chosen. I regard the distinction as indispensable to a clear and thorough knowledge of the will and of moral responsibility.

1. It is clearly recognized in consciousness.

If we reflect on our own determinations, it is plain that we are not limited to determining to exert or not to exert our energies, but that we also determine the object for which we exert them. It is also plain, on the other hand, that the power of determination is not limited to choosing the object of action; for man is conscious that he exerts his energies and arrests their exertion by his own volition. Man is conscious of will-power that is both self-directing and self-exerting. For example, a man is invited to go to a picnic. He chooses between the value represented by the day's wages and the saving of the expense of the picnic, on the one hand, and the pleasure of the excursion. Having chosen the day's wages, he sets himself to work and saws wood all day to earn it. He is conscious of the distinction between his choice of the wages and his volitions exerting his strength in earning it. A young man chooses between learning, wealth and political preferment as the object of his life-work. This choice is obviously different from the volitions to exert his powers day after day and year after year in striving to win his chosen object.

2. The distinction is essential to the reality of free-will and moral responsibility. If will is merely the volitional power of calling the energies into action, then we no longer determine by free-will the ends or objects of action; and these are determined by the constitutional impulses or motives which at the time are strongest. And thus all freedom both of choice and volition disappears, since the man has no power of self-direction and can exert his energies only in the direction already determined for him by the unreasoning impulses of nature. Hence Socrates, in the Gorgias, calls attention to the fact that men do not merely will their action, but rather the object for which they act. II. Choice may be further explained as follows:

1. The object or end determined by choice is always that to which the energies are to be devoted in action. It is never a mere preference of taste or feeling without reference to action; as one relishes peaches more than apples, or prefers Homer to Virgil as a matter of taste. It is always a determination of the object of action; as one chooses peaches in preference to other fruit for a dessert and goes and buys them; or chooses Homer for his evening's recreation and takes it down and reads it. And this nullifies Prof. Calderwood's criticism of Edwards on this point: "Will is a power of control over the faculties and capacities of our nature, by means of which we are enabled to determine personal activity. It is to be carefully observed that will is control of our own powers, not of external things. Edwards has quite overlooked this in

his definition, 'Will is that which chooses anything." This he says must be corrected; it is "choosing forms of activity or action, not things."* The truth is, on the contrary, that it is choosing the objects of action, not its forms merely; but the object is chosen only as an object of action. It is a singular error to suppose that choice of an object implies an act of control over "external things." It is simply the choice of the object of action; it determines the end or object for which we will exert our powers. Hence the choice of the object is in itself the determination of the direction of our activity. 2. The act cf choosing is as follows:

First, it presupposes in the intellect a comparison of objects in the light of reason and with susceptibility to the influence of rational motives. In a rational being the rational sensibilities stand always over against the natural instincts, desires and affections; and these open to man two spheres of activity with their respective and contrasted objects between which he can choose. A choice presupposes a comparison of objects in the light of reason. The actual choice in a given case may be between objects of the natural appetites, desires or affections; as between two different articles of food. But even in this case choice in the proper sense of the term is possible only because the man is endowed with reason, and thus is able to compare objects in the light of reason and under the influence of rational motives, and then to determine which shall be the object of his action. Otherwise he would simply be driven by the strongest impulse without the possibility of a choice. If he chooses that for which he has the keenest relish, the choice is still a free determination of the will and not a helpless following of appetite.

Secondly, after the comparison follows the choice, which is the simple, indefinable determination of the will. Before the man, in the clear light of reason, lie all the objects which he has been comparing and all the motives, rational or natural, which impel him to these various objects. Wide is his range of choice. He may choose that which reason approves and to which rational motives impel, and be in character like God; or, disregarding reason, he may choose that to which sensuous appetite impels, and be as a brute; or that to which malignity and hate impel, and be as a devil. He can choose, among all these objects, one as the object of action; can determine which of the conflicting motives he will follow. And this is a determination by his will, directing his energies to an object or end. The choice is a simple indefinable determination, known only by the consciousness of it in experience.

* Manual of Moral Philosophy, pp. 165, 178.

Mr. Hazard and Professor Bowen* deny that there is a determination of the will here, and recognize only the intellectual acts of comparing and judging. Mr. Bowen says, totally misconceiving the whole action and leaving no place for free determination: "Determination as a phenomenon of choice is a function of the understanding and takes place in view of reasons miscalled motives, though as consciousness attests, not under compulsion by them." But that choice is a determination of will and not merely an intellectual comparison, and that it is a determination between objects to which man is impelled by motive-sensibilities natural or rational, motives which are not mere "reasons" intellectually apprehended, is evident from the notorious fact that a person often chooses his object in accordance with appetite, desire or passion, and in defiance of the mandates of reason and the judgment in which the intellectual comparison concludes, and so chooses what he knows is contrary both to his duty and his welfare.

Thirdly, after the determination, the signs or manifestations of the choice are two: volitions to act in the direction of the choice, and complacency or pleasure in the object preferred, so that the action is in spontaneity and not from constraint or restraint.

3. A choice is an abiding determination of the will. It may abide for an hour or day; it may be a life-long choice or preference. It abides, however, as always a free choice, not as a disposition or affection which is a necessity of nature.

4. Choices may be distinguished by their objects as supreme and subordinate. A subordinate choice is the choice of an object as subordinate to an ulterior end; as when one chooses wealth as an object of pursuit, but chooses it simply as a means of political preferment. The supreme choice is the choice of the supreme end of action, to which all other ends are subordinate and which itself is subordinate to no ulterior end.

Because man is rational he must choose some supreme end; for he recognizes reason as supreme; all his thinking culminates in finding the unity of the manifold, and in the conduct of life reason requires him to bring his whole activity into unity, in harmony with rational truths, laws, ideals and ends, and in consecration to that end which reason sets forth as supreme. The choice of a supreme object of action and the unity of life and character in the subordination of all other objects and of all activity to it, is essential in the moral life of a rational being.

III. A volition, as I have defined it, is an executive or exertive act

* Hazard on Freedom of Mind in Willing: pp. 175, 184, 180, 189, 60. Bowen's History of Philosophy, p. 300.

of will which immediately calls the energies into action: as the volition to lift my hand, to throw a stone, or to examine a plant. An exertive volition is in its nature ictic; it ceases with the action which it calls forth.

If we attend more closely to our mental acts we perceive that we also make determinations to act which are abiding. They are what we call intentions, purposes, resolutions, and so distinguish them from choices or elective preferences. As determinations to act and not choices of objects, they are of the nature of volitions, and may be called immanent volitions; volitions would then be distinguished as exertive or executive, and immanent. The man who to-day chooses to-morrow's wages in preference to the pleasure of an excursion, in that very choice determines to work to-morrow and earn the wages. So soon as he has chosen the wages, he says, I am determined to work to-morrow. A choice always manifests itself in a purpose to act in accordance with the choice; and the action will begin immediately if the man sees that immediate action is required to attain the end. In the case of the laborer, he must wait till to-morrow before he can begin his work. But his determination to work remains. So when a man has chosen his profession, his determination to educate himself for it abides through the years of professional study, and his determination to practice it abides through life. This determination does not of itself strike so deep into the springs of action as a choice; for it is only a determination to do certain actions, while the choice is the preference or determination of the object of the action. Such a determination or resolution has a proverbial lack of tenacity; men "resolve, and reresolve, and die the same," because the resolution is only a determination to act. If it is dissociated from the choice which fixes the heart on the object, and if then appetite, desire or passion stirs and tempts to the contrary, the resolution gives way like a cotton thread in a flame. The choice, fixing the heart on the object and making the exertion spontaneous and joyous, has a power to resist and subdue the natural passions.

It may be objected that it is an over-refined analysis to distinguish this abiding determination to act, from the choice. It is true that the choice of the object of action ipso facto determines the direction of the action to the object chosen; and I do not wish to dispute about names. The point of practical importance is, that a determination to act, however abiding, if dissociated from the choice of the object, is not a determination of the will in its full significance. The former without the latter must be superficial and weak. Certainly the choice of God as the supreme object of service must always be distinguished from the various acts of service which I render to him and from my abiding purpose to render them; the choice of my neighbor as the object of

service equally with myself, must always be distinguishable from my acts of service to him and from my purpose to do those acts.

It has been objected that the distinction implies that the supreme choice of God and the immanent purpose to serve him may exist, while yet the actual service is put off to a future time. This is a misrepresentation. Choice spontaneously manifests itself in accordant volitional action. In all choices the purpose to act accordantly is immediate and continuous; but in a subordinate choice the actual exertion may be put off through lack of fit opportunity. In the supreme choice of God any particular act of service may be put off for the same reason; as a young man purposing to go to China as a missionary puts off his actual going till he gets through college and the professional school. But the actual exertion of all the energies in the service of God never needs be put off for such a reason, because a man is required to serve God in whatever he does. There needs be no delay in breaking off one's sins by righteousness; and if the imagined choice of God does not immediately manifest itself thus, it is proved to be not a real choice of God. I have already shown that a choice is not a mere preference of one thing to another, but it is the choice of an object to which the activity is to be directed. It is, therefore, of the essence of choice that it spontaneously expresses itself in an abiding determination to act in accordance with the choice and in accordant actual exertion of energy whenever there is fit opportunity.

IV. A volition is not a complete determination, but is the expression of a choice. The choice of the object of action is the fundamental determination, of which the volition is the manifestation and expression. / If man has only volitional power or power to exert his energies and has no power of choosing the ends or objects of his action, then his only freedom is freedom to do as he pleases; but what he pleases is necessarily determined by the unreasoning impulse of feeling which at the time is the strongest. Much of the confusion in the discussion of the will has arisen from the error that a volition to do an action is the deepest and only determination.

It may be asked whether a choice may not be made between two actions or courses of action. Undoubtedly two proposed acts or courses of action may be compared as objects of thought, and one of them may be determined on by the will in preference to the other. But if we consider further we shall see that the determination of the action has been made in choosing an object of action. If I have determined to go to New York for the attainment of a chosen object, as the pleasure of seeing a friend or the money to be gained by transacting a business, I may then determine whether I will go on horseback, or by railroad, or by steamboat. If I choose to go on horseback, it will be for the plea