of the will is sustained, in the first place, by coNSCIOUSNESS.-When we assert that men have a knowl edge of the Freedom of the will by Consciousness, we mean merely to declare, that such knowledge is the result of an inward conviction, an internal experience. In other words, every man knows himself, in the exercise of volition, to be free. It is a knowledge which we possess, not by deduction, but by a species of intuitive conviction; not by inference, but by an orig. inal perception.

We will only add, that the argument from Consciousness is as decisive, as it is plain and simple. Some writers, indeed, have been disposed to rely upon this argument alone. They consider it (and perhaps it may be admitted with entire justice and correctness) as conclusive against any considerations which may be adduced adverse to it. "Our own free will," says Mr. Stewart, "we know by consciousness; and we can have no evidence of any truth so irresistible as this."

§ 477. Objection to the argument from consciousness.

It ought to be noticed, however, that from time to time, a few individuals have been found who have asserted the opposite, viz., a consciousness of internal compulsion or slavery. Surprising as such a declaration is, we are bound in candour to receive it as truly indicating the internal experience of those who make it, although it may be in opposition to the testimony of thousands and even hundreds of thousands to one. But these exceptions do not at all overthrow our argument. If there truly be such exceptions, they can undoubtedly be explained in entire consistency with the general truth, that the Freedom of the will is ascertained and proved by the consciousness of mankind. Is it not true, is it not accordant with common experience and with the Scriptures even, that any man and every man may enslave himself? And, when that is the case, what could we expect but that consciousness, the true index of what takes place within, should bear its testimony to a state of thraldom?

If, then, these persons are not conscious of Freedom of the will, may we not safely say, it is not the work of their Creator, but their own?

Certain it is, if we permit any one of the appetites, propensities, or passions continually to extend and strengthen itself by being continually repeated, it will eventually gain the ascendency over and subdue all the rest of the mind. If, for instance, a man indulges, -year after year, the consuming propensity of AMBITION, it ultimately so disorders the proper action of the mental powers, and acquires such immense strength, that he feels himself driven by a sort of compulsion; he undoubtedly recognises in himself, as he asserts to be the case, the impulse of a species of destiny, which, however, is of his own creation. By his own criminal improvidence, and not by any inward and irresistible fatality, he has lost control of the helm, and is driven forward amid billows and tempests to his destruction.

Such cases undoubtedly exist, but they cannot with propriety be regarded in any other light than that of exceptions to the general rule, and which are susceptible of an explanation in consistency with the general experience of mankind. That experience (the inward testimony or consciousness which the great mass of mankind has) most decidedly testifies to the liberty of the will.

CHAPTER VI.

FREEDOM OF THE WILL IMPLIED IN MAN'S MORAL

NATURE.

§ 478. Of the elements of man's moral nature.

WE may further argue the matter of the freedom of the will from man's moral nature. That man has a moral nature we cannot suppose to be a matter of doubt. Without such a nature he could not be the subject of a moral government; and although he might possess all knowledge, he would necessarily be

without virtue and vice; "and neither praise nor blame, neither rewards nor punishment, could ever attach to his conduct.

There is nothing inconceivable or inconsistent in the supposition of a being so constituted as to be pos sessed of intellect, propensities, passions, and will, and yet to be incapable, by his very constitution, of framing those notions and of exercising those feelings which are implied in a moral nature. But such not the constitution of man. While he is endowed with intellect, and appetites, and propensities, and passions, and will, God has seen fit to elevate and ennoble him, by constituting him a moral and religious being. The elements of his moral nature (in accordance with that striking wisdom ever manifested in God's works, which accomplishes great results by simple means) are few in number, and are to be found chiefly in his ability to frame the abstract notions of right and wrong, in the feelings of moral approval and disapproval, in those states of the mind which are known as feelings of remorse, and in feelings of moral obligation.-All these states of mind, which, taken together, constitute man a moral being, and without which he could not sustain or possess that character, are based upon and imply the fact, as will more fully appear in the separate examination of them, of the freedom of the will.

§ 479. Evidence of freedom of the will from feelings of approval and disapproval.

In stating the argument which may be deduced on this subject from our moral nature, we proceed to remark, in the first place, that the freedom of the will is implied in, and is shown by, the moral feelings of approval and disapproval. We are so constituted, that, whenever we behold a person performing a virtuous action, demeaning himself with entire kindness, good faith, and justice, we at once feel a sentiment of approval. On the other hand, if we see a person pursuing a different course, one which is obviously characterized by falsehood, ingratitude, and injustice, we

at once feel an emotion of disapproval. But if it should be suddenly disclosed to us that the agent, whom we thus, according to the circumstances of the case, either approve or condemn, was not in the possession of freedom of will, it is undeniable, that all such approval or disapproval would at once cease. We should no more think of approving an action, however beneficial it might be, which was known to be performed without freedom of will, than of pronouncing a man worthy of moral approbation for a purely natural gift, such as symmetry of form, a musical voice, or striking outlines of the countenance. More properly, we should think nothing about it. To approve under such circumstances would, by the very constitution of our nature, be an impossibility. The existence of liberty, therefore, is, in this respect, and so far as these feelings are concerned, fundamental to our moral nature.

§ 480. Proof of freedom from feelings of remorse.

There is another class of mental states, constituting a part of man's moral nature, to which similar remarks will apply; we refer to feelings of remorse. These feelings are entirely distinct from those of approval and disapproval. We are capable of approving or disapproving when our attention is directed solely to the conduct of others; but we never feel remorse for what others do, and it is impossible that we should. Feelings of remorse have relation to ourselves alone. We experience them when our own conduct, and not that of others, is the subject of moral disapproval. They are painful feelings, but the suffering is of a peculiar kind, altogether different from mere sadness or grief; and hence they may be regarded as having a character of their own, and as separate in their nature from all other states of the mind. The existence of these states of mind implies, on the part of the person who is the subject of them, a conviction of the freedom of the will.

It can hardly be thought necessary to adduce facts and arguments in support of what has been said. If

512

FREEDOM OF THE WILL IMPLIED

a person feels an internal condemnation or remorse for what he has done, it certainly must be on the ground that he was at liberty to will and to do other wise. It cannot be doubted that this position is fully and universally admitted. There may be fears and sorrows, undoubtedly; there may be regrets and suf ferings, in cases which are not dependent on any determinations of our own; but there cannot possibly be REMORSE, which implies a sense of guilt as well as the experience of sorrow, without a conviction, deep as the basis of the mind itself, that, in doing the criminal action, we willed and acted freely, and not by compulsion. If, therefore, feelings of remorse exist, as they not unfrequently do, they furnish a strong proof in support of the liberty of the will.

§ 481. Without the possession of liberty of will man could never have framed the abstract notions of right and wrong.

Among other things having a relation to man's situation and character as a moral being, it is to be noticed that he is so constituted as to be able to form the abstract notions of right and wrong, or of virtue and vice, which are only other and synonymous expressions for right and wrong. These conceptions (which are thoughts, and not emotions; the creations of the Intellect, and not the exercises of the Sensibilities or heart) are truly great and ennobling; and it may perhaps be said of them, more than of any other part of our moral nature, that they are the basis of moral reasoning, and the foundation of moral anticipation and hope. They disclose to the mind, like light coming from heaven and shining vividly into its depths, the great fact that there is a real, permanent, and immutable distinction between good and evil. Strike out and annihilate these primary conceptions, and you at the same moment obscure and destroy the glory of man's mental nature, and blot out, at least as far as all human perception is concerned, the brightest feature in the character of all other mental existences.

But these leading ideas, so fundamental to every