will be seen, I think, that this system involves such necessity of moral
action as is incompatible with free agency. It is possible, I grant, to
give to the terms _will, liberty, free agency_, such a definition as
will make these terms, _thus defined_, compatible with the other
peculiarities of the Calvinistic system.--Both parties agree that man is
a free moral agent; both maintain that he is responsible; but we
maintain that what the Calvinists call free moral agency, is not such in
fact as is commonly understood by the term, nor such as is requisite to
make man accountable. Here, therefore, we are again thrown back upon our
definitions, as the starting point of argument. What is that power, or
property, or faculty of the mind, which constitutes man a free moral
agent? It is the power of choice, connected with liberty to choose
either good or evil. Both the _power_ and _liberty_ to choose either
_good_ or _evil_ are requisite to constitute the free agency of a
probationer. It has been contended that choice, though from the
condition of the moral agent it must of necessity be exclusively _on one
side_, is nevertheless free; since it implies a _voluntary_ preference
of the mind. Hence it is contended that the fallen and the holy angels,
glorified and lost human spirits, though some of these are confined in
an impeccable state, and the others have a perpetual and invincible
enmity to good, are nevertheless free agents. With respect to the free
agency of these beings, a question might be started, whether it is such
as renders them responsible for their _present acts_, the decision of
which might have some bearing on the subject under investigation; but
not such bearing as would make it important to discuss it here. If they
are responsible for their _present acts_, it must be on account of a
former probation, which by sin they have judicially forfeited. Or if any
one thinks otherwise, and is disposed to maintain that a being who is
not, and _never was_ so circumstanced as to render the choice of good
possible to him, is nevertheless a free moral agent, in any such sense
as renders him accountable, with such a sentiment at present I have no
controversy. Indeed such an opinion is so violent an outrage upon all
the acknowledged principles of justice, that to controvert it would be a
work of little profit.
It is certain that the moral standing of those angels and men whose
states are now unalterably fixed, differs materially from their
probationary state; and this difference renders their moral agency
unsuited to illustrate the agency of beings who are on probation. Man,
in this life, is in a state of trial; good and evil are presented before
him as objects of choice; and upon this choice are suspended eternal
consequences of happiness or misery. Of a being thus circumstanced, it
is not enough to say he is free to choose as he does, unless you can
say, also, he is equally free to make an opposite choice.--Hence, in
defining the free agency of man, as a probationer, we say, as above,
that it implies a power of choice, with full liberty to choose either
good or evil.
The foregoing definition, at first view, seems sufficient for all
practical purposes, and so indeed it would have been, if a speculative
philosophy had not thrown it into the alembic of metaphysics for
decomposition and analysis. It is doubtful whether this process has
subserved the cause of truth; nay, it is certain, I think, that it has
produced many perplexing refinements and speculations that have greatly
aided the cause of error. Into these abstrusities, therefore, it seems
necessary to follow this question, to try, if possible, to draw out and
combine the elements of truth.
Having defined free agency to mean _the power of choice_, &c, it is
asked again, _What is this power of choice?_ It is probable that the
different answers given to this question constitute the fundamental
differences between Calvinists and Arminians. To the above question
some, like the reply of the Jews to Christ, have said, "We cannot tell."
And they give this evasive reply perhaps for a reason similar to that
which influenced the Jews; they fear that a definite answer will involve
themselves or their theory in difficulty. This is a very convenient way
to avoid responsibility, but not indicative of much fairness, or
confidence in their cause. When men have involved their system in
apparent contradictions, it will hardly satisfy the candid inquirer
after truth to see them start aside from the very point that is to give
character to their whole system. We are told by men who reason upon
foreknowledge, &c, that "God hath decreed whatsoever comes to pass;" and
then we are told that all men are free, and they enter into a great deal
of metaphysical speculation about foreknowledge, the nature of voluntary
action, &c, to prove these positions; but when they are pressed upon
this point, "How can you reconcile with free agency that kind of Divine
efficiency necessary to secure the execution of the decrees, and that
kind of dependency of moral agents which this efficiency implies?" the
reply is, "We cannot tell--the how in the case we cannot explain." This
evasion might be allowable, perhaps, in either of the two following
cases: 1. If the apparent discrepancy of the two positions grew out of
what is _mysterious_, and not of what is _palpably contradictory;_ or,
2. If both propositions were so _clearly proved_, that it would do
greater violence to our reasons, and be a greater outrage upon all
acknowledged principles of belief, to disbelieve either of them, than it
would to believe them with all their apparent contradictions. With
respect to the first alternative, it appears to me, and doubtless it
would so appear to all whose prejudices did not mislead the mind, that
the want of apparent agreement between the two is not for lack of light
in the case, but from the natural incongruity of the things compared.
When you say, "God executes his decrees by efficiently controlling the
will of man," and say also, "The mind of man is free," both these
propositions are clear; there is nothing mysterious about them. But you
say, perhaps, "The mystery is in the want of light to see the
_agreement_ of the two; we cannot _see_ their agreement, but we should
not therefore infer that they do not agree." I answer, What is light, in
this case, but a clear conception of the propositions? This we have, and
we see that they are, _in their nature_, incompatible; and the more
light you can pour upon this subject, the more clearly must this
incompatibility appear. If you say that "perhaps neither you nor I fully
understand the meaning of these propositions;" then I reply, _We have no
business to use them_. "Who is this that darkens counsel by words
without knowledge?" And this is what I have already complained of; men
will reason themselves into propositions which they call doctrinal
facts, but which seem to the eye of common sense to have all the
characteristics of contradictions, and when we urge these contradictions
in objection, the objection is not allowed to have any weight, because
we do not fully understand the propositions. So then the propositions
must be received, _though we do not understand them!_ and though, as far
as we do understand them, they are obviously incompatible!! Is this the
way to gain knowledge, and to make truth triumphant? How much more
consistent to say, Since it is evident the mind is free, and since the
doctrine of predestination is apparently incompatible with that freedom,
therefore this doctrine should be exploded!
Or will this second alternative be resorted to? Will it be said that
both of these propositions are so clearly proved, that to deny them
would do greater violence to our reasons, and the principles of belief,
than to acknowledge them, notwithstanding their apparent incongruity?
Let us examine them. Of one of them we cannot doubt, unless we doubt all
primary truths, viz. That the human mind is free. It is presumed, if the
question come to this, that they must either give up human liberty or
the dogma of predestination, candid Calvinists themselves would not
hesitate; they would say, the _former_ must stand, whatever becomes of
the _latter_. If I am correct here, it follows that, predestinarians
themselves being judges, the doctrine of predestination is not so clear
as some other moral truths. But is there any thing clearer than that man
ought not to be held accountable for what is unavoidable? that he ought
not to be held to answer for volitions that are efficiently controlled
by a superior? To me this is as clear as consciousness itself can make
it, and I think it must be to mankind in general. If I am correct, then
we come to the conclusion at once, that to believe in the compatibility
of predestination with human liberty and accountability does more
violence to the laws of belief than it would to discard predestination.
Whatever, therefore, may _seem_ to be favourable to this doctrine,
should be sacrificed to a stronger claim upon our belief in another
direction. But, that the argument may be set in as strong light as
possible, let the evidence of predestination be adduced. What is it? It
is not consciousness certainly; and it is almost as clear that it is not
moral demonstration by a course of reasoning. The most I believe that
has ever been said, in the way of moral demonstration, has been in an
argument founded on foreknowledge, which argument, it is supposed by the
author, is fairly disposed of in the sermon on predestination, by
reasoning which has not, to his knowledge, ever been refuted. A
refutation has been attempted, I grant, by some of the reviewers of the
sermon, but the only apparent success that attended those attempts was,
as we have already seen, in consequence of their taking the very ground
of the sermon, and building the decrees of God upon a prior view and
knowledge of all possible contingencies. If consciousness and reasoning
are taken away from this doctrine, it has nothing left to stand upon but
testimony. And no testimony but Divine will here be of any authority;
and does revelation prove this doctrine? In the sermon on predestination
it was stated that "there was not a single passage in the Bible which
teaches directly that God hath foreordained whatsoever comes to pass;"
and it is not known to the writer, that among the different reviews of
the sermon it has even been attempted to show that the statement was
incorrect. But if a solitary passage could have been adduced, should we
not have heard of it? The evidence from Scripture then, if there is any,
is indirect, and merely by inference. And even this indirect testimony
is far from being the best of its kind; so, at least, a great portion of
believers in revelation think.
Now, candid reader, if you have carefully followed the chain of thought
thus far, let me ask you to pause and propound for yourself, and
honestly answer the following question--"Is there so much evidence in
favour of predestination, that I should do more violence to my own
reason, and the laws of belief, by rejecting it, than I should by
believing that this doctrine is compatible with free agency and
accountability?" Indeed, Calvinists themselves have so felt the force of
these difficulties, when the terms predestination and free will have
been understood in their common and obvious sense, that they have
attempted a variety of explanations of these terms to do away, if
possible, the apparent discrepancy. These attempts have been the
principal cause of those changes and modifications in the Calvinistic
system, alluded to in a former number. The various explanations and
definitions that have been given to foreordination, have already been
noticed. We have seen how every effort failed of affording any relief to
the system, until we came down to the last; I mean that of the New-Haven
divines. This new theory does indeed avoid the difficulty, but avoids it
only by giving up the doctrine! Any thing short of this amounts to
nothing; it stands forth still the "_absolute decree_," fixed as fate,
and fixing, strong as fate, all the acts of subordinate intelligences.
Any _real_ modification of it is a virtual renunciation, and a
substitution in its stead of the public and consistent decree of Heaven,
"He that believeth shall be saved; he that believeth not shall be
damned."
Not succeeding as was hoped in such a definition of predestination as
would harmonize the opposing propositions, repeated trials have been
made to define and explain _human liberty_ and the _power of choice_, so
as to _bend_ these into a coincidence with the _inflexible decree_. This
brings us back to the inquiry started above: "What is this power of
choice?" Now as this is a point more metaphysical in its nature than the
proposition embracing the decrees, so there is more ground for laboured
argument and refined speculation. Only one theory, however, needs to be
particularly noticed:--1. Because it is the most plausible of any other,
so that if this will not bear the test, it is probable no other will;
and 2. Because this is the theory which is now pretty generally, and
perhaps almost universally adopted by the Calvinists; I mean the
Calvinistic doctrine of motives. It is in substance this: the power of
choice is that power which the mind has of acting in view of motives,
and of deciding according to the strongest motive. The strength and
direction of volition are always in accordance with the motive. And this
relation between mind and motives is fixed by the very constitution of
our natures, so that it may be said there is a constitutional necessity
that the mind should be controlled by motives. These motives are
multitudinous and various.--All conceptions and perceptions of the mind,
from whatever cause, productive of pleasure or pain, exciting emotions
of love or aversion, are motives; or, more properly, perhaps, the causes
of these mental states are motives. Between these motives and the mind
there is such a connection, that the _former_ not only excite, but
control the _latter_, in all its volitions. The nature of this relation
is of course beyond the limits of human investigation: all we can say
is, such is the nature of motives and of mind. Such is the theory. The
arguments by which it is defended are in substance the following
--experience and observation. We are conscious, it is said, of acting
from motives, and it is universally understood that others also act from
motives. It is on this principle that we govern ourselves in our
intercourse with men; by this we calculate with moral certainty, in many
instances, what will be the conduct of a man in a given case; and, upon
such calculations, we form most of our maxims, and rules of conduct in
social life: nay, it is said a man that will act without a reason must
be insane--that, on this ground, whenever a man acts it is common to
inquire what _induced_ him. What motive had he? That even children, at a
very early age so readily recognize this principle, that they are
constantly inquiring why do you do this or that. Such are the strongest
arguments by which this theory is sustained--arguments too strong it is
supposed to be overthrown.
I object to the sovereign control of the mind by motives. But in
offering my objections, it should first be observed that no man, in his
senses, it is presumed, will deny that motives have an important
influence in determining our volitions. Nor is it necessary, in order to
oppose the doctrine of the controlling power of motives, to deny that
the power of volition may have been waked up to action, in the first
instance, by motive influence, or that the mind ever after may, in all
its volitions, be more or less under this influence. As these are points
which do not materially affect the question at issue between us and the
Calvinists, they may be left out of the discussion for the present. The
question is this--Has the mind a self-determining power, by which it can
spontaneously decide, independent of the _control_ of motives, or is the
mind absolutely controlled by motives? We maintain the former--our
opponents the latter. By establishing our position, we disprove
theirs--by disproving theirs we establish ours--and it is believed that
theirs can be directly disproved, and ours directly established; at
least so far as we can hope to arrive at demonstration on these
extremely difficult points.
1. My first objection to this doctrine of motive influence is, that most
of the arguments by which it is defended, as directly and certainly
prove that the Divine mind is subject to the absolute control of motives
as that human minds are. It is argued, that to maintain the doctrine of
spontaneous volition, independent of the _control_ of motives, involves
the absurdity, that "our volitions are excited without any intelligent
reasons whatever, and as the effect, consequently, of nothing better
than a mere brute or senseless mechanism." (_Views in Theology_, p.
163.)--Now if this has any bearing on the question, it relates not to
human mind and human volition merely, but to _mind in general_, and must
apply to the Divine mind. The same may be said, in fact, of most of the
arguments that are brought in favour of this doctrine. Calvinists are
convinced of this--and hence this also is a part of their creed. It was
defended by Dr. Edwards, and is thus avowed by Professor Upham, in his
System of Mental Philosophy. Speaking of the control of motives, he
says, "Our condition, in this respect, seems to be essentially the same
with that of the Supreme Being himself--he is _inevitably_ governed in
all his doings, by what, in the great range of events, is wisest and
best." (Vol. ii, p. 381.) Thus the Divine Being is, according to this
theory, and by the express showing of the leading advocates of the
theory, "_inevitably_" made a subordinate to a superior. It is believed
there is no avoiding this conclusion; and what then? Why then the
doctrine makes God a necessary agent, and leads to atheism! It is
nearly, if not exactly, the same as the old heathen doctrine of fate.
The ancient heathens supposed that Jupiter himself, the omnipotent
father of the gods and men, must yield to fate. Modern Christians teach
that there is a certain fitness of things, certain constitutional
relations, existing independent of the Divine will, which God himself
cannot supersede, but to which he must yield. How does this sink, at
once, both the natural and moral perfections of God! The exercises of
his wisdom and goodness are nothing more than the result of certain
fixed and irresistible influences. Fixed not by God himself, for that
would be to give up the doctrine; for in that case, in the order of
cause and effect, the Divine mind must have acted without control of
motive, if this law of motive influence did not exist until the Divine
volition willed it into being and if he could once act independent of
this control, he might so act for ever; and the argument built on the
absurdity of volition, without an intelligent reason, is contradicted.
But if that argument has any weight, it fixes, in the order of cause and
effect, a paramount influence eternally antecedent to the exercise of
the Divine mind, and controlling that mind with irresistible sway. This
is fate! This is atheism! Once set up an influence that controls the
Divine mind, call that influence what you will, _fitness of
things--fate--energy_ of nature--or necessary relation, and that moment
you make God a subordinate; you hurl him from his throne of sovereignty,
and make him the instrument of a superior. Of what use is such a Deity?
Might we not as well have none! Nay better, as it seems to me, if under
the control of his own native influence he is led to create beings
susceptible of suffering, and fix the relations of those beings to the
motives around them such, that by a law of their nature they are
"inevitably" led to sin and endless wo! Is it to be wondered at, that
many Calvinists have become infidels? This doctrine of motives is the
very essence of the system of Spinoza, whose deity was the _energy of
nature!_ The supreme controlling power of Dr. Edwards and his followers
is the _energy of motives_, which exists in the nature of things,
anterior to the will of God. Can any one point out any essential
difference between the two systems?
Such are the objections to _any arguments_ in favour of the doctrine
that motives "inevitably" control the volitions of intelligent beings
_in general_, involving of course the highest intelligence. But if any
are disposed to give up this doctrine, as essential to intelligent
volition in general, and choose to maintain it only in respect to the
volitions of some particular intelligent beings; then they must give up
all the strongest of their arguments. If God is free from this
_control_, they must acknowledge also, or give some reason for their
dissent, that he may, if he chooses, make and sustain subordinate
intelligences, having the same freedom from this control; and if they
acknowledge that there is nothing in the nature of the case that renders
this an impossibility, then they must show, if they can, that though God
_might_ constitute beings otherwise, he has _so constituted man_ as to
render him incapable of choice, except _when_ and _as_ motives direct,
by an inevitable influence. But in attempting this they must meet other
difficulties in their course, which, it is believed, will greatly
embarrass the system. These difficulties, however, together with the
arguments which I design to advance directly in favour of the opposite
view, must be reserved for another number.
NUMBER IX.
MORAL AGENCY AND ACCOUNTABILITY, CONTINUED.