are derived from these principles, so that we shall be guided into the truth

and guarded from error.  The objection to logic as being unserviceable in the

discovery of truth may hold good in the realm of natural science, but it is

not valid in the realm of Scriptural revelation.  In that realm we do not set

out to discover truth by processes of reasoning, but, on the contrary,

believe that in the Scriptures we already possess a complete revelation, and

that we can and should use every legitimate means to arrive at the right

understanding of that revelation, and to test all that professes to be an

exposition of its teaching.

Another superficial objection to logic is that in the hands of the

unscrupulous the very processes of true reasoning can apparently be made to

lead to false conclusions.  But this is no fault of logic; in such a case,

clearly error has crept into the premisses, and the process is no more an

objection to the true place of logic than the fact that certain calculations

based on the assumption that nineteen, and not twenty shillings make a pound

(99, and not 100 new pence make a pound), had produced a false answer, would

be an objection to arithmetic.  Changing the figure, we must first of all

secure a correct translation; then, granted that our terms are unambiguous

and our premisses true, the conclusion is as inevitable as is the conclusion

of an arithmetical sum.

Neither in the Scriptures, nor in conversation are arguments always

stated at full length, but it is safe to say that every valid argument may be

expressed in that form known since the days of Aristotle as the syllogism.

The term 'argument' is used popularly in a somewhat wider sense than is

intended in logic, but strictly speaking every argument consists of two

parts, viz., that which is proved, and the means whereby it is proved.  That

which is proved is called the 'conclusion' and the means whereby it is so

proved the 'premisses'.  Here is a simple example of a syllogism:

All tyrants deserve death ... Cæsar was a tyrant ... Therefore he

deserved death.

We are not at the moment concerned with the morals of the matter before

us, but with the process of reasoning and its inevitable conclusions.  There

is no possible way of avoiding the conclusion, 'Therefore he deserved death',

except by questioning and disproving some feature of the premisses.  Either

it is not true that all tyrants deserve death, or it is true.  Either it is

true that Cæsar was a tyrant, or it is not true.  But if these premisses be

conceded, then the conclusion is valid and unassailable.

One great value of the syllogism is the way in which it forces revision

of the premisses or steps that lead to an erroneous conclusion.  For example,

there is nothing apparently wrong with the following process of reasoning,

yet the conclusion is so obviously untrue that it compels a search for error

in the premisses that might otherwise have escaped us:

White is a colour ... Black is a colour ... Therefore black is white.

When we realize that much that passes for Scriptural doctrine will not

stand the test of the syllogism, we may look more kindly upon its

application, and allow some place for an explanation of its use.

Without allowing the subject to occupy undue space, we hope to give a

few notes upon the importance of correct reasoning and valid argument.  We

trust this will prove to be of service in the elucidation of the truth of the