>} 



Thrrc 

 grind xr 

 in mtia- 

 pbyticsl 



I .". 



On a general view of the subject, we may -r^rnu 

 three grand ras in the history of i 

 equal in point of time, but each of them marked with a 

 distinct and decided character. The fir-t extends 

 from the time of Aristotle to tliat of Descartes. During 

 the currency of this long period, many persons arose, 

 distinguished for metaphysical acumen, who attacked 

 successfully some of the outworks of the Aristotelian 

 Ariitotle. doctrine ; but they made little or no impression on the 

 f*nr*l scheme, and Aristotle continued the undisput- 

 ed sovereign of metaphysicians. Lord Bacon gave a 

 deadly blow to his empire, and was the first who shew. 

 '-. " m detail, the inutiiity of his raetliod for the disco- 



very of truth. \\ hetber Descartes caught the sp 

 Bacon, (if be did, be does not acknowledge it ; for we 

 do not recollect that any allusion is made to Bacon in 

 any part of his works,) or whether the strength of his 

 genius led him to assert the same independence of think- 

 ln * we know not ; yet certain it is, that be introduced 

 the same iinfriteied itiimiiiinn into metaphysics, which 

 Bacon had applied so successfully to the interpretation 

 of nature. His method waa both dear and original ; 

 and, in spite of the attempts which were made to resist 



i* it ntfwwt *-* . __-! i i i 



METAPHYSICS. 



97 



won obtained possession ot the schools, and drove 

 Aristotle from the throne which be had occupied for so 

 many hundred yean. All the ! !;... philosophers 



.f any name were Cartesians ; and Locke himself be. 

 longed to the same school, M has already been observed. 

 Bet he served his master in the same way that he had 

 done Aristotle, by pu4,in,r him from the seat of philo- 

 sophy ; and so complete waa his victory, or his usurp*, 

 tion, that the name of bis illnstrious nredr ni ia new 



met,,,l, V ,, ,1 

 i-tn i- to 1), -. 



to say, that no man ever borrowed' less from his 

 MOTS. Hi* whole efforts were directed to 



anfeJsiMtod i r ,, n ,..,. r y p r ,jud,,x-. .-,,,d t- ,-,. 

 biassed to the inveatigetien of troth. There were 



alMnrditiea, however, connected with his doct. , 



aoeh as bis rorncet and innate ideas, by which he n- 

 derstood these ideas which he perreived con 



ter by Uie external senses, and which be therefore son. 

 posed to exist in the mind previous to their exercise; 



ii s* aevw IU111 



enttenwl .,, uhority in metaphysical mater 



Bat we certainly think it but justice to Des- siibsO 



ay, that no man ever borrowed less front his either 



r^_ Ua .bU^.1. ^ . i . 



_ previous 

 these notions, as well as many - 1 



. which were 

 _, brought disc 

 pared the world for the 

 of Locke: v 



industrioswly expn 

 dit on hie doctriaw 



system 



time supposed that he had ore. 

 ae a metebhysicim and 



It was for a 

 occupied the 



: legal, n] ,,.,,,;,.(,.;> ,. N,., 



^^hseS fiS&'*tt rf'thTZ: 



eervw. 



little farther, have not ventured to go beyond the 

 P***M* of Hartley. In short, EngUnd "has been 

 most exceedingly barren in metaphysicians, tntmiMt 

 m later tames; and had it not giv. 



' '" tk ' i '" ' "H '' I -r. ,! ., ; ,| M .., ro .^' 



r been known throughout Knrope to have ever bar. 

 bejm} the phMom^hy of Ue buaWaiin, i 

 part of uur island has been much more produ, 



of literature ; and the Srotth tc j>o>^ ha* obtasn. 



c ~t i ~ f} 



distinction ; and its inhaintants aw likelv 

 for a while, at least, to enjoy their laurels undisturbed^ 



unless they are annoyed by tle affected sneers of their Metaphy- 

 leighbours at Scotch metaphysics, which, since the days < ' 



"f Hume, have been represented a-> synonymous with T ' 

 sneptic-isni. 



lieid deservedly takes the lead as having brought Reid. 

 about an important reformation in philosophy. He has 

 not only corrected many mistakes of Locke ; but he has 

 endeavoured to explode the whole doctrine of ideas, 

 which prevailed from the time of Aristotle, till it was 

 attacked by the Scotch philosopher. According to this 

 doctrine nothing can be present to the mind but an 

 idea, which is supposed to be some kind of representa. 

 Uon of the object from which it proceeds. It is not 

 enough that the senses be affected in a particular way : 

 the only result of such affection is the production of an 

 idea, and this idea alone is perceived l>v the mind. Our 

 readers must recollect, that when the Cartesians speak 

 of wfea*, they use the word in a sense quite different from 

 its ordinary- acceptation in our language. They under- 

 stood an Mainl a representation transmitted to the mind 

 through the senses, and which communicates an im- 

 preaHon without imparting any portion of its substance. 

 Hus is the philosophical meaning of the word idea, as 

 employed by Locke and all the Cartesians. In our 

 lengmage, it is now considered as synonymous with no. 

 *o or MMcepfto*. 



Thedortrine of *,, which hrf kept poaseanon of Doeirin. of 

 the schools for upwards of two thousand years ; (for it Meat, 

 did net originate with Descartes, he only explained and 

 J **d it more fully than had ever been done before : ) 

 i doctrine originated in an attempt to solve the dim- 

 culty which has always been felt in understanding how 

 mateml object, can make an impression on a spiritual 

 hstw, like the awil ; and, instead of being Jounded 

 on observation or induction, it rests on the flimsy 

 been i of unwarranted analogies. It was thus illustrated 

 by Aristotle and his followers: As wax receives the 

 impression of a seal without the substance of the seal, 

 or a, a lookiiig-gUss receives the images of objects 

 which are at a distance from it; in the same manner, the 

 mind receives the representation of things which can- 

 not nenetme it, or which may be at a dinUii. 

 Such is the only foundation of the doctrine of ideas ; 

 *"***' *rtam'y, i" the history of the world, did 

 tten momentous consequences arise out of a mere ana. 

 kgy. For many ages it filled the work! with systems 

 * kfl ?f ol P h . r : ti!l * )aM * banished from the world 

 every thing but ideas and impressions. 



We admit that in many instances, analogy is a legi. 

 tonate- ground of argument, \\hen we meet with po- 

 facts, which at first seem insulated, and not re. 

 daable to any general rule, we anxiously look around 

 illustrations, under the firm corn it-turn that the 

 *** */ ***! f nature is linked together by indiMso- 

 connections; and that nothing can appear sepa- 

 and detached, except from our ignorance of its af- 

 and relations. V\hni at last we discover a 

 appearance*, and perceive that be- 

 hich, at fsnt, we reckonel singular and 

 re-conceive that we have received a suffi- 

 it explanation, and have discovered a law of nature 

 no enknown. i I.,-. iml-d, is the t\m>\ .t:,.n <,r 

 all sciences, except such aa rest on axioms or necessary 

 truth*. 



Had anv one, then, been sensible of an image de- 

 picted on his mind, in the saaie manner as it is present. 

 e.l in a Inokinpgles*, he might have fairly concluded 



t he had advanced a step in explaining the pbeno- 

 ot perception. But we are conscious of nothing 



