series of years there may also be discovered a remarkable uniformity. An impression of this kind was carried so far by the ancients as to lead to the doctrine of the Annes Magnus, or Platonic year, in which it was believed that the whole series of human events would be acted over again.

The uniform successions of phenomena are, with reasonable care, easily ascertained in regard to material things; and when they are ascertained, we rely upon their uniform continuance; or, if we find à deviation in any instance, we easily ascertain the incidental cause by which the sequence is interrupted, and can provide against the interference of the same or any similar cause in future instances. There is greater uncertainty when our researches refer to the phenomena of mind, or the actions of living bodies. The causes of this uncertainty were formerly mentioned. It arises partly from the greater difficulty of ascertaining the true rela. tions, that is, of tracing causes to their true effects, and effects to their true causes; and partly from the tendency to these being interrupted in future instances by some new cause, in regard to which we cannot calculate either the existence or the precise effects. Hence, for example, the uncertainty of human laws; one of the contingencies by which they are interrupted being the chances of evading them. If we could conceive a case in which every crime was with certainty detected, and every criminal brought to punishment, it is probable that the effect of human laws would be nearly as certain as the operation of material causes. But the criminal, in the first instance, calculates on the chance of evading detection, and, even in the event of detection, of escaping punishment; and thus the tendency of the wisest laws is constantly interrupted in a manner which no human wisdom can calculate upon or prevent. There is often a similar uncertainty in man character in other situations: for example,

in judging how an individual will act in particular circumstances, or be influenced by particular motives; for a motive which we have found to induce a particular line of conduct in one individual may fail in producing the same result in another, being prevented by circumstances in his moral condition which entirely elude our observation.

Yet there is a uniformity in moral phenomena which, though it may be ascertained with greater difficulty than the order of natural phenomena, we calculate upon with similar confidence when it has been ascertained. Thus, a man may have acquired such a character for integrity, that we rely upon his integrity in any situation in which he may be placed, with the same confidence with which we rely on the uniformity of nature; and there is a man distinguished by veracity and fidelity to his promise, of whom we say, in common language, that his word is as good as his bond. In such examples as these, indeed, our confidence is founded, not upon any laws which have been observed in regard to the whole species, but on a uniformity which has been observed in regard to the individuals, or rather a class to which the individuals belong. There are also, however, laws which' apply to mankind in general, and on which we rely as far as they go,-namely, principles of conduct in which we confide, as regulating every man of a sane mind, whatever may be our knowledge of his previous habits of judging or acting. It is in this manner, for example, as formerly stated, that we regulate our confidence in testimony. If a man who is either a stranger to us or bears a character of doubtful veracity, relates circumstances which tend greatly to promote his own purposes, we calculate on the probability of fabrication, and reject his testimony; and if we even suspect that he has a purpose to serve, a similar impression is produced. If, on the contrary, we are satisfied that the circumstances are indifferent to

him, and that he has no purpose to answer, we give greater credit to his testimony. If, further than this, we 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 chymistry, 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 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 chymical 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 fully distinguishing 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 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 connexion between the volition and the act, but in the origin or cause of the volition, or in the connexion 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 unfavourable to the interests of virtue and morals, or opposed to the practice of ex

ting men to virtue, seems, on the contrary, to