perceive that the statement operates against himself, conveying an imputation against his own conduct, or exposing him to contempt, ridicule, or personal injury, we are satisfied that nothing could make him adhere to such a testimony but an honest conviction of its truth. Under the former circumstances, we believe only a man whom we consider as a person of known and established veracity; under the latter, we believe any man whom we consider to be of a sane mind. Thus, in both instances, we proceed upon a certain uniformity of moral phenomena; only that we refer them to two classes, namely, one which is ascertained to be uniform in regard to the whole species, and another which is uniform only in regard to a certain order, that is, all men of integrity and veracity. In the one case, we rely upon the uniformity in every instance; in the other, we do not rely upon it until we are satisfied that the individual example belongs to that order in which the other kind of moral uniformity has been ascertained.

There are other inquiries closely connected with the uniformity of moral relations; but at present we must allude to them very briefly. We have every reason to believe that there are moral causes, that is, truths and motives, which have a tendency to influence human volition and human conduct with a uniformity similar to that with which physical agents produce their actions upon each other. These moral causes, indeed, do not operate in every instance, or in all circumstances; but neither do physical causes. Substances in chemistry, for example, have certain tendencies to act upon each other, which are uniform and necessary; but no action takes place unless the substances are brought into certain circumstances which are required for bringing these tendencies into operation. They must, in the first place, be brought into contact ; and, besides this, many of them require other collateral circumstances, as a particular temperature, or a particular state of concentration or dilution. It is the same with moral causes their tendencies are uniform, and there are principles in the mind of man which these are adapted for

Example; laws of testimony? Influence of the circumstances of the case on the credibility of witnesses? Other cases of the uniformity of moral relations? Moral and physical causes compared. Influence of circumstances in both cases?

acting upon. But they require certain circumstances in the man on whom they are expected to act, without which they produce no influence upon him. It is necessary, for example, that he be fully informed in regard to them as truths; and that his attention be directed to them with such a degree of intensity as shall bring him fully under their influence as statements addressed to his understanding; also, that there be a certain healthy state of his moral feelings, for this has a most extensive influence on the due operation of moral causes. Without these the most powerful moral causes may produce no effect upon a man; as the most active chemical agents may fail entirely of their actions, if the substances are not placed in the requisite circumstances of temperature, dilution, or concentration.

These considerations seem to bear an important reference to a question which has been much argued, namely, that respecting liberty, necessity, and the freedom of the will. On a subject on which some of the wisest and the best of men have been found on opposite sides, I would express myself with becoming caution and diffidence; but perhaps some of the obscurity in which the question has been involved arises from the want of a clear definition of the terms in which it has been argued; and by not fullydistinguishing between will or simple volition, and desire or inclination. Will, or simple volition, is the state of mind which immediately precedes action) and the action following upon this is not only free, but it is absolutely impossible to suppose it should be otherwise. A man is not only free to do what he wills, but we cannot conceive a case in which he could exert a power of not doing what he wills, or of doing what he wills not. Impulse or restraint from without, acting upon his bodily organs, could alone interfere with his following, in this sense, the tendency of his will, or simple volition. The only idea, indeed, that we can form of free agency, or freedom of the will, is, that it consists in a man being able to do what he wills, or to abstain from doing what he wills not. Necessary agency, on

Circumstances essential to the full operation of moral causes? Important question connected with this subject? Terms used? Distinction between them? The willwhat? Proper idea of free agency? Necessary agency?

the other hand, would consist in the man being compelled, by a force from without, to do what he wills not, or prevented from doing what he wills.

The real bearing of the inquiry does not lie in this connection between the volition and the act, but in the origin or cause of the volition, or in the connection between the volition and the desire and this will be seen to be entirely distinct. A man, for example, may desire, or have an inclination to, that which he has not the power to will; because he may be under the influence of motives and principles which prevent the inclination from being followed by volition, with as absolute a necessity as we observe in the sequences of natural phenomena. Thus, also, we may say to a man of strict integrity and virtue that he has not the power to commit murder or robbery, or any act of gross injustice or oppression. He may reply that he has the power to do it if he willed; and this is granted, for this is free agency; but it is not the question in dispute. We do not say that he has not the power to do any or all of these acts if he willed, but that he has not the power to will such deeds. He is under the influence of motives and principles which make it as much a matter of necessity for him not to will such acts, as it is for a stone not to rise from the earth's surface contrary to its gravity. Such a necessity as this, if we must retain the term, so far from being unfavorable to the interests of virtue and morals, or opposed to the practice of exhorting men to virtue, seems, on the contrary, to hold out the strongest encouragement in doing so; and to be, in fact, the only scheme on which we can expect an argument or motive to have any influence upon human conduct. For it represents man as possessed of certain uniform principles in his nature which are capable of being acted upon by certain moral causes, truths, laws, or motives, with a uniformity similar to that which we observe in physical phenomena, provided he can be brought under their influence, and into those circumstances which are required for their due operation. These circumstances are,-that the moral causes, laws, motives, or

Real point of inquiry? Distinction between desire and will? Examples. Controlling influence of motives in such cases. Is this necessity? Influence of it on virtue and morals? How does this view represent man? Circumstances essential?

1

truths, shall be brought before his understanding, that he shall direct his attention to them with suitable intensity; and that he is free from that degree of corruption of his moral feelings, or any of those distorted moral habits which we know to produce a most extensive influence on the operation of moral causes. To suppose a kind of moral liberty opposed to such a necessity as this, would be to represent man as a being possessed of no fixed or uniform principles, -not to be calculated upon as to his conduct in any instance, and not capable of being acted upon by any motive or principle except the blind caprice of the moment. To endeavor to act upon such a being, by persuading him to virtue or dissuading him from vice, would be like expecting fixed results in chemistry, by bringing substances to act upon each other, the actions of which we had previously found to be without any kind of uniformity. This is, in fact, precisely the situation of the maniac, whom, accordingly, we never expect to guide or influence by motives or arguments, but by external restraint. He may act harmlessly, or he may act mischievously; but we never can calculate upon his actions in any one instance; we therefore shut him up, so as to prevent him from being dangerous to the community.

Necessity, then, as applied to the operation of moral causes, appears simply to correspond with the uniformity which we observe in the operation of physical causes. We calculate that a man of a certain character will act in a particular manner in particular circumstances, or that he will be acted upon in a certain manner by particular truths and motives, when they are presented to him, by a principle of uniformity similar to that with which we expect an acid to act in a particular manner upon an alkali. The action of the acid we know to be uniform, but we know also, that no action will take place till the substances are brought fully in contact, and in certain circumstances which are required for their action;—and the action of moral causes is uniform, but they exert no influence on a man till he is fully acquainted with them,-directs his attention to them

Is man possessed of any moral liberty, inconsistent with this view? Why not? Uniformity of the operations of moral causes? Compared with physical? Example.

with suitable care, and is besides in a certain healthy state of moral feeling. It is thus that we calculate on the full and uniform operation of moral causes on some individuals, and not on others; namely, by having previously ascertained that the former are in those intellectual and moral circumstances which are required for their action. When, in another individual, we find these causes fail in their natural actions, we endeavor, as far as may be in our power, to supply those collateral circumstances, by instructing him in the facts, truths, or motives;-by rousing his attention to their importance ;-by impressing them upon him in their strongest characters, and by all such arguments and representations as we think calculated to fix the impression. (All this we do under a conviction, that these causes have a certain, fixed, uniform, or necessary action, in regard to human volition and human conduct; and it is this conviction which encourages us to persevere in our attempts to bring the individual under their influence. If we had not this conviction, we should abandon the attempt as altogether hopeless; because we could have no ground on which to form any calculation, and no rules to guide us in our measures. Precisely in the same manner, when we find a chemical agent fail of the effect which we expect from it, we add it in larger quantity, or in an increased state of concentration, or at a higher temperature, or with some other change of circumstances calculated to favor its action; and we persevere in these measures, under a conviction that its action is perfectly uniform or necessary, and will take place whenever these circumstances have been provided for. On the same principle, we see how blame may attach to the intelligent agent in both cases, though the actions of the causes are uniform and necessary. Such is the action of chemical agents,—but blame may attach to the chemist who has not provided them in the necessary circumstances as to quantity, concentration, and temperature. Such is the action of moral causes, but deep guilt may attach to the moral agent, who has been proof against their influence. There is guilt in ignorance, when knowledge was within his reach; there

Practical use of these principles. Conviction upon which such practice is based. The same with physical processes. What constitutes guilt?