and that without labour or difficulty, because the querist finds out and proposes all the intermediate ideas or middle terms.

IV. THERE is a method very near a-kin to this which has much obtained of late, viz. " writing controversies by questions only," or confirming or refuting any position, or persuading to or dehorting from any practice by the mere proposal of queries. The answer to them is supposed to be so plain and so necessary, that they are not expressed because the query itself carries a convincing argument in it, and seems to determine what the answer must be.

V. IF Christian catechisms could be framed in the manner of a Socratical dispute by question and answer, it would wonderfully enlighten the minds of children, and it would improve their intellectual and reasoning powers, at the same time that it leads them into the knowledge of religion: and it is upon one account well suited to the capacity of children; for the questions may be pretty numerous, and the querist must not proceed too swiftly towards the determination of his point proposed, that he may with more ease, with brighter evidence, and with surer success, draw the learner on to assent to those principles step by step, from whence the final conclusion will naturally arise. The only inconvenience would be this, that if children were to reason out all their, way entirely into the knowledge of every part of their religion, it would draw common catechisms into too large a volume for their leisure, attention or memory.

Yet those who explain their catechisms to them may, by due application and forethought instruct them in this manner.

CHAP. XII.

OF FORENSIC DISPUTES.

1. THE Forum was a public place in Rome, where lawyers aud orators made their speeches before the proper judge in matter of property, or in criminal cases to accuse or excuse, to complain or defend: thence all sorts of disputations in public assemblies or courts of jus tice, where several persons make their distinet speeches for or against any person or thing whatsoever, but more especially in civil matters, may come under the name of forensic disputes.

II. THIS is practised not only in the courts of judicature, where a sin gle person sits to judge of the truth or goodness of any cause, and to determine according to the weight of reasons on either side; but it is used also in " political senates or parliaments, ecclesiastical synods, and assemblies" of various kinds.

In these assemblies, generally one person is chosen chairman or mederator, not to give a determination to the controversy, but chiefly to keep the several speakers to the rules of order and decency in their conduct; but the final determination of the questions arises from the majority of opinions or votes in the assembly accordingly as they are or ought to be swayed by the superior weight of reason appearing in the several speeches that are made.

III. THE method of proceeding is usually in some such form as this. The first person who speaks when the court is set, opens the case either more briefly or at large, and proposes the case to the judge or the chairman, or moderator of the assembly, and gives his own seasons for his opinion in the case proposed.

IV. THIS person, is succeeded by one, or perhaps two or several more, whe paraphrase on the same subject, and argue on the same side of the question; they confirm what the first has spoken, and urge new reasons to enforce the same; then those who are of a diffe rent opinion, stand up and make their several speeches in a succession, opposing the cause which others have maintained, giving their reasons against it, and endeavouring to refute the arguments whereby the first speakers have supported it.

3

V. AFTER this, one and another rises up to make their replies, to vindicate or to condemn, to establish or to confute what has been of fered before on each side of the question; till at last, according to the rules, orders, customs of the court or'assembly, the controversy is decided, either by a "single judge or the suffrage of the assembly."

VI. WHERE the question or matter in debate consists of several parts, after it is once opened by the first or second speaker, sometimes those who follow take each of them a particular part of the debate, according to their inclination or their prior agreement, and apply themselves to argue upon that single point only, that so the whole complexion of the debate may not be thrown into confusion by the variety of subjects, if every speaker should handle all the subjects of debate.

VII. BEFORE the final sentence or determination is given, it is usual to have the reasons and arguments which have been offered on both sides, summed up and represented in a more compendious manner; and this is done either by the appointed judge of the court, or the chairman, or some noted person in the assembly, that so judgment may proceed upon the fullest survey of the whole subject, that as far as 'pos→ sible in human affairs nothing may be done contrary to truth or justice.

VIII. As this is a practice in which multitudes of gentlemen besides

those of the learned professions may be engaged, at least in their maturer years of life, so it would be a very proper and useful thing to introduce this custom into our academies, viz. to propose cases, and let the students debate them in a forensic manner in the presence of their tutors. There was something of this kind practised by the Roman youth in their schools, in order to train them up for orators, both in the forum and in the senate. Perhaps Juvenal gives some hints of it when he says,

et nos

Consilium dedimus Sylae, privatus ut altum
Dormiret

Where with men boys I strove to get renown,
Advising Sylla to a private gown,

That he might sleep the sounder.

Sat. I.

Sometimes these were assigned to the boys as single subjects of æ theme or declamation; so the same poet speaks sarcastically to Han nibal,

See more of this matter in Kennet's Antiquities of Rome, in the second Essay on the Roman education.

CHAP. XIII.

OF ACADEMIC OR SCHOLASTIC DISPUTATION.

THE common methods in which disputes are managed in the Schools of Learning, are these, viz.

I. THE tutor appoints a question in some of the sciences to be debated amongst his students: one of them undertakes to affirm or to deny the question, and to defend his assertion or negation, and to answer all objections against it; he is called the respondent: and the rest of the students in the same class, or who pursue the same science, are the opponents, who are appointed to dispute or raise objections against the proposition thus affirmed or denied.

II. EACH of the students successively in their turn becomes the res pondent or the defender of that proposition, while the rest oppose it also successively in their turns.

III. It is the business of the respondent to write a thesis in Latin, or short discourse on the question proposed: and he either affirms or denies the question according to the opinion of the tutor, which is supposed to be the truth, and he reads it at the beginning of the dispute.

IV. In his discourse (which is written with as great accuracy as the youth is capable of) he explains the terms of the question, frees them from all ambiguity, fixes their sense, declares the true intent and meaning of the question itself, separates it from other questions with which it may have been complicated, and distinguishes it from other questions which may happen to be a-kin to it, and then pronounces in the negative or affirmative concerning it,

V. WHEN this is done, then in the second part of his discourse, he gives his own strongest arguments to confirm the proposition he has laid down, that is, to vindicate his own side of the question, but he does not usually proceed to represent the objections against it, and to solve or answer them; for it is the business of the other students to raise objections in disputing.

VI. Note, IN some schools, the respondent is admitted to talk largely upon the question with many flourishes and illustrations, to introduce great authorities from ancient and modern writings for the support of it, and to scatter Latin reproaches in abundance on all those who are of different sentiment. But this is not always permitted, nor should it indeed be ever indulged, lest it teach youth to reproach instead of reasoning.

VII. WHEN the respondent has read over his thesis in the school, the junior student makes an objection, and draws it up in the regular form of a syllogism: the respondent repeats the objection, and either denies the major or minor proposition directly, or he distinguishes upon some word or phrase in the major or minor, and shews in what sense the prorosition may be true, but that that sense does not affect the question and then declares that in the sense which affects the present question the proposition is not true, and consequently he denies it,

VIII. THEN the opponent proceeds by another syllogism to vindicate the proposition that is denied; again the respondent answers by denying or distinguishing.

Thus the disputation goes on in a "series or succession of syllogisms and answers," till the objector is silenced, and has no more to say.

IX. WHEN he can go no further, the next student begins to propose his objection, and then the third and the fourth, even to the senior, who is the last opponent.

X. DURING this time, the tutor sits in the chair as President or

Moderator, to see that the rules of disputation and decency be observed on both sides; and to admonish each disputant of any irregularity in their conduct. His work is also to illustrate and explain the answer or distinction of the respondent where it is obscure, to strengthen it where it is weak, and to correct it where it is false; and when the respondent is pinched with a strong objection, and is at a loss for an answer, the moderator assists him, and suggests some answer to the objection of the opponent, in defence of the question, according to his own opinion or sentiment.

XI. IN public disputes, where the opponents and respondents chuse their own side of the question, the moderator's work is not to favour either disputant; but he only sits as president to see that the laws of disputation be observed, and a decorum maintained.

XII. Now the laws of disputation," relate either to the opponent or to the respondent, or to both.

The "laws obliging the opponent," are these,

1. That he must directly contradict the proposition of the respondent, and not merely attack any of the arguments whereby the respondent has supported that proposition: for it is one thing to "confute a single argument" of the respondent, and another to "confute the thesis” itself.

2. (Which is a-kin to the former) he must contradict or oppose the very sense and intention of the proposition as the respondent has stated it, and not merely oppose the words of the thesis in any other sense; for this would be the way to plunge the dispute into ambiguity and darkness, to talk beside the question, to wrangle about words, and to attack a proposition different from what the respondent has espoused which is called Ignoratio elenchi.

3. He must propose his argument in a plain, short, and syllogistic form, according to the rules of logic, without flying to fallacies or sophisms; and as far as may be, he should use categorical syllogisms.

4. Though the respondent may be attacked either upon a point of his own concession, which is called Argumentum ex concessis, or by reducing them to an absurdity, which is called Reductio ad absurdum, yet it is the neatest, the most useful, and the best sort of disputation where the opponent draws his objections from the nature of the question itself.

5. Where the respondent denies any proposition, the opponent if he proceeds, must directly vindicate and confirm that proposition, that is, he must make that proposition the conclusion of his next syllogism.

6. Where the respondent limits or distinguishes any proposition, the opponent must directly prove his own proposition in that sense, and