cannot refrain from praising virtue in others.  He who is induced by the voice of passion to act contrary to the eternal relations or harmony of things, contradicts his own reason in thus undertaking to disturb the order of the universe; he commits the absurdity of willing that things should be that which they are not.  Injustice is in practice that which falsity and contradiction are in theoretical affairs.  In his well-known controversy with Leibnitz, Clarke defends the freedom of the will against the determinism of the German philosopher.

In William Wollaston (died 1724), with whom the logical point of view becomes still more apparent, Clarke found a thinker who shared his convictions that the subjective moral principle of interest was insufficient, and, hence, an objective principle to be sought; that morality consists in the suitableness of the action to the nature and destination of the object, and that, in the last analysis, it is coincident with truth.  The highest destination of man is, on the one hand, to know the truth, and, on the other, to express it in actions.  That act is good whose execution includes the affirmation (and its omission the negation) of a truth.  According to the law of nature, a rational being ought so to conduct himself that he shall never contradict a truth by his actions, i. e., to treat each thing for what it is.  Every immoral action is a false judgment; the violation of a contract is a practical denial of it.  The man who is cruel to animals declares by his act that the creature maltreated is something which in fact it is not, a being devoid of feeling.  The murderer acts as though he were able to restore life to his victim.  He who, in disobedience toward God, deals with things in a way contrary to their nature, behaves as though he were mightier than the author of nature.  To this equation of truth and morality happiness is added as a third identical member.  The truer the pleasures of a being the happier it is; and a pleasure is untrue whenever more (of pain) is given for it than it is worth.  A rational being contradicts itself when it pursues an irrational pleasure.—­The course of moral philosophy has passed over the logical ethics of Clarke and Wollaston as an abstract and unfruitful idiosyncrasy, and it is certain that with both of these thinkers their plans were greater than their performances.  But the search for an ethical norm which should be universally valid and superior to the individual will, did not lack justification in contrast to the subjectivism of the other two schools of the time—­the school of interest and the school of benevolence, which made virtue a matter of calculation or of feeling.

* * * * *