will be found to contain, as their essential element, a state of propension or tendency towards some act or object. And it may be said that any influence which they can have on voluntary determinations is virtually included under Appetite or Desire. But the separate and substantive form which the manifestations of Instinct and Habit so often assume demands that they should be distinctly specified. Besides, if this view of the matter be prosecuted to its ultimate results, it will be found that in all our principles of action there may be detected, pervading or underlying them, the same element of propension or tendency towards an act or an object. In truth, it is this element which gives to these principles any influence on our voluntary determinations. If there were no such elementnothing inclining us to determine in one way rather than in another -we would remain altogether irresolute and inactive. In actions to which we are prompted by Appetite or Passion, we are distinctly conscious of the presence of this element. But something analogous to it may be detected even when our actions are guided by Reason and Conscience. In such cases there is the conviction of the Reason that the action is prudent, or the dictate of the Conscience that the action is right. But in matters of moment, when the conviction of the Reason is strong and the dictate of the Conscience clear, there accompanies or follows them a sense of prudence and a sense of duty; and we are made, not only to know, but also to feel, that we should act in accordance with the conclusions of the one and the commands of the other. Now, the feeling which we thus experience partakes of the nature of tendency, inclination, or desire, towards an act or an object; and it is in virtue of this that it comes to have an influence on our voluntary determinations. It is true that the forms or modifications of feeling which accompany or enter into the exercise of Reason and Conscience, are very different from the turbulent and impetuous feelings which are found in connection with the other active principles of our nature. And it is on this difference, in the way in which they operate upon and influence the will of an agent, that a classification of Motives should be founded.

Some motives operate directly upon the will, and carry a man violently towards an act or an object, without much thought of anything but the uneasiness to be removed or the gratification to be enjoyed, by the performance of the act or the attainment of the object. There are other motives which operate in a calm and dispassionate manner, and under the influence of which the agent has

full room for the exercise of deliberation and free choice.

Motives

of the former kind might be called Impulsive, and motives of the latter kind Suasive.

The ground of this Classification is the same with that adopted by Dr. Reid. But, by substituting the designation Impulsive in place of Animal, the first of the two classes may, without impropriety, include those motive influences which spring from Instinct and Habit. These influences operate upon the Will in a way somewhat similar to the influences which take their rise from Appetite, Affection, and Passion, viz., in the way of tendency or inclination, more or less sensibly and vehemently felt, and more or less impeding or excluding the exercise of Reason and Conscience. The second class includes those motives which take their rise in convictions of the Reason and commands of the Conscience, and which operate in a calm and considerate way, carrying the agent with less vehemence, but with more confidence and clearness, towards the end in view. The designation Suasive, as applied to this class, may be vindicated to those who regard the moral faculty as a sense or feeling, by the fact that the moral emotion, under the influence of which an agent is prompted to act, implies the preceding of a moral judgment or conclusion—a rational conviction or persuasion of the rightness of the action.

Mr. Upham (On the Will, pt. ii. ch. 8, sect. 126) has proposed to classify Motives as Natural and Moral—including, under the former class, all those which operate in the way of desire or tendency towards an act or an object, and, under the latter, those which spring from a sense of obligation or duty. But those principles which are called Moral are natural, as well as those to which the designation of natural is peculiarly applied. This objection might be obviated by calling the one class of motives Physical, or those which have respect to some physical good, and the other class Moral, or those which have respect to what is morally right. But motives merely reasonable—that is, springing from a regard to what is advantageous - could not at all be designated Physical; while, as not fully involving obligation, they could not well be called Moral. Yet motives that are properly moral may well be called Suasive; because, whatever difference there may be between Reason and Conscience in respect of authority, they both operate in the way of conviction or persuasion.

On the whole, the difference between the two great classes of

motives seems to be most correctly indicated by calling the one class Impulsive, and the other Suasive. And these designations correspond to the classification of the principles of action into Springs and Guides-the Springs giving rise to Impulsive motives, and the Guides to Suasive motives. Motives of the one class have reference to some act or object as desirable, and they operate in the way of impulse or tendency. Motives of the other class have reference to some action or course of action as advantageous or right, and they operate in the way of conviction or persuasion. To one or other of these classes, all the motives which influence human conduct may be reduced. Motives of the Suasive class are superior in authority to those of the Impulsive class. Reason and Conscience are the guiding and governing powers in man. Any motive derived from these may check and control those which spring from Appetite and Passion. Motives of the latter class may be more loud and vehement, and imperious in their operation; but, when brought to the bar of Reason and Conscience, they are found to be destitute of all lawful authority. Men may yield, and too often do yield, to their usurpation. But when they have done so, and their clamorous impulses have been gratified, they find that they ought not to have done so; but that they ought rather to have hearkened to the still small voice of Reason and Conscience.

CHAPTER VI.

OF THE WILL IN RELATION TO OTHER FACULTIES.

THE preceding remarks on Motives may serve to show what position the Will holds in our mental constitution. It may be said to lie in the very interior of the mind. It is placed, as it were, behind the Intellect and the Sensitivity, and is only to be approached through them. He who endeavours to determine the Will must do so by enlightening the Understanding, and by moving the Feelings. It is only through them that he can reach the central power of the Will.

SECTION I.-Of the Will in relation to the Intellect.

Every volition has an object; for he that wills must will something, and must know what he wills. There must be an act of Intellect preceding an act of Will. Something must be known before anything can be willed or determined on.

But while it is admitted that where there is no Intellect there can be no Will properly so called, there is a difference of opinion as to the relation between the Intellect and the Will. According to some it is immediate and direct; according to others it is indirect and remote. Knowledge is necessary before the Will can determine; and according to some, Knowledge is all that is necessary; for when an object is apprehended as Good or Evil, the Will immediately determines to seek or to shun it. According to others, Knowledge is a preliminary, but merely a preliminary, to an act of Will. Knowledge may be increased to any possible amount, but it cannot, of itself, give rise to an act of Will. It must first excite a desire to obtain, or to avoid, the object; and then, but not till then, the Will is moved to determine. The Intellect, according to this view, is not in immediate contact with the Will, but reaches it through the medium of the Sensitivity.

The point in dispute is, whether the Will is called into activity by the dictate or decision of the Intellect, or whether that dictate or decision must first awaken some feeling or desire before it can reach or move the Will. Now, the function of the Intellect is to give knowledge. When the knowledge of any object or event contemplated or apprehended has been gained, the proper function of the Intellect has been fulfilled. But an exercise of the Will does not, necessarily nor immediately, follow. Many of the dictates of the Understanding or conclusions of the Intellect have no direct bearing upon human happiness or misery. The knowledge gained leads to no practical use or effort, yet the possession or the contemplation of it may give us pleasure; and the desire of increasing this pleasure may prompt us to seek more knowledge of a similar kind; and, in this indirect way, our volitions and conduct may be influenced. But the conclusions and contemplations of the Intellect are, in many instances, quickly followed by very vivid feelings. Thus, the contemplation of wealth-the consideration of the many advantages which it confers, and of the many evils which it wards

off—gives rise to a strong desire to obtain it,—this desire moves the Will, and leads to the most earnest resolutions and the most strenuous exertions. In like manner, the various objects of human ambition and pursuit are not barely contemplated, or coldly conceived of, by the Intellect; they are felt to be suitable to our nature and condition,—this suitableness stimulates our desires, and quickens our determinations and endeavours to obtain them. So it is also in reference to moral perceptions and conclusions. We may see and acknowledge an action to be right, without experiencing any very vivid feeling in reference to the doing of it. It may be an ordinary or everyday act of duty, which we have now come to do without any pressing or present sense of its obligation. At first, however, it was done, not in consequence of the bare intellectual perception of its rightness, but under a sense of duty or obligation. So that, with regard to perceptions or cognitions, whether intellectual or moral, as mere cognitions or states of knowing, it is said, they do not come into immediate contact with the Will. Our knowledge of objects and events as likely to affect us for good or for evil, awakens corresponding feelings of appetence or aversion; and these feelings operating upon the Will, we determine to flee from the one and to follow after the other. Our knowledge of actions as right or wrong is accompanied by feelings of obligation, which prompt us to do the one and avoid the other. But, if our knowledge of objects, whether intellectually or morally discerned, were not accompanied by some degree of feeling, it would lead to no purpose nor action, and we should remain indifferent and inactive. "In the constitution of the Will, pt. i. ch. i. sect. 16),

human mind,” says Mr. Upham (On the "the Sensibilities, which are as different from the Will as from the Understanding, are located between the two. They form the connecting link which binds them together. Strike out the Sensibilities, therefore, and you necessarily excavate a gulf of separation between the Intellect and the Will, which is for ever impassable. There is, from that moment, no medium of communication, no bond of union, no reciprocal action."

"Without some kind or another of complacency with an object there could be no tendency, no protension of the mind to attain this object as an end; and we could therefore determine ourselves to no overt action. The mere cognition leaves us cold and unexcited; the awakened feeling infuses warmth and life into us and our action; it supplies action with an interest, and, without an