M ETAP 
has received the name of Tiiue; the other being con- 
ftrufled to receive parts that exift all at once, or that 
lie one near another as in a plane , and is named Space. 
3dly, Understanding, which is wholly adlive, and there¬ 
fore called Spontaneity; and is divifible into Twelve 
minor adlivities called Categories, whole joint influence 
or adlion upon the Matter furniflied to them by the Re¬ 
ceptivities of Senle, produces an objedlive unity, i. e. in 
fadl, an Objedl, or, as it is commonly called, an objedl 
of Senfe. The adlion of this faculty is ftridtly limited to 
Time and Space. Whatever therefore is without the 
bounds of Time and Space, and yet occurs in the Mind, 
mull be accounted for from fome other Faculty; which 
leads us, 4thly and laftly, to Reason, or the higheft de¬ 
gree of Mental Spontaneity. The original conilitution 
of this faculty is that it adits free from, Time and Space. 
It is, in fadt, a connedfing adlivity, like that of the in- 
telledl or underftanding, only of a purer nature, for it 
connedts the Categories themfelves, which furely cannot 
now be confounded with the two receptivities of Senfe, 
7 'ime and S])acc; it mull therefore be free from them, 
and out of their fphere. Hence the refult of the adlion of 
this faculty is, a connexion of unities fo pure, as not to be 
denominated objedls of Senfe, but folely intellectual objedls, 
and which never can become objedts of experience; they 
may, therefore, very properly be termed Ideas: 1 'uch are 
the Ideas of God, of the Soul, of Free Will, of a Future 
State, and of the Moral Laws, which experience, i. e. Na¬ 
tural Philofophy or PhyfiCs, can never furnilh; but, if 
they are to be met with at all, it will be in the Science 
of Metuphyfics, that is, of Reafon itfelf. 
Is it now to be wondered at that every fenlible objedt 
mult be clafl’ed under the Categories of the Underfunding? 
But what Categories are thefe? Do they in any manner 
refemble the notions ranked by Ariftotle under that 
head ? No. What are his Categories ? Nothing but no¬ 
tions picked up as it were accidentally, without any clue 
or guide in the fearch for them ; whereas thole of Kant 
can be molt convincingly proved to be the only pure, 
limple, and primitive, notions of the Underftanding; or, 
in other words, the very Elements of that faculty: and 
thefe elements were not promilcuoufly colledled toge¬ 
ther, but were adtually difcovered in the moll fyftematic 
and fatisfadlory manner; namely, from an entirely new 
and accurate definition of Judgment in general, which 
Kant has determined to coniift in the aft of comprehending 
a variety under a unity. See the article Logic, vol. xiii. 
p. 17. It was this happy difcovery, and this alone, that 
enabled the true father of Speculative Philofophy to dif- 
cover the real nature and conftitution of the Underftand¬ 
ing. He found, in his enlightened and diligent fearch 
after all the pofible unities - under which a given variety 
could be clalled, that there really were but Twelve, 
and that thefe twelve, comprehending adits, Or Catego¬ 
ries, compofed the very underfianding itfelf (See vol. xi. 
p. 613.) It can therefore be no longer a matter of won¬ 
der that every objedt in Nature Ihould Hand under thefe 
Twelve original notions of the Inteiledl, in order to be¬ 
come intelligible to us; but it really would be a matter 
■of great aftonifhment to difeover in nature an objedt that 
Ihould be able to exempt itfelf from thefe conditions. 
For what fort of objedt can that poffibly be which is nei¬ 
ther a Sulftance, the cffedl of a Subftance, nor part of a 
whole; that is, neither a reality, nor a negation of reality, 
and not to be conlidered either as one, many, or all. (See 
Table of Categories, vol.xi. p. 610.) Surely then to clafs 
objedls under thefe notions is not by any means “ to revert 
to the Jcholaficfolly of verbal generalizations,” however well 
this cenfure might apply to the Categories of Ariftotle; 
and,, to fay the truth, whatever credit may be due to that 
ancient lage for the very thought even that all objects 
ought to ftand under fome “ common name," and to be 
fufceptible of fome general mode of Clailification; (and 
more than two thoufand years have lince elapfed before 
H r S I C S. 203 
the difcovery was made of the real nature of thefe Notions;} 
what praife can equal the merit of that Philofopher, who, 
notwithllanding the unfuccefsful labours of fo many cen¬ 
turies, had courage and perfeverance enough to purfue the 
thought till he was ultimately rewarded by this complete 
difcovery? This praife, whatever may be its magnitude, 
is wholly due to the enlightened and perfevering Kant. 
Although the truth of this may not be allowed him by 
his contemporaries, yet a difeerning pofterity will not 
deny him this juftice. It is indeed the ufual fate of thofe 
great men who have made important and beneficial dif- 
coveries in fcience, not to witnefs the fame they are to 
acquire during their natural life. This is merely owing 
to prejudices that exift at that moment; but which fuc- 
ceeding generations, however, not aftedted by thefe pre¬ 
judices, whofe bell quality is that they are fure to moul¬ 
der away, do moil willingly grant to their memory: it 
was thus with Copernicus, with Galileo, &c. &c. See. 
To return, however, to the Categories, and to the two 
Catalogues of Ariftotle and Kant. The vifible truth that 
exifls in the one Catalogue, and the evident want of it 
in the other, are difcoverable on a bare inlpeCtion. Arif¬ 
totle gives the following lift: 1. Subftantia ; 2. Quantitas ; 
3. Qualitas; 4. Relatio; 5. Adtio; 6. Paffio; 7. Quando; 
8. Ubi; 9. Situs; 10. Habitus; amounting in all to ten 
Predicaments or Categories, to which were afterwards added 
five more, which were called pojl predicaments; a tacit 
acknowledgment that his ten were not complete. Kant 
gives a lift of twelve notions (fee the Table, vol.xi. p. 610.) 
clalled under the four heads of Quantity, Quality, 
Relation, and Modality. Thus under Quantity are 
three notions: 1. Unity; 2. Multitude; 3. Totality; 
clearly pointing out that Quantity is not a limple ele¬ 
ment, as Hated by Ariftotle, but is the general head of 
the firft three limple notions of the underftanding. So 
that, were I to draw a companion between the Tables of 
the primitive notions of Underftanding, or Categories, 
as given by thefe two great Men, I Ihould begin with 
that of Ariftotle, and fay, firft, that Substantio is a Ca¬ 
tegory; that Qualitas, Quantitas, and Relatio, are by no 
means Simple Notions, but each of them is divifible into 
three, (fee the Table, vol. xi. p. 610.) and are therefore 
not Categories, but merely the Heads of dalles for nine 
Categories; I Ihould fay, Adtioand Pallio are both derived 
notions from Cause and Effect, and confequently can¬ 
not be Categories; and further, that Quando, Ubi, and 
Situs, cannot poffibly have any thing to do with the Ca¬ 
tegories, for they abfolutely refer to Time and Space, 
which are the two Receptivities of Sense, and are 
quite diitindt from Underftanding; and laftly, Habitus, 
is nothing but a derived notion, and mull therefore be 
rejected. 
What is faid above is fufficient to Ihow the Nature of 
Kant’s Categories. If not, let any one try to produce 
an objedt, if he can, that is free from a combination of 
all thefe notions, and he will then be fully convinced of 
their truth and iimplicity, and of the impoliibility of con¬ 
ceiving any lingie object of experience without them. 
Therefore it is vain to talk any more of Arillotle’s Ca¬ 
tegories : they have done their duty, by having led to the 
dilcovery of the true Nature of the Underftanding, and 
the indifpenfable primary and original Twelve Notions, 
now properly enough called Categories. 
I have no hefitation in faying, that a youth of ordinary 
capacity, would find no more difficulty in profecuting the 
lludy of this fublime Philofophy, than is commonly met 
with in purfuing a courfe of the Mathematics. Indeed, 
in point of treatment, thefe two fciences are perfectly 
analogous. It is well known, in the Mathematics, that 
no advancement can be made to a higher Hep, until the 
one below it be fully and completely attained. Now, if 
this rule be negledted in the profecution of the fcience of 
Tranfcendental Philofophy, it is equally impoffible that 
any advancement whatever can be made. But this cir- 
cunjftance 
