ON PERFECT AND IMPERFECT MINDS.
We are now prepared to inquire in regard to what constitutes _a perfect
mind_. This question relates, in the first place, to the perfect
constitutional organization of mind, and, in the next place, to the
perfect action of mind.
In regard to a finite mind, when we inquire as to its perfection in
organization, we are necessarily restricted to the question of the
object or end for which it is made. Any contrivance in mind or matter is
perfect when it is so formed that, _if worked according to its design_,
it completely fulfills the end for which it is made, so that there is no
way in which it could be improved.
It is here claimed, then, that by the light of reason alone we first
gain the object for which mind is made, and then arrive at the
conclusion that the mind of man is perfect in construction, because, if
worked according to its design, it would completely fulfill the end for
which it is made, so that there is no conceivable way in which it could
be improved. This position can not be controverted except by presenting
evidence that some other organization of the mind would produce, in an
eternal and infinite system, more good with less evil than the present
one.
In regard to the Eternal Mind, the only standard of perfection in
organization that we can conceive of is revealed in our own mind. Every
thing in our own minds--every thing around us--every thing we have known
in past experience, is designed to produce the most possible happiness
with the least possible evil. We can not conceive of any being as wise,
or just, or good, but as he acts to promote that end.
A mind organized like our own, with faculties infinitely enlarged, who
always has and always will sustain a controlling purpose to act right,
is the only idea we can have of an all-perfect Creator.
But on the subject of the perfect action of finite minds it is perceived
that reference must always be had to _voluntary power_ and its
limitations. We have shown that the implanted susceptibility, called the
_sense of justice_, demands that the rewards and penalties for good and
evil have reference to _the knowledge and power_ of a voluntary agent;
that is to say, it is contrary to our moral nature voluntarily to
inflict penalties for wrong action on a being who either has no power to
know what right is, or no power to do it. We revolt from such
inflictions with instinctive abhorrence, as unfit and contrary to the
design of all things.
So, in forming our judgment of the Creator, when we regard him as
perfectly just, the idea implies that he will never _voluntarily_
inflict evil for wrong action on beings who have not the knowledge or
power to act right.
Here we are again forced to the assumption of some _eternal nature of
things_ independent of the Creator's will, by which ignorant and
helpless creatures are exposed to suffering from wrong action when they
have no power of _any_ kind to act right.
For we see such suffering actually does exist, and there are but two
suppositions possible. The one is, that it results from the Creator's
_voluntary_ acts, and the other, that it is inherent in that eternal
nature of things which the Creator can no more alter than he can destroy
his own necessary and eternal existence.
In judging of the perfect action of finite minds, we are obliged to
regard the question in two relations. In the primary relation we have
reference to actions which, in all the infinite relations of a vast and
eternal system of free agents, are fitted to secure the most possible
good with the least possible evil. In this relation, so far as we can
judge by experience and reason, no finite being ever did or ever can
_act perfectly_ from the first to the last of its volitions. In this
relation, every human being is certainly, necessarily, and inevitably
imperfect in action.
But when the question of perfection in action simply has reference to
the knowledge and power of the voluntary agent, we come to another
result. In this relation, any mind acts perfectly _when it forms a
ruling purpose to feel and act right in all things, when it takes all
possible means of learning what is right, and when it actually carries
out this purpose, so far as it has knowledge and power_.
If a human mind is, as has been shown, perfect in that organization of
its powers for which the Creator is responsible, and then forms and
carries out such a ruling purpose, it is, so far as we can learn without
revelation, as perfect in action as is possible in the nature of things;
that is to say, it voluntarily acts to promote the greatest possible
good with the least possible evil as entirely as is possible, and as
really as does the Creator, who himself is limited by the nature of
things.
It is as impossible for a finite mind to act right, when it does not
know what right is, as it is for the Eternal Mind to make and sustain a
system in which there has been and never will be any wrong action to
cause pain to himself and to other minds.
What, then, so far as we can learn without a revelation, is a perfect
mind in such a system of things as we find in this world? It is a mind
constituted like our own, which has formed a ruling purpose to feel and
act right in all things, which takes all possible means in its reach to
learn what is right, and which actually carries out this purpose to the
extent of its power.
In shorter terms, in this relation every human mind is perfect, both in
constitution and in action, so long as it acts as near right as is in
its present power. At the same time, in relation to the infinite and
eternal standard of rectitude, its action may be very imperfect.
We next inquire as to the _evidence_ of a perfect mind in this secondary
relation; that is to say, how can we know when a mind does reach the
full measure of its power in voluntary right action?
In regard to this we have two sources of evidence: first, the mental
consciousness of the acting mind itself, and, next, the results of its
action. In regard to the first, every mind, in reference either to its
mental states or external deeds, can have as much certainty as to the
extent of its power as it can of any thing. If we _choose_ to feel in a
given way, or to perform a given act, and what we choose does not
follow, we are certain we have no power to do the thing. All the idea of
_power_ we have is that volition is followed by the result chosen. All
the idea we have of _want of power_ is that the result chosen does not
follow the volition.
Every mind, then, in regard to _every specific volition_, has the most
perfect of all evidence as to the extent of its powers in its own
experience.
But the question is a more difficult one in reference to a _generic
governing volition_. A perfectly acting mind, according to our
definition, is one that has formed a generic governing volition to _feel
and act right_ in all respects; that is, it decides that the chief end
of existence shall be to promote the greatest possible happiness with
the least possible evil, in obedience to all, physical, social, and
moral laws of the Creator, so far as it is within the reach of its
powers.
Now, as to this simple act of choice, a mind can have the highest
possible evidence in its own consciousness. The only question of
difficulty would be as to _the extent_ of its powers to carry out this
decision, and the correspondence of all its subordinate volitions with
this generic purpose.
To ascertain the truth on this point, let us suppose a mind that has the
highest evidence (that of internal consciousness) that it has formed
such a purpose. Then comes a case where a subordinate decision is to be
made--say it relates to the existence of a certain _feeling_ or
_emotion_, such as love, fear, gratitude, or sorrow. It has been shown
that these emotions are not to be evoked into existence by a simple act
of will. The mode by which the mind controls its own desires and
emotions is set forth on page 162. If, then, the person chooses to do
_all that is in its power at the given time_ to awaken these emotions,
its action is _perfect_ in this respect: it has fulfilled the measure of
its power. It reaches the limit of its power when it can find nothing
more that an _act of choice_ will secure that it perceives will tend to
accomplish the end chosen. That is to say, at each given moment, when a
mind is aiming to know what is right, and to do it, if it has done all
it perceives can be done by any act of will toward this end, then its
decision or mental action is _perfect_; it is as good as is possible in
the nature of things.
We have the same method of testing our power in regard to the
_prevention_ of desires and emotions. No matter how painful or
inappropriate may be the desires and emotions of any mind, it is acting
_perfectly_ when it goes to the full extent of its power to extinguish
or to control them according to the rules of rectitude. If it wills to
have them otherwise, and uses the appropriate modes to have them so,
this is all it has power to do.
In reference to _external actions_, there are an infinite variety of
circumstances that must decide the character of actions as right or
wrong. An action which is wise and benevolent in one set of
circumstances becomes foolish and selfish in another combination. More
than half the questions of right and wrong action are to be decided as
to their character by the surrounding circumstances, while no mind but
the one that is infinite and omniscient can pronounce with certainty on
actions whose character is dependent on circumstances and probable
future results.
What, then, is the limitation of power in these cases? How can we know
when we act as nearly right as it is in our power?
In the first place, we can have the high evidence of consciousness that
our chief end in life is _to act right_ in all things. In the next
place, we can know certainly whether there is any thing more that we can
do to find out what the right course is. When we have decided that we
have done all we can in the given circumstances, and then are conscious
that we choose _what we believe to be right_, or _that which has to our
mind the balance of evidence in its favor as right, we act perfectly_;
that is to say, we have reached the full measure of our power in
voluntarily acting right.
But, besides this evidence, that rests mainly on internal consciousness
of the nature of our volitions, we have other evidence to guide us. It
has been shown in the previous pages how our thoughts, and desires, and
emotions are all dependent on the generic purposes of the mind. Whatever
is the _chief end_ of life is the object which excites the strongest
interest and calls forth the deepest emotions. Therefore, when a mind
has chosen _to act right_ as the chief end, all its tastes, desires, and
emotions become conformed to this purpose. Whatever is seen as tending
to promote this end is more desired and valued than any thing else.
Whatever is seen to interfere with this is regarded with dissatisfaction.
This being so, a mind that is controlled by a ruling purpose to act
right finds those persons and places the most congenial and agreeable
who can lend the most aid in pointing out all that is wrong in thought,
word, or deed, and in helping, by instruction, sympathy, and example, to
do right. One great test, then, of the existence and strength of such a
ruling purpose is the manner in which those are regarded who are most
interested in finding out and doing what is right themselves, and in
aiding others to do so.
To be "meek and lowly in heart," so as to seek help in learning what is
right from every source, however humble or however imperfectly offered,
is the surest indication that a mind is under the entire control of a
ruling purpose to do right, and is thus _a perfect mind_.
Such a mind, it must be seen, has _tendencies_ that _fit_ it to that
great system of things in which we find ourselves. Such a mind can not
trace out these tendencies by the light of reason alone without a
conviction that _somewhere_ in the progress of ages it will attain to a
_perfect commonwealth_, where the great end and object of the Creator in
forming mind will be carried to entire perfection in each individual
mind and in the all-perfect whole!