46 
ration of such a system be an impossibility, if we can succeed 
in consigning to the world of unrealities some portion of those 
erroneour methods of treatment which lead to all kinds of 
crudities in philosophy, science, history and theology. There 
are many Jugs in Dr. Newman’s work which are worthy of 
the closest attention of all investigators of truth. 1 hey are 
well calculated to suggest caution in every department of 
human^ thought. It would afford me the most sincere pleasure 
if I could bring these most important points to your no ice. 
The length 0 ™ the work, however, renders this hope ess. In 
this Paper to the comparatively unwelcome office ot criticising 
hose portions of it from which I dissent rather than the 
points P in which I cordially concur. _ My observations, there- 
fore must not be construed into implying^ an unquali e 
toe?pre?sTde;^iction thai 
of degrees. The second portion of the seventh 
“rtlTn iXmZl 
higher than their sources, and that we ^e entitle 
rcrp-is™* j t t r s 
seems to open a most serious question, and that it can on y 
IT maintained by confusing together things which differ 
W1 4 d In considering the nature of these operations of the 
mind through which we arrive at truth I t “ e fo^th 
careful attention to the positions lai j rea i 
chanter as to the distinction between notional and real 
assents Dr. Newman divides all our conceptions into _ 
great classes, notional and real ; and a ^* s “ 
corresponding classes, notional and real assents. Our n 
