82 
be either a decided “ yes ” or “ no.” I hold that Mr. Titcomb does assent to 
the proposition that the world is an oblate spheroid. He does not mention 
the argument as to its being a prolate spheroid, and I do not suppose 
he thought that argument worthy of consideration. Then I most thoroughly 
agree with one remark which fell from Dr. Rigg, as to Dr. Newman having 
put out the view with reference to an “illative sense” as though it were some 
new discovery. If the phrase “ illative sense ” is used in its ordinary signi- 
fication, as that sense or faculty (for I hold to the distinction which Mr. 
Row draws) by which we can infer, then some of Dr. Newman s statements 
appear like mere truisms. The illative sense being the sense by which we 
infer (and if that is not its meaning I do not know what is), of course, any 
conclusion that we draw is the work Of that sense or of our reason, but the 
confusion of thought and difference of opinion upon many points between 
Dr. Newman and Mr. Row is traceable to this same want of definition. The 
“illative sense ” is the only means we have of verifying inductive processes 
and although this view may appear to Mr. Row to be essentially unsound, yet 
I think he will find Dr. Johnson defines “illation” as merely “inference,” 
and, if that be so, I do not see what other sense you could use to draw an infe- 
rence with, except the sense which draws inferences. (Hear, and laughter.) 
Some of Dr. Newman’s most high-sounding phrases resolve themselves into 
very little indeed, if you employ a common signification for them. Mr. Row 
commends Dr. Newman’s book for its modesty, as it only professes to be an 
essay in aid of a grammar of assent, and not a grammar itself, and he seems 
to think that a great point would be gained if we could elaborate principles 
from which we could get a complete system ; but, ever since man existed, we 
have had these things, and these inferences have been arrived at. What is 
grammar ? Merely the custom of language, and a grammar of assent would 
be only an examination of the processes of the mind by which we assent to 
things. But those processes have existed as long as human beings have, and 
if we do not understand them I am not surprised at it, if we are to use 
language as Dr. Newman has done, and to treat the subject in such a fashion. 
Take the instance which he gives of lucern being medicago sativa. There is 
nothing in teaching a child that lucern is food for cattle any more than m 
teaching it a language. It is all the same whether you call lucern by its 
Latin or English name ; any child who is taught a new word accepts it 
simply because it is taught it, and if you always apply that word to one 
particular thing it becomes a mere representative of the reality ; and there- 
fore there is nothing in that famous instance of Dr. Newman’s which is 
worth a moment’s consideration. (Hear.) There are several arguments m 
Mr. Row’s paper with which I cannot agree, although I ao not differ from 
his conclusions ; and there are others that I must notice, because they appear 
as things which are put out without comment as self-evident. For instance, 
there is the statement in the 9th section, that benevolence is opposed to the 
principle of self-love. Now, I do not think that is true. Benevolence means 
good-will to your neighbour— to love your neighbour as yourself. Ihat 
