To this use of the terms the Duke of Argyll has given no inconsiderable countenance in his admirable work, “The Reign of Law,” especially in the sixth chapter. He uses the term law as alike applicable to the operations of mind and matter, and this of course implies that the whole of our mental phenomena form a portion of nature and its order. He is led to this, among other considerations, by the use which we make of the word “natural” as applied to the results of all kinds of mental operations. The question may fairly be asked, Are not the works wrought by man in nature, or is not the building of its nest by a bird, or of its comb by the bee, a natural operation? If so, man, bird, and bee, must form a portion of nature, and their various actions, of its order.
In a popular point of view such expressions involve no difficulty, and as a mere verbal distinction the whole question would not be worth the labour of discussion. But in a question like the one now under consideration, which requires the utmost accuracy both of thought and reasoning, the case is far different. The classing together of phenomena which differ so entirely as mind and matter, under a common term, leads to the inference that there is no essential difference between them, which involves at the outset a petitio principii of the entire question under definition. I shall have occasion repeatedly to point out in the course of this work the number of fallacious reasonings which have been introduced into the question about the possibility and the credibility of miracles by thus including under a common term phenomena utterly different in character. It would be far better to get rid of words so vague as “nature” and “natural” in this discussion, and [pg 030] substitute for them terms of which it is impossible to mistake the meaning, than to employ them in senses which are simply ambiguous and misleading. But of this more hereafter.
What then are we to do with man? Is he a part of nature and its order? I reply that man is within material nature as far as regards his bodily organization; but that he is outside, or above it, and belongs to a different order, as far as his rational action, his volition, and his moral powers are concerned. All that I am contending for is that a clear distinction must be preserved between the necessary action of the forces of material nature, and the voluntary action of man; and that terms must be used which accurately denote this distinction. Matter, its forces and laws, involve the conception of necessary action. They act in a particular manner because they cannot help so acting. With action purely intellectual I am not concerned, but all moral action is voluntary. Man as an agent can act or forbear acting; matter cannot. This distinction is of the highest importance, and must not be lost sight of behind a confused use of such terms as natural, law, force, or order of nature, applied indeterminately to the necessary action of material agents, and the voluntary action of moral ones.
It will doubtless be objected by a certain order of philosophy that all mental and moral force is only some special modification of material force, and consequently that there is no distinction between material and moral action, or between material and moral force, and that the words “nature” and “natural” are correctly applied to both alike, as being simple manifestations of the same original force. To this it will be sufficient to reply, first: that this is an assertion only, [pg 031] and never has been nor can be proved. Secondly: that it contradicts the highest of all our certitudes, the direct testimony of consciousness, which affirms that we live under a law of freedom, wholly different from the necessary laws of material nature. Thirdly: that it contradicts the universal experience of mankind, as embodied in the primary laws of human language and human thought. To assume this at the commencement of the argument is to take for granted the point which requires to be proved.
It would be quite out of place in a treatise like the present to attempt to discuss the question of the origin of the free agency and the moral nature of man. It is sufficient for the purpose to observe that, however voluntary agency may have originated, it is a simple fact that it exists in the universe, and that its phenomena belong to an order of its own. It is no mere theory, but a fact, that man not only is capable of modifying the action of the forces of the material universe, but that he has modified them, and has produced results utterly different from those which would have followed from their simple action. To use terms in this controversy which overlook this plain and obvious fact, can lead to no satisfactory result.
Are then the actions of man, the bird, and the bee, properly designated as natural? In a popular use of language the question may be one purely verbal; but when we are dealing with subjects requiring accurate thought, it is in the highest degree necessary to use language which does not confound the distinct phenomena of mind and matter under a common designation. Both together compose the universe; but each belongs to a different order of phenomena. The whole difficulty proceeds from the fact that both material forces which act in conformity with necessary laws, and moral ones [pg 032] which act in conformity with those of freedom, are united in the person of man.
Another order of thought uses the term “nature” as including everything that exists, even God; or in other words, it affirms that every thing which has existed and exists is a manifestation of Him. As this theory involves the denial of the personality of the Divine Being, it stands excluded from the question under consideration, namely, the credibility of miracles, which is utterly irrelevant, except on the assumption of the existence of a personal God. It ought to be observed, however, that while theism affirms that God and the universe, whether material or moral, are distinct, it fully recognises the fact that God is immanent in both the worlds of mind and matter, while at the same time he transcends them both. This is an important consideration, which is too often overlooked by both parties to the discussion.
Secondly: a still greater confusion has been introduced by a vague and indefinite use of the term “law,” and by confusing a number of utterly diverse phenomena under the designation of the “laws of nature.” It is absolutely necessary to trace this fallacy to its source. The Duke of Argyll tells us in his “Reign of Law” that there are five different senses at least in which this word is habitually used even in scientific writings. They are as follows:—
“First, we have law as applied simply to an observed order of facts.”
“Secondly, to that order as involving the action of some force or forces of which nothing more can be known.”