to his Creator and Redeemer are neglected and violated, not only without regret and remorse in the criminal himself, but almost without exciting a feeling of disapprobation in the minds of the beholders.

But to illustrate fully the extent of the necessity under which man, as a religious being, now lies, must be left to the theologian. It is however but justice to say, in passing, that this important and arduous subject was never more ably treated than by Luther, and some of those illustrious men who were the means of effecting the Reformation in the beginning of the sixteenth century. In the midst of the profound ignorance with which they were surrounded, and which is more unfavourable to the discovery of truth, among the absurd dogmas on this subject held by the scholastic philosophers, they clearly illustrated the doctrine of universal causation, and hence, in consequence of human depravity, the moral necessity by which the whole race of mankind are less or more enthralled. From the absurdity of the contingency which virtually denies the existence of the universe, as well as from that of indifference, as essential to moral freedom, which virtually deprives man of his moral nature, they are equally free. They described man as they found him,-an agent possessed of a moral nature, and who hence, in a state of purity, would invariably act consistently with the principles of

moral rectitude, but who in the state of moral corruption consequent to a fall, would, to a great extent, as invariably and necessarily commit nothing but sin. They did not, indeed, in common with all the philosophers of the age, and perhaps of all ages before, with the exception of the inspired writers, clearly perceive some of the important relations of their subject, and, consequently, occasionally seem to make contradictory and inconsistent statements; but, enlightened and guided by revelation, they always were, what no philosophical writer, ancient or modern, ever was, right in their practical conclusions. And after all the wretched attempts which superficial observation, ignorance, false philosophy, and party zeal have made to refute their doctrine, every candid and careful observer of human nature will readily assent to the great truths so skilfully and ably maintained by Luther against the contemptible sophistry of Erasmus, that in man, as he is now found, there is, with respect to God, no good thing, but that it is God who worketh in him both to will and to do of his good pleasure.

When then, to conclude this subject, by the habitual indulgence of any vicious propensity, an approved susceptibility and feeling have been weakened, and the feelings which act as opposing motives have been strengthened to a certain degree, the individual is placed, with regard

to the approved feeling, under moral necessity. He is irresistibly compelled to will and to perform what he disapproves and condemns. The arguments and motives which are calculated to arouse his moral strength in support of the decision of conscience, have lost their power; for the understanding itself may have been rendered incapable of forming vigorous and adequate conceptions of the motives, and their proper susceptibilities may be completely destroyed. In many such cases, it is vain to talk to the unhappy man of the wickedness, the folly, the absurdity, the ruinous consequences of his conduct. He may admit most honestly the truth of all your arguments, and in moments of reflection when his passions are laid to rest by satiety, he may feel and deplore the horror of his thraldom; but the languid emotions which his deadened susceptibilities are able to produce will, in the season of temptation, be quickly suppressed by the powerful and tumultuous passions, which opposite motives awak

en.

He will feel, as some unhappy men are con strained to confess, that he cannot do otherwise than he does. In certain circumstances he truly cannot do otherwise, but is under the absolute necessity of committing such and such crimes. The wretched being has sold himself under sin, to use the language of the apostle, and is completely the slave of a master, whom, whether he approve or not, he is compel

led to obey. The laws of his constitution, which, if not corrupted, render him strong to obey the dictates of his conscience, now in consequence of the indulgence of sinful habits, bind him hopelessly down to the practice of iniquity. As soon may he resist the law of the philosophical necessity by which the planets revolve or the mountains stand upon their bases, as resist the philosophical necessity by which he is impelled to the commission of crime. The prophet correctly states this law of our nature, when he demands, "Can the Ethiopian change his skin, or the leopard his spots? then may ye also do good that are accustomed to do evil."* From this state of degraded thraldom, the Creator of the human soul alone can deliver the miserable being whom habit has confirmed in vice.

Jeremiah. xiii. 23.

SECTION V.

THE MEANS OF BEING DELIVERED FROM MORAL NECESSITY AND THE UNIVERSALITY OF MORAL

RESPONSIBILITY.

FROM the doctrine of moral necessity, as just stated, an argument is usually drawn against the responsibility of the human agent. No being, it is said, can be under any obligation to work impossibilities. If man, by his constitution, is placed under the necessity of acting in a certain manner and cannot act otherwise, he cannot incur moral guilt. Neither the justice of the Deity, it is contended, nor the moral judgment of man can impute guilt, when there is no power to act in a different manner. Power and liberty to reject the wrong and to choose the right must ever form the ground of moral responsibility.

The argument here employed is confessedly legitimate, and the conclusion cannot be denied. If any being, without any act of his own, is placed in such circumstances as render all his actions necessary in the proper sense; and has no means,