It would be in vain, however, for us, in inquiries of this nature, to indulge ourselves in speculating about possibilities. It is of more consequence to remark the advantages which we derive from our actual constitution; and which, in the present instance, appear to me to be important and adınirable: in as much as it fits mankind for an easy interchange of their intellectual acquisitions, by imposing on them the necessity of employing, in their solitary speculations, the same instrument of thought, which forms the established medium of their communications with each other.

In the very slight sketch which I have given of the controversy between the Nominalists and the Realists about the existence of universals, I have taken no notice of an intermediate sect called Conceptualists; whose distinguishing tenet is said to have been, that the mind has a power of forming general conceptions.* From the indistinctness and inaccuracy of their language on the subject, it is not a very easy matter to ascertain precisely what was their opinion on the point in question, but on the whole, I am inclined to think, that it amounted to the two following propositions: first, that we have no reason to believe the existence of any essences, or universal ideas, corresponding to general terms: and secondly, that the mind has the power of reasoning concerning genera, or classes of individuals, without the mediation of language. Indeed, I cannot think of any other hypothesis which it is possible to form on the subject, distinct from those of the two celebrated sects already mentioned. In denying the existence of universals, we know that the Conceptualists agreed with the Nominalists. In what, then, can we suppose that they differed from them, but about the necessity of language as an instrument of thought, in carrying on our general speculations?

With this sect of Conceptualists, Dr. Reid is disposed to rank Mr. Locke; and I agree with him so far as to think, that, if Locke had any decided opinion on the point in dispute, it did not differ materially from what I have endeavoured to express in the two general propositions which I have just now stated. The apparent inconsistencies which oc cur in that part of his Essay in which the question is discussed, have led subsequent authors to represent his sentiments in different lights: but as these inconsistencies plainly shew, that he was neither satisfied with the system of the Realists, nor with that of the Nominalists, they appear to me to demonstrate that he leaned to the intermediate hypothesis already mentioned, notwithstanding the inaccurate and paradoxical manner in which he has expressed it.†

*"Nominales, deserta paulo Abelardi hypothesi, universalia in notionibus atque conceptibus mentis ex rebus singularibus abstractione formatis consistere statuebant, unde conceptuales dicti sunt." BRUCKER, vol. iii. p. 908. (Lips. 1766.)

"Nominalium tres erant familiae. Aliqui, ut Rocelinus, universalia meras esse voces docuerunt. Alii iterum in solo intellectu posuerunt, atque meros animi conceptus esse autumarunt, quos conceptuales aliqui vocant, et a nominalibus distinguunt, quanquam alii etiam confundant. Alii fuerunt, qui universalia quaesiverunt, non tam in vocibus quam in sermonibus integris, quod Joh. Sarisberiensis adscribit Pet. Abelardo; quo quid intelligat ille, mihi non satis liquet."

MORHOF. Polyhistor. Tom. Sec. lib. cap. i. xiii. § 2. I have taken no notice of the last class of Nominalists here mentioned; as I find myself unable to comprehend their doctrine.

† See Note (K.)

May I take the liberty of adding, that Dr. Reid's own opinion seems to me also to coincide nearly with that of the Conceptualists; or, at least, to coincide with the two propositions which I have already supposed to contain a summary of their doctrine? The absurdity of the ancient opinion concerning universals, as maintained both by Plato and Aristotle, he has exposed by the clearest and most decisive arguments; not to mention, that by his own very original and important speculations concerning the ideal theory, he has completely destroyed that natural prejudice from which the whole system of universal ideas gradually took rise. If, even in the case of individuals, we have no reason to believe the existence of any object of thought in the mind, distinct from the mind itself, we are at once relieved from all the difficulties in which philosophers have involved themselves, by attempting to explain, in consistency with that ancient hypothesis the process of the mind in its general speculations.

On the other hand, it is no less clear, from Dr. Reid's criticisms on Berkeley and Hume, that his opinion does not coincide with that of the Nominalists; and that the power which the mind possesses of reasoning concerning classes of objects, appears to him to imply some faculty, of which no notice is taken in the systems of these philosophers.

The long experience I have had of the candour of this excellent author, encourages me to add, that, in stating his opinion on the subject of universals, he has not expressed himself in a manner so completely satisfactory to my mind, as on most other occasions. That language is not an essential instrument of thought in our general reasonings, he has no where positively asserted. At the same time, as he has not affirmed the contrary, and as he has declared himself dissatisfied with the doctrines of Berkeley and Hume, his readers are naturally led to conclude, that this is his real opinion on the subject. His silence on this point is the more to be regretted, as it is the only point about which there can be any reasonable controversy among those who allow his refutation of the ideal hypothesis to be satisfactory. In consequence of that refutation, the whole dispute between the Realists, and the Conceptualists falls at once to the ground; but the dispute between the Conceptualists and the Nominalists (which involves the great question concerning the use of signs in general speculation) remains on the same footing as

before.

In order to justify his own expressions concerning universals, and in opposition to the language of Berkeley and Hume, Dr. Reid is at pains to illustrate a distinction between conception and imagination, which, he thinks, has not been sufficiently attended to by philosophers. "An "universal," says he, "is not an object of any external sense, and there"fore cannot be imagined; but it may be distinctly conceived. When Mr. "Pope says, "The proper study of mankind is man; I conceive his "meaning distinctly; although I neither imagined a black or a white, a "crooked or a straight man. I can conceive a thing that is impossible; "but I cannot distinctly imagine a thing that is impossible. I can con"ceive a proposition or a demonstration, but I cannot imagine either. "I can conceive understanding and will, virtue and vice, and other at"tributes of the mind; but I cannot imagine them. In like manner, I ❝can distinctly conceive universals; but I cannot imagine them."*

*P. 482.

It appears from this passage, that, by conceiving universals, Dr. Reid means nothing more, than understanding the meaning of propositions involving general terms. But the observations he has made (admitting them in their full extent) do not in the least affect the question about the necessity of signs, to enable us to speculate about such propositions. The vague use which metaphysical writers have made of the word conception, (of which I had occasion to take notice in a former chapter,) has contributed in part to embarrass this subject. That we cannot conceive universals in a way at all analogous to that in which we conceive an absent object of sense, is granted on both sides. Why then should we employ the same word conception, to express two operations of the mind which are essentially different? When we speak of conceiving or understanding a general proposition, we mean nothing more than that we have a conviction, (founded on our previous use of the words in which it is expressed,) that we have it in our power, at pleasure, to substitute, instead of the general terms, some one of the individuals comprehended under them. When we hear a proposition announced, of which the terms are not familiar to us, we naturally desire to have it exemplified, or illustrated, by means of some particular instance; and when we are once satisfied by such an application, that we have the interpretation of the proposition at all times in our power, we make no scruple to say, that we conceive or understand its meaning; although we should not extend our views beyond the words in which it is announced, or even although no particular exemplification of it should occur to us at the moment. It is in this sense only, that the terms of any general proposition can possibly be understood: and therefore Dr. Reid's argument does not, in the least, invalidate the doctrine of the Nominalists, that, without the use of language, (under which term I comprehend every species of signs,) we should never have been able to extend our speculations beyond individuals.

That in many cases, we may safely employ in our reasonings general terms, the meaning of which we are not even able to interpret in this way, and consequently, which are to us wholly insignificant, I had occasion already to demonstrate, in a former part of this section.

SECTION IV.

Continuation of the same Subject-Inferences with respect to the Use of Language as an instrument of Thought, and the Errors in Reasoning to which it occasionally gives rise.

In the last Section, I mentioned Dr. Campbell, as an ingenious defender of the system to the Nominalists, and I alluded to a particular application which he has made of their doctrine. The reasonings which I had then in view are to be found in the seventh chapter of the second book of his Philosophy of Rhetoric; in which chapter he proposes to explain, how it happens, "that nonsense so often escapes being detected, "both by the writer and the reader." The title is somewhat ludicrous in a grave philosophical work, but the disquisition to which it is prefixed, contains many acute and profound remarks on the nature and power

of signs, both as a medium of communication, and as an instrument of thought.

Dr. Campbell's speculations with respect to languge as an instrument of thought, seem to have been suggested by the following passage in Mr. Hume's Treatise of Human Nature. "I believe, every one who "examines the situation of his mind in reasoning, will agree with me, "that we do not annex distinct and complete ideas to every term we "make use of; and that in talking of Government, Church, Negotia"tion, Conquest, we seldom spread out in our minds all the simple ideas "of which these complex ones are composed. It is, however, obsery"able, that, notwithstanding this imperfection, we may avoid talking Cl nonsense on these subjects; and may perceive any repugnance amorfg "the ideas, as well as if we had a full comprehension of them. Thus "if, instead of saying, that, in war the weaker have always recourse to negotiation, we should say, that they have always recourse to con። quest; the custom which we have acquired, of attributing certain re"lations to ideas, still follows the words, and makes us immediately per"ceive the absurdity of that proposition."

In the remarks which Dr. Campbell has made on this passage, he has endeavoured to explain in what manner our habits of thinking and speaking gradually establish in the mind such relations among the words we employ, as enable us to carry on processes of reasoning by means of them, without attending in every instance to their particular significa. tion. With most of his remarks on this subject I perfectly agree, but the illustrations he gives of them, are of too great extent to be introduced here, and I would not wish to run the risk of impairing their perspicuity, by attempting to abridge them. I must therefore refer such of my readers as wish to prosecute the speculation, to his very ingenious and philosophical treatise.

"In consequence of these circumstances," (says Dr. Campbell,) “it "happens that, in matters which are perfectly familiar to us, we are "able to reason by means of words, without examining, in every in"stance, their signification. Almost all the possible applications of the "terms (in other words, all the acquired relations of the signs) have be(6 come customary to us. The consequence is, that an unusual applica"tion of any term is instantly detected; this detection breeds doubt, "and this doubt occasions an immediate recourse to ideas. The re"course of the mind, when in any degree puzzled with the signs, to the "knowledge it has of the things signified, is natural, and on such sub"jects perfectly easy. And of this recourse the discovery of the meaning, "or of the unmeaningness of what is said, is the immediate effect. But "in matters that are by no means familiar, or are treated in an uncom "mon manner, and in such as are of an abstruse and intricate nature, "the case is widely different." The instances in which we are chiefly liable to be imposed on by words without meaning are, (according to Dr. Campbell,) the three following:

First, Where there is an exuberance of metaphor.

Secondly, When the terms most frequently occurring, denote things which are of a complicated nature, and to which the mind is not sufficiently familiarized. Such are the words, Government, Church, State, Constitution, Polity, Power, Commerce, Legislature, Jurisdiction, Proportion, Symmetry, Elegance.

Thirdly, When the terms employed are very abstract, and consequently, of very extensive signification. For an illustration of these remarks, I must refer the reader to the ingenious work which I just now quoted.

To the observations of these eminent writers, I shall take the liberty of adding, that we are doubly liable to the mistakes they mention, when we make use of a language which is not perfectly familiar to us. Nothing, indeed, I apprehend, can shew more clearly the use we make of words in reasoning than this, that an observation which, when expressed in our own language, seems trite or frivolous, often acquires the appearance of depth and originality by being translated into another. For my own part, at least, I am conscious of having been frequently led, in this way, to form an exaggerated idea of the merits of ancient and of foreign authors; and it has happened to ne more than once, that a sentence, which seemed at first to contain something highly ingenious and profound, when translated into words familiar to me, appeared obviously to be a trite or a nugatory proposition.

The effect produced by an artificial and inverted style in our own language, is similar to what we experience when we read a composition in a foreign one. The eye is too much dazzled to see distinctly. "Aliud styli genus," (says Bacon) "totum in eo est, ut verba sint aculeata, fusa "sententiæ concise, oratio denique potius versa quam fit ut "omnia per hujusmodi artificium, magis ingeniosa videantur quam re vera sint. Tale invenitur in Seneca effusius, in Tacito et Plinio se"cundo moderatius."

quo

The deranged collocation of the words in Latin composition, aids powerfully the imposition we have now been considering, and renders that language an inconvenient medium of philosophical communication, as well as an inconvenient instrument of accurate thought. Indeed, in all languages in which this latitude in the arrangement of words is admitted, the associations among words must be looser, than where one invariable order is followed; and of consequence, on the principles of Hume and Campbell, the mistakes which are committed in reasonings, expressed in such languages, will not be so readily detected.

The errors in reasoning, to which we are exposed in consequence of the use of words as an instrument of thought, will appear the less surprising, when we consider, that all the languages which have hitherto existed in the world, have derived their origin from popular use, and that their application to philosophical purposes, was altogether out of the view of those men who first employed them. Whether it might not be possible to invent a language, which would at once facilitate philosophical communication, and form a more convenient instrument of reasoning and of invention, than those we possess at present, is a question

*The more general any word is in its signification, it is the more liable to be abused by an improper or unmeaning application. A very general term is applicable alike to a multitude of different individuals, a particular term is applicable but to a few. When the rightful applications of a word are extremely numerous, they cannot all be so strongly fixed by habit, but that, for greater security, we must perpetually recur in our minds from the sign to the notion we have of the thing signified; and for the reason aforementioned, it is in such instances difficult precisely to ascertain this notion. Thus the latitude of a word, though different from its ambiguity, hath often a similar effect."-Philosophy of Rhetoric, vol. ii. p. 122.