He alludes here too, in passing, to some other distinctions of method, which are already received, that of ANALYSIS and _synthesis_, or CONSTITUTION, that of _concealment_, or CRYPTIC, which he says 'he allows well of, though he has himself stood upon those which are least handled and observed.' He brings out his doctrine of the necessity of a method which shall include _particulars_ for _practical_ purposes also, under another head: here it is the limit of _rules_,--the propositions or precepts of _arts_ that he speaks of, and the _degree_ of particularity which these precepts ought to descend to. 'For every knowledge,' he says, 'may be fitly said to have a latitude and longitude, accounting the latitude towards _other sciences_' (for there are rules and propositions of such latitude as to include all arts, all sciences)--'and the longitude towards action, that is, from the greatest generality, to the most particular precept: and as to the degree of particularity to which a knowledge should descend,' though something must, of course, be left in all departments to the discretion of the practitioner, he thinks it is a question which will bear looking into in a general way; and that it might be possible to have rules in all departments, which would limit very much the necessity of individual experiment, and not leave us so much at the mercy of individual discretion in the most serious matters. Philosophy, as he finds it, does not appear to be very helpful to practice, on account of its keeping to those general propositions, so much, as well as on some other accounts, and has fallen into bad repute, it seems, among men who find it necessary to make, without science, as they best can, rules of some sort;--rules that are capable of dealing with that quality in particulars which is apt to be called _obstinacy_ in this aspect of it. 'For we see remote and superficial generalities do but offer knowledge to scorn of practical men, and are no more aiding to practice, than an Ortelius's _universal map_ is to direct the way between London and York.' And what is this itself but a universal map, this map of the advancement of learning? All this doctrine of the tradition of sciences, he produces under the head of the _method_ of their tradition, but in speaking of the _organ_ of it, he treats it _exclusively_ as the medium of tradition for _those sciences which require_ CONCEALMENT, or admit only of a suggestive exhibition. And as he makes, too, the claim that he has himself given practical proof, in passing, of his proficiency in this art, and appeals to the skilful for the truth of this statement, the passage, at least, in which this assertion is made, will be likely to repay the inquiry which it invites.