far beyond Epicureanism, or even Stoicism, solely by means of 
the teaching of Christianity. 
We may well be surprised to find a writer, having the high 
reputation of Mr. J. S. Mill as a logician and reasoner, making 
use of an illustration by way of argument, which is no better 
than the vulgar tu quoque fallacy, which can only be answered 
by the common proverb that “two blacks cannot make a. 
white.” Ignoring Christianity as the lamp of moral truth, he 
admits there are endless difficulties, confusion, and little 
progress yet made among mankind in the decision of the 
controversy respecting the criterion of right and wrong ; in 
short, he acknowledges, among those who thus reject the 
Christian rule, a condition of “ ever learning, but never being 
able to come to the knowledge of the truth.” But he pleads 
that “ similar confusion and uncertainty, and in some cases 
similar discordance, exist respecting the first principles of all 
sciences, not excepting that which is deemed the most certain 
of them, mathematics and he says that this is so “ without 
much impairing, generally indeed without impairing at all, 
the trustworthiness of the conclusions of these sciences.” 
“YJvvq it not so,” he goes on, “ there would be no science 
more precarious, or whose conclusions were more insufficiently 
made out, than algebra, which derives none of its certainty 
from what are commonly taught to learners as its elements, 
since these, as laid down by some of its most eminent teachers, 
are as full of fictions as English law, and of mysteries as 
theology.” 
All this may be very true, and may afford a very good 
reason for being on our guard against the irrational mysteries 
of modern analytical mathematics ; but it should be remem- 
bered that these corruptions and contradictions and mysteries 
in pure mathematics, have crept gradually into the science, 
and not without protest on the part of honest thinkers. But 
such a description of algebra would scarcely be given by any 
one who accepts its methods as trustworthy. And such a bad 
example of credulity in a science which is admitted to be full 
of contradictions and insufficiently proved conclusions, affords 
no reason why men should reject the plain teaching of Chris- 
tianity, in order to adopt a system which its very author (as 
we may concede Mr. Mill to be) confesses to be thus full of 
difficulties and contradictions. But to do justice to the analogy 
before us; contradictory, confused and mysterious as Mr. 
Mill admits modern mathematics to be, what would he think 
of a philosopher who, in opposing their conclusions, wished 
all their teaching to be quietly ignored, instead of attacking 
their main principles by strictly mathematical reasoning, and 
