celebrated it certainly is, as well as the siege of Troy, whether either event ever really took place or no,) or was safe in the rear, while Augereau performed the exploit. The same doubt hangs over the charge of the French cavalry at Waterloo. The peasant Lacoste, who professed to have been Buonaparte's guide on the day of battle, and who earned a fortune by detailing over and over again to visitors all the particulars of what the great man said and did up to the moment of flight,--this same Lacoste has been suspected by others, besides me, of having never even been near the great man, and having fabricated the whole story for the sake of making a gain of the credulity of travellers."

"It appears, then, that those on whose testimony the existence and actions of Buonaparte are generally believed, fail in ALL the most essential points on which the credibility of witnesses depends: first, we have no assurance that they have access to correct information; secondly, they have an apparent interest in propagating falsehood; and, thirdly, they palpably contradict each other in the most important points."

"But what shall we say to the testimony of those many respectable persons who went to Plymouth on purpose, and saw Buonaparte with their own eyes? must they not trust their senses? I would not disparage either the eyesight or the veracity of these gentlemen. I am ready to allow that they went to Plymouth for the purpose of seeing Buonaparte; nay, more, that they actually rowed out into the harbour in a boat, and came alongside of a man-of-war, on whose deck they saw a man in a cocked hat, who, they were told, was Buonaparte. This is the utmost point to which their testimony goes; how they ascertained that this man in the cocked hat had gone through all the marvellous and romantic adventures with which we have so long been amused, we are not told."

"There is one more circumstance which I cannot forbear mentioning, because it so much adds to the air of fiction which pervades every part of this marvellous tale; and that is the nationality of it.

"Buonaparte prevailed over all the hostile states in turn except England; in the zenith of his power, his fleets were swept from the sea, by England; his troops always defeat an equal, and frequently even a superior number of those of any other nation, except the English; and with them it is just the reverse; twice, and twice only, he is personally engaged against an English commander, and both times he is totally defeated; at Acre, and at Waterloo; and to crown all, England finally crushes this tremendous power, which had so long kept the continent in subjection or in alarm; and to the English he surrenders himself prisoner! Thoroughly national, to be sure! It may be all very true; but I would only ask, if a story had been fabricated for the express

L

purpose of amusing the English nation, could it have been contrived more ingeniously?"-Historic Doubts relative to Napoleon Buonaparte. See page 164.

2.-Time-serving in religion:

"BY-ENDS.-My brethren, we are, as you see, going all on pilgrimage; and for our better diversion from things that are bad, give me leave to propound unto you this question.

Suppose a man, a minister or a tradesman, &c., should have an advantage lie before him to get the good blessings of this life, yet so as that he can by no means come by them, except, in appearance at least, he becomes extraordinary zealous in some points of religion that he meddled not with before; may he not use this means to attain his end, and yet be a right honest man?

66

'MONEY-LOVE.-I see the bottom of your question; and, with these gentlemen's good leave, I will endeavour to shape you an answer. And, first, to speak to your question as it concerneth a minister himself: suppose a minister, a worthy man, possessed but of a very small benefice, and has in his eye a greater, more fat and plump by far; he has also now an opportunity of getting it, yet so as by being more studious, by preaching more frequently and zealously, and, because the temper of the people requires it, by altering of some of his principles; for my part, I see no reason why a man may not do this, provided he has a call, ay, and more, a great deal besides, and yet be an honest man. For why?

1. His desire of a greater benefice is lawful, (this cannot be contradicted,) since it is set before him by Providence; so then he may get it if he can, making no question for conscience sake.

"2. Besides, his desire after that benefice makes him more studious, a more zealous preacher, &c., and so makes him a better man, yea, makes him better improve his parts, which is according to the mind of God.

"3. Now, as for his complying with the temper of his people, by deserting, to serve them, some of his principles, this argueth, 1. That he is of a self-denying temper. 2. Of a sweet and winning deportment. And, 3: So more fit for the ministerial function.

"4. I conclude, then, that a minister that changes a small for a great, should not, for so doing, be judged as covetous; but rather, since he is improved in his parts and industry hereby, be counted as one that pursues his call, and the opportunity put into his hand to do good."

"And now to the second part of the question, which concerns the tradesman you mentioned. Suppose such an one to have but a poor employ in the world, but by becoming religious, he may mend his market, perhaps get a rich wife, or more and far better

customers to his shop; for my part, I see no reason but this may be lawfully done. For why?

"1. To become religious is a virtue, by what means soever a man becomes so.

"2. Nor is it unlawful to get a rich wife, or more custom to my shop.

"3. Besides, the man that gets these by becoming religious, gets that which is good of them that are good, by becoming good himself so then here is a good wife, and good customers, and good gain, and all these by becoming religious, which is good; therefore, to become religious to get all these is a good and profitable design."-Bunyan's Pilgrim's Progress.

3. Mental reservation :

"Verity and falsity being proprieties of an enunciative speech, as Aristotle teacheth us, that is, of that speech either conceived only in the mind or uttered by words or writing, by which we affirm or deny anything-which we call a proposition-that we may the better discern this verity and falsity, we must needs consider the variety of propositions. And we may say with the logicians, that there be four kinds of propositions. The first is a mental proposition, only conceived in the mind, and not uttered by any exterior signification: as when I think with myself these words, 'God is not unjust.' The second is a vocal proposition, as when I utter those words with my mouth. The third is a written proposition, as if I should set the same down in writing. The last of all is a mixed proposition, when we mingle some of these propositions or parts of them together, as in our purpose, when being demanded whether John at Style be in such a place, I, knowing that he is there indeed, do say nevertheless, I know not,'-reserving or understanding within myself these other words, (to the end for to tell you.) Here is a mixed proposition containing all this, I know not to the end for to tell you.' And yet part of it is expressed, part reserved in the mind.”

"Our Saviour said to his disciples that he himself knew not the day of judgment, but his Father only, which by consent of the holy Fathers is to be understood that he knew it not for to utter it, although they were never so desirous to know it; whereas his Father knowing it, had uttered it unto him as man: for otherwise we know that St. Peter truly said, 'O Lord, thou knowest all things.' And St. Paul affirmeth that in Christ were hidden all the treasures of the wisdom and knowledge of God. So that it is a Catholic verity that he knew the day and hour of his dreadful judgment, notwithstanding this equivocal sentence, wherein he seemeth to deny that he had any such knowledge.", Besides these kinds of propositions which we have hitherto defended not to be lies, although by them always some truth is

concealed, there be some other ways, whereby, without a lie, a truth may be covered, which I will briefly set down.

"1. First, we may use some equivocal word which hath many significations, and we understand it in one sense, which is true, although the hearer conceive the other, which is false. So did Abraham and Isaac say, that their wives were their sisters, which was not true as the hearers understood it, or in the proper meaning, whereby a sister signifieth one born of the same father or mother, or of both, but in a general signification, whereby a brother or sister signifieth one near of kindred, as Abraham called Lot his brother, who was but his brother's son; and our Lord is said to have had brothers and sisters, whereas properly he had neither. The like unto this were if one should be asked whether such a stranger lodgeth in my house, and I should answer, ‘He lieth not in my house,' meaning that he doth not tell a lie there, although he lodge there.

"2. Secondly, when unto one question may be given many answers, we may yield one and conceal the other. So Samuel, being commanded by God to go to Bethlehem to anoint David king, said unto God, 'How shall I go? for Saul will hear of it, and kill me.' And our Lord said, Thou shalt take a calf out of the herd; and shalt say, I come to do sacrifice to our Lord.' And Samuel did as our Lord said unto him, and came into Bethlehem. But the ancients of the city, wondering thereat, met him and said, 'Is thy coming peaceable?' who answered, 'It is peaceable; I am come to do sacrifice unto our Lord.' Here Samuel uttered the secondary cause of his coming, and warily dissembled the principal, which notwithstanding they principally intended to know, and by this answer were put out of suspicion thereof. So may it happen that one coming to a place to hear mass may answer them who ask the cause of his coming, that he came to dinner or to visit some person who is there, or with some other true alleged cause satisfy the demanders.

3. Thirdly, the whole sentence which we pronounce, or some word thereof, or the manner of pointing or dividing the sentence, may be ambiguous, and we may speak it in one sense true for our own advantage. So it is recorded of St. Francis, that being asked of one who was sought for to death, whether he came not that way, he answered (putting his hand into his sleeve, or, as some say, into his ear), he came not this way?'

"4. To these three ways of concealing a truth by words if we add the other of which we spoke before, that is, when we utter certain words, which of themselves may engender a false conceit in the mind of the hearers, and yet with somewhat which we understand and reserve in our minds, maketh a true proposition, then shall we have four ways how to conceal a truth without making of a lie.”—A Treatise on Equivocation.

PART IV.

THE FORMS OF REASONING.

We have now, gentle reader, passed through three parts of our work. In the First Part we considered the Introduction to Reasoning. In the Second Part we considered some of the Principles of Reasoning. In the Third Part we considered another class of the Principles of Reasoning. In this, the Fourth Part, we are going to consider the Forms of Reasoning. But you may ask what is the difference between the principles of reasoning and the forms of reasoning? The difference is this, the principle refers to the nature of the reason, the form refers to the manner of expressing it; the principle refers to ideas, the form refers to the language and the method. We will explain this by an example. Suppose in the morning, your wife advises you to put on your great-coat, to prevent your taking cold. Here the principle of the argument is the relation of cause and effect. And the validity or strength of this argument must depend upon the soundness of this principle in its application to the present case; that is, upon the probability that you will take cold if you do not wear your great-coat. But this argument may be proposed in a variety of forms. She may say, "My dear, put on your great-coat, this morning; if you don't, you'll be sure to take cold." Or she may speak interrogatively: "Why don't you put on your great-coat this morning? Do you wish to take cold again as you did before? What's the use of having a great-coat, if you don't wear it such a day as this." Or she may speak syllogistically, and say, "Whenever you are in danger of taking cold, you should put on a great-coat; I am sure you are in danger of taking cold this morning; therefore, this morning you should put on your greatcoat."

You will perceive, then, that by the forms of reasoning,