ours (most free, when voluntarily subordinating itself to the higher Will of 
the Creator) directs our course for good or evil, it being in accordance with 
the way in which the wall operates within us that we become good or 
bad. From the earliest moment of conscious choice we are admitting or 
excluding, fostering or destroying, good feelings or bad feelings, good ideas 
or bad ideas, good desires or bad desires, and side by side exalting or 
depressing the higher (psychical) or the lower (physical) natures, and in the 
case of a Christian welcoming or driving away the Holy Spirit of God, or 
the arch enemy. Thus from moment to moment we are weaving into that 
nature and character, with which we started on our course, new threads, and 
thus we by free will change the stream of our tendencies, and become what 
we are— heavenly, Christian, godlike, or earthly, sensual, devilish. (Hear.) 
Kev. W. D. Ground. — I thank you all very much for the kind attention 
you have given to my paper. When I see the notes of this discussion, 
I shall think them over and add what I may deem it best to say. But let 
us all clearly understand that in this matter, although we need not accept 
the philosophical doctrine of necessarianism, we ought, as devout Christians, 
to accept the great doctrine of grace. I think the remarks made by 
Mr. Enmore Jones may help us at least to an illustration of the matter. 
He spoke of the inspiration, — I cannot call it anything else, — which occa- 
sionally comes upon us. Now it seems to me that, in much the same way, 
a power which we receive from above appears to come behind the will, when 
we have placed the will in a right direction, which power acts like a breath 
or afflatus, bearing us on towards divine thoughts and desires. This seems 
to me the action of divine grace. But at the same time I think that the 
assertion of man’s need of such grace is consistent with the maintenance to 
the fullest extent of the philosophical doctrine of the freedom of the will ; 
and that it is impossible to deny this freedom of the will, and yet to defend 
successfully man’s moral responsibility. This is the great citadel we must 
maintain at all cost. We must say that the sense implanted within us, 
which tells us we are free and uncontrolled, is the deepest and truest part 
of our being, and nothing else must be allowed to usurp its place. No 
doubt there are intellectual difficulties in holding the theory of moral 
liberty. For myself I accept heartily Hamilton’s “Law of the Con- 
ditioned,” which, I hold, sweeps away all the difficulties, establishes reason 
on a rock which cannot be shaken, and provides an impregnable fortress 
for all the doctrines which contain the philosophy of moral obligatioi], 
(Applause.) 
The meeting was then adjourned. 
