Additional \ofes. 419 



v>f the fancy for realities. *' The aficctluns of the sentient 

 principle are not rendered in the least degree more intelligible 

 by resolving them Into motions of solids or fluids ; for the cause 

 of motion is as inexplicable ats the rauso of the sentient aft'ec- 

 tion. If the science of mind were less sure than that of mat- 

 ter, the systems of materialism might have some claim to our 

 respect j but though they were, liable to nn other c.hjection, the 

 material changes can be known to us only by the chancres of 

 mind, and must, of consequence, be liable to all their uncer- 

 tainty. The theory of Dr. Darwin, therefore, has not made us 

 more acquainted with the mystery of ourselves j and whatever 

 praise it may deserve as ingenious, its principles cannot be 

 adopted as just.'' 



Those who would see a more detailed view of the defects, 

 errours, and gross inconsistencies of the metaphysical theory of 

 this celebrated physician, will do well to consult Obscri at iuns on 

 Zoonomia, by Thomas Brown, esq., Edinburgh, 8vo, 1798; 

 a work which, though it contains perhaps some groundless 

 strictures, manifests great aculencss, learning, taste, and urba- 

 nity. 



Note (O'^J, page 213. — The following view of the contro- 

 versy between the NotninalisU and licali^is It is hoped will be 

 intelligible. — The licaluiti- supposed that there are certain sub- 

 stantial forms or essences J corresponding to general terms, and 

 which the mind contemplates in employing such terms. Thus, 

 when the general term vegetable is used, they contend that the 

 mind contemplates some substance of a very refined nature, or 

 a generaiyb/v//, having a positive existence. This substance or 

 form, according to them, does not belong to any particular 

 genus or species of vegetables exclusively, but is a phantasmy 

 made up of every thing that is common to dlflerent genera or 

 species. It it about this form or general essence that the mind 

 is employed while considering vegetables in the abstract. Both 

 the riatonists and the Aristotelians were Realists, though dil- 

 fering among themselves with regard to some details. 



The No?ninalists, on the other hand, contended that there 



