Our moral judgments, too, may be modified, and even perverted, to a certain degree, in consequence of the operation of the same principle. In the same manner in which a person who is regarded as a model of taste may introduce, by his example, an absurd or fantastical dress; so a man of splendid virtues may attract some esteem also to his imperfections, and, if placed in a conspicuous situation, may render his vices and follies objects of general imitation among the multitude.

"In the reign of Charles II." says Mr. Smith,* "a degree "of licentiousness was deemed the characteristic of a liberal "education. It was connected, according to the notions of "those times, with generosity, sincerity, magnanimity, loyal"ty; and proved that the person who acted in this manner, "was a gentleman, and not a puritan. Severity of manners, "and regularity of conduct, on the other hand, were alto"gether unfashionable, and were connected, in the imagina“tion of that age, with cant, cunning, hypocrisy, and low 66 manners. To superficial minds, the vices of the great "seem at all times agreeable. They connect them, not only "with the splendour of fortune, but with many superiour "virtues which they ascribe to their superiours; with the

spirit of freedom and independency; with frankness, gen"erosity, humanity, and politeness. The virtues of the "inferiour ranks of people, on the contrary, their parsimoni"ous frugality, their painful industry, and rigid adherence "to rules, seem to them mean and disagreeable. They "connect them both with the meanness of the station to "which these qualities commonly belong, and with many

great vices which they suppose usually accompany them; "such as an abject, cowardly, ill-natured, lying, pilfering disposition."

*Theory of Moral Sentiments.

ர்

The theory which, in the foregoing passages from Hutcheson and Smith, is employed so justly and philosophically to explain the origin of our secondary desires, and to account for some perversions of our moral judgments, has been thought sufficient, by some later writers, to account for the origin of all our active principles without exception. The first of these attempts to extend so very far the application of the doctrine of Association was made by the Rev. Mr. Gay, in a dissertation "concerning the fundamental Princi"ple of Virtue," which is prefixed by Dr. Law to his translation of Archbishop King's Essay "On the Origin of "Evil." In this dissertation, the author endeavours to shew, "that our approbation of morality, and all affections "whatsoever, are finally resolvable into reason, pointing out "private happiness, and are conversant only about things

apprehended to be means tending to this end; and that "wherever this end is not perceived, they are to be ac"counted for from the association of ideas, and may proper"ly be called habits." The same principles have been since pushed to a much greater length by Dr. Hartley, whose system (as he himself informs us) took rise from his accidentally hearing it mentioned as an opinion of Mr. Gay, "that the association of ideas was sufficient to account for "all our intellectual pleasures and pains."*

It must, I think, in justice, be acknowledged, that this theory, concerning the origin of our affections, and of the moral sense, is a most ingenious refinement upon the selfish system, as it was formerly taught; and that, by means of it, the force of many of the common reasonings against that

* Mr. Hume too, who in my opinion has carried this principle of the Association of Ideas a great deal too far, has compared the universality of its application in the philosophy of mind, to that of the principle of attraction in physics. "Here," says he" is a kind of attraction, which in the mental world will be found to have as extraordinary effects as in the natural, and to shew itself in as many and as various forms."-Treat. of Hum. Nat, vol. i. p. 30.

system is eluded. Among these reasonings, particular stress has always been laid on the instantaneousness with which our affections operate, and the moral sense approves or condemns, and on our total want of consciousness, in such cases, of any reference to our own happiness. The modern advocates for the selfish system admit the fact to be as it is stated by their opponents; and grant, that after the moral sense and our various affections are formed, their exercise, in particular cases, may become completely disinterested; but still they contend, that it is upon a regard to our own happiness that all these principles are originally grafted. The analogy of avarice will serve to illustrate the scope of this theory. It cannot be doubted that this principle of action is artificial. It is on account of the enjoyments which it enables us to purchase, that money is originally desired; and yet, in process of time, by means of the agreeable impressions which are associated with it, it comes to be desired for its own sake; and even continues to be an object of our pursuit, long after we have lost all relish for those enjoyments which it enables us to command.

Without meaning to engage in any controversy on the subject, I shall content myself with observing, in general, that there must be some limit, beyond which the theory of association cannot possibly be carried; for the explanation which it gives of the formation of new principles of action, proceeds on the supposition that there are other principles previously existing in the mind. The great question then is, when we are arrived at this limit; or, in other words, when we are arrived at the simple and original laws of our constitution.

In conducting this inquiry, philosophers have been apt to go into extremes. Lord Kaimes, and some other authors, have been censured, and perhaps justly, for a disposition to multiply original principles to an unnecessary degree.

It may be questioned, whether Dr. Hartley, and his followers, have not sometimes been misled by too eager a desire of abridging their number.

Of these two errours, the former is the least common, and the least dangerous. It is the least common, because it is not so flattering as the other to the vanity of the theorist; and it is the least dangerous, because it has no tendency, like the other, to give rise to a suppression, or to a misrepresentation of facts; or to retard the progress of the science, by bestowing upon it an appearance of systematical perfection, to which, in its present state, it is not entitled.

Abstracting, however, from these inconveniences, which must always result from a precipitate reference of phenomena to general principles, it does not seem to me, that the theory in question has any tendency to weaken the foundation of morals. It has, indeed, some tendency, in common with the philosophy of Hobbes and Mandeville, to degrade the dignity of human nature; but it leads to no sceptical conclusions concerning the rule of life. For, although we were to grant, that al: our principles of action are acquired; so striking a difference among them must still be admitted, as is sufficient to distinguish clearly those universal laws which were intended to regulate human conduct, from the local habits which are formed by education and fashion. It must still be admitted, that while some active principles are confined to particular individuals, or to particular tribes of men, there are others, which, arising from circumstances in which all the situations of mankind must agree, are common to the whole species. Such active principles as fall under this last description, at whatever period of life they may appear, are to be regarded as a part of human nature, no less than the instinct of suction; in the same manner as the acquired perception of distance by the eye is to be

ranked among the perceptive powers of man, no less than the original perceptions of any of our other senses.

Leaving, therefore, the question concerning the origin of our active principles, and of the moral faculty, to be the subject of future discussion, I shall conclude this Section with a few remarks of a more practical nature.

It has been shewn by different writers, how much of the beauty and sublimity of material objects arises from the ideas and feelings which we have been taught to associate with them. The impression produced on the external senses of a poet, by the most striking scene in nature, is precisely the same with what is produced on the senses of a peasant or a tradesman: yet how different is the degree of pleasure resulting from this impression! A great part of this difference is undoubtedly to be ascribed to the ideas and feelings which the habitual studies and amusements of the poet have associated with his organical perceptions.

A similar observation may be applied to all the various objects of our pursuit in life. Hardly any one of them is appreciated by any two men in the same manner; and frequently what one man considers as essential to his happiness, is regarded with indifference or dislike by another. Of these differences of opinion, much is, no doubt, to be ascribed to a diversity of constitution, which renders a particular employment of the intellectual or active powers agreeable to one man, which is not equally so to another. But much is also to be ascribed to the effect of association; which, prior to any experience of human life, connects pleasing ideas and pleasing feelings with different objects, in the minds of different persons.

In consequence of these associations, every man appears to his neighbour to pursue the object of his wishes, with a zeal disproportioned to its intrinsic value; and the philosopher (whose principal enjoyment arises from speculation)