much of his conduct, and often unravel his character; and sometimes even anticipate what, in certain circumstances, he will say and do. A true knowledge of the law of suggestion, in our own minds, if kept in view, will often guard us against the follies or evils into which we are most prone to fall.

SYLLOGISM,

From ovλoyioμòs, a putting together of reasons. An inference from admitted principles, or premises (as they are called) when expressed in due form, is called a syllogism; as thus

1. No one who lives in perpetual fear can be happy;

2. But a miser lives in perpetual fear :

3. Therefore a miser cannot be happy.

If we know concerning the whole of a thing that it is so and so; or not so; we may then safely affirm the same of any part, as thus—

All the space between the lines A, B, C, is green

But the little space d, is included within the lines A, B, C;

Therefore the little space d, is green.

syllogism, as set reduced (in one

and, for all practo drop the form

All the artificial forms of the forth in books of logic, may be manner or another) to this rule; tical purposes, it is quite as well of logical inference, and simply to state the inference, with an allusion to the general truth, whence it results as thus-A miser can never be happy, because he lives in perpetual alarm. Every one well knows that this state of incessant trepidation is incompatible with happiness; nothing is gained by formally declaring it.

In the technical language of logic, the two preceding propositions are called the premises; or the antecedents; and the first of them the major, the second the minor, and the third the conclusion. This method of formal reasoning by syllogism, was long believed to be adapted to the discovery of things unknown. But it is manifest that it can safely be applied only to the setting forth, distinctly, of things already known. If the major proposition be uncertain, or if it contains more than we are fully acquainted with; or if it be uncertain whether the minor be properly a part of the major, then our conclusion must be also uncertain; and if owing to this appearance of rigid reasoning, we are induced to think that to be ascertained, which in fact is not so, our logic serves only to fortify us in error. It was thus that during many ages, the most egregious

errors in religion and philosophy, were held to be unquestionable truths.

SYNTHESIS,

From ovv0eric-a putting together, is opposed to Analysis, which is the separation of parts, or elements. Analysis is employed on things unknown, for the purpose of becoming acquainted with them. Synthesis is employed on things already known by analysis, and which are recompounded for the purpose of contemplating them in their symmetry, and their mutual relations.

TERMS

Of a proposition, are its two ends-namely, the subject, and the predicate.

TESTIMONY,

Is the conveyance of facts, by speaking or writing, from those who have personal knowledge of them, to those who have not the accepting

of such evidence is Belief. (See BELIEF and EVIDENCE.) By far the larger portion of all the evidence by which we are directed in the affairs of common life, and almost the entire mass of the sciences, and of what is called Learning, in its various branches, is received upon the faith of testimony. And in truth the human mind is so constituted as to receive, and to rely upon this sort of knowledge, with as much confidence as upon that which it acquires by personal inspection. It is only after having found it, in several instances, fallacious, that we learn to withhold our confidence, or to ask for corroborative evidence.

Testimony may be fallacious, either in consequence of the unintentional error of the witness; or in consequence of his wilful falsification. In estimating therefore the value of testimony, the process resolves itself into two inquiries.

1st. Is the witness competent to give evidence in the instance before us? or in other words, had he the means of fully knowing the fact which he reports;--and was that fact one in relation to which he was likely, or not likely, to be deceived? As for example, if a witness declares that he has been robbed and beaten on the road; this is a matter concerning which he could not have been mistaken; and if any doubt rests upon the

fact, it must attach to his veracity. But if he affirms that the man whom now he sees in court was the perpetrator of the deed, it is possible that, without any design to deceive, he may be in error; and especially so, if the robbery took place after sun-set:-on this point therefore, we are not only to consider the veracity of the witness, but his competency also.

2d. If satisfied on these points, we next consider the character of the witness, or judge of the probability of his being influenced by motives which may lead him to a falsification of the fact.As for example, if a man has a great interest at stake in the determination of a controversy, there exists so strong a probability that he may yield to the temptation to misrepresent the truth, that his evidence is either not asked for at all, or is received with great caution. The veracity of a witness is established (chiefly) in the four methods following:

1st. His known or ordinary character is examined. Character is in fact the chief ground of confidence in Testimony. Falsehood is abhorrent to a man of virtue; and the cases are extremely rare in which those who possess a well-established reputation, as honest men, are found to forfeit it, how much soever their testimony may be opposed to their personal interests. We believe a friend