him to act in that manner?" and if we cannot reconcile his conduct to any conceivable motive, we say, "it really looks like insanity." Another may remark, his conduct indicates a singular want of consideration;" thus clearly recognising the existence of certain motives or moral causes, which would have led the man into a different line of conduct, had he allowed his attention to fix upon them. The doctrine of a self-determining power should remove every difficulty in such a case to those who believe in it; but I am not aware that it ever was made use of for such a purpose. It will also be found to agree with the universal conviction of mankind, that the circumstance which gives to an action the character of merit or demerit is entirely the motive from which it was done; and that if we could conceive such a thing as an action performed by the impulse of a free self-determining power apart from any influence of motives or moral causes, no man of sane mind would for a moment allow to such an act the character of virtue. On the contrary, it is familiar to every one, that we often find in a man's motive an excuse for conduct in which we think he has acted wrong. We say, he erred in judgment, but his motive was good; and this mode of reasoning meets with the cordial concurrence of the whole mass of mankind.

THE FIRST TRUTHS, or intuitive principles of belief, which have been the subject of the preceding observations, are of the utmost practical importance, as they furnish the true and only answer to many of the sophisms of the scholastic philosophy, and to many sceptical arguments of more modern times. They admit of no other evidence than an appeal to the consciousness of every man, that he does and must believe them. We believe them," says Dr. Brown, "because it is impossible not to believe them." "In all these cases," says Mr. Stewart, "the only account that can be given of our belief is, that it forms a necessary part

Evidence of it? Moral character of an action without motive? Only evidence of these First Truths? Dr. Brown's remark?

of our constitution, against which metaphysicians may argue, so as to perplex the judgment, but of which it is impossible to divest ourselves for a moment, when we are called to employ our reason, either in the business of life or in the pursuits of science."

It is likewise to be kept in mind, as was formerly stated, that our idea of reasoning necessarily supposes the existence of a certain number of truths, which require and admit of no evidence. The maxim, indeed, is as old as the days of Aristotle, and has never been called in question, that, except some first principles be taken for granted, there can be neither reason nor reasoning; that it is impossible that every truth should admit of proof, otherwise proof would extend in infinitum, which is incompatible with its nature; and that, if ever men attempt to prove a first principle, it is because they are ignorant of the nature of proof."* As these truths, therefore, do not admit of being called in question by any sound understanding, neither do they admit of being supported by any process of reasoning; and, when paradoxes or sophisms in opposition to them are proposed, any attempt to argue with such, upon logical principles, only leads to discussions as absurd as themselves. Of attempts of both kinds many examples are to be met with among the writers of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, as Des Cartes and Hobbes; and even some eminent persons, of more modern times, are not entirely free from them. Thus, Des Cartes, Malebranche, and others, thought it necessary to prove that external objects, and the sentient beings with whom we are connected, have a real existence whether we think of them or not, and are not merely ideas in our own minds. Berkeley showed the weakness of this argument, and on this founded the wellknown doctrine by which he denied the real existence of material things.

Many of the dogmas of modern sophistical writers, such as Mr. Hume, have consisted of attempts to overturn, by processes of argument, these fundamental or first truths.

Aristotle's Metaphysics, book iv.

Mr. Stewart's remark? Impossibility of reasoning without the admission of such truths. They can neither be proved nor called in question. Former attempts to prove them? Example. Attempts to disprove them?

On the other hand, the unsatisfactory nature of some of the replies to these sophisms, depends upon the attempts to combat them having been made by reasonings, of which the subject is not susceptible. For these principles admit of no proof by processes of reasoning, and, consequently, are in no degree affected by demonstrations of the fallacy of attempts to establish them by such processes. An interesting illustration of this has been reserved by Mr. Stewart, in a correspondence between Mr. Hume and Sir Gilbert Elliot.* "From the reply to this letter," says Mr. Stewart, "by Mr. Hume's very ingenious and accomplished correspondent, we learn that he had drawn from Mr. Hume's metaphysical discussions the only sound and philosophical inference: that the lameness of the proofs offered by Des Cartes and his successors, of some fundamental truths, universally acknowledged by mankind, proceeded, not from any defect in the evidence, but, on the contrary, from their being self-evident, and consequently unsusceptible of demonstration." The same view of Mr. Hume's sceptical reasonings was taken by other eminent persons, by whom his system was attacked, particularly Reid, Beattie, and Oswald; and on the continent, the nature and importance of these first truths had been at an earlier period illustrated in a full and able manner by father Buffier.

Various characters have been proposed, by which these primary and fundamental truths may be distinguished. One of those given by father Buffier appears to be the best, and to be alone sufficient to identify them. It is, that their practical influence extends even to persons who affect to dispute their authority; in other words, that in all the affairs of life, the most sceptical philosopher acts, as much as the mass of mankind, upon the absolute belief of these truths. Let a person of this description, for example, be contending very keenly, in regard to something which deeply concerns his interest or his comfort, he would scarcely be satisfied by being told, that the thing about which

• Introductory Essay to the Appendix of the Encyclopædia Britannica.

Illustration of this? Effect of Hume's reasoning upon Elliot's mind? Upon other minds? Distinctive characters of these primary truths? Buffier's? Example?

he contends has no real existence, and that he who contends about it so eagerly is himself a nonenity, or, at best, nothing more than an idea. Let him be taking cognizance of an offence committed against him ten years ago, he never doubts that he is still the person against whom the offence was committed. Let him lay plans for future advantage or comfort, it is done under a full conviction that he is still to continue the individual who may enjoy them. Has a building started up on his premises, which he did not expect to see, he immediately asks who ordered the masons, and would be very ill-satisfied by being told, that the thing had appeared without any known cause, by a fortuitous combination of atoms. However much he may reason to the contrary, he shows no doubt, in his own_practice, that every event must have an adequate cause. The same mode of reasoning will be seen to apply to the other truths which belong to the class under consideration, namely, that those who argue against them act in all cases on a belief of their truth.

The distinction between a process of reasoning and the act of the mind in arriving at these fundamental and instinctive truths, is a principle of the utmost practical importance. For a chain of correct reasoning requires logical habits, and a certain cultivation of the mental powers; and, consequently, it is confined to a comparatively small number of mankind. But the process here referred to is the spontaneous and immediate induction of the untutored mind, and a correct exercise of it requires only that the mind shall not be debased by depravity, nor bewildered by the refinements of a false philosophy. The truths which we derive from it accordingly do not concern the philosopher alone, but are of daily and essential importance to the whole class of mankind. Let us take, for example, the principle referred to under the fifth head, namely, our intuitive conviction that every change or event must have an adequate cause. This is a principle of daily application, and one which is acted upon with absolute confidence in the ordinary affairs of life by all classes of men. By the

Practical admissions of them in various cases? Important distinction? What essential to correct reasoning?-to intuitive belief? Universal influence of these truths? Example, inferring a cause from an effect.

immediate and unconscious exercise of it, we infer the skill of one workman from works indicating skill, and the vigor of another from works indicating strength. We infer from every work, not only a cause, but a cause which, both in degree and kind, is exactly proportioned to the effect produced. From a chronometer, which varies only a second in a year, we infer exquisite skill in the artist; and from the construction of the pyramids of Egypt, the united strength of a multitude of men. We never supposed for a moment that the minute skill of the artist raised the pyramid, or that the united force of the multitude constructed the chronometer; still less, that these monuments of art started into their present condition without a cause. infer with absolute certainty in both cases an adequate cause; that is, a cause distinguished in the one case by design and mechanical power, in the other, by design, adaptation, and exquisite skill.

We

The principle which is thus acted upon, in the ordinary affairs of life, with a conviction of infallible certainty, is precisely the same by which, from the stupendous works of creation, we infer by the most simple step of reasoning the existence of a great First Cause. This cause also we conclude to be a designing and intelligent mind, infinite in wisdom and boundless in power; and by a very slight and natural extension of the same principle, we arrive with equal certainty at the conviction of this cause being the first, not arising out of any thing preceding it, consequently self-existent and eternal. All this is not such a process of reasoning as requires logical habits, and admits of debate, deliberation, or doubt;-the metaphysician may bewilder himself in its very simplicity; but the uncontami nated mind finds its way to the conclusion with unerring certainty, and with a conviction which is felt to be not only satisfactory, but irresistible.

When we proceed from these first or intuitive articles of belief to the further investigation of truth in any department of knowledge, various mental processes are brought into

Instances in common life? Instance in regard to the works of creation.