rii PREFACE 



in their connexion ; the soul too as a whole, its 

 nature as well as its faculties, and all its faculties 

 both logical and moral; and lastly, man s future 

 state as a whole, and not as a mere immortality of 

 soul, nor as a mere resurrection of body, since not 

 only the understanding but the affections purified, 

 not only the spirit but the body changed, shall be 

 advanced to immortality x . 



This admirable comprehensiveness is the answer 

 to Bacon s detractors, who charge him variously with 

 all sorts of narrowness in philosophy, such as mate 

 rialism, relativism, and empiricism. Bacon was 

 never narrow. He was no materialist ; though he 

 thought more about nature, he believed in the super 

 natural, recognized not only natural but also 

 intellectual forms, and regarded man as both 

 material body and inspired soul 2 . He was no relati 

 vist : he said indeed that sense and intellect are 

 relative to man and not to the universe, but he added 

 that the former faculty aided by systematic experience, 

 and the latter by systematic induction and the new 

 method, would make the mind the image of the very 

 essence of things 3 . He was no empiricist : for, 

 although he exhorted men to reject as idols all pre 

 conceived notions and lay themselves alongside of 

 nature by observation and experiment, so as gradually 

 to ascend from facts to their laws, nevertheless he was 

 far from regarding sensory experience as the whole 

 origin of knowledge, and in truth had a double theory, 

 that, while sense and experience are the sources of our 

 knowledge of the natural world, faith and inspiration 

 are the sources of our knowledge of the supernatural, 

 of God, and of the rational soul 4 . 



The same answer must be given to his detractors 

 on the practical side, who have accused him of 



1 Post, pp. 66, 114 seq. 



* Post, pp. 41, 118, 127, 221-34. 



8 Post, pp. 8, 102 ; cf. Novum Organwn, passim. 



Post, pp. 10, 93, 96-7, 127, 222. 



