Chapter V: Part 5

The doctrine of motives I understand to be this, that "the power of volition is never excited, nor _can be_, except in the presence and from the excitement of motives," (see "Views in Theology,") and that the mind must necessarily be swayed by the strongest motive, or by what appears to the mind to be the greatest good. Dr. Edwards, following Leibnitz, incorporated this doctrine of philosophical necessity with the Calvinistic theology. In this he has been followed by a great portion, I believe, of the Calvinistic clergy. Without stopping here to attempt a refutation of this theory, my present object is to show that it necessarily fastens upon Calvinism the charges brought against it, and sustains the definition that has been given to predestination. For since God creates both the mind and the motives, and brings them together for the _express purpose_ that the former should be swayed by the latter, it follows conclusively that God _efficiently_ controls the will, and produces all its volitions. And this is according to express Calvinistic teaching:--"God," says the author of "Views in Theology," already quoted, "God is the determiner of perceptions, and perceptions are the determiners of choices." The inference therefore is plain and unavoidable, _God is the determiner of choices_. The plea that God does not produce volitions, by a direct influence, but indirectly, through second causes, avails nothing. Although there should be ten, or ten thousand intermediate links, if they are all arranged by our Creator in such order as to produce the intellectual vibration intended, whenever he pleases to give the impulse, what is the difference? In point of efficient agency, none at all. Nor yet will it alter the case to say, that "this effect is produced by God through such a medium as is suited to the nature of the mind, and therefore it cannot be said, that God does any violence to the will, or to man's free agency." God created the _mind_, and the _means_ that were to influence it. He gave to mind its nature, and to motives their influence and arrangement, for _this very purpose_. Hence, unless man can unmake himself, he is _bound by the law of his nature_ to act in all cases as he does. Why talk about a _free_ agency when it is such an agency as _must_, by _the constitution_ of _God_, lead inevitably to sin and ruin! That old, and in the premises, foolish reply, that man could do differently, _if he chose_, does not help the case. It is only saying, the nature of man is such that it is governed by his perceptions, and since "God is the determiner of perceptions, and perceptions the determiners of choices," whenever God pleases to alter the perceptions so as thereby to change the choice, _then_, and not before, man can do differently. According to this doctrine is it possible, according to the very nature of mind, for the choice to be different until the perceptions are changed? And can the perceptions be changed, until God changes them? To answer either or both of these questions in the affirmative, would be to give up the doctrine of motives. To answer them in the negative, would be to entail upon the doctrine all that I have charged upon it. The advocates of the theory may have their choice. Nor yet, again, will it destroy the force of this argument, to say "man has an _unholy nature;_ and this is the reason why the motives presented influence him to sin; therefore the guilt is chargeable upon himself, and God is clear." For, in the first place, this would not account for the first unholy volitions of holy angels and the first human pair.

This argument presupposes that, but for the consideration of man's _unholy nature_, the charge against the Calvinistic theory would be valid. And inasmuch as here are cases in which the argument obviously affords no relief to the system, it follows that in these uses, at least, God is the efficient and procuring cause of unholy volitions--and therefore the charges against predestination are established. But by a little farther attention we shall see that this argument affords as little relief to the system in the case of man as he now is. For this first sin, which was itself the necessary result of the Divine arrangement and of positive Divine influence, threw, if possible, a stronger and a more dire necessity over all the coming generations of men. For this act entailed upon man a depraved heart. Hence this corrupt nature came upon man without his knowledge or agency. We trace it back then, thus:--Man's love of sin was produced by the unholy choice of the first pair--that choice was produced by perceptions--these perceptions were produced by motives--and these motives were brought by God to bear upon the minds which he had made for this very purpose--therefore God, by design, and because he purposed it, produced our corrupt nature; and then, for the express purpose of leading that unholy nature to put forth unholy volitions, he brings those motives to bear upon our minds, which, from the unavoidable nature of those minds, _must produce_ the sin designed. It is thus that, according to his theory, our Creator binds the human mind by the strong cords of depravity with one hand, and with the other lashes it, by the maddening scourge of motives, into all the excitement of unholy delirium; and then, for his own glory, consigns the sinner over to the prison house of wo!! Turn this system, then, as you will, you find this doctrine of predestination binding the human mind, and efficiently producing all the volitions of the moral universe. The strong arm of Jehovah not more directly and irresistibly moves and binds the planets in their orbits, than it moves and controls, in the mysterious circle of his eternal decrees, "all the actions of all his creatures."

I know, as a closing argument, it is urged, whatever may be our inferences, we all know that we are free, and that we are responsible, because _we are conscious of it_. This is a most singular course of reasoning, and seems to have been adopted to reconcile contradictions. If this doctrine be true, I am not _sure_ that I am free, and that I am responsible merely because I feel that I am. I am at least _quite_ as conscious that I ought not to be held responsible for what is unavoidable, as I am that I am possessed of moral liberty. Break down my consciousness in one case, and you prepare the way for me to suspect it of fallacy in another. And if I must give up my consciousness, between two alternatives I will choose that which will not involve the government of God in injustice, and myriads of intelligent beings in unavoidable perdition. Hence, with Dr. Edwards' premises, which he holds in common with Lord Kaimes, I would come to his lordship's conclusion, viz. that God never intended to hold men responsible, and the universal feeling of responsibility is a kind of pious fraud--a salutary delusion, imposed as a check and restraint upon man here, but to be followed by no unpleasant consequences either here or hereafter. But this would be charging our Creator with both deception and folly--deception in the delusive consciousness of responsibility, and folly in suffering Lord Kaimes and others to disclose the secret, and frustrate the Divine purpose! This cannot be. The charge of deception and of fallacy, therefore, must be rolled back from consciousness and from the throne of God upon the doctrine of predestination. And if the reaction should crush the theory for ever, it would doubtless be a blessing to the Church and to the world.

To conclude. For the reasons given, I must still maintain that the charges contained in the sermon against that modification of Calvinism I am now opposing, are just; and the definition assumed, is correct. If the advocates of the system can clear themselves, or their doctrine, let it be done. If not, let one of two courses be pursued--either let the system be abandoned, or _let us have it as it is_.

I have dwelt the longer on this subject, because I am weary, and I believe we all are, of hearing the oft-repeated complaint, "You misrepresent us!" "You mistake our doctrine!"

In the next No., by the leave of Providence, the nature of human agency, and the ground of human responsibility, will be examined.

NUMBER VIII.

MORAL AGENCY AND ACCOUNTABILITY.

BY what has been said on the theory of Calvinistic predestination, it 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.

Another argument against the Calvinistic doctrine of motives is, that it leads to materialism. The doctrine, it will be recollected, is this: When the mind is brought into connection with objects of choice, it is _inevitably_ led, by a law of its nature, to the selection of one rather than of the other, unless there is a _perfect equality_ between them; in which case I suppose, of course, the mind must remain in equilibrium; for if it moves only by the influence of motives, and to the same degree and in the same direction with motive influence, of course when it is equally attracted in opposite directions it must be at rest! It is on this ground that Leibnitz maintained that God could not make two particles of matter in all respects alike; because, in that case, being "inevitably" governed by motives in his decisions, he could not determine where to place them, both having the same influence on his mind for a location in the same place! The same writer represents this motive influence, also, as frequently imperceptible, but not the less effectual, and not the less voluntary! And to illustrate it makes the following comparison:--"It is as if a needle, touched with a loadstone, were sensible of and pleased with its turning to the north, for it would believe that it turned itself independent of any other cause, not perceiving the insensible motions of the magnetic power." This statement of Leibnitz, who had paid great attention to this philosophical theory, is important in several respects. It is, in the first place, an acknowledgment that consciousness is against the doctrine; and it is also a concession that the mind is _imposed upon_, in this matter, by the Creator. But with respect to the argument, that this doctrine leads to materialism, this quotation is important, because it shows that one of the most _philosophical_, if not one of the most _evangelical_ of the defenders of this doctrine, considered the law of motive influence similar to the law of magnetic attraction, differing only in being accompanied by sensation and a deceptive consciousness. And what says its great evangelical champion in this country, Dr. Edwards? He compares our volitions to the vibrations of a scale beam, the different ends of which are respectively elevated or depressed as the opposite weights may chance to vary. What is this but teaching that motions of mind are governed by the same fixed laws as those of matter, and that volitions are perfectly mechanical states of mind? What the advocates of this doctrine charge on the opposite theory belongs, by their own showing, to their own system.--_They_, not we, make choices the result of animal instinct, or senseless mechanism. I know Professor Stuart, in his late exposition of the Romans, seems to reprobate these comparisons; and while he contends, as I should think, as strenuously as Dr. Edwards, for a complete and efficient control of the Divine Being over all our volitions, he appears to think that there is a great difference between the laws of intellectual and material action. So, indeed, do we think. But we think that difference consists in the mind's being free from that control for which the professor contends; and we believe when he contends for that control in the volitions of the mind, he contends for that which, from the nature of the case, entirely destroys the other part of his hypothesis, viz. that the operations of the mind are free, and essentially different from mechanical motion or the laws of attractive influence in the material world. If the attractive power of motives over the mind is any thing different from the law of gravitation or magnetic attraction, what is that difference? Should any one say, I cannot tell; I ask then, How does he know but it is _that very power_ for which Arminians contend? Most probably it is that power. Or will it be said, the difference between motive influence and gravity is consciousness? I reply, Consciousness is no part of the relation between motives and the power of choice. I see not indeed how it affects that relation at all. And this the comparison of Leibnitz, already alluded to, clearly illustrates. Look at that flowing stream; it hastens on most freely, and by the law of its own nature down the gentle declivities or more precipitous slopes of its meandering channel. Suppose now that Omnipotence should impart consciousness to the particles of the continuous current, it would then wake up to perceive the action and feel the pleasure of its own delightful motions. It would roll on still by the law of its own nature, and would feel that it was free to move according to its own _inclination_ and voluntary tendency, for its will would of course be in the direction of its _motive_, or in other phrase, its _gravitating_ influence. But could it turn its course and roll back its waters to their fountains? It could if it was so _inclined_. But its present _inclination_ is toward the bottom of the valley or the bosom of the ocean, and thither, by the relation that exists between its particles and the gravitating influence of the earth, it rolls on _with the utmost freedom_, though with the utter impossibility of changing its own course, without an inversion of the gravitating power. Let the hand of Omnipotence invert the slope of the mountain, and to! with the same freedom these very waters roll back again to their original fountains! Thus it is with the human mind. It is conscious of being free to move in the direction of its inclinations, but require it to turn its course and move in the current of its volitions, in an opposite direction, and it would be utterly impossible, until Omnipotence himself should change the motive influence.--"God is the determiner of perceptions, and perceptions are the determiners of choices."

We see, therefore, that this doctrine of motive influence leads to materialism, for it makes the analogy between mental and material action so complete that it destroys all idea of _intellectual power_. Philosophically speaking, there is no _power_ in the laws of nature. What we express by the _power_ of attraction, or repulsion, or decomposition, is nothing more than the uniformity of the Divine agency. Does the earth attract elevated bodies to its surface?--This is not an energy inherent in nature; it is the God of nature acting by a uniform law. This is all that any intelligent man can mean by the power of nature. We, however, use the word _power_ in an accommodated sense in these cases, but always I think in connection with that portion of matter that _appears_ to act, and not _that_ which is acted upon. The magnet, we say, has power to attract iron, because iron is attracted toward the magnet, and not the magnet toward the iron. The antecedent, or that which takes the lead in the motion, is more properly said to have the power, or is the efficient cause. If then we allow of the use of the term power at all, to express the relation of cause and effect, growing out of a philosophical constitution of things, the term should be applied to the antecedent, and not to the consequent. In the case before us, mental action is not the cause of the motive, but the motive is the cause of the mental action: therefore we should say motives have _power_ to act upon the mind, and the mind has a _susceptibility_ of being acted upon. Dr. Reid has well observed, that a power to be acted upon is no power, or "it is a _powerless power_," which is philosophically absurd. Therefore we come to the conclusion that the mind has no _power_ of _choice_, but has a _susceptibility_ of being drawn into a state called volition by the power of motives. It will avail nothing, as I conceive, to say that there is evidently a difference between the susceptibility of the mind in this case, and the susceptibility of matter in other cases, unless it be shown what that difference is: for when that difference is pointed out, it will doubtless be found to be what is in direct opposition to the motive theory. It is the misfortune of the Calvinistic system that it often has to assume positions to keep itself in countenance, which positions themselves are a virtual abandonment of the system. So the New-Haven divines have done to support predestination, and to this all Calvinists are driven in their attempts to reconcile free will, or the power of choice, with their doctrine of motives, dependence &c. We may be told in the case before us, that "when the mind is acted upon it is then excited to action." But how excited to action? Is the action any stronger than the motive influence?--Is it carried beyond this influence? or in a different direction? To answer any _one_ of these questions in the affirmative is to give up the theory; but to answer them in the negative is to attribute to the mind nothing more than the inertia of matter. The _motives_ are (under God) the _agent_, the _mind_ is the _passive object_, and the _volition_ is the _effect_. Can any one say then, on this theory, that the mind has the power of choice? It has no power in the first place, because its volitions are the result of philosophical necessity; and it has no power, secondly, because it is not the cause of its own volitions, but in these volitions it is the passive subject of foreign influences. Now, so far as moral action is concerned, how does this differ from materialism? It is true mental action differs from material action in some associated circumstances; it is accompanied by consciousness; but as consciousness of itself cannot give accountability, and as it gains nothing in this respect by being associated with such kind of mental action as results from philosophical necessity, it appears plain that man is not accountable; and if not accountable, it is more than probable that he has no future existence, and thus again we are driven to materialism and to deism, if not to atheism.

That man is not _accountable_ upon the principle we are opposing, might have been made a distinct argument; but I have connected it with the argument that this doctrine leads to materialism because they imply each other. If materialism is true, we are not accountable, and if we are not accountable, materialism is probably true; and both are true, as I conceive, if the Calvinistic doctrine of motives is true.

It may, however, be urged by the advocates of this theory, that the mind is not wholly passive, because we are conscious of putting forth a mental energy and making a responsible volition; _that_ I am ready to grant, but then our consciousness is a fallacy if this system be true; and on the contrary, if consciousness be true, this system is false. I believe no one who pays attention to his own mind will doubt of having this consciousness. But does that prove the truth of this theory? It is one thing to be conscious of having this energy of mind and responsible volition, and another to be conscious that the theory in question is true; indeed this consciousness destroys the theory.

Should it be urged in opposition to the alleged tendency of this system to materialism, that different minds are not uniformly influenced by the same motives, nor the same minds at different times, and therefore, in this respect, it is evident that the laws of mind and of matter differ; I reply, It is precisely so with matter; for _that_ attracts or repels according to its different magnetic or electrical states; or should it be urged that mind differs from matter, and shows itself to be possessed of a peculiar energy, because it has power to suspend its decisions, to review the subject, to investigate, &c; I answer, this it cannot do without a motive; and this it _must_ do if the motive preponderate in that direction, but not otherwise.

To have a proper view of this subject let us go back to the first perception. Could the mind, according to this doctrine, act otherwise than in coincidence with the motive influence of this perception; or could it even suspend the volition this influence was calculated to produce, until a second and more powerful motive was introduced? If it could, then this doctrine is false; if it could not, then the mind, like matter put in motion, must move on invariably in the same direction, and with the same velocity of thought for ever, or until a new motive should counteract the influence of the former! This is emphatically the _vis inertia_ of matter. The bare statement of which seems sufficient to overthrow the theory.

Another objection to this doctrine of motives is, it leads to the notion of regeneration by _moral suasion_ merely. There has been much said of late, by the various writers in the old and the _new_ school, on this point. The new school are charged with holding that the _truth alone_, without any immediate agency of the Holy Spirit, converts the sinner. This is considered by the old school Calvinists as a fatal error. But why so? If motives _govern_ the mind, with absolute sway, all you _need_ to convert a sinner, is to bring a motive strong enough to induce him to choose God as his chief good, and he is converted. Until you do this there is no conversion, it is impossible for the Holy Ghost to convert a sinner in any other way than by motives, for choice of good we are told is conversion; there is no choice without a motive, and the strongest motive governs choice absolutely; therefore motive is the omnipotent power that changes the sinner's heart. This is the legitimate result of The Calvinistic premises. We have more than once had occasion to wonder that Calvinists should revolt at the result of their own doctrines; here we have another instance of it; here too we have the enigma of "_natural ability_" unriddled. The human mind, by the constitution of its nature, has the power of choosing according to the influence of the strongest motive; and therefore, so far as this can be called a power, it has the natural power to convert itself; and this is the reason why "_make you a new heart_" is the burden of almost every sermon and exhortation in modern preaching; all the sinner has to do is to choose, in view of motives, and he is converted. And here, too, is unravelled that other mystery which we have been so puzzled to understand, viz. that although all possess the natural power to convert themselves, yet no man ever did convert himself without the special interposition of the Divine agency; for, observe, God keeps the motives in his own hands; "God is the determiner of perceptions, and perceptions are the determiners of _choices;_" that is, of _conversions;_ for to choose in a particular way, is to be converted. Whenever, therefore, he is disposed to let the sinner convert himself, according to his natural power; that is, when he is disposed to overpower the mind by an irresistible motive, he brings the motive and mind in contact, and _it is done_. Thus the sinner has as much power to convert himself as he has to resolve to eat when he is hungry; for all the power he has to do either, is a susceptibility of being operated upon, and controlled by the strongest motive; and thus you see, also, that _God_ converts the sinner, because he supplies the motive that influences the choice; and here, too, is seen the occasion for misquoting so frequently and misapplying so universally, that passage in the Psalms: "[My] people shall be [made] willing in the day of [my] power." That is, when God applies the controlling motive to influence to a right choice, then shall the sinner, by a law of his nature, _become willing to be converted_. Such are the wonderful philosophical discoveries of modern theology! This is the way for man to convert _himself_ by natural power, and this is the way for _God_ to convert him, without the aid of _super_ natural power! Well might a divine of this cast, whom I heard preach not long since, say of regeneration, "There is nothing supernatural or miraculous in it." For surely it is one of the most natural things in the world, according to this theory, to be converted. It is only to be operated upon by a motive, according to the law of his natural constitution, and the man is converted.

This _philosophy of Christian experience_ has led modern orthodoxy to the very borders of natural religion. Another step, and we can do without a Holy Ghost or a Divine Saviour. We will sit down with the philosopher in his study, and _work out_ a religious experience, as philosophically as a skilful casuist can solve a question of morals; we will show the _rationale_ of the whole process, and demonstrate it so clearly, that infidels shall lose all their objections to the Gospel, and be induced to "_submit_" to God with scarcely a change of theory. Hereafter let no man say, that the work of regeneration is a mystery--that in this work we cannot tell whence the regenerating influence comes, or whither it goes; for it comes through the philosophical channel of motive influence by which it introduces a "governing purpose" into the mind, and the work is done. Let no man hereafter say that his "faith stands not in the wisdom of man, but in the power of God;" or "if any man would be wise let him become a fool that he may be wise;" or "the wisdom of man is foolishness with God;" for lo, the philosophy of regeneration is at length explained! and the whole secret is found to consist in the philosophical relation between motives and mind!! Can any one wonder, after this, that in Geneva, in Germany, and in New-England, Calvinism has finally resulted in Socinianism? And can any one help trembling for a large portion of the orthodox Churches among us at the present day? Grant that there is an increase of zeal, a greater stir among the people, more revivals, &c; all these, with a good foundation, would promise well for the Church; but we fear there is a worm at the root. By this it is not intended to insinuate that the work is always spurious and the professed conversions unsound. In many instances it is undoubtedly the reverse of this. It might be expected after the people had been lulled for a long time under the paralyzing opiates of old-fashioned Calvinism, that this new and _apparently_ opposite theory should rouse many to action. "I had been taught," said a man not far from this, "that I must wait God's time to be converted, and I waited many years in vain; but more recently I have been instructed that I might convert myself; I set about the work, and I believe it is done!" Now this, which in the relation borders upon the ludicrous, might have been a genuine conversion. His new views might only have been sufficient to arouse him to a co-operation with the Holy Spirit in his conversion; and this may have been the case with thousands. In their practical effects two opposite errors may, in individual cases, neutralize each other.--But is either therefore safe? Will the general effect be salutary? Let the history of the Church speak; and in view of that record I confess I fear for our common Zion. But let not the old Calvinists lay this blame, and charge this danger upon the new school; the new school doctrine is a legitimate scion from that root which they have cultivated with such assiduity and care. It grows out of the doctrine of motives, it springs from the idea of the entire dependence of the human mind for each and all its volitions upon the directing influence of Omnipotence, whatever may be the theory by which that influence is explained.

Another argument in opposition to this doctrine is found in the consideration, that we are constantly liable to disappointment in most of our calculations respecting human agents.--Though we may judge something of what will be the conduct of men in given circumstances, yet our calculations are very far from coming up to mechanical exactness. Motives have some influence; but that influence is very variable and uncertain. Why is this? It is not so in matter; the same causes will produce the same effects to the end of time. But we see many choose, without being able to give what, _in their own estimation_, is a valid reason; they did thus because they chose to do so; they act in defiance of the strongest motives, drawn from whatever source. We see the greatest possible caprice in the volitions of men; we see their minds starting aside, and putting on the greatest possible and unaccountable mental states, in a way and form that baffles all human calculation, and will for ever baffle it. A man may spend all his life in trying to reduce to uniformity the phenomena of human volitions, and thereby to fix, in an unerring code, the laws that govern them, and he may hand his labours to his successor, and so on to the end of time, and after all, that living, spontaneous, thought-producing essence which we call the human soul, will slide from our grasp and elude all our calculations. If this consideration should have no direct weight in opposition to the theory I am opposing, it will at least show the absurdity of defending this system by what is called the _known regularity_ and _uniform phenomena_ of human volitions. To talk of _uniformity_ here, is to talk of, to say the least, what does not exist.