absolutely conclusive, if the additional fact can be ascertained, that John had been overheard, before the theft, agreeing with a companion for the sale of Samuel's coat, if he could steal it. The conclusiveness of evidence consists in such a conjunction of a number of facts, that there remains only one way in which they can all be consistently explained; and when that one way does actually bring them all to an agreement.

EXISTENCE,

Is the same as being. That which is, is said abstractedly to be, or to have existence.

EXPERIMENT.

But

When what is passing before our eyes is attentively observed, for the purpose of acquiring a knowledge of the causes, or established order of things, we are said to learn by observation. we learn by experiment, when, for the same purpose, we put what we suppose to be causes, in operation. After certain events have been observed to take place, we form a conjecture as to the cause of them; and on the ground of this

conjecture, or hypothesis, as it is called, we make experiments. For example; if the cause of the aurora borealis, or northern lights, is sought for, we observe the appearances they assume at different times; and by comparing these appearances-the colours, the coruscations, the movements—with those of the electric fluid, or of ignited gases, or of phosphoric fluids, we endeavour to trace the effect to its cause; or, at least, to establish a probable supposition on the subject. But these aerial changes are far beyond our reach, and therefore cannot be subjected to experiment. Not so that other atmospheric phenomenon thunder and lightning. Dr. Franklin surmised that lightning is the same active and brilliant element which is produced by the friction of amber, and some other substances. This was his hypothesis, or supposition. To ascertain its truth, he flew a kite beneath a thunder cloud, having a small wire attached to the string. From the lower end o this wire he drew sparks which exhibited all the properties and appearances of those produced by an electrical machine: this experiment proved his first conjecture to have been well founded. The science of chemistry is almost wholly founded upon experiment: that is, the bringing of various substances together, for the purpose of discovering in what manner they act, one upon another. The

mere observation of such chemical changes as take place in the course of nature, would afford a very limited knowledge on such subjects, and would leave almost all doubtful matters undecided.

EXTENSION.

The notion acquired by the sense of touch, in moving the hand on the surface of a solid body, and by comparing this sensation with the sight of the same body, conveys to the mind the notion of extension. From this abstract idea we may separate the idea of solidity, or resistance, and it is then designated by the word space. Or we may add to it the idea of successive parts, numbered, and we gain the notion of distance. Or again, to the notion of extension may be added the idea of successive points, related to each other, and we then think of figure or shape.

FACT.

Either a particular event, proper to be adduced as evidence, in proof of something affirmed; or a common event, happening in the ordinary course of nature, and proper, therefore, to form part of an

inductive argument (see INDUCTION), is called a fact. In the former sense, facts are the basis of judicial proceedings. A series of facts constitutes a history. In the latter sense, facts are the materials from which the physical sciences are formed.

FALLACY.

An argument which seems conclusive, but is not so, is fallacious; that is to say, deceptive. When such fallacies are designedly framed, for the purpose of misleading those to whom they are addressed, they are called sophisms. A fallacy takes place-1st, When some one of the things affirmed in an argument, and which is important to the conclusion, is not true. 2d, When the connexion between one fact and another is not truly stated. 3d, When the words implied are used in one sense, in one part of the argument, and in another, in another part: or when the sense assigned to such terms is so vague or ambiguous, that an error slips in, as it were, unperceived, in the course of the argument. For instance: the argument by which papists defend the usurpation of the bishop of Rome is fallacious, because the facts affirmed are not true, or not known to be as they are stated. Our

Lord, it is said, conferred upon St. Peter a universal power, or jurisdiction, over the souls and consciences of all mankind: this authority St. Peter transferred to his successor, the first bishop of Rome; and it has, in like manner, been handed down from bishop to bishop, through all ages. To resist the authority of the pope, is therefore to rebel against the Lord. Now even if it were granted that St. Peter received an authority of this kind from Christ, it is not true, or at least can never be proved to be so, that he transferred it to any other. Again, it is not true, or can never be proved to be so, that the first bishop of Rome was appointed by St. Peter, or was in any other sense his successor, than that in which Clemens, and Polycarp, and Ignatius, were the successors of Paul, and John, and Peter. This argument is also fallacious by its taking for granted the connexion of one fact (even if in itself true) with another. Again; the pretended proof of the real presence of Christ's body in the sacramental bread, is a fallacy, by attributing a literal sense to words. which the nature of the subject, as well as our Lord's usual mode of teaching, demands to be understood in a tropical or figurative sense. And that such is the true value of the words is proved by applying the same rule of interpretation to other instances. To detect fallacies, requires that the truth of all the