CHAPTER II. 485 (Contain the conclusion that is deduced from them, which is a never - failing test of a true syllogism, as shall be shewn hereafter. The truth of most these complex syllogisms may also be made, to appear, if needful by reducing them either to regular, simple syllygisms, or to some of the conjunctive syllogisms, which are described in the next section. I will give an instance only in the first, and leave the rest to exercise the ingenuity of the reader. The first argument may be reduced to a syllogism in Barbara, thus, The sun is a senseless being: What the Persians worshipped is the sun; Therefore what the Persians worshipped is á senseless being. Though the conclusive force of this argument is evident without the reduction. SECT. V. Of. Conjunctive Syllogisms. THOSE are called conjunctive Syllogisms, wherein one of the premises, namely the major, has distinct parts, which are joined by a conjunction, or some such particle of speech. Most times the major or minor, or both, are explicitly compound pro- positions : and generally the major proposition is made up of two distinct parts or propositions, in such a manner, as that by the assertion of one in the minor, the ether is either asserted or denied in the conclusion ; or, by the denial of one in the minor, the other is either asserted or denied in the conclusion. It is hardly possible indeed to fit any short definition to include all the kinds of them ; but the chief amongst them are the conditional syllogism, the disjunctive, the relative and the connexive. I. The conditional, or hypothetical syllogism, is that whose major or minor, or both, are conditional propositions ; as, If there be a God, the world is governed by providence ; but there is a God; therefore the world is governed by Providence. These syllogisms admit two sorts of true argumentation, whether the major is conditional. 1. When the antecedent is asserted in the minor, that the consequent may be asserted in the conclusion ; such is the pre- ceding example. This is called arguing from the position of the antecedent to the position of the consequent. 2. When the consequent is contradicted in the minor pro- position, that the antecedent may be contradicted in the conclu- sion : as, If atheists are in the right, then the world exists with- out a cause ; but the world does not exist without a cause ;,there- fore atheists are not in the right. This is called arguing from the removing of the consequent to the removing of the antecedent. To remove the antecedent or consequent here, does not H h 3
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy OTcyMjk=