151 
another relation apparently, but not actually, connected with the 
foregoing, and so not really a portion of the Universal Truth. 
To such fallacies as these Aristotle devotes a whole treatise ; 
and there is scarcely a logical writer who has not touched 
upon them. I wish to call attention to two, which appear the 
most common. 
The first is technically called “ a dido secundum quid ad 
dictum simpliciter ." A statement having been made, with 
certain limitations and qualifications, these are tacitly put 
aside, and the statement employed as if it were made without 
them. Thus, when we allow the singular phenomenon of 
parthenogenesis, as an exceptional mode of propagation, to be 
accounted for by peculiar physical circumstances, we may be 
considered to have acquiesced in the possibility of its being 
the rule rather than the exception. Or, when we quite agree 
with the truth of Mr. Darwin's pigeon experiments, and 
allow that, within limits, varieties almost infinite _ in number 
may be produced almost at will, we may be taxed with granting 
that similar variations may take place, and be perpetuated, out 
of those limits. 
The technical term for the second of these fallacies is 
“ ignoratio elenchi ." The word elenchus signifies here the 
contradictory of the proposition which is opposed; and the 
fallacy consists in “ ignoring the elenchus,” — that is, substi- 
tuting for it, and proving, instead of it, a proposition some- 
thing like it, but not incompatible with the proposition in 
question. 
As an instance of the ignoratio elenchi, I may bring forward 
the manner in which the miracle of the battle of Beth-horon 
is dealt with. The Scriptural language on the subject is, as 
we might expect, popular, and not scientific, and has more- 
over a poetical cast. “ The sun stood still." The opponents 
of Scripture meet this by showing that, as the sun does not 
move in the heavens, it need not be commanded to stand still ; 
and even if we understand the words of the diurnal revolution 
of the earth, such an utter confusion of all things would occur 
from its suspension that we cannot conceive a Deity of law 
and order sanctioning such an invasion of His system. Without 
going into the theological question of the nature of the 
Divine power and will, I think we may- call this an ignoratio 
elenchi. What Scripture in effect states is, that for some 
reason or other, not given, the sun's light was visible, and the 
sun himself appeared in one place, longer than usual. The 
“ elenchus " of this would be, “ The event did not happen at 
all;" or, “ It is hardly conceivable that it should happen in 
any way consistently with what we know of the Divine order." 
