relation for which I have contended, but denies altogether the existence of that peculiar class of feelings, or states of mind which have been denominated general notions, or general ideas, asserting the existence only of individual objects perceived, and of general terms that comprehend these, without any peculiar mental state denoted by the general term, distinct from those separate sensations or perceptions which the particular objects, comprehended under the term, might individually excite,-it seems to me that the very statement of the opinion itself is almost a sufficient confutation, since the very invention of the general term, and the extension of it to certain objects only, not to all objects, implies some reason for this limitation,some feeling of general agreement of the objects included in the class, to distinguish them from the objects not included in it, which is itself that very general notion professedly denied. As long as some general notion of circumstances of resemblance is admitted, I see very clearly how a general term may be most accurately limited; but if this general notion be denied, I confess that I cannot discover any principle of limitation whatever. Why have certain objects been classed together, and not certain other objects, when all have been alike perceived by us; and ali, therefore, if there be nothing more than mere perception in the process, are capable of receiving any denomination which we may please to bestow on them? Is it arbitrarily, and without any reason whatever, that we do not class a rose-bush with birds, or an elephant with fish? and if there be any reason for these exclusions, why will not the Nominalist tell us what that reason is-in what feeling it is found-and how it can be made accordant with his system? Must it not be that the rose-bush and a sparrow, though equally perceived by us, do not excite that general notion of resemblance which the term bird is invented to express-do not seem to us to have those relations of a common nature, in certain respects, which lead us to class the sparrow and the ostrich, however different in other respects, as birds; or the petty natives of our brooks and rivulets with the mighty monsters of the deep, under one

If this be the reason,

general and equal denomination? there is more, in every case, than perception, and the giving of a general name; for there is a peculiar state of mind--a general relative feeling-intervening between the perception and the invention of the term, which is the only reason that can be assigned for that very invention. Can the Nominalist then assert, that there is no feeling of the resemblance of objects, in certain respects, which thus intervenes between the perception of them as separate objects, which is one stage of the process, and the comprehension of them under a single name, which is another stage of the process,-or must he not rather confess, that it is merely in consequence of this intervening feeling we give to the number of objects their general name, to the exclusion of the multitudes of objects to which we do not apply it, as it is in consequence of certain other feelings, excited by them individually, we give to each separate object its proper name, to the exclusion of every other object? To repeat the process, as already described to you, we perceive two or more objects, -we are struck with their resemblance in certain respects. We invent a general name to denote this feeling of resemblance, and we class under this general name, every particular object, the perception of which is followed by the same feeling of resemblance, and no object but these alone. If this be a faithful statement of the process, and for its fidelity I may safely appeal to your consciousness,-the doctrine of the Nominalists is not less false than that of the Realists. It is false, because it excludes that general feeling of resemblance,-the relative suggestion,-which is all that the general name itself truly designates, and without which, therefore, it never would have been invented; while the doctrine of the Realists is false, by inserting in the process those supposed separate entitics, which form no part of it. The one errs, as I have already said, by excess, the other by deficiency."

§. 207. Of histories of philosophical opinions.

We pass from the view, which has been given of differ ent opinions on the subject of general abstract ideas, to remark on certain histories of philosophical opinions in general. We consider the great principles of intellectual philosophy at present for the most part well settled, and whatever discrepancies apparently exist, as owing in a majority of cases rather to differences of statement than differences of belief. But still it is sometimes important to look back and see what has in former times been said and thought; an exercise, which cannot fail to evince the strength of prejudices, the evident fallibility of the understanding, and the necessity of cherishing a sincere love of truth.

In the following works will be found all that will be necessary to be known concerning the dispute on general or universal ideas, as also the history of other philosophical controversies and opinions almost without number. The most part of them at present excite not the least interest, except as memorials of the struggles of the human. mind in past ages.

(1) Bayle's Historical and Critical Dictionary.--This great work was first published in two folio volumes in 1697. It consists of two parts; one of which is a concise narration of facts, and the other a sort of commentary on them. The work contains very numerous illustrations of the history of philosophy, and treats many difficult subjects with independence and ability. And still we find some difficulty in mentioning it with much commendation, since, in the opinion of a most competent judge, it has a tendency to unsettle the principles of superficial readers, and to damp the moral ardour of youth by weakening their belief in the reality of virtue.

(2) Brucker's Critical History of Philosophy.This work was first published at Leipsic in 1744 in Latin, extending through five quarto volumes. The author gives a biographical sketch of the lives of different ancient and modern philosophers, reviews their writings, and explains

their particular systems. This great work, the result of fifty year's labour of a hard and honest student, is particularly valuable, as a book of reference for those, who have devoted themselves to philosophical researches. There has been published an abridged translation of it into English by Enfield.

(3) M. De Gerando's History of Philosophical Systems.➖➖➖ This work, first published in 1802, is in French, and we know not, that it has ever been translated, but on account of its acknowledged merits it cannot well be passed by; and also because it is frequently referred to by English writers on these subjects. M. De Gerando does not undertake to give a complete account of the progress of intellectual science; his main object seems to be to recapitulate the opinions of the most eminent ancient and modern philosophers on a particular point, viz. the sources and certainty of knowledge. His work is divided into five periods.—The first period comprises the time anterior to Socrates; the second comes down to the age of Cicero ; in the third, which ends with the close of the seventh century, we have an account of the decline and fall of philosophy; the fourth reaches from the seventh century to the time of Des Cartes and Bacon; the fifth and last continues the subject to the present century. An opinion of the value of this work, and a translation of some extracts from it, are given in the North American Review of April, 1824; which can be consulted by those, who wish to know further.

(4) Stewart's Progress of Metaphysical, Ethical, and Political Philosophy.This interesting work originally appeared in the form of a Preliminary Dissertation to the supplemental volumes of the Encyclopædia Britannica; and includes merely the period since the revival of letters in Europe. As one reason for limiting his retrospect to a period extending no further back than the revival of letters, the writer expresses an opinion, that the sciences, of which he treats, present but little matter for useful remark, prior to the time of Lord Bacon.-Perhaps no one of the excellent works of Mr. Stewart is more worthy the student's

attention than this; whether we consider the richness and polish of his style, or that admirable discrimination, with which he detects, apparently by a sort of kindred intuition, the characteristicks both of systems and of individual minds.-There are also, both in the English and foreign languages, other works and treatises of greater or less extent and value, which may profitably be referred to in examining the history of philosophical opinions.

CHAPTER EIGHTEENTH.

OF DREAMING.

§. 208. A knowledge of our dreams interesting.

DREAMS are our mental states or operations while we are asleep. They are among the most curious phenomena of the mind, and there is much difficulty at present in giving a full and satisfactory explanation of them.

-The intellectual states, which go under this name, have ever excited much interest, and a man no less wise and practical than Dr. Franklin has written a characteristick piece, entitled, The Art of procuring Pleasant Dreams. But the further one goes back into antiquity, the interest taken in them, especially among the ignorant, will be found to be increased. We learn in the earliest records of history, that they were regarded as supernatural, and as conveying prophetick intimations. This notion still lingers among the common people even to our own times, although in a diminished degree; and even men of information and of some tincture of philosophy have not always been wholly undisturbed by them.

So great was the superstition respecting dreams among the Romans, that the emperor Augustus, who might have been expected to rise above it, took particular notice of the time of year, when his dreams were most unfavoura