to these expressions, and their nature and essence are not yet determined. Both terms are taken at one time for faculties, at another for actions. Farther, in considering virtues as good actions, and in maintaining that every good action which has required an inward struggle is virtuous, the meaning of the word virtue is still very variable. The same thing happens with the terms vice, immoral or unjust, and sin, in the language of religion.

The ancient philosophers spoke of cardinal virtues, but these are only the just employment of certain fundamental powers. Temperance, for instance, is the right use of the pleasures of sense; prudence, of circumspection and intelligence; force, of courage and firmness; justice, of conscientiousness, benevolence, and self-love, together.

The virtues styled theological result from three fundamental faculties: hope and charity belong to primitive sentiments, faith or religious belief depends on hope and marvellousness.

Hitherto religious and civil governments have decided on what they desired should be called virtue or vice. The same action has, according to circumstances, been declared on one occasion a virtue, and on another a vice. Courage is virtuous in conquerors, as well as in those who defend themselves against aggressors. The church of Rome commands celibacy as a virtue, while other governments reward those who bring up a family. It is remarkable, that all codes, revealed or profane, with one exception, have declared the amor patriæ, or love of country, a principal virtue. The Christian doctrine alone acknowledges no exclusionary patriotism, it alone commands universal love.

As in every religious system and civil code the determination of right and wrong varies, the perplexity of the lover of truth must be great; and as long as virtue is defined according to circumstances, or depends on the good will of civil and religious legislators, it will be contradictory and cannot become absolute. Absolute virtue, however, is to be proved; in other words, morality is to become a science. This cannot happen as long as philosophy and religion are not united, and as long as the fundamental powers of the mind,

their origin, their modes of action, the effects of their mutual influence, the conditions of their manifestations, the laws of their improvement and the moral and religious nature of man are not perfectly understood.

Whatever may be said against the plurality of the faculties and their peculiar organs, they must be admitted. Both vegetative and animal life is, in fact, more or less complicated in the different orders of animals. The vegetative is exceedingly simple in the lowest tribes of all. Nutrition is limited to mere intus-susception, absorption, and assimilation. It becomes complicated by degrees, and in the mammalia includes mastication, deglutition, digestion, chylification, sanguification, respiration, circulation, assimilation, and a great number of secondary and auxiliary functions, as the secretion of bile, of pancreatic juice, of urine, &c. Even the particular functions which aid in reproducing the organization, as intus-susception, digestion, respiration, circulation, &c. are performed by a greater or less quantity of apparatus. Yet in the most complex, as in the most simple animals, the end is the same, viz, the preservation of the individual.

Animal life is also very simple in the most inferior classes of living beings. It begins with the sense of feeling, is complicated by the addition of taste, smell, hearing, and seeing; by various instincts or propensities, sentiments, and intellectual faculties; and, finally, attains its utmost complexity in man; he alone unites all the faculties which are dispersed among different animals; and, farther, is endowed with several in peculiar. The faculties of man, then, are multiplied. Let us now examine whether there be any subordination among them or not; let us see if they be all equally important.

Neither in vegetative nor in animal life is every function of like excellence. Mastication, and the mixture of saliva with the food, are less important than digestion, circulation, and assimilation. The secretion of certain glands is less necesssary than respiration, &c. The same law holds in animal life. Of the external senses, every one would rather lose the sense of smell than of sight.

Who would not rather give up some talent, as drawing, music, painting, than the faculty of reflection and reason? Every one is offended if we call him stupid; not if we say that he wants such or such a talent. If we farther examine the influence of different faculties of animal life upon the happiness and preservation of mankind, we shall be convinced that several are much more important than others. The love of approbation is of far less consequence than benevolence; the Christian religion, indeed, ranks charity above all the other virtues. It must, therefore, be granted that the faculties of animal life are important in different degrees. A great line of distinction between them may at once be drawn by separating such as are common to animals and man, from such as are proper to man. A double nature of man was long ago remarked, and has been designated by different expressions; as the flesh and the spirit; the animal and the man, or the carnal and spiritual part

of man.

Now, are the faculties common to animals and man, or those proper to humanity, to have the superiority? The answer is obvious. The general law of nature is, that inferior are subordinate to superior faculties. Physical are subject to chemical laws; gravity, for instance, is modified by chemical affinity: the particles of a salt attract each other in opposition to their gravity, and form crystals. Again, physical and chemical laws, though existing in organic beings, are modified by those of organization. Plants do not increase by juxtaposition; nor do they assimilate mere homogeneous substances. In the muscular and circulatory systems, the physical laws of motion and hydraulics are preserved, but they are influenced by the laws of life. Chemical laws remain in digestion, but swayed by organic laws. Physical, chemical, and vegetative laws exist in living creatures, but modified by those of phrenic life. Animals take food, so do plants; but animals choose it, guided by the sense of taste. Plants propagate their species automatically; animals feel a propensity to do so. The propensities, sentiments, and intellectual faculties of animals, consequently modify the properties of their organization extremely.

The same principle must be applied in regard to the distinguishing part of human nature: all inferior laws, physical, chemical, organic, and animal, are subordinate to those of the peculiarly human faculties. These, therefore, compose the moral character of man. Thus, as the faculties are not equally important, and as some must be subordinate to others, I divide them, in relation to actions, into three orders: one excites man and animals to determinate actions, as hunger, physical love, the propensity to fight, to build, to gather provision, &c.; I style these faculties of action; another, because they assist and modify those of the first kind, I call auxiliary; and another, which ought to direct, I term directing faculties.

The faculties proper to man are obviously superior to those common to him and animals, since, by means of his peculiar nature he is master of all that breathes, and, therefore, ought to be master of his own animal nature also. I, consequently, lay down the following principle:-The faculties proper to man constitute his moral nature and his absolute conscience, that is, all actions conformable to them are absolutely good. And now liberty assumes the character of morality, if the will produce actions flowing from motives which are proper to man. Man, then, has not only the largest share of liberty, from his superior will and great number of motives, but he alone possesses moral liberty. The feeling of conscientiousness is to morality, that which will or the perceptive and reflective faculties are to liberty. As long as actions spring from motives common to man and animals, they are not primitively moral, though they may be conformable to morality. Inferior motives, however, must still be employed in guiding mankind, and must frequently supply the place of such as are moral. We even see that purely moral motives have but little influence in the world.

Extent of Morality.

In regard to morality, an important question concerns its extent. Is man the only aim of the terrestrial creation, that is, is all the rest made for him? An affirmative answer can only be the result of too

much self-esteem;-the contrary seems evident, since nature produces poisons for man as well as for other animals. Geology also proves that many beings existed before man. It is however a natural law that superior employ inferior beings to their advantage; and in consequence of his superiority, man, as he is their master, may make use of all the other creatures upon earth. Still this does not prove that every thing exists merely for the sake of man. The human kind may govern all animals, but it has also certain duties towards them, and I cannot believe that man has any right to torment animals for his gratification or amusement.

Benevolence and reverence are essential qualities of human nature, and man's duties towards his like form the principal object of morality. It is commonly stated that he is created to be happy. This proposition, however, is vague, and individual happiness is too often confounded with the general weal: the former results from the satisfaction of the faculties each person is more particularly endowed with, but it varies, since individual gifts differ widely; hence it can never become the universal standard of moral actions: actions which are evidently bad may be accompanied with pleasure. Mere pleasure, therefore, is not the aim of man's existence any more than individual happiness; these, indeed, are synonymous expressions.

I am of opinion, that the Creator viewed general happiness as superior to that of individuals, and that he intended to produce the second by the first. All nature seems to prove this idea.

In considering the immense system of the celestial bodies, it is probable that the earth might rather perish than the universe be destroyed. Geology teaches that our globe has continued to exist while many kinds of animals have disappeared from its surface. Species are preserved while individuals die. The totality of living bodies exists, but particular parts perish. Again, nature has established a law of violent death, and of the sacrifice of individuals for the sake of general preservation. All animate beings exist at the expense of each other, and all are thereby preserved.

Man makes no exception from this general arrangement, and it