I am perfectly convinced that I have both seen, and heard in a manner which should make unbelief impossible, things called spiritual which cannot be taken by a rational being to be capable of explanation by imposture, coincidence, or mistake.

We know that mathematicians care no more for logic than logicians for mathematics. The two eyes of science are mathematics and logic; the mathematical set puts out the logical eye, the logical set puts out the mathematical eye; each believing that it sees better with one eye than with two. Note that De Morgan, himself, only had sight with only one eye.

I don't quite hear what you say, but I beg to differ entirely with you.

The sacred writings excepted, no Greek has been so much read and so variously translated as Euclid.

Wrong hypotheses, rightly worked from, have produced more useful results than unguided observations.

As to writing another book on geometry [to replace Euclid] the middle ages would have as soon thought of composing another New Testament.

It was long before I got at the maxim, that in reading an old mathematician you will not read his riddle unless you plough with his heifer; you must see with his light, if you want to know how much he saw.