exact a copy of the easiest and most perfect method of investigation, that we imagine we fee, in every step of the procefs, the very manner in which he himself was led to conceive the fentiments he recommends. To obviate objections, he carefully conceals the refult of fome of his inquiries, till his reader be prepared for it, by fuch a happy gradation of previous obfervations and inferences, that he cannot tell how to avoid it; and if, at that time, he should wish to refuse his affent, and hesitate about it, as he has, before he was aware, affented to all the premises, he is at a lofs where to found his objection. This writer ought, therefore, to be read with very great caution.

DR. HARTLEY, propofing a new hypothefis of the principles of the human mind, examines very particularly every thing relating to, or dependent upon the mind of man, viz. fenfations, ideas, mufcular motion, the external fenfes, affections, memory, imagination, reasoning, dreams, &c. and endeavours to show that none of the phenomena of any of them contradict his hypothesis; that many of them admit a peculiarly easy and complete illustration by it; and that the most difficult cafes are not rendered more difficult, but rather easier by the help of it. And left this hypothefis concerning the principles of the human mind should be fufpected to bear an unfavourable aspect upon a plan of human duty, and human expectations, he confiders the whole of both fyftematically; fhowing, whenever he hath opportunity, that the evidences of religion, natural and revealed, with the rule of life drawn from it, receive additional light andevidence from it; and, laftly, that it hath a happy influence both upon our conduct in this life, and upon our expectations after death..

This is the general plan of that immenfe work. The particular method of it is strictly geometrical, and synthetical. The author begins with definitions and axioms, lays down formal propofitions, and advances fuch proof as the nature of the cafe will admit. He deduces formal corollaries from almost every propofition, and in the fcholia he explains the nature of his proofs, and shows in what manner evidence is reflected from one part to another. Interspersed through the whole of this work is a vast variety of curious and useful knowledge.

This method may not, at first sight, seem so well adapted to a theory so much original as that of Dr. Hartley; and it must certainly have been a work of great labour and difficulty to digest a set of sentiments, fo intirely new, into fo regular and systematical a form; because in a fynthetic difcourfe every thing that is advanced must have one particular place, and no other : whereas in the analytic method there is much greater latitude. For that method is a copy of the method of investigation, and the fame thought may occur to the mind in a variety of connexions. Nevertheless, fo extenfive a theory could not easily have been delivered without confufion in any other method. Besides, it was enough to recommend this method to Dr. Hartley, that, of all others, it is the faireft, and fhows the greatest impartiality; as a treatise in this form is the most commodious for examination, and fuggefts the easiest method of showing the fallacy of it, if it be falfe. A perfon would be much more at a lofs how to answer Mr. Hume, than Dr. Hartley.

Mr. HARRIS, propofing in his Hermes to trace the first principles of fpeech, and to fhow, by an analytical procefs, in what manner they may be inveftigated, firft examines intire fenten

ces,

ces, and confiders what differences, in the forms of expreffions, correfpond to the differences in their meaning. Having thus discovered the properties of different fentences; he confiders the particular words that compose sentences, and thus having, by degrees, arrived at the fimpleft elements of speech, and discovered how many differences there are in words, or the number of general heads to which they may be reduced, he hath completely accomplished his scheme of analysis.

It may not be unuseful to obferve, in order to illuftrate the variety of method, that another person, intending to draw up a fynthetic or fyftematic treatise upon the same subject, for the use of learners, would most naturally take a method the very reverse of Mr. Harris's. For example, he would, in the first place, enumerate the several claffes into which words may be distributed, and show the modifications that each of them admit. After this he would show in what manner these words, according to their different fpecies, form fentences, and how these sentences are combined into periods. This is the method of the General Grammar of Meffieurs de Port Royal, and others.

Divines conduct their inquiries into the sense of the sacred writers upon any controverted fubject in a method nearly analytical. For, in order to give their readers intire fatisfaction with regard to their impartiality, they produce all the texts of scripture relating to the queftion in debate, ranging them under fuch proper heads as the nature of the undertaking requires, and afcertaining the meaning of every passage they quote with all poffible accuracy; and they deduce the doctrine they contend for as an inference fairly drawn from the texts thus collected and compared.

It makes no material difference in the method of these inquiries, if the opinion of the writer be advanced in the entrance of the work, and the texts be afterwards produced as proofs of what he advances. All fuch propofitions require to be proved by an induction of particulars; and it is a capital thing, in the conduct of these inquiries, that the induction be as complete as poffible.

Our best SERMONS, with refpect to the method of their composition, are of two kinds. Some are intended to be a demonftration of fome doctrine of religion, or a difcourfe upon fome religious duty, with proper inferences, in the regular synthetic method. Others are ufually called textual, because the writers, affuming fome text of fcripture, endeavour to extract from it all the useful information and direction it contains. They accordingly, in this latter method, divide their subject into as many parts as their text contains diftinct articles, and treat of each feparately, according to its nature. The method of this kind of fermons admits of endless variety, but the text cannot be changed.

To the former the text ferves only as a motto, and may be changed at pleafure; the method being fuggefted by the fubject, and not at all by the text. It follows, likewife, from the account given in the preceding lectures of the best method of conducting a demonstration, that there must be a great uniformity in the plan of thefe difcourfes, and that each will exhauft the whole fubject.

To remedy this inconvenience, it is ufual, and it introduces an agreeable variety into this kind of fermons, to take only fome part of fuch a scheme of fynthefis into one difcourfe. Some intire discourses, for inftance, are usefully taken up in definition only, or in determining the sense of terms of confiderable consequence; fuch as faith, grace, &c. and, where wrong fenfes

have been affixed to fuch terms, it hath a good effect, in giving the sense of them, to do it, as it is ufually termed, both negatively and pofitively; that is, to explain, in the first place, what the sense is not, and then what it is. But let every interpretation that is diftinctly refuted and rejected be fuch as either actually is, hath been, or very probably may be adopted. Otherwife the negative definition is fuperfluous and ridiculous. Indeed, in many circumftances, to take notice of feveral that do fall within the abovementioned limitations would be trifling and useless.

Befides, in order to avoid unneceffarily oppofing popular prejudices, it is generally advisable to define important words juftly, without taking the least notice of other fenfes that have long been affixed to them. The very mention of them, though with a view to refute them, will very often only tend to ftrengthen the mechanical affociation by which the words and the wrong sense have been connected. These ftrong affociations are like habits, which require to be treated with great caution, and must not be combated by bringing the ideas belonging to them frequently before the mind. Opposite ideas must be introduced, and they be fuffered to disappear, as it were, gradually, and of themselves.

Other difcourfes prefent us with the proof only of any doctrine or duty with one diftinct fet of arguments, or even illustrate one particular proof. Others are employed in anfwering objections, or only fome particular objections. In others again, after a brief explication, we are fhewn the effects of a doctrine, duty, or habit of mind in fpeculative or practical inferences.

In short, as either a fingle part, or any combination of the parts of a complete fynthesis may be usefully employed to form a discourse, the variety that may be introduced in those difcourses, which are not confined to any particular text, but which