The final proof that the animal does not think, i.e., that he does not reflect, judge, or reason is the fact that he invents nothing and is a stranger to every moral and religious idea. Religion, science, art, civilization, education, progress, everything which supposes the use of reason is beyond the intelligence of animals. Animals show by their actions that they do not think and by their lack of action that they cannot think.

Man possesses, besides intelligence, free will. The soul of man is free; i.e., it has the power of choosing, of deciding between several possibilities. Free will in man is a fact which every one with an unbiased mind can easily recognize to be his own priceless possession. Even the few who deny liberty of action to men freely choose to do so. For most people the fact that they can do one thing instead of another is so evident that it never occurs to them to doubt that they do so freely. Every college student knows that at times he must decide between remaining at home and studying, and going to a dance. Whichever he chooses he does so knowingly and willingly. In times of temptation each one recognizes that he is free to sin or not; his will is his own. The mere fact of the existence within ourselves of the consciousness that we possess free will is sufficient proof that we are free. However, the fact of free will in man can be shown from the existence of the moral law and by the universal consent of men. The moral law obliges us to act according to right reason and to avoid those actions which are contrary to it. But one is not obliged to do the impossible. Hence, the moral law presupposes that we are free to keep it or not to keep it; i.e., we have the power to do good and to avoid evil. Suppress the free will of man and the words duty and responsibility, virtue and vice, merit and demerit, peace and remorse of conscience, lack meaning. How can one do his duty if he is not free to do so? How can he be held responsible for his actions if he is

How can he practice
How can we reward

not free to act as he pleases? virtue if he cannot avoid sin? good actions when it was impossible to do evil? Thus, the fact that the moral law exists is proof that man is free.

The belief of men in their right to freedom is universal. It is the one thing for which they are willing to fight and die. The belief of all men in their liberty is manifest in their language, their conduct, in their social and political institutions. Words are used to convey ideas. The word, liberty, or its equivalent, has been found in every language. Hence, everywhere men possess the idea of liberty.

Men make promises among themselves; they bind themselves by contracts; they beg; they exhort; they advise; they even threaten one another to make them act in a certain desirable way. We would not act in such a manner if we did not recognize that men are free. Deny will and the above actions become absurd. We do not plead with a fire to stop burning, or a gale to stop blowing, or the sun not to set, because these things do not possess free will. We do not make contracts with dogs, or cats, or any animal, because they too lack free will. Thus, by their actions, their conduct, men acknowledge that they are free to choose between several possibilities.

Every social group and all societies possess a code of laws and men charged with the duty of seeing that they are observed. Tribunals are instituted to punish infractions of the law. But if man is not free, punishment is unjust. A thief is no more guilty of theft than your dog when he steals meat off the kitchen table; a murderer no more deserving of punishment than the cat who kills a mouse; one who practices birth control (prevention by artificial means) no more sins against nature than the sword tail fish that eats its young. Deny free will and penal institutions become unjust.

In politics the people recognize their freedom and cry out against despots and unjust rulers.

Here, in America, we exercise our freedom by voting for whom we please, by keeping a free press, by practising any religion we think is the true one.

Thus, it is obvious from the universal consent of men that man possesses free will; i.e., the power of choosing among several possibilities.

That man possesses free will is denied by fatalists and determinists. The former say that a superior power decrees fatally all events without any regard to human liberty. The latter say that we are determined to act under the irresistible influence of the strongest motive; that the will is a balance that is moved fatally as by weights, that is, by the motives or reasons for acting.

To admit such errors is to say that there is no longer good or evil, that laws are absurd, and that God alone is the cause of evil.

The Nature of Man's Soul

The soul of man is a spiritual and immortal substance. Before showing it is spiritual and immortal we must show that it is a substance. Now a substance is something which exists in itself and by itself (in se et per se), while an accident is something which must adhere to some subject for existence. Thus, for example, a shell is a substance while the color or hardness or weight of it is an accident. We cannot conceive color or hardness or weight existing alone without a subject. From a consideration of our selves we must conclude that our soul is a substance. We think. We love. We desire. We dream. Now we cannot conceive these operations without the soul. They do not exist of themselves anymore than grayness or hardness does. They proceed from a principle and they come and go. Their source remains the same and we think and speak of it as existing in itself and being the cause of these mental states. The acts of the soul are manifold and passing, while the soul is one and permanent. Therefore, the human soul is a substantial principle.

The soul of man is a spiritual substance. The spirituality of the soul includes simplicity but not vice versa. The soul of the brute beast is said to be simple but not spiritual. We say the soul of man is a simple substance. That is, his soul has no extension; neither is it composed of material parts. We reach this conclusion from the fact that it has ideas which are simple in their nature. For example, we have ideas of truth, justice, beauty and virtue which cannot be divided into parts. Such ideas as these cannot proceed from a material principle. Suppose the idea of beauty came from, say, the brain. It would have to be diffused over the whole brain, or it would have to be complete in each part or atom of the brain, or it would have to be confined to one part of the brain. Now it cannot be divided or diffused over the entire brain because the idea of beauty is simple; i.e., immaterial, without extension. Neither can it be complete in each part or atom of the brain because it contradicts our experience. We would have to have as many ideas of beauty as there are atoms in the brain. The third supposition was that the idea beauty be confined to one part of the brain from which it emanates. If this part of the brain is divisible we are back to the above two suppositions. If it is not divisible we have proved what we wished to state. Namely, the source of simple ideas, the human soul, is an indivisible substance or a simple principle.

As we stated above, the human soul is a spiritual substance. A spiritual substance is something which subsists of itself and in itself, and independent of matter performs its own specific actions or operations. We shall show that the soul is a spiritual substance because it has actions which transcend all the powers of matter; that it understands immaterial things, that it understands sensible things in a universal and immutable way.

The human soul can do things which transcend all the powers of matter. Each one of us, one time

or another, examines his conscience. That is, each one of us can by self-reflection enter into his very soul. We are conscious that the principle or I which is thinking is the same identical I which is the object of thought or cross-examination. Or again, as we have shown earlier, we can will or not will certain things. By these actions the soul covers itself and acts upon itself, which actions are entirely opposed to the nature of matter. Consider, for example, a piece of paper. We can place one part of it over another part but we cannot place the whole piece over itself. One atom or molecule or electron may act upon another but never upon itself. In self-reflection, in examining one's conscience and in willing, we have the soul covering itself and acting upon itself. Hence, we conclude, that since the soul has operations which are opposed to the nature of matter and transcends its powers, it is spiritual.

The soul understands immaterial things. We can speak about spiritual things. We have some concept of them for no one can speak of things entirely unknown. Now a substance which can do such things must be essentially spiritual. The nature of the action reveals the nature of the cause; a being cannot give what it has not got, otherwise, we would have an effect without a cause. Therefore, since the soul understands spiritual things it must be spiritual.

The human soul understands sensible things in a universal and immutable way; in a supersensible way. The soul gets from material things simple, abstract, universal ideas. For example, I look at a watch. It is material and changeable. It is impressed on my imagination. The soul takes out of that watch a universal idea--the idea of a watch, a time-piece, in general. The idea remains the same and corresponds to all material watches or timepieces. This is what is meant by understanding things in an immaterial or spiritual manner. Consider another example of an abstraction. The number 7. What is it? It is an abstraction drawn from