One of the cardinal doctrines of the Christian faith is the free agency
of man; but the very term is a logical contradiction. An agent must act
in accordance with the will and wishes of his employer, or he will be
called to account, and perhaps dismissed. Where, then, is his moral
freedom? It may be assumed that his employer licenses him to take his
own course; but this must be with certain conditions, or else he will
act for himself, and be no agent at all. Certain alternatives are placed
before an agent, which he is privileged to choose; but that does not
make him free in any rational or practical sense. If he does not act as
required or desired, he will be either punished or dismissed. That is
a singular kind of freedom. It is the freedom of a slave, which is no
freedom at all; and this is exactly the kind of freedom orthodoxy grants
to the sinner, and to the whole human race. It marks out the road to
heaven, and says, "This is the road to eternal bliss; and you must walk
in it, or eternal misery will be your portion." And, to escape such
a terrible doom, millions tremblingly travel the road impelled and
propelled by fear. And this painful alternative Christians are pleased
to term free agency, or moral freedom. It is simply the freedom of a
slave to clank his chains. It is a perversion of language to apply the
term "free agency" to such a case. The orthodox give us our choice to
accept their terms of salvation or reject them; but they attach to
the consequence of rejecting them the most awful penalties. We will
illustrate: A father says to his son some sabbath morning, "John, I am
going to leave you free to-day either to go to church or go a-fishing."
He instantly darts away to the river or the lake with the glee of a
humming-bird, and is seen no more until nightfall. As he approaches the
door, his father says to him, "John, where have you been to-day?"--"Why,
father, I have been fishing, to be sure."--"Well now, John, I am going
to give you one of the most terrible floggings you ever had in your life
for not going to church."--"Why, father, you told me I might take my
choice, and go either to church, or go a-fishing."--"That is true, John;
but it was with the implied understanding that, if _you did not choose_
to go to church, I would give you an unmerciful whipping." This is
free agency indeed! It is the free agency of orthodoxy illustrated, and
applied to practice. Free agency coupled with a penalty is moral slavery
and moral tyranny. There is no moral freedom about it. You are simply
free to take your choice between two systems of slavery and two systems
of punishment or suffering. A hare pursued by a hound enjoys a similar
kind of freedom,--the freedom to stand and be caught, or the freedom
to run. Of all the absurdities that ever entered the brain of a human
being, that of setting God and the Devil both after man, as orthodoxy
does, and then call him a free agent, is not excelled. We are told
that we can not think a thought of ourselves. All our good thoughts
and actions are prompted by a good being; and all our bad thoughts' and
actions by a bad being (God and the Devil). Where, then, is our moral
freedom or our moral accountability, if neither our thoughts nor our
actions are our own, as they can not be if they are prompted by other
beings? When a man performs a good act, it is assumed that God is the
author of it; and he is told that he must give God praise for it. On the
other hand, all wicked actions are assigned to the Devil. He is thus a
target between these two cross-fires. Such an assumption sweeps away
the last vestige of free agency and moral accountability. Some Christian
professors accept the doctrine of free agency to escape the dreaded
alternative of assuming man to be a mere machine, which they call
fatality. But here you have fatality to repletion. If to place man
between two all-powerful beings, and have them both trying to direct his
actions at once, don't make him a machine, then we have no use for the
word. It is strange that Christian professors have never discovered
that, according to the teachings of the Bible, God himself is not a free
agent. A free agent is one who can have things as he wills or wishes, so
far as he has the power to make them so. Look, then, at the fact that,
according to their own Bible, God himself does not enjoy this desirable
boon. It is declared by that book that "God wills not the death
(destruction) of the sinner, but that all shall be saved." And it is
elsewhere declared that "strait is the gate, and narrow is the way,
that leadeth unto life; and few there be that find it." According to the
first text, God desires to save all; but, according to the second, he
succeeds in saving but very few. Hence, not having things as he desires
or wishes them to be, it is evident he is not a free agent, according
to the orthodox or technical sense of that term. Why, then, talk of
men being free agents, if a being with infinite power can not be a free
agent?
To make man a free agent strictly or truly, he should have been
consulted beforehand as to how, when, and where he would be born, or
whether he would be born at all or not. Douglas Jerrold significantly
remarks that, "if I had foreknown that a portion of mankind would be
born to be damned, I'll be d----d if I would have been born at all."
This expression, although profane, contains a good moral. Certainly
nothing could be more preposterous or unreasonable than to hold one
being accountable to another when the former had no agency in creating
his mind or originating his inclinations, out of which all his actions
grow. True accountability can only appertain to beings who created their
own natural inclinations, or consented to receive those they are in
possession of. This is clear and unanswerable logic. If man was made by
God, or Infinite Wisdom, as Christians affirm, then common sense would
teach that God alone is accountable for his actions. The man would be
a fool who should blame a watch for not running right, knowing that the
maker conferred upon it all the properties and powers it possessed. The
maker of the watch alone is held responsible for all its perfections
and imperfections. And, if man has a maker, it is a very clear case that
that maker is equally responsible for his running wrong. There is no
resisting this conclusion. The true assumption in the case is, that
man has no creator in the orthodox sense, and is only responsible to
himself, and to society so far as he is a voluntary member of it. But
orthodoxy makes his salvation depend not only upon his resisting the
natural inclinations implanted in his system, but also upon the position
of his birth. As an argument in favor of sending the Bible to the
heathen, they declare that millions perish every year because they have
not the opportunity of reading that "Holy Book," and learning the name
of Jesus. This makes their salvation depend upon the locality of their
birth; as some sections furnish the opportunity, and others do not, of
becoming acquainted with their Bible, and the name of their Savior.
We must imagine, therefore, in "the day of judgment" every human being
will have a geographical question to answer. After being interrogated as
to their conduct and practical lives, the next question will be, "Where
were you born?" If the answer is, "In Arabia," the reply of the judge
will be, "Oh yes! you are a Mahomedan. Our religion only saves those
born in Christian countries. I must therefore set you aside among the
goats." If the applicant is from India, he will be rejected from the
kingdom, and consigned to perdition, because he is a "heathen." And
thus Christianity is shown to be a geographical system of salvation,
and makes a man's eternal destiny depend upon whether he is born in this
country or that country, which strips it of all claim to either justice,
impartiality, or good sense. The doctrine of free agency and moral
accountability is one in a long list of Geological absurdities, which
originated in an age of scientific ignorance, when nothing was known
of the natural powers, or the philosophy of the human mind, or the laws
which control its action.
_Moral Accountability_.--What is it? and where is it? It is certainly
one of the greatest moral puzzles ever submitted to a philosopher, as
to how a being, forced into existence by an omnipotent creative power,
without his consultation or consent, can be responsible to that creative
power for his conduct, when he had no agency and no volition in his own
creation, and no power of resisting it, or in shaping its conditions. If
God possesses omnipotent power and infinite wisdom, and _is a creator_,
he could and should have made man to act just as he wished him to act;
and, if he did not do so, common sense would suggest that it was his
own fault. It will be seen from the force of this logic, that Christians
must either give up the doctrine of a voluntary personal creator, or
that of moral accountability. The two doctrines _can not_ be made to
harmonize together.