thing of a moral and religious nature, could never have been formed without a conviction of the liberty of the will. The occasions undoubtedly, on which they are suggested and exist in the mind, are instances of voluntary conduct, either our own or that of others, where we either approve or disapprove. Without such occasions offered to our notice, and without such attendant emotions of moral approval or disapproval, it may be asserted without any hesitation, that men would never have formed any conceptions in the abstract of right and wrong, of rectitude and the opposite; and, consequently, could never have beheld, as they now clearly do, as if inscribed by the radiant finger of God, a great line of demarcation, remaining always and immutably the same, between good and evil, between holiness and sin. But, as has already been stated, it is always implied in the feelings of approval and disapproval, that the person, whose conduct is either approved or disapproved, possessed liberty of the will. Without a firm conviction that such was the case, the emotions could never have existed; and, consequently, there could never have occurred, in the history of the human mind, that state of things which is the basis of the origin of the abstract notions of right and wrong, of rectitude and want of rectitude, of virtue and vice, which are only different expressions for the same thing. We have, therefore, in this view of the subject, a new proof that the liberty of the will is positively and necessarily involved in the fact of our possessing a moral

nature.

§ 482. Proof from feelings of moral obligation.

There is a distinct class of mental states, entitled, in every point of view, to an important place in man's moral constitution, which may be termed Obligatory feelings, or feelings of moral obligation. Of these states of mind we do not profess to give a definition. As they are elementary and simple, they are necessarily undefinable. But we cannot doubt that every one must have more or less frequently experienced

them, and that every one knows what their nature is. And this class of feelings also furnishes an argument on the subject before us. We deem the assertion within the bounds of truth and of the common opinion of mankind, when we say that no man ever does or ever can experience in himself the feeling of moral obligation to do a thing, so long as he feels himself to be actually destitute of liberty to do it. And this is equally true, whether the destitution of liberty relates to the outward and bodily action or to the action of the will. Does a man feel himself morally accountable for the performance of an action to which he is driven by some bodily compulsion? Or does he feel himself accountable for a failure to perform an action, from the performance of which he is kept by actual bodily restraint? And if the mind is constrained and driven by a compression and violence, corresponding, as far as the different nature of the two things will permit, to such compulsion of the body, can there be any more conviction of accounta bility, or of any form of moral obligation in the one case than in the other? But if the existence of feelings of obligation be undeniable, and if the existence of such feelings be incompatible with the absence of freedom, and if both these truths are based on the consciousness and confirmed by the universal acknowledgments of mankind, then it follows, of course, that men do in fact feel and recognise, and that they fully and assuredly know their freedom.

X

§ 483. Evidence from men's views of crimes and punishments. Again, the freedom of the will is clearly implied in the views which we find to be generally adopted by men in respect to crimes and punishments. This view of our subject is closely connected with that which has just been given; and essentially the same illustrations as were introduced in the last section will apply here.

If a man is laid under bodily constraint, and, in that situation, is the agent or rather instrument in the performance of an action involving great loss and suf

fering to others, such action is never considered a crime and deserving of punishment, in whatever light it might be regarded under other circumstances. This is undeniable. And we always take the same view when the mind is actually laid under constraint as when the body is; with this difference merely, that constraint of the body is a matter easily ascertainable, while that of the mind can be learned only with a greater or less degree of probability. The power of the will is a gift or trust, as much so as the power of perception, and is a definite thing; in some persons it is greater, in others less; but in all cases it has its limits. Whenever, therefore, there is an utter disproportion between the strength of the motive and the power of the will, (so much so, perhaps, as to render it essentially the same as if the will were wholly destitute of power,) the will is universally understood to be, at such times, under a greater or less degree of constraint. And if, under such circumstances, a crime be charged upon a person, we graduate the degree of it, (looking upon it as higher in some cases and lower in others,) in precise conformity with the degree of constraint, so far as we can judge what it is. There are cases," says Dr. Reid, "in which a man's voluntary actions are thought to be very little, if at all, in his power, on account of the violence of the motive that impels him. The magnanimity of a hero or a martyr is not expected in every man and on all occasions. If a man, trusted by the government with a secret which it is high treason to disclose, be prevailed upon by a bribe, we have no mercy for him, and hardly allow the greatest bribe to be any allevia tion of his crime. But, on the other hand, if the secret be extorted by the rack or the dread of present death, we pity him more than we blame him, and would think it severe and unequitable to condemn him as a traitor."-And he afterward gives the reason of these different judgments, viz., that while the mere love of money leaves to a man the entire power over himself, the torment of the rack or the dread of present death are so violent motives, that men who

แ

have not uncommon strength of mind are not masters of themselves in such a situation, and, therefore, what they do is not imputed to them as a crime at all, or is thought less criminal than it would other wise be.

§ 484. Prevalent opinions of mankind on this subject. The argument under this general head, so far as it has now been gone into, has been stated in particu lars; and it is probably more satisfactory, when stated in this way, than in any other. But something may be said on the subject of the freedom of the will, as connected with our moral nature, when it is considered, as it were, in the mass. The body of mankind undoubtedly look upon this subject, in its great outlines and as a whole, without attempting to penetrate and seize its elements. And, without unduly yielding to popular prejudices or abating from the dignity of philosophy, we may safely assert, that this is an inquiry on which an appeal may with propriety be made to the common experience, and the common convictions and expressions of the great body of men. And we no sooner make the appeal than we find that the testimony from that source is unanimous and unequivocal.

There are some truths which are so deeply based in the human constitution, that all men of all classes receive them and act upon them. They are planted deeply and immutably in the soul, and no reasoning, however plausible, can shake them.. And, if we are not mistaken, the doctrine of the freedom of the will, as a condition of even the possibility of a moral nature, is one of these first truths. It seems to be regarded by all persons, without any exception, as a dictate of common sense and as a first principle of our nature, that men are morally accountable, and are the subjects of a moral responsibility in any respect whatever, only so far as they possess freedom, both of the outward action and of the will. They hold to this position as an elementary truth, and would no sooner think of letting it go, than of aban

doning the conviction of their personal existence and identity. They do not profess to go into particulars, but they assert it in the mass, that man is a moral being only so far as he is free. And such a unanimous and decided testimony, bearing, as it obviously does, the seal and superscription of nature herself, is entitled to serious consideration.

In view of the various suggestions of this chapter, we are abundantly authorized in the assertion, that the liberty of the will is implied, and fully and clearly implied, in the fact of man's possessing a moral nature; and that, if he possesses such a nature, he possesses freedom.

§ 485. Both views are to be fully received.

In respect, then, to the two distinct doctrines of the will's freedom and its subjection to law, there remains nothing to be done but the cheerful, ready, and complete reception of both. The doctrine, that the will has its laws, is very important, considered in connexion with the relation which men sustain to the Supreme Being. This view places the will in subordination to that higher and more glorious Intelligence, from whom the laws, to which it is amenable, proceed. By adopting this doctrine, we are enabled to understand how his full and perfect superintendence can be maintained. He has himself assured us that he is intimately acquainted with the outward actions of men; that he knoweth their down-sitting and uprising; and it is a pleasing and consoling thought, that his care and exact scrutiny may be extended even to the mind itself. Who will not rejoice to be, in soul as well as in body, in the hands of God? Who will feel that there could be any better provision for his security than is thus furnished by the constancy and nearness of the Divine presence? Who will attach any value even to independence itself, when purchased at the measureless expense of an exemption from the superintendence of the Deity?

X x