part17- 第4部分

America_；　a　fact　like　this　can　become　a　subject　of　inquiry；　and　of

criminal　inquiry　too；　as　an　offence　against　religion；　that　a　question

about　the　sale　of　a　book　can　be　carried　before　the　civil　magistrate。

Is　this　then　our　freedom　of　religion？　and　are　we　to　have　a　censor

whose　imprimatur　shall　say　what　books　may　be　sold；　and　what　we　may

buy？　　And　who　is　thus　to　dogmatize　religious　opinions　for　our

citizens？　　Whose　foot　is　to　be　the　measure　to　which　ours　are　all　to

be　cut　or　stretched？　　Is　a　priest　to　be　our　inquisitor；　or　shall　a

layman；　simple　as　ourselves；　set　up　his　reason　as　the　rule　for　what

we　are　to　read；　and　what　we　must　believe？　　It　is　an　insult　to　our

citizens　to　question　whether　they　are　rational　beings　or　not；　and

blasphemy　against　religion　to　suppose　it　cannot　stand　the　test　of

truth　and　reason。　　If　M。　de　Becourt's　book　be　false　in　its　facts；

disprove　them；　if　false　in　its　reasoning；　refute　it。　　But；　for　God's

sake；　let　us　freely　hear　both　sides；　if　we　choose。　　I　know　little　of

its　contents；　having　barely　glanced　over　here　and　there　a　passage；

and　over　the　table　of　contents。　　From　this；　the　Newtonian　philosophy

seemed　the　chief　object　of　attack；　the　issue　of　which　might　be

trusted　to　the　strength　of　the　two　combatants；　Newton　certainly　not

needing　the　auxiliary　arm　of　the　government；　and　still　less　the　holy

author　of　our　religion；　as　to　what　in　it　concerns　him。　　I　thought　the

work　would　be　very　innocent；　and　one　which　might　be　confided　to　the

reason　of　any　man；　not　likely　to　be　much　read　if　let　alone；　but；　if

persecuted；　it　will　be　generally　read。　　Every　man　in　the　United

States　will　think　it　a　duty　to　buy　a　copy；　in　vindication　of　his

right　to　buy；　and　to　read　what　he　pleases。　　I　have　been　just　reading

the　new　constitution　of　Spain。　　One　of　its　fundamental　basis　is

expressed　in　these　words：　〃The　_Roman　Catholic_　religion；　the　only

true　one；　is；　and　always　shall　be；　that　of　the　Spanish　nation。　　The

government　protects　it　by　wise　and　just　laws；　and　prohibits　the

exercise　of　any　other　whatever。〃　Now　I　wish　this　presented　to　those

who　question　what　you　may　sell；　or　we　may　buy；　with　a　request　to

strike　out　the　words；　〃Roman　Catholic；〃　and　to　insert　the

denomination　of　their　own　religion。　　This　would　ascertain　the　code　of

dogmas　which　each　wishes　should　domineer　over　the　opinions　of　all

others；　and　be　taken；　like　the　Spanish　religion；　under　the

〃protection　of　wise　and　just　laws。〃　It　would　shew　to　what　they　wish

to　reduce　the　liberty　for　which　one　generation　has　sacrificed　life

and　happiness。　　It　would　present　our　boasted　freedom　of　religion　as　a

thing　of　theory　only；　and　not　of　practice；　as　what　would　be　a　poor

exchange　for　the　theoretic　thraldom；　but　practical　freedom　of　Europe。

But　it　is　impossible　that　the　laws　of　Pennsylvania；　which　set　us　the

first　example　of　the　wholesome　and　happy　effects　of　religious

freedom；　can　permit　the　inquisitorial　functions　to　be　proposed　to

their　courts。　　Under　them　you　are　surely　safe。




　　　　　　　　At　the　date　of　yours　of　the　6th；　you　had　not　received　mine　of

the　3d　inst。；　asking　a　copy　of　an　edition　of　Newton's　Principia；

which　I　had　seen　advertised。　　When　the　cost　of　that　shall　be　known；

it　shall　be　added　to　the　balance　of　4。93；　and　incorporated　with　a

larger　remittance　I　have　to　make　to　Philadelphia。　　Accept　the

assurance　of　my　great　esteem　and　respect。







　　　　　　　　THE　MORAL　SENSE




　　　　　　　　_To　Thomas　Law_

　　　　　　　　_Poplar　Forest；　June　13；　1814_




　　　　　　　　DEAR　SIR；　　The　copy　of　your　Second　Thoughts　on　Instinctive

Impulses；　with　the　letter　accompanying　it；　was　received　just　as　I　was

setting　out　on　a　journey　to　this　place；　two　or　three　days'　distant

from　Monticello。　　I　brought　it　with　me　and　read　it　with　great

satisfaction；　and　with　the　more　as　it　contained　exactly　my　own　creed

on　the　foundation　of　morality　in　man。　　It　is　really　curious　that　on　a

quesion　so　fundamental；　such　a　variety　of　opinions　should　have

prevailed　among　men；　and　those；　too；　of　the　most　exemplary　virtue　and

first　order　of　understanding。　　It　shows　how　necessary　was　the　care　of

the　Creator　in　making　the　moral　principle　so　much　a　part　of　our

constitution　as　that　no　errors　of　reasoning　or　of　speculation　might

lead　us　astray　from　its　observance　in　practice。　　Of　all　the　theories

on　this　question；　the　most　whimsical　seems　to　have　been　that　of

Wollaston；　who　considers　_truth_　as　the　foundation　of　morality。　　The

thief　who　steals　your　guinea　does　wrong　only　inasmuch　as　he　acts　a

lie　in　using　your　guinea　as　if　it　were　his　own。　　Truth　is　certainly　a

branch　of　morality；　and　a　very　important　one　to　society。　　But

presented　as　its　foundation；　it　is　as　if　a　tree　taken　up　by　the

roots；　had　its　stem　reversed　in　the　air；　and　one　of　its　branches

planted　in　the　ground。　　Some　have　made　the　_love　of　God_　the

foundation　of　morality。　　This；　too；　is　but　a　branch　of　our　moral

duties；　which　are　generally　divided　into　duties　to　God　and　duties　to

man。　　If　we　did　a　good　act　merely　from　the　love　of　God　and　a　belief

that　it　is　pleasing　to　Him；　whence　arises　the　morality　of　the

Atheist？　　It　is　idle　to　say；　as　some　do；　that　no　such　being　exists。

We　have　the　same　evidence　of　the　fact　as　of　most　of　those　we　act　on；

to…wit：　their　own　affirmations；　and　their　reasonings　in　support　of

them。　　I　have　observed；　indeed；　generally；　that　while　in　protestant

countries　the　defections　from　the　Platonic　Christianity　of　the

priests　is　to　Deism；　in　catholic　countries　they　are　to　Atheism。

Diderot；　D'Alembert；　D'Holbach；　Condorcet；　are　known　to　have　been

among　the　most　virtuous　of　men。　　Their　virtue；　then；　must　have　had

some　other　foundation　than　the　love　of　God。




　　　　　　　　The　｛To　chylon｝　of　others　is　founded　in　a　different　faculty；

that　of　taste；　which　is　not　even　a　branch　of　morality。　　We　have

indeed　an　innate　sense　of　what　we　call　beautiful；　but　that　is

exercised　chiefly　on　subjects　addressed　to　the　fancy；　whether　through

the　eye　in　visible　forms；　as　landscape；　animal　figure；　dress；

drapery；　architecture；　the　composition　of　colors；　&c。；　or　to　the

imagination　directly；　as　imagery；　style；　or　measure　in　prose　or

poetry；　or　whatever　else　constitutes　the　domain　of　criticism　or

taste；　a　faculty　entirely　distinct　from　the　moral　one。

Self…interest；　or　rather　self…love；　or　_egoism_；　has　been　more

plausibly　substituted　as　the　basis　of　morality。　　But　I　consider　our

relations　with　others　as　constituting　the　boundaries　of　morality。

With　ourselves　we　stand　on　the　ground　of　identity；　not　of　relation；

which　last；　requiring　two　subjects；　excludes　self…love　confined　to　a

single　one。　　To　ourselves；　in　strict　language；　we　can　owe　no　duties；

obligation　requiring　also　two　parties。　　Self…love；　therefore；　is　no

part　of　morality。　　Indeed　it　is　exactly　its　counterpart。　　It　is　the

sole　antagonist　of　virtue；　leading　us　constantly　by　our　propensities

to　self…gratification　in　violation　of　our　moral　duties　to　others。

Accordingly；　it　is　against　this　enemy　that　are　erected　the　batteries

of　moralists　and　religionists；　as　the　only　obstacle　to　the　practice

of　morality。　　Take　from　man　his　selfish　propensities；　and　he　can　have

nothing　to　seduce　him　from　the　practice　of　virtue。　　Or　subdue　those

propensities　by　education；　instruction　or　restraint；　and　virtue

remains　without　a　competitor。　　Egoism；　in　a　broader　sense；　has　been

thus　presented　as　the　source　of　moral　action。　　It　has　been　said　that

we　feed　the　hungry；　clothe　the　naked；　bind　up　the　wounds　of　the　man

beaten　by　thieves；　pour　oil　and　wine　into　them；　set　him　on　our　own

beast　and　bring　him　to　the　inn；　because　we　receive　ourselves　pleasure

from　these　acts。　　So　Helvetius；　one　of　the　best　men　on　earth；　and　the

most　ingenious　advocate　of　this　principle；　after　defining　〃interest〃

to　mean　not　merely　that　which　is　pecuniary；　but　whatever　may　procure

us　pleasure　or　withdraw　us　from　pain；　＇_de　l'esprit_　2；　1；＇　says；

＇ib。　2；　2；＇　〃the　humane　man　is　he　to　whom　the　sight　of　misfortune　is

insupportable；　and　who　to　rescue　himself　from　this　spectacle；　is

forced　to　succor　the　unfortunate　object。〃　This　indeed　is　true。　　But

it　is　one　step　short　of　the　ultimate　question。　　These　good　acts　give

us　pleasure；　but　how　happens　it　that　they　give　us　pleasure？　　Because

nature　hath　implanted　in　our　breasts　a　love　of　others；　a　sense　of

duty　to　them；　a　moral　instinct；　in　short；　which　prompts　us

irresistibly　to　feel　and　to　succor　their　distresses；　and　protests

against　the　language　of　Helvetius；　＇ib。　2；　5；＇　〃what　other　motive

than　self…interest　could　determine　a　man　to　generous　actions？　　It　is

as　impossible　for　him　to　love　what　is　good　for　the　sake　of　good；　as

to　love　evil　for　the　sake　of　evil。〃　The　Creator　would　indeed　have

been　a　bungling　artist；　had　he　intended　man　for　a　social　animal；

without　planting　in　him　social　dispositions。　　It　is　true　they　are　not

planted　in　every　man；　because　there　is　no　rule　without　exceptions；

but　it　is　false　reasoning　which　converts　exceptions　into　the　general

rule。　　Some　men　are　born　without　the　organs　of　sight；　or　of　hearing；

or　without　hands。　　Yet　it　would　be　wrong　to　say　that　man　is　born

without　these　faculties；　and　sight；　hearing；　and　hands　may　with　truth

enter　into　the　general　definition　of　man。　　The　want　or　imperfection

of　the　moral　sense　in　some　men；　like　the　want　or　imperfection　of　the

senses　of　sight　and　hearing　in　others；　is　no　proof　that　it　is　a

general　characteristic　of　the　species。　　When　it　is　wanting；　we

endeavor　to　supply　the　defect　by　education；　by　appeals　to　reason　and

calculation；　by　presenting　to　the　being　so　unhappily　conformed；　other

motives　to　do　good　and　to　eschew　evil；　such　as　the　love；　or　the

hatred；　or　rejection　of　those　among　whom　he　lives；　and　whose　society

is　necessary　to　his　happiness　and　even　existence；　demonstrations　by

sound　calculation　that　honesty　promotes　interest　in　the　long　run；　the

rewards　and　penalties　established　by　the　laws；　and　ultimately　the

prospects　of　a　futur