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

py all the gnt ne has II IN his power 10
possess Herein in fact consists great part Of that
moral probation which tries the souls Of men, "As
man hkeh in his heart" says King Solomon so is he"
and quote the inspired sentiment not for the sake of
supplying any deficiencies in our logic but because
it states in condensed formula the very ph Of the doc
trne we have defended
That is pregnant-we were about to add fearful
aphorsm of Baise Pascaps in which he asserts with re-
gard to great class Of truths the important by
far that can address themselves to responsible intei
gence that there is light enough for those whose sim
wish is see and darkness enough eonound those
Of opposite disposition The will" says this same
profound and devout thinker is one Of the principal
instrumeuts Of belief that it belief but be-
cause things true false for us according the
aspect in which regard them. Theswn which Is
inclined to thing than another, the mind
the consideration of those things which it loves not
contemplate and thus the mind moving with the will,
stops to observe that which it approves and forms its
judgments by what it Sees. That is as the wish" is
sometimes said in parlance be the father of
the thought" SO also the will if the prime agent may
become instrument in the creation of our opinions
And this leads to remark that the ingenious author
of these essays to have omitted important
consideration ia framing his argument against the doc
trne of mans responsibility for his opinions. For his
Involuntary acts he reasons, man is not accountable
opinions involuntary states of the mind therefore
man is not accountable for his opinions. Now, it
is neither mstaphysoay accurate practically true
that yoluntarness or involuntariness the simple
criteria by which to try the moral complexion of any
given act it is the motive which dictates the act that
decides its moral character. The killing Of man
with malice prepense and in selfdefence are equally
acts dependant human volition; but what differ
between their moral nature and aspect And how
greatly motives swayed by opinions needs
formal exhibition and if therefore, the former, in
which resides the very of morality are depen
dat the latter do both form the proper objects Of
moral appreciation censure? The red republican, who
enerans the deliberate opinion that regcde crme
will of course feel scruples of conscience in traDsa
ing this opinion into action Now, if there be any guilt
in the actual murder of kings in what does it consist
supposng the murderer to hold the opinion above stated
According to Mr. Bailey he only be deemed repre-
hensble for his defective examination of the grounds
which his opinion is based. We, however, venture to
affirm that this partial inquiry, and its resulting opinion
motive, voon and act all compose the links in chain
of moral oblquity and each and all the proper OBJ
jects of moral reprobation.
But we have finished with all conclusions from
this theory Of Mr.. Bailey Whatever" he says, be
the state Of mans understanding in relation to any
sb proposition, it is state affection devoid equally
Of desert cupabiy." Well, suppose We admit this,
for the sake Of the argument Let now try its
gency when welded against the skepcism Of Pyrrhn
who maintained that it was impossible for man to dis
cover truth According to author blame is to be
attached to Pyrrho any suoh opinion opinions are
not acts Of the will, but of the understanding if there
FORE would seek to alter them must address argu
ments to the understanding and not motives to the will
But be it observed, in the have supposed the
universal skeptc may himself from all examna-
ton of and evidences because he holds the
opinion that truth is not dscoverabe by poor mortal
and, since for this opinion he is not cupable he
may innoceny evade all obligations to embark in the
search for TRUTH which author descants so forc
bly,. Mr. Baileys logic would, fear not prove very
servceabe Pyrrohonist it would serve only to pal
late and jnstfy his indiferentism.
Another inference, and hasten to close our tedious
remarks. With all respect for the ingenious author
of these essays we tempted to think that he has al
lowed his zeal to send him what, for the want of
convenient euphemism, we may call 81 FOOLS errand."
The aim of his book is to convince that not
fer their opinions but if it is opinion
that they are not responsible for it, according to
Mr. BIS logic because opinions not the proper objects
of either appreciation condemnation We may there
FORE innocently hold to opinion and end where we
began The drift of the writer's argument lands us on
the very spot it seeks to avoid.
But it will be rebutted to this inference that if we are
innocent holding such opinion, not innocent
in the matter of previous scrutiny of the grounds
which opinion for if had used the requisite
diligence and honesty would have seen the fasy OF
the doctrine The peo pricpa Of such an assumption
garing to merit serious and besides who
is to determine what constitutes requisite diligence and
honesty" Mr.. Bailey or we?
The conclusion, then, to which we bring the whole
matter this that responsible for their opinions
on moral subjects and that in this very responsibility
consists great part of that moral probation which lends
to mans temporary sourn in this present stage OF being
its highest significance and invests the decisions OF time
with grandeur and the dignity Of an eternal duration
But the idea of responsibility is objective as well as
sibles Who is to- determine this responsibility! Who
il to measure its degrees and defue its limits These
delicate and important questions but we believe they
can be satisfactorily solved the light Of reason and ex
pepence We had purposed to discuss at length this
branch of the subject compelled for the present
Mt least to forbear And we can anord 10 leave these
topics in abeyance without mpairng the validity of
conclusion respecting the doctrine of human accouna
by in matters Of opinion for doctrine before In
tmated is beset by greater difficulties than is that OF
Mr. Bailey He protests against. the doctrine have
because it is liable to abuse in the hands of
prosecutors for opinions sake. But will not Mr. Baeys
view afford the exterminators of heresy equally
nent plea in defence of the faggot and the
Instead Of burning and rackng because Of their opn
IONS it will only be needful for the secular to alter
the phraseology of its wrts and establish its dutosd
for the punishment of opinions, since they
bameabe but of wful perversity in refusing diligently
and honestly to examine the evidence which ought to
have shown the sity of the opinions The evils per-
secuton are not be cured by any device shallow
that Of shifting of the locale in which responsible
lity is supposed reside. Nay, than this, the
nrass theorv ohostly