given for this important process? We answer, None; any more than (to pursue the illustration we have already had recourse to) general rules can be laid down by the chemist for the analysis of substances of which all the ingredients are unknown. Such rules, could they be discovered, would include the whole of natural science; but we are very far, indeed, from being able to propound them. However, we are to recollect that the analysis of phenomena, philosophically speaking, is principally useful, as it enables us to recognize, and mark for special investigation, those which appear to us simple; to set methodically about determining their laws, and thus to facilitate the work of raising up general axioms, or forms of words, which shall include the whole of them; which shall, as it were, transplant them out of the external into the intellectual world, render them creatures of pure thought, and enable us to reason them out à priori. And what renders the power of doing this so eminently desirable is, that, in thus reasoning back from generals to particulars, the propositions at which we arrive apply to an immense multitude of combinations and cases, which were never individually contemplated in the mental process by which our axioms were first discovered; and that, consequently, when our reasonings are pushed to the utmost limit of particularity, their results appear in the form of individual facts, of which we might have had no knowledge from immediate experience; and thus we are not only furnished with the explanation of all known facts, but with the actual discovery of such as were before unknown. A remarkable example of this has already been mentioned
