among a great series of facts, we trace an accordance, and thus deduce from the whole a general fact or general principle.

4. Relations of composition; comprehending the resolution of a substance into its elements or constituent parts,-the connexion of the parts as constituting a whole-of the whole to the parts, and of the parts to each other.

5. Relations of causation, or the tendencies of bodies to produce or be followed by certain actions upon each other in certain circumstances. These refer chiefly to that uniform sequence of events from which we derive our idea of the one being the cause of the other. But the class likewise includes other relations arising out of the same subject; such as the relation of two events as the joint causes of a common effect, or the joint effects of a common cause; or as forming links in a chain of sequences in which we have still to look for other events as the true antecedents or final results. It includes also that most important mental process by which, from the properties of a known effect, we infer the powers and properties of an unknown cause.

6. Relations of degree and proportion, as in those truths and relations which are the subjects of mathematics.

7. The important question of moral relations, which does not properly belong to the present part of our inquiry, including the relation of certain actions to the great standard of moral rectitude, and to those principles which bind men together in the harmonies of social and domestic intercourse.

These appear to include the principal relations of things which the mind requires to investigate in an intellectual point of view. The facts respecting them are acquired by attention and memory; but it is the province of reason to separate from the mass so acquired those which are incidental and temporary from those which are uniform,-to ascertain, for example, those characters by which a substance may

be certainly recognised,-the symptoms by which a disease may be distinguished from other diseases which resemble it,-and the actions which a substance may be confidently expected to produce upon other substances in particular circumstances. When the mental process required for doing so is performed in a legitimate manner, the deduction constitutes truth, in regard to the particular point which is the immediate subject of it; when the contrary, it leads to fallacy or falsehood. Hence reason has sometimes been defined that exercise of mind by which we dis tinguish truth from falsehood.

II. Having by the preceding processes ascertained the uniform tendencies of bodies to be followed by certain actions upon each other, we bring these tendencies into operation for the production of certain results. Hence reason has been considered also to be that power by which we combine means for accomplishing an end; but this, perhaps, may be regarded rather as the practical application of the knowledge to which reason leads us, than as a pri mary part of the province of reason itself.

III. We compare mental impressions with external things, so as to correct the impressions of the mind in regard to the external world. Mental processes of the most important kind are connected with this application of reason.

Reason or judgment, when duly exercised, conducts us through these various mental operations, and guides us towards the discovery of truth. It does so by enabling us to compare facts with facts, and events with events; to weigh their relations, bearings, and tendencies; and to assign to each cir cunistance its proper weight and influence in the conclusions which we are to deduce from them. The person who does so we call a man of sound

judgment, whose opinions and conclusions we receive with confidence. On the contrary, we receive with distrust and suspicion the conclusions of a man of an opposite character, who forms his opinions and deductions hastily, that is, from a limited number of facts, or a hasty and imperfect examination of their relations.

A distinction has sometimes been made between the term reason, as used in the language of science, and as employed in the common affairs of life; but there seems to be no real ground for the distinction.

Reason, in the language of intellectual science, appears to be that process by which we judge correctly of the true and uniform relations of facts, or events, and give to each circumstance its due influence in the deductions. It is chiefly opposed to imagination, in which the mind is allowed to ramble through chains of events which are connected by loose and casual associations, leading to no true results. It is also distinguished from simple memory, in which facts or events are connected in the mind by certain principles of association, without a full view of their relations. Thus, when we find a person remembering an extensive collection of facts, and forming certain combinations among them, or deductions from them, without attending to points of difference which tend to other deductions, we say, his memory is better than his judgment.

Reasoning, again, appears to be the continued exercise of reason, when applied to the investigation of a particular subject, or a certain series of facts or events, so as to trace their relations or to establish a particular conclusion as deduced from such a series. This process, however, which is commonly called the discursive faculty, is to be distinguished from the simple exercise of reason. It ought to be guided by reason; that is, by a full view of the real relations of the facts about which it is exercised; but it is often allowed to fix on a slight and partial

view of them; or is applied ingeniously to discover relations of a particular kind only. Thus, we speak of a man who reasons closely, or with a correct attention to the real relations of things, and the true weight of every fact in the investigation; of another who reasons loosely, or who is led away by casual relations and partial views, affording no true deductions; and of a third, who reasons ingeniously and plausibly, but not soundly, that is, who argues on one side of a question, and contemplates facts in particular relations only, or as supporting particular opinions, neglecting those views of them which tend to a different conclusion. This art of ingenious reasoning or disputation, accordingly, we shall afterward have occasion to show, is not only to be distinguished from the sound exercise of reason or judgment, but is often found directly opposed to it.

In the language of theology, reason is distinguished from revelation; and means that exercise of the mind by which we deduce a certain knowledge of the Deity from the power and wisdom displayed in the works of creation, apart from any direct revelation of his character and will.

In the language of common life, the mental process which we term reason or judgment appears to be the same, though the facts on which it is exercised may be different. A reasonable man is one who, both in the formation of his opinions and the regulation of his conduct, gives the due weight and influence to all the facts and considerations which ought to influence his decision. A man of the opposite character is one who takes up his opinions upon slight, partial, and inadequate grounds; and then cannot, or will not, admit the impression of facts or arguments which are calculated to correct these unsound deductions; or who, in the regulation of his conduct, is led away by hasty impressions, or feeble and inadequate motives, without giving due consideration to those which are calculated to lead

him into a different course. The former we call a reasonable, considerate, thinking man; the latter we say is an unreasonable, inconsiderate man, who cannot or will not think. It also very often happens that the latter, having formed his conclusions, is obstinately tenacious of them; while the former is still open to the true and full impression of any new fact or argument that is proposed to him. Solomon has expressed in a very striking manner the leading features of two such characters, namely, of the man who takes up opinions with little examination, and then adheres to them with inaccessible pertinacity; and him who forms them only after full and candid examination, and with a clear conception of the grounds on which they are formed:-" The sluggard is wiser in his own conceit than seven men that can render a reason."

The process of mind which we call reason or judgment, therefore, seems to be essentially the same, whether it be applied to the investigation of truth or the affairs of common life. In both cases, it consists in comparing and weighing facts, considerations, and motives, and deducing from them conclusions, both as principles of belief and rules of conduct. In doing so, a man of sound judgment proceeds with caution, and with a due consideration of all the facts which he ought to take into the inquiry. Having formed his conclusions, he is still open to the influence of new facts, by which they may be corrected or modified; but he is not to be shaken in his confidence by trivial statements or frivolous objections. Opposed to this there are two modifications of character which present an interesting subject for observation. Both form their conclusions hastily, and without due examination of the facts and considerations which ought to influence them; but their subsequent conduct is widely different. The one is shaken in his conclusions by every new fact that is presented to him, and every