Y

THE ANSWER.

OUR objection seems indeed very dexterous, and yet I really think that there is at bottom nothing in it. But of this you are to judge, not from my assertion, but from the reason I shall endeavour to give to it.

I think, then, that a disposition to be influenced by right motives being what we call rationality, there cannot be on the contrary (properly speaking) any such thing naturally in rational creatures as a disposition to be influenced by wrong motives. This can be nothing but mere perverseness of will; and whether even that can be said to amount to a disposition to be influenced by wrong motives, formally, and as such, may (I think) well be doubted. Men have by nature strong inclinations to certain objects. None of these inclinations are vicious, but vice consists in pursuing the inclination towards any object in certain circumstances, notwithstanding reason, or the natural disposition to be influenced by right motives, declares to the man's conscience at the same time (or would do, if he attended to it) that the object ought not to be pursued in those circumstances. Nevertheless, where the man commits the crime, the natural disposition was only towards the object, not formally towards the doing it upon wrong motives; and generally the very essence of the crime consists in the liberty of the will forcibly overruling the actual disposition towards being influenced by right motives, and not at

natural

all (as you suppose) in the man's having any disposition to be influenced by wrong motives, as

such.

IX.

[From the original, now in the library at the British Museum. Add. MS. 12,101.]

I

REV. SIR,

HAD the honour of your kind letter yesterday, and must own that I do now see a difference between the nature of that disposition which we have to be influenced by virtuous motives, and that contrary disposition, (or whatever else it may properly be called,) which is the occasion of our committing sin; and hope in time to get a thorough insight into this Subject by means of those helps you have been pleased to afford me. I find it necessary to consider such very abstruse questions at different times and in different dispositions; and have found particular use of this method upon that abstract subject of Necessity: for tho' I did not see the force of your argument for the unity of the Divine Nature when I had done writing to you upon that subject, I am now fully satisfied that it is conclusive. I will only just add that I suppose somewhat in my last letter was not clearly expressed, for I did not at all design to say, that the essence of any crime consisted in the man's having a natural disposition to be influenced by wrong

motives.

I was fully resolved to have went to Cambridge some time in this Term, not in the least expecting but that I might have the Terms allowed there which I have kept here, but I am informed by one who has been there that it is not at all to be depended upon; but that it's more likely to be refused than granted me. My design was this; when I had taken the degree of Batchelor of Arts at Cambridge, (which I would have done to have the Priviledge of that Gown,) to take that of Batchelor of Law a year afterwards, but if I cannot have the Terms I have kept for Batchelor of Arts allowed there, it will be highly proper for me to stay at Oxford to take that degree here, before I go to Cambridge to take Batchelor of Law. I will inquire concerning the truth of what the gentleman told me, and if I find he is mistaken, and that I can take the degree of Batchelor of Arts at Cambridge next June, which is the time I shall be standing for it, and Batchelor of Law a year after that; I will make bold to accept of your kind offer to write to Mr. Laughton, and will acquaint you with it as soon as I am satisfied, otherwise I will give you no further trouble in the matter; and indeed I am sorry I should have given you any already upon it, but I thought I had sufficient reason to be satisfied, and had not the least suspicion in the world that there was any uncertainty about getting the Terms allowed, so I hope you will excuse it.

I am, with the greatest respect and gratitude for all your favours,

Reverend Sir,

Your most obedient humble Servant.

Oriel Coll., Oct. 10, 1717.

I should have written yesterday, to prevent your trouble of writing to Mr. Laughton, but I was not informed of what I have mentioned before last night,10

10 [The three last Letters appear to have been intended by Dr. Clarke for publication, as the passages relating to private matters have been struck through, and on the back of this last is written, "These to be added to the next edition of Leibnitz's Letters." I believe those Letters never reached a second edition.]