not, he remarks, relate to atoms properly so called, but only to the actually existing ultimate particles. Bacon cannot therefore be said to be a follower of Democritus, though he has spoken of him as being, of all the Greek philosophers, the one who had the deepest insight into nature.1

But though Bacon was not an atomist, he was what has been called a mechanical physiologist. Leibnitz's remark that the restorers of philosophy 2 all held the principle that the properties of bodies are to be explained by means of magnitude, figure, and motion (a statement which envelopes every such theory of matter as that of Descartes, together with the old atomic doctrine), is certainly true of Bacon.

(14.) The opinion which Bacon had formed as to the class of subjects which ought to be included in Summary Philosophy (the English phrase by which he renders the expression he sometimes uses, namely prima philosophia), is worthy of attention.

In the writings of Aristotle, the first philosophy denotes the science which since his time has been called metaphysics. It is the science of first principles, or as he has himself defined it, the science of that which is, as such. In the first book of the Metaphysics we find a proof of the necessity of having such a science, distinct from and in a manner superior to all others.

Bacon, adopting Aristotle's name, applied it differently. With him, the first philosophy is divided into two parts. Of these the first is to be a receptacle of

1 Nov. Org. i. 51.; also Parm. Teles. and Dem. Phil.

2 Namely, the Cartesians, Verulam, Hobbes, &c. See his letter to Thomasius, p. 48. of the edition of his philosophical works by Erdmann.

the axioms which do not belong exclusively to particular sciences, but are common to more than one; while the second is to inquire into the external or adventitious conditions of existences · such as the much and the little, the like and the unlike, the possible and impossible, &c.

In illustration of the contents of the first part, Bacon quotes several axioms which are applicable in more than one science. Of these the first is, "If to unequals are added equals, the sums are unequal," which is a mathematical principle, but which, Bacon says, referring to the distinction laid down by Aristotle between commutative and distributive justice, obtains also in moral science; inasmuch as it is the rule by which distributive justice must be guided. The next is, "Things which agree with a third, agree with one another,' - which is also a mathematical principle, but yet, differently stated, forms the foundation of the theory of syllogism. Thus far Bacon's doctrine does not materially dissent from Aristotle's, who has taught the necessity of recognising in all sciences two kinds of principles, those which are proper to the subject of each science, and those which, connecting themselves with the doctrine of the categories, are common to all. The last are in his nomenclature axioms, though Bacon, following probably Ramus, who in his turn followed Cicero and the Stoics, gives a much more general sense to this word; and it is to be remarked that Aristotle has given as an instance of an axiom the first of the two which I have quoted from Bacon, or at any rate another which is in effect equivalent to it. But most of the instances which Bacon goes on to give are of a different na

ture. They are not derived from the laws of thought, but on the contrary involve an empirical element, and therefore are neither self evident, nor capable of an à priori proof. Thus the axiom that "a discord resolved into a concord improves the harmony," is, Bacon says, not only true in music, but also in ethics and the doctrine of the affections. But this axiom is in its literal sense merely a result of observation, and its application to moral subjects is clearly only analogical or tropical. Again, that "the organs of the senses are analogous to instruments which produce reflection," is, Bacon says, true in perspective, and also in acoustics; being true both of the eye and ear. Here we have a result of observation which is made to enter into two different sciences simply in virtue of the classification employed. For this axiom, if true, properly belongs to physiology, and neither to perspective nor to acoustics; though in a secondary and derivative manner a portion of the truth it includes may be introduced into these sciences. And so on. There is however one of these axioms which is of higher authority: "Quantum naturæ nec minuitur nec augetur: " which, Bacon says, is true not only in physics, but also in natural theology, if it be stated in a modified form; viz. if it be said that it belongs to Omnipotence to make something out of nothing, or vice versâ. Of this axiom it may be remarked, that it is common to physics and natural theology simply because the subjects of these sciences are, in some measure, common to both; wherein it differs from the Aristotelian conception of an axiom. But it is of more interest to observe, that this axiom of which the truth is derived from our notion of substance, and which can never be established by an

empirical demonstration, is constantly quoted by Bacon as a principle of incontestable truth; of which his theory of specific gravities is in some sort only an application.

The question arises both with regard to this axiom and to the others, In what manner Bacon supposed that they ought to be demonstrated; or, if he thought they required no demonstration, in what manner he conceived that the mind apprehended their truth? He has certainly affirmed in express terms that there can be only two ways of arriving at truth, namely syllogism and induction; both of which are manifestly inapplicable to some at least of the principles which he includes in the philosophia prima. But whether he would have admitted that this dictum admits of exception in relation to these cases, or on the other hand had not been led to consider the nature of the difficulty which they present, we have, I think, no means of deciding. It is to be observed that the philosophia prima is spoken of as a collection (receptaculum) of axioms- a phrase which implies that it is not a science in itself, having its own principles and an independent development, but that, contrariwise, it derives from the contributions of other sciences the elements of which it is composed. Of the second part we are unable to speak more definitely than of the irst. It is obviously a reflexion of the Aristotelian doctrine of the categories, from which, however, Bacon intended to contrast it by requiring that the "conditiones entium," which he has doubtless called transcendent from their applicability to all classes of

1 Trendelenberg has accordingly quoted the passages in the De Augmentis which relate to it, in the historical part of his work on the categories.

objects, should be treated not logically but physically.1

But then what are the questions to be resolved in this mode of treating them? Bacon gives some examples of the discussions which ought to occupy this part of philosophy. The first is, why there is so much of one kind of substance, and so little of anotherwhy, for instance, so much more iron in the world than gold, &c. This belongs to the inquiry "de multo et parvo.' Again, in treating "de simili et diverso," it ought to be explained why between dissimilar species are almost always interposed others which partake of the nature of both, and form, as it were, ambiguous species for instance, bats between birds and quadrupeds, or moss between corruption and plants, &c. The difficulty however which I have already mentioned in speaking of the other part of the philosophia prima recurs with reference to this, namely by what method were the questions here proposed to be answered? If by induction, by induction on what data? and if not, by what other way of arriving at truth?

The illustrations which Bacon has given, and perhaps his way of looking at the whole subject, connect themselves with what has recently been called palætiology. The questions which Bacon proposes are questions as to how that which actually exists, and which in the present order of things will continue to exist, came into being whether abruptly or by slow transitions, and under what agency. He seems to point, though from a distance, to discussions as to the formation of strata and the succession of species.

1 De Augmentis iii. 4.