as we have sown, we are changed into the shape of the motive we have 

 chosen to rule us. 



We come next to the bearing of the question on theological truths. We 

 all hold that although man is free, he has yet not strength, of himself, to 

 choose the right and the holy. This inability seems to me explained by the 

 two truths urged by the Rev. C. L. Engstrom and Mr. Enmore Jones. The 

 first shows that the will is directive. Therefore, willingly yielding to the gentle 

 pressure of the good spirit, a man may himself fix his direction towards good. 

 But this mere direction has no dynamical force, it is only something which 

 can point. Behind this directing element, then, a power in the nature of an 

 energy, or a dvvafiic, may come, which can fill out the directing will with a 

 heavenly power, and bear it onward, in the direction it has chosen, towards 

 the embodied motive which it has selected to rule. This has seemed to me 

 for some years the philosophical reconciliation of the two counter-truths of 

 man's freedom and responsibility (growing, as Prebendary Row remarks, out 

 of the very centre of the moral character of God), and of man's need of 

 divine grace, laying the axe at the root of all human pride, and bidding each 

 one of us remember that we are only empty vessels, which, to be of any use, 

 the divine fulness must fill. I think this welds into a coherent logical unity 

 the substance of what has been said. 



Lord O'Neill's closing remarks are very interesting and suggestive. 



