specimen of shameful sophistry. By this kind of reasoning I cannot believe any man who claims, for example, to have reached the North Pole; for as lying is very common and reaching the North Pole is confessedly a very rare occurrence, if in fact it ever took place, there being only two persons in the history of the world that even claimed to have done it, I as a cautious reasoner, must, as Hume would argue, weigh the probability of false testimony against the probability of the fact in question and decide the case off-hand against the claimants. I need not trouble myself to investigate the records of Cook and Peary. They have claimed what is impossible for scientific credibility. The only difference that can be between them is that the one may be a wicked charlatan and the other a deluded ignoramus. And more, this must be our judgment forever, until those who claim to have reached the North Pole out-number all the world's liars. When can we ever believe a poor fellow who achieves this heroic deed?
When an empirical philosopher, as Hume was, attempts to settle a question of fact, of history, by means of logic, he deserves the contempt of logicians. Christianity has nothing to fear from learned infidelity, except its sophistry. How is it that so many have accepted his statement as the conclusion of a profound thinker? What is the matter with Hume's admirers?
But Spinoza and Mrs. Eddy take a different turn and one more sly and subtle. Though af-
