136 
JOUENAL OF THE PLYMOUTH INSTITUTION. 
LOGIC, rOEMAL AND MATEKIAL. 
ABSTRACT 01 B,EV. J. M. CHARLTON's PAPER. 
(Read February 2nd, 1871.) 
Mistaken views of the nature and powers of logic. Logic may be 
defined as the science, which investigates the laws of reasoning or 
inference ; or more comprehensively, as the science which treats of 
the laws of thought. Definition of thought, in the logical sense 
of the term, and distinction of the matter and form of thought. 
On the basis of this distinction, two schools of logic have been 
formed in recent times ; the one, essentially founded on the Organon 
of Aristotle, contends that logic is the science of the formal laws, 
or the laws which determine the form of thought, of which school 
the best representatives are Kant, Sir William Hamilton, and 
Professor Mansel. The otlier, essentially founded on the Novum 
Organum of Bacon, contends that logic is the science, exclusively, 
of the material laws, or the laws which determine the matter of 
thought, of which school the best representatives are Stuart Mill, 
Bain, and others. The main object of the lecturer was to find a 
basis of reconciliation between these rival schools. Accordingly 
he sought to prove : 
I. That there is a material process of reasoning and thought 
which cannot be reduced to the forms of thought. This he 
endeavoured to prove in the instances of inductive and analogical 
reasoning. He submitted the utter irrelevancy of the inductive 
syllogisms alike of Whateley and Hamilton, and the analogical 
syllogism proposed by other logicians. 
II. That there is a formal process of thought and reasoning, 
which is absolutely independent of its matter. This the lecturer 
sought to prove in the instance of deductive reasoning in general, 
which receives its formal expression in the syllogism. The attacks 
of Dr. Thomas Brown and Stuart Mill upon the syllogism were 
carefully examined, and the charge of petitio principii was refuted. 
Reasonings 'of Brown and Mill were analyzed and fairly reduced to 
syllogistic forms. Mill's own summary of his argument against 
the syllogism was shewn to be itself a syllogism, known among 
logicians as celarent in the first figure. In like manner Brown's 
