64 
the force of a mass of concurrent evidence, are partly con- 
scious and partly unconscious. He gives as an example e 
fact that we instantly reject Father Harduin s theo y 
large portions of the classics were forged by the monks _o 
the middle ages. A person who is acquainted with the classics 
will not only reject this particular theory, but, by an act of 
the mind almost instantaneous, he will reject the idea of sue 
wholesale forgery as the greatest of impossibilities T 
inference is made up of a vast number of subordinate judg- 
ments and reasonings, many of which pass througn the mind 
without leaving a distinct trace m our consciousness, and 
might be very difficult to develop into the formal intellect 
the whole of the grounds of such judgments. But we do so 
when we attempt "to justify them, and it is a necessary con- 
dition of influencing the opinions of others. . 
45 Let us take another instance of far higher importance. 
After taking a mental survey of the entire question I arrive 
at the most certain conclusion that the four Gospels cannot 
possibly owe their origin to the artificial placing together ot 
a number of independent myths. This general judgment is 
the result of a considerable number of subordinate judgments 
formed in the course of the investigation. Each of them ot 
itself is insufficient for producing certainty, but it is produced 
by their concurring in a common centre, borne o ese 
convictions, it is true, are the result of judgment rendered 
more perfect by practice, and so far are incapable of a formal 
exhibition. But the more important ones admit of formal 
exhibition, and it is only as .far as they are capable of this 
that they can be brought to bear on other minds The mode 
in which the mind arrived at them may not have been a 
formal one, but it tests them by formal methods, and it never 
rests until it has developed them into the forms of the under- 
standing. It is only when it has done so that a strong feeling 
of certainty is produced. Because formal methods cannot 
render us infallible, it is no proof that they are useless. _ 
46. In further proof that an absolute certainty can be arrived 
at from contingent premisses, Dr. Newman adduces our inter- 
ences respecting style, and the full assurance with which we 
hold that a composition is not the work of a particular author. 
All judgments respecting style require delicate skill and large 
practical judgment. The course of reasoning is unquestion- 
ably very difficult to elaborate formally. Such judgments are 
largely matters of individual perception, like taste and similar 
mental powers, and bear a strong analogy to the perceptions 
of the senses. These latter also vary m acuteness m indi- 
viduals. It is no proof of the uselessness of our rational 
