honour thus laid claim to, and denied that Locke, in common with many others of the same and a former age, used the term in the sense thus attributed to them.' Perhaps the true statement of the case lies midway between these two extremes. Dr Reid attributes to Locke too much of the peripatetic doctrine, while Dr Brown as certainly attributes to him just so much too little. That Locke believed all the apparatus of sensible species, intelligible species, and phantasms, as given by Aristotle, we think very improbable; at the same time he manifestly held a representative theory respecting the doctrine of perception; supposing, not with Dr Reid, that our knowledge of external things is immediate, but that, beside the perceiving mind, and the thing perceived, there is the representation, or idea of the latter, as the connecting link between them. This may be seen by consulting the fourth chapter of the fourth book of his Essay, in which he says, "It is evident that the mind knows not things immediately, but by the intervention of the ideas it has of them: our knowledge, therefore, is real only so far as there is a conformity between our ideas and the reality of things." Here, then, we have plainly his fixed sentiment, that knowledge depends upon the conformity of our ideas with the external things they represent, and that error consists in their non-conformity. In this theory, we conceive, Locke has taken up an untenable position;

1 Compare Reid's "Inquiry into the Human Mind," chapters i and vii., with Brown's "Lectures," Lecture xxvii.

and we willingly concede, therefore, to Dr Reid, the honour of having put the whole subject in a clear light, and fixed it, as far as he went, on its right foundation.1

Viewing the representative theory of human knowledge as we will, it is beset with difficulties. First, on the supposition that the image or idea which intervenes between the mind and the outer world is material, we find it impossible to account for those notions, which do not admit of being represented by a material symbol. Of this kind are our notions of secondary qualities, for who can conceive of the material image of blue or green, or soft or hard? Of the same nature also are all those notions we have of the spiritual world, for is it to be conceived that mind, immaterial in itself, throws off a material image in order that it may be the object of its own contemplation? In fact, Locke gives up philosophy altogether as soon as he comes to consider the real existence of anything beyond the material, and throws himself upon revelation as the only source from which we can infer its certainty.3 Again, if we suppose the idea to be immaterial, we are no better off: for here the chief objection against the whole representative hypothesis has its full force. Allow, for argument's sake, that our knowledge

1 On this perceptionalist controversy, consult Sir W. Hamilton's admirable article-Edinburgh Review, No. 52.

2 Locke virtually abandons his own theory here, and admits that we can have no representation of secondary qualities whatever.— Essay, Book II. chap. viii. sec. 13.

'See Essay, Book IV. chap. xi. sec. 12.

does all depend upon the conformity of the idea with its object; how, then, are we to infer this conformity? Without being able to institute some comparison between the image and the original, it is clear we can never know whether they resemble each other or not; but to institute this comparison supposes a direct perception of that original, independent of its representative idea, and shuts us up to this alternative-either that we have the means of knowing objects without the intervention of ideas, and therefore that they are unnecessary; or else, if we have no means of knowing them otherwise, that we can never be sure of the conformity between the object and the idea, on which very conformity our knowledge depends; and therefore, can have no secure ground for certain knowledge at all. The refutation of the "ideal system" lies, in fact, almost in a nutshell. The intervening image must be material or immaterial. If it be material, it still remains to show how the mind can communicate with it without a second image; if it be immaterial, then how can it communicate with the outward world any better than the mind itself? The only conclusion to which the whole theory can ultimately lead, is that of the most rigid scepticism.'

That scepticism is the real result of the theory we have now described, is seen from the use that has been actually made of it. Berkeley drew from it his arguments against the existence of the material

1 For a more full discussion of the theory of representationalism, consult Cousin's "Histoire de la Philosophie," Leçon xxii.

world, and Hume based upon the same the principles, by which he sought to involve the whole superstructure of human knowledge, from its very foundations, in one scene of doubt and confusion.

Our perceptions, as Dr Reid has shown in opposition to this theory, instead of depending upon an intermediate representative idea, are direct and immediate: the mind perceives and knows just because it has been so constituted, and possesses within itself those first principles (whether we call them with Kant forms of the understanding, or with Reid principles of common sense, or with Brown principles of intuitive belief,) which are the starting-points whence all our subsequent and deduced knowledge takes its rise. The more accurate analysis, however, of this theory of perception we must leave until we come to the explanation of the philosophy of "common sense."

Into Locke's views respecting judgment, faith, enthusiasm, and some other points of a minor character, we shall not enter, because they bear but slightly upon the main features of his philosophy. We cannot part from him, however, without bearing testimony to his singular independence of mind, his acuteness and strength of intellect, his rectitude of character, his honest and unflinching search after truth, and his zeal for the diffusion of a manly, intelligent piety. If, however, we would point out candidly the influence which Locke exerted upon the progress of speculative philosophy, it must be con

Reid's "Inquiry into the Human Mind," chap. ii. sec. 6, 7, 8, 9.

fessed, that notwithstanding all the admirable lessons which his writings contain, they manifested a decided leaning towards sensationalism, and included, though unknown to himself, germs which, after a time, bore the fruits of utilitarianism in morals, of materialism in metaphysics, and of scepticism in religion. To exhibit the process by which this was effected, will be the next point to which our attention must be directed.

SECT. III.-Effects of Locke in England.

The "Essay on the Human Understanding" enjoyed, from its very first publication, a reputation almost unparalleled in the whole history of philosophy. The principles there advocated with so much acuteness, and so earnest a love of truth, became almost universally diffused; but unfortunately they fell into the hands of men who, being entirely wanting in the simplicity of mind and the sincere piety which had distinguished their author, appropriated them to purposes altogether foreign to his intentions.

The deistical school of writers, which at this time arose, armed themselves with many of Locke's conclusions in order to enforce their own sceptical opinions. Collins aimed chiefly at establishing upon a firm basis the doctrine of necessity; Dodwell struck out boldly into the path of materialism; while Mandeville, assuming with Locke that there are no innate practical principles in the human mind, dealt