sitions, and carried on, as may be supposed, to a very considerable length. And in this argument, as in all others, every proposition is, in the first instance, suggested by the laws of association; it is not at all a matter of arbitrary volition. The disputant first states the inquiry in general terms; he then considers the particular case of murder; the crime of theft is next considered; and this is examined, first, in reference to natural law, and afterward in reference to civil law. And this consecution of propositions takes place in essentially the same way as when the sight of a stranger in the crowd suggests the image of an old friend, and the friend suggests the village of his residence, and the village suggests an ancient ruin in its neighbourhood, and the ruin suggests warriors and battles of other days.-It is true that other propositions may have been suggested at the same time, and the disputant may have had his choice between them, but this was all the direct voluntary power which he possessed.

178. Grounds of the selection of propositions.

A number of propositions are presented to the mind by the principles of association; the person who carries on the process of reasoning makes his selection among them. But it is reasonable to inquire, How it happens that there is such a suitableness or agreement in the propositions, as they are successively adopted into the train of reasoning? And this seems to be no other than to inquire into the circumstances under which the choice of them is made, or the grounds of the selection.

Let it be considered, then, that in all arguments, whether moral or demonstrative, there is some general subject on which the evidence is made to bear; there is some point in particular to be examined. In reference to these general outlines we have a prevailing and permanent desire. This desire is not only a great help in giving quickness and strength to the laws of association, but exercises also a very considerable indirect influence in giving an appropriate character to the thoughts which are suggested by those laws Hence the great body of the propositions which are at such times brought up, will

be found to have a greater or less reference to the general subject. These are all very rapidly compared by the mind with those outlines in regard to which its feelings of desire are exercised, or with what we usually term the point to be proved.-Here the mind, in the exercise of that susceptibility of feelings of relation which we have already seen it to possess, immediately discovers the suitableness or want of suitableness, the agreement or want of agreement, of the propositions presented to it, to the general subject. This perception of agreement or disagreement, which is one of those relative feelings of which the mind is, from its very nature, held to be susceptible, exists as an ultimate fact in our mental constitution. All that can profitably be said in relation to it, is the mere statement of the fact, and of the circumstances under which it is found to exist.-Those propositions which are judged by the mind, in the exercise of that capacity which its Creator has given it, to possess a congruity or agreement with the general subject or point to be proved, are permitted by it to enter in, as continuous parts of the argument. And in this way a series of propositions rises up, all having reference to one ultimate purpose, regular, appropriate, and in their issue laying the foundation of the different degrees of assent. This explanation will apply not only to the supposed argument in the last section, which is an instance of moral reasoning, but will hold good essentially of all other instances, of whatever kind. The difference in the various kinds of reasoning consists less in the mental process than in the nature of the subjects compared together, and in the conditions attending them.

179. Reasoning implies the existence of antecedent or assumed

propositions.

In attempting to give some explanation of the reasoning power, it is to be remarked further, that reasoning, both in its inception and its prosecution, has this characteristic, that it necessarily proceeds, in a great degree, upon assumptions. As every deductive process implies a comparison of propositions, there must, of course, be some propositions given, by the aid of which the comparison is

prosecuted. There must be something assumed as known, by means of which to find out what is unknown. Accordingly, assumed propositions (either those which are known to be true, or, for the purposes of argument, are regarded as such) are always found at the commencement of the series; and they are also introduced frequently in its progress, particularly in Moral reasoning. But the propositions which are assumed are not always expressed; especially those which, from the circumstance of their being representative of elementary convictions of the understanding, are denominated PRIMARY TRUTHS.

"In every process of reasoning," says Abercrombie, "we proceed by founding one step upon another which has gone before it; and when we trace such a process backward, we must arrive at certain truths which are recognised as fundamental, requiring no proof and admitting of none."

§ 180. Further considerations on this subject.

But when we say that reasoning proceeds upon assumptions, it does not necessarily follow that it proceeds upon propositions which are unknown or doubtful. The propositions which are referred to, are assumed in reference to the reasoning power, and not in reference to other sources of knowledge which the understanding possesses besides reasoning. Whatever things are known by Original Suggestion, whatever are known by Consciousness, or by the direct communication of the Senses, ar by undoubted Memory or Testimony, as they cannot be made clearer by reasoning, but fully command our belief of themselves, are at once adopted by reasoning into its own processes, and employed as helps in eliciting the remote and unperceived truths which it is in search of. But, as has been intimated, this adoption is not always a formal and acknowledged one, but often silently and by implication. No one would think of formally and repeatedly enunciating, as he advances in an argument, the truth of his own existence or of his personal identity; and not much more would he think of enunciating that every effect has its cause, or that nature is uniform in her operations, or that a combination of means conspiring to a particular end

indicates intelligence; truths which are so essential and familiar to the human intellect, that we daily base the most important conclusions upon them, while, at the same time, we scarcely think of their existence.

181. Of differences in the power of reasoning.

The faculty of reasoning exists in different individuals in very different degrees. There is the same diversity here which is found to exist in respect to every other mental susceptibility and mental process. In some persons it is not even powerful enough to meet the ordinary exigencies of life, and hardly rescues its possessor from the imputation of idiocy; in others, it elevates human nature, and bestows extraordinary grasp and penetration. And between the extremes of extraordinary expansion and marked imbecility, there are multitudes of distinct grades, almost every possible variety.

This difference depends on various causes.-(1.) It will depend, in the first place, on the amount of knowledge which the reasoner possesses. No man can permanently sustain the reputation of great ability in argument without having previously secured a large fund of knowledge as its basis. And we may add, that no man can reason well on any given subject, unless he has especially prepared himself in reference to that subject. All reasoning implies a comparison of ideas; or, more properly, a comparison of propositions, or of facts stated in propositions. Of course, where there is no knowledge on any given subject, where there is no accumulation of facts, there can be no possibility of reasoning; and where the knowledge is much limited, the plausibility and power of the argument will be proportionally diminished.

That many persons speak on subjects which are proposed to them without having made any preparation, cannot be denied; but there is a vast difference between noisy, incoherent declamation and a well-wrought argument, made up of suitable propositions, following each other with a direct and satisfactory reference to the conclusion. In every case of reasoning, the mind passes successively along the various topics involved in the argument; and, in so doing, is governed by the principles of

association, as we have already had occasion to notice. But what opportunity can there possibly be for the operation of these principles, when the mind is called to fasten itself upon a subject, and to decide upon that subject, without any knowledge of those circumstances which may be directly embraced in it, or of its relations and tendencies?

(2.) The power of reasoning will depend, in the second place, on the power of attention and memory. There are some persons who seem to have no command of the ATTENTION. Everything interests them slightly, and nothing in a high degree. They are animated by no strong feeling; and enter into no subject requiring long-continued and abstract investigation with a suitable intensity of ardour. A defective remembrance of the numerous facts and propositions which come under review is the natural consequence of this. And this necessarily implies a perplexed and diminished power of ratiocination.

(3.) A third ground of difference is diversity in the susceptibility of feeling relations. The remark has already been made, (§ 138,) that facts may be accumulated having close and decisive relations to the points to be proved, but that they can never be so bound together as to result in any conclusion, without a perception or feeling of those relations. But it is well known, whatever it may be owing to, that the relations of objects are much more readily and clearly perceived by some than by others. As, therefore, every train of reasoning implies a succession or series of relative perceptions, a defect in the power of relative suggestion necessarily implies a defect in the reasoning power. And, on the other hand, a great quickness and clearness in the perception of relations is necessarily attended (other things being equal) with an augmented efficiency of reasoning.

182. Of habits of reasoning.

But whatever may be the mental traits that render, in particular cases, the reasoning power more or less efficient, its efficacy will undoubtedly depend, in a great degree, on Habit. The effect of frequent practice, resulting in what is termed a HABIT, is often witnessed in those who