Now I affirm that the former part of this definition suits all deductive reasoning, whether scientifical or moral, in which the principle deduced is distinct from, however closely related to, the principles from which the deduction is made. The latter part of the definition, which begins with the words or rather, does not answer as an explication of the former, as the author seems to have intended, but exactly hits the character of syllogistic reasoning, and, indeed, of all sorts of controversy merely verbal. If you regard only the thing signified, the argument conveys no instruction, nor does it for ward us in the knowledge of things a single step. But if you regard principally the signs, it may serve to correct misapplication of them, through inadvertency or otherwise.

In evincing the truth of this doctrine, I shall begin with a simple illustration from what may happen to any one in study. ing a foreign tongue. I learn from an Italian and French dictionary that the Italian word pecora corresponds to the French word brebis, and from a French and English dictionary, that the French brebis corresponds to the English sheep. Hence I form this argument,

66 Pecora is the same with brebis,

Brebis is the same with sheep;

Therefore pecora is the same with sheep."

This, though not in mood and figure, is evidently conclusive. Nay, more, if the words pecora, brebis, and sheep, under the notion of signs, be regarded as the terms, it has three distinct terms, and contains a direct and scientifical deduction from this axiom, “Things coincident with the same thing are coincident with one another." On the other hand, let the things signified be solely regarded, and there is but one term in the whole, namely, the species of quadruped, denoted by three names above mentioned. Nor is there, in this view of the matter, another judgment in all the three propositions but this identical one, "A sheep is a sheep."

Nor let it be imagined that the only right application can be in the acquisition of strange languages. Every tongue whatever gives scope for it, inasmuch as in every tongue the speaker Jabours under great inconveniences, especially on abstract questions, both from the paucity, obscurity, and ambiguity of the words on the one hand, and from his own misapprehensions and imperfect acquaintance with them on the other. As a man may, therefore, by an artful and sophistical use of them, be brought to admit, in certain terms, what he would deny in others, this disputatious discipline may, under proper management, by setting in a stronger light the inconsistencies occasioned by such improprieties, be renders'agit, a déja été porté d'une manière implicite; des sorte qu'il n'est plus question que de le déveloper, et d'en faire voire l'identité avec quelque juge ment anterieur."-Logique, Art. 7.

ed instrumental in correcting them. It was remarked above,* hat such propositions as these "Twelve are a dozen""Twenty are a score," unless considered as explications of the words dozen and score, are quite insignificant. This limtation, however, it was necessary to add; for those positions which are identical when considered purely as relating to the things signified, are nowise identical when regarded purely as explanatory of the names. Suppose that through the imperfection of a man's knowledge in the language, aided by another's sophistry, and perhaps his own inattention, he is brought to admit of the one term what he would refuse of the other, such an argument as this might be employed, Twelve, you allow, are equal to the fifth part of sixty; Now a dozen are equal to twelve;

66

Therefore a dozen are equal to the fifth part of sixty."

I mark the case rather strongly, for the sake of illustration for I am sensible, that in what regards things so definite as all names of number are, it is impossible for any who are not quite ignorant of the tongue to be misled. But the intelligent reader will easily conceive, that in abtruse and metaphysical subjects, wherein the terms are often both extensive and indefinite in their signification, and sometimes even equivocal, the most acute and wary may be entangled in them. In farther confirmation of my fourth remark, I shall produce an example in Camestres, the second mood of the second figure:

"All animals are mortal;
But angels are not mortal;

Therefore angels are not animals."

When the antagonist calls an angel an animal, it must pro ceed from one or other of these two causes, either from an error in regard to the nature of the angelic order, or from a mistake as to the import of the English word animal. If the first be the case-namely, some erroneous opinion about angels, as that they are imbodied spirits, generated and corruptible like ourselves-it is evident that the forementioned syllogism labours under the common defect of all syllogisms. It assumes the very point in question. But if the difference between the disputants be, as it frequently happens, merely verbal, and the opponent uses the word animal as another name for living creature, and as exactly corresponding to the Greek term,† arguments of this sort may be of service for setting the impropriety of such a misapplication of the English name in a clearer light. For let it be observed, that though Nature hath strongly marked the principal differences to be found in different orders of beings, a procedure which hath suggested to men the manner of classing things

* Chap. v., sect i., part. i.

Η ζων.

into genera and species, this does not hold equally in every case. Hence it is that the general terms in different languages do not always exactly correspond. Some nations from particular circumstances, are more affected by one property in objects, others by another. This leads to a different distribution of things under their several names. Now, though it is not of importance that the words in one tongue exactly correspond to those in another, it is of importance that in the same tongue uniformity in this respect be, as much as possi ble, observed. Errors in regard to the signs tend not only to retard the progress of knowledge, but to introduce errors in regard to the things signified. Now, by suggesting the different attributes comprised in the definition of the term as so many mediums in the proof, an appeal is made to the adversary's practice in the language. In this way such mediums may be presented as will satisfy a candid adversary that the application he makes of the term in question is not conformable to the usage of the tongue.

On the other hand, it is certain that, in matters of an ab stract and complex nature, where the terms are comprehensive, indefinite, not in frequent use, and, consequently, not well ascertained, men may argue together eternally without making the smallest impression on each other, not sensible all the while that there is not at bottom any difference between them, except as to the import of words and phrases. I do not say, however, that this is a consequence peculiar to this manner of debating, though perhaps oftener resulting from it, on account of its many nice distinctions, unmeaning subleties, and mazy windings, than from any other manner. For it must be owned, that the syllogistic art has at least as often been employed for imposing fallacies on the understanding as for detecting those imposed. And though verbal controversy seems to be its natural province, it is neither the only method adapted to such discussions, nor the most expeditious.

To conclude, then, what shall we denominate the artificial system, or organ of truth, as it has been called, of which we have been treating? Shall we style it the art of reasoning? So honourable an appellation it by no means merits, since, as hath been shown, it is ill adapted to scientific matters, and for that reason never employed by the mathematician, and is utterly incapable of assisting us in our researches into nature. Shall we then pronounce it the science of logomachy, or, in plain English, the art of fighting with words and about words? And in this wordy warfare, shall we say that the rules of syllogizing are the tactics? This would certainly hit the matter more nearly; but I know not how it happens, that to call anything logomachy or altercation would be considered as giving bad names; and when a good use may be made of

an invention, it seems unreasonable to fix an odious name upon it, which ought only to discriminate the abuse. I shall therefore only title it the scholastic art of disputation.* It is the schoolmen's science of defence.

When all erudition consisted more in an acquaintance with words, and an address in using them, than in the knowledge of things, dexterity in this exercitation conferred as much iustre on the scholar as agility in the tilts and tournaments added glory to the knight. In proportion as the attention of mankind has been drawn off to the study of Nature, the honours of this contentious art have faded, and it is now almost forgotten. There is no reason to wish its revival, as eloquence seems to have been very little benefited by it, and philosophy still less.

Nay, there is but too good reason to affirm that there are two evils at least which it has gendered. These are, first, an itch of disputing on every subject, however uncontrovertible; the other, a sort of philosophic pride, which will not permit us to think that we believe anything, even a self-evident principle, without a previous reason or argument. In order to gratify this passion, we invariably recur to words, and are at immense pains to lose ourselves in clouds of our own raising. We imagine we are advancing and making wonderful progress, while the mist of words in which we have involved our intellects hinders us from discerning that we are moving in a circle all the time.†

*It answers to that branch of logic which Lord Verulam styles Doctrina de elenchis hermenia; concerning which he affirms, "Dedimus ei nomen ex usu, quia verus ejus usus est plané redargutio, et cautio circa usum verborum. Quinimo partem illam de prædicamentis, si recté instituatur, circa cautiones de non confundendis aut transponendis definitionum et divisionum terminis, præcipuum usum sortiri existimamus, et. hucetiam referri malumus." -De Aug. Sci., V., c. iv.

† How ridiculous are the efforts which some very learned and judicious men have made, in order to evince that whatever begins to exist must have a cause. One argues, "There must have been a cause to determine the time and place," as though it were more evident that the accidents could not be determined without a cause, than that the existence of the thing could not be so determined. Another insists, very curiously, that if a thing had no cause, it must have been the cause of itself; a third, with equal consistency, that nothing must have been the cause. Thus, by always assu ming the absolute necessity of a cause, they demonstrate the absolute necessity of a cause. For a full illustration of the futility of such pretended reasonings, see the Treatise of Human Nature, b. i., part iii., section 3. I do not think they have succeeded better who have attempted to assign a reason for the faith we have in this principle, that the future will resemble the past. A late author imagines that he solves the difficulty at once by saying that "what is now time past was once future; and that, though no man has had experience of what is future, every man has had experience of what was future." Would it, then, be more perspicuous to state the question thus, "How come we to believe that what is future, not what was future, will resemble the past?" Of the first he says expressly, that no man has had ex perience, though almost in the same breath he tells us, not very consistent

CHAPTER VII.

OF THE CONSIDERATION WHICH THE SPEAKER OUGHT TO HAVE OF THE HEARERS, AS MEN IN GENERAL.

RHETORIC, as was observed already, not only considers the subject, but also the hearers and the speaker.* The hearers must be considered in a twofold view, as men in general, and as such men in particular.

As men in general, it must be allowed there are certain principles in our nature which, when properly addressed and managed, give no inconsiderable aid to reason in promoting belief. Nor is it just to conclude from this concession, as some have hastily done, that oratory may be defined “The art of deception.' The use of such helps will be found, on a stricter examination, to be in most cases quite legitimate, and even necessary, if we would give reason herself that inly, "The answer is sufficient: have we not always found it to be so?" an answer which appears to me not more illogical than ungrammatical. But admitting with him that to consider time as past or future (though no distinction can be more precise) is only puzzling the question, let us inquire whether a reason can be assigned for judging that the unknown time will resemble the known. Suppose our whole time divided into equal portions. Call these portions A, B, C, D, E, F, G. Of these the first three have been experienced, the remaining four are not. The first three I found to resemble one another, but how must I argue with regard to the rest? Shall I say B was like A, therefore D will be like C; or, if you think it strengthens the argument, shall I say C resembled A and B, therefore D will resemble A, B, and C? I would gladly know what sort of reasoning, scientifical or moral, this could be denominated, or what is the medium by which the conclusion is made out? Suppose, farther, I get acquainted with D, formerly unknown, and find that it actually resembles A, B, and C, how can this furnish me with any knowledge of E, F, and G, things totally distinct? The resemblance I have discovered in D to A, B, and C, can never be extended to anything that is not D, nor any part of D, namely, to E, F, and G, unless you assume this as the medium, that the unknown will resemble the known, or, which is equivalent, that the future will resemble the past. So far is this principle, therefore, from being deduced from particular experiences, that it is fundamental to all particular deductions from experience, in which we could not advance a single step without it. We are often misled in cases of this nature by a vague and popular use of words, not attending to the nicer differences in their import in different situations. If one were to ask me, "Have you, then, no reason to believe that the future will resemble the past?" I should certainly answer, "I have the greatest reason to be lieve it." And if the question had been concerning a geometrical axiom, I should have returned the same answer. By reason we often mean, not an argument or medium of proving, but a ground in human nature on which a particular judgment is founded. Nay, farther, as no progress in reasoning an be made where there is no foundation (and first principles are here the arle foundation), I should readily admit, that the man who does not believe ach propositions, if it were possible to find such a man, is perfectly irra tional, and, consequently, not to be argued with. Chap. iv.