PHILO 
ftriCtures on the Critic of Pure Reafon, is far from indi¬ 
cating any mental endowments likely to raife a fyftem to 
eclipfe that of Kant. 
We have a remarkable and rare infrance in Dr. Paley of 
a man who overcame the prejudices in which he had been 
educated, and in his more advanced years made ample 
amends for this accident of his youth. It is to be re¬ 
gretted that Mr. Stewart has not allowed himfelf to be 
recorded as another Alining indance of an eminent philo- 
fopher combating and overcoming inveterate prejudice. 
It is now incumbent on me to (how that other honed 
and unprejudiced minds have been able to comprehend 
arid appreciate the vaft difcoveries contained in the new 
and beneficial philofophy; and that, becaufe in fome in- 
ftances it has been mifunderftood and vilified, it muft nor 
be difmiifed as a fubjeCt altogether unworthy of a candid 
and fair inveftigalion. As this philofophy contains no¬ 
thing but Truth , the oftener it paffes through the ordeal 
of critical inveftigation, the more it will be confirmed. 
The inftance I am now going to adduce of the poflibi- 
lity of comprehending Tranfcendental Philofophy , is the 
more remarkable, becaufe its author, after having been fo 
attached to the philofophy of Leibnitz as to give public 
leCtures on the works of that great fpiritualift, fubfe- 
quently devoted himfelf to the philofophy of Locke, the' 
great opponent of fpiritualifm. Thefe extremes in fpecu- 
lation had reduced him to a mod abjeCl date, but in no 
way extinguifhed his ardent defire to have the doubts 
which his reafon prefented to him finally foived. It was 
in this date of mind that he entered upon the dudy of 
the “ Critic of Pure Reafon,” not with any flattering hope 
af fuccefs, but merely as offering a new and untried way 
of fatisfying his doubts. His perfeverance in the dudy 
of this profound fyflem was almofl unprecedented: for, 
meeting with difficulties at every dep, in coiifequence of 
having to unlearn all his previous acquirements, he was 
almoff difheartened; but his diligence did not fink in this 
fevere trial, and he at length accomplifhed his objeCt; that 
is, he fully comprehended the “ Critic of Pure Reafon .” 
But what was the reward of this perfevering application ? 
He had the fatisfaftion to find all his philofophical doubts 
anfwered in the completed manner, and the whole “Critic” 
difplayed before him in the full light of the dronged 
evidence; this was the more furprifing, becaufe it was 
wholly unexpended. This revolution in his mind I fhall 
now prefent to the reader in his own words taken from 
the Preface to that invaluable work entitled “ A New 
Theory of the Human reprejenting Faculty ” by Charles 
Leonard Reinhold. This work, the refult of fo much 
perfevering labour, and which enters fo fully into the funda¬ 
mental diltinCtion and true eflence of Intuition, Conception, 
and Idea, richly deferves to be clothed in an Englifh drefs. 
He proceeds thus: “The mod common of the many 
complaints hitherto alleged againd the Critic of Pure 
Reafon is, that it is unintelligible. This charge is preferred 
againd it even by thofe who pretend to have refuted the 
Kantefian fyflem, and who for that very reafon ought by 
right to have fatisfied themfelves that they underffood it. 
Not one, however, of its numerous antagonids has ven¬ 
tured to aflert that he has made himfelf thoroughly mader 
of it; not one but mud at lead confefs that he has found 
many pafiages impenetrably obfeure. Mod confider this 
obfeurity as a natural coufequence of the manifed contra¬ 
dictions which they fancy they have difeovered in fuch 
pafiages as are intelligible to them: whereas the adherents 
of the new fyflem maintain that they have detected the 
fource of thefe contradictions in that obfeurity, which, 
however difficult to penetrate, to them at leaft was not 
infuperable. Their anfwers to all antecedent objections, 
as well as the explanations publifhed by Kant in regard 
to fome of them, have no other drift than to correct the 
mifconceptions of his opponents as to the meaning of 
the “Critic of Pure Reafon and thus they certainly 
rather eftablifh than refute the charge, that a work which 
Vol. XX. No. 1357. 
SOPHY. 145 
is mifunderdood by fo many acute minds and otherwife 
fuch competent judges, muft be extremely obfeure. 
“ This grand charge againd a work which is of fuch 
univerfally-acknowledged importance, at lead in regard 
to what is promifed of it, is the more deferving of a full 
difeuffion, the more it will appear in the fequel that it is 
intimately connected with the date of the prevailing fo- 
called ecleClic philofophy ; that the fortune of the new 
Kantefian fyflem has hitherto been governed by the 
grounds of this charge ; and that, from thefe grounds, 
all the other charges alleged againd Kant, as to the revival 
of fcholaftic fubtilties, ufelefs innovations in language, 
the introduction of cheerlefs fcepticifm, the ereCtion of a 
new idealifm, and the over-turning of the fundamental 
truths of religion and morality, have their origin. 
“Suppofing that the Critic of Pure Reafon has actually 
foived the grand problem of the difeovery of univerfally- 
valid principles ; it muft contain the only pojjible fyftem of 
all Jpeculative philofophy, a fyftem determined by the 
nature of our Reprefenting Faculty, and extended in its 
elements to the limits of the comprehenfible. 
“ O yes! (fay the objeCtors;) but then this fyftem ought 
“ to be free from all difficulties; all the by-ways of fpecu- 
“ lation fhould be avoided, and not new incomprehenfibi- 
“ lities fubftituted in the place of the old'ones : it fhould 
“ be clear and intelligible, and by an analyfis triumphant 
“ over all the fubtilties of fophiftry, beat down all objec- 
“ tions, and difpel all the involuntary delufions of the 
“ enquirerafter truth. How can we, who may or may not 
“ be acquainted with it, promife ourfelves fuch great 
“ things from a dogmatic fyftem, the demonftrations of 
“ which are extremely abftrufe and incomprehenlible to 
“ mod men, and w'hofe refults are equally inconfiftent with 
“ the principles of known metaphyfics and the fimpie 
“ doCtrines of poor human reafon ?” 
“ It would anfwer no purpofe were I to oppofe to this 
prooflefs cenfure the equally proofiefs panegyrics of thofe 
who regard all thefe demands as fulfilled and even ex¬ 
ceeded in the Critic of Pure Reafon. It is fufficient if 
my readers, as I confidently affume, admit that it is not 
abfolutely impoffible, that the Critic of Pure Reafon has 
been mifunderdood by its partifans as well as by its ad- 
verfaries, though the latter have hitherto been fuperior to 
the former both in number and celebrity. It was not 
only the greater, but likewife the better, part of Newton's 
learned contemporaries who, efpecially in the years imme¬ 
diately fubfequent to the publication of his new difcove¬ 
ries, found in the now univerfally-received theory of that 
great man, a deviation from all the previoufiy-known 
principles of phyfics, as well as the Ample doCtrines of 
plain human reafon, contradictions, incomprehenfibilities, 
and, above all, an impenetrable obfeurity in the demon¬ 
ftrations. For nearly half a century the French would 
have ridiculed the Newtonian, with not lefs bitternefs 
but more wit, than our modern popular philofophers have 
fcoft'ed at the Critical Philol'opher who fhould have pre¬ 
dicted to his contemporaries that the doCtrine of attraction 
would be as univerfally adopted and admired by their 
defeendants as it was derided and rejeCied by the prece¬ 
ding generation. And what would have been thoughtat 
Rome of the afl’ertion that Newton had found means to 
prove by fuch demonftrative evidence the truth of a doc¬ 
trine confuted by daily experience, contradictory to the 
Sacred Scriptures, and condemned by the apoftolic fee, 
the doCtrine of the earth’s motion, that in a few years it 
would be taught and defended in all the philofophic 
chairs of that feat of orthodoxy, with the knowledge and 
approbation of the infallible head of the faith himfelf? 
“There are grounds which render it eafy to conceive 
why the Critic of Pure Reafon could not but be mifun¬ 
derftood by the majority of contemporary philofophers ■ 
grounds from which, as I prefume to hope, the fate of 
the Kantefian philofophy up to the prefent time may be 
explained in a manner that detracts as little from the 
P P honour 
