ominy of
failure."

"The fact is," answered Fellowes, "that, like many other things, it
is better understood--"

"Than described, as the novelists say, when they feel that their powers
of description fail them. But this will hardly do for us; we are
philosophers, you know (save the mark!) in search of truth.--A
thing that is well known by every body, and is capable of being
described by nobody, would be almost a miracle of itself; and I
think it imports us to give some better account of the matter. I
can see that my orthodox uncle there is already secretly amusing
himself at the anticipation of our perplexities."

I took no notice of the remark, but went on writing.

"Well, then, if I must give you some definition," said Fellowes, "I
know not if I can do better than avail myself of the usual one, that
it is a suspension or violation of a law of nature. Is not that the
account which Hume gives of the matter?"

"I think it is. I am afraid, however, that at the very outset we should
have some difficulty in determining one of the phrases used in this
very definition,--namely, how we are to understand a law of nature. I
do not ask whether law implies a lawgiver; you will assert it, and I
shall not gainsay it: it is at present immaterial. But do you not mean
by a law of nature (I am asking the question merely to ascertain whether
or not we are thinking of the same thing) just this;--the fact that
similar phenomena uniformly reappear in an observed series of antecedents
and consequents, which series is invariable so far as we know, and so
far as others know, whose experience we can test? Is not that what
you mean? You do not, I presume, suppose you know any thing of the
connection which binds together causes and effects, or the manner in
which the secret bond (if there be any) which unites antecedents and
consequents, in any natural phenomena, is maintained?"

"I certainly make no such pretensions; all that I mean by a law of
nature is just what you have mentioned. I shall be well content to
adhere to your explanation," answered Fellowes.

"So that when we observe similar phenomena reproduced in the aforesaid
series of antecedents and consequents, we call that a law of nature,
and affirm that violation of that law would be a miracle, and
impossible?"

"Certainly."

"And further, do you not agree with me that such invariable series is
sufficiently certified to us by our own uniform experience,--that of
all our neig