involve the same idea. I do not know that a philosopher could give a more satisfactory answer.

If the question, then, be asked, what is a moral action? we may answer, it is the voluntary action of an intelligent agent, who is capable of distinguishing between right and wrong, or of distinguishing what he ought, from what he ought not, to do.

It is, however, to be remarked, that, although action is defined to be the putting forth of power, it is not intended to be asserted, that the moral quality exists only where power is actually exerted. It is manifest, that our thoughts and resolutions may be deserving either of praise or of blame; that is, may be either right or wrong, where they do not appear in action. When the will consents to the performance of an action, though the act be not done, the omniscient Deity justly considers us as either virtuous or

vicious.

From what has been said, it may be seen that there exists, in the actions of men, an element which does not exist in the actions of brutes. Hence, though both are subjects of government, the government of the one should be constructed upon principles different from that of the other. We can operate upon brutes only by fear of pun ishment, and hope of reward. We can operate upon man, not only in this manner, but, also, by an appeal to his consciousness of right and wrong; and by the use of such means as may improve his moral nature. Hence, ali modes of punishment which treat men as we treat brutes, are as unphilosophical as they are thoughtless, cruel and vindictive. Such are those systems of criminal jurisprudence, which have in view nothing more than the infliction of pain upon the offender. The leading object of all such systems should be to reclaim the vicious. Such was the result to which all the investigations of Howard led. Such is the improvement which Prison Discipline Societies are laboring to effect.

And it is worthy of remark, that the Christian precept respecting the treatment of injuries, proceeds precisely upon this principle. The New Testament teaches us to love our enemies, to do good to those that hate us, to over

come evil with good; that is, to set before a man who does wrong, the strongest possible exemplification of the opposite moral quality, right. Now, it is manifest, that nothing would be so likely to show to an injurious person the turpitude of his own conduct, and to produce in him selfreproach and repentance, as precisely this sort of moral exhibition. Revenge and retaliation might, or might not, prevent a repetition of the injury to a particular individual. The requiting of evil with good, in addition to this effect, has an inherent tendency to produce sorrow for the act, and dislike to its moral quality; and thus, by producing a change of character, to prevent the repetition of the offence under all circumstances hereafter.

SECTION III.

IN WHAT PART OF AN ACTION DO WE DISCOVER ITS MORAL QUALITY?

In a deliberate action, four distinct elements may be commonly observed. These are

1. The outward act, as when I put money into the hand of another.

2. The conception of this act, of which the external performance is the mere bodying forth.

3. The resolution to carry that conception into effect. 4. The intention, or design, with which all this is done. Now, the moral quality does not belong to the external act, for the same external act may be performed by two men, while its moral character is, in the two cases, entirely dissimilar.

Nor does it belong to the conception of the external act, nor to the resolution to carry that conception into effect: for the resolution to perform an action can have no other character than that of the action itself. It must, then, reside in the intention.

That such is the fact, may be illustrated by an example. A and B both give to C a piece of money. They both conceived of this action before they performed it. They both resolved to do precisely what they did. In all this, both actions coincide. A, however, gave it to C, with the intention of procuring the murder of a friend; B, with the intention of relieving a family in distress. It is evident that, in this case, the intention gives to the action its char acter as right or wrong.

That the moral quality of the action resides in the intention, may be evident from various other considerations.

1. By reference to the intention, we inculpate or exculpate others, or ourselves, without any respect to the happiness or misery actually produced. Let the result of ai action be what it may, we hold a man guilty simply on the ground of intention, or, on the same ground, we hold him innocent. Thus, also, of ourselves. We are conscious of guilt or of innocence, not from the result of an action, but from the intention by which we were actuated.

2. We always distinguish between being the instrument of good, and intending it. We are grateful to one who is the cause of good, not in the proportion of the amount effected, but of the amount intended.

Intention may be wrong in various ways.

As, for instance, first, where we intend to injure another, as in cruelty, malice, revenge, deliberate slander.

Here, however, it may be remarked, that we may intend to inflict pain, without intending wrong; for we may be guilty of the violation of no right. Such is the case, when pain is inflicted for the purposes of justice; for it is manifest, that, if a man deserve pain, it is no violation of right to inflict it. Hence we see the difference between harm, injury, and punishment. We harm another when we actually inflict pain; we injure him when we inflict pain in violation of his rights; we punish him when we inflict pain which he deserves, and to which he has been properly adjudged-and, in so doing, there is, therefore, a violation of no right.

2. Intention is wrong, where we act for the gratification of our own passions, without any respect to the happiness

of others. Such is the case of seduction, ambition, and, in nations, commonly, of war. Every man is bound to restrain the indulgence of his passions within such limits, that they will work no ill to his neighbor. If they actually inflict injury, it is no excuse to say that he had no ill will to the individual injured. The Creator never conferred on him the right to destroy another's happiness for his own gratification.

3 As the right and wrong of an action reside in the intention, it is evident, that, where an action is intended, though it be not actually performed, that intention is worthy of praise or blame, as truly as the action itself, provided the action itself be wholly out of our power. Thus God rewarded David for intending to build the temple, though he did not permit him actually to build it. So, he who intends to murder another, though he may fail to execute his purpose, is, in the sight of God, a murderer. The meditation upon wickedness with pleasure, comes under the same condemnation.

4. As the right or wrong exists in the intention, wherever a particular intention is essential to virtuous action, the performance of the external act, without that intention, is destitute of the element of virtue. Thus, a child is bound to obey his parents, with the intention of thus manifesting his love and gratitude. If he do it from fear, or from hope of gain, the act is destitute of the virtue of filial obedience, and becomes merely the result of passion or self-interest. And thus our Savior charges upon the Jews the want of the proper intention, in all their dealings with God. "I know you," said he, "that ye have not the love of God in you."

And, again, it is manifest, that our moral feelings, like our taste, may be excited by the conceptions of our owr imagination, scarcely less than by the reality. These, therefore, may develop moral character. He who meditates, with pleasure, upon fictions of pollution and crime, whether originating with himself or with others, renders it evident that nothing but opposing circumstances prevents him from being himself an actor in the crime which he loves. And still more, as the moral character of an action

resides in the intention, and as whatever tends to corrupt the intention must be wrong, the meditating with pleasure upon vice, which has manifestly this tendency, must be wrong also.

And here let me add, that the imagination of man is the fruitful parent both of virtue and vice. Thus saith the wise man, "Keep thy heart with all diligence, for out of it are the issues of life." No man becomes openly a villain, until his imagination has become familiar with conceptions of villany. The crimes which astonish us by their atrocity, were first arranged, and acted, and reacted, in the recesses of the criminal's own mind. Let the imagination, then, be most carefully guarded, if we wish to escape from temptation, and make progress in virtue. in virtue. Let no one flatter himself that he is innocent, if he love to meditate upon any thing which he would blush to avow before men, or fear to unveil before God.

SECTION IV.

WHENCE DO WE DERIVE OUR NOTION OF THE MORAL QUALITY OF ACTIONS?

To this question several answers have been given. Some of them we shall proceed to consider.

1. Is our notion of right and wrong a modification of any other idea?

The only modifications of which an idea is susceptible, are, first, that of greater or less vividness of impression, or, secondly, that of simplicity or of composition. Thus, the quality of beauty may impress us more or less forcibly, in the contemplation of different objects; or, on the other hand, the idea of beauty may be simple, or else combined, in our conceptions, with the idea of utliity.

Now, if our notion of right and wrong be a modification of so ne other idea, in the first sense, then one degree of