Weekly national intelligencer. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1841-1869, 1854-06-10


agation has been conducted fairly unfairly? Where
the infalbe criterion which preserves this principle
rom oeng abused! For our own part, we are as much
by one horn Of the dilemma by the other though
according to understanding of the question: there is
no dilemma at all involved in its premises.
Mr.. Bailey admits that a man may be morally repre-
hensble for the wfuly careless and imperfect of
researches but maintains that for the results of these
researehes he cannot be held morally responsible. We
deem this logical refinement nice than wise. II
may De very proper in pure metaphysics if has been
arcastcay said mataphysic is the art Of going astray
With system but it seems to very unsound in practical
morals and quite contrary to common sense We cannot
very clearly comprehend how wrong or bad opinion,
resulting from voluntary neglect perverson Of evidence
n wholly escape all completely with the moral obiquity
involved in its very genesis and formation. We
cefve to be quite possblsfor man hold the truth
on any given subject without yet being able to give any
sufficient reason for the faith that is ia him. Such
tenure Of truth may be practically advantageous to its
possessor but have nothing say in commendation
Of its moral quality 1t may be species Of negative
goodness may rise to the rank Of vaetudnarian
vrtuousness, but it certainly is deficient in the real
stamina of moral strengththose wrestling thews that
throw the world" On the contrary, another man may
honestly and fairly search for the truth this sub
ject and fail to find it. For such failure he is be
deemed morally responsible, If he situated with
respect to the evidence of the truth that it impossible
for him discover it. And may still further suppose
the Of another who wilfully closes his eyes
against the evidence before him Of the truth concerning
this subject and who, the result of such partial
and reprehensble conduct, may form for his future
guidance certain fixed and false opinion If this opinion
relate to moral question we hold that becomes alike
from its origin and essences standing offence against
morality The opinion itself becomes subject disappro
baton and is morally cupabe, being subject to
in the forum Of conscience, though it should be
forever confined to his breast Its publication and
dissemination, by aggravating the offence against
raty involve still other considerations which may engage
our attention at the proper time and place
In order amiiarly illustrate the three cases above
described might take any disputed dogma depending
moral edence Let select the doctrine of the Di
vine Trinity and let further suppose that the evidence
by which the truth falsity Of this doctrine must be de-
cded is found in divine revelation, the inspired word of
God He Who either holds rejects the doctrine from
the force casual habit from the influence of
discriminating association of deas could not think,
be said to exercise genuine faith in either affirming
denying. This would be representative of the first
type. Greek philosopher, plato, for exampe) who
should have thoughtully and canddly investigated the
rational probabilities of such triune manifestation of
the Deity would clearly have to be acquitted of all blame
in arriving wrong conclusion in the matter, since he
situated with respect to the evidence in divine
velaon which the doctrine rests that impossible
for him to discern it. He would represent the second
type. Still another person may be supposed who, with
the Bible in his hands, examination Of this
great mystery with his mind strongly preudiced by party
spirit in favor of preconceived opinion either way
the othevH the result of such partial and unfair
investigation, liz adopts wrong conclusion we hold IN
be morally responsible for that opinion Such
person would represent the third type of opinonists
But it will be said, have omitted all mention Of
those who may honestly and diligently seek the truth,
and who yet from mistaken view Of the evidence
which it rests may nvoluntary fall into grave
Shall not their sincerity acquit them of all moral cupa-
bilty in the premises? For instance in the sup
posed above may not two persons equally candid and in
tegent arrive at opposite conclusions respecting the
dogma of the Trinity, and yet be equally innocent, be-
cause equally sincere?
Now let be carefully observed that the conditions of
human responsibility in matters of opinion demand that
the truth in the premises shall be capable Of discovery
by the patient and honest seeker Where these cond
tions do not exist the corresponding responsibility no
longer incumbent And if therefore, in any given case
the evidences Of doctrine conflicting, intricate
obscure these conditions longer obtain it fol-
lows that oil moral responsibility is comprised in doubt
To believe or dsbeleve would be wrong in such case
But wherever the required conditions exist for the forma
ton Of decided opinion, there responsibility exists for
the character of that opinion and hence, in the case
supposed il he-eyidences which the doctrine of the
Trinity is based conflicting, intricate and obscure
that the conditions of responsibility do not obtain with
respect to it. then it is the moral duty Of the inquirer to
suspend his Judgment in the matter but if he to
an affirmative or negative conclusion, it is implied that in
his judgment the conditions Of responsibility do exist and
for such affirmative negative opinion he is to be deem
cd morally responsible The degree of this responsibility
will of course depend upon the mental faculties Of the
INQUIRER the circumstances in which he is placed and
the light he in his power to bring to the subject
as we'll as on the intrinsic nature and weight of the evil
ences themselves 1t is eminenty concrete question:
and not to be any fixed standard Of
application but responsibility to greater or less de-
gree is involved in every decision moral subjects for
on this is founded the grand distinction between moral
truths and the truths Of mathematics or physics.
(Our readers will perceive that advance opinion Of
ou- eopcotins tho truth Of tho particular doctrine
which we have used for purposes Of illustration need
we say that in this hold the believer the doubte
and the dsbeever be responsible only to his own con-
science and his God We not discussing the doc
trine in question ustfyng intolerance from man to-
wards his fellow w-man
1t is true, Mr. Bailey says, though he does not
mean it, we are sure) "that when under obiga
ton to investigate any subject it is incumbent upon us
to de with diligence and fairness but not to arrive at
any one conclusion rather than another According to
"a Il. fo NJ