188 
existence ? No. Commit it, then, to the flames, for it can contain nothing 
but sophistry and illusion.’ ” 
Now, no doubt Hume was a man of great intellect ; but this passage which 
is quoted by Professor Huxley, shows that he was a very bad logician. If 
any volume of divinity or metaphysics is to be rejected because it does not 
contain “ abstract reasoning concerning quantity or number,” or “ experi- 
mental reasoning concerning matter-of-fact and existence,” then, a fortiori, all 
books which do not contain these matters must be treated in the same 
manner. Take the histories of Julius Caesar or of Napoleon Bonaparte; 
they do not contain any abstract reasoning concerning quantity or number, 
or experimental reasoning concerning matter-of-fact and existence, but they 
contain much important information. Or take any other history containing 
information concerning the past ages of the world. All these works must go 
into the fire, and lastly also, the Bible itself, containing the history of God’s 
dealings with the w r orld, as revealed to man by God Himself ; and the life 
and doings of our Lord, as given to us in the New Testament. All these 
works contain no abstract reasoning concerning quantity or number, and no 
experimental reasoning concerning matter-of-fact and existence, and, there- 
fore, they must at once be rejected. No doubt Hume wrote his celebrated 
History of England, as a matter of amusement and interest, but I would ask, 
according to his own view, why, when he had written it, did he not put it 
behind the fire ? (Laughter.) 
Mr. Keddie. — Is it certain that that quotation from Hume is given with 
exactness ? 
Mr. Brooke. — Here is the quotation, which a foot-note declares is from 
Hume’s essay “ Of the Academical or Sceptical Philosophy,” in the Inquiry 
Concerning the Human Understanding 
A Member. — But does Hume refer it to works of history ? 
Mr. Brooke. — Works of history must certainly be included within its 
scope 
A Member. — But he says, “Any volume of divinity or school meta- 
physics” 
Mr. Brooke. — But if the argument is worth anything, it must apply to 
other books as well. If any volume of divinity or school metaphysics is to be 
rejected because it does not contain any abstract reasoning concerning quan- 
tity or number, or any experimental reasoning concerning matter-of-fact or 
existence, all other books which come under the same category must also be 
rejected for the same reason ; that is the only logical conclusion : it is a 
universal logical consequence 
The Chairman. — And that is the use which Professor Huxley makes of 
the passage, or else it would be irrelevant. 
Mr. Brooke. — Quite so ; that is why it is introduced here, and it is clear 
that the logic is exceedingly bad. Professor Huxley goes on to say, “ Permit 
me to enforce this most wise advice.” Now I have a very great respect for 
the talents of Professor Huxley, but I should have been very sorry to have 
