From the adaptation of certain arrangements to answer certain purposes, we infer that these arrangements were designed to answer these purposes. Thus, the eye is adapted for seeing; we infer that it was made for that purpose. See Paley's "Natural Theology."

From the manifold proofs of design in the world, we infer the existence of a Designer. These effects denote intelligence, and hence we infer the existence of an Intelligent Cause.

Again, from the manifestation of certain attributes or qualities in the works of creation and providence, we infer the existence of these attributes and qualities in the Intelligent Cause. Hence, we demonstrate the power, wisdom, goodness, and other attributes of God. We prove the goodness of God by facts, showing that the works of nature are so constructed as to produce pleasure as well as utility to his intelligent creatures. See Acts xiv. 17.

In the same way we reason on the nature and character of the human mind, and on the circumstances by which we are surrounded.

Man has a capacity for being happy; we infer that he was designed to be happy. Man has a capacity for acquiring knowledge; we infer that he was designed to acquire knowledge. Man has faculties adapted to an immortal state of existence; we infer that he is destined to immortality.

In the same way, from the attributes, qualities, and capacities of the animal creation, we infer the design or final cause of their creation.

Final causes form an important part of the investigation in cases of circumstantial evidence.

If we show that the prisoner had a strong motive for committing the of fence, such as avarice, revenge, &c., or had stated beforehand a determination to commit it, this, with other circumstances, will be considered as tending to prove that he did commit it.

LESSON CLII.

AIDS IN ARGUMENTATIVE WRITING.

Similitude, Parity of case, Contraries, Proportion, A fortiori, are names of other topics whence internal arguments are derived.

Suppose, for instance, that the writer were desirous to enforce

his former arguments on generosity, and, by enforcing them to move the passions, he might compare generosity to the sun, which shines alike on fruitful and unfruitful soils.

Again, in order to enforce his former argument, that the case of the man needing relief was designed in Providence to try their generosity or their faith, he might insist that their own case with respect to God is a parallel or analogous case to that which is brought before themselves; deal with this man, the writer night say, as God deals with you:

"We do pray for mercy,

And that same prayer doth teach us all, to render
The deeds of mercy."-Shakspeare.

From Contraries the writer might argue that the proposed act of generosity will bring the esteem of men as a reward.

He might say: “As selfishness brings contempt and execration, generosity brings honor and applause; as selfishness shuts out the sympathies of mankind, generosity opens those sympathies, and directs them all to the generous man."

From Proportion he may argue thus:

It is impossible for man to equal the bounty of his heavenly Creator, but he inay approach it in a certain humble degree, and the greater the degree, the more nearly will he resemble the Creator who formed him.

Lastly, in order to enforce the argument drawn from a prudential regard to consequences, the writer might say, that if, without regard to such consequences, it behooves his readers to yield the relief desired, then a fortiori, with those impending consequences in view, they cannot but resolve to yield it.

LESSON CLIII.

REASONING FROM EXAMPLES.

In reasoning from examples, we adduce examples in proof of the propositions we seek to establish. Thus our Saviour spoke, Mark ii. 23-28. Another instance is the following from Rev. Sidney Smith:

"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 labored as hard as the makers of dictionaries and the artangers 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; Peel 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. There are instances to the contrary; but, generally speaking, the life of all truly great men has been a life of intense and incessant labor."

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 to species. Induction is reasoning from particulars to generals; Deduction is reasoning from generals to particulars.

Be it observed, however, that generals cannot be inferred from particulars, unless you have reason to believe that all the particulars are alike. Our reasoning here must depend on the uniformity of nature. When a constant uniformity does not exist, I cannot reason so conclusively, and my reasonings will be weaker in proportion to this want of uniformity, and hence we shall have to descend from certain reasonings to probable or doubtful.

We use the inductive method in the physical sciences.

We see several instances in which fire melts lead; we infer it will always do so, and when we are satisfied that this is the case, we call it a law of nature. Thus also are the laws of Astronomy and other natural sciences discovered.

This kind of reasoning abounds in the sacred writings.

See Neh. xiii. 15-18, the Book of Psalms, the Prophets; and in the New Testament consult the eleventh chapter of Hebrews and first verse of chapter twelfth, which contains the inference; also James v. 10, 11, 1618; 2 Tim. iii. 8, 9; 1 John iii. 11, 12; 1 Cor. x. 6-11.

Principles are often confirmed or illustrated by Examples; as, in Luke iv. 24-27, where they are adduced to show that a prophet has no honor in his own country.

The example of David, a man of decided piety, is adduced to show that in a case of necessity a positive law might be violated to satisfy hunger. Mat. xii. 1-4; Mat. xii. 89, 40; John iii. 14.

Moral injunctions are often enforced by Scriptural examples. Reasoning by example is in great use among lawyers, by what is called a case in point, that is, an example in point.

When a case is in dispute, the plan is to show that a case similar to the present has already been decided. But the example or case adduced will not, of course, be the same in all its circumstances as the case under trial. If so, there would have been no ground for the lawsuit, as the point would then have been already decided. But it is the object of the advocate to show that the case adduced establishes a principle, and that this principle thus established will apply to the case under consideration.

Sometimes an individual case is adduced for the purpose not of establishing but of overthrowing a general principle; as in Mat. xv. 1-6.

As examples can often be adduced on both sides of a question, we shall have to balance one set of examples against another, in order to judge of the probability of the case under consideration.

All anecdotes are arguments. They all prove something, or may be so applied as to prove something, and they should, when related, be associated with the principle which they are adapted to prove.

The rule that when you have advanced arguments enough to prove your point you should advance no more, may be enforced by the following "Eighteen Reasons for Absence:"

The Prince of Condé passing through Beune, the public authorities went to meet him at the gates of the town. After many high-flown compliments the mayor added: "To display our joy, we wished to receive you with the reports of a numerous artillery, but we have not been able to fire the cannons for eighteen reasons. In the first place, we have none; secondly-" My good friend," said the prince, "the first reason is sa good I will excuse the other seventeen."

66

LESSON CLIV.

REASONING FROM ANALOGY, COMPARISON, AND CONTRAST.

By reasoning from Analogy, we mean, reasoning about ne thing from its resemblance to another thing.

For an instance, see Mat. xii. 11, 12. Another we adduce from Paley: "The practice of passing bad money is sometimes defended by the vulgar excuse, that we have taken the money for good, and must therefore get rid of it; which excuse is much the same as if one who had been robbed on the highway should imagine he had a right to reimburse himself out of the pocket of the first traveller he met."

Analogical reasoning is employed in several of the sciences, in moral reasonings, in legal arguments, in political economy, and theology. It is often used with great effect in refuting objections that have been advanced against Divine revelation. Read Butler's Analogy; also, Malachi i. 6; Luke xiii. 14-16.

Analogy is the foundation of nearly all our figurative language. We must be cautious, however, in adopting Metaphors as arguments.

We make comparisons between different persons, qualities, and actions; as, "Knowledge is better than riches; virtue is better than knowledge; therefore virtue is better than riches." This is an argument founded on comparison. Our descriptions of persons, places, and things, consist chiefly of points of comparison with other persons, places, and things.

Thus, speaking of Holt, it is said, "He was not a statesman like Clarendon; he was not a philosopher like Bacon; he was not an orator like Mansfield, yet, &c,"

LESSON CLV.

REASONING BY FABLES AND PROVERBS.

The fable is a fictitious composition, designed to illustrate a proposition, which is called the moral of the fable (so called because the fable is commonly employed to illustrate moral truths).

It is not necessary that the machinery of the fable should bear any resemblance to any moral process to which the proposition may be applied (herein it differs from the parable); it is required only that the result shall illustrate a proposition.