accomplished by a sound system of logic; including under that title a portion—that which relates to the "laws of evidence"—of what is sometimes treated of under the head of "rhetoric." But the full and complete accomplishment of such an object would confer on man the unattainable attribute of infallibility.
But the difficulty complained of, he conceives to arise, in many instances, from men's misstating the grounds of their own conviction. They are convinced, indeed, and perhaps with very sufficient reasons; but they imagine this reason to be a different one from what it is. The evidence to which they have assented is applied to their minds in a different manner from that in which they believe it is—and suppose it ought to be—applied. And when challenged to defend and justify their own belief, they feel at a loss, because they are attempting to maintain a position which is not in fact that in which their force lies.
For a development of the nature, the consequences, and the remedies of this mistake, the reader is referred to "Hinds on Inspiration," pp. 30-46. If such a development is to be found in any earlier works, the author of the following pages at least has never chanced to meet with any attempt of the kind.[1]
It has been objected, again, by some persons of no great logical accuracy of thought, that as there would not be any moral blame imputable to one who should seriously disbelieve, or doubt, the existence of Buonaparte, so neither is a rejection of the Scripture histories to be considered as implying anything morally culpable.
- ↑ See Elements of Rhetoric, p. 1, ch. ii. § 4.
