148 
point out a case where the observers sight or hearing has 
deceived him, or where a statement, by passing from one to 
another, has been converted into something like the contra- 
dictory 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 sift- 
ing diligently the logic of sceptical arguments, and showing 
that whatever the state of the case may be as regards the cor- 
rectness or incorrectness of the facts laid down to argue from, 
the mental process is not free from error. I must not be con- 
sidered 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 weak- 
ness 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 
(vovfitvov, vorj/ua), the act of thinking [vo^cnq), and the passage 
from one to another, “Thought” simply (Starofa). 
