164 
they are shown that that which is apparently illogical can be defended, after 
all, on more strictly logical grounds than the objections themselves. If I may 
make any further observation it is this, that the whole of the paper appears 
to me to prove, — and I think it will so convince those who read it, — how 
difficult it is to argue logically upon any subject whatever. Nothing is more 
difficult than a strictly logical argument ; and therefore when sceptics come 
forward with what may appear to be a strong logical argument, it ought to be 
the office of the defenders of revelation, in the first place, to examine very 
minutely and strictly the logic of the sceptic. If I wished to adduce an 
instance to show how difficult it is, even for a profound logician, to argue 
and reason logically upon a subject with which he is not extremely familiar, 
I should not have to go far for an instance. I will not take a matter with 
regard to revelation, but a scientific matter ; and I shall go no further than 
to the treatise of Mr. Mill on Logic. Very early in this, he gives as an 
exemplification of a strictly logical process the demonstration of the 5th 
proposition of Euclid, incorporating into the 5tli the 4th proposition. Now, 
through every edition of Mr. Mill’s Logic, a fallacy has been allowed to slip 
into this famous pons asinorum. I would say with all deference to the 
logical powers of Mr. Mill, that he has failed in passing the “ Asses’ Bridge ! ” 
— not because he is a bad logician, but because he was writing upon a subject 
with which he is not extremely familiar. If he had been extremely familiar 
with the methods of reasoning in Euclid, he could not have fallen into the 
fallacy he has. But any person who will carefully examine the mathematical 
demonstration of the 5th proposition of Euclid, incorporating the 4th, will 
find he has committed there a grievous mathematical blunder and fallacy, 
and I think this is a thing to caution men. Not only must a man be skilful 
in logical processes, but he must apply those processes to a subject with 
which he is familiar. That want of familiarity with a subject, though a man 
may be well armed with all logical processes, will cause him frequently to 
make a slip. I shall now call upon Dr. Thornton to reply. 
Rev. Robinson Thornton. — It is scarcely fair to call it a reply, for I think 
all that has been said has been much in my favour, and has tended to bring 
out matters which I was unfortunate enough to leave neglected. The only 
remarks on which I have to make further comments will be those of Mr, 
Warington. In the first place, his criticism of the title of the paper is more 
lenient than I should have expected ; for I am more dissatisfied with it than 
he is ; and the only reason I adopted it was this — I could not think of a better ; 
every other was worse, and I took this as a pis-aller. I agree thoroughly with 
him, that there is also a lack of logic on our side, but then I remind him of 
this, — the Victoria Institute was founded purposely in order to prevent the 
believers in Scripture having this constantly cast in their teeth. We are 
assembled and associated to examine science scientifically, and not theologi- 
cally, and thus to meet the arguments drawn from science against the Bible ; 
and the Institute is therefore a protest against that lack of logic. As regards 
the subject of Biblical Exegesis, I have not forgotten it ; and I must remind 
him that I have expressly said,? “We leave to Exegetical Theology to deter- 
