which refers our moral impressions to the supreme authority of conscience, a principle is disclosed, which, independently even of revelation, not only establishes an absolute conviction of the laws of moral rectitude, but leads us to the impression of moral responsibility and a moral Governor, and, as immediately flowing from this, a state of future retribution. We have already shown this to accord with the declarations of the sacred writings, and it is evidently the only system on which we can account for that uniformity of moral sentiment which is absolutely required for the harmonies of society. For it is, in fact, on a conviction of the immutability of this feeling in ourselves, and of the existence of a similar and universal principle in others, that is founded all the mutual confidence which keeps mankind together. It is this reciprocity of moral feeling that proves a constant check upon the conduct of men in the daily transactions of life; but, to answer this purpose, there is evidently required an impression of its uniformity, or a conviction that the actions which we disapprove in others will be condemned in us by the unanimous decision of other men. It is equally clear that we have no such impression of a uniformity of sentiment on any other subject, except on those referable to the class of first truths; and this immediately indicates a marked distinction between our moral impressions, and any of those conclusions at which we arrive by a process of the understanding. It is clear, also, that this uniformity can arise from no system which either refers us directly to the will of God, or is liable to

be affected by the differences which may exist in the judgment, the moral taste, the personal feelings, or the interests of different individuals. It must be, in itself, fixed and immutable, conveying an absolute conviction, which admits of no doubt and no difference of opinion. Such is the great principle of conscience. However its warnings may be neglected, and its influence obscured by passion and moral degradation, it still asserts its right to govern the whole man. "Had it strength," says Butler, "as it had right, had it power, as it had manifest authority, it would absolutely govern the world."

It remains only that we briefly notice the system of Dr. Adam Smith, commonly called the theory of Sympathy. According to this ingenious writer, it is required for our moral sentiments respecting an action, that we enter into the feelings both of the agent and of him to whom the action relates. If we sympathize with the feelings and intentions of the agent, we approve of his conduct as right,-if not, we consider it as wrong. If, in the individual to whom the action refers, we sympathize with a feeling of gratitude, we regard the agent as worthy of praise, if with a feeling of resentment, the contrary. We thus observe our feelings respecting the conduct of others, in cases in which we are not personally concerned, then apply these rules to ourselves; and thus judge of our own conduct. This very obvious statement, however, of what every man feels, does not supply the place of a fundamental rule of right and wrong; and indeed Dr. Smith does not appear

to contend that it does so. It applies only to the application of a principle, not to the origin of it. Our sympathy can never be supposed to constitute an action right or wrong; but it enables us to apply to individual cases a principle of right and wrong derived from another source; and to clear our judgment in doing so, from the blinding influence of those selfish feelings by which we are so apt to be misled when we apply it directly to ourselves. In estimating our own conduct, we then apply to it those conclusions which we have made with regard to the conduct of others, or we imagine others applying the same process in regard to us, and consider how our conduct would appear to an impartial observer.

In regard to the whole of this subject, an important distinction is to be made between the fundamental principle, from which actions derive their character of right and wrong,-and the application of reason in judging of their tendencies. Before concluding this part of the subject, therefore, we have to add a very few observations on the influence exerted on our moral decisions by reason,-always, however, in subserviency to the great principle of conscience. The office of reason appears to ber in the first place, to judge of the expediency, propriety, and consequences of actions, which do not involve any feeling of moral duty. In regard to the affections, again, a process of reason is often necessary, not only respecting the best mode of exercising them, but also, in many cases, in deciding whether

we shall exercise them at all. Thus, we may feel compassion in a particular instance, but perceive the individual to be so unworthy that what we could do would be of no benefit to him. In such a case we may feel it to be a matter not only of prudence, but of duty, to resist the affection, and to reserve the aid we have to bestow for persons more deserving.

In cases in which an impression of moral duty is concerned, an exercise of reason is still, in many instances, necessary for enabling us to adapt our means to the end which we desire to accomplish. We may feel an anxious wish to promote the interest or relieve the distress of another, or to perform some high and important duty,-but call reason to our aid respecting the most effectual and the most judicious means of doing so. Conscience, in such cases, produces the intention,-reason suggests the means and it is familiar to every one that these do not always harmonize. Thus, a man may be sound in his intentions, who errs in judgment respecting the means.for carrying them into effect. In such cases, we attach our feeling of moral approbation to the intention only; we say the man meant well, but erred in judgment; and to this error we affix no feeling of moral disapprobation,-unless, perhaps, in some cases, we may blame him for acting precipitately on his own judgment, instead of taking the advice of those qualified to direct him. We expect such a man to acquire wisdom from experience, by observing the deficiency of his judgment in reference to his intentions; and, in future instances, to learn to take advice. There are other

circumstances in which an exercise of reason is frequently brought into action in regard to moral decisions; as in some cases in which one duty appears to interfere with another; likewise in judging whether, in particular instances, any rule of duty is concerned, or whether we are at liberty to take up the case simply as one of expediency or utility. In making their decisions in doubtful cases, we observe great differences in the habits of judging in different individuals. One shows the most minute and scrupulous anxiety to discover whether the case involves any principle of duty,-and a similar anxiety in acting suitably when he has discovered it. what we call a strictly conscientious man. who shows no want of a proper sense of duty when the line is clearly drawn, has less anxiety in such cases as these, and may sacrifice minute or doubtful points to some other feeling,-as self-interest, or even friendship,-where the former individual might have discovered a principle of duty.

This is Another,

Reason is also concerned in judging of a description of cases in which a modification of moral feeling arises from the complexity of actions,-or, in other words, from the circumstances in which the individual is placed. This may be illustrated by the difference of moral sentiment which we attach to the act of taking away the life of another, when this is done by an individual under the impulse of revenge, -by the same individual in self-defence, or by a judge in the discharge of his public duty.

There is still another office frequently assigned