regard moral evil as a deformity in the nature of certain dispositions and volitions. Ingratitude is hateful, not on account of the badness of its cause, but on account of its inherent deformity. It is true that our bodily movements are not in themselves either virtuous or vicious, but only the volitions and dispositions that produce them. This relation is erroneously supposed to exist between our volitions and some inner determining volitions. But mankind do not refer praise and blame to any occult causes of the will; they blame a man who does as he pleases, and who pleases to do wrong. When they ascribe an action to a man, they mean merely that the action is voluntary, not that it is selfdetermined. Their only conception of freedom is freedom from compulsion or restraint. They praise a man for his amiability, the gift of nature, as much as if it were the result of severe discipline. The will of God is necessarily good, but it is nevertheless praiseworthy. Although necessity is, therefore, perfectly compatible with praise and blame, it is nevertheless easy to understand how the opposite opinion should be generally entertained. Constraint is the proper and original meaning of necessity. Now, constraint is totally inconsistent with punishment and reward. Hence arises a strong association between blamelessness and necessity. When the word necessity is taken up by philosophers as the equivalent for certainty of connexion, the associated idea of blamelessness is carried insensibly and unwarily into the new meaning. But Edwards did not draw the obvious inference, that the word 'necessity' should be discarded from the controversy.

8. Practical Consequences. (1) Does the doctrine of necessity render efforts towards an end nugatory? This could only be said, if the doctrine affirmed, either that the event might follow without the means, or that the event might not follow, although the means was used. Does the doctrine of necessity effect any such rupture between means and ends? On the contrary, the certainty of the connexion between means and ends is the doctrine itself. (2) Does necessity lead to atheism and licentiousness? Edwards retorts on Liberty the charge of Atheism. How can the existence of God be proved without the principle that every change must have a cause? And how can it be maintained that every change has a cause, when the entire realm of volition is emancipated from causation? As to the charge of licentiousness, Edwards points to the exemplary conduct of the Calvinists, in contrast to the looseness that often coexists with Arminian doctrines.

PRICE, contending with Priestley, followed the view brought forward by Dr. Clarke. He defined liberty as a power of selfmotion, and took up the following positions. (1) All animals possess spontaneity, and therefore liberty. (2) Liberty does not admit of degrees; between acting and not acting there is no middle course. (3) This liberty is possible. There must be somewhere a power of beginning motion, and we are conscious of such a power in ourselves. (4) In our volitions, we are not acted upon. (5) Liberty does not exclude the operation of motives. The power

FREE-WILL CONTROVERSY-PRIESTLEY.

421

of self-determination can never be excited without some view or design. But it is an intolerable absurdity to make our motives or ends the physical causes of action. Our ideas may be the occasion of our acting, but are certainly not mechanical efficients.

PRIESTLEY, in his controversy with Price, maintained the following positions:

1. He denied that our consciousness is in favour of freedom. All we believe is that we have power to do what we will or please. To will without a motive, or contrary to the influence of all the motives presented to the mind, is what no man can be conscious of. The mind cannot choose without some inclination or preference for the thing chosen. To deny this, is to deny that every change must have a cause.

2. Philosophical necessity is consistent with accountability. Punishment has an improving effect both on our own future conduct, and on the conduct of others; this is the meaning of justness of punishment. To say that one is praiseworthy means that he is actuated by good principles, and is therefore an object of love, and a fit person to be made happy.

3. Permission of Evil. As regards God, there is no distinction between permitting and appointing evil. In the case of man, the difference is great, for his power of interference and control is limited. In creating any man, God must foresee and accept all the consequences. Whatever reasons can be produced to show why God permits evil, will be available to justify his appointing it.

4. Remorse and Pardon. Priestley admits that it sounds harsh, but affirms it nevertheless to be true, that in all those crimes men reproach themselves with, God is the agent; and that they are no more agents than a sword.' Actions may be referred to the persons themselves as secondary causes, but they must also be traced to the first cause. Mankind at first necessarily refer their actions to themselves, a conviction that becomes deeply rooted, before they begin to regard themselves as instruments in the hands of a superior agent. Self-applause and self-reproach have their origin in the narrower view, and cease when we refer our actions to the

first great cause. The necessitarian believing that, strictly speaking, nothing goes wrong (whatever is, is right), cannot accuse himself of wrong doing. He has, therefore, nothing to do with repentance, confession, or pardon. This state of feeling, however, is a high and rare attainment; when the necessitarian mechanically refers his actions to himself, he will no doubt feel as others.

This admission by Priestley that remorse is inconsistent with necessity, has been turned to great account by Reid; but although the statement is very unguarded, it contains a portion of the truth. We may look upon a person's conduct in two aspectsin its effects, or in its causes. In its effects, it may be very hostile to human happiness, or the reverse. From this point of view, resentment and approbation are the spontaneous response of feeling; punishment and reward are clearly appropriate. On the other hand, we may confine our attention to the causes of the

man's conduct-his circumstances, education, and opinions. In several ways, this tends to discourage angry feeling, and to arouse sympathy and pity. In the first place, we are looking away from the effects of the conduct, and the considerations that justify and require punishment; in the next place, we may reflect that, in like circumstances, we might not have done better ourselves; then, the conduct may have resulted from a weak moral nature, in which case we are always more ready to pity than to punish; and, lastly, since we are at the scientific point of view, there is strongly suggested the conception of resistless sequence-a notion strictly applicable to many material phenomena, but incorrect as to human actions.

5. Priestley considered that materialism, to which he subscribed, involved the doctrine of necessity.

REID has devoted a large part of his work on The Active Powers, to the discussion of the Liberty of Moral Agents.

I.-The Nature of Liberty. He defines liberty to be a power over the determinations of one's Will. Necessity is when the will follows something involuntary in the state of mind, or something external. Moral liberty does not apply to all voluntary actions; many such are done by instinct or habit, without reflection, and so without will. It is a power not enjoyed in infancy, but only in riper years. It extends as far as we are accountable; in short, freedom is the sine qua non of praise or blame. In order still farther to clear up the conception of liberty, Reid devotes two chapters to explain the notion of cause. Everything that changes must either change itself, or be changed by some other being. In the one case, it has active power, in the other case it is acted upon or passive. His definition of cause is,-that which has power to produce an effect. We are efficient causes in our deliberate and voluntary actions. We cannot will deliberately without believing that the thing willed is in our power [we may, if we merely expect the effect to follow]. We have a conviction of power to produce motion in our own bodies. To be an efficient cause is to be a free agent; a necessary agent is a contradiction in terms. In thus identifying freedom with power, Reid follows Clarke and Price, exposing himself to the refutation of Jonathan Edwards, not to mention the criticism of Sir W. Hamilton.

II.-Arguments in Support of Free-will. 1. We have by our constitution, a natural conviction or belief, that we act freely. The existence of such a belief is admitted by some fatalists themselves [Hamilton mentions Hommel, and also Lord Kames, who, however, withdrew the incautious admission]. The very notion of active power must arise from our constitution. We see events, but we see no potency nor chain linking one to the other, and therefore the notion of cause is not derived from external objects. Yet it is an unshaken conviction of the mind that every event has a cause that had power to produce it. (1) We are conscious of exercising power to produce some effect, and this implies a belief that we have power to produce the desired effect. [It, in truth, only

FREE-WILL CONTROVERSY-REID.

423

implies a belief that the effect will certainly happen, if we wish it.] (2) Can any one blame himself for yielding to necessity? Remorse implies a conviction that we could have done better. Reid further explains what he means by the actions that are in our power. We have no conception of power that is not directed by the will. But there are many things that depend on our will that are not in our power. Madmen, idiots, infants, people in a violent rage, have not the power of self-government. Likewise, the violence of a motive, or an inveterate habit, diminishes liberty.

2. Liberty is involved in accountability. To be accountable, a man must understand the law by which he is bound, and his obligations to obey it; and he must have power to do what he is accountable for. So far as man's power over himself extends, so far is he accountable. Hence violent passion limits responsibility. It is said that to constitute an action criminal, it need only be voluntary. Reid says, more is necessary, namely, moral liberty. For (1) the actions of brutes are voluntary, but not criminal. (2) So are the actions of young children. (3) Madmen have understanding and will, but no moral liberty, and hence are not criminal. (4) An irresistible motive palliates or takes away guilt.

3. Man's power over his volitions is proved by the fact that he can prosecute a series of means towards an end. A plan of conduct requires understanding to contrive and power to execute it. Now, if each volition in the series was produced not by the man himself, but by some cause acting necessarily upon him, there is no evidence that he contrived the plan. The cause that directed the determinations, must have understood the plan, and intended the execution of it. Motives could not have done it, for they have not understanding to conceive a plan.

III.-Refutation of the Argument for Necessity. 1. The influence of motives. (1) Reid allows that motives influence to action, but they do not act. Upon this, Sir W. Hamilton remarks that if motives influence to action, they co-operate in producing a certain effect upon the agent. They are thus, on Reid's own view, causes, and efficient causes. It is of no consequence in the argument, whether motives be said to determine a man to act, or to influence (that is to determine) him to determine himself to act. (2) Reid goes on to say that it is the glory of rational beings to act according to the best motives. God can do everything; it is his praise that he does only what is best. But according to Hamilton, this is just one of the insoluble contradictions in the question. If we attribute to the Deity the power of moral evil, we detract from his essential goodness; and if, on the other hand, we deny him this power, we detract from his omnipotence. (3) Is there a motive in every action? Reid thinks not. Many trifling actions are done without any conscious motive. Stewart disagrees with Reid in this remark; and Hamilton observes :Can we conceive any act of which there was not a sufficient cause, or concourse of causes, why the man performed it and no other? If not, call this cause, or these concauses, the

motive, and there is no longer a dispute.' (4) It cannot be proved that when there is a motive on one side only, that motive must determine the action. Is there no such thing as wilfulness, caprice, or obstinacy? But Are not those all tendencies, and fatal tendencies, to act or not to act?' (5) Does the strongest motive prevail? If the test of the strongest motive is that it prevails, then the proposition is identical. The determination is made by the man, and not by the motive. 'But was the man determined by no motive to that determination? Was his specific volition to this or to that without a cause? On the supposition that the sum of influences (motives, dispositions, tendencies) to volition A, is equal to 12, and the sum of influences to counter volition B, equal to 8, can we conceive that the determination of volition A should not be necessary? We can only conceive the volition B to be determined by supposing that the man creates (calls from non-existence into existence) a certain supplement of influences. But this creation as actual, or in itself, is inconceivable, and even to conceive the possibility of this inconceivable act, we must suppose some cause by which the man is determined to exert it. We thus, in thought, never escape determination and necessity.' (6) It is very weak reasoning to infer from our power of predicting men's actions that they are necessarily determined by motives. Liberty is a power that men use according to their character. The wise use it wisely, the foolish, foolishly. (7) The doctrine of liberty does not render rewards and punishments of no effect. With wise men they will have their due effect, but not always with the foolish and vicious.

2. The principle of sufficient Reason. Reid makes a long criticism of this principle, as enounced by Leibnitz; but all reference to that may be omitted, since in so far as it applies to the present question, the principle is identical with the law of cause and effect. Reid's answer is that the man is the cause of action, but this evasion, as we have seen, has been refuted by Hamilton.

3. Every determination of the mind is foreseen by God, it is therefore necessary. This necessity may result in three ways: (1) a thing cannot be foreknown without being certain, or certain without being necessary. But there is no rule of reasoning from which it may be inferred that because an event_necessarily shall be, therefore its production must be necessary. Its being certain does not determine whether it shall be freely or necessarily produced. (2) An event must be necessary because it is foreseen. Not so, for knowledge has no effect upon the thing known. God foresees his own future actions, but his foresight does not make them necessary. (3) No free action can be foreseen. This would prevent God foreseeing his own actions. Reid admits that there is no knowledge of future contingent actions in man. prescience of God must therefore differ, not only in degree but in kind from our knowledge. Although we have no such knowledge, God may have. There is also a great analogy between the prescience of future contingents and the memory of past contin

The