are courteous; if he has held certain positions in society, we infer that he has the excellencies, and probably the defects, connected with that position; and if we are wise, we shall consider the peculiar temptations to which our own circumstances expose us, and endeavour to guard our minds against them.

k

Different employments, and different conditions of life, beget in us a tendency to our different passions. Those who are exalted above others in their daily stations, and especially if they have to do with many persons under them, and in many affairs, are too often tempted to the haughty, the morose, the surly, and the more unfriendly ruffles and disturbances of nature, unless they watch against them with daily care. The commanders in armies and navies, the governors of workhouses, the masters of public schools, or those who have a great number of servants under them, and a multitude of cares and concerns in human life, should continually set a guard upon themselves, lest they get a habit of affected superiority, pride, and vanity of mind, of fretfulness, impatience, and criminal anger."-Anon.

Upon this ground, we avoid dangerous society, knowing that evil communications corrupt good manners.

"And here I would advise you to have no dealings with a man who is known to be a rogue, even though he should offer a bargain that may, in that instance, be for your advantage to accept. To avoid him is your duty, on the ground of morality; but it is, moreover, your interest in a pecuniary point of view: for, depend upon it, although he may let you get money by him at first, he will contrive to cheat you in the end. An additional reason is, that your own reputation, and even your moral sensibilities, may be endangered by the contact. If you get money by a rogue, there is a danger that you will feel disposed to apologize for his rogueries; and, when you have once become an apologist for roguery, you will probably, on the first temptation, become a rogue yourself."—Lectures on Ancient Commerce.

15. The doctrine of final causes enters largely into our reasonings on the ordinary affairs of human life.

We act upon this principle in judging of other people. As actions are the effect of motives and feelings, we infer from the character of the actions the character of the motives or feelings. "A good tree bringeth forth good fruit, and an evil tree bringeth forth evil fruit; for a tree is known by its fruits."

In cases where the same action may arise from different

motives, we endeavour to ascertain to which motive the action should be ascribed. Our usual mode of reasoning in this case is from circumstantial evidence: from the existence of the sign, we infer the existence of the condition.

There are certain social relations which are usually attended with certain feelings; and hence we expect in such relations to find such feelings, and that the actions will correspond with such feelings. Where there is no such correspondence, we infer that the parties have been unfaithful to their duty. Hence, an unrighteous judge, a cruel husband, an unkind father, an undutiful son, are characters which mankind in all ages have unanimously denounced.

And, finally, we endeavour to act towards other people in such a way as we judge, from the ordinary principles of human nature, is likely to procure for us their good opinion. On the best means of effecting this object, we subjoin the observations of an American writer :

"If we desire to be deemed religious, we have only to be reli gious, and we must be thus deemed. If you desire to be deemed veracious, speak the truth habitually, and you must be thus deemed. If you desire to be deemed trustworthy, patriotic, benevolent, just, hospitable, philanthropic, studious, learned, be what you desire to be deemed, and your reputation must conform to what you are. While the senses and intellect of men are so organized that men must, as we have seen, impute to us the qualities which we possess, the moral feelings of mankind are so organized that men must feel towards us according to the moral qualities which we possess. If we are lovely, we must be loved; if hateful, we must be hated; if contemptible, we must be contemned; if despicable, we must be despised."-Lectures to Young Men on the art of controlling others, by A. B. Johnson, Utica, New York.

PART III.

THE PRINCIPLES OF REASONING-(continued.)

WE have now gone through the second part of our book. In the first, you will recollect, we considered the Introduction to Reasoning. In the second part, we considered the Principles of Reasoning. In this part, we are going to consider still further the principles of reasoning. But these principles are of a different kind. In the former part the principles had a direct relation to the subject itself; we took the subject, and considered its attributes, its parts, its kinds, its causes, and its effects. In this part we shall consider the subject in its relation to other things. You may therefore, if you please, call the principles we have discussed, the internal principles of reasoning; and those we are going to discuss, the external principles of reasoning. These we shall consider in separate sections, under the following heads:-Section 1. Reasoning from Examples. 2. Reasoning from Analogy, Comparison, and Contrast. 3. Reasoning from Parables, Fables, and Proverbs. 4. Reasoning from Written Documents. 5. Errors in Reasoning.

SECTION I.

REASONING FROM EXAMPLES.

IN reasoning from examples we adduce examples in proof of the propositions we desire to establish.

1. The following are instances:

"And it came to pass, that he went through the corn fields on the sabbath day; and his disciples began, as they went, to pluck the ears of corn. And the Pharisees said unto him, Behold, why do they on the sabbath day that which is not lawful? And he

said unto them, Have ye never read what David did, when he had need, and was an hungred, he, and they that were with him? How he went into the house of God in the days of Abiathar the high priest, and did eat the shewbread, which is not lawful to eat but for the priests, and gave also to them which were with him? And he said unto them, The sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath: therefore the Son of man is Lord also of the sabbath."-Mark ii. 23-28.

"It would be an extremely profitable thing to draw up a short and well-authenticated account of the habits of study of the most celebrated writers with whose style of literary industry we happen to be most acquainted. It would go very far to destroy the absurd and pernicious association of genius and idleness, by showing them that the greatest poets, orators, statesmen, and historians,men of the most brilliant and imposing talents,— have actually laboured as hard as the makers of dictionaries and the arrangers of indexes; and that the most obvious reason why they have been superior to other men is, that they have taken more pains than other men. Gibbon was in his study every morning, winter and summer, at six o'clock; Mr. Burke was the most laborious and indefatigable of human beings; Leibnitz was never out of his library; Pascal killed himself by study; Cicero narrowly escaped death by the same cause; Milton was at his books with as much regularity as a merchant or an attorney,--he had mastered all the knowledge of his time; so had Homer. Raffaelle lived but thirty-seven years; and in that short space carried the art so far beyond what it had before reached, that he appears to stand alone as a model to his successors. There are instances to the contrary; but, generally speaking, the life of all truly great men has been a life of intense and incessant labour."-Rev. Sydney Smith's Moral Philosophy.

"If then we consider the perpetual conflicts of savage tribes, the frequent wars of the rival republics of Greece with each other, and with their common enemies; if we remember that the temple of Janus at Rome, always open in the time of war, was never closed during five centuries, till the end of the second Punic war, and then only for a short time; if we advert to the desolation caused by the Scythians, Goths, Vandals, Tartars, and the destruction of about two millions of human beings in the Crusades, it seems to be evident that wars were anciently, and before the general use of firearms and cannon, more frequent, protracted, destructive, and cruel than they are now."-Aiken on War.

"Yes, sir, if ever you was to Antwerp, you'd see what it is to lose colonies. When that place belonged to Holland, and had colonial trade, five thousand marchants used to meet on 'Change;

1

now the Exchange is left, but the marchant is gone. Look at the great docks built there, at so much expense, and no shipping there. Look at one man-of-war for a navy that has a pennant as long as from to-day to the middle of next week, that can't get out for the Dutch forts, is of no use in, and if it did get out has no place to go to. Buonaparte said he wanted ships, colonies, and commerce; Buonaparte was a fool, and didn't know what he was a-talkin' about, for colonies means all three."-Sam Slick.

2. This mode of reasoning from examples is called by scholastic logicians induction, and is opposed to deduction. We will, then, illustrate the difference between reasoning by induction and reasoning by deduction. You have observed an individual come to poverty by a dishonest course of action, and another arrive at wealth by a life of rectitude; and you remark, "Honesty is the best policy." Here you reason by induction. From these individual cases you gather a proof of the general maxim, "Honesty is the best policy." But suppose a person should ask your advice how to act in a case wherein strict integrity might appear to be less advantageous than a more crooked procedure, and you observe to him, "Honesty is the best policy;" here you reason by deduction. You apply the general principle to an individual case; you reason on the principle of genus and species. These two kinds of reasoning are just the reverse of each other. When from one or more examples you infer a general principle, that is called induction, or reasoning from examples. When from the general principle you infer an individual case, that is called deduction, or reasoning from genus and species. Induction is reasoning from particulars to generals, and deduction is reasoning from generals to particulars.

But you ask, How can I infer a general proposition from a small number of examples? Is it not a rule, that "generals cannot be inferred from particulars?" Very true. You cannot infer generals from particulars, unless you have reason to believe that all the particulars are alike. Our reasoning here must depend upon the uniformity of the laws of nature. When the law is uniform, we can infer generals from particulars, because we know that all particulars are in fact generals. This is the case most frequently in the physical sciences. All animals of