83 
is its ultimate principle, and it lias the high warrant of Scripture, so 
that you are not to hate yourself in order to be benevolent, but to love 
your neighbour as yourself. If a man did hate himself he would 
be regardless of salvation, and of doing what is right. All piety and 
probity are maintained in self-love. Then there is a passage from Dr. 
Newman, in which he says that “experience teaches us nothing about 
physical phenomena, as causes,” unless we first consider that we are our 
causes, and interpret what we see through the reflection that we can by our 
will do certain things ; but rational beings, and even intelligent animals, 
have all the sense of phenomena as causes without that reflection. If a 
stone falls on a man he feels it without considering anything analogous in 
himself forcing one thing against another. He is compelled to know of 
something outside, and therefore I cannot accept Dr, Newman’s view. Then 
in one or two places where Mr. Row draws a distinction between ideal 
assent, or certitude and concrete assent, or actual assent, or certitude in the 
individual, I think he is scarcely so right as Dr. Newman, and I should be 
content to yield to Dr. Newman’s proposition, that assent must be abso- 
lute, without agreeing with him in many of his other principles. In other 
parts of his paper Mr. Row is inconsistent in his arguments, and he will 
have an opportunity of clearing up the point if I am wrong. In his 19th 
section he says : — 
“ In one sense of the words, all conclusions are conditioned on the pre- 
mises, because the truth of the conclusion is involved in the truth of the 
premises. This fact is expressed by the word ‘ therefore ! 5 ” 
But in reviewing his recollection of the trial of Muller for the murder of Mr, 
Briggs, he says, in his 23rd section : — 
“ Therefore he was the murderer. I am quite unable to see how the 
presence of the word ‘ therefore ’ makes my assent conditional, or the taking 
it away involves an unconditional assent.” 
And Mr. Row says this, notwithstanding having previously declared that 
the fact of condition is expressed by the word “ therefore ! ” I do not see 
how these two arguments can be reconciled. Then there is another point. 
In the 29th section Mr. Row says : — 
“For all practical purposes, 1+I+4 + & c -> acl infinitum, is equal to 2, 
although I admit that to elaborate the strict metaphysics of this is very 
difficult.” 
For all practical purposes we may know that this is so, but without finding 
any metaphysics in the matter, I deny that 1+J+J,- and so on to infinity, is 
equal to 2 ; and the arithmetic of it is not difficult, for any person understand- 
ing anything of numbers knows that it is not absolutely true. Mr. Row is 
aware of this, as is evident from his expression, “ for all practical purposes.” 
This is not a question of metaphysics, but of simple arithmetic, and you can- 
