things to those that are but one step more general; from those to others of still greater extent, and so on to such as are universal. By such means we may hope to arrive at principles, not vague and obscure, but luminous and well-defined, such as Nature herself will not refuse to acknowledge."

In this pregnant passage he has clearly enough pointed out the position which his philosophy was to occupy. "Many other philosophers," as Professor Macvey Napier remarks, "both ancient and modern, had referred to observation and experiment in a cursory way, as furnishing the materials cf physical knowledge; but no one before him had attempted to systematize the true method of discovery; or to prove that the inductive is the only method by which the genuine office of philosophy can be exercised, and its genuine ends accomplished. It has sometimes been stated that Galileo was, at least, in an equal degree with Bacon, the father of the Inductive Logic; but it would be more correct to say that his discoveries furnished some fortunate illustrations of its principles. To explain these principles was no object of his; nor does he manifest any great anxiety to recommend their adoption with a view to the general improvement of science. The Aristotelian disputant, in his celebrated Dialogues, is made frequently to appeal to observation and experiment; but the interlocutor, through whom Galileo himself speaks, nowhere takes occasion to distinguish between the flimsy inductions of the Stagirite, in regard to the objects in dispute, and those which he himself had instituted, or to hint at the very different complexion which philosophy must assume, according as the one kind or the other is resorted to."

§ IV. WAS THE METHOD NEW AND USEFUL?

Bacon's Method, and the scientific spirit which animates his works, have been indicated in the foregoing pages. His philosophical importance is to be measured by that Method and that

On the Scope and Influence of the Philos. Writings of Bacon: Trans. of the Royal Society of Edinburgh, 1818.

spirit; not by any scientific discoveries. A mind so richly stored could not fail to illustrate his writings with manifold graces of style, and with pregnant aphorisms. Accordingly, his Method having been established, and been superseded, having done its work, nothing remains for our profit but these very graces and aphorisms. The great reformer may excite our admiration, historically; his Method excites no admiration for its present intrinsic value. We have a more perfect Method; the processes of scientific investigation are better understood; but we are never in communion with his vast and penetrating intellect without acknowledging his greatness; for his remarks are often as applicable now as they were when first written. Hence the frequency of quotations from Bacon; and these quotations, as Dr. Whewell observes, are more frequently made by metaphysical, ethical, and even theological writers, than they are by the authors of works on Physics. For the present generation, then, whatever the value of Bacon's works, Bacon's Method is useless. Some modern writers have asserted that it was always useless; and this assertion has been supported by arguments so plausible, that they demand attention.

The objections made to Bacon's Method are of three kinds. 1st. It was nothing new; 2d. It was useless as a guide to investigation; 3d. It was already latent in the scientific spirit then abroad, and must have been elicited by some one, sooner or later.

"It was nothing new." This is a very frequent objection, and is urged by the Count Joseph de Maistre and Mr. Macaulay. The former has written a long chapter to prove that Bacon's Induction is nothing more than the Induction of "Aristotle; and Mr. Macaulay, who adopts the same opinion, devotes several vivacious pages to show that everybody unconsciously practices this inductive Method. M. de Maistre's Examen de la Philosophie de Bacon is a vehement attack, written with the celebrated author's usual vivacity, but with more than his usual arrogance and vehemence. As there are many things in Bacon hasty, inexact, or

partaking of the prejudices and errors of his age, his antagonist is at no loss to find matter for ridicule; but when he treats of Bacon's Method and Spirit as contemptible puerilities, he only excites a smile in the dispassionate reader. His arguments against Bacon's Method are, first, that Aristotle had analyzed it before him; secondly, that Induction is only one form of the Syllogism.

It is true that Aristotle told us what Induction was; but it is not true that he analyzed it, as Bacon has done; nor did he ever pronounce it to be the Method of inquiry: on the contrary, it only served him as one of the means of ascertaining truth, and was not so important in his eyes as the Syllogism. Bacon asserts Induction to be the only Method; and has no words too strong to express his scorn of the Syllogism, "which may catch the assent, but lets the things slip through." Dugald Stewart observes that we might as well declare that the ancients had anticipated Newton because they too used the word "attraction," as that Aristotle anticipated Bacon because he too speaks of "Induction."* This is, however, going too far the other way. In our Chapter on the Stagirite we have indicated the relation in which the two conceptions stand to each other.

M. de Maistre says that Induction and Syllogism are the same. "At bottom, what is Induction? Aristotle clearly saw it: It is a syllogism without the middle term—ἔστι δὲ ὁ τοιοῦτος συλλογισμὸς της πρώτης καὶ ἀμέσου προτάσεως. (Anal. Prior. ii. 12.) What does it signify whether I say, Every simple being is indestructible by nature; now my soul is a simple being, therefore, etc.; or whether I say directly, My soul is simple, it is therefore indestructible. In either case it is the syllogism which is virtually in the induction, as it is in the enthymeme."

Now it is quite true that every induction may be thrown into the form of a syllogism by supplying the major premise; and it is this which led Archbishop Whately to conclude that Induction itself is but a peculiar case of ratiocination, and that the universal type of all reasoning is the syllogism. We cannot but * Philos. of Mind, vol. ii. ch. iv. sect. 2.

agree with John Mill in holding precisely the reverse opinion, and believing that ratiocination itself is resolvable into Induction.* Be this as it may, M. de Maistre has afforded us an illustration of the difference between Aristotle and Bacon in the very passage quoted.

If every induction can be thrown into the form of a syllogism, by supplying the major premise, it is in the way this major premise is established that we must seek the real difference between the Syllogistic and Inductive Methods: and that difference is the difference between à priori and à posteriori. Every one who has read Bacon, knows that his scorn for. the Syllogism is not scorn for it as a form of ratiocination, but as a means of investigation. He objects to our proceeding to deduce from an axiom not accurately and inductively obtained, consequences which may very well be contained in the axiom, although having no relation to the truth of things. "The axioms in use, being derived from slender experience and a few obvious particulars, are generally applied in a corresponding manner; no wonder they lead not to new particulars." Again: "Syllogism consists of propositions, propositions of words, and words are the signs of notions; therefore, if our notions, the basis of all, are confused, and over-hastily taken from things, nothing that is built upon them can be firm; whence our only hope rests upon genuine Induction."

Nothing can be more explicit. Bacon very well knew the dif`ference between his Method and that of the Aristotelians; and he very well expressed this difference. To turn round upon him and say all Induction is itself but Syllogism, is mere evasion. He was not giving a logical analysis of the mind: he was warning men against long-standing errors, and pointing out to them the path of truth.

Mr. Macaulay's arguments are of a different stamp. To us they are only ingenious and plausible; yet so ingenious and so

*See System of Logic, vol. i. pp. 372-3.
+ Novum Organum, Aph. 25.

Ibid., Aph. 14.

plausible as to gain many followers. They are mostly true as far as they go, but do not appear to us to go to the real point. We shall select the main parts of his opposition:

"The inductive method has been practised ever since the beginning of the world, by every human being. It is constantly practised by the most ignorant clown, who by this method is led to the conclusion, that if he sows barley he shall not reap wheat. A plain man finds his stomach out of order. He never heard of Lord Bacon's name; but he proceeds in the strictest conformity with the rules laid down in the second book of the Novum Organum, and satisfies himself that mince-pies have done the mischief. I ate mince-pies on Monday and Wednesday, and was kept awake by indigestion all night.' This is the comparentia ad intellectum instantiarum convenientium. I did not eat any on Tuesday and Friday, and I was quite well.' This is the comparentia instantiarum in proximo quæ natura data privantur. 'I ate very sparingly of them on Sunday, and was very slightly indisposed in the evening. But on Christmas-day I almost dined on them, and was so ill that I was in some danger.' This is the comparentia instantiarum secundum magis et minus. It cannot be the brandy which I took with them; for I have drunk brandy for years, without being the worse for it.' This is the rejectio naturarum. We might easily proceed, but we have already sufficiently explained our meaning."

The answer to this is, that Induction being the process of all reasoning, of course so long as men have reasoned they have reasoned inductively. But there is simple and incautious Induction, and there is cautious methodical Induction,-instinct and science; in ordinary cases, men pursue the induction per enumerationem simplicem; in scientific investigations they must pursue a very different method; and at the time Bacon wrote, almost all philosophical and scientific speculations were vitiated by the incorrect method.

"Those who object to the importance of Bacon's precepts in philosophy," says Mr. Hallam, "that mankind have practised