58 
chance is destroyed. It combines the effect of the summation 
of an infinite series, with the proof of the °^ t 
contradictory; i.e., our minds are so formed that they ca 
help Yielding to the evidence as absolutely conclusive. It w 
couVexhilft the cumulative force of the reasoning 
matically, the array of figures would be so great that they 
would be beyond the grasp of a finite mind. Locke may 
have been incorrect in saying that this evidence amou 
demonstration; but it has equal force as demonstration an 
certainly does not help Dr. Newman to metamorphose a ve y 
conditional conclusion into an unconditional assen . 
31 . But an inferior degree of such evidence is suffic ent for all 
practical purposes. Dr. Newman has ably commented on^he 
judge’s directions to the jury in the trial of ^ ul ^[ nd / 
effect which the entire evidence produces on the mind is as 
firm a conviction that Muller murdered Mr Briggs , as wyou 
have resulted from the evidence which is called demonstrative. 
Sly speak of the fact. How it does so is another question 
I belfeve that it could not help producing a similar result on 
any mind which is capable of reasoning, when it is suweyed i 
its totality. There may be minds which are incapable of sur- 
veying a chain of evidence of this kind; bct his no mor 
affects the question than the unquestionable fact that there 
are minds who are incapable of following the steps of , ^“°£e 
stration in Euclid. Nor was its conclusiveness affected by the 
fact that numbers of letters were published in tlie P a P ers ? 
ingenious persons who attempted to pick holes in it. An 
ingenious man, if he were so minded, could do the same with 
ncf small number of mathematical demonstrations. The reason 
why such persons rarely make the attempt, is not theimpos- 
sibility but the want of inducement to do so. But in Mulie 
case no infinite series of facts dovetailing mto one anothei 
was required. Dive or six links exactly fitting into each 
other were sufficient. They did not directly prove that Mullei 
was the murderer ; but what is equally conclusive on mathe- 
matical principles, that none other but Miiller 
the murderer. I cannot see, therefore, how evidence ot this 
will kelp Dr. Newman in .miring 
that all ...erf. feem Heir very n.tnr. mn.t k. * h “ 
unconditioned; or that such assents can be given when the 
evidence only justifies a probable conclusion. Doubtless many 
hold assents and convictions really stronger than are warranted 
by the premisses; but the ground o this is m our moral 
nature, not in our intellect. An apt illustration of this may 
be found in multitudes of assents given in the spirit of par y. 
