pear to have spoken in too unqualified terms respecting various and distinct FACULTIES of the mind, and have enumerated a variety of these, corresponding to the various mental operations. Dr. Brown, on the other hand, has followed a very different course, by referring all our mental processes to the two principles of simple and relative suggestion. According to this eloquent and ingenious writer, we have no direct voluntary power over the succession of our thoughts; but these follow each other in consequence of certain principles of suggestion, by which conceptions, in certain circumstances, call up or suggest other conceptions, which are in some manner related to them. We have the power only of fixing the mind more intensely upon some. images of this series, when they arise, in consequence of approving of them, as referring to some subject of thought which is before us, while we disapprove of others of the series as less allied to it. The former become more fixed and vivid in consequence of this approbation, while the latter are allowed to sink back into oblivion. What systematic writers have called the faculty of conception is, according to this system, the simple presence in the mind of one of these suggested or recalled images. Memory is this simple suggestion combined with the impression of past time. In imagination, again, which has been considered as a voluntary power of forming conceptions or images into new combinations by a peculiar mental process, Dr. Brown belives that we have only the power of perceiving images as they are brought up by established principles of suggestion, approving of some which thus become fixed, and disapproving of others which thus pass away. In thus approving or disapproving of the suggested images, we are guided by a perception of their relation to any particular subject which is before us, and which we may desire to cultivate or illustrate. According to this writer, therefore, what is usually called conception is simple suggestion; memory is simple suggestion with a feeling of past time; imagination is simple suggestion combined with desire and with a perception of relation. The relative suggestion of Dr. Brown, again, is that perception of relations arising out

Differences among philosophers? Dr. Brown's view? His view of conception? Of memory? Of imagination?

of the comparison of different facts or objects which we have treated of under the more familiar name of judgment; and the mental process usually called abstraction he resolves simply into a perception of resemblances. Various objections might be urged against this system; and we may, perhaps, be allowed to doubt whether by means of it any thing has been gained to the science of mind. But the plan which I proposed to myself in this outline does not lead me into any consideration of it, or of those systems to which it is opposed. My object has been simply to inquire what the mind does, without entering on the question how it does so. On this ground, the division which has been adopted of distinct mental operations, not distinct faculties, appears to be that best calculated for practical utility.

§ I.

OF THE USE OF REASON IN THE INVESTIGATION OF TRUTH.

IN applying our reason to the investigation of truth in any department of knowledge, we are, in the first place, to keep in mind that there are certain intuitive articles of belief which lie at the foundation of all reasoning. For, in every process of reasoning, we proceed by founding one step upon another which has gone before it; and when we trace such a process backwards, we must arrive at certain truths which are recognised as fundamental, requiring no proof and admitting of none. These are usually called FIRST TRUTHS. They are not the result of any process of reasoning, but force themselves with a conviction of infallible certainty upon every sound understanding, without regard to its logical habits or powers of induction. The force of them is accordingly felt in an equal degree by all classes of men; and they are acted upon with absolute confidence in the daily transactions of life. This is a subject of great and extensive importance. The truths or articles of

Remarks upon this system? The foundation of all reasoning? Name given to these truths? Their universal authority.

belief which are referable to it were briefly mentioned in a former part of our inquiry; they are chiefly the following :

I. A conviction of our own existence, as sentient and thinking beings; and of mind, as something distinct from the functions of the body. From the first exercise of perception we acquire a knowledge of two things; namely, the thing perceived, and the sentient being who perceives it. In the same manner, from the exercise of any mental operation, such as memory, we acquire an impression of the thing remembered, of an essence or principle which remembers it, and of this essence as something entirely distinct from any function of the body. This last conviction must be considered as a first truth, or intuitive article of belief, standing on the same ground with the other truths which are referable to this class. It does not, as was formerly stated, rest upon any metaphysical or physiological argument, but upon an appeal made to the conviction of every man who attends to what is passing within. It resolves itself into a consciousness of the various mental processes, impressions, and emotions, as referable to one permanent and unchanging essence, while the body is known to be in a constant state of change; and of these processes as being exercised without any necessary dependence upon present impressions from external things. Like other truths of this class, it is, consequently, unaffected by sophisms which are brought against it; and the answer to these does not properly consist in any process of reasoning, but in this appeal to every man's absolute conviction. If brought into comparison, indeed, the evidence which we have for the existence of mind is perhaps less liable to deception than that which we have for the existence of matter.

II. A confidence in the evidence of our senses in regard to the existence and the properties of external things; or a conviction that they have a real existence independently of our sensations. We have formerly referred to a celebrated doctrine, by which it was maintained that the mind perceives

How many classes? First? intuitive conviction? Nature and foundation of our belief of our own existence? Proper answer to sophisms against it? Second conviction ?

only its own ideas or impressions; and that, consequently, we derive from our senses no evidence of the existence of external things. The only answer to such a sophism is, that a confidence in the evidence of our senses is a first truth, or intuitive principle of belief, admitting of no other proof than that which is derived from the universal conviction of mankind.

III. A confidence in our own mental processes; that facts, for example, which are suggested to us by our memory really occurred.

IV. A belief in our personal identity. This is derived from the combined operation of consciousness and memory; and it consists in a remembrance of past mental feelings, and a comparison of them with present feelings as belonging to the same sentient being. There were formerly many disputes on this subject; some maintaining that the notion of personal identity is inconsistent with the different states in which the mind exists at different times, as love and ha tred, joy and sorrow; and also with the remarkable changes of character which often take place at different periods of life. This was one of the sophisms of the schools, founded upon an obscure analogy with changes which take place in material things, and is not at all applicable to mind. The only answer to the paradox is, that every man, under every variety of mental emotion, and every possible change of character, retains an absolute conviction that the sentient being whom he calls himself remains invariably the same; and that in all the affairs of life, whether referring to the past or the future, every man acts upon this conviction.

V. A conviction that every event must have a cause, and a cause adequate to the effect; and that appearances, showing a correct adaptation of means to an end, indicate design and intelligence in the cause. These, as fundamental truths, are quite distinct from the question relating to the connection of any two specified events as cause and effect. The latter belongs to another part of our inquiry.

Answer to sophisms against it? Third conviction? Fourth conviction, relating to personal identity? Former disputes? Answer? Fifth conviction, relating to cause and effect

VI. A confidence in the uniformity of nature; or, that the same substance will always exhibit the same characters; and that the same cause, under the same circumstances, will always be followed by the same effect. This, as a first truth, is á fundamental and instinctive conviction. The province of experience, we have already seen, is to ascertain the particular events which are so connected as to be included under the law.

Our confidence in the uniformity of nature is the foundation of all the calculations which we make for the future in regard to our protection or comfort, or even for the continuance of our existence; and without it the whole system of human things would be thrown into inextricable confusion.

It is referable to the two heads now stated; namely, uniformity of characters, and uniformity of sequences or ope

rations.

By uniformity of characters, in any substance, we mean that the substance will always continue to exhibit the same combination of characters; so that, when we have ascertained its presence by some of them, we conclude that it also possesses the others. These characters may be numerous, and referable to various classes; such as the botanical characters of a plant, the chemical properties of a mineral, sensible qualities of smell, taste, and color, and capabilities of action upon other bodies. Such is our confidence in the undeviating uniformity of nature, that whatever number of these qualities we have ascertained to belong to a substance, we expect to find in every specimen of it in all time coming. For example, I find a substance which, by its smell and color, I know to be opium. Without any further information, I decide with confidence on its taste, its composition, its chemical affinity, its action on the human body, and the characters of the plant from which it was derived; and never calculate upon the possibility of being deceived in any of these particulars.

Our confidence in the uniformity of the sequences or operations of nature resolves itself into a conviction of the continuance of that order which experience has shown us to

Sixth conviction, relating to the uniformity of nature? What calculations founded upon it? How many branches, and what? Uniformity of characters? Examples? Uniformity of operations?