is guilt in heedless inattention, when truths and motives of the highest interest claimed his serious consideration ;there is guilt in that corruption of his moral feelings which impedes the action of moral causes, because this has originated, in a great measure, in a course of vicious desires, and vicious conduct, by which the mind, familiarized with vice, has gradually lost sight of its malignity. During the whole of this course, also, the man felt that he was a free agent; that he had power to pursue the course which he followed, and that he had power to refrain from it. When

a particular desire was first present to his mind, he had the power immediately to act with a view to its accomplishment; or he had the power to abstain from acting, and to direct his attention more fully to the various considerations and motives which were calculated to guide his determination. In acting as he did, he not only withheld his attention from those truths which were thus calculated to operate upon him as a moral being; but he did still more direct violence to an impulse within, which warned him that he was wandering from the path of rectitude. The state of moral feeling which gradually results from this habitual violation of the indications of conscience, and this habitual neglect of the serious consideration of moral causes, every individual must feel to be attended with moral guilt. effect of it is not only to prevent the due operation of moral causes on his future volitions, but even to vitiate and distort the judgment itself, respecting the great principles of moral rectitude. Without attempting any explanation of this remarkable condition of the mental functions, its actual existence must be received as a fact in the constitution of human nature, which cannot be called in question; and it offers one of the most remarkable phenomena that can be presented to him who turns his attention to the moral economy of man.

The

Before concluding this incidental allusion to a much controverted subject, I may be allowed to remark, that the term necessity, as applied to moral phenomena, is not fortunate, and perhaps not philosophical; and something would perhaps be gained in conducting the inquiry, if, for

In what sense the individual is free? Guilt of habitually violating conscience. Re marks upon the term necessity.

necessity, we were to substitute uniformity. In strict propriety, indeed, the terms necessity and necessary ought to be applied only to mathematical truth. Of physical relations, all that we know is the fact of their uniformity; and it would appear equally philosophical to apply the same term to mental phenomena. On this principle, therefore, we should say, that the tendency of moral causes or motives is not necessary, but uniform; and that on this depends all our confidence in the uniformity of human character, and in the power of truths, motives, or arguments, to produce particular results on human conduct. To suppose the mind possessed of a power of determining, apart from all the influence of moral causes or motives, would be to overthrow this confidence, and to reduce our whole calculations on human character to conjecture and uncertainty. When, indeed, we talk of a self-determining power of the will, we seem to use a combination of words without any definite meaning. For the will is not distinct from the being who wills; and to speak of an individual determining his will, is only saying, in other words, that he wills. He wills some act for some reason, which is known to himself; if communicated to another, the reason might not appear a satisfactory one; but still it is to him the reason which induced him to will the act, and this appears to be all that we can make of the subject. A power of determining, without any reason, appears to be not only unphilosophical, but, in point of fact, inapplicable to any conceivable case. Ignorance, inattention, or gross perversion of the moral feelings may make the worse reason appear the better; but we cannot conceive a case, in which an individual could exert a power of determining without any reason, or according to what appears to him at the time to be a weaker reason, in opposition to one which appears a stronger. It will also, I think, be found that the warmest advocates for philosophical liberty, and a self-determining power, in actual practice recognise as much as others the principle of the uniformity of moral causes. Thus, if we find a person acting in a manner widely different from that which we expected from him, all men concur in saying, "what motive could induce

Proposed substitute? Self-determining power of the will? Objections to that language? Uniformity of moral causes admitted in practice?

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 scarce. ly 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 7 Distinctive characters of these primary truths? Buffier's? Example?