144 
PHILOSOPHY, 
and Noumea a ; and it is this which enables Kant to fettle 
fomething permanently with refpefl to Time and Space. 
He fums upby faying, “ It is an excellent difiertation, and 
he has no doubt will greatly tend to improve both Meta- 
phyfics and Moral Philofophy.” Sedfion V. is full of acute 
remarks, and deep philofophical refearch ; at every line 
his new' fyftem feems ready to burft forth; although he 
has not yet difcovered his Categories, he has done 
much by clearing out of the way Time and Space. Of this 
feftion profeilbr Stewart has I conceive feen only the 
title De Methodo circa Seijitiva et Inlelledualia inBlela- 
phyftcis , accompanied by the following remarks of Dr.Wil- 
lich ; “An abftradt of the two laft feffions could not be 
rendered intelligible without ftating likewife the iiluftra- 
tions of the different pofitions at full length, which the 
prefent fketch will not admit of.” In a copious note at 
the end of this Latin Difiertation, its immortal author 
feems furprifed at his own flights, and fays: “I fhould 
not wonder if fome of my pofitions appear to pofiefs more 
boldnefs than truth; if, however, they are to be main¬ 
tained, they will require the ftrongeft proof.” Indeed, 
fo powerful are the arguments in this little treatife, that 
one might almoft venture to predidf, on reading them, 
that this great genius was deftined to make the difcoveries 
which he gave to the world eleven years afterwards. 
Having Laid thus much with a view to explain the 
nature and objedt of this fmall Latin performance, on 
which Mr. Stewart places his chief reliance; it may he well 
to call the attention of the reader to that part of Note 
E E already referred to, where he fays: “Thefe Propo- 
fitions are extradfed from a Difiertation written by Kant 
himfelf in the Latin language : their obfcurity, therefore, 
cannot be afcribed to any mifapprehenfion on the part of a 
tranflator. It was on this account that I thought it better 
to quote them in his own unaltered icords, than to avail iny- 
felf of the correfponding paflage in Born’s Latin verfion 
of the Critique of Pare licafon .” What! take from Born 
what never was in his book! It would be arauiing 
enough to be told at what chapter, and in what page, 
of Born’s Latin Critic, thefe correfponding paflages are 
to be met with. Mr. Stewart’s difcovery of them in that 
work, is like his finding out the fpirit of the “ Critic” by 
reading Leibnitz, Berkeley, Hume, or in f'adt any but the 
Critic itfelf. 
It is much to be lamented that Mr. Stewart fhould 
have fo far loft himfelf, as to have recurred to this trifling 
Difiertation, in order to afcertain the real value and im¬ 
portance of the “Critic of Pure Reason.” That 
immortal work introduces us to a fcience never before 
offered to man ; a Science that eradicates all the errors of 
fpeculative philofophy; completely developes the Human 
Mind; fhows the exadf number of its elements; proves 
the impoflibility of their being either augmented, d.imi- 
nifhed, or even altered in their arrangement ! It is in 
this aftonifhing work that Kant has furniflied to fcience 
its grand defuleratum ; namely, a Syftem of complete and 
permanent principles. 
Such is the book of which our reviewer has to give an 
account to the public; and fuch are the means he has 
employed to accomplifli his purpofe ! The vague and 
uncertain ftate of what has hitherto gone by the name of 
Metaphyfics has given a diftafte for that abltradt fcience. 
It will, therefore, require a new generation to wafh away 
the prejudices imbibed in our early education, before 
this complete revolution in fcience can be felt. Knowing 
as I do, theobftacles which this fyftem has to encounter, 
and appreciating its intrinfic value, I cannot defift from 
exerting every nerve to endeavour to promote the elta- 
blifhment of this new a$d falutary dodfrine. 
But that a grave profefTor of one of our celebrated uni- 
verfities ; a perfedl mafler of all the elegances of our lan¬ 
guage ; who captivates while he inftrudts ; and who Hands 
fo defervedly high for his literary attainments; fhould have 
committed a miftake that could not be pardoned in a 
fchool-boy, cannot be fufficiently lamented and deplored ; 
particularly as the influence of his authority may forcibly 
tend to retard the introdudlion of new and ufeful know¬ 
ledge into a country that boafts great names in every 
department of fcience, and where no doubt any new fyftem 
would meet with its deferts. Such however is the Un¬ 
fortunate llory I have to relate. 
The moft candid and impartial reader mud fureiy admit, 
that to pretend to determine the value and importance of 
the “Critic of Pure Reason” by the examination of a 
few detached fentences of a Difiertation, compofed in 
hafte and under ficknefs, merely for the purpofe of obtain¬ 
ing a Univerfity chair, and written long before the difco¬ 
very of the Critical Philofophy, is the confummation of 
human folly! 
I have gone thus minutely into the nature of the attack 
on the “ Critic” with a view to expofe its futility, and 
to convince the world that no one principle has been 
•fairly examined. All the illiberal remarks and finifter 
obfervations which are foinfiduoufiy diredled throughout 
the whole of this extraordinary fedtion and its copious 
notes, by Mr. Stewart, againft a work that ranks with the 
labours of Euclid, Copernicus, Kepler, and Newton, are 
precifely fimilar to the attack made on the giants by the 
hero of La Mancha. 
In the labours of the Metaphyfician, from the earlieft 
period down to the prefent time, there has been nothing 
like even an approximation to fyftem. Thiscircumftance 
very naturally created a diftruft of the poflibility of fuch 
a fcience as Metaphyfics. It was evidently the defign of 
Providence that this doubt fhould be difpelled ; and we 
may now dweil with delight on a new era in the Philofo¬ 
phy of Mind. 
On the firft appearance of Kant’s great work, fo uncon- 
fcious was the world of its importance, that it remained 
for fome time totally unnoticed ; till, feeling the force 
of the evil, this father of true philofophy publifhed his 
“ Prolegomena ” to all future Metaphyfics that fhould de- 
ferve the name of a Science. This explanatory work 
raifed at once a hoft of commentators and cavillers ; and 
in confequence the Critic was examined and difcufled 
even to its minuteft elements. Numbers became con¬ 
vinced, not only that it contained a Syftem, but the only 
True Syftem, and that, with regard to the Elements of 
Blind, nothing further remained to be difcovered. At 
length this work has become the Text Book of moft of 
the Univerfities in the north of Germany. 
Prior to this admirable produdlion, there does not 
appear to be any work on record in the department of 
Metaphyfics that deferves to be confidered as even an 
approach to fyftem. Though Mr. Stewart fpeaks fo con¬ 
fidently of the fuperiority of Newton over Kant, he 
fureiy cannot mean to infinuate that his own work, 
entitled “ Elements of the Human Mind," contains a 
fyftem to be compared with that in the “ Critic." For 
my own part I have perufed his work with great attention ; 
and, fo far from difcovering any thing like a fyftem, I 
have uniformly found it fo loofe, fo vague, and fo un- 
fatisfadfory, that I doubt even if it contains a Angle per¬ 
manent definition. He has devoted an entire chapter to 
the explanation of Conception, which, fo far from throwing 
any light upon this ejfential elementary produ&ion of the 
Mind, leaves the reader wholly unfatisfied ; for whatever 
is faid upon this important notion, is not only loofe and 
indefinite, but aftually defedtive and unavailing. I am 
alfo perfectly confident, that there is not in his work it 
fingle mental element either fully difcufled or firmly efta- 
blilhed. The unfuccefsful exertions of this author in 
attempting to eredt a Science of Blind, after fo many years 
of fruitlefs labour devoted to this objedi, afford no very 
favourable anticipation, that, like the immortal Newton, 
who expanded the fall of an apple into a complete and 
permanent fyftem of univerfal gravitation, he will ever 
accomplifh his long-promifed objedt by giving to the 
public a complete analyfis of the powers and faculties of the 
Human Mind. The conduct of this writer in his illiberal 
ftridlures 
