METAPHYSICS. 



Meuphy- admitted not to need a proof. Grant the existence of 

 = mind, then, and we think Descartes ha* approached as 



S ^'Y"" near a* po*uble to a demonstration of' the existence of 

 matter. \\V think it proper that he should speak for 

 hinuelf on this subject. " I'rieifrra imfnin in me fu- 

 cmttatei ipedalUuu quibttdam modi* c-.^Uauiii prtrduat, l-< 

 putaJuiUlalr* tmagiaamli, et Xnticndi, tint qmOmt to- tk 

 lam me pottum cl rtetiifert, led Mm net 



vena iiUu time me. hoc ett, time nfulantia intelligent f cut 

 intint . tnleilectiomem mm monnmllam at two for malt con- 

 cept* inc.udiut, nude percipio ill** m me, ml moAot a re 



ui AgnOKO eliam amatdam aliat facutlatet, art 

 asMfVrasu. mmriat Jtgmn* imdmmdi. . qntf 



qnuie-n. mom magi* qmam pracedemlet, ab-que aliqmi tmo- 

 ttanlia cm tmttmi pottmnt tnteUgi; SMC pntnde etiam aot- 

 yax ttla rjutfrr. Sed manifrftum fit not, ti quidrm ri- 

 i . . , -i ''' . ' . .- 



an- em imteUigenli ; <j*i* nempe tliqua estettio, not mmlem 

 *ito pUne im-eUeclw MS eonm etero rt dutinclo comceplm 



ni* argument may be put thai: If we can form 

 an idea of extemion, motion, form, &c. which un- 

 doubtedly we can. then they may exut ; and a* they 

 not exist in a spiritual substance, they must be at- 

 tribute* of inmathmg lat; and the only other rab- 

 stance of which we have any knowledge, u that which 

 we call matter. We think this cianalitaly overset* 

 argument M to the imponiljUily of material 



We admit, however, that it doea not nmount to 



demonstration that matter actually exi.t.. except on 

 nciple, that every thing which we can 



DtacaiW principle, 



V0 rou *t, 



', have an ar 



They who would wish to retain their belief in the' ex- 

 iatence of the material world, had better not bring it 

 to the Ivixard of a proof, or we fear Berkeley will be 

 m I >r itad. the inort strenuowa h*. 

 Ml* 411 Hstf fcclcy >T9trfn. w*w once a OMMIMI ocr 

 kalsieJi. " I one* beUeved thn doctrine of idea* so 

 firmly," aays he, - a* to adopt the whole uf llerkeley'. 

 lyrtero in canaiqaanea of it ; till finding 

 qoence* to follow from it, which gave me me 

 neaa than the want of a material world, .it came into 

 my mind, more than forty year* ago. to not the ana*> 

 I for the doctrine, that all the 



lion, what erideuce 

 of 



Uia 



lh- tr 



ted aa an intuitiv 

 in 



than the rootle in 

 iK to our 



ee are ea* in my own n 



. ^ ,. mi n af .. i...t 

 percrption, it will be impoanliU- to 



nothing it more incomprrhenatMe 

 hich material oh}ecta ctmMMNMit* 

 .- mttvr think Berkdry-f 



we would gladly embrace it if we could. But it pre- 

 aavta thit tbrmidabw objection, that, if we are deceiv- 

 ed aa to the existence of matter, we may be <!> 

 in every thing en* ; for nothing ia more certain. 



Cite of Deacartea' celetoatad axiom to prove hia 

 own exittence. thould teach aa to beware of attempt. 

 ing to explain ultimate principle*. Cogiln, rrp, not, 

 he conu.lerr<l m% incontrovenihle ; bat - a pr- 



tiiio prmtipn in the \ rr\ firt ftep. Coftio ia equivalent 

 IM a ikimtimg bcig, and ergo turn, to ikerrfore I em 

 M Ariag. Here it ia evident that every thing 

 turned. The pnuiiaea imply, that he exiata m a think* 

 emg ; .-in. I then he employ t them to prove that he 

 exitt* at all. The y!logim to which hia prop 

 may he rethxed ha* been juitiy compared t 

 cwed by Cicero . Si Inert, Imce't: ivcet ouitm ; licet iri. 

 for. 



VOL. aiv. P*T i 



. Tlui we have een, that one consequence of Lo. 'P b J- 



phiUMophy baa been, llie denial of ihc ix^ttiu-e ol'the ^_^ cl ' ^ 

 material world by Berkeley ami his fulluwen. This ^Y^ 

 Consequence naturally enough arose out ul' the receiv- 

 ed doctrine concerning idea-, and particularly from 

 Locke'* astertion, that the iileas of the primary quail- 

 tie* of matter were actual resemblances ; whilst he ad- 

 itted, that the idea* of the secondary qualities were 

 only sensations in our own minds. Berkeley easily 

 perceived, that there could be no more resemblance 

 between extension and the idea it pr<iiiced in the mind, 

 than between the sensation of smell and the object 

 which excited it ; and on this he built his gys-tem. 



:ibert, though a disciple of Locke, had much 

 more correct view* on this subject : he says, that the 

 aamsatiiin by meana of which we arrive at the know- 

 ledge of fjflrmujH, ia, in it* nature, at incomprehensi- 

 ble aa extension itself. And, in the Preliminary Dis- 

 course to the F.Hcyclopedir, he says, that aa there i> in> 

 relation whatever between a sensation and the objtct 



excitea it, or to which we refer it, we cannot 

 trace, by reasoning, any poaaible paaaage from the one 

 to the other; and t. that it is by a 



specie* of iuetinct that we are forced across the gulf 

 which separate* mind from matter ; a mode of re , 

 ing vary nearly coinciding with that of I )r. Heid. 



now tarn to the conairteratiun of some other in- ConHurion* 

 fareacea deduced by the continental philosophers from deduced 

 Locke'* principle*, which are the very reverse of Ber- J rom , 

 kley'* ideal scheme. It it in true that sen-guion i the J^ lr ' n ' e b 

 inlet of all our kno eero* to follow, as a na- ,h, comi.' 



tural roneeqaanu , that there can be no idea* in the ncmai pbi- 

 mind but Mchaa have thi in material and sen- kwopbcr*. 



ible object*. At least this U the use which ha* been 

 made of Lodte'* iloctrine by the materuh.u on the 

 continent. We shall tee by and by. tlut other conti- 

 nental writers give a very different interprctal:<>n to it. 



.jli*U, as from Diderot 



Ixx-ke't principle*, ia thus Mated br Diderot, in the 



lumeof hi* works. We use the words of Mr. 

 Stewart with very little alteration, which com hi n. 

 light of a commentary with the fidelity of a tr..n*l.iti.nr. 

 ' Lvrry idea nia*t ncccH-ariix . wlxn brought to it* 

 state of ultimo . it into a 



*ea)4a> renrcaentalion or jncture . and since every thing 

 ii our un<lentan'ting ha* been mtri!,- . -I tin -re by tin- 

 channel of sentaUon. whati-t r pr.nferl / ,,f the un- 

 deratandinff i* either chimerical, or mi-t be able, in 

 ul, to re atta . its 



sensible archetype. Hence an important rule in phi- 

 loaophy, that every expre^icm whidi cannot find ;n 

 ternal and a sensible object to which it can attach it- 

 self, ia destitute of 



Theae are certainly most portentous consequence* of 

 Locke'* doctrine, and such as neither he nor any of 

 hia sober admirers ever contemplated. 'I'h-y are made 

 the foundation of the moat avowed and unqualified 

 mmlftiaiitm ; and are employed to persuade us that we 

 outfit to reject from the book of hunun k owl. 

 every word which doe*) not present n notion copied 

 like a picture or image, from some archetype among 

 the object, of extern*! percept 



Socn are the natural conseqnm -i < nf interpreting Mim of 

 too literally the maxim of the whooN, r -up. the schools. 



poaed to have bean prescribed by Aristotle, hut 'which 

 wa* framed in latter time*, as a corollary deducible 

 from hi doctrine. The maxim, Nihil eit in inlrl/rclti, 

 <F"*i ' it* in ifnru. when liternlly understood, 



mot necceaarily, we should think, lead to material. 



M 



