of natural disposition could be represented as abnormal, without being by consequence immoral? (3.) Under what conditions may an evil influence be said to become ungovernable? (4.) Are there, in human nature as known to us, any latent mental forces morally evil in character, which are so related to the controlling power in mind, as to give them inevitably the ascendency, when they arise in consciousness?

METAPHYSIC OF ETHICS.

PRELIMINARY.

1. BESIDES the questions which concern the moral nature of man, there is a still higher range of inquiry belonging to Moral Philosophy. It is concerned with the origin of our existence, specially considering our nature as moral beings,— the relation in which we now stand to the source of our existence, the interpretation which such relation may afford of the system or order of things in which we find ourselves existing, and the destiny which awaits us.

This is a region of inquiry properly denominated Metaphysical, because the character of the inquiry transcends the sphere of investigation connected with the nature we possess, that is to say, transcends the psychological. This, though a common use of the term Metaphysic, is different from Kant's use, according to which metaphysic is applied to a priori knowledge, as contrasted with knowledge through experience. But a priori knowledge is recognised in Consciousness, and is discovered in accordance with definite laws of mind, as truly as the knowledge gathered by experience. The one is transcendental, the other empirical, yet these are two branches of Psychology. But a psychology which discovers a priori laws of life, cannot be the halting-place of Ethical inquiry. It only gives deeper interest to that sphere in which we seek an answer to the question as to the origin of our nature.

2. Objection may be made to such inquiry, and this on two quite distinct grounds. First, that the a priori forms of knowledge, upon which we must greatly rely in attempting to prosecute further inquiry, are only mental conditions, regulative of our own thought, and not assertive, or capable of being regarded as criteria of truth. This is Kant's position in the Critique of Pure Reason, from which he is led to maintain that the idea of God, as of the soul and the universe, is merely regulative. From this self-created difficulty, he seeks escape, by maintaining in his Ethical system, that we, as free agents, belong to a cogitable world, above consciousness. The objection has no force beyond the theory out of which it arises, and has not sufficient force even within that theory. To those who reject the regulative theory of the ideas of Reason, and hold that Reason discovers self-evident truths, the objection loses all force. But, even within the theory, if ours is a phenomenal experience, regulated in accordance with the ideas of God, the soul, and the universe, the question is still legitimate, How is the origin of such life as ours to be explained?

The second form of objection to the higher metaphysic comes from the theory which denies the possibility of discovering causes. It is urged that as in observation we recognise nothing more than the succession of facts, and never attain to a knowledge of causes, we cannot reach a knowledge of the cause of our own existence, or of the existence of the universe. To raise the question concerning the origin of our own existence, seems to Comte to attempt inaccessible heights,—an attempt which belongs only to the earliest stages of intellectual evolution, not to the more advanced. But to shun a question is not to lay it. At best, these heights are declared inaccessible, only because it is alleged that solid footing cannot be discovered by which to reach their base. But if, as has been maintained, each intelligence has a knowledge of self as the cause of personal actions, we have a clear approach to the

base of the heights; and besides, we have both impulse and warrant for attempting to scale them.

3. As the problem concerns the explanation of personal existence, it can take its rise only from the facts of that existence, which must determine the line of speculative inquiry. Psychology must itself be the basis of a legitimate Metaphysic. Speculation which begins with definitions, or abstract conceptions, not with the facts of experience, separates itself from the only ground of certainty. However ingenious, and logically consistent, it is only conjecture, not metaphysics, or legitimate philosophical speculation.

4. The problem concerning the origin of personal existence is only part of the one great problem as to the origin of the universe. To isolate ourselves from the system to which we belong, is impossible; and so is it, to detach the problem of personal life, from the wider question concerning finite existence generally. The problem concerning the origin of finite existence is one. All sciences culminate at length on a common eminence, where, in one way or another, the scientific mind concerns itself with the question as to the origin of Known Being. The natural distinction between physical and mental sciences, becomes of no account in view of the common intellectual demand coming, not from the special facts, but from the minds which have been classifying these facts. It is thus true, as Sir W. Hamilton has insisted, Metaph. 1. 30, that intelligence raises the grand question as to the existence of 'an Intelligent Creator and Moral Governor;' but the acknowledgment is pushed too far when Sir William affirms 'that the class of phenomena which requires that kind of cause we denominate a Deity is exclusively given in the phenomena of mind.'—Ib. 26.

5. As metaphysical inquiry seeks an explanation of the origin of known existence, and of its continuance under government of laws recognised in the several departments of science, the ultimate test of all metaphysical speculation must

be found in the facts from which the inquiry takes its rise. Merely to start from facts is not a sufficient security for the accuracy of subsequent speculation. This security is found. only by careful return upon the facts out of which the metaphysical problems arise. These, then, are the two fundamental canons of metaphysical speculation: To start from facts in search of the solution of the problems to which they give rise; and to return to the facts for test of every solution proposed.

6. A view of the breadth of existence to be explained may be readily secured by separating existence into three divisions, material, intellectual, and moral. The validity of these divisions need not now be insisted upon. It is enough for the present purpose that reference be made to the characteristics of mind as traced in the Introduction. If any prefer to divide existence into inorganic and organic, with the addition, in case of the human race, of the peculiar mental or spiritual features belonging to it, there is no reason why such a classification should not be adopted.

7. The various theories propounded in explanation of the order of things in which we exist are, The Theistic, or a Selfsufficient First Cause; the contrary of this, which in its negative form is Atheistic, in its positive form Materialistic, making Self-existent Matter the source of all; The Pantheistic, presenting in a variety of forms the theory that God is All; and, lastly, The Polytheistic, that there are many Gods. The last need not detain us, as it is not vindicated on philosophic grounds.