Kant regarded freedom as an exception to the law of natural causality. But this freedom is not phenomenal but noumenal, for causality is not a category of noumena. From this freedom we get our whole idea of personality, for personality is freedom of the whole soul from the mechanism of nature. Kant treated scornfully the determinism of Leibnitz. He said it was the freedom of a turnspit, which when once wound up directed its own movements, _i. e._, was merely automatic. Compare with this the view of Baldwin, Psychology, Feeling and Will, 373—“Free choice is a synthesis, the outcome of which is in every case conditioned upon its elements, but in no case caused by them. A logical inference is conditioned upon its premises, but it is not caused by them. Both inference and choice express the nature of the conscious principle and the unique method of its life.... The motives do not grow into volitions, nor does the volition stand apart from the motives. The motives are partial expressions, the volition is a total expression, of the same existence.... Freedom is the expression of one’s self conditioned by past choices and present environment.” Shakespeare, Hamlet, 3:4—“Refrain to-night, And that shall lend a kind of easiness To the next abstinence: the next more easy: For use can almost change the stamp of nature, And either curb the devil or throw him out With wondrous potency.” 3:2—“Purpose is but the slave to memory; Of violent birth but poor validity.” 4:7—“That we would do, We should do when we would; for this _would_ changes And hath abatements and delays as many As there are tongues, are hands, are accidents.” Goethe: “Von der Gewalt die alle Wesen bindet, Befreit der Mensch sich der sich überwindet.” Scotus Novanticus (Prof. Laurie of Edinburgh), Ethica, 287—“The chief good is fulness of life achieved through law by the action of will as reason on sensibility.... Immorality is the letting loose of feeling, in opposition to the idea and the law in it; it is individuality in opposition to personality.... In immorality, will is defeated, the personality overcome, and the subject volitionizes just as a dog volitionizes. The subject takes possession of the personality and uses it for its natural desires.” Maudsley, Physiology of Mind, 456, quotes Ribot, Diseases of the Will, 133—“Will is not the cause of anything. It is like the verdict of a jury, which is an effect, without being a cause. It is the highest force which nature has yet developed—the last consummate blossom of all her marvellous works.” Yet Maudsley argues that the mind itself has power to prevent insanity. This implies that there is an owner of the instrument endowed with power and responsibility to keep it in order. Man can do much, but God can do more.