16 
‘tion, in the manner which beft accords 
with our private advantage, we are 
adopting an error ;- for it mey happen, 
that {peculative truth and perionel inte- 
refi may coincide : ‘ People,” fays Mr. 
Locke, “ may famble upon truth in the 
way to preferment.” 
avhich the enquirer is deeply concerned 
in the refult of his fpeculations ; when, 
for example, wealth, popularity, or ad- 
vancement, is conneéted with one deci- 
fion, and poverty, obfcurity, or fuffering 
with the reverfe, it requires no fimall 
portion of imtegrity and fairnefs, to 
make an impartial judgment. It can- 
not admit of a doubt, that the edifice of 
fuperftition has lafted longer, by means 
of the buttreffes which power has ereét- 
ed to fupport it, than it could have 
done without them. Many opinions are 
The Enquirer. 
how exifting, and even flourifhing, 
through their alliance with intereft, 
which, left to the natural procefs of the 
human intelleét, would probably, by this 
«ime have been Be ae 
Fhe moral caufes of diverfity of opi- 
nion, already enumerated, may be fuffi- 
Gone to account for Peer aee cafes of 
erroneous judgment, in which men wan- 
der, in various dire étions, from a aa 
merely becaufe they are not honeiftly and 
refchrely engaged in the aie of 
Knowledge. Oxher caufes, lcfs under our 
eontrol, remain to be mentioned. 
Great confufion. of ideas, and confe- 
guent divertiry of Opinion, arilé ne 
tle want of precifion in the ufe of term 
‘Fhe only { rcience in which every edt 
term is accura tely defined, and friélly 
ufed im one given fenic, is mathematics 5 
and to this caufe is, in @ great meaiure, 
ewine the fup rioriry of this feience to 
allt others, im perfpicuity and certainty. 
fis far as the fcience of phyfics partakes 
of mathematical aceUAGY Hi MS Gie Of 
terms, it becomes capable of demonftra- 
tion 3 and jult in rhe degree in which, 
from ‘the wane of a oe idea of the 
hings Of properties which tle terms 
age they are ipechety defined, 
wneertainty patie: In ether fciences, 
particularly metaphyfics, theology, and 
morals, innumerable terms are adapted, 
which in diferent conneClions, and uied 
by different perfons, reprefen: diferent 
ecmbinations of ideas. . Hence, when 
they are employed in argument, a confu- 
fon of concen ad diverfity cf opi; 
nion are seca produced.) “she 
whole metaphyfical d-€trine of Ariftotle, ” 
concerning Being abftractedly confidered, 
is a mere “feience of w ords ; 3; and the in= 
> 
ee 
But in eafes in- 
No. XAT. f July 
numerable difputes warch it created 
among the fcholaftics in the middle age, 
were “nothing better than logomachies. 
The feéts of the nominalifs and realtfis, 
which through the eleventh and twelfth 
centuries, difturbed the world with 
angry contentions on the qu ftion, whe- 
ther univerials have a real effence, or are 
mere names, would have been at once an- 
nihilated by fettling the meaning of the 
terms ges and /pectes. Confufion in 
the ufe of the terms fubftance, naiuré, be- 
lige perfor, generation, &c.\ gave rife te 
the numerous feéts into which the Chrif- 
tian church was early divided, concern- 
ng the Divine Nature and the Perfon 
of Chrift. The ancient fchools of the 
philofophers, maintained endiefs difputes 
concerning the Supreme Good, the value 
of pleafure, ands other os LOpicsy 
which originated entirely, m the diffe- 
rent collections of ideas which they re- 
{pedctively connected with the fame 
words. “ Let us,” fays Cicero, to the 
Stoic, *§ fettke the meaning of terms, and ~ 
no controverfy will. remain™ Among 
difpatants of modern times, greater pre- 
cifion of language has been ftudied; yer, 
perhaps, 1t will be found, that the con- 
troverfies concerning liberty and necef- 
fity, concerning the foundation of mo- 
rals, and fome others, are rather difputes 
about words than things. 
Difagreement in judge nt, and, confe-~ 
quently, diverfity of ee is farther 
increaled by the injudicious ule of meta- 
phortcal language. Figures of fpeech 
ate the itt haments of oratory, not of lo- 
gic. By diftraétng the mind between 
diferent objeéts, they imterrupt that 
ftcady contemplation of the matter in 
queftion, which is necefflary to the dif- 
covery of truth. They ‘ere alfo fre- 
quently empluyed to ol ga arbitrary af~ 
ie ai and to prepod efs the” mind by 
mpretlions on tke imagination, ea 
the underfianding ought to be. coolly oc- 
cupied in argumentative difcuffion. Of 
this, almof every treatife in theological 
or Goes controverly furnifhes ex- 
les, URIS As othe n stone imputed to. 
ane defien, but is fometimes merely - 
the effeét of literary vanity. Writers 
who excel more in fancy than judgment, 
and whofe tafte in ftyle inclines rather 
to ornament than fimplicity, are too apt 
to load even feientite difguifitions with 
rhetorical fgures, and thus lofe m perfpi- 

* Canferam tecum quam cuique verbo rem 
fivgeaee nulla erit controver fia De Bs N. Liv. 
C. 276 
cuity 
