CHAP. XIII.] CLARKE AND SPINOZA. 187 



of them proved by means of premises resolvable, for the most 

 part, into two distinct classes, viz., facts of observation, such 

 as the existence of a material world, the phenomenon of mo- 

 tion, &c., and hypothetical principles, the authority and uni- 

 versality of which are supposed to be recognised a priori. It is, 

 of course, upon the truth of the latter, assuming the correctness 

 of the reasoning, that the validity of the demonstration really de- 

 pends. But whatever may be thought of its claims in this re- 

 spect, it is unquestionable that, as an intellectual performance, its 

 merits are very high. Though the trains of argument of which 

 it consists are not in general very clearly arranged, they are al- 

 most always specimens of correct Logic, and they exhibit a 

 subtlety of apprehension and a force of reasoning w r hich have 

 seldom been equalled, never perhaps surpassed. We see in them 

 the consummation of those intellectual efforts which were awa- 

 kened in the realm of metaphysical inquiry, at a period when the 

 dominion of hypothetical principles was less questioned than it 

 now is, and when the rigorous demonstrations of the newly risen 

 school of mathematical physics seemed to have furnished a model 

 for their direction. They appear to me for this reason (not to 

 mention the dignity of the subject of which they treat) to be 

 deserving of high consideration ; and I do not deem it a vain 

 or superfluous task to expend upon some of them a careful 

 analysis. 



4. The Ethics of Benedict Spinoza is a treatise, the object 

 of which is to prove the identity of God and the universe,- and 

 to establish, upon this doctrine, a system of morals and of philo- 

 sophy. The analysis of its main argument is extremely difficult, 

 owing not to the complexity of the separate propositions which it 

 involves, but to the use of vague definitions, and of axioms which, 

 through a like defect of clearness, it is perplexing to determine 

 whether we ought to accept or to reject. While the reasoning of 

 Dr. Samuel Clarke is in part verbal, that of Spinoza is so in a much 

 greater degree; and perhaps this is the reason why, to some 

 minds, it has appeared to possess a formal cogency, to which in 

 reality it possesses no just claim. These points will, however, 

 be considered in the proper place. 



