may fairly say, Theistical) and Christian principles are necessary. That being the case, I think there would be no departure from a truly philosophical mode of argument, even were we to make direct use of passages of Scripture in discussing Utilitarianism. I myself in my paper have been obliged to make use of them, because I am forced to show that the principle enunciated by Mr. Mill, as a new discovery and as deduced from his theory of Utilitarianism, is positively a plagiarism from Christianity. The duty of men to be at unity with one another is a principle of Christianity. But it was not merely taught by Christ, but even in the Old Testament; for we, Christians, do not acknowledge there have been two true religions. The religion of the New Testament is merely the religion of the Old Testament more fully taught, and made plainer and patent to the whole world, instead of being confined to a chosen people. And when we find Mr. Mill telling us, without going to the origin of that doctrine, that if we would now teach the principle of unity, we should have something which would re-convert the world,—we are surely entitled to point to the fact, that this teaching is not new, but that it is old; and that, if it has failed, it is from no defect of the principle, but because people, knowing what is good, will yet do what is not good. This is an unfortunate truth, with which we know the heathen were acquainted, from the well-known poet's reflection, "Video meliora proboque, deteriora sequor;" and the Apostle St. Paul also taught the same thing, with reference to his personal experience before he was converted to Christianity and became a consistent follower of Christ.

The Meeting was then adjourned.

ORDINARY MEETING, MAY 6TH, 1867.

THE REV. WALTER MITCHELL, VICE-PRESIDENT, IN THE CHAIR.

The minutes of the previous Meeting having been read and confirmed, the Honorary Secretary announced that, in return for our Journal of Transactions, the Royal Institution of Great Britain had, through its Secretary, presented the Institute with a complete set of its Proceedings from 1851 to 1866, in four volumes, and that three pamphlets had also been received from Mr. Patrick McFarlane, a Member of the Institute.

The following Paper was then read :

ON THE LOGIC OF SCEPTICISM. By the REV. ROBINSON THORNTON, D.D., Head Master of Epsom College, Mem. Vict. Inst.

HE conclusions, or supposed conclusions, arrived at by modern science in opposition to the statements made in the Books which we accept as containing a Divine Revelation, have been generally parried by throwing doubt upon the facts or observations on which they are founded. Believers in the genuineness and authenticity of the Old and New Testament have been contented to cast discredit upon the accuracy of observers, or have even been tempted to accuse them of misrepresenting or inventing facts, for the sole purpose of subverting the authority of the writings which others held sacred. This accusation may possibly be merited in some few cases. Hasty observations may have been reported as nice and careful inferences may have been registered as facts: and without doubt observations have received a direction, and reports a colour, from a foregone conclusion. But it would be doing a great injustice to the majority of those who advocate the views which our Institute was founded to combat, if we attributed to them any design but that of arriving at truth by means of truth. We contend that observations have been incorrect, and facts mis-stated, not that they have been deliberately falsified. However, it is not sufficient to impugn the records of the senses. Cogent argument as it is, if we are able to

point out a case where the observer's sight or hearing has deceived him, or where a statement, by passing from one to another, has been converted into something like the contradictory of its former self, it is rarely we can produce it. Throw what doubt you will upon the accounts of things seen, heard, analysed, discovered, you cannot expect to find modern science at fault in that which is perhaps the chief among her many glories, a rigorous and careful system of observation.

But while it is unfair and one-sided to impute evil motives, or even to suggest failure on the part of a practised observer, and somewhat suicidal to weaken the value of facts which may after all tell on our side, there can be no objection to our sifting diligently the logic of sceptical arguments, and showing that whatever the state of the case may be as regards the correctness or incorrectness of the facts laid down to argue from, the mental process is not free from error. I must not be considered capable of the presumption of attempting to execute such a task for the whole, or even a part, of what is alleged against Scripture; and indeed it is scarcely our province to thrust ourselves into controversy: my object will be to call attention to the nature of logical processes in general, and so to point out where it is that we may expect to find the weakness of the weapon aimed against the believer in the absolute truth of our written Revelation.

Logic is defined as "The Science of the Laws of Thought." Whether this definition be adequate or not, we will not stop to inquire; but will go on to define a logical process as "the passage of the mind from one thought to another." By "thought" I here mean, not a simple notion, but a compound notion, asserting something concerning the relation of two or more simple notions. This passage or movement of the mind is, like all other motions, subject to its own laws; but there is this difference between the motion of intellect and of matter, that while the latter cannot take place at all except according to law, the laws of mental movement may be apparently, but not really, obeyed; or, in other words, to get rid of the fallacy latent in the word "law," physical motion is variable only within limits; intellectual motion may vary infinitely, though one movement only conducts to Truth.

This movement of the intellect from one thought to another is itself called by the name of "Thought." The superior power of the Greek language enables it to distinguish (which we cannot do) between "a thought," i. e., the object or fact we think of, considered with reference to our own mind (νούμενον, νόημα), the act of thinking (νόησις), and the passage from one to another, "Thought" simply (diávoia).

Those notions of the relation of simpler notions which I have called "thoughts" are obviously of different kinds. We may have a relation between class and class, or between individual and class, or between individual and individual. And so by a simple calculation we may see that there are nine different processes of the mind: from the relation between classes to another between classes, or between individual and class, or between individual and individual; or, again, from the relation between individual and class to that between classes, or from that between individuals to that between classes, or between individual and class; or from that between individual and class to another between individual and class, or between individuals, or from a relation between individuals to another between individuals. The first three of these processes coincide mainly (for I shall not weary you by analysing too closely) with what is termed Deduction, or Synthesis; the next three with Induction, or Analysis; the remaining three, though least scientific in appearance, are as a matter of fact the commonest processes of all. We habitually reason from individual cases to individual cases. It is the opinion of many logicians that in such reasoning we insensibly generalize and particularize again; they conceive that a process from individual to individual is impossible, and that the mental road lies through a universal. With all due deference to high authority, I am inclined to maintain the opposite, and to hold that the mind does actually proceed from one individual notion to another, without passing through any induction, rapid or slow.

Each of these mental processes has its own special law or rule of guidance. The law of Deduction is expressed-or was intended to be expressed-in the "dictum de omni et nullo" of old logicians. We may term it the law of "Universal Truth." Granted a general proposition, it is equally applicable to every case which comes under it. Granted a relation between classes, that relation holds good for every portion of those classes.

The rule of Induction may be characterized as "the law of Uniformity." Observed a fact with regard to an individual, supposing that individual to be the adequate representative of a class, you can infer a class-relation.

The law of the third process of the mind I shall term "the law of Analogy." Observed a fact with regard to an individual, you infer a similar fact about another similar individual.

If these somewhat broad statements about the laws of the three mental processes be taken as in the main correct, we can easily see where error may arise; namely, from some violation of the special law which regulates the truth of the process.

Deduction has been fairly enough termed (by Mr. Mill) the deciphering of our manuscript notes. As far as mere positive science is concerned, this description (for description it is) of Deduction is correct. It is when we come to Geometry, Psychology, and Theology, that we find the difficulty of acquiescing in the application of the name "manuscript notes" to the intimations of a Creator's Will and Being, and the necessities of thinking to which He has subjected our intellect. But let the term be accepted. It is plain that the "law of Universal Truth" requires, for a correct passage of thought, that the relation inferred should really be contained in short-hand in the manuscript notes: that the individual case to which the general is applied really does come under it.

The fallacy then will be either to introduce a false or unsuitable relation; or else to apply a suitable enough relation to a case which seems to come under it, but does not actually.

Of the first form of fallacy none is commoner, none more in use among sceptics, than that which is called the argumentum ad verecundiam. We are told, You must allow this, you must deny that; and when we ask why, we receive the reply, "Because Professor A. or Mr. B. has said so. If you do not acquiesce you are guilty of the presumption of doubting them." The argument is transferred from the truth of fact a or fact ẞ to the credibility of A or B.

I should not have alluded to this form of fallacy were it not for the fact that the sceptical school resolutely deny to believers the argument from authority, while they themselves use it. If we urge the acceptance of Scripture because it has been accepted by so many, by thinkers and by workers of so many ages, and such varied modes of life, we are told immediately that the question is one, not of opinion, but of truth; that it shows a blind deference to the unreasoning credulity of ignorant ages to plead for the acceptance of a book because it has been accepted for two thousand years. On the other hand, if we venture to prefer our Scripture to the somewhat vague and uncertain generalizations of geologists, and the like, we are met forthwith with the authority of learned names and ordered "favere linguis."

I call this pushing the "argumentum ad verecundiam" too far, an instance of the fallacy of false or unsuitable relation, because, instead of having the relation between class and class (or between individual and class) clearly pointed out, we have merely given us the dictum of an individual concerning that relation.

But, supposing the relation clearly and adequately stated, we come to another form of fallacy; that of proceeding to