146 THE LIGHT OF DAT 



faculties. What is this other evidence to which Dr. 

 Temple alludes ? He would prohahly say it is the 

 evidence that a higher will interferes and sets aside 

 or reverses the ordinary processes of nature ; but do 

 we not want evidence that a higher will does so in- 

 terfere, and must not this evidence be scientific ? 

 that is, adequate to convince the mind ? We can 

 admit a breach in the uniformity of nature only upon 

 the same hind of evidence as that which leads us to 

 deny the breach ; that is, evidence that appeals to 

 reason and experience. It must be tangible, objective 

 evidence, and not a theory or a groundless postulate. 

 What proves the interference of this higher will ? 

 The miracle. But what proves the miracle ? The 

 theory of the higher will. 



If there are other truths than scientific truths, and 

 other grounds of certitude than those apprehended 

 by the reason, they are not such as are available 

 when natural law is on trial. 



If we ask of a thing, or a measure, or a course of 

 conduct. Is it good or bad, right or wrong ? we ap- 

 peal to the moral sense ; if we ask of a thing. Is it 

 beautiful ? we appeal to the aesthetic sense. If we 

 ask of a statement or alleged occurrence, Is it true ? 

 we appeal to the intellectual sense, to the reason 

 and judgment. And there is no other court but 

 this that can settle the truth or falsity of a propo- 

 sition. There is no other court but this that has 

 to do with the truth of things. 



Our religious instincts and impulses do not have 

 to do with the truth or falsity of a thing ; they are 



