Syracuse University Library
Special Collections Research Center
Gerrit Smith Broadside and Pamphlet Collection

On free moral agency.

Smith, Gerrit, 1797-1874.

Digital Edition.

This digitization project was supported by Regional Bibliographic Databases and Interlibrary Resources Sharing Program funds, awarded by the New York State Library.

Call number: Smith 539

ON FREE MORAL AGENCY.

The following are some of the remarks made at the debate in Siloam, February
1867, on the negative of the question: "Resolved, That man is a free moral agent."

[p. 1, col. 1]

Now is it true that man is a free moral agent, or is he in every possible sense a being of necessity? It has been well said that "in viewing the external world we discover that every creature and every physical object has received a definite constitution, and been placed in certain relations to other objects. Intelligence, wisdom and power characterize the works of creation, and the human mind ascends by a chain of reasoning to a great First Cause, in whom those qualities reside. And man obviously stands pre-eminent among sublunary objects, and is distinguished by remarkable endowments above all terrestrial beings. Nevertheless, no creature presents such anomalous appearances as man. Viewed in one aspect, he almost resembles a demon ; in another, he still bears the impress of the image of God."

The most opposite instincts or impulses exist in man's mind - Paul says, "I find then a law that when I would do good, evil is present with me. But I see another law in my members warring against the law of my mind, bringing me into captivity to the sin which is in my members." Actuated by combativeness, destructiveness, acquisitiveness and self-esteem, the moral sentiment being in abeyance, man is almost a fiend ; on the contrary, when inspired by benevolence, veneration, hope, conscientiousness, idealty and intelligence, the benignity, serenity and splendor of a highly elevated nature beaming from his countenance, he is then lovely and noble. It seems quite evident that man received from his Creator an organized structure and animal instincts.

It has been wisely remarked that "man was not created at first pure and immortal," because "that was not first which is spiritual." The lowest appears to be always first, and yet contains the highest undeveloped. We do not obtain "the full corn in the ear" until we prepare the ground and deposit the germ ; the common appears to be always the precedent of the uncommon. This seems to be invariably true, because the germ contains all the subsequent unfoldings of the plant, the lowest contains the properties and qualities and essences of the highest within its little bosom, as the babe contains the future man, the man the immortal spirit.

In our introduction we have given some of our views of the constitution of man. We will now next in order give our views of the constitution of the world and of human nature, and afterward the Protestant view, which will show that they widely differ from each other, and which, if legitimately followed out, would lead to distinct and opposite practical results.

The first is, that the world, including both the physical and moral departments, contains within itself the elements of improvement, which time will evolve and bring to maturity; it having been constituted by the Creator on the principle of a progressive system, like acorn in reference to the oak. This hypothesis ascribes to the power and wisdom of the Divine Being the whole phenomena which nature, animate and inanimate, exhibits; because in conferring on each part the specific qualities and constitution which belong to it, and in placing it in the circumstances in which it is found, he is assumed to have designed, from the first, the whole results which these qualities, constitution and circumstances, are calculated in time to produce. This view affords the richest and most comprehensive field imaginable for tracing the evidence of Divine power, wisdom and goodness in creation.

You will find a most beautiful illustration of the foregoing in the history of Joseph and his brethren, beginning at Gen. 37th ch. - The history of Joseph's dream, the effect they had on his father Jacob, the hatred of his brethren, the saving of Jacob and his posterity from famine, &c. &c. Now it would appear from reading the history, that the brethren of Joseph, under their limited capacities, their constitutional wants, desires, &c., together with the dream of Joseph, influenced them to attempt to counteract the suggestions set forth in the dreams. Had the brethren of Joseph, when they sold him to the Ishmaelites, known all the consequences which would attend the event, they would not meant it as they did for evil; but seeing with unclouded eyes their own salvation, they would meant it for good. The act of selling Joseph was bounded by the narrowness of their understandings, limited by their ignorance, and circumscribed by the wisdom of Him who meant it for good; and how beautiful the expression to the brethren of Joseph, "Grieve not yourselves, ye meant it for evil, but God meant it for good." So it fully appears from the history that those who sold Joseph do not stand even the shadow of a cause, but only as instruments by which God effected his own divine and gracious purpose; and this would seem to prove that natural evil, or misdirection taken in a limited sense, owes its origin to the original constitution of our animal nature, which I will speak more of hereafter. And now if we allow that God is a being of infinite perfection and the author of our existence, he surely is the director of that providence by which we are all introduced into this world by ordinary generation, and must have had a design in the works of his hands, and that the whole of God's design will be carried into effect.

The following texts from the Bible would seem to fully sustain [unreadable]bregoing position: - "In whom also we have obtained an in[unreadable]ance, being predestinated according to the purpose of him who

[p.1, col. 2]

worketh all things after the counsel of his own will. For of him and through him and to him are all things to whom be glory for ever, Amen. I am the Lord and there is none else, there is no God beside me; I girded thee, but though thou hast not known me ; that they may know from the rising to the setting of the sun, and from the west, that there is none beside me ; I am the Lord and there is none else. The king's heart is in the hand of the Lord; as the rivers of water he turneth it whithersoever he will. Work out your own salvation with fear and trembling, for it is God which worketh in you to will and to do of his good pleasure. But Sihon, king of Heshbon, would not let us pass by hint ; for the Lord thy God hardened his spirit, and made his heart obstinate, that he might deliver him into thy hand, as appeareth this day."

On the other hand, the other hypothesis is that the world was perfect at first, but fell into derangement, continues in disorder, and does not contain within itself the elements of its own rectification. - According to this view of creation, no good can be expected from evolution of nature's elements, these being all essentially disordered ; he must believe aright in religion and be the subject of spiritual influences independent of natural causes before he can become capable of any virtue or enjoyment; in short, according to it, science, philosophy, and all the arrangements of the physical, moral and intellectual elements of nature are subordinate in their effects on human happiness on earth to religious faith. But still, one at first thought would be almost inclined to believe that man was a free moral agent ; and so, in viewing the sun, he would be almost inclined to say and do say that it rises and sets, but in studying astronomy we learn that the earth moves instead of the sun and by close investigation we will learn, I think, that man is not a free moral agent, and comparatively that there is a wheel within a wheel ; as is said before, for "it is God that worketh in us to will and to do of his good pleasure," that is by the laws of nature. Unconsulted, unsolicited and unable to change or improve itself, the human organization is introduced to physical nature, and by provision of parental love is nourished and developed, and without food, air, light, heat, or exercise, he would cease to exist as a physical being; but in different individuals we observe a contrarily of physical organizations, each representing the various elements, objects and influences which have acted upon or entered into and diversified the respective constitutions of their immediate progenitors. And the sciences of Anatomy, Physiology, and Phrenology, demonstrate the absolute dependence of the body upon surrounding elements and circumstances, and the nervous, bilious and lymphatic temperaments give to different individuals various and distinct peculiarities, and when considered with reference to his physical nature it will be conceded that man is constantly subjected to material influence over which he has no control. Hence the conclusion is legitimate and inevitable that man is dependent upon all nature for his subsistence, and that he is perpetually and reciprocally, so to speak, both the subject and master of the various objects, elements and causes by which he is constantly surrounded. And in this sense it is true, therefore, that there is a sort of independence based upon or growing out of human individuality, (which is at best abstract.) Everything, atom, power, man and nature, enjoys a species of personality and independence, but abstract reasoning and observation are quite unwarrantable (the same as the rising of the sun) because they are not in accordance with the views which nature everywhere represents.

Now we venture the assertion, that man on earth is the noblest work of God; and that he is the most perfect embodiment of matter and mind in the universe, except the Divine mind: science compels this concession, that man is the highest organization in the stupendous system of nature ; that he lives and moves in God's universal spirit. And in this stage of inquiry I will ask, can he be a passive creature when first introduced on the earth ? Can he be born without an impulse, without a spring of action, without an attraction ? Is man, when first created, an empty vessel into which flows the spirit of wickedness or holiness, as his uneducated and inexperienced will determines ? Pure reason contradicts this proposition, because every intelligent individual knows by the mysterious workings of the elements of his own interior soul that wants, desires, attractions and impulses, are born in him; in truth, man inherits inclinations from his birth, but those which he receives from his immediate progenitors are temporal, and those which he receives from his heavenly Father are eternal. He is therefore the superior production of God and nature, because he stands on the summit of creation, a little lower than the angels, requiring simply a constitutional harmony and a spiritual development to understand and enjoy this continued association. Nor is man a mere recipient; he is filled with motion, life, sensation and intelligence; he is (we may say on account of his superior faculties) God manifest in the flesh; he is the son of the most glorious and high.

In reviewing further the constitution of man, we will make a few extracts from what Elder Mitchell, by way of ridicule, was pleased to call the, "mushroom, tadpole-monkey-developing theory." Andrews said: "It should be distinctly understood that I am now considering man in his rudimental state; that is to say, in his ordinary

[p. 2, col. 1]

condition. It is essential to become perfectly acquainted with him in his natural state of development, to the end that we may still continue to know him, whom by the working of the principles of progress he may ascend into the subsequent and higher conditions already specified. I again affirm that man in his natural state and considered relatively, is superior to all other forms and personalities known in the subordinate kingdoms of nature. This is true in every possible respect - physically, socially, habitually, intellectually, morally and spiritually. And man is not the result of any special creation - of Deity, but an issue of the stupendous system of nature, whose myriad forms, substances, essences, principles have, step by step, ascended the spiral path of universal progression. On the summit of this boundless empire of life, stands man in his ordinary or rudimental state - a reservoir of everything beneath him, and the splendid representative of all the perfections and energies of the grosser worlds of life which move in nature's broad domain, It is clear to a demonstration, that man is constituted of all known forms, substances, essences; and principles, in a high state of refinement and embodiment. - Being more closely allied to the animal than to the vegetable kingdom, he is naturally inclined to exhibit in his character, especially when undeveloped, one or more traits of disposition common to some specific animal.

"I am impressed to regard this fact as a very satisfactory external evidence of man's deviation from the subordinate creations of nature. But as he progresses toward harmony and perfection - as he leaves the things which are behind to obtain the things which lie before - man ascends far above the traces of the lower kingdoms, passes rapidly by the ordinary characteristics of the human and un folds himself more like the divine. It cannot be well denied that every animal appears to be the embodiment of some particular principle of mind ; whilst man is the unitary organization of all principles, and hence is superior to those partial organizations which contain only a few of the immortal elements which compose the human mental constitution. The viper, for example, seems to embody, without any other element to act as a modification, the principle, or rather (to speak more philosophically) the propensity, of a smooth, insinuating malice. The spider seems like a commercial Peter Funk - a maker of nets in which to entrap the verdant and unwary traveler. The sloth seems like an indolent man be consumer of the productions of the industrious and frugal. The cat seems like an organization of the propensity of secretiveness - a pouncer upon the interests of others of less personalities. The dog is an embodiment of friendship; the lamb of innocence; the cow of submission; the horse of nobility ; the fox of cunning ; the ass of firmness; the peacock of pride ; the reindeer of speed ; the birds of affection ; the lion of majesty ; the swine of grossness; the beaver of constructiveness ; and the monkey of trickery." * * * "He (man) frequently illustrates some particular animal in his physiognomical peculiarities, in his inferior moods and habits ; but considered as a man and compared with his subordinate productions in the world, he appears nobly as the lord of creation, and ascends the throne of human government of all human nature, the self-constituted monarch of a boundless kingdom."

Geo. Combe says : "Mankind has various instincts and principles of action, as brute creatures have ; some leading to the good of community and some to private good." Man has several which brutes have not ; particularly reflection or conscience, an approbation of some principles or actions, and disapprobation of others."And he says further, that " three-fourths of the mental faculties have direct reference to this work, and in their functions appear to have no intelligible relation to another - such are philoprogenitiveness, combativeness, amativeness, destructiveness, constructiveness, acquisitiveness, secretiveness and others; while the remaining fourth are calculated to have reference to this life and to a higher state of existence ; such are benevolence, ideality, wonder, veneration, hope, conscientiousness and intellect." These conflicting laws have always existed in man from his first formation, and so long as they both continue to exert their powers in opposition to each o her there will be discord.

In the foregoing I have endeavored to give in the language of others and of my own my views of the constitution of man. I will say that man is constituted a creature of wants and desires; if he wanted nothing he would do nothing, nor would he desire to do any thing. Unsatisfied want is the first movement to action or volition ; the motives which invite to action over the strength of desire which want creates. Now in order to be more fully understood in my position, I will more fully state what I think to be the origin of our volitions. This in all cases is want ; and so we said before, if man wanted nothing he would do nothing, nor would he desire to do anything, and unsatisfied want is the first movement to action. The motives which invite to action owe their strength to the nature and strength of desire which want creates. And as the apostle says, "man was made subject to vanity, not willingly, but by reason of him who subjected the same in hope." From our natural constitutions, composed of our bodily elements, we are led to act in obedience to our animal appetites, which justifies the conclusion that sin, or in other words misdirection, is the work of the flesh (animal) as is expressed by Paul (Gal. l5, 19-21.) "Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these: adultery, fornication, uncleanliness, idolatry, hatred, variance, emulation, wrath, murder, and such like." Now if man had been wholly composed of flesh and blood (animal) body and mind, and of the earthly elements, it could be truly said of him, as the apostle said, "The carnal (animal) mind is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be." But no man is composed of the heavenly and the earthly, and as the Creator has bestowed faculties on man, it is presumable that he governs him in accordance with them. (Remember the history of Joseph and his brethren.) Now we do find in man what we call a law of spiritual life, of which Paul speaks where he sets forth the contrary workings of the law of the spiritual and the animal, or what souse would call the law of moral or spiritual life (Rom. 8. 19) : "For the good that I would I do not, but the evil which I would not that I do," &c.

[p. 2, col. 2]

but I see another law in my members warring against the law of: my mind," &c.

What was Adam and Eve's experience? In Genesis we are in formed that man was placed in a garden of delights, the tree of life was in it, and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Now according to this (as one has said) "Oriental fable, which in some particulars is very beautiful and symbolic of truth," the first female was informed upon the highest authority that the fruit of one tree was good and the other exceedingly evil ; but she did not know the truthfulness of this statement and the consequence of this ignorance on her part was that this information inflamed her uneducated mind and desires to such an extent that she could no longer resist the temptation to acquire a knowledge of this truth by an actual experiment; just as a child, unless it receives the experience and testimony of others in all confidence, will try the fire in order to ascertain whether the element is really hot or cold. Here then, at the alleged beginning of the human race, is manifested the universal truth that causes will produce corresponding effects, because here it is seen that the temptation or information imparted to Eve, overpowered her inexperienced spirit and she was moved to act in a corresponding manner upon the spirit of her companion.

Now I think that the human mind, - in order to reasonably choose between good and evil, must first ascertain by actual experience or perception what good and evil are ; and if so, I inquire, how it is possible for an individual to be a flee moral agent without having an infinite ability to judge between the seeming and the actual, between the false and the true ? To further elucidate the question, we will make a few remarks on the statement : "He that believeth shall be saved and he that believeth not shall be damned." I will put the question, can you believe or disbelieve any thing without a sufficient preponderation of evidence ? The wild savage is not to be damned for not believing in the existence, life and miracles of Jesus ; nor is the christian to be blessed for believing them. Now understand - because neither can manufacture his own convictions, nor cannot have actual control of his own mind. If you desire to test the truth of this assertion, try this moment to hate a much beloved friend, or on the other hand to love a very repulsive and disagreeable person. I ask again, is it possible for man to be free when pent up between two contending forces, or between two positive attractions? Is an object braced on all sides in a state of freedom Reason replies in the negative, because man naturally and spiritually possesses universal affinities which he did not create, which he cannot control, which he cannot destroy, but he is compelled to act as he is acted upon, (remember the verse which says "For it is God that worketh in you to will and to do according to his good pleasure,") and to manifest character according to his constitutional capacity and social situation, notwithstanding it is true that there exists a species of freedom, liberty or independence in human thoughts and actions, and which thoughts comparative give rise to many misapprehensions, as to the extent of man's accountability or obligations to Deity.

An apostle says, "God is love." He loves because it is his nature to love. The sun does not shine because our earth influence sit, it is its nature to shine. But all created beings love according to influential objects and they always love or hate according to the influence which objects have on their minds and passions. Now the scriptures teach that "Herod, Pontius, Pilate, the Gentiles and the people of Israel were gathered together against Jesus to do what the counsel and the hand of the Almighty had determined to be done." Now I ask, and please answer, had Herod, Pontius, the Gentiles, and the people of Israel, any better meaning in crucifying Christ than Joseph's brethren had in selling him to the Ishmaelites ? But the text says they were gathered together to do whatsoever God's hand and counsel determined before to be done; all of which goes to show that there is a wheel within a wheel, and that God "worketh all things after the counsel of his own will;" and " that he will have his will in the armies of heaven and among the inhabitants of the comb, and none can stay his band and say what doeth thou."

In giving the question a further investigation, I will quote from O. S. Fowler's book on religion. Among other remarks on the phrenological organs, he says: "Suppose conscientiousness be alike in two persons, A. and B., and full in both; A. has large benevolence, and small acquisitiveness and veneration ; while B. has small benevolence and large acquisitiveness and veneration. A.'s conscientiousness combines with his large benevolence and makes him feel that he is in duty bound to do all the good he can, and that it is wrong to take a large price from a poor man because he can get it ; whilst his small acquisitiveness induces him to give the poor man more for an article than it is really worth; yet, as his veneration is small, his conscience does not require him to go to church. But the large acquisitiveness and small benevolence of B. warp his lesser organ of conscientiousness and allow him to take from the same poor man more money for a thing than it is really worth, because the poor man can do no better. His large acquisitiveness throws dust into the eyes of smaller conscientiousness and benevolence, and hushes up their feebler remonstrances, while he grinds the face of the poor, takes advantage of their distress and extorts money from them because they are in his power, though he is wringing out their very heart's blood. Still this same conscience, though it allows acquisitiveness to cheat and extort, also combines with veneration, and compels him to go to meeting the next sabbath, to read his Bible; say his prayers, to go to the communion table - to "sand the rice, water the gin and then come in to prayers." The conscientiousness of A. would torment him for extorting the money extorted by B. just as much as that of B. would torment him for not praying and going to church; while the conscientiousness of B. would acquit him for extorting this money from the poor man, or taking the advantage of him in a bargain, as much as that of A. acquits him for not praying or attending church. The opinions of these two men as to what is right and wrong, are directly opposite; each condemning what the other approves, and each approving what the

[p. 3, col. 1]

other condemns, and both reading each other out of heaven, the one for the others extortion (by taking from the poor man,) and the other for the other's impiety (for not praying and going to meeting). Fowler illustrates by saying: "A certain deacon that lived less than fifty miles above Troy, N. Y., the leader of his society, earnest, gifted, sincere in prayer, eloquent in exhortation, the right hand man of the minister, and forward and zealous in all matters appertaining to religion, but somewhat slippery in money matters, set up a store, and in buying his goods in Troy gave his minister, Mr. L., who was welt known in that city, as his reference. Shortly afterward this minister, being down to Troy, was beset by the pious deacons creditors, to know what for a man he was, and whether he could be safely trusted, &c. The reverend gentleman hesitated and evaded, but finally answered, "To tell you the truth, Godward he is honest; but towards man rather twistical." Look about you and see if you can discover any such. Agar says: "Give me neither poverty nor riches ; feed me with food convenient for me, least I be full and deny thee, or lest I be poor and steal," &c.

Andrews says: "Yet there exists a species of freedom, liberty or independence in human thoughts or actions, and which, though comparative, gives rise to many misapprehensions as to the extent of mail's accountability, responsibility or obligations to the holy magnet of the universe, which is Deity." He says : "The character and extent of this independence, which is altogether comparative, I will now proceed to explain. I will consider the relative powers and actions of four men - each born of the same parents, and commencing their manhood in a similar social situation, viz., in extreme poverty.

John, the first grin, is in the possession of a weak and combative mind; his wisdom, principle, or reason, has been called into action but very little; his animal powers or propensities have ruled his better attributes, its barbarians once ruled the nations of the earth; he is vain and ambitious; yet notwithstanding this constitutional susceptibility to the slightest causes of uneasiness and dissatisfaction, he endeavors to struggle along, revealing his nervousness and impatience to no one, and disturbing no individual or community. At length, however, this weak-minded, vain and ambitious man is unexpectedly, thrown out of employment; and the pangs, the mortifications and the disadvantages of poverty sting and wound his sensitive and weak intellect into an uncontrollable state of dispairing passion; a wild, reckless desperation of mind succeeds this passion, just as a fever succeeds a chill, and he forthwith plans the destruction of his employer. John, like other men, possesses the secretiveness of the serpent, the cautiousness of the cat, the ingenuity of the beaver, the destructiveness of the tiger, and the pride of the lion. These elements of the human soul, if not tamed and harmoniously exercised by the wisdom principle, may become inflamed and violent as the beasts of the forest.* * * Let us not shrink from the legitimate conclusion to which truth conducts the soul. I am impressed to present no theory, only to write concerning, those things which actually exist in the constitution of God and Nature ; and mail is a part of this great living body. I say, then, that John plans the destruction of its employer; he takes advantage of the first opportunity favorable to the accomplishment of this deed ; he commits murder, possesses himself of all the available wealth about the person of the fallen man, and hastily leaves the country.

James, the second man, has inherited a similar sensitiveness of mind; is also vain and ambitious; but he is more secretive than combative; he feels more of the disposition of the serpent in his nature than of the tiger. Like his brother, the various reflections of indigence upon his character and habits move him to a corresponding uneasiness and discontent. He sees and feels the advantage which more fortunately situated individuals have over him, - that they call enjoy what and go where he cannot; and reasoning superficially, perhaps soundly, he feels that he is not to blame for all this difference; that he has done nothing to merit his unfortunate situation; that others have clone nothing to merit their wealth and luxury; that his neighbor was born rich and he was born poor; and inasmuch as the fortunate classes do nothing towards reconciling him to his situation - manifesting no disposition to ameliorate his condition and to divide with him - he does not see but that he is totally justified in the attempt to help himself to the superabundance. But his combativeness being small, he does not see that he should yield to the slightest impulse to commit murder, in truth he has never felt any such impulse since his birth ; but his secretiveness being large, he sees that his impulse to plunder, to steal, to appropriate unto himself the property of others, is his immediate and overpowering disposition. He consequently yields, because the temptation is stronger than his restraining powers, and becomes a robber.

Joseph, the third man, has also inherited a structure of mind analagous to his brothers; he is sensitive, vain and ambitious; he has small combativeness, small secretiveness, but very large benevolence. The same combination of influences and circumstances sur round and act upon him as upon his brothers; and he is wounded and goaded by wants in various forms and degrees of severity. He sees precisely what his brothers see concerning their own situation and the social position of others; and feels that there is enough for hint in the possession of the rich, even after they have built their splendid mansions and churches, and gratified many of their most extravagant desires. But he does not wish to injure the better situated individual, nor take his property unasked : yet it is clear to his mind that the rich man can spare a few pence without inconvenience. Hence Joseph, having no particular disposition to labor when work could be obtained, nor any success in obtaining an occupation when he had the disposition, yields to his temptation to beg for a subsistence.

Henry, the fourth man, possesses an organization vastly superior to his three brothers. He has a full share of energy and self-government. His organs, phrenologically speaking, are harmoniously developed: combativeness, secretiveness, benevolence and self-esteem are full, and in constant subordination to the superior faculties of judgment and understanding. And he too is extremely poor; he thinks upon the superior advantages and circumstances of the wealthy; he is very industrious to acquire means of personal subsistence and comfort, and is surrounded and affected by every cause, internal and external, which acted upon his brothers; but notwithstanding all this, he is neither moved to kill, to steal, nor to solicit alms. He is thrown out of employment, is overcome by prostration, and at last dies of starvation.

"Here are presented four cases - whose parallelisms are discoverable in many portions of France, England, Ireland and America - where individual crime is limited to and measured by individual

[p. 3, col. 2]

capacity. John, being the weakest fn his moral constitution, was consequently overcome the quickest; but Henry, having the strongest and most harmonious intellect, was not so effected by those causes which moved John, James and Joseph to the commission of those crimes and acts which are termed murdering, robbing and begging. Thus it is seen that four different individuals, starting from the same place, were caused to tread four distinct paths, and to arrive at four different terminations. The enlightened mind will perceive that these distinct paths and terminations were the result, not of "free will," but of absolute and unconditional necessity. - The first man was the victim of an inflamed organ of combativeness - the primary cause of which inflammation was extreme poverty The second man was the victim of an inflamed organ of secretive ness. The third man was a victim of misdirected benevolence and the fourth man was a victim of unmitigated poverty. Society (I repeat, society) was the first cause of these disastrous terminations, because it permits extreme poverty; and the parents were the second cause of these fates, for they imparted the organizations which, by be in so obviously dissimilar, caused the dissimilar terminations of their four sons.

From the foregoing, the conclusion is certainly legitimate that an individual is accountable according to his capacity; and by accountability or responsibility, I mean that an individual is to be measured and estimated according to his actual merit and capacity ; and that corresponding thoughts and deeds are to be expected to flow from him, provided all external conditions and circumstances are not very unfavorable to this legitimate manifestation of his character. It is said that "inasmuch as man is both an actor and a circumstance - both a cause and an effect - he should be treated, not as having the will and power to do what he desires, when and where he pleases ; but he should be born educated, situated, rewarded and punished, as a tree, which is capable of yielding an abundance of good fruit only when it is properly organized and correspondingly conditioned in a good soil. The doctrine of the free will or agency of the soul is positively contradicted by everything in nature and man. Every thought, every motive, every deed and motion that is wrought in the human constitution arises from the combinations of the physical and mental economy, and these laws of our nature are inevitable and unchangeable. The comparative freedom which man seemingly, inherits, coevally with his individuality, is exactly illustrated by the independence which a gold-fish is perceived to enjoy in the globe of water. The fish is at liberty to swim in any direction it desires; nevertheless it is dependent upon the water, this upon the glass globe, this upon the window of the building, this upon the earth, this upon the sun ; and thus there is one unbroken chain of dependencies from the fish to the Deity ! So with man. - He is free physically to move about upon this globe of earth, but he cannot live without the perpetual contributions of food, air, light, &c., which flow unto him from nature; and he is spiritually (or morally) free to move about within the circle described by his capacity and degree of development; but beyond this circle he has no more freedom than the fish as above described."

"Although Pope, in his "Essay on Man," revealed the true relation which subsists between man and nature, and proved that human will is subordinate to God's will, yet he was unfortunately moved to contradict this sublime truth in his "Universal Prayer." I am impressed to regard this as a great departure from the uniform expression of wisdom visible throughout this author's works. He evidently sacrificed philosophy to theology, when he affirms that God, in

'Binding nature fast in fate,
Left free the human will.'

It would be as true and as consistent for me to affirm that art artisan made a watch complete and united in all its parts, yet - left free the middle wheel! It is not possible for God to bind, nature fast arid leave uncircumscribed the freedom of the soul; for man is a part of nature, and he is designed ultimately to move as harmoniously in the great whole as, the heart in the human body. The laws of God we cannot alter; and notwithstanding thousands of clergymen, commentators and magistrates believe and teach and act and punish and blame and praise upon the supposed truth of man's 'free moral agency,' yet the stupendous panorama of the universe will move on in its sublime and harmonious order, and Truth will live unchanged forever. Verily, the poet was right in affirming that

'We will and act and talk of liberty,
And all our wills and all our desires both,
Are (now) limited within this little life ;
Free will is but necessity in play
The chattering of the golden reins which guide
The purposes of heaven to their goal.'

This conception of man's moral state is an unfailing source of consolation and happiness. It removes at once all doubts as to the ultimate issue of this life; it satisfies the soul that the "Lord God Omnipotent reigneth" ; it makes the Deity the great moral sovereign Ruler of all human and angelic hosts; and it especially points to the reconstruction of society, and to new methods of educating and punishing, or rather of reforming, the human race.

Having given a phrenological view of the question, we will now say something of the liberty of the will. A person is invited by two friends to make them a visit the same afternoon, at their respective houses ; he wishes to visit both, but cannot at the same time. In this circumstance, honored with both their invitations, he feels at a real loss what answer to make; both insist on his compliance with equal earnestness and equal influence on his judgment and passions; he still remains without a determination. To end the affair, one of his friends says: "I will go with you this afternoon and visit your friend, if you and he will return the visit next week."This decides in the mind of him who was first invited, as the other consents to the proposal. Now choice or will is in favor of visiting according to the last proposal made. Until the man willed to go, the will did not exist; it could have no liberty before it did exist ; and after it did, to say that that will, which was to go one way, was at liberty to go the other, is contrary to reason; so it is evident that will or choice has no possible liberty.

Again, suppose a poor man is offered a dollar or a guinea for a day's work; he does not know the value of either, not being acquainted with money or its value, or the nature of the metals which are stamped with value ; he consults his wants, and says to himself, the dollar is much the largest, and the probability is it is worth three times as much as the guinea; it is finally his opinion that that is the case. Now I ask, in relation to my argument, which of those pieces of money will he be most likely to choose? The answer is, the dollar. But I ask, why? If his mind be at real liberty, it is no more attached to the dollar than to the guinea ; the influence which the dollar has on his mind more than the guinea destroys not the

[p. 4, col. 1]

liberty of the mind to choose the guinea. I wish to be told why he is more likely to choose the dollar than the guinea; or to alter the statement so that the mind be not deceived. - The man perfectly knows the value of the dollar and the guinea, which will he be most likely to choose in this case? Answer, the guinea; for the reason that it is the greatest value. Then the object governs the choice. I ask, in the above instance has the mind any power or liberty to choose the object which appeared of the least value, and refuse that which appeared of the greatest? I am sure there is not a person in the world who would say that it had. I will now ask, did not the Infinitely Wise know all that he himself would do, and that man would do, and if so, does he possess any liberty in his nature where by it is in his power to do otherwise? The apostle says: "he cannot deny himself."

Again, for instance, two men meet at an inn ; they have each fifty cents, which they have just taken for work. One says to the other, "Sit down, and we will take some drink for our comfort." The other, on reflection, refuses; goes and purchases necessaries for his family, or applies it to some good purpose. The other possesses a violent appetite for ardent spirits ; the moment he comes where it is his want of it overpowers his love of duty to his family or others; he calls for drink until he spends his fifty cents, and goes away in-

[p. 4, col. 2]

toxicated. In the case presented you may see that those two men, acted equally alike from their natural wants, appetites and passions. Had neither of them any wants, appetites or passions, neither of them would have clone anything at all. They would not have labored for the money; and if they had the money, they would not have laid it out in any way possible. Therefore we see that want, appetite and passion in one produced virtue, and in the other vice. We then see that all this comes from their constitutional influentials and other causes. The Calvinistic Baptist and Presbyterian says "God from all eternity did by the most wise and holy counsel of his own will freely, and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass." I ask this question to Armenians and Methodists: If God eternally knew all thing (which you say he did), is not every event as certain of accomplishment as if it was decreed ? Or, if you admit that foreseen events are certain, wherein do they differ from those that are determined? Please answer. A man born with a certain constitution or intellect, passes through life under certain influences. If another man were born exactly the same, and should pass, if possible, under the same influences, would not the termination of the two men morally be exactly the same? Will not the same causes, always produce the same effects ?

SILOAM.