Farther thought showed me that a question of logic, such as I here had before me, was peculiarly one on which the propagator of a new religion could not be allowed to dictate; for if so, every false system could establish itself.  Let Hindooism dictate our logic,—­let us submit to its tests of a divine revelation, and its mode of applying them,—­and we may, perhaps, at once find ourselves necessitated to “become little children” in a Brahminical school.  Might not then this very thing account for the Bible not enlightening us on the topic? namely, since Logic, like Mathematics, belongs to the common intellect,—­Possibly so:  but still, it cannot reconcile us to vacillations and contradictions in the Bible on so critical a point.

Gradually I saw that deeper and deeper difficulties lay at bottom.  If Logic cannot be matter of authoritative revelation, so long as the nature of the human mind is what it is,—­if it appears, as a fact, that in the writings and speeches of the New Testament the logic is far from lucid,—­if we are to compare Logic with Mathematics and other sciences, which grew up with civilization and long time,—­we cannot doubt that the apostles imbibed the logic, like the astronomy, of their own day, with all its defects.  Indeed, the same is otherwise plain.  Paul’s reasonings are those of a Gamaliel, and often are indefensible by our logical notions.  John, also (as I had been recently learning,) has a wonderful similarity to Philo.  This being the case, it becomes of deep interest to us to know,—­if we are to accept results at second hand from Paul and John,—­what was the sort of evidence which convinced them? The moment this question is put, we see the essential defect to which we are exposed, in not being able to cross-examine them.  Paul says that “Christ appeared to him:”  elsewhere, that he has “received of the Lord” certain facts, concerning the Holy Supper:  and that his Gospel was “given to him by revelation.”  If any modern made such statements to us, and on this ground demanded our credence, it would be allowable, and indeed obligatory, to ask many questions of him.  What does he mean by saying that he has had a “revelation?” Did he see a sight, or hear a sound? or was it an inward impression? and how does he distinguish it as divine?[4] Until these questions are fully answered, we have no materials at all before us for deciding to accept his results:  to believe him, merely because he is earnest and persuaded, would be judged to indicate the weakness of inexperience.  How then can it be pretended that we have, or can possibly get, the means of assuring ourselves that the apostles held correct principles of evidence and applied them justly, when we are not able to interrogate them?