entirely to be forborne； as serving nothing to the discovery
of truth； but only to make the person of an antagonist
odious。 This I observe in general； without pretending to
draw any advantage from it。 I frankly submit to an
examination of this kind； and shall venture to affirm that
the doctrines； both of necessity and of liberty； as above
explained； are not only consistent with morality； but are
absolutely essential to its support。
Necessity may be defined two ways； conformably to the
two definitions of ； of which it makes an essential
part。 It consists either in the constant conjunction of like
objects； or in the inference of the understanding from one
object to another。 Now necessity； in both these senses；
（which； indeed； are at bottom the same） has universally；
though tacitly； in the schools； in the pulpit； and in common
life； been allowed to belong to the will of man； and no one
has ever pretended to deny that we can draw inferences
concerning human actions； and that those inferences are
founded on the experienced union of like actions； with like
motives； inclinations； and circumstances。 The only
particular in which any one can differ； is； that either；
perhaps； he will refuse to give the name of necessity to
this property of human actions： But as long as the meaning
is understood； I hope the word can do no harm： Or that he
will maintain it possible to discover something farther in
the operations of matter。 But this； it must be acknowledged；
can be of no consequence to morality or religion； whatever
it may be to natural philosophy or metaphysics。 We may here
be mistaken in asserting that there is no idea of any other
necessity or connexion in the actions of body： But surely we
ascribe nothing to the actions of the mind； but what
everyone does； and must readily allow of。 We change no
circumstance in the received orthodox system with regard to
the will； but only in that with regard to material objects
and causes。 Nothing； therefore； can be more innocent； at
least； than this doctrine。
All laws being founded on rewards and punishments； it
is supposed as a fundamental principle； that these motives
have a regular and uniform influence on the mind； and both
produce the good and prevent the evil actions。 We may give
to this influence what name we please； but； as it is usually
conjoined with the action； it must be esteemed a ；
and be looked upon as an instance of that necessity； which
we would here establish。
The only proper object of hatred or vengeance is a
person or creature； endowed with thought and consciousness；
and when any criminal or injurious actions excite that
passion； it is only by their relation to the person； or
connexion with him。 Actions are； by their very nature；
temporary and perishing； and where they proceed not from
some in the character and disposition of the person
who performed them； they can neither redound to his honour；
if good； nor infamy； if evil。 The actions themselves may be
blameable； they may be contrary to all the rules of morality
and religion： But the person is not answerable for them； and
as they proceeded from nothing in him that is durable and
constant； and leave nothing of that nature behind them； it
is impossible he can； upon their account； become the object
of punishment or vengeance。 According to the principle；
therefore； which denies necessity； and consequently causes；
a man is as pure and untainted； after having committed the
most horrid crime； as at the first moment of his birth； nor
is his character anywise concerned in his actions； since
they are not derived from it； and the wickedness of the one
can never be used as a proof of the depravity of the other。
Men are not blamed for such actions as they perform
ignorantly and casually； whatever may be the consequences。
Why？ but because the principles of these actions are only
momentary； and terminate in them alone。 Men are less blamed
for such actions as they perform hastily and
unpremeditatedly than for such as proceed from deliberation。
For what reason？ but because a hasty temper； though a
constant cause or principle in the mind； operates only by
intervals； and infects not the whole character。 Again；
repentance wipes off every crime； if attended with a
reformation of life and manners。 How is this to be accounted
for？ but by asserting that actions render a person criminal
merely as they are proofs of criminal principles in the
mind； and when； by an alteration of these principles； they
cease to be just proofs； they likewise cease to be criminal。
But； except upon the doctrine of necessity； they never were
just proofs； and consequently never were criminal。
It will be equally easy to prove； and from the same
arguments； that ； according to that definition
above mentioned； in which all men agree； is also essential
to morality； and that no human actions； where it is wanting；
are susceptible of any moral qualities； or can be the
objects either of approbation or dislike。 For as actions are
objects of our moral sentiment； so far only as they are
indications of the internal character； passions； and
affections； it is impossible that they can give rise either
to praise or blame； where they proceed not from these
principles； but are derived altogether from external
violence。
I pretend not to have obviated or removed all
objections to this theory； with regard to necessity and
liberty。 I can foresee other objections； derived from topics
which have not here been treated of。 It may be said； for
instance； that； if voluntary actions be subjected to the
same laws of necessity with the operations of matter； there
is a continued chain of necessary causes； pre…ordained and
pre… determined； reaching from the original cause of all to
every single volition of every human creature。 No
contingency anywhere in the universe； no indifference； no
liberty。 While we act； we are； at the same time； acted upon。
The ultimate Author of all our volitions is the Creator of
the world； who first bestowed motion on this immense
machine； and placed all beings in that particular position；
whence every subsequent event； by an inevitable necessity；
must result。 Human actions； therefore； either can have no
moral turpitude at all； as proceeding from so good a cause；
or if they have any turpitude； they must involve our Creator
in the same guilt； while he is acknowledged to be their
ultimate cause and author。 For as a man； who fired a mine；
is answerable for all the consequences whether the train he
employed be long or short； so wherever a continued chain of
necessary causes is fixed； that Being； either finite or
infinite； who produces the first； is likewise the author of
all the rest； and must both bear the blame and acquire the
praise which belong to them。 Our clear and unalterable ideas
of morality establish this rule； upon unquestionable
reasons； when we examine the consequences of any human
action； and these reasons must still have greater force when
applied to the volitions and intentions of a Being
infinitely wise and powerful。 Ignorance or impotence may be
pleaded for so limited a creature as man； but those
imperfections have no place in our Creator。 He foresaw； he
ordained； he intended all those actions of men； which we so
rashly pronounce criminal。 And we must therefore conclude；
either that they are not criminal； or that the Deity； not
man； is accountable for them。 But as either of these
positions is absurd and impious； it follows； that the
doctrine from which they are deduced cannot possibly be
true； as being liable to all the same objections。 An absurd
consequence； if necessary； proves the original doctrine to
be absurd； in the same manner as criminal actions render
criminal the original cause； if the connexion between them
be necessary and inevitable。
This objection consists of two parts； which we shall
examine separately； ； that； if human actions can be
traced up； by a necessary chain； to the Deity； they can
never be criminal； on account of the infinite perfection of
that Being from whom they are derived； and who can intend
nothing but what is altogether good and laudable。 Or；
； if they be criminal； we must retract the
attribute of perfection； which we ascribe to the Deity； and
must acknowledge him to be the ultimate author of guilt and
moral turpitude in all his creatures。
The answer to the first objection seems obvious and
convincing。 There are many philosophers who； after an exact
scrutiny of all the phenomena of nature； conclude； that the
W/HOLE； considered as one system； is； in every period of
its existence； ordered with perfect benevolence； and that
the utmost possible happiness will； in the end； result to
all created beings； without any mixture of positive or
absolute ill or misery。 Every physical ill； say they； makes
an essential part of this benevolent system； and could not
possibly be removed； even by the Deity himself； considered
as a wise agent； without giving entrance to greater ill； or
excluding greater good； which will result from it。 From this
theory； some philosophers； and the ancient among
the rest； derived a topic of consolation under all
afflictions； while they taught their pupils that those ills
under which they laboured were； in reality； goods to the
universe； and that to an enlarged view； which could
comprehend the whole system of nature； every event became an
object of joy and exultation。 But though this topic be
specious and sublime； it was soon found in practice weak and
ineffectual。 You would surely more irritate than appease a
man lying under the racking pains of the gout by preaching
up to him the rectitude of those general laws； which
produced the malignant humours in his body； and led them
through the proper canals； to the sinews and nerves； where
they now excite such acute torments。 These enlarged views
may； for a moment； please the imagination of a speculative
man； who is placed in ease and security； but neither can
they dwell with constancy on his mind； even though
undisturbed by the emotions of pain or passion； much less
can they maintain their ground when attacked by suc