LECTURE VIII.

ON SECOND CAUSES.

ARE SECOND CAUSES EFFICIENT?

THE doctrine maintained in the preceding Lectures was, that second causes, are causes per se, operating by their own inherent energy, and operating as truly in their humble spheres, as the Great First Cause in the mighty works which he performs. Nor do we suppose that this doctrine detracts, in any measure, from the Divine wisdom or power. On the contrary, we coincide with Mr. Locke, in thinking that the opposite doctrine takes away from the power of God, if not from his wisdom: since it denies to him the possibility of imparting to his creatures any agency whatsoever, and makes his government to consist, not in controlling agents, physical or moral, by a system of well adapted means, but in a succession of changes, or events produced by his immediate and sole efficiency. That is to say, he governs creatures which do nothing, and which from their very constitution can do nothing, and this without any means or instrumental causes; for instrumental causes there cannot be, where instruments have no power.

But God, it may be said, can give them power. Be it so; then they are no longer powerless; they will certainly do something, when brought into circumstances

adapted to their agency. But what now becomes of the theory which denies to creatures universally all power, and makes God the sole efficient in every case?

It is a curious fact in the history of this controversy, that those who espouse the doctrine of the immediate and sole efficiency of the Deity, seem to consider it, as representing in a more sublime light the Divine omnipotence, by exhibiting it to our conception as the only power in nature. But they might in like manner affirm, that the creation of the infinity of worlds, with all the life and happiness that are diffused over them, render less, instead of more sublime, the existence of Him who, till then, was the sole existence; for power that is derived, derogates as little from the primary power, as derived existence derogates from the Being from whom it flows."*

Light, say they, is powerless in vision, and yet they are willing to admit that light exists-nay, they are strenuous asserters of its existence—and are anxious only to prove, in their zeal for the glory of Him that made it, and who makes nothing in vain, that this, and all or the greater number of his works, exist to no purpose. For to what purpose can they exist, if they accomplish nothing, nor even make themselves known by any influence or agency whatsoever? "The production of so simple a state as that of vision, or any other of the modes of perception, with an apparatus which is not merely complicated, but in all its complication, absolutely without efficacy, is so far from adding any sublimity to the Divine nature in our conception, that it can scarcely be conceived by the mind without lessening in some degree the sublimity of the Author of the universe, by lessening, or rather destroying, all the sublimity of the universe he has made."

* Brown on Cause and Effect, pp. 62, 63.

Thus reasons Dr. Brown, and so just and forcible is it, that it needs no comment of ours to give it effect. But let us look at this subject in another point of view; let us contemplate it as it stands related to the moral responsibility of man.

It seems to be a common sentiment, equally admitted by both parties in this argument, that moral obligation is founded upon physical ability; that is to say, a man must have a physical capacity to act agreeably to the law of his duty, or he could not be bound to act agreeably to that law. This is obviously a common-sense notion, nor do any insist upon it with more frequency or with more earnestness, than those who make God the only efficient cause. Upon this principle it is, that every man condemns himself, and condemns his neighbor, when he does not act conformably to the rule of duty. But can a man be said to have a physical power to act according to the law of duty, if all his acts, whether physical or moral, are the immediate production of Omnipotence? and, of course, are at all times just what that Omnipotence makes them? What is physical power or ability? Is it not something which pertains to the agent of whom it is predicated; something which is anterior to action, which fits and capacitates for action? But can there be such fitness and capacity, where action is impossible, and admitted to be so, without a new and Almighty Antecedent? an antecedent extrinsic to the agent, and in nowise dependent upon what he is, or what he does? and whose agency can never become his. How is the power of action in him, when it is admitted, and earnestly contended, that it lies out of him, and is in God alone? Will it be said that he has the susceptibility of action, if not the power of action; he can be acted upon, and thus made to act, and made to act in any given manner? Suppose it were so (though upon the principles of our opponents, that

created existence has no qualities, it is as difficult to conceive of susceptibility as of power); yet I say, suppose it were so that man has the susceptibility of action— though not properly the power--that is, he can be made to act when God acts upon him; how does this help the matter as to his physical power? Is it not seen at once, that no such power belongs to him, since his actions flow not from what can be found within himself, and in the objects which surround him, but from the immediate fiat of the Deity. It is this fiat which gives birth to his actions; and without it they have no adequate cause, and consequently are impossible, and impossible for the want of physical ability. If the want of ability, therefore, be the want of power, who does not see that man (according to the philosophy of our opponents) has no physical power, as the basis of obligation, or the source of his responsibility? But there is another difficulty attending the system which we oppose; as it provides no basis for moral obligation by providing man with physical power to act, or not to act, in any given case, so it presents a hypothesis which seems adverse to our notions of responsibility. For as man cannot act without God act upon him, so it would seem he must act when acted upon, and act in the very manner in which the influence he receives shall direct. When he does right and when he does wrong—if right and wrong it could be called-it is owing to the positive, immediate and all-controlling agency of God. And yet he is bound to do the one and to avoid the other, notwithstanding this agency, if not irrespective of it. He is bound to do right, whether God move him to do right or not-though without that moving he has no power; and he is bound to avoid the wrong, though moved to it by Omnipotence, which would transcend his power, if he had any; but he has none, and since he has none, the absurdity seems the greater, that he should be required to avoid that which he has

neither power to do nor to avoid, and that when moved to the wrong by a power which is Almighty. This, surely, cannot be agreeable to our natural notions of things, nor easily reconciled with our acknowledged responsibility.

Is it a mere passive power? a susceptibility of being acted upon? Then it is like mobility in matter, a capacity of being moved, when a power sufficient is applied to move it it is susceptibility of change, or rather of being changed, when an adequate cause is supplied. Is this, then, what is meant when it is said that a man has physical power to be holy, viz.: that he can be holy if God make him so, and that he cannot be holy if God does not make him holy; that he can be sinful, if God make him sinful; and that he can be neither holy nor sinful, nor act at all, but from the immediate and irresistible energy of the Deity? Wherein does this differ from the lowest species of mechanical power? and why is not man, to all intents and purposes, a mere machine, if such be the nature of his being?

Assuming the fact that man's power is nothing but capacity of action, when acted upon; and it is perfectly obvious that he neither will, nor can act, but when he is acted upon; and that he neither will nor can act in any other manner than according to the nature and tendency of the power which acts upon him. It is not only morally but physically impossible that he should act without this moving power, which lies out of himself; or that when he does act, his action should be otherwise than it is. In this respect he is like a stone, he cannot move unless moved; and when moved, the motion is the mere result of the moving power, and is in every respect just what that moving power caused it to be; while it is physically impossible for it to be otherwise.

Now, if this is the nature of man's physical capacity, we should be glad to see it reconciled with his moral