158 
specimens of the class of documents which claim a divine 
origin, and have long been allowed their claim. 
I am sensible that I have not gone so deeply as I should 
have gone into psychological inquiry with respect to the direct 
process of the mind from individuals to individuals. The 
whole subject of the analogy of individual relations is one of 
deep interest, and especially to the theologian, to whom a 
single soul, with its special powers, trials, dangers, and aids, 
is an object for reverential study. Perhaps some member 
of our Institute, whose leisure for thought and powers of 
thinking enable him to work the subject more thoroughly, 
will take up what I have thus somewhat presumptuously ven- 
tured to touch on. We need a “ Kritik” of the whole process of 
reasoning by analogy. There is another “ Kritik/' also, which 
logical science appears to need — a criticism of, and canons for, 
the Logic of Contradictions. For we must remember that every 
sceptical argument aimed against Scripture involves a double 
process : the establishment, or, at least, the assertion, of a cer- 
tain proposition, and the comparison of this proposition with 
the propositions enunciated in Scripture on the same sub- 
ject. Here we have three possible fields of error : the logic 
of the sceptic, the interpretation of Scripture, and the com- 
parison of the two propositions. I have already endeavoured 
to point out where sceptical logic, constructively considered, 
may be possibly found to fail, and we leave to Exegetical 
Theology to determine what Scripture really does assert. 
Doubtless the Bible has often been made to say anything but 
what it does really say, but - the investigation of its import 
belongs not to Philosophy. However, suppose the statement 
of Scripture to be clear, and the scientific conclusion alleged 
contrariant thereto to be logically correct, we have still the 
comparison between the two to examine. May it not 
often happen that two propositions, apparently contrary 
to one another, are really, in logical language, only sub- 
contrary, capable of being true together ; representing, 
perhaps, two different sides of the same ontological truth, 
— two equally necessary canons, — but referring to different 
conditions of being ? We know it to be true that all men 
are mortal, and still, in spite of logic, just as true that no 
men are mortal. The ambiguity in the word mortal is easily 
detected here : may not a deep thinker's rigorous “ Kritik 
of the whole subject of contradiction clear away many a 
supposed discrepancy between the Book of Nature and the 
Book of Grace ? 
I must conclude this paper, as I did one which I had the 
honour of reading before this Institute about a year ago, with 
