I gladly avail myself of a page from the writings of a thoughtful writer of our own, who, half a century ago, reviewed the very errors which are being so industriously reproduced among ourselves at this day,--certainly not with more ability than of old:--"Let us examine a little farther into the weight of the argument derived from the supposed immutability of the Laws of Nature. It has constantly been the theme of modern Unbelievers, that the course of Nature is fixed, eternal, unalterable; and that nothing which is supposed to violate it can possibly take place. Now, we may readily allow, that the course of Nature is unalterable by _human_ power; nay, even by the power of any _created_ being whatsoever. But the question is,--Are these Laws unalterable _by Him who made them_? Proof of this is requisite, before the argument from the immutability of the Laws of Nature can have the least force. We may safely assert, however, that proof of this is absolutely impossible.--'Facts,' it may be said, 'daily passing before us, warrant us in _supposing_ its laws to be unchangeable.' Perhaps so. But if a thousand or more facts have occurred, since the Creation of the World, in which those Laws appear to have been over-ruled, or suspended, is such a conclusion _then_ warrantable? Even if there had never been a single instance of a Miracle recorded, since the Creation; yet the conclusion would not be just or logical, that no such thing is possible. But with such a multiplicity of instances to the contrary as are already on record, it is no better than a shameless assertion, in direct opposition to the evidence of men's senses and experience. Nay, more; the argument is _atheistical_. For, either GOD made and ordained these Laws of Nature; and may, consequently, at His pleasure, unmake or suspend them: or else, these laws are self-framed, and Nature is independent of the GOD of Nature; which is saying, in other words, that the material Universe is not governed by any Supreme Intelligence. "This latter opinion appears, indeed, to be the tenet of all who resort to arguments of this kind, in opposition to the credibility of Miracles. Thus it is said, [by Hume,] that every effect must have a cause; and that, therefore, a Miracle must have a cause in _Nature_; otherwise, it cannot be effected.--But, is not the _Will of_ GOD, without any other agency, or predisposing cause, sufficient for the purpose? When GOD created the World out of nothing, what pre-existing cause was there, except His own omnipotent Will to produce the effect? Why then is not the same Will sufficient to work Miracles? "'But,' says another Sophist, [Spinoza,]--'GOD is the Author of the Laws of Nature; so that whatever opposes those Laws, is necessarily _repugnant to the Divine nature_: if, therefore, we believe that GOD may act in a manner contrary to those laws, we, in effect, believe that He may do what is contrary to _His own nature_; which is absurd and impossible.'