What shall we say then?
Where lies the fault?
In the original doctrines expressed in the premisses?
God forbid.

In the particular deductions, logically considered?
But these we have found legitimate.
Where then?
I answer in deducing any consequences by such a process, and according to such rules.

The rules are alien and inapplicable; the process presumptuous, yea, preposterous.

The error, [Greek: to proton pseudos], lies in the false assumption of a logical deducibility at all, in this instance.
First:--because the terms from which the conclusion must be drawn-( 'termini in majore praemissi, a quibus scientialiter et scientifice demonstrandum erat') are accommodations and not scientific--that is, proper and adequate, not 'per idem', but 'per quam maxime simile', or rather 'quam maxime dissimile': Secondly;--because the truths in question are transcendant, and have their evidence, if any, in the ideas themselves, and for the reason; and do not and cannot derive it from the conceptions of the understanding, which cannot comprehend the truths, but is to be comprehended in and by them, ('John' i.

5.): Lastly, and chiefly;--because these truths, as they do not originate in the intellective faculty of man, so neither are they addressed primarily to our intellect; but are substantiated for us by their correspondence to the wants, cravings, and interests of the moral being, for which they were given, and without which they would be devoid of all meaning,--'vox et praeterea nihil'.