logical terms,
such as "proposition": he certainly has his own meaning of "cumulative." He
says his evidence is cumulative; not a catena, the strength of which is in
its weakest part, but distinct and independent lines, each of which
corroborates the other. This is the very opposite of _cumulative_: it is
_distributive_. When different arguments are each necessary to a
conclusion, the evidence is _cumulative_; when any one will do, even though
they strengthen each other, it is _distributive_. The word "cumulative" is
a synonym of the law word "constructive"; a whole which will do made out of
parts which separately will not. Lord Strafford [552] opens his defence
with the use of both words: "They have invented a kind of _accumulated_ or
_constructive_ evidence; by which many actions, either totally innocent in
themselves, or criminal in a much inferior degree, shall, when united,
_amount_ to treason." The conclusion is, that Mr. B. is a Cambridge man;
the Oxford men do not confuse the elementary terms of logic. O dear old
Cambridge! when the New Zealander comes let him find among the relics of
your later sons some proof of attention to the elementary laws of thought.
A little-go of logic, please!

Mr. B., though apparently not a Hutchinsonian, has a nibble at a physical
Trinity. "If, as we gaze on the sun shining in the firmament, we see any
faint adumbration of the doctrine of the Trinity in the fontal orb, the
light ever generated, and the heat proceeding from the sun and its
beams--threefold and yet one, the sun, its light, and its {241} heat,--that
luminous globe, and the radiance ever flowing from it, are both evident to
the eye; but the vital warmth is felt, not seen, and is only manifested in
the life it transfuses through creation. The proof of its real existence is
self-demonstrating."

We shall see how Revilo[553] illustrates orthodoxy by mathematics. It was
my duty to have found one of the many illustrations from physics; but
perhaps I should have forgotten it if this instance had not come in my way.
It is very bad physics. The sun, apart from its light, evident to the eye!
Heat more self-demonstrating than light, because _felt_! Heat only
manifested by the life it diffuses! Light implied not necessary to life!
But the theology is worse than Sabellianism[554]. To adumbrate--i.e., make
a picture of--the orthodox doctrine, the sun must be heavenly body, the
light heavenly body, the heat heavenly body; and yet, n