84 
not state the proposition without having a clear apprehension as to its 
meaning. Though in an equation you might as well put 2, still, as rational 
beings, we know that it never could be equal to 2. Again, I differ from 
Mr. Row in the 31st section of the paper, where he says that you can pick 
holes in circumstantial evidence, such as that on which Muller was fairly 
convicted, but that any ingenious man could do the same with no small 
number of mathematical demonstrations. Now, I maintain that if they 
are absolute demonstrations, no one can pick holes in them. If they are 
only approximate ones, such as that l+i+l &c., =2, then, of course, it 
may be done, and it may be shown that the conclusion is not demonstrated, 
but it is a mistake to say that all mathematical demonstrations may be 
pulled to pieces in the same way as the circumstantial evidence of a murder. 
Then he says in the 34th section : — 
“I must adhere to the general principle, that all our convictioiw are 
absolute or contingent, according to the foundation on which they 
erected.” 
Dr. Newman himself would admit that, for he maintains that, all our con- 
victions are not absolute, and that therefore all our convictions are not 
assents. Then in the next 
“ Such certitude is not human certitude, because, as every man knows, or 
rather ought to know, man has not the gift of infallibiiity. 
Now, X do not see that there is any connection or antithesis between certitude 
and infallibility. A man may be quite certain, although he is not infallible. 
In that very passage, Mr. Row has got the definition which Dr. Rigg was 
not quite certain about, as to the indefectibility of certitude. Mr. Row thinks 
there is a confusion between an abstract conception and a concrete, thing. 
The one great fault of a paper reasoning from such a conscientious following 
of another essay is, that it detracts from its clearness. As to the expression 
of the certitude which Mr. Row says he admits— that we all feel certain 
that we shall die— I can only say that it is precisely _ and categorically in e 
teeth of St. Paul’s statement, that we shall not all die. Again I differ from 
what he says in his 41st section : 
“ When reasoning confines itself to the use of symbols, its conclusions are 
free from some of this liability to error.” 
Now Professor Whewell, in his Philosophy of the Inductive Sciences and 
Berkeley, in his Principles of Human Knowledge, have both pointed out the 
special liability of the reasoning powers to err when using symbols. Bu 
quite agree with the concluding portion of his sentence . 
« .... but the process is useless unless we can translate the symbols into 
notional or real conceptions.” 
That no doubt is true, and yet it curiously goes with the other passage as if 
