[263] In the same way Mr. Lewes, in criticising the Duke of Argyll's "Reign of Law" (_Fortnightly Review_, July 1867, p. 100), asks whether we should consider that man wise who spilt a gallon of wine in order to fill a wineglass? But, because we should not do so, it by no means follows that we can argue from such an action to the action of God in the visible universe. For the man's object, in the case supposed, is simply to fill the wine-glass, and the wine spilt is so much loss. With God it may be entirely different in both respects. All these objections are fully met by the principle thus laid down by St. Thomas Aquinas: "Quod si aliqua causa particularis deficiat a suo effectu, hoc est propter aliquam causam particularem impediantem quae continetur sub ordine causae universalis. Unde effectus ordinem causae universalis nullo modo potest exire." ... "Sicut indigestio contingit praeter ordinem virtutis nutritivae ex aliquo impedimento, puta ex grossitie cibi, quam necesse est reducere in aliam causam, et sic usque ad causam primam universalem. Cum igitur Deus sit prima causa universalis non unius generi tantum, sed universaliter totius entis, impossibile est quod aliquid contingat praeter ordinem divinae gubernationis; sed ex hoc ipso quod aliquid ex una parte videtur exire ab ordine divinae providentiae, quo consideratur secundam aliquam particularem causam, necesse est quod in eundem ordinem relabatur secundum aliam causam."--_Sum. Theol_. p. i. q. 19, a. 6, and q. 103, a. 7. [264] "Unity of Worlds," Essay ii., Sec. ii., p. 260. [265] See the exceedingly good passage on this subject by the Rev. Dr. Newman, in his "Discourses for Mixed Congregations," 1850, p. 345. [266] See Mr. G. H. Lewes's "Sea-Side Studies," for some excellent remarks, beginning at p. 329, as to the small susceptibility of certain animals to pain. [267] "Philosophy of Creation," Essay iii., Sec. iv., p. 480.