philosophy upturns the subject to its very basis, ab origine, by disallowing all mental causality in the production of volitions; it scatters by the fury of its power all the possible incidents of agency, such as freedom, morality, responsibility, blameworthiness, or praiseworthiness. Where then is the basis for responsible agency in man?-Nowhere.

It may be said that man is admitted to be an agent, since it is admitted that he acts, chooses, wills, determines, etc. I have already considered the nature of these admissions. In the scheme of Dr. Edwards, they imply no relation of cause on the part of the mind to the resulting volitions; but that it is simply the subject of the phenomena thus called. With this interpretation it is not strictly true, that the mind wills or chooses, for this affirmation contains more than the idea of a mere subject. What is it to act, but to cause action? What is it to choose, but to cause choice? What is it to will, but to cause the willing?

It may again be said, that the virtuousness or viciousness of a volition inheres in its very nature, without any consideration of its cause, and therefore, although the mind be not its cause, it may be responsible-blame, or praiseworthy on its account. This view is presented by President Edwards. Without intending a full reply, I give a single answer; viz., the denial of mental causality absolutely precludes the question of moral distinctions, so far as the mind is concerned. If it be granted that volition has its nature of right or wrong in itself, still the question of moral distinction in actions, involving both the fact and its grounds, can never be a question, except in bare hypothesis, without certain logical conditions or antecedents. One is, that the subject should be able to discern between right and wrong. If we deny this, as in the case of idiocy or infancy, we preclude the moral problem by cutting off its logical antecedent. Another is, that the subject should be the cause of the volition, claimed to be virtuous or vicious. What is volition, but that subject in a given state? How then can desert of reward or punishment attach to the subject on account of the volition, in whatever way we explain the fact of its having a moral nature, when that volition is absolutely uncaused by the subject? The volition abstractly is not the legitimate subject of reward or punishment. These ideas attach to the agent, if any where. But the being in question is not the agent in any true sense by the supposition-the phenomenon takes place in him, not by him. Whatever then may be its moral features-in

of

whatever way we derive them; it is certain that they have no sort of relation to man as a responsible subject. Volitions and not their sequents have a moral nature. We blame a man for willing wrong-we praise him for willing right; but if the willing be no effect of his, then it is neither his right, nor his wrong; if it be no effect of any being, then it is neither the right nor wrong any being: in other words, the moral problem is shoved out of the universe, as completely as if the phenomenon had never been. Who will pretend, on the supposition of an event coming to pass without any cause, that it could have a moral nature, so as to involve any being? If volition be an event coming to pass in the mind, without any causality on the part of the mind, it is impossible that it should involve that mind in any just liabilities on its account. There are no data by which to connect the two. The fact, that the mind happens to be its theatre, is nothing to the purpose; the case would not be altered, if a fixed star had been that theatre. The fact that the mind is capable of moral judgments and emotions, does not alter the case, for it only makes its misfortune the greater, and its very constitution an object for sympathy rather than blame. Besides, all these judgments and emotions, take for granted what the theory in question denies. The moral problem, therefore, is repealed and entirely annihilated, so far as humanity is concerned, by an exclusion of one of its logical conditions. This is the reply I offer to the view presented by President Edwards.

5. The position of Dr. Edwards renders both the idea and the knowledge of cause a complete impossibility. Consciousness is the primordial theatre upon and in which the idea of cause first takes possession of the human mind. Man must know himself, as cause, before he has any idea of any other cause, or cause in general. The process of the mind in discovering and reasoning upon causes, is not from causes without to the mind as cause; it is in a reverse direction. The occasion upon which the idea is first suggested to the intelligence, is a specific act of causation, which has its beginning, its progress, and its end, in the very bosom of the cause itself. That act, upon the instant of its being, is intuitively referred to the mind as its cause. This primitive cognition is the germ from which proceed all subsequent inductions, deductions, and abstractions on the subject. If these positions be denied, then the doctrine of Hume follows: that the relation of causation is simply a succession of events. He has shown conclusively, that if we look to experience for

the idea of cause, (understanding by experience the simple observation of things without us by the senses,) we can obtain nothing but a simple succession. This is demonstrably not the true idea, and therefore there is a defect in the process of discovery. If we pass to the theatre within, we find that the idea becomes a positive intellection of the mind upon a single condition; i. e. that a self-conscious cause actually originates an event in its own bosom. The idea of cause is not possible upon any other condition. A thing must be a cause, and be conscious of itself, as such, else it can have no such idea. A man can have no conception of a sensation, whether of pleasure or pain, but on the condition that that sensation has been a matter of mental experience. The same is true of thought, of color, etc. Hence, if the observation of external things gives us nothing but succession, as Hume has shown; if that succession be not identical with the idea of cause, as is certain, it follows that we must go to some other theatre for its discovery. What is that theatre? But one is possible ;-the mind itself. Now can the mind discover or receive the idea of cause, when as yet no cause has gone into operation and actually caused? Plainly not. Hence if it has not caused, it can never have the idea, since it derives it originally from itself, upon the condition of its own causation. Having thus gained the idea, it subsequently generalizes it by abstraction, and universalizes it by application to the events of the physical world.

I am happy in being able to corroborate these views by a reference to the language of the critical reviewer of Whewell's History and Philosophy of the Inductive Sciences. He says: "The direct personal consciousness of causation which we have, when we either exert voluntary force or influence the train of our own thoughts, has been much and singularly lost sight of by many writers on this subject. Whatever be the essential nature of that relation, or whether even it be in all cases the same, we are no more left in doubt of its being a real relation when we experience this consciousness, than we are of our own reality or of that of an external world. When once suggested, as we conceive it to be, by such experience, as a kind of mental sensation, it is seized and dwelt upon with a force and tenacity which strongly indicates its real importance to our knowledge and well-being." American Eclectic, No. 6, Nov. 1841, p. 418. This writer was by no means favorable to all the philosophical views of Whewell; yet he speaks of the idea of cause as being

first suggested by a certain "experience as a kind of mental sensation.' Now what is that experience? It is "the direct personal consciousness of causation which we have," when we ourselves cause. This is identical with the above view of the genesis of the idea. It is the ground of Victor Cousin; it is without doubt the true ground. It has been frequently charged against Locke, that he taught a different view; that he laid the basis of the sensual school of philosophy. In Book II. Chap. XXVI. Sect. I. he inclines very clearly to the sensual origin of the idea; but in the same Book, Chap. XXI. Sect. IV. he indicatesa different origin of the idea. So that all that can be justly charged upon Locke is, that he was not consistent with himself.

How then stands the position of Dr. Edwards, that the mind cannot possibly be the cause of its own acts, its own volitions? In the following attitude, viz., that the indispensable condition of having the idea of cause, some fact of causation by the cause so having the idea, does not proceed from, and is not originated by the cause. The idea must first be suggested by a "direct personal consciousness" of our own causation, and yet it is not possible that we should ever have any such consciousness, for it is not possible that we should ever cause any thing upon the theatre of consciousness! It would be gratifying to know whence Dr. Edwards derived his notion of cause, upon which he reasons so largely, and with so much ability. One feels a little temptation to fly to the transcendentalism of Innate Ideas, created by God, stored away in the mind, slumbering in some dormitory of the soul, existing in full perfection, prior to all mental action, and ready to be evolved as chance may direct. Indeed Dr. Edwards ought to have disallowed the idea of cause altogether. Upon the hypothesis that the mind originates none of its own changes, the idea is an impossibility; and the position of Dr. Edwards is a branch of this general hypothesis.

6. This position is against the consciousness and common sense of the world.-If it be a dictate of philosophy to adopt it, it certainly is not one of common sense. The remarks of Dr. Price on this subject are so appropriate, that I shall take the liberty to transcribe them. He says: "A being who cannot act at all, most certainly cannot act well or ill, virtuously or viciously. Now so far as it is true of a being that he acts, so far he must himself be the cause of the action, and therefore not necessarily determined to act. Let any one try to put a sense on the expressions, I will, I act; which is consistent with sup

posing, that the volition or action proceeds not from myself, but from somewhat else. Virtue supposes determination, and determination supposes a determiner; and a determiner that determines not himself is a palpable contradiction. Determination requires an efficient cause. If this cause is the being himself, I plead for no more. If not, then it is no longer his determination; that is, he is no longer the determiner but the motive, or whatever else any one will please to assign as the cause of the determination. To ask, what effects our determination, is the very same with asking, who did a thing, after being informed that such a one did it. In short, who must not feel the absurdity of saying my volitions are produced by a foreign cause, that is, are not mine?" Price on Morals, Lond. edition, 1758, p. 315,316. When unsophisticated minds say that a man wills, they mean that he does the willing; is its cause. No one dreams of any other construction, till philosophy, in her effort to make the subject clearer, envelopes it in darkness. How the man causes is never asked-it can never be answered; but this does not invalidate the reality of his being the cause. The advocates of necessity are constantly falling into these popular modes of expression. They say, the mind determines; they say also, that motive determines. What do they mean? Not the same thing by the two affirmations. Mind determines, as it is the subject of volition; motive determines, as it is the cause of volition.

IV. Whether Motive be the Cause of Volition?

The fourth chapter of the Dissertation is devoted to the consideration of "Motives and their Influence." This chapter abounds with numerous strictures upon the views of Dr. West, Dr. Clarke, and others. On the justice of these criticisms we offer no opinion. What is the ground taken by Dr. Edwards, as respects the relation of motive to volition? This is the question before us; and let us proceed to hear and examine his answer.

1. He maintains that motives have influence in the production of volitions, and charges his opponents with great inconsistency in admitting this point, and yet denying moral necessity. President Edwards insisted that motives can be causes only as they have influence, although he had admitted that an antecedent might be cause, even if it had no " positive influence.” In the first part of this position the son is true to the system of the