope and province of either.">[

6. Difficulties in the Way of Government by Unvarying Law; (1) Limitations of Laws: The difficulties between the conception of government of the world by "unvarying law," and the facts of man's spiritual or religious experiences, which seems at times to be in contravention of law, answers to prayer, healing the sick through faith, foreknowledge of coming events, and the like, would disappear if only men would recognize the fact that laws have their limitations; and that laws in nature known to us may have their force broken or counteracted by the operation of other forces. For example: the power of ocean currents and the winds to carry objects with them in the direction of their movement is overcome by another force, though no less operating under law, viz., the force found in steam; the force of gravitation by the levitating power of gas; the natural tendency of water to seek its level by evaporation and the absorbing power of the atmosphere, are examples. This principle of "law being governed by law," was taught by Joseph Smith as early as 1832, in a revelation received in that year, and in which it was said: "Unto every kingdom is given a law; and unto every law there are certain bounds also and conditions." The context of the passage makes it clear that "kingdoms" here are not groups of men or nations over which a monarch reigns; but substances, matter; worlds and world-systems, and their inhabitants under the dominion of law; the universe considered in its divisions and subdivisions. "Verily I say unto you," continues the revelation, "he [God] hath given a law unto all things by which they move in their times and their seasons; and their courses are fixed; even the courses of the heavens and the earth, which comprehend the earth and all the planets."[A] And yet these laws have their metes and bounds, their limitations; fixed, however, by the operation of other laws, not by the arbitrary will of an absolute monarch.

[Footnote A: Doc. & Cov., Sec. 88:42, 43.]

(2) "Miracles" Part of the Divine Economy: The criticism of religionists on the conception of the government of the universe by the operation of "unvarying law," is that it bars out of the economy of things any place for the special providences of God; destroys all value in prayer; and eliminates miracles. To which the answer is "Not at all!" The whole seeming difficulty arises from a misconception of the means by which the providences of God are wrought; and the means by which socalled "miracles" are brought to pass. This subdivision of the subject may be treated under a brief discussion of "Miracles" usually defined to be an "event in derogation of the laws of nature." What I have said elsewhere upon this subject will answer my purpose here.[A] There is a general misapprehension of the term miracle. It is usually understood as "an event or effect contrary to the established constitution and course of things, or a deviation from the known laws of nature." Renan defines a miracle to be, "not simply the inexplicable, it is a formal derogation from recognized laws in the name of a particular desire." What is especially faulty in these definitions is this: Miracles are held to be events outside or contrary to the laws of nature. Let us examine this:

[Footnote A: "New Witnesses for God," Vol. I, p. 252.]