tion that morbid state of the mind in which moral causes seem to have lost their proper influence, both on the volitions of the will and even on the decisions of the judgment: but it is a truth which cannot be too often referred to, how much this condition is influenced by the mental process which we are now considering. It originates, indeed, in some degree of that distortion of moral feeling, in consequence of which the inclinations wander from the strict path of rectitude; but the primary effect of this loss of mental harmony, and that by which it is perpetuated, appears to be chiefly an habitual misdirection of the attention,-or a total want of consideration of the truths and motives by which the moral judgments and decisions ought to be influenced. Apart from this condition of the mind, indeed, there is reason to believe that the actual differences in moral judgment are in different men less than we are apt to imagine. "Let any honest man," says Butler, "before he engages in any course of action, ask himself,—is this I am going to do right, or is it wrong,-is it good, or is it evil? I do not in the least doubt but that these questions would be answered agreeably to truth and virtue, by almost any fair man in almost any circumstances." It is in a great measure from the want of this simple exercise of attention, or of what in common language we call calm reflection, that men are led away, by passion, prejudice, and distorted moral habits, into courses of action which their own sober judgment would condemn; and, when a man who has thus separated from rectitude begins to retrace

his way, the first great point is that where he pauses in his downward career, and seriously proposes to himself the question, whether the course he has followed be worthy of a moral being. I allude not here to the means by which a man is led to take this momentous step in his moral history, but only to the mental process of which it consists. It is primarily nothing more than an exercise of attention, calmly and deliberately directed to the truths and considerations by which his moral decisions ought to be influenced; but, when a man has once been brought into this attitude of deep and serious thought, conscience comes to bear its part in the solemn process; and the inquirer is likely to arrive at just conclusions on those great questions of which he feels the importance to his moral condition.

Before leaving the subject of the Moral Principle, there are two points closely connected with it which remain to be noticed. The one relates to the origin and immutability of moral distinctions,—and, in connexion with this, a class of speculations which hold a conspicuous place in the history of Ethical science, under the name of Theories of Morals. The other refers to a certain harmony or principle of arrangement, which the different moral feelings ought to preserve towards each other in a wellregulated mind.

I.-OF THE ORIGIN AND IMMUTABILITY OF MORAL DISTINCTIONS AND THEORIES OF MORALS.

In treating of the moral powers, I have considered various feelings as distinct parts of our constitution, each intended to answer a specific purpose in the present scene of moral discipline. I am aware of an objection that may be urged against this mode of viewing the subject,-namely, that it is an unnecessary multiplication of original principles. I am not inclined to dispute respecting the term original principles. I only contend for the fact, that there are certain feelings or propensities which are found to operate in the whole of mankind; and, with regard to these, I consider our object to be simply to view man as he is. In his physical relations, we find him endowed with a variety of senses, and a great variety of bodily functions, each adapted to its proper purpose, and all distinct from each other; and the physiologist is content to view them simply as they are. Were he to exercise his ingenuity upon them, he might contend, with much plausibility, that it is highly incorrect to speak of five distinct and separate senses; for that they are all merely modifications of sensation, differing only in the various kinds of the external impression. Thus, what is vulgarly called sight is the simple sensation of light, and hearing is merely the sensation of sound. This would be all very true, but it does not appear

to elucidate the subject; nor, by any ingenuity of such speculation, could we be enabled to know more concerning these senses than when we called them sight and hearing. In the same manner, it would appear, that the course of inquiry respecting our moral feelings is simply to observe what these feelings really are; and what are their obvious tendencies in an uncontaminated mind. When we have done so on adequate foundation, I conceive we have every reason for considering them as principles implanted in us by the Creator, for our guidance in our present relations; and, like the functions of our bodies, so the powers and feelings of our minds show a wonderful adaptation and design, worthy of their Omnipotent cause. But, we can know nothing of them beyond the facts, and nothing is to be gained by any attempt, however ingenious, to simplify or explain them. We have formerly had occasion to allude to various speculations, of a similar character, respecting the powers of perception and simple intellect, all of which have now given way before the general admission of the truth, that, on the questions to which they refer, no human sagacity can carry us one step beyond the simple knowledge of the facts.

It will probably be admitted, that there have been many similar unprofitable speculations in the philosophy of the moral feelings; and that these speculations, instead of throwing any light upon the subject, nave tended rather to withdraw the attention of mquirers from the questions of deep and serious mportance connected with the investigation. Among

these, perhaps, we may reckon some of the doctrines which hold a prominent place in the history of this branch of science, under the name of Theories of Morals. These doctrines agree in admitting the fact, that there are among mankind certain notions respecting right and wrong,-moral and immoral actions; and they then profess to account for these impressions, or to explain how men come to think one action right and another wrong. A brief view of these theories may properly belong to an outline of this department of science.

In contemplating the conduct of men as placed in certain relations towards each other, we perceive some actions which we pronounce to be right, and others which we pronounce to be wrong. In forming our opinion of them in this manner, we refer to the intentions of the actor, and, if we are satisfied that he really intended what we see to be the effect or the tendency of his conduct, or even that he purposed something which he was prevented from accomplishing, we view him with feelings of moral approbation or disapprobation,-or, in other words, apply to him the award of praise or blame. is our simple idea of virtue or vice, as applied either to the act or the agent. We have a conviction that

Such

there is a line of conduct to which ourselves and others are bound by a certain kind of obligation: a departure from this constitutes moral demerit or vice; a correct observance of it constitutes virtue.

This appears to be the simple view of our primary