must be modified, they will be a perpetual source of mistake, and of disappointment, in the conduct of affairs, however rigidly just they may be in themselves, and however accurately we may reason from them. If our general principles happen to be false, they will involve us in errours, not only of conduct but of speculation; and our errours will be the more numerous, the more comprehensive the principles are on which we proceed.

:

To illustrate these observations fully, would lead to a minuteness of disquisition inconsistent with my general plan, and I shall therefore, at present, confine myself to such remarks as appear to be of most essential importance. And, in the first place, it is evidently impossible to establish solid general principles, without the previous study of particulars; in other words, it is necessary to begin with the examination of individual objects, and individual events, in order to lay a ground-work of accurate classification, and for a just investigation of the laws of nature. It is in this way only that we can expect to arrive at general principles, which may be safely relied on, as guides to the knowledge of particular truths and unless our principles admit of such a practical application, however beautiful they may appear to be in theory, they are of far less value than the limited acquisitions of the vulgar. The truth of these remarks is now so universally admitted, and is indeed so obvious in itself, that it would be superfluous to multiply words in supporting them; and I should scarcely have thought of stating them in this Chapter, if some of the most celebrated philosophers of antiquity had not been led to dispute them, in consequence of the mistaken opinions which they entertained concerning the nature of universals. Forgetting that genera and species are mere arbitrary creations which the human mind forms, by withdrawing the attention from the distinguishing qualities of objects, and

giving a common name to their resembling qualities, they conceived universals to be real existences, or (as they expressed it) to be the essences of individuals; and flattered themselves with the belief, that by directing their attention to these essences in the first instance, they might be enabled to penetrate the secrets of the universe, without submitting to the study of nature in detail. These errours, which were common to the Platonists and the Peripatetics, and which both of them seem to have adopted from the Pythagorean school, contributed, perhaps more than any thing else, to retard the progress of the ancients in physical knowledge. The late learned Mr. Harris is almost the only author of the present age who has ventured to defend this plan of philosophizing, in opposition to that which has been so successfully followed by the disciples of lord Bacon.

"The Platonists," says he, "considering science as "something ascertained, definite, and steady, would admit nothing to be its object which was vague, indefinite, and "passing. For this reason they excluded all individuals "or objects of sense, and (as Ammonius expresses it) rais"ed themselves in their contemplations from beings partic "ular to beings universal, and which, from their own nature, "were eternal and definite."-" Consonant to this was the "advice of Plato, with respect to the progress of our spec"ulations and inquiries, to descend from those higher gen"era, which include many subordinate species, down to "the lowest rank of species, those which include only indi"viduals. But here it was his opinion, that our inquiries "should stop, and, as to individuals, let them wholly alone; "because of these there could not possibly be any sci

"Such," continues this author, "was the method of an"cient philosophy. The fashion, at present, appears to "be somewhat altered, and the business of philosophers to "be little else than the collecting from every quarter, into ❝ voluminous records, an infinite number of sensible, par"ticular, and unconnected facts, the chief effect of which "is to excite our admiration."-In another part of his works the same author observes, that "the mind, truly "wise, quitting the study of particulars, as knowing their "multitude to be infinite and incomprehensible, turns its "intellectual eye to what is general and comprehensive, and "through generals learns to see, and recognise whatever "exists."*

If we abstract from these obvious errours of the ancient philosophers, with respect to the proper order to be observed in our inquiries, and only suppose them to end where the Platonists said that they should begin, the magnificent encomiums they bestowed on the utility of those comprehensive truths which form the object of science (making allowance for the obscure and mysterious terms in which they expressed them) can scarcely be regarded as extravagant. It is probable that from a few accidental instances of successful investigation, they had been struck with the wonderful effect of general principles in increasing the intellectual power of the human mind; and, misled by that impatience in the study of particulars which is so often connected with the consciousness of superiour ability, they laboured to persuade themselves, that, by a life devoted to abstract meditation, such principles might be rendered as immediate objects of intellectual perception, as the individuals which compose the material world are of our external senses. By connecting this opinion with their other doctrines concerning universals, they were unfortunately ena

HARRIS'S Three Treatises, p. 227.

bled to exhibit it in so mysterious a form, as not only to impose on themselves, but to perplex the understandings of all the learned in Europe, for a long succession of ages.

The conclusion to which we are led by the foregoing observations, is, that the foundation of all human knowledge must be laid in the examination of particular objects and particular facts; and that it is only as far as our general principles are resolvable into these primary elements, that they possess either truth or utility. It must not, however, be understood to be implied in this conclusion, that all our knowledge must ultimately rest on our own proper experience. If this were the case, the progress of science, and the progress of human improvement, must have been wonderfully retarded; for, if it had been necessary for each individual to form a classification of objects, in consequence of observations and abstractions of his own, and to infer from the actual examination of particular facts, the general truths on which his conduct proceeds, human affairs would at this day remain nearly in the same state to which they were brought by the experience of the first generation. In fact, this is very nearly the situation of the species in all those parts of the world, in which the existence of the race depends on the separate efforts which each individual makes, in procuring for himself the necessaries of life; and in which, of consequence, the habits and acquirements of each individual must be the result of his own personal experience. In cultivated society, one of the first acquisitions which children make, is the use of language; by which means they are familiarized, from their earliest years, to the consideration of classes of objects, and of general truths, and before that time of life at which the savage is possessed of the knowledge necessary for his own preservation, are enabled to appropriate to themselves the accumulated discoveries of ages.

Notwithstanding, however, the stationary condition in which the race inust of necessity continue, prior to the separation of arts and professions, the natural disposition of the mind to ascend from particular truths to general conclusions, could not fail to lead individuals, even in the rudest state of society, to collect the results of their experience, for their own instruction and that of others. But, without the use of general terms, the only possible way of communicating such conclusions would be by means of some particular example, of which the general application was striking and obvious. In other words, the wisdom of such ages will necessarily be expressed in the form of fables or parables, or in the still simpler form of proverbial instances, and not in the scientific form of general maxims. In this way, undoubtedly, much useful instruction, both of a prudential and moral kind, might be conveyed: at the same time, it is obvious, that, while general truths continued to be expressed merely by particular exemplifications, they would afford little or no opportunity to one generation to improve on the speculations of another; as no effort of the understanding could combine them together, or employ them as premises, in order to obtain other conclusions more remote and comprehensive. For this purpose, it is absolutely necessary that the scope or moral of the fable should be separated entirely from its accessory circumstances, and stated in the form of a general proposition.

From what has now been said, it appears, how much the progress of human reason, which necessarily accompanies the progress of society, is owing to the introduction of general terms, and to the use of general propositions. In consequence of the gradual improvements which take place in language as an instrument of thought, the classifications both of things and facts with which the infant faculties of each successive race are conversant, are more just and