cette méthode: laquelle est une règle de penser juste, ce qu'il faut penser."-Num. iv. p. 374, 375.

That both the Logic and the Physics of Aristotle are the productions of an exalted genius, copious in invention, and profound in appreciation, is what no one will pretend to dispute with his panegyrists: but his defects are also so numerous, as to have made the emancipation of our schools from his dominion a subject of congratulatory joy. He forsook the path of his most eminent predecessors. The natural philosophers before him had accounted for the changes in the outward form of matter, from some new modification of its particles; but he, in his book De Generatione et Corruptione, maintained the doctrine of generation, properly so called. He likewise introduced a countless number of forms and qualities, distinct from substance, which bewildered his followers, and filled their mouths with a jargon about entities, and so forth, to abolish which, and to substitute the rationality of experimental philosophy, required the practical good sense of the seventeenth century, and such a genius as that of Bacon to give it its proper direction.

In Father Rapin's Comparison of Plato and Aristotle, he refers to Baronius's Ecclesiastical Annals of the years 120 and 208, and to the twentyseventh chapter of Eusebius's History, for the fact of divine honours paid to this philosopher.

"Les Carpocratiens furent condamnez pour avoir mis l'image de ce Philosophe avec celle de JEsus CHRIST, et pour l'avoir adorée par une extravagance de zèle pour sa doctrine. Les Aëtiens furent excommuniéz par l'Eglise, et par les Arriens même,

dont ils éstoient sortis: parce qu'ils donnoient à leurs disciples les Catégories d'Aristote pour Catéchisme. Les Antinomiens allerent jusques à cet excès d'impiété, que de porter plus de respect à ce sage Payen, qu'à la Sagesse incréée.”—Page 392.

In another passage of the same work, he finds out a curious reason for the strong cry of the first reformers against the Peripatetics. "Mais rien ne fit plus d'honneur à la doctrine de ce grand homme dans le siècle passé, que les invectives atroces de Luther, de Melancthon, de Bucer, de Calvin, de Postel, de Paul Sarpy, et de tous ceux qui écrivirent alors contre l'Eglise Romaine. Car ils ne se plaignent tous d'Aristote que parce que la solidité de sa méthode donne un grand avantage aux Catholiques pour découvrir les ruses et les artifices des faux raisonnemens, dont se sert l'hérésie pour déguiser le mensonge et détruire la vérité."-Page 412. Here is an admission on the part of the Father, that Aristotle was deposed in our schools, and Protestantism (for we must not ask him to call it Reformation) established in our churches almost simultaneously he says, because Aristotle's method of disputing was formidable to innovators we say, because the rank luxuriance of his system overshadowed, choked up, and hindered the growth of true, healthful, and vital religion.

Suidas makes Aristotle Nature's secretary :-"OT ̓Αριστοτέλης τῆς φύσεως γραμματεὺς ἦν, τὸν κάλαμον ἀποβρέχων εἰς νοῦν· ὅν οὐδὲν ἴσως ἐχρῆν τῶν χρησίμων, εἰ καὶ τεχνικώτερόν ἐστι καὶ περιττότερον ἐξειργασμένον, παραιτεῖσθαι.

To his reputation as a teacher during his lifetime, we have the sanction of Philip's judgment:Neque vero hoc fugit sapientissimum regem,

66

Philippum, qui hunc Alexandro filio doctorem accierit, a quo eodem ille et agendi acciperet præcepta et loquendi." - Cic. de Orat. lib. iii.

It was after the residence of Aristotle for three years with Hermias, that Philip, king of Macedon, made himself master of Thrace, and almost of all Greece. Knowing Aristotle's high character, he wrote him a very civil letter of invitation, proposing the office of tutor to his son Alexander, who was then about fourteen years old. Aristotle accepted the office, and continued for eight years in the train of the young prince. The subjects of his tuition were, eloquence, natural philosophy, morals, politics, and the occult sciences. On this latter subject, Plutarch speaks of a private system of philosophy, which the professor withheld from all but his royal disciple, with respect to whose zeal for knowledge, we have the following account:"Alexandro Magno rege inflammato cupidine animalium naturas noscendi, delegataque hac commentatione Aristoteli, summo in omni doctrina viro, aliquot millia hominum in totius Asiæ Græciæque tractu parere jussa, omnium quos venatus, aucupia, piscatusque alebant: quibusque vivaria, armenta, alvearia, piscina, aviaria in cura erant: ne quid usquam genitum ignoraretur ab eo: quos percunctando, quinquaginta ferme volumina illa præclara de animalibus condidit: quæ a me collecta in arctum, cum iis quæ ignoraverat, quæso ut legentes boni consulant, in universis rerum naturæ operibus, medioque clarissimi regum omnium desiderio, cura nostra breviter peregrinantes."-Plin. l. viii. cap.16.

Plutarch tells us, that Alexander was angry with his preceptor for having published any part of his lectures; and under the influence of such feelings,

had paid particular attention to Xenocrates. Aristotle was so highly offended at this, that he became a party to Antipater's conspiracy. That blockhead Caracalla aped Alexander in every thing, and fancied himself to be involved in similar destinies. He had taken it into his head that Aristotle had contributed to Alexander's death, and therefore expelled the Peripatetic philosophers from Alexandria. But the opinion that there was any permanent misunderstanding between the prince and the philosopher was entirely unfounded. Alexander gave no credit to the suggestion of treason; and after Callisthenes's death, and in the full career of victory, he gave Aristotle commission, as the above passage of Pliny informs us, to pursue the history and philosophy of animals with the utmost vigour, and to the greatest extent. "Persecutus est Aristoteles animantium omnium ortus, victus, figuras."-Cic. de Fin. lib. v.

Aristotle's method was diametrically opposite to that of Plato and Pythagoras :-"Siquidem, quæ illi de substantiis intelligibilibus, aut numeris, et reliquis hujusmodi dixere, ea Aristoteles ad res corporeas transtulit, sensuique subjectas."-Bessar. Card. in Calum. lib. ii. cap. 4. Plato's system is, that to arrive at the knowledge of things, we must begin with universals and descend to particulars. Aristotle's doctrine is, that from the knowledge of particular things addressing the senses, we rise to the knowledge of general and immaterial things. He lays down the following as an unquestionable principle: "Nihil est in intellectu quod non fuerit prius in sensu." According to the constitution of man, there can be no certainty in our judgment of sensible things, by any other criterion than that of

the senses. In this position he completely coincides with the modern experimental philosopher. Plato's maxim is, to arrive at the knowledge of things by ideas, which are to be considered as their originals Aristotle's is, to arrive at the knowledge of them by the effects, which are the expressions and the copies of those ideas. The order established by Plato is that of nature, following herself out, in a progress from cause to effects: Aristotle's order goes to the cause by means of the effect. But sense is fallible: for which reason the knowledge of universals, founded on the knowledge of particulars, is faulty in principle, and liable to error in practice. Aristotle endeavours to find the means of rectifying the principle, and rendering it infallible, by what he calls his universal organ.

In a book of Cicero before quoted, Aristotle is represented as possessing talent so superior to all other talents, that few persons can keep pace with him. "Quod quidem minime sum admiratus, eum philosophum rhetori non esse cognitum, qui ab ipsis philosophis, præter admodum paucos, igno. raretur."-Topic. cap. 1.

The general character of his opinions, making allowance for the maze in which all Greek philosophy was involved, was that of wisdom and sound judgment, regularity and solidity, giving more satisfaction to the mind than the system either of the Stoics or the Epicureans. Altered as are the habits of philosophising, there are few rational maxims of which some trace and impression is not to be found in him, however encumbered by hard terms or obscurity of expression. No person ever entertained a higher opinion of human reason, and few have carried it so far. A passage has already