and intelligent translator.

But while I make this concession in favor of his argument, I must be allowed to add, that, in the same proportion in which Dr. Beattie falls short of the clearness and logical accuracy of his predecessor, he ought to stand acquitted, in the opinion of all men of candor, of every suspicion of a dishonorable plagiarism from his writings.

It is the doctrine itself, however, and not the comparative merits of its various abettors, that is likely to interest the generality of philosophical students; and as I have always thought that this has suffered considerably in the public estimation, in consequence of the statement of it given in the passage just quoted from the Essay on Truth, I shall avail myself of the present opportunity to remark, how widely that statement differs from the language, not only of Buffier, but of the author's contemporary and friend, Dr. Reid. This circumstance I think it necessary to mention, as it seems to have been through the medium of Dr. Beattie's Essay, that most English writers have derived their imperfect information concerning Reid's philosophy.

"There is a certain degree of sense," says this last author, in his Essays on the Intellectual Powers of man, "which is necessary to our being subjects of law and government, capable of managing our own affairs, and answerable for our conduct to others. This is called common sense, because it is common to all men with whom we can transact business."

"The same degree of understanding," he afterwards

tional logic. Voltaire, in his catalogue of the illustrious writers who adorned the reign of Louis XIV. is one of the very few French authors who have spoken of Bukier with due respect. "Il y a dans ses traités de métaphysique des morceaux que Locke n'aurait pas désavoués, et c'est le seul jésuite qui ait mis une philosophie raisonnable dans ses ouvrages." Another French philosopher, too, of a very different school, and certainly not disposed to overrate the talents of Buffier, has, in a work published as lately as 1805, candidly acknowledged the lights which he might have derived from the labors of his predecessor, if he had been acquainted with them in an earlier stage of his studies. Condillac, he also observes, might have profited greatly by the same lights, if he had availed himself of their guidance in his inquiries concerning the human understanding. "Du moins est il certain, que pour ma part, je suis fort fâché de ne connoître que depuis très peu de temps ces opinions du Père Buffier; si je les avais vues plutôt énoncées quelque part, elles m'auraient é beaucoup de peines et d'hésitations."- "Je regrette beaucoup que Co ses profondes et sagaces méditations sur l'intelligence humaine, n d'attention aux idées du Père Buffier," &c. &c.-Elémens d'Idéolog tutt-Tracy, Tom. III. pp. 136, 137.

observes, "which makes a man capable of acting with common prudence in life, makes him capable of discerning what is true and what is false, in matters that are self-evident, and which he distinctly apprehends." In a subsequent paragraph, he gives his sanction to a passage from Dr. Bentley, in which common sense is expressly used as synonymous with natural light and reason.*

It is to be regretted, as a circumstance unfavorable to the reception of Dr. Beattie's valuable essay among accurate reasoners, that, in the outset of his discussions, he did not confine himself to some such general explanation of this phrase as is given in the foregoing extracts from Buffier and Reid, without affecting a tone of logical precision in his definitions and distinctions, which, so far from being necessary to his intended argument, were evidently out of place, in a work designed as a popular antidote against the illusions of metaphysical scepticism. The very idea, indeed, of appealing to common sense, virtually implies that these words are to be understood in their ordinary acceptation, unrestricted and unmodified by any technical refinements and comments. This part of his essay, accordingly, which is by far the most vulnerable part of it, has been attacked with advantage, not only by the translator of Buffier, but by Sir James Steuart, in a very acute letter published in the last edition of his works.†

While I thus endeavour, however, to distinguish Dr. Reid's definition of common sense from that of Dr. Beattie, I am far from considering even the language of the for

mer on this subject, as in every instance unexceptionable; nor do I think it has been a fortunate circumstance, (notwithstanding the very high authorities which may be quoted in his vindication,) that he attempted to incorporate so vague and ambiguous a phrase with the appropriate terms of logic. My chief reasons for this opinion I have stated at some length, in an account published a few years ago of Dr. Reid's Life and Writings.*

One very unlucky consequence has unquestionably resulted from the coincidence of so many writers connected with this northern part of the island, in adopting, about the same period, the same phrase, as a sort of philosophical watch-word;-that, although their views differ widely in various respects, they have in general been classed together as partisans of a new sect, and as mutually responsible for the doctrines of each other. It is easy to perceive the use likely to be made of this acci.dent by an uncandid antagonist.

All of these writers have, in my opinion, been occasionally misled in their speculations, by a want of attention to the distinction between first principles, properly so called, and the fundamental laws of human belief. Buffier himself has fallen into the same error; nor do I know of any one logician, from the time of Aristotle downwards, who has entirely avoided it.

The foregoing critical remarks will, I hope, have their use in keeping this distinction more steadily in the view

* In consequence of the ambiguous meaning of this phrase, Dr. Reid sometimes falls into a sort of play on words, which I have often regretted. "If this be philosophy," says he, on one occasion, "I renounce her guidance. Let my soul dwell with common sense.' (Inquiry into the Human Mind, Chap. i. § 3. See also § 4. of the same chapter.) And in another passage, after quoting the noted saying of Hobbes, that "when reason is against a man, a man will be against reason; " he adds, "This is equally applicable to common sense.' (Essays on the Intellectual Powers, p. 530. 4to edition.) In both of these instances, and, indeed, in the general strain of argument which runs through his works, he understands common sense in its ordinary acceptation, as synonymous, or very nearly synonymous, with the word reason, as it is now most frequently employed. In a few cases, however, he seems to have annexed to the same phrase a technical meaning of his own, and has even spoken this meaning as a thing not generally understood. Thus, after illustrating the differ» ent classes of natural signs, he adds the following sentence: "It may be observed, that as the first class of natural signs I have mentioned is the foundation of true phi-losophy, and the second of the fine arts or of taste, so the last is the foundation of common sense; a part of human nature which hath never been explained." Inqui®ry, Chap. v. § 3.

See Note (D.)

of future inquirers; and in preventing some of the readers of the publications to which they relate, from conceiving a prejudice, in consequence of the looseness of that phraseology which has been accidentally adopted by their authors, against the just and important conclusions which they contain,

CHAPTER SECOND.

OF REASONING AND OF DEDUCTIVE EVIDENCE.

SECTION I.

Doubts with respect to Locke's Distinction between the Powers of Intuition and of Reasoning.

ALTHOUGH, in treating of this branch of the Philosophy of the Mind, I have followed the example of preceding writers, so far as to speak of intuition and reasoning as two different faculties of the understanding, I am by no means satisfied that there exists between them that radical distinction which is commonly apprehended. Dr. Beattie, in his Essay on Truth, has attempted to show, that, how closely soever they may in general be connected, yet that this connexion is not necessary; insomuch, that a being may be conceived endued with the one, and at the same time destitute of the other.* Something of this kind, he remarks, takes place in dreams and in madness; in both of which states of the system, the power of reasoning appears occasionally to be retained in no inconsiderable degree, while the power of intuition is suspended or lost. But this doctrine is liable to obvious and to insurmountable objections; and has plainly taken its rise from the vagueness of the phrase common sense, which the author employs through the whole of his argument, as synonymous with the power of intuition. Of the indissoluble connexion between this last power and that of reasoning, no other proof is necessary than the following consideration, that, "In every step which reason makes in demonstrative knowledge, there must be intuitive certainty;" a proposition which Locke has excellently

* Beattie's Essay p. 41, 2d edit.