I 



they seem to have labored under the same difficulties with most 

 of their successors. They wanted an unchangeable and univer 

 sal law of science, on which to predicate their doctrines, and which 

 might guide them in all their researches. This difficulty has 

 existed in all ages. We see men of genius taking up detached 

 branches of science and examining them according to their own 

 practical observations, or the observations of others, without 

 regard to the relations which one subject of science bears to 

 another in the great scale of human knowledge. While others of 

 more general observation but equally unsuccesssful, are wan- 

 dering about in the dark in the great field of science, until they 

 are lost and bewildered by their own speculation, like the marine* 

 who would attempt to navigate a vast and unkown ocean with- 

 out a chart, a compass or a pilot. 



It would be foreign to the present subject to enter upon an ex- 

 amination of the merits of any writings, either ancient or mod- 

 ern ; but it may, however, be remarked, that a large amount of 

 prejudice has existed in conscientious minds, both in this country 

 and Europe, against works professedly philosophical, and for 

 this they have had very good reasons : for many who have pre- 

 tended to write on the subject have run into such extremes of 

 Skepticism, Idealism and Materialism, as to give a direct tendency 

 to infidelity. This fact, however, forms no objection to a correct 

 system ; but on the contrary shows the necessity of one that will 

 explain those laws which are the foundation of all philosophical 

 truth, and without a general knowledge of which, we may expect 

 always to be troubled with false theories. Religion has had its 

 false teachers in almost every age since the commencement of 

 Christianity ; yet there is but one true code of Christian laws ; 

 and is it not probable that there is but one true system of Philoso- 

 phy? 



2 



