That which is to be deplored, however, in respect to Modern Science, is in itself an evil manifestation of the excessive caution which in its most favourable aspect protects Science from over‐hasty conclusions: namely, the tardiness of Scientists to recognise that other instruments of research may be applicable to the mysteries of Nature besides those of the physical plane, and that it may consequently be impossible to appreciate the phenomena of any one plane correctly without observing them as well from the points of view afforded by others. In so far then as they wilfully shut their eyes to evidence which ought to have shown them clearly that Nature is more complex than physical phenomena alone would suggest, that there are means by which the faculties of human perception can pass sometimes from one plane to the other, and that their energy is being misdirected while they turn it exclusively on the minutiæ of physical structure or force, they are less entitled to sympathy than to blame. One feels dwarfed and humbled in reading what M. Renan, that learned modern “destroyer” of every religious belief, past, present and future, has to say of poor humanity and its powers of discernment. He believes Mankind has but a very narrow mind; and the number of men capable of seizing acutely (_finement_) the true analogy of things, is quite imperceptible.(47) Upon comparing, however, this statement with another opinion expressed by the same author, namely, that: The mind of the critic should yield to facts, hands and feet bound, to be dragged by them wherever they may lead him,(48) one feels relieved. When, moreover, these two philosophical statements are strengthened by a third enunciation of the famous Academician, which declares that: _Tout parti pris à priori, doit être banni de la science_,(49) there remains little to fear. Unfortunately M. Renan is the first to break this golden rule. The evidence of Herodotus—called, sarcastically no doubt, the “Father of History,” since in every question upon which Modern Thought disagrees with him, his testimony goes for nought—the sober and earnest assurances in the philosophical narratives of Plato and Thucydides, Polybius, and Plutarch, and even certain statements of Aristotle himself, are invariably laid aside whenever they are involved in what modern criticism is pleased to regard as a myth. It is some time since Strauss proclaimed that: The presence of a supernatural element or miracle in a narrative is an infallible sign of the presence in it of a myth;