119 
Mr. J ustice Grove might be a small enough thing to the eye of 
some other being. The mere monad from which such wonders 
are made to spring, is surely as great a mystery as the large 
animal. If this is reason, intuitional or logical, surely religion 
has no cause to blush for any high claim she makes. But it 
should be understood that science cannot be advanced by such 
means. Beason may be insulted, may be opposed, may be 
disobeyed, but it cannot be degraded, and in the long run 
triumphs over every mean trick in logic or oratory. 
. claim to a monopoly of reason on the side of science 
is made through assumed superior knowledge of scientific 
methods, “No one,” says Mr. Knight, “even slightly ac- 
quainted with scientific methods and results can for a moment 
brook the idea of any interference with the laws of external 
nature produced by human prayer.” This is not the utt erance 
oi a man of science, but it expresses one of the marked ten- 
dencies of a considerable portion of the scientific mind. Like 
many utterances, however, that are immature and one-sided, it 
fails to grasp the whole subject. It is not, for example, 
human prayer” that “produces” the “interference with the 
Jaws of external nature.” Human prayer does not act on the 
winds, on the seas, or on the seasons. Human prayer addresses 
a Being all-powerful, all-wise, all-good, whose will is supreme 
m the sphere to which human prayer points. “ Scientific 
methods must recognize that mighty will and wise thought, 
and, therefore, cannot reasonably object to the action of that 
will, it wisdom should see it meet. “ Scientific methods,” again, 
must not deny facts , historic facts. “Scientific methods” 
have too many sms to confess in this direction, even within 
their own sphere, to be allowed to speak with such dogmatic 
tones. Among those historic facts are to be found startling 
illustrations of the way in which, in answer to human prayer, 
there has been divine interference. 
r ,, 2 ?V This as ® umed superiority of grasp finds in “ Modern 
Christianity a Civilized Heathenism,” another illustration. “ If 
you come to talk of reason,” the interlocutor is made to say, 
the most treasonable belief of all is that the world we see 
around us is the work of a personal and living God.” But is 
it not more unreasonable to maintain that something that was 
no lvmg gave life, and that nature, that is not personal, made 
a being that is— man, for example? If the author did not 
mean o encourage such reasoning, he was morally bound to 
otter some reply. 
24. This claim to a monopoly of reason on the side of 
science is frequently recommended by analogies that are mis- 
ea mg. It is said by Mr. Iiolyoake that “ nature refers us to 
VOL. VIII. K 
