Part 4: Arminian Arguments Considered and Refuted

SECTION I. The Essence of the virtue and Vice of Dispositions of the Heart, and Acts of the Will, lies not in their Cause, but their Nature.

ONE main Foundation of the Reasons, which are brought to establish the aforementioned Notions of Liberty, virtue, Vice, &c. is a Supposition, that the Vertuousness of the Dispositions or Acts of the Will consists not in the Nature of these Dispositions or Acts, but wholly in the Origin or Cause of them: so that if the Disposition of the Mind or Act of the Will be never so good, yet if the Cause of the Disposition or Act be not our virtue, there is nothing virtuous or praise-worthy in it; and on the contrary, if the Will in it's Inclination or Acts be never so bad, yet unless it arises from something that is our Vice or Fault, there is Nothing vicious or blame-worthy in it. Hence their grand Objection and pretended Demonstration, or Self-Evidence, against any virtue and Commendableness, or Vice and Blame-worthiness, of those Habits or Acts of the Will, which are not from some virtuous or vicious Determination of the Will it self.

Now, if this Matter be well considered, it will appear to be altogether a Mistake, yea, a gross-Absurdity; and that it is most certain, that if there be any such Things, as a virtuous, or vicious Disposition, or Volition of Mind, the Vertuousness or Viciousness of them consists not in the Origin or Cause of these Things, but in the Nature of them.

If the Essence of Vertuousness or Commendableness, and of Viciousness or Fault, don't lie in the Nature of the Dispositions or Acts of Mind, which are said to be our virtue or our Fault, but in their Cause, then it is certain it lies no where at all. Thus, for Instance, if the Vice of a vicious Act of Will, lies not in the Nature of the Act, but the Cause; so that it's being of a bad Nature will not make it at all our Fault, unless it arises from some faulty Determination of our's as it's Cause, or something in us that is our Fault; then for the same Reason, neither can the Viciousness of that Cause lie in the Nature of the Thing it self, but in it's Cause: that evil Determination of our's is not our Fault, meerly because it is of a bad Nature, unless it arises from some Cause in us that is our Fault. And when we are come to this higher Cause, still the Reason of the Thing holds good; though this Cause be of a bad Nature, yet we are not at all to blame on that Account, unless it arises from something faulty in us. Nor yet can Blame-worthiness lie in the Nature of this Cause, but in the Cause of that. And thus we must drive Faultiness back from Step to Step, from a lower Cause to a higher, in infinitum: and that is thoroughly to banish it from the World, and to allow it no possibility of Existence any where in the Universality of Things. On these Principles, Vice or moral Evil can't consist in any Thing that is an Effect; because Fault don't consist in the Nature of Things, but in their Cause; as well as because Effects are necessary, being unavoidably connected with their Cause: therefore the Cause only is to blame. And so it follows, that Faultiness can lie only in that Cause, which is a Cause only, and no Effect of any Thing. Nor yet can it lie in this; for then it must lie in the Nature of the Thing it self; not in it's being from any Determination of our's, nor any Thing faulty in us which is the Cause, nor indeed from any Cause at all, for by the Supposition, it is no Effect, and has no Cause. And thus, He that will maintain, it is not the Nature of Habits or Acts of Will that makes them virtuous or faulty, but the Cause, must immediately run Himself out of his own Assertion; and in maintaining it, will insensibly contradict and deny it.

This is certain, that if Effects are vicious and faulty, not from their Nature, or from any Thing inherent in them, but because they are from a bad Cause, it must be on Account of the Badness of the Cause; and so on Account of the Nature of the Cause: A bad Effect in the Will must be bad, because the Cause is bad, or of an evil Nature, or has Badness as a Quality inherent in it: and a good Effect in the Will must be good, by Reason of the Goodness of the Cause, or it's being of a good Kind and Nature. And if this be what is meant, the very Supposition of Fault and Praise lying not in the Nature of the Thing, but the Cause, contradicts it self, and does at least resolve the Essence of virtue and Vice into the Nature of Things, and supposes it originally to consist in that.— And if a Caviller has a Mind to run from the Absurdity, by saying, No, the Fault of the Thing which is the Cause, lies not in this, that the Cause it self is of an evil Nature, but that the Cause is evil in that Sense, that it is from another bad Cause. Still the Absurdity will follow him; for if so, then the Cause before charged is at once acquitted, and all the Blame must be laid to the higher Cause, and must consist in that's being Evil, or of an evil Nature. So now we are come again to lay the Blame of the Thing blame-worthy, to the Nature of the Thing, and not to the Cause. And if any is so foolish as to go higher still, and ascend from Step to Step, till he is come to that which is the first Cause concerned in the whole Affair, and will say, all the Blame lies in that; then at last he must be forced to own, that the Faultiness of the Thing which he supposes alone blame-worthy, lies wholly in the Nature of the Thing, and not in the Original or Cause of it; for the Supposition is, that it has no Original, it is determined by no Act of our's, is caused by nothing faulty in us, being absolutely without any Cause. And so the Race is at an End, but the Evader is taken in his Flight.

'Tis agreeable to the natural Notions of Mankind, that moral Evil, with it's Desert of Dislike and Abhorrence, and all it's other Ill-deservings, consists in a certain Deformity in the Nature of certain Dispositions of the Heart, and Acts of the Will; and not in the Deformity of something else, diverse from the very Thing it self, which deserves Abhorrence, supposed to be the Cause of it. Which would be absurd, because that would be to suppose, a Thing that is innocent and not Evil, is truly evil and faulty, because another Thing is Evil. It implies a Contradiction; for it would be to suppose, the very Thing which is morally evil and blame-worthy, is innocent and not blame-worthy; but that something else, which is it's Cause, is only to blame. To say, that Vice don't consist in the Thing which is vicious, but in it's Cause, is the same as to say, that Vice don't consist in Vice, but in that which produces it.

'Tis true, a Cause may be to blame, for being the Cause of Vice: It may be Wickedness in the Cause, that it produces Wickedness. But it would imply a Contradiction, to suppose that these two are the same individual Wickedness. The wicked Act of the Cause in producing Wickedness, is one Wickedness; and the Wickedness produced, if there be any produced, is another. And therefore the Wickedness of the latter don't lie in the former, but is distinct from it; and the Wickedness of both lies in the evil Nature of the Things which are wicked.

The Thing which makes Sin hateful, is that by which it deserves Punishment; which is but the Expression of Hatred. And that which renders virtue lovely, is the same with that, on the Account of which, it is fit to receive Praise and Reward; which are but the Expressions of Esteem and Love. But that which makes Vice hateful, is it's hateful Nature; and that which renders virtue lovely, is it's amiable Nature. 'Tis a certain Beauty or Deformity that are inherent in that good or evil Will, which is the Soul of virtue and Vice (and not in the Occasion of it) which is their Worthiness of Esteem or Disesteem, Praise or Dispraise, according to the common Sense of Mankind. If the Cause or Occasion of the Rise of an hateful Disposition or Act of Will, be also hateful; suppose another antecedent evil Will; that is entirely another Sin, and deserves Punishment by it self, under a distinct Consideration. There is Worthiness of Dispraise in the Nature of an evil Volition, and not wholly in some foregoing Act which is it's Cause; otherwise the evil Volition which is the Effect, is no moral Evil, any more than Sickness, or some other natural Calamity, which arises from a Cause morally evil.

Thus for Instance, Ingratitude is hateful and worthy of Dispraise, according to common Sense; not because something as bad, or worse than Ingratitude, was the Cause that produced it; but because it is hateful in it self, by it's own inherent Deformity. So the Love of virtue is amiable, and worthy of Praise, not meerly because something else went before this Love of virtue in our Minds, which caused it to take Place there; for Instance our own Choice; we chose to love virtue, and by some Method or other wrought our selves into the Love of it; but because of the Amiableness and Condecency of such a Disposition and Inclination of Heart. If that was the Case, that we did chuse to love virtue, and so produced that Love in our selves, this Choice it self could be no otherwise amiable or praise-worthy, than as Love to virtue, or some other amiable Inclination, was exercised and implied in it. If that Choice was amiable at all, it must be so on Account of some amiable Quality in the Nature of the Choice. If we chose to love virtue, not in Love to virtue, or any Thing that was good, and exercised no sort of good Disposition in the Choice, the Choice it self was not virtuous, nor worthy of any Praise, according to common Sense, because the Choice was not of a good Nature.

It may not be improper here to take Notice of something said by an Author, that has lately made a mighty Noise in America.A necessary Holiness (says He ) is no Holiness.— Adam could not be originally created in Righteousness and true Holiness, because He must chuse to be righteous, before He could be righteous. And therefore He must exist, He must be created, yea He must exercise Thought and Reflection, before he was righteous. There is much more to the same Effect in that Place, and also in P. 437, 438, 439, 440. If these Things are so, it will certainly follow, that the first chusing to be righteous is no righteous Choice; there is no Righteousness or Holiness in it; because no chusing to be righteous goes before it. For He plainly speaks of chusing to be righteous, as what must go before Righteousness: And that which follows the Choice, being the Effect of the Choice, can't be Righteousness or Holiness: For an Effect is a Thing necessary, and can't prevent the Influence or Efficacy of it's Cause; and therefore is unavoidably dependent upon the Cause: And He says, A necessary Holiness is no Holiness. So that neither can a Choice of Righteousness be Righteousness or Holiness, nor can any Thing that is consequent on that Choice and the Effect of it, be Righteousness or Holiness; nor can any Thing that is without Choice, be Righteousness or Holiness. So that by his Scheme, all Righteousness and Holiness is at once shut out of the World, and no Door left open, by which it can ever possibly enter into the World.

I suppose, the Way that Men came to entertain this absurd inconsistent Notion, with Respect to internal Inclinations and Volitions themselves, (or Notions that imply it,) namely, that the Essence of their moral Good or Evil lies not in their Nature, but their Cause; was, that it is indeed a very plain Dictate of common Sense, that it is so with Respect to all outward Actions, and sensible Motions of the Body; that the moral Good or Evil of 'em don't lie at all in the Motions themselves; which taken by themselves, are nothing of a moral Nature; and the Essence of all the moral Good or Evil that concerns them, lies in those internal Dispositions and Volitions which are the Cause of them. Now being always used to determine this, without Hesitation or Dispute, concerning external Actions; which are the Things that in the common Use of Language are signified by such Phrases, as Men's Actions, or their Doings; Hence when they came to speak of Volitions, and internal Exercises of their Inclinations, under the same Denomination of their Actions, or what they do, they unwarily determined the Case must also be the same with these, as with external Actions; not considering the vast Difference in the Nature of the Case.

If any shall still object and say, Why is it not necessary that the Cause should be considered, in order to determine whether any Thing be worthy of Blame or Praise? Is it agreeable to Reason and common Sense, that a Man is to be praised or blamed for that which he is not the Cause or Author of, and has no Hand in?

I answer, such Phrases as being the Cause, being the Author, having a Hand, and the like are ambiguous. They are most vulgarly understood for being the designing voluntary Cause, or Cause by antecedent Choice: And it is most certain that Men are not in this Sense the Causes or Authors of the first Act of their Wills, in any Case; as certain as any Thing is, or ever can be; for nothing can be more certain, than that a Thing is not before it is, nor a Thing of the same Kind before the first Thing of that Kind; and so no Choice before the first Choice.—As the Phrase, being the Author, may be understood, not of being the Producer by an antecedent Act of Will; but as a Person may be said to be the Author of the Act of Will it self, by his being the immediate Agent, o the Being that is acting, or in Exercise in that Act; If the Phrase of being the Author, is used to signify this, then doubtless common Sense requires Men's being the Authors of their own Acts of Will, in order to their being esteemed worthy of Praise or Dispraise on Account of them. And common Sense teaches, that they must be the Authors of external Actions, in the former Sense, namely, their being the Causes of 'em by an Act of Will or Choice, in order to their being justly blamed or praised: But it teaches no such Thing with Respect to the Acts of the Will themselves.—But this may appear more manifest by the Things which will be observed in the following Section.

SECTION II. The Falseness and Inconsistence of that metaphysical Notion of Action, and Agency, which seems to be generally entertained by the Defenders of the Arminian Doctrine concerning Liberty, moral Agency, &c.

ONE Thing that is made very much a Ground of Argument and supposed Demonstration by Arminians, in Defence of the fore-mentioned Principles, concerning moral Agency, virtue, Vice &c. is their metaphysical Notion of Agency and Action. They say, unless the Soul has a Self-determining Power, it has no Power of Action; If it's Volitions be not caused by it self, but are excited and determined by some extrinsic Cause, they can't be the Soul's own Acts; and that the Soul can't be active, but must be wholly passive, in those Effects which it is the Subject of necessarily, and not from it's own free Determination.

Mr. Chubb lays the Foundation of his Scheme of Liberty, and of his Arguments to support it, very much in this Poon, That Man is an Agent, and capable of Action. Which doubtless is true: But Self-determination belongs to his Notion of Action, and is the very Essence of it. Whence he infers that it is impossible for a Man to act and be acted upon, in the same Thing, at the same Time; and that nothing that is an Action, can be the Effect of the Action of another: and he insists, that a necessary Agent, or an Agent that is necessarily determined to act, is a plain Contradiction.

But those are a precarious Sort of Demonstrations, which Men build on the Meaning that they arbitrarily affix to a Word; especially when that Meaning is abstruse, inconsistent, and entirely diverse from the original Sense of the Word in common Speech.

That the Meaning of the Word Action, as Mr. Chubb and many others use it, is utterly unintelligible and inconsistent, is manifest, because it belongs to their Notion of an Action, that 'tis something wherein is no Passion or Passiveness; that is (according to their Sense of Passiveness) it is under the Power, Influence or Action of no Cause. And this implies, that Action has no Cause, and is no Effect: for to be an Effect implies Passiveness, or the being subject to the Power and Action of it's Cause. And yet they hold, that the Mind's Action is the Effect of it's own Determination, yea, the Mind's free and voluntary Determination; which is the same with free Choice. So that Action is the Effect of something preceeding, even a preceeding Act of Choice: And consequently, in this Effect the Mind is passive, subject to the Power and Action of the preceeding Cause, which is the foregoing Choice, and therefore can't be active. So that here we have this Contradiction, that Action is always the Effect of foregoing Choice; and therefore can't be Action; because it is passive to the Power of that preceeding causal Choice; and the Mind can't be active and passive in the same Thing, at the same Time. Again, they say, Necessity is utterly inconsistent with Action, and a necessary Action is a Contradiction; and so their Notion of Action implies Contingence, excludes all Necessity. And therefore their Notion of Action implies, that it has no necessary Dependence or Connection with any Thing foregoing; for such a Dependence or Connection excludes Contingence, and implies Necessity. And yet their Notion of Action implies Necessity, and supposes that it is necessary, and can't be contingent. For they suppose, that whatever is properly called Action, must be determined by the Will and free Choice; and this is as much as to say, that it must be necessary, being dependent upon, and determined by something foregoing; namely, a foregoing Act of Choice. Again, it belongs to their Notion of Action, of that which is a proper and meer Act, that t is the Beginning of Motion, or of Exertion of Power; but yet it is iplied in their Notion of Action, that it is not the Beginning of Motion or Exertion of Power, but is consequent and dependent on a preceeding Exertion of Power, namely, the Power of Will and Choice: for they say there is no proper Action but what is freely chosen; or, which is the same Thing, determined by a foregoing Act of free Choice. But if any of them shall see Cause to deny this, and say they hold no such Thing as that every Action is chosen, or determined by a foregoing Choice; but that the very first Exertion of Will only, undetermined by any prceeding Act, is properly called Action; then I say, such a Man's Notion of Action implies Necessity; for what the Mind is the Subject of without the Determination of it's own previous Choice, it is the Subject of necessarily, as to any Hand that free Choice has in the Affair; and without any Ability the Mind has to prevent it, by any Will or Election of it's own: because by the Supposition it precludes all previous Acts of the Will or Choice in the Case, which might prevent it. So that it is again, in this other Way, implied in their Notion of Act, that it is both necessary and not necessary. Again, it belongs to their Notion of an Act, that it is no Effect of a pre-determining Bias or Preponderation, but springs immediately out of Indifference; and this implies that it can't be from foregoing Choice, which is foregoing Preponderation: if it be not habitual, but occasional, yet if it causes the Act, it is truly previous, efficacious and determining. And yet, at the same Time, 'tis essential to their Notion of an Act, that it is what the Agent is the Author of freely and voluntarily, and that is, by previous Choice and Design.

So that according to their Notion of an Act, considered with Regard to it's Consequences, these following Things are all essential to it; namely, That it should be necessary, and not necessary; that it should be from a Cause, and no Cause; that it should be the Fruit of Choice and Design, and not the Fruit of Choice and Design; that it should be the Beginning of Motion or Exertion, and yet consequent on previous Exertion; that it should be before it is; that it should spring immediately out of Indifference and Equilibrium, and yet be the Effect of Preponderation; that it should be self-originated, and also have it's Original from something else; that it is what the Mind causes it self, of it's own Will, and can produce or prevent, according to it's Choice or Pleasure, and yet what the Mind has no Power to prevent, it precluding all previous Choice in the Affair.

So that an Act, according to their metaphysical Notion of it, is something of which there is no Idea; 'tis nothing but a Confusion of the Mind, excited by Words without any distinct Meaning, and is an absolute Non-entity; and that in two Respects; (1.) There is nothing in the World that ever was, is, or can be, to answer the Things which must belong to it's Description, according to what they suppose to be essential to it. And (2.) There neither is, nor ever was, nor can be, any Notion or Idea to answer the Word, as they use and explain it. For if we should suppose any such Notion, it would many Ways destroy it self. But it is impossible, any Idea or Notion should subsist in the Mind, whose very Nature and Essence, which constitutes it, destroys it.— If some learned Philosopher, who had been abroad, in giving an Account of the curious Observations he had made in his Travels, should say, He had been in Terra del Fuego, and there had seen an Animal, which he calls by a certain Name, that begat and brought forth it self, and yet had a Sire and a Dam distinct from it self; that it had an Appetite, and was hungry before it had a Being; that his Master, who led him, and governed him at his Pleasure, was always governed by him, and driven by him where he pleased; that when he moved, he always took a Step before the first Step; that he went with his Head first, and yet always went Tail foremost; and this, though he had neither Head nor Tail: It would be no Impudence at all, to tell such a Traveller, though a learned Man, that He himself had no Notion or Idea of such an Animal as he gave an Account of, and never had, nor ever would have.

As the aforementioned Notion of Action is very inconsistent, so it is wholly diverse from the original Meaning of the Word. The more usual Signification of it in vulgar Speech, seems to be some Motion or Exertion of Power, that is voluntary, or that is the Effect of the Will; and is used in the same Sense as doing: And most commonly 'tis used to signify outward Actions. So Thinking is often distinguished from Acting; and Desiring and Willing, from Doing.

Besides this more usual and proper Signification of the Word Action, there are other Ways in which the Word is used that are less proper, which yet have Place in common Speech. Oftentimes 'tis used to signify some Motion or Alteration in inanimate Things, with Relation to some Object and Effect. So the Spring of a Watch is said to act upon the Chain and Wheels; the Sun-beams, to act upon Plants and Trees; and the Fire, to act upon Wood. Sometimes the Word is used to signify Motions, Alterations, and Exertions of Power, which are seen in corporeal Things, considered absolutely; especially when these Motions seem to arise from some internal Cause which is hidden; so that they have a greater Resemblance of those Motions of our Bodies, which are the Effects of internal Volition, or invisible Exertions of Will. So the Fermentation of Liquor, the Operations of the Loadstone, and of electrical Bodies, are called the Action of these Things. And sometimes the Word Action is used to signify the Exercise of Thought, or of Will and Inclination: so meditating, loving, hating, inclining, disinclining, chusing and refusing, may be sometimes called acting; though more rarely (unless it be by Philosophers and Metaphysicians) than in any of the other Senses.

But the Word is never used in vulgar Speech in that Sense which Arminian Divines use it in, namely, for the self-determinate Exercise of the Will, or an Exertion of the Soul that arises without any necessary Connection with any Thing foregoing. If a Man does something voluntarily, or as the Effect of his Choice, then in the most proper Sense, and as the Word is most originally and commonly used, he is said to act: But whether that Choice or Volition be self-determined, or no, whether it be connected with foregoing habitual Bias, whether it be the certain Effect of the strongest Motive, or some extrinsick Cause, never comes into Consideration in the Meaning of the Word.

And if the Word Action is arbitrarily used by some Men otherwise, to suit some Scheme of Metaphysicks Morality, no Argument can reasonably be founded on such [〈…〉] of this Term, to prove any Thing but their own Pleasure. For Divines and Philosophers strenuously to urge such Arguments, as though they were sufficient to support and demonstre a whole Scheme of moral Philosophy and Divinity, is certainly to erect a mighty Edifice on the Sand, or rather on a Shadow. And though it may now perhaps, thro' Custom, have become natural for 'em to use the Word in this Sense (if that may be called a Sense or Meaning, which is so inconsistent with it self) yet this don't prove that it is agreeable to the natural Notions Men have of Things, or that there can be any Thing in the Creation that should answer such a Meaning. And though they appeal to Experience, yet the Truth is, that Men are so far from experiencing any such Thing, that it is impossible for 'em to have any Conception of it.

If it should be objected, that Action and Passion are doubtless Words of a contrary Signification; but to suppose that the Agent, in it's Action, is under the Power and Influence of something extrinsick, is to confound Action and Passion, and make 'em the same Thing.

I answer, That Action and Passion are doubtless, as they are sometimes used, Words of opposite Signification; but not as signifying opposite Existences, but only opposite Relations. The Words Cause and Effect are Terms of opposite Signification; but nevertheless, if I assert that the same Thing may at the same Time, in different Respects and Relations, be both Cause and Effect, this will not prove that I confound the Terms. The Soul may be both active and passive in the same Thing in different Respects, active with Relation to one Thing, and passive with Relation to another. The Word Passion when set in Opposition to Action or rather Activeness, is meerly a relative Term: it signifies no Effect or Cause, nor any proper Existence; but is the same with Passiveness, or a being passive, or a being acted upon by something. Which is a meer Relation of a Thing to some Power or Force exerted by some Cause, producing some Effect in it, or upon it. And Action, when set properly in Opposition to Passion, or Passiveness, is no real Existence; it is not the same with AN Action, but is a meer Relation: 'Tis the Activeness of something on another Thing, being the opposite Relation to the other, namely, a Relation of Power, or Force exerted by some Cause, towards another Thing, which is the Subject of the Effect of that Power. Indeed the Word Action is frequently used to signify something not meerly relative, but more absolute, and a real Existence; as when we say An Action; when the Word is not used transitively, but absolutely, for some Motion or Exercise of Body or Mind, without any Relation to any Object or Effect: And as used thus, it is not properly the opposite of Passion; which ordinarily signifies nothing absolute, but meerly the Relation of being acted upon. And therefore if the Word Action be used in the like relative Sense, then Action and Passion are only two contrary Relations. And 'tis no Absurdity to suppose, that contrary Relations may belong to the same Thing, at the same Time, with respect to different Things. So to suppose, that there are Acts of the Soul by which a Man voluntarily moves, and acts upon Objects, and produces Effects, which yet themselves are Effects of something else, and wherein the Soul it self is the Object of something acting upon, and influencing that, don't at all confound Action and Passion. The Words may nevertheless be properly of opposite Signification: there may be as true and real a Difference between acting and being caused to act, though we should suppose the Soul to be both in the same Volition, as there is between living, and being quicken'd, or made to live. 'Tis no more a Contradiction, to suppose that Action may be the Effect of some other Cause, besides the Agent, or Being that acts, than to suppose that Life may be the Effect of some other Cause, besides the Liver, or the Being that lives, in whom Life is caused to be.

The Thing which has led Men into this inconsistent Notion of Action, when applied to Volition, as though it were essential to this internal Action, that the Agent should be self-determined in it, and that the Will should be the Cause of it, was probably this; that according to the Sense of Mankind, and the common Use of Language it is so, with respect to Men's external Actions; which are what originally, and according to the vulgar Use and most proper Sense of the Word, are called Actions. Men in these are self-directed, self-determined, and their Wills are the Cause of the Motions of their Bodies, and the external Things that are done; so that unless Men do 'em voluntarily, and of Choice, and the Action be determined by their antecedent Volition, it is no Action or Doing of theirs. Hence some Metaphysicians have been led unwarily, but exceeding absurdly, to suppose the same concerning Volition it self, that That also must be determined by the Will; which is to be determined by antecedent Volition, as the Motion of the Body is; not considering the Contradiction it implies.

But it is very evident, that in the metaphysical Distinction between Action and Passion, (though long since become common and the general Vogue) due Care has not been taken to conform Language to the Nature of Things, or to any distinct clear Ideas. As it is in innumerable other Philosophical, Metaphysical Terms, used in these Disputes; which has occasion'd inexpressible Difficulty, Contention, Errour and Confusion.

And thus probably it came to be thought, that Necessity was inconsistent with Action, as these Terms are applied to Volition. First, these Terms Action and Necessity are changed from their original Meaning, as signifying external voluntary Action, and Constraint, (in which Meaning they are evidently inconsistent) to signify quite other Things, namely, Volition it self, and Certainty of Existence. And when the Change of Signification is made, Care is not taken to make proper Allowances and Abatements for the Difference of Sense; but still the same Things are unwarily attributed to Action and Necessity, in the new Meaning of the Words, which plainly belonged to 'em in their first Sense; and on this Ground, Maxims are established without any real Foundation, as though they were the most certain Truths, and the most evident Dictates of Reason.

But however strenuously it is maintain'd, that what is necessary can't be properly called Action, and that a necessary Action is a Contradiction, yet 'tis probable there are few Arminian Divines, who if thoroughly tried, would stand to these Principles. They will allow, that God is in the highest Sense an active Being, and the highest Fountain of Life and Action; and they would not probably deny, that those that are called God's Acts of Righteousness, Holiness and Faithfulness, are truly and properly God's Acts, and God is really a holy Agent in them: and yet I trust, they will not deny, that God necessarily acts justly and faithfully, and that it is impossible for Him to act unrighteously and unholily.

SECTION III. The Reasons why some think it contrary to common Sense, to suppose those Things which are necessary, to be worthy of either Praise or Blame.

'TIS abundantly affirmed and urged by Arminian Writers, that it is contrary to common Sense, and the natural Notions and Apprehensions of Mankind, to suppose otherwise than that Necessity (making no Distinction between natural and moral Necessity) is inconsistent with virtue and Vice, Praise and Blame, Reward and Punishment. And their Arguments from hence have been greatly triumphed in; and have been not a little perplexing to many who have been friendly to the Truth, as clearly revealed in the holy Scriptures: It has seem'd to them indeed difficult, to reconcile Calvinistic Doctrines with the Notions Men commonly have of Justice and Equity. And the true Reasons of it seem to be these that follow.

I. 'Tis indeed a very plain Dictate of common Sense, that natural Necessity is wholly inconsistent with just Praise or Blame. If Men do Things which in themselves are very good, fit to be brought to pass, and very happy Effects, properly against their Wills, and can't help it; or do them from a Necessity that is without their Wills, or with which their Wills have no Concern or Connection; then 'tis a plain Dictate of common Sense, that it's none of their virtue, nor any moral Good in them; and that they are not worthy to be rewarded or praised; or at all esteemed, honoured or loved on that Account. And on the other Hand, that if from like Necessity they do those Things which in Themselves are very unhappy and pernicious, and do them because they can't help it; the Necessity is such, that it is all one whether they will them, or no; and the Reason why they are done, is from Necessity only, and not from their Wills; 'Tis a very plain Dictate of common Sense that they are not at all to blame; there is no Vice, Fault, or moral Evil at all in the Effect done; nor are they who are thus necessitated, in any wise worthy to be punished, hated, or in the least disrespected, on that Account.

In like Manner, if Things in themselves good and desirable are absolutely impossible, with a natural Impossibility, the universal Reason of Mankind teaches, that this wholly and perfectly excuses Persons in their not doing them.

And 'tis also a plain Dictate of common Sense, that if the doing Things in themselves Good, or avoiding Things in themselves Evil, is not absolutely impossible, with such a natural Impossibility, but very difficult, with a natural Difficulty; that is, a Difficulty prior to, and not at all consisting in Will and Inclination it self, and which would remain the same, let the Inclination be what it will; then a Person's Neglect or Omission is excused in some Measure, though not wholly; his Sin is less aggravated, than if the Thing to be done were easy. And if instead of Difficulty and Hindrance, there be a contrary natural Propensity in the State of Things, to the Thing to be done, or Effect to be brought to pass, abstracted from any Consideration of the Inclination of the Heart; though the Propensity be not so great as to amount to a natural Necessity; yet being some Approach to it, so that the doing the good Thing be very much from this natural Tendency in the State of Things, and but little from a good Inclination; then it is a Dictate of common Sense, that there is so much the less virtue in what is done; and so it is less Praise-worthy and rewardable. The Reason is easy, namely, because such a natural Propensity or Tendency is an Approach to natural Necessity; and the greater the Propensity, still so much the nearer is the Approach to Necessity. And therefore as natural Necessity takes away or shuts out all virtue, so this Propensity approaches to an Abolition of virtue; that is, it diminishes it. And on the other Hand, natural Difficulty in the State of Things is an Approach to natural Impossibility. And as the latter, when it is compleat and absolute, wholly takes away Blame; so such Difficulty takes away some Blame, or diminishes Blame; and makes the Thing done to be less worthy of Punishment.

II. Men in their first Use of such Phrases as these, Must, can't, can't help it, can't avoid it, necessary, unable, impossible, unavoidable, irresistible &c. use them to signify a Necessity of Constraint or Restraint, a natural Necessity or Impossibility; or some Necessity that the Will has nothing to do in; which may be, whether Men will or no; and which may be supposed to be just the same, let Men's Inclinations and Desires be what they will. Such Kind of Terms in their original Use, I suppose among all Nations, are relative; carrying in their Signification (as was before observed) a Reference or Respect to some contrary Will, Desire or Endeavour, which, it is supposed, is, or may be in the Case. All Men find, and begin to find in early Childhood, that there are innumerable Things that can't be done, which they desire to do; and innumerable Things which they are averse to, that must be, they can't avoid them, they will be, whether they chuse them or no. 'Tis to express this Necessity, which Men so soon and so often find, and which so greatly and so early affects them in innumerable Cases, that such Terms and Phrases are first formed; and 'tis to signify such a Necessity, that they are first used, and that they are most constantly used, in the common Affairs of Life; and not to signify any such metaphysical, speculative and abstract Notion, as that Connection in the Nature or Course of Things, which is between the Subject and Predicate of a Proposition, and which is the Foundation of the certain Truth of that Proposition; to signify which, they who employ themselves in Philosophical Inquiries into the first Origin and Metaphysical Relations and Dependences of Things, have borrowed these Terms, for want of others. But we grow up from our Cradles in a Use of such Terms and Phrases, entirely different from this, and carrying a Sense exceeding diverse from that in which they are commonly used in the Controversy between Arminians and Calvinists. And it being, as was said before, a Dictate of the universal Sense of Mankind, evident to us as soon as we begin to think, that the Necessity signified by these Terms, in the Sense in which we first learn them, does excuse Persons, and free them from all Fault or Blame; Hence our Idea's of Excusableness or Faultlesness is tied to these Terms and Phrases by a strong Habit, which is begun in Childhood as soon as we begin to speak, and grows up with us, and is strengthned by constant Use and Custom, the Connection growing stronger and stronger.

The habitual Connection which is in Men's Minds between Blamelesness and those aforementioned Terms, Must, cannot, unable, necessary, impossible, unavoidable &c. becomes very strong; because as soon as ever Men begin to use Reason and Speech, they have Occasion to excuse themselves, from the natural Necessity signified by these Terms, in numerous Instances— I can't do it— I could not help it.—And all Mankind have constant and daily Occasion to use such Phrases in this Sense, to excuse themselves and others in almost all the Concerns of Life, with Respect to Disappointments, and Things that happen which concern and affect us and others, that are hurtful, or disagreeable to us or them, or Things desirable that we or others fail of.

That a being accustomed to an Union of different Ideas, from early Childhood, makes the habitual Connection exceeding strong, as though such Connection were owing to Nature, is manifest in innumerable Instances. It is altogether by such an habitual Connection of Ideas, that Men judge of the Bigness or Distance of the Objects of Sight from their Appearance. Thus 'tis owing to such a Connection early established, and growing up with a Person, that he judges a Mountain, which he sees at ten Miles distance, to be bigger than his Nose, or further off than the End of it. Having been used so long to join a considerable Distance and Magnitude with such an Appearance, Men imagine it is by a Dictate of natural Sense: Whereas it would be quite otherwise with one that had his Eyes newly opened, who had been born blind: He would have the same visible Appearance, but natural Sense would dictate no such Thing concerning the Magnitude or Distance of what appeared.

III. When Men, after they had been so habituated to connect Ideas of Innocency or Blamelesness with such Terms, that the Union seems to be the Effect of meer Nature, come to hear the same Terms used, and learn to use them themselves in the aforementioned new and metaphysical Sense, to signify quite another Sort of Necessity, which has no such Kind of Relation to a contrary supposable Will and Endeavour; the Notion of plain and manifest Blamelesness, by this Means, is by a strong Prejudice, insensibly and unwarily transfer'd to a Case to which it by no Means belongs: The Change of the Use of the Terms, to a Signification which is very diverse, not being taken Notice of, or adverted to. And there are several Reasons why it is not.

1. The Terms, as used by Philosophers, are not very distinct and clear in their Meaning: few use them in a fixed determined Sense. On the contrary, their Meaning is very vogue and confused. Which is what commonly happens to the Words used to signify Things intellectual and moral, and to express what Mr. Locke calls mixt Modes. If Men had a clear and distinct understanding of what is intended by these metaphysical Terms, they would be able more easily to compare them with their original and common Sense; and so would not be so easily cheated by them. The Minds of Men are so easily led into Delusion by no Sort of Terms in the World, as by Words of this Sort.

2. The Change of the Signification of the Terms is the more insensible, because the Things signified, though indeed very different, yet do in some generals agree. In Necessity, that which is vulgarly so called, there is a strong Connection between the Thing said to be necessary, and something antecedent to it, in the Order of Nature; so there is also in philosophical Necessity. And though in both Kinds of Necessity, the Connection can't be called by that Name, with Relation to an opposite Will or Endeavour, to which it is superiour; which is the Case in vulgar Necessity; yet in both, the Connection is prior to Will and Endeavour, and so in some Respect superiour. In both Kinds of Necessity there is a Foundation for some Certainty of the Proposition that affirms the Event.—The Terms used being the same, and the Things signified agreeing in these and some other general Circumstances, and the Expressions as used by Philosophers being not well defined, and so of obscure and loose Signification; hence Persons are not aware of the great Difference; and the Notions of Innocence or Faultlesness, which were so strongly associated with them, and were strictly united in their Minds, ever since they can remember, remain united with them still, as if the Union were altogether natural and necessary; and they that go about to make a Separation, seem to them to do great Violence even to Nature it self.

IV. Another Reason why it appears difficult to reconcile it with Reason, that Men should be blamed for that which is necessary with a moral Necessity (which as was observed before is a Species of Philosophical Necessity) is, that for want of due Consideration, Men inwardly entertain that Apprehension, that this Necessity may be against Men's Wills and sincere Endeavours. They go away with that Notion, that Men may truly will and wish and strive that it may be otherwise; but that invincible Necessity stands in the Way. And many think thus concerning themselves: some that are wicked Men think they wish that they were good, that they loved God and Holiness; but yet don't find that their Wishes produce the Effect.— The Reasons why Men think thus, are as follows. (1.) They find what may be called an indirect Willingness to have a better Will, in the Manner before observed. For it is impossible, and a Contradiction to suppose the Will to be directly and properly against it self. And they don't consider, that this indirect Willingness is entirely a different Thing from properly willing the Thing that is the Duty and virtue required; and that there is no virtue in that sort of Willingness which they have. They don't consider, that the Volitions which a wicked Man may have that he loved God, are no Acts of the Will at all against the moral Evil of not loving God; but only some disagreeable Consequences. But the making the requisite Distinction requires more Care of Reflection and Thought than most Men are used to. And Men thro' a Prejudice in their own Favour, are disposed to think well of their own Desires and Dispositions, and to account 'em good and virtuous, though their Respect to virtue be only indirect and remote, and 'tis nothing at all that is virtuous that truly excites or terminates their Inclinations. (2.) Another Thing that insensibly leads and beguiles Men into a Supposition that this moral Necessity or Impossibility is, or may be against Men's Wills, and true Endeavours, is the Derivation and Formation of the Terms themselves, that are often used to express it, which is such as seems directly to point to, and hold this forth. Such Words, for Instance, as unable, unavoidable, impossible, irresistible; which carry a plain Reference to a supposable Power exerted, Endeavours used, Resistance made, in Opposition to the Necessity: And the Persons that hear them, not considering nor suspecting but that they are used in their proper Sense: That Sense being therefore understood, there does naturally, and as it were necessarily arise in their Minds a Supposition that it may be so indeed, that true Desires and Endeavours may take Place, but that invincible Necessity stands in the Way, and renders 'em vain and to no Effect.

V. Another Thing which makes Persons more ready to suppose it to be contrary to Reason, that Men should be exposed to the Punishments threaten'd to Sin, for doing those Things which are morally necessary, or not doing those Things morally impossible, is, that Imagination strengthens the Argument, and adds greatly to the Power and Influence of the seeming Reasons against it, from the Greatness of that Punishment. To allow that they may be justly exposed to a small Punishment, would not be so difficult. Whereas, if there were any good Reason in the Case, if it were truly a Dictate of Reason that such Necessity was inconsistent with Faultiness, or just Punishment, the Demonstration would be equally certain with respect to a small Punishment, or any Punishment at all, as a very great one: But it is not equally easy to the Imagination. They that argue against the Justice of damning Men for those Things that are thus necessary, seem to make their Argument the stronger, by setting forth the Greatness of the Punishment in strong Expressions:—That a Man should be cast into eternal Burnings, that he should be made to fry in Hell to all Eternity, for those Things which He had no Power to avoid, and was under a fatal, unfrustrable, invincible Necessity of doing.—

SECTION IV. It is agreeable to common Sense, and the natural Notions of Mankind, to suppose moral Necessity to be consistent with Praise and Blame, Reward and Punishment.

WHETHER the Reasons that have been given, why it appears difficult to some Persons to reconcile with common Sense the praising or blaming, rewarding or punishing those Things which are morally necessary, are thought satisfactory, or not; yet it most evidently appears by the following Things, that if this Matter be rightly understood, setting aside all Delusion arising from the Impropriety and Ambiguity of Terms this is not at all inconsistent with the natural Apprehensions of Mankind, and that Sense of Things which is found every where in the common People, who are furthest from having their Thoughts perverted from their natural Channel, by metaphysical and philosophical Subtilties; but on the contrary, altogether agreeable to, and the very Voice and Dictate of this natural and vulgar Sense.

I. This will appear if we consider what the vulgar Notion of Blame-worthiness is. The Idea which the common People through all Ages and Nations have of Faultiness, I suppose to be plainly this; A Person's being or doing wrong, with his own Will and Pleasure; containing these two Things; 1. His doing wrong, when he does as he pleases. 2. His Pleasure's being wrong. Or in other Words, perhaps more intelligibly expressing their Notion; A Person's having his Heart wrong, and doing wrong from his Heart. And this is the Sum total of the Matter.

The common People don't ascend up in their Reflections and Abstractions, to the metaphysical Sources, Relations and Dependences of Things, in order to form their Notion of Faultiness or Blame-worthiness. They don't wait till they have decided by their Refinings, what first determines the Will; whether it be determined by something extrinsic, or intrinsic; whether Volition determines Volition, or whether the Understanding determines the Will; whether there be any such Thing as Metaphysicians mean by Contingence (if they have any Meaning;) whether there be a Sort of a strange unaccountable Sovereignty in the Will, in the Exercise of which, by it's own sovereign Acts, it brings to pass all it's own sovereign Acts. They don't take any Part of their Notion of Fault or Blame from the Resolution of any such Questions. If this were the Case, there are Multitudes, yea the far greater Part of Mankind, nine Hundred and ninety-nine out of a Thousand would live and die without having any such Notion as that of Fault ever entring into their Heads, or without so much as once having any Conception that any Body was to be either blamed or commended for any Thing. To be sure, it would be a long Time before Men came to have such Notions. Whereas 'tis manifest, they are some of the first Notions that appear in Children; who discover as soon as they can think, or speak, or act at all as rational Creatures, a Sense of Desert. And certainly, in forming their Notion of it, they make no use of Metaphysicks. All the Ground they go upon consists in these two Things; Experience, and a natural Sensation of a certain Fitness or agreeableness which there is in uniting such moral Evil as is above described, namely, a being or doing wrong with the Will, and Resentment in others, and Pain inflicted on the Person in whom this moral Evil is. Which natural Sense is what we call by the Name of Conscience.

'Tis true, the common People and Children, in their Notion of a faulty Act or Deed of any Person, do suppose that it is the Person's own Act and Deed. But this is all that belongs to what they understand by a Thing's being a Person's own Deed or Action; even that it is something done by him of Choice. That some Exercise or Motion should begin of it self, don't belong to their Notion of an Action, or Doing. If so, it would belong to their Notion of it, that it is something which is the Cause of it's own Beginning: And that is as much as to say, that it is before it begins to be. Nor is their Notion of an Action some Motion or Exercise that begins accidentally, without any Cause or Reason; for that is contrary to one of the prime Dictates of common Sense, namely, that every Thing that begins to be, has some Cause or Reason why it is.

The common People, in their Notion of a faulty or praise-worthy Deed or Work done by any one, do suppose that the Man does it in the Exercise of Liberty. But then their Notion of Liberty is only a Person's having Opportunity of doing as he pleases. They have no Notion of Liberty consisting in the Will's first acting, and so causing it's own Acts; and determining, and so causing it's own Determinations; or chusing, and so causing it's own Choice. Such a Notion of Liberty is what none have, but those that have darken'd their own Minds with confused metaphysical Speculation, and abstruse and ambiguous Terms. If a Man is not restrain'd from acting as his Will determines, or constrain'd to act otherwise; then he has Liberty, according to common Notions of Liberty, without taking into the Idea that grand Contradiction of all the Determinations of a Man's free Will being the Effects of the Determinations of his free Will.—Nor have Men commonly any Notion of Freedom consisting in Indifference. For if so, then it would be agreeable to their Notion, that the greater Indifference Men act with, the more Freedom they act with; whereas the Reverse is true. He that in acting, proceeds with the fullest Inclination, does what He does with the greatest Freedom, according to common Sense. And so far is it from being agreeable to common Sense, that such Liberty as consists in Indifference is requisite to Praise or Blame, that on the contrary, the Dictate of every Man's natural Sense thro' the World is, that the further he is from being indifferent in his acting Good or Evil, and the more he does either with full and strong Inclination, the more is he esteemed or abhorred, commended or condemned.

II. If it were inconsistent with the common Sense of Mankind, that Men should be either to be blamed or commended in any Volitions they have or fail of, in Case of moral Necessity or Impossibility; then it would surely also be agreeable to the same Sense and Reason of Mankind, that the nearer the Case approaches to such a moral Necessity or Impossibility, either through a strong antecedent moral Propensity on the one Hand, or a great antecedent Opposition and Difficulty on the other, the nearer does it approach to a being neither blameable nor commendable; so that Acts exerted with such preceeding Propensity would be worthy of proportionably less Praise; and when omitted, the Act being attended with such Difficulty, the Omission would be worthy of the less Blame. It is so, as was observed before, with natural Necessity and Impossibility, Propensity and Difficulty: As 'tis a plain Dictate of the Sense of all Mankind, that natural Necessity and Impossibility takes away all Blame and Praise; and therefore, that the nearer the Approach is to these through previous Propensity or Difficulty, so Praise and Blame are proportionably diminished. And if it were as much a Dictate of common Sense, that moral Necessity of doing, or Impossibility of avoiding, takes away all Praise and Blame, as that natural Necessity or Impossibility does this; then, by a perfect Parity of Reason, it would be as much the Dictate of common Sense, that an Approach to moral Necessity of doing, or Impossibility of avoiding, diminishes Praise and Blame, as that an Approach to natural Necessity and Impossibility does so. 'Tis equally the Voice of common Sense, that Persons are excusable in Part, in neglecting Things difficult against their Wills, as that they are excusable wholly in neglecting Things impossible against their Wills. And if it made no Difference, whether the Impossibility were natural and against the Will, or moral, lying in the Will, with regard to Excusableness; so neither would it make any Difference, whether the Difficulty, or Approach to Necessity be natural against the Will, or moral, lying in the Propensity of the Will.

But it is apparent, that the Reverse of these Things is true. If there be an Approach to a moral Necessity in a Man's Exertion of good Acts of Will, they being the Exercise of a strong Propensity to Good, and a very powerful Love to virtue; 'tis so far from being the Dictate of common Sense, that He is less virtuous, and the less to be esteem'd, loved and praised; that 'tis agreeable to the natural Notions of all Mankind that he is so much the better Man, worthy of greater Respect, and higher Commendation. And the stronger the Inclination is, and the nearer it approaches to Necessity in that Respect, or to Impossibility of neglecting the virtuous Act, or of doing a vicious one; still the more virtuous, and worthy of higher Commendation. And on the other Hand, if a Man exerts evil Acts of Mind; as for Instance, Acts of Pride or Malice, from a rooted and strong Habit or Principle of Haughtiness and Maliciousness, and a violent Propensity of Heart to such Acts; according to the natural Sense of all Men, he is so far from being the less hateful and blameable on that Account, that he is so much the more worthy to be detested and condemned by all that observe Him.

Moreover, 'tis manifest that it is no Part of the Notion which Mankind commonly have of a blameable or praise-worthy Act of the Will, that it is an Act which is not determined by an antecedent Bias or Motive, but by the sovereign Power of the Will it self; because if so, the greater Hand such Causes have in determining any Acts of the Will, so much the less virtuous or vicious would they be accounted; and the less Hand, the more virtuous or vicious. Whereas the Reverse is true: Men don't think a good Act to be the less praise-worthy, for the Agent's being much determined in it by a good Inclination or a good Motive; but the more. And if good Inclination or Motive has but little Influence in determining the Agent, they don't think his Act so much the more virtuous, but the less. And so concerning evil Acts, which are determined by evil Motives or Inclinations.

Yea, if it be supposed that good or evil Dispositions are implanted in the Hearts of Men by Nature it self (which, it is certain, is vulgarly supposed in innumerable Cases) yet it is not commonly supposed that Men are worthy of no Praise or Dispraise for such Dispositions; although what is natural is undoubtedly necessary, Nature being prior to all Acts of the Will whatsoever. Thus for Instance, if a Man appears to be of a very haughty or malicious Disposition, and is supposed to be so by his natural Temper, 'tis no vulgar Notion, no Dictate of the common Sense and Apprehension of Men, that such Dispositions are no Vices or moral Evils, or that such Persons are not worthy of Disesteem, Odium and Dishonour; or that the proud or malicious Acts which flow from such natural Dispositions, are worthy of no Resentment. Yea, such vile natural Dispositions, and the Strength of 'em, will commonly be mentioned rather as an Aggravation of the wicked Acts that come from such a Fountain, than an Extenuation of 'em. It's being natural for Men to act thus, is often observed by Men in the Height of their Indignation: They will say, 'Tis his very Nature: He is of a vile natural Temper; 'tis as natural to Him to act so, as it is to breathe; He can't help serving the Devil, &c. But it is not thus with Regard to hurtful mischievous Things that any are the Subjects or Occasions of by natural Necessity, against their Inclinations. In such a Case, the Necessity, by the common Voice of Mankind, will be spoken of as a full Excuse.—Thus 'tis very plain, that common Sense makes a vast Difference between these two Kinds of Necessity, as to the Judgment it makes of their Influence on the moral Quality and Desert of Men's Actions.

And these Dictates of Men's Minds are so natural and necessary, that it may be very much doubted whether the Arminians themselves have ever got rid of 'em; yea, their greatest Doctors, that have gone furthest in Defence of their metaphysical Notions of Liberty, and have brought their Arguments to their greatest Strength, and as they suppose to a Demonstration, against the Consistence of virtue and Vice with any Necessity: 'Tis to be question'd, whether there is so much as one of them, but that if He suffered very much from the injurious Acts of a Man under the Power of an invincible Haughtiness and Malignancy of Temper, would not, from the aforementioned natural Sense of Mind, resent it far otherwise, than if as great Sufferings came upon Him from the Wind that blows, and Fire that burns by natural Necessity; and otherwise than he would, if he suffered as much from the Conduct of a Man perfectly delirious; yea, though he first brought his Distraction upon Him some Way by his own Fault.

Some seem to disdain the Distinction that we make between natural and moral Necessity, as though it were altogether impertinent in this Controversy: That which is necessary (say they) is necessary; it is that which must be, and can't be preventent And that which is impossible, is impossible, and can't be done: and therefore none can be to blame for not doing it. And such Comparisons are made use of, as the commanding of a Man to walk who has lost his Legs, and condemning and punishing Him for not obeying; Inviting and calling upon a Man, who is shut up in a strong Prison, to come forth, &c. But in these Things Arminians are very unreasonable. Let common Sense determine whether there be not a great Difference between those two Cases; the one, that of a Man who has offended his Prince, and is cast into Prison; and after he has lain there a while, the King comes to him, calls him to come forth to Him; and tells him that if he will do so, and will fall down before Him, and humbly beg his Pardon, he shall be forgiven, and set at Liberty, and also be greatly enrich'd, and advanced to Honour: The Prisoner heartily repents of the Folly and Wickedness of his Offence against his Prince, is thoroughly disposed to abase Himself, and accept of the King's Offer; but is confined by strong Walls, with Gates of Brass, and Barrs of Iron. The other Case is, that of a Man who is of a very unreasonable Spirit, of a haughty, ungrateful, wilful Disposition; and moreover, has been brought up in traiterious Principles; and has his Heart possessed with an extream and inveterate Enmity to his lawful Sovereign; and for his Rebellion is cast into Prison, and lies long there, loaden with heavy Chains, and in miserable Circumstances. At length the compassionate Prince comes to the Prison, orders his Chains to be knocked off, and his Prison-Doors to be set wide open; calls to him, and tells Him, if He will come forth to him, and fall down before him, acknowledge that he has treated him unworthily, and ask his Forgiveness; He shall be forgiven, set at Liberty, and set in a Place of great Dignity and Profit in his Court. But He is so stout and stomachful, and full of haughty Malignity, that He can't be willing to accept the Offer: his rooted strong Pride and Malice have perfect Power over him, and as it were bind him, by binding his Heart: The Opposition of his Heart has the Mastery over Him, having an Influence on his Mind far superiour to the King's Grace and Condescension, and to all his kind Offers and Promises. Now, is it agreeable to common Sense, to assert and stand to it, that there is no Difference between these two Cases, as to any Worthiness of Blame in the Prisoners; because, forsooth, there is a Necessity in both, and the required Act in each Case is impossible? 'Tis true, a Man's evil Dispositions may be as strong and immovable as the Bars of a Castle. But who can't see, that when a Man, in the latter Case, is said to be unable to obey the Command, the Expression is used improperly, and not in the Sense it has originally and in common Speech? And that it may properly be said to be in the Rebel's Power to come out of Prison, seeing he can easily do it if he pleases; though by Reason of his vile Temper of Heart which is fixed and rooted, 'tis impossible that it should please Him?

Upon the whole, I presume there is no Person of good Understanding, who impartially considers the Things which have been observed, but will allow that 'tis not evident from the Dictates of the common Sense, or natural Notions of Mankind, that moral Necessity is inconsistent with Praise and Blame. And therefore, if the Arminians would prove any such Inconsistency, it must be by some philosophical and metaphysical Arguments, and not common Sense.

There is a grand Illusion in the pretended Demonstration of Arminians from common Sense. The main Strength of all these Demonstrations, lies in that Prejudice that arises thro' the insensible Change of the Use and Meaning of such Terms as Liberty, able, unable, necessary, impossible, unavoidable, invincible, Action, &c. from their original and vulgar Sense, to a metaphysical Sense entirely diverse; and the strong Connection of the Ideas of Blamelesness &c. with some of these Terms, by an Habit contracted and established, while these Terms were used in their first Meaning. This Prejudice and Delusion is the Foundation of all those Positions they lay down as Maxims, by which most of the Scriptures, which they alledge in this Controversy, are interpreted, and on which all their pompous Demonstrations from Scripture and Reason depend. From this secret Delusion and Prejudice they have almost all their Advantages: 'Tis the Strength of their Bulwarks, and the Edge of their Weapons. And this is the main Ground of all the Right they have to treat their Neighbours in so assuming a Manner, and to insult others, perhaps as wise and good as themselves, as weak Bigots, Men that dwell in the dark Caves of Superstition, perversly set, obstinately shutting their Eyes against the Noon-day Light, Enemies to common Sense, maintaining the first-born of Absurdities, &c. &c. But perhaps an impartial Consideration of the Things which have been observed in the preceeding Parts of this Enquiry, may enable the Lovers of Truth better to judge, whose Doctrine is indeed absurd, abstruse, self-contradictory, and inconsistent with common Sense, and many Ways repugnant to the universal Dictates of the Reason of Mankind.

Corol. From Things which have been observed, it will follow, that it is agreeable to common Sense to suppose, that the glorified Saints have not their Freedom at all diminish'd, in any Respect; and that God Himself has the highest possible Freedom, according to the true and proper Meaning of the Term; and that He is in the highest possible respect an Agent, and active in the Exercise of his infinite Holiness; though He acts therein in the highest Degree necessarily: and his Actions of this Kind are in the highest, most absolutely perfect Manner virtuous and praise-worthy; and are so, for that very Reason, because they are most perfectly necessary.

SECTION V. Concerning those Objections, that this Scheme of Necessity renders all Means and Endeavours for the avoiding of Sin, or the obtaining virtue and Holiness, vain, and to no Purpose; and that it makes Men no more than meer Machines in Affairs of Morality and Religion.

ARminians say, if it be so, that Sin and virtue come to pass by a Necessity consisting in a sure Connection of Causes and Effects, Antecedents and Consequents, it can never be worth the while to use any Means or Endeavours to obtain the one, and avoid the other; seeing no Endeavours can alter the Futurity of the Event, which is become necessary by a Connection already established.

But I desire, that this Matter may be fully considered; and that it may be examined with a thorough Strictness, whether it will follow that Endeavours and Means, in order to avoid or obtain any future Thing, must be more in vain, on the Supposition of such a Connection of Antecedents and Consequents, than if the contrary be supposed.

For Endeavours to be in vain, is for 'em not to be successful; that is to say, for 'em not eventually to be the Means of the Thing aimed at, which can't be, but in one of these two Ways; either, First, That although the Means are used, yet the Event aimed at don't follow: Or, Secondly, If the Event does follow, it is not because of the Means, or from any Connection or Dependence of the Event on the Means, the Event would have come to pass, as well without the Means, as with them. If either of these two Things are the Case, then the Means are not properly successful, and are truly in vain. The Successfulness or Unsuccessfulness of Means, in order to an Effect, or their being in vain or not in vain, consists in those Means being connected, or not connected, with the Effect, in such a Manner as this, namely, That the Effect is with the Means, and not without them; or, that the Being of the Effect is, on the one Hand, connected with the Means, and the Want of the Effect, on the other Hand, is connected with the Want of the Means. If there be such a Connection as this between Means and End, the Means are not in vain: The more there is of such a Connection, the further they are from being in vain; and the less of such a Connection, the more are they in vain.

Now therefore the Question to be answered, (in order to determine, whether it follows from this Doctrine of the necessary Connection between foregoing Things and consequent ones, that Means used in order to any Effect, are more in vain than they would be otherwise) is, Whether it follows from it, that there is less of the forementioned Connection between Means and Effect; that is, Whether on the Supposition of there being a real and true Connection between antecedent Things and consequent ones, there must be less of a Connection between Means and Effect, than on the Supposition of there being no fixed Connection between antecedent Things and consequent ones: And the very stating of this Question is sufficient to answer it. It must appear to every one that will open his Eyes, that this Question can't be affirmed, without the grossest Absurdity and Inconsistence. Means are foregoing Things, and Effects are following Things: And if there were no Connection between foregoing Things, and following ones, there could be no Connection between Means and End; and so all Means would be wholly vain and fruitless. For 'tis by virtue of some Connection only, that they become successful: 'Tis some Connection observed, or revealed, or otherwise known, between antecedent Things and following ones, that is what directs in the Choice of Means. And if there were no such Thing as an established Connection, there could be no Choice, as to Means; one Thing would have no more Tendency to an Effect, than another; there would be no such Thing as Tendency in the Case. All those Things which are successful Means of other Things, do therein prove connected Antecedents of them: And therefore to assert, that a fixed Connection between Antecedents and Consequents makes Means vain and useless, or stands in the Way to hinder the Connection between Means and End, is just so ridiculous, as to say, that a Connection between Antecedents and Consequents stands in the Way to hinder a Connection between Antecedents and Consequents.

Nor can any supposed Connection of the Succession or Train of Antecedents and Consequents, from the very Beginning of all Things, the Connection being made already sure and necessary, either by established Laws of Nature, or by these together with a Decree of sovereign immediate Interpositions of divine Power, on such and such Occasions, or any other Way (if any other there be;) I say, no such necessary Connection of a Series of Antecedents and Consequents can in the least tend to hinder, but that the Means we use may belong to the Series; and so may be some of those Antecedents which are connected with the Consequents we aim at, in the established Course of Things. Endeavours which we use, are Things that exist; and therefore they belong to the general Chain of Events; all the Parts of which Chain are supposed to be connected: And so Endeavours are supposed to be connected with some Effects, or some consequent Things, or other. And certainly this don't hinder but, that the Events they are connected with, may be those which we aim at, and which we chuse, because we judge 'em most likely to have a Connection with those Events, from the established Order and Course of Things which we observe, or from something in divine Revelation.

Let us suppose a real and sure Connection between a Man's having his Eyes open in the clear Day-light, with good Organs of Sight, and Seeing; so that Seeing is connected with his opening his Eyes, and not seeing with his not opening his Eyes; and also the like Connection between such a Man's attempting to open his Eyes, and his actually doing it: The supposed established Connection between these Antecedents and Consequents, let the Connection be never so sure and necessary, certainly don't prove that it is in vain, for a Man in such Circumstances to attempt to open his Eyes, in order to seeing: His aiming at that Event, and the Use of the Means, being the Effect of his Will, don't break the Connection, or hinder the Success.

So that the Objection we are upon, don't lie against the Doctrine of the Necessity of Events by a Certainty of Connection and Consequence: On the contrary, it is truly forcible against the Arminian Doctrine of Contingence and Self-determination; which is inconsistent with such a Connection. If there be no Connection between those Events wherein virtue and Vice consist, and any Thing antecedent; then there is no Connection between these Events and any Means or Endeavours used in order to them: And if so, then those Means must be in vain. The less there is of Connection between foregoing Things and following ones, so much the less there is between Means and End, Endeavours and Success; and in the same Proportion are Means and Endeavours ineffectual and in vain.

It will follow from Arminian Principles, that there is no Degree of Connection between virtue or Vice, and any foregoing Event or Thing: Or in other Words, That the Determination of the Existence of virtue or Vice don't in the least depend on the Influence of any Thing that comes to pass antecedently, from which the Determination of its Existence is, as its Cause, Means, or Ground; because, so far as it is so, it is not from Self-determination: And therefore, so far there is nothing of the Nature of virtue or Vice. And so it follows, that virtue and Vice are not at all, in any Degree, dependent upon, or connected with any foregoing Event or Existence, as its Cause, Ground, or Means. And if so, then all foregoing Means must be totally in vain.

Hence it follows, that there cannot, in any Consistence with the Arminian Scheme, be any reasonable Ground of so much as a Conjecture concerning the Consequence of any Means and Endeavours, in order to escaping Vice or obtaining virtue, or any Choice or Preference of Means, as having a greater Probability of Success by some than others; either from any natural Connection or Dependence of the End on the Means, or through any divine Constitution, or revealed Way of God's bestowing or bringing to pass these Things, in Consequence of any Means, Endeavours, Prayers or Deeds. Conjecture in this latter Case depends on a Supposition that God himself is the Giver, or determining Cause of the Events sought: But if they depend on Self-determination, then God is not the determining or disposing Author of them: And if these Things are not of his Disposal, then no Conjecture can be made from any Revelation he has given concerning any Way or Method of his Disposal of them.

Yea, on these Principles, it will not only follow that Men can't have any reasonable Ground of Judgment or Conjecture, that their Means and Endeavours to obtain virtue or avoid Vice, will be successful, but they may be sure they will not; they may be certain, that they will be in vain; and that if ever the Thing which they seek comes to pass, it will not be at all owing to the Means they use. For Means and Endeavours can have no Effect at all, in Order to obtain the End, but in one of these two Ways; either (1.) Through a natural Tendency and Influence, to prepare and dispose the Mind more to virtuous Acts, either by causing the Disposition of the Heart to be more in Favour of such Acts, or by bringing the Mind more into the View of powerful Motives and Inducements: Or, (2.) By putting Persons more in the Way of God's Bestowment of the Benefit. But neither of these can be the Case. Not the latter; for as has been just now observed, it don't consist with the Arminian Notion of Self-determination, which they suppose essential to virtue, that God should be the Bestower, or (which is the same Thing) the determining, disposing Author of virtue. Not the former; for natural Influence and Tendency supposes Causality and Connection; and that supposes Necessity of Event, which is inconsistent with Arminian Liberty. A Tendency of Means, by biassing the Heart in Favour of virtue, or by bringing the Will under the Influence and Power of Motives in its Determinations, are both inconsistent with Arminian Liberty of Will, consisting in Indifference, and sovereign Self-determination, as has been largely demonstrated.

But for the more full Removal of this Prejudice against that Doctrine of Necessity which has been maintain'd, as though it tended to encourage a total Neglect of all Endeavours as vain; the following Things may be considered.

The Question is not, Whether Men may not thus improve this Doctrine: We know that many true and wholesome Doctrines are abused: But, Whether the Doctrine gives any just Occasion for such an Improvement; or whether, on the Supposition of the Truth of the Doctrine, such a Use of it would not be unreasonable? If any shall affirm, that it would not, but that the very Nature of the Doctrine is such as gives just Occasion for it, it must be on this Supposition; namely, That such an invariable Necessity of all Things already settled, must render the Interposition of all Means, Endevours, Conclusions or Actions of ours, in order to the obtaining any future End whatsoever, perfectly insignificant; because they can't in the least alter or vary the Course and Series of Things, in any Event or Circumstance; all being already fixed unalterably by Necessity: And that therefore 'tis Folly, for Men to use any Means for any End; but their Wisdom, to save themselves the Trouble of Endeavours, and take their Ease. No Person can draw such an Inference from this Doctrine, and come to such a Conclusion, without contradicting himself, and going counter to the very Principles he pretends to act upon: For he comes to a Conclusion, and takes a Course, in order to an End, even his Ease, or the saving himself from Trouble; he seeks something future, and uses Means in Order to a future Thing, even in his drawing up that Conclusion, that he will seek nothing, and use no Means in order to any Thing future; he seeks his future Ease, and the Benefit and Comfort of Indolence. If prior Necessity that determines all Things, makes vain all Actions or Conclusions of ours, in order to any Thing future; then it makes vain all Conclusions and Conduct of ours, in order to our future Ease. The Measure of our Ease, with the Time, Manner and every Circumstance of it, is already fixed, by all-determining Necessity, as much as any Thing else. If he says within himself, What future Happiness or Misery I shall have, is already in Effect determined by the necessary Course and Connection of Things; therefore I will save myself the Trouble of Labour and Diligence, which can't add to my determined Degree of Happiness, or diminish my Misery; but will take my Ease, and will enjoy the Comfort of Sloth and Negligence. Such a Man contradicts himself: He says, the Measure of his future Happiness and Misery is already fixed, and he won't try to diminish the one, nor add to the other: But yet in his very Conclusion, he contradicts this; for he takes up this Conclusion, to add to his future Happiness, by the Ease and Comfort of his Negligence; and to diminish his future Trouble and Misery, by saving himself the Trouble of using Means and taking Pains.

Therefore Persons can't reasonably make this Improvement of the Doctrine of Necessity, that they will go into a voluntary Negligence of Means for their own Happiness. For the Principles they must go upon, in order to this, are inconsistent with their making any Improvement at all of the Doctrine: For to make some Improvement of it, is to be influenced by it, to come to some voluntary Conclusion, in Regard to their own Conduct, with some View or Aim: But this, as has been shown, is inconsistent with the Principles they pretend to act upon. In short, the Principles are such as cannot be acted upon at all, or in any Respect, consistently. And therefore in every Pretence of acting upon them, or making any Improvement at all of them, there is a Self-contradiction.

As to that Objection against the Doctrine which I have endeavoured to prove, that it makes Men no more than meer Machines; I would say, that notwithstanding this Doctrine, Man is entirely, perfectly and unspeakably different from a meer Machine, in that he has Reason and Understanding, and has a Faculty of Will, and so is capable of Volition and Choice; and in that, his Will is guided by the Dictates or Views of his Understanding; and in that his external Actions and Behaviour, and in many Respect also his Thoughts, and the Exercises of his Mind, are subject to his Will; so that he has Liberty to act according to his Choice, and do what he pleases; and by Means of these Things, is capable of moral Habits and moral Acts, such Inclinations and Actions as according to the common Sense of Mankind, are worthy of Praise, Esteem, Love and Reward; or on the contrary, of Disesteem, Detestation, Indignation and Punishment.

In these Things is all the Difference from meer Machines, as to Liberty and Agency, that would be any Perfection, Dignity or Privilege, in any Respect: All the Difference that can be desired, and all that can be conceived of; and indeed all that the Pretensions of the Arminians themselves come to, as they are forced often to explain themselves. (Tho' their Explications overthrow and abolish the Things asserted, and pretended to be explained) For they are forced to explain a self-determining Power of Will, by a Power in the Soul, to determine as it chuses or wills; which comes to no more than this, that a Man has a Power of chusing, and in many Instances, can do as he chuses. Which is quite a different Thing from that Contradiction, his having Power of chusing his first Act of Choice in the Case.

Or if their Scheme makes any other Difference than this, between Men and Machines, it is for the worse: It is so far from supposing Men to have a Dignity and Privilege above Machines, that it makes the Manner of their being determined still more unhappy. Whereas Machines are guided by an understanding Cause, by the skilful Hand of the Workman or Owner; the Will of Man is left to the Guidance of nothing, but absolute blind Contingence.

SECTION VI. Concerning that Objection against the Doctrine which has been maintain'd, that it agrees with the Stoical Doctrine of Fate, and the Opinions of Mr. Hobbes.

WHEN Calvinists oppose the Arminian Notion of the Freedom of Will, and Contingence of Volition, and insist that there are no Acts of the Will, nor any other Events whatsoever, but what are attended with some Kind of Necessity; their Opposers cry out of them, as agreeing with the antient Stoicks in their Doctrine of Fate, and with Mr. Hobbes in his Opinion of Necessity.

It would not be worth while, to take Notice of so impertinent an Objection, had it not been urged by some of the chief Arminian Writers.— There were many important Truths maintain'd by the antient Greek and Roman Philosophers, and especially the Stoicks, that are never the worse for being held by them. The Stoic Philosophers, by the general Agreement of Christian Divines, and even Arminian Divines, were the greatest, wisest and most virtuous of all the Heathen Philosophers; and in their Doctrine and Practice came the nearest to Christianity of any of their Sects. How frequently are the Sayings of these Philosophers, in many of the Writings and Sermons, even of Arminian Divines, produced, not as Arguments of the Falseness of the Doctrines which they delivered, but as a Confirmation of some of the greatest Truths of the Christian Religion, relating to the Unity and Perfections of the Godhead, a future State, the Duty and Happiness of Mankind, &c. as observing how the Light of Nature and Reason in the wisest and best of the Heathen, harmonized with, and confirms the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

And it is very remarkable concerning Doctor Whitby, that although He alledges the Agreement of the Stoicks with us, wherein He supposes they maintain'd the like Doctrine with us, as an Argument against the Truth of our Doctrine; yet this very Doctor Whitby alledges the Agreement of the Stoicks with the Arminians, wherein he supposes they taught the same Doctrine with them, as an Argument for the Truth of their Doctrine. So that when the Stoicks agree with them, this (it seems) is a Confirmation of their Doctrine, and a Confutation of ours, as showing that our Opinions are contrary to the natural Sense and common Reason of Mankind: Nevertheless, when the Stoicks agree with us, it argues no such Thing in our Favour; but on the contrary, is a great Argument against us, and shews our Doctrine to be Heathenish.

It is observed by some Calvinistic Writers, that the Arminians symbolize with the Stoicks, in some of those Doctrines wherein they are opposed by the Calvinists; particularly in their denying an original, innate, total Corruption and Depravity of Heart; and in what they held of Man's Ability to make Himself truly virtuous and conformed to God;— and in some other Doctrines.

It may be further observed, 'tis certainly no better Objection against our Doctrine, that it agrees in some Respects with the Doctrine of the antient Stoic Philosophers, than it against theirs, wherein they differ from us, that it agrees in some Respects with the Opinion of the very worst of the Heathen Philosophers, the Followers of Epicurus, that Father of Atheism and Licentiousness, and with the Doctrine of the Sadducees and Iesuits.

I am not much concerned to know precisely what the antient Stoic Philosophers held concerning Fate, in order to determine what is Truth; as though it were a sure Way to be in the right, to take good Heed to differ from them. It seems that they differed among themselves; and probably the Doctrine of Fate, as maintain'd by most of 'em, was in some Respects erroneous. But whatever their Doctrine was, if any of 'em held such a Fate, as is repugnant to any Liberty consisting in our doing as we please, I utterly deny such a Fate. If they held any such Fate, as is not consistent with the common and universal Notions that Mankind have of Liberty, Activity, moral Agency, virtue and Vice; I disclaim any such Thing, and think I have demonstrated that the Scheme I maintain is no such Scheme. If the Stoicks by Fate meant any Thing of such a Nature, as can be supposed to stand in the Way of the Advantage and Benefit of the Use of Means and Endeavours, or makes it less worth the while for Men to desire, and seek after any Thing wherein their virtue and Happiness consists; I hold no Doctrine that is clog'd with any such Inconvenience, any more than any other Scheme whatsoever; and by no Means so much as the Arminian Scheme of Contingence; as has been shown. If they held any such Doctrine of universal Fatality, as is inconsistent with any Kind of Liberty, that is or can be any Perfection, Dignity, Privilege or Benefit, or any Thing desirable, in any Respect, for any intelligent Creature, or indeed with any Liberty that is possible or conceivable; I embrace no such Doctrine. If they held any such Doctrine of Fate as is inconsistent with the World's being in all Things subject to the Disposal of an intelligent wise Agent, that presides, not as the Soul of the World, but as the sovereign Lord of the Universe, governing all Things by proper Will, Choice and Design, in the Exercise of the most perfect Liberty conceivable, without Subjection to any Constraint, or being properly under the Power or Influence of any Thing before, above or without himself; I wholly renounce any such Doctrine.

As to Mr. Hobbes's maintaining the same Doctrine concerning Necessity;—I confess, it happens I never read Mr. Hobbes. Let his Opinion be what it will, we need not reject all Truth which is demonstrated by clear Evidence, meerly because it was once held by some bad Man. This great Truth, that Iesus is the Son of God, was not spoil'd because it was once and again proclaimed with a loud Voice by the Devil. If Truth is so defiled because it is spoken by the Mouth, or written by the Pen of some ill-minded mischievous Man, that it must never be received, we shall never know when we hold any of the most precious and evident Truths by a sure Tenure. And if Mr. Hobbes has made bad Use of this Truth, that is to be lamented: but the Truth is not to be thought worthy of Rejection on that Account. 'Tis common for the Corruptions of the Hearts of evil Men, to abuse the best Things to vile Purposes.

I might also take Notice of it's having been observed, that the Arminians agree with Mr. Hobbes in many more Things than the Calvinists. As, in what he is said to hold concerning Original Sin, in denying the Necessity of supernatural Illumination, in denying infused Grace, in denying the Doctrine of Justification by Faith alone; and other Things.

SECTION VII. Concerning the Necessity of the Divine Will.

SOME may possibly object against what has been supposed of the Absurdity and Inconsistence of a self-determining Power in the Will, and the Impossibility of it's being otherwise, than that the Will should be determined in every Case by some Motive, and by a Motive which (as it stands in the View of the Understanding) is of superiour Strength to any appearing on the other Side; That if these Things are true, it will follow, that not only the Will of created Minds, but the Will of God Himself is necessary in all it's Determinations. Concerning which says the Author of the Essay on the Freedom of Will in God and in the Creature (Pag. 85, 86.) What strange Doctrine is this, contrary to all our Ideas of the Dominion of God? Does it not destroy the Glory of his Liberty of Choice, and take away from the Creator and Governour and Benefactor of the World, that most free and sovereign Agent, all the Glory of this Sort of Freedom? Does it not seem to make Him a Kind of mechanical Medium of Fate, and introduce Mr. Hobbes's Doctrine of Fatality and Necessity, into all Things that God has to do with? Does it not seem to represent the blessed God, as a Being of vast Understanding, as well as Power and Efficiency, but still to leave Him without a Will to chuse among all the Objects within his View? In short, it seems to make the blessed God a Sort of almighty Minister of Fate, under it's universal and supream Influence; as it was the profess'd Sentiment of some of the Antients, that Fate was above the Gods.

This is declaiming, rather than arguing; and an Application to Men's Imaginations and Prejudices, rather than to meer Reason.—But I would calmly endeavour to consider whether there be any Reason in this frightful Represetation.—But before I enter upon a particular Consideration of the Matter, I would observe this: That 'tis reasonable to suppose, it should be much more difficult to express or conceive Things according to exact metaphysical Truth, relating to the Nature and Manner of the Existence of Things in the divine Understanding and Will, and the Operation of these Faculties (if I may so call them) of the divine Mind, than in the human Mind; which is infinitely more within our View, and nearer to a Proportion to the Measure of our Comprehension, and more commensurate to the Use and Import of human Speech. Language is indeed very deficient, in Regard of Terms to express precise Truth concerning our own Minds, and their Faculties and Operations. Words were first formed to express external Things; and those that are applied to express Things internal and spiritual, are almost all borrowed, and used in a Sort of figurative Sense. Whence they are most of 'em attended with a great Deal of Ambiguity and Unfixedness in their Signification, occasioning innumerable Doubts, Difficulties and Confusions in Enquiries and Controversies about Things of this Nature. But Language is much less adapted to express Things in the Mind of the incomprehensible Deity, precisely as they are.

We find a great Deal of Difficulty in conceiving exactly of the Nature of our own Souls. And notwithstanding all the Progress which has been made in past and present Ages, in this Kind of Knowledge, whereby our Metaphysicks, as it relates to these Things, is brought to greater Perfection than once it was; yet here is still Work enough left for future Enquiries and Researches, and Room for Progress still to be made, for many Ages and Generations. But we had need to be infinitely able Metaphysicians, to conceive with Clearness, according to strict, proper and perfect Truth, concerning the Nature of the divine Essence, and the Modes of the Action and Operation of the Powers of the divine Mind.

And it may be noted particularly, that though we are obliged to conceive of some Things in God as consequent and dependent on others, and of some Things pertaining to the divine Nature and Will as the Foundation of others, and so before others in the Order of Nature: As, we must conceive of the Knowledge and Holiness of God as prior in the Order of Nature to his Happiness; the Perfection of his Understanding, as the Foundation of his wise Purposes and Decrees; the Holiness of his Nature, as the Cause and Reason of his holy Determinations. And yet when we speak of Cause and Effect, Antecedent and Consequent, fundamental and dependent, determining and determined, in the first Being, who is self-existent, independent, of perfect and absolute Simplicity and Immutability, and the first Cause of all Things; doubtless there must be less Propriety in such Representations, than when we speak of derived dependent Beings, who are compounded, and liable to perpetual Mutation and Succession.

Having premised this, I proceed to observe concerning the aforementioned Author's Exclamation, about the necessary Determination of God's Will, in all Things, by what He sees to be fittest and best.

That all the seeming Force of such Objections and Exclamations must arise from an Imagination, that there is some Sort of Privilege or Dignity in being without such a moral Necessity, as will make it impossible to do any other, than always chuse what is wisest and best; as though there were some Disadvantage, Meanness and Subjection, in such a Necessity; a Thing by which the Will was confined, kept under, and held in Servitude by something, which, as it were, maintained a strong and invincible Power and Dominion over it, by Bonds that held him fast, and that he could by no Means deliver himself from. Whereas, this must be all meer Imagination and Delusion. 'Tis no Disadvantage or Dishonour to a Being, necessarily to act in the most excellent and happy Manner, from the necessary Perfection of his own Nature. This argues no Imperfection, Inferiority or Dependance, nor any Want of Dignity, Privilege or Ascendancy. 'Tis not inconsistent with the absolute, and most perfect Sovereignty of God. The Sovereignty of God is his Ability and Authority to do whatever pleases Him; whereby He does according to his Will in the Armies of Heaven, and amongst the Inhabitants of the Earth, and none can stay his Hand, or say unto him, What dost thou?—The following Things belong to the Sovereignty of God; namely, (1.) Supreme, universal, and infinite Power; whereby he is able to do what he pleases, without Controul; without any Confinement of that Power, without any Subjection in the least Measure to any other Power; and so without any Hindrance or Restraint, that it should be either impossible, or at all difficult, for him to accomplish his Will; and without any Dependance of his Power on any other Power, from whence it should be derived, or which it should stand in any Need of: So far from this, that all other Power is derived from Him, and is absolutely dependent on Him. (2.) That He has supreme Authority; absolute and most perfect Right to do what He wills, without Subjection to any superiour Authority, or any Derivation of Authority from any other, or Limitation by any distinct independent Authority, either superiour, equal, or inferiour; he being the Head of all Dominion, and Fountain of all Authority; and also without Restraint by any Obligation, implying either Subjection, Derivation, or Dependance, or proper Limitation. (3.) That his Will is supreme, underived, and independent on any Thing without Himself; being in every Thing determined by his own Counsel, having no other Rule but his own Wisdom; his Will not being subject to, or restrain'd by the Will of any other, and others Wills being perfectly subject to his. (4.) That his Wisdom, which determines his Will, is supreme, perfect, underived, self-sufficient, and independent; so that it may be said as in Isai. xl.14. With whom took He Counsel? And who instructed Him and taught Him in the Path of Judgment, and taught Him Knowledge, and showed Him the Way of Understanding?—There is no other divine Sovereignty but this: and this is properly absolute Sovereignty: No other is desirable; nor would any other be honourable, or happy: and indeed there is no other conceivable or possible. 'Tis the Glory and Greatness of the divine Sovereignty, that God's Will is determined by his own infinite all-sufficient Wisdom in every Thing; and in nothing at all is either directed by any inferiour Wisdom, or by no Wisdom; whereby it would become senseless Arbitrariness, determining and acting without Reason, Design or End.

If God's Will is steadly and surely determined in every Thing by supreme Wisdom, then it is in every Thing necessarily determined to that which is most wise. And certainly it would be a Disadvantage and Indignity, to be otherwise. For if the divine Will was not necessarily determined to that which in every Case is wisest and best, it must be subject to some Degree of undesigning Contingence; and so in the same Degree liable to Evil. To suppose the divine Will liable to be carried hither and thither at Random, by the uncertain Wind of blind Contingence, which is guided by no Wisdom, no Motive, no intelligent Dictate whatsoever, (if any such Thing were possible) would certainly argue a great Degree of Imperfection and Meanness, infinitely unworthy of the Deity.—If it be a Disadvantage, for the divine Will to be attended with this moral Necessity, then the more free from it, and the more left at Random, the greater Dignity and Advantage. And consequently to be perfectly free from the Direction of Understanding, and universally and entirely left to senseless unmeaning Contingence, to act absolutely at Random, would be the supreme Glory.

It no more argues any Dependence of God's Will, that his supremely wise Volition is necessary, than it argues a Dependence of his Being, that his Existence is necessary. If it be something too low, for the supreme Being to have his Will determined by moral Necessity, so as necessarily, in every Case, to will in the highest Degree holily and happily; then why is it not also something too low, for him to have his Existence, and the infinite Perfection of his Nature, and his infinite Happiness determined by Necessity? It is no more to God's Dishonour, to be necessarily wise, than to be necessarily holy. And if neither of them be to his Dishonour, then it is not to his Dishonour necessarily to act holily and wisely. And if it be not dishonourable, to be necessarily holy and wise, in the highest possible Degree, no more is it mean or dishonourable, necessarily to act holily and wisely in the highest possible Degree; or (which is the same Thing) to do that, in every Case, which above all other Things is wisest and best.

The Reason why it is not dishonourable, to be necessarily most holy, is, because Holiness in itself is an excellent and honourable Thing. For the same Reason, it is no Dishonour to be necessarily most wise, and in every Case to act most wisely, or do th Thing which is the wisest of all; for Wisdom is also in it self excellent and honourable.

The forementioned Author of the Essay on the Freedom of Will &c. as has been observed, represents that Doctrine of the divine Will's being in every Thing necessarily determined by superior Fitness, as making the blessed God a Kind of almighty Minister and mechanical Medium of Fate: And he insists, P. 93, 94. that this moral Necessity and Impossibility is in Effect the same Thing with physical and natural Necessity and Impossibility: And in P. 54, 55. he says, The Scheme which detemines the Will always and certainly by the Understanding, and the Understanding by the Appearance of Things, seems to take away the true Nature of Vice and virtue. For the sublimest of Virtues, and the vilest of Vices, seem rather to be Matters of Fate and Necessity, flowing naturally and necessarily from the Existence, the Circumstances, and present Situation of Persons and Things: For this Existence and Situation necessarily makes such an Appearance to the Mind; from this Appearance flows a necessary Perception and Judgment, concerning these Things; this Judgment necessarily determines the Will: And thus by this Chain of necessary Causes, virtue and Vice would lose their Nature, and become natural Ideas, and necessary Things, instead of moral and free Actions.

And yet this same Author allows, P. 30, 31. That a perfectly wise Being will constantly and certainly chuse what is most fit; and says, P. 102, 103. I grant, and always have granted, that wheresoever there is such an antecedent superior Fitness of Things, God acts according to it, so as never to contradict it; and particularly, in all his judicial Proceedings, as a Governor, and Distributer of Rewards and Punishments. Yea, he says expresly, P. 42. That it is not possible for God to act otherwise, than according to this Fitness and Goodness in Things.

So that according to this Author, putting these several Passages of his Essay together, there is no virtue, nor any Thing of a moral Nature, in the most sublime and glorious Acts and Exercises of God's Holiness, Justice, and Faithfulness; and He never does any Thing which is in it self supreamly worthy, and above all other Things fit and excellent, but only as a Kind of mechanical Medium of Fate; and in what he does as the Judge, and moral Governor of the World, He exercises no moral Excellency; exercising no Freedom in these Things, because He acts by moral Necessity, which is in Effect the same with physical or natural Necessity; and therefore he only acts by an Hobbistical Fatalityas a Being indeed of vast Understanding, as well as Power and Efficiency (as He said before) but without a Will to chuse, being a Kind of almighty Minister of Fate, acting under it's supream Influence. For He allows, that in all these Things God's Will is determined constantly and certainly by a superiour Fitness, and that it is not possible for Him to act otherwise. And if these Things are so, what Glory or Praise belongs to God for doing holily and justly, or taking the most fit, holy, wise and excellent Course, in any one Instance? Whereas, according to the Scriptures, and also the common Sense of Mankind, it don't in the least derogate from the Honour of any Being, that through the moral Perfection of his Nature, he necessarily acts with supream Wisdom and Holiness: But on the contrary, his Praise is the greater: Herein consists the Height of his Glory.

The same Author, P. 56. supposes, that herein appears the excellent Character of a wise and good Man, that though he can chuse contrary to the Fitness of Things, yet he does not; but suffers himself to be directed by Fitness; and that in this Conduct He imitates the blessed God. And yet He supposes 'tis contrariwise with the blessed God; not that he suffers Himself to be directed by Fitness, when He can chuse contrary to the Fitness of Things, but that he cannot chuse contrary to the Fitness of Things; as he says, P. 42. —That it is not possible for God to act otherwise, than, according to this Fitness, where there is any Fitness or Goodness in Things: Yea, he supposes, P. 31. That if a Man were perfectly wise and good, he could not do otherwise than be constantly and certainly determined by the Fitness of Things.

One Thing more I would observe, before I conclude this Section; and that is, that if it derogates nothing from the Glory of God, to be necessarily determined by superior Fitness in some Things, then neither does it to be thus determined in all Things; from any Thing in the Nature of such Necessity, as at all detracting from God's Freedom, Independence, absolute Suprmacy, or any Dignity or Glory of his Nature, State, or Manner of acting; or as implying any Infirmity, Restraint, or Subjection. And if the Thing be such as well consists with God's Glory, and has nothing tending at all to detract from it; then we need not be afraid of ascribing it to God in too many Things, lest thereby we should detract from God's Glory too much.

SECTION VIII. Some further Objections against the moral Necessity of GOD'S Volitions considered.

THE Author last cited, as has been observed, owns that God, being perfectly wise, will constantly and certainly chuse what appears most fit, where there is a superior Fitness and Goodness in Things; and that it is not possible for him to do otherwise. So that it is in Effect confess'd, that in those Things where there is any real Preferableness, 'tis no Dishonour, nothing in any Respect unworthy of God, for him to act from Necessity; notwithstanding all that can be objected from the Agreement of such a Necessity, with the Fate of the Stoicks, and the Necessity maintain'd by Mr. Hobbes. From which it will follow, that if it were so, that in all the different Things, among which God chuses, there were evermore a superior Fitness or Preferableness on one Side, then it would be no Dishonour, or any Thing, in any Respect, unworthy, or unbecoming of God, for his Will to be necessarily determined in every Thing. And if this be allowed, it is a giving up entirely the Argument, from the Unsuitableness of such a Necessity to the Liberty, Supremacy, Independence and Glory of the divine Being; and a resting the whole Weight of the Affair on the Decision of another Point wholly diverse; namely, Whether it be so indeed, that in all the various possible Things which are in God's View, and may be considered as capable Objects of his Choice, there is not evermore a Preferableness in one Thing above another. This is denied by this Author; who supposes, that in many Instances, between two or more possible Things, which come within the View of the divine Mind, there is a perfect Indifference and Equality as to Fitness, or Tendency to attain any good End which God can have in View, or to answer any of his Designs. Now therefore I would consider whether this be evident.

The Arguments brought to prove this, are of two Kinds. (1.) It is urged, that in many Instances we must suppose there is absolutely no Difference between various possible Objects of Choice, which God has in View: And (2.) that the Difference between many Things is so inconsiderable, or of such a Nature, that it would be unreasonable to suppose it to be of any Consequence; or to suppose that any of God's wise Designs would not be answered in one Way as well as the other.

Therefore,

I. The first Thing to be considered is, Whether there are any Instances wherein there is a perfect Likeness, and absolutely no Dfference, between different Objects of Choice, that are propoed to the divine Understanding?

And here in the first Place, it may be worthy to be considered, whether the Contradiction there is in the Terms of the Question proposed, don't give Reason to suspect that there is an Inconsistence in the Thing supposed. 'Tis inquired, whether differ Objects of Choice mayn't be absolutely without Difference? they are absolutely without Difference, then how are they different Objects of Choice? If there be absolutely no Difference in any Respect, then there is no Variety or Distinction: For Distinction is only by some Difference. And if there be no Variety among proposed Objects of Choice, then there is no Opportunity for Variety of Choice, or Difference of Determination. For that Determination of a Thing which is not different in any Respect, is not a different Determination, but the same. That this is no Quibble, may appear more fully anon.

The Arguments, to prove that the most High, in some Instances, chuses to do one Thing rather than another, where the Things themselves are perfectly without Difference, are two.

1. That the various Parts of infinite Time and Space, absolutely considered, are perfectly alike, and don't differ at all one from another: And that therefore, when God determined to create the World in such a Part of infinite Duration and Space, rather than others, he determined and preferred among various Objects, between which there was no Preferableness, and absolutely no Difference.

Answ. This Objection supposes an infinite Length of Time before the World was created, distinguished by successive Parts, properly and truly so; or a Succession of limited and unmeasurable Periods of Time, following one another, in an infinitely long Series: which must needs be a groundless Imagination. The eternal Duration which was before the World, being only the Eternity of God's Existence; which is nothing else but his immediate, perfect and invariable Possession of the whole of his unlimited Life, together and at once; Vitae interminabilis, tota, simul and perfecta Possessio. Which is so generally allowed, that I need not stand to demonstrate it.

So this Objection supposes an Extent of Space beyond the Limits of the Creation, of an infinite Length, Breadth and Depth, truly and properly distinguished into different measurable Parts, limited at certain Stages, one beyond another, in an infinite Series. Which Notion of absolute and infinite Space is doubtless as unreasonable, as that now mentioned, of absolute and infinite Duration. 'Tis as improper, to imagine that the Immensity and Omnipresence of God is distinguished by a Series of Miles and Leagues, one beyond another; as that the infinite Duration of God is distinguished by Months and Years, one after another. A Diversity and Order of distinct Parts, limited by certain Periods, is as conceivable, and does as naturally obtrude itself on our Imagination, in one Case as the other; and there is equal Reason in each Case, to suppose that our Imagination deceives us. 'Tis equally improper, to talk of Months and Years of the divine Existence, and Milesquares of Deity: And we equally deceive our selves, when we talk of the World's being differently fixed with Respect to either of these Sorts of Measures. I think, we know not what we mean, if we say, the World might have been differently placed from what it is, in the broad Expanse of Infinity; or, that it might have been differently fixed in the long Line of Eternity: And all Arguments and Objections which are built on the Imaginations we are apt to have of infinite Extension or Duration, are Buildings founded on Shadows, or Castles in the Air.

2. The second Argument, to prove that the most High wills one Thing rather than another, without any superior Fitness or Preferableness in the Thing preferred, is God's actually placing in different Parts of the World, Particles or Atoms of Matter that are perfectly equal and alike. The forementioned Author says, P. 78, &c.If one would descend to the minute specific Particles, of which different Bodies are composed, we should see abundant Reason to believe that there are Thousands of such little Particles or Atoms of Matter, which are perfectly equal and alike, and could give no distinct Determination to the Will of God, where to place them. He there instances in Particles of Water, of which there are such immense Numbers, which compose the Rivers and Oceans of this World; and the infinite Myriads of the luminous and fiery Particles, which compose the Body of the Sun; so many, that it would be very unreasonable to suppose no two of them should be exactly equal and alike.

Answ. (1.) To this I answer: That as we must suppose Matter to be infinitely divisible, 'tis very unlikely that any two of all these Particles are exactly equal and alike; so unlikely, that it is a Thousand to one, yea, an infinite Number to one, but it is otherwise: And that although we should allow a great Similarity between the different Particles of Water and Fire, as to their general Nature and Figure; and however small we suppose those Particles to be, 'tis infinitely unlikely, that any two of them should be exactly equal in Dimensions and Quantity of Matter.— If we should suppose a great many Globes of the same Nature with the Globe of the Earth, it would be very strange, if there were any two of them that had exactly the same Number of Particles of Dust and Water in them. But infinitely less strange, than that two Particles of Light should have just the same Quantity of Matter. For a Particle of Light (according to the Doctrine of the infinite Divisibility of Matter) is composed of infinitely more assignable Parts, than there are Particles of Dust and Water in the Globe of the Earth. And as it is infinitely unlikely, that any two of these Particles should be equal; so it is, that they should be alike in other Respects: To instance in the Configuration of their Surfaces. If there were very many Globes, of the Nature of the Earth, it would be very unlikely that any two should have exactly the same Number of Particles of Dust, Water and Stone, in their Surfaces, and all posited exactly alike, one with Respect to another, without any Difference, in any Part discernable either by the naked Eye or Microscope; but infinitely less strange, than that two Particles of Light should be perfectly of the same Figure. For there are infinitely more assignable real Parts on the Surface of a Particle of Light, than there are Particles of Dust, Water and Stone, on the Surface of the terrestrial Globe.

Ans. (2.) But then, supposing that there are two Particles or Atoms of Matter perfectly equal and alike, which God has placed in different Parts of the Creation; as I will not deny it to be possible for God to make two Bodies perfectly alike, and put them in different Places; yet it will not follow, that two different or distinct Acts or Effects of the divine Power have exactly the same Fitness for the same Ends. For these two different Bodies are not different or distinct, in any other Respects than those wherein they differ: They are two in no other Respects than those wherein there is a Difference. If they are perfectly equal and alike in themselves, then they can be distinguished, or be distinct, only in those Things which are called Circumstances; as, Place, Time, Rest, Motion, or some other present or past Circumstances or Relations. For 'tis Difference only, that constitutes Distinction. If God makes two Bodies in themselves every Way equal and alike, and agreeing perfectly in all other Circumstances and Relations, but only their Place; then in this only is there any Distinction or Duplicity. The Figure is the same, the Measure is the same, the Solidity and Resistance are the same, and every Thing the same, but only the Place. Therefore what the Will of God determines, is this, namely, that there should be the same Figure, the same Extension, the same Resistance, &c. in two different Places. And for this Determination he has some Reason. There is some End, for which such a Determination and Act has a peculiar Fitness, above all other Acts. Here is no one Thing determined without an End, and no one Thing without a Fitness for that End, superior to any Thing else. If it be the Pleasure of God to cause the same Resistance, and the same Figure, to be in two different Places and Situations, we can no more justly argue from it, that here must be some Determination or Act of God's Will, that is wholly without Motive or End, then we can argue that whenever, in any Case, it is a Man's Will to speak the same Words, or make the same Sounds at two different Times; there must be some Determination or Act of his Will, without any Motive or End. The Difference of Ple, in the former Case, proves no more than the Difference of Time does in the other. If any one should say with Regard to the former Case, that there must be something determined without an End; namely, That of those two similar Bodies, this in particular should be made in this Place, and the other in the other, and should enquire why the Creator did not make them in a Transposition, when both are alike, and each would equally have suited either Place? The Enquiry supposes something that is not true; namely, that the two Bodies differ and are distinct in other Respects besides their Place. So that with this Distinction, inherent in them, they might in their first Creation have been transposed, and each might have begun it's Existence in the Place of the other.

Let us for Clearness sake suppose, that God had at the Beginning made two Globes, each of an Inch Diameter, both perfect Spheres, and perfectly solid without Pores, and perfectly alike in every Respect, and placed them near one to another, one towards the right Hand, and the other towards the left, without any Difference as to Time, Motion or Rest, past or present, or any Circumstance, but only their Place; and the Question should be ask'd, Why God in their Creation placed 'em so? Why that which is made on the right Hand, was not made on the left, and vice versa? Let it be well considered, whether there be any Sense in such a Question; and whether the Enquiry don't suppose something false and absurd. Let it be considered, what the Creator must have done otherwise than he did, what different Act of Will or Power he must have exerted, in order to the Thing proposed. All that could have been done, would have been to have made two Spheres, perfectly alike, in the same Places where he has made them, without any Difference of the Things made, either in themselves, or in any Circumstance; so that the whole Effect would have been without any Difference, and therefore just the same. By the Supposition, the two Spheres are different in no other Respect but their Place; and therefore in other Respects they are the same. Each has the same Roundness: it is not a distinct Rotundity, in any other Respect but it's Situation. There are also the same Dimensions, differing in nothing but their Place. And so of their Resistance, and every Thing else that belongs to them.

Here if any chuses to say, that there is a Difference in another Respect, namely, That they are not NUMERICALLY the same: That it is thus with all the Qualities that belong to them: That it is confessed they are in some Respects the same; that is, they are both exactly alike; but yet numerically they differ. Thus the Roundness of one is not the same numerical, individual Roundness with that of the other. Let this be supposed; then the Question about the Determination of the divine Will in the Affair, is, Why did God will, that this individual Roundness should be at the right Hand, and the other individual Roundness at the left? Why did not he make them in a contrary Position? Let any rational Person consider, whether such Questions be not Words without a Meaning; as much as if God should see fit for some Ends to cause the same Sounds to be repeated, or made at two different Times; the Sounds being perfectly the same in every other Respect, but only one was a Minute after the other; and it should be ask'd upon it, why God caused these Sounds, numerically different, to succeed one the other in such a Manner? why he did not make that individual Sound which was in the first Minute, to be in the second? and the individual Sound of the last Minute to be in the first? Which Enquiries would be even ridiculous; as I think every Person must see at once, in the Case proposed of two Sounds, being only the same repeated, absolutely without any Difference, but that one Circumstance of Time. If the most High sees it will answer some good End, that the same Sound should be made by Lightning at two distinct Times, and therefore wills that it should be so, must it needs therefore be, that herein there is some Act of God's Will without any Motive or End? God saw fit often, at distinct Times, and on different Occasions, to say the very same Words to Moses; namely those, I am Iehovah. And would it not be unreasonable, to infer as a certain Consequence from this, that here must be some Act or Acts of the divine Will, in determining and disposing these Words exactly alike at different Times, wholly without Aim or Inducement? But it would be no more unreasonable than to say, that there must be an Act of God's without any Inducement, if he sees it best, and for some Reasons, determines that there shall be the same Resistence, the same Dimensions, and the same Figure, in several distinct Places.

If in the Instance of the two Spheres, perfectly alike, it be supposed possible that God might have made them in a contrary Position; that which is made at the right Hand, being made at the Left; then I ask, Whether it is not evidently equally possible, if God had made but one of them, and that in the Place of the right-hand Globe, that he might have made that numerically different from what it is, and numerically different from what he did make it; though perfectly alike, and in the same Place; and at the same Time, and in every Respect, in the same Circumstances and Relations? Namely, Whether he might not have made it numerically the same with that which he has now made at the left Hand; and so have left that which is now created at the right Hand, in a State of Non-Existence? And if so, whether it would not have been possible to have made one in that Place, perfectly like these, and yet numerically differing from both? And let it be considered, whether from this Notion of a numerical Difference in Bodies, perfectly equal and alike, which numerical Difference is something inherent in the Bodies themselves, and diverse from the Difference of Place or Time, or any Circumstance whatsoever; it will not follow, that there is an infinite Number of numerically different possible Bodies, perfectly alike, among which God chuses, by a self-determining Power, when he goes about to create Bodies.

Therefore let us put the Case thus: Supposing that God in the Beginning had created but one perfectly solid Sphere, in a certain Place; and it should be enquired, Why God created that individual Sphere, in that Place, at that Time? And why did not create another Sphere perfectly like it, but numerically different, in the same Place, at the same Time? Or why e chose to bring into Being there, that very Body, rather thn any of the infinite Number of other Bodies, perfectly like it; either of which he could have made there as well, and would have answered his End as well? Why he caused to , at that Place and Time, that individual Roundness, rather any other of the infinite Number of individual just like it? Why that individual Resistance, rather than any other of the infinite Number of possible Resistances just like it? And it might as reasonably be asked, Why, wh God [〈…〉] it to Thunder, he caused that individual ound th to be made, and not another just like it? Why did he make Choice of this very Sound, and reject all the infinite Number of other possible Sounds just like it, but numerically differing from it, and all differing one from another? I think, every Body must be sensible of the Absurdity and Nonsense of what is supposed in such Inquiries. And if we calmly attend to the Matter, we shall be convinced, that all such Kind of Objections as I am answering, are founded on nothing but the Imperfecion of our Manner of conceiving of Things, and the Obscureness of Language, and great Want of Clearness and Precision in the Signification of Terms.

If any shall find Fault with this Reasoning, that it is going a great Length into metaphysical Niceties and Subtilties; I answer, The Objection which they are in Reply to, is a taphysical Subtilty, and must be treated according to the Nature of it.

II. Another Thing alledged is, That inummerable Things which are determined by the divine Will, and chosen and done by God rather than others, differ from those that are not chosen in so inconsiderable a Manner, that it would be unreasonable to suppose the Difference to be of any Consequence, or that there is any superiour Fitness or Goodness, that God can have Respect to in the Determination.

To which I answer; it is impossible for us to determine with any Certainty or Evidence, that because the Difference is very small, and appears to us of no Consideration, therefore there is absolutely no superiour Goodness, and no valuable End which can be proposed by the Creator and Governor of the World, in ordering such a Difference. The aforementioned Author mentions many Instances. One is, there being one Atom in the whole Universe more, or less. But I think it would be unreasonable to suppose, that God made one Atom in vain, or without any End or Motive. He made not one Atom but what was a Work of his almighty Power, as much as the whole Globe of the Earth, and requires as much of a constant Exertion of almighty Power to uphold it; and was made and is uphld understandingly, and on Design, as much as if no other had been made but that. And it would be as unreasonable to suppose, that he made it without any Thing really aimed at in so doing, as much as to suppose that he made the Planet Iupiter without Aim or Design.

'Tis possible, that the most minute Effects of the Creator's Power, the smallest assignable Differences between the Things which God has made, may be attended, in the whole Series of Events, and the whole Compass and Extent of their Influence, with very great and important Consequences. If the Laws of Motion and Gravitation, laid down by Sir Isaac Newton, hold universally, there is not one Atom, nor the least assignable Part of an Atom, but what has Influence, every Moment, throughout the whole material Universe, to cause every Part to be otherwise than it would be, if it were not for that particular corporeal Existence. And however the Effect is insensible for the present, yet it may in Length of Time become great and important.

To illustrate this, Let us suppose two Bodies moving the same Way, in strait Lines, perfectly parallel one to another; but to be diverted from this Parallel Course, and drawn one from another, as much as might be by the Attraction of an Atom, at the Distance of one of the furthest of the fixed Stars from the Earth; these Bodies being turned out of the of their parallel Motion, will, by Degrees, get further further distant, one from the other; and though the Distance may be imperceptible for a long Time, yet at Length it may become very great. So the Revolution of a Planet round the Sun being retarded or accelerated, and the Orbit of it's Revolution made greater or less, and more or less elliptical, and so it's Periodical Time longer or shorter, no more than may be by the Influence of the least Atom, might in Length of Time perform a whole Revolution sooner or later than otherwise it would have done; which might make a vast Alteration with Regard to Millions of important Events. So the Influence of the least Particle may, for ought we know, have such Effect on something in the Constitution of some human Body, as to cause another Thought to arise in the Mind at a certain Time, than otherwise would have been; which in Length of Time (yea, and that not very great) might occasion a vast Alteration thro' the whole World of Mankind. And so innumerable other Ways might be mentioned, wherein the least assignable Alteration may possibly be attended with great Consequences.

Another Argument, which the aforementioned Author brings against a necessary Determination of the divine Will by a superiour Fitness, is, that such Doctrine derogates from the Freeness of God's Grace and Goodness, in chusing the Objects of his Favour and Bounty, and from the Obligation upon Men to Thankfulness for special Benefits. P. 89, &c.

In answer to this Objection, I would observe,

1. That it derogates no more from the Goodness of God, to suppose the Exercise of the Benevolence of his Nature to be determined by Wisdom, than to suppose it determined by Chance, and that his Favours are bestowed altogether at Random, his Will being determined by nothing but perfect Accident, without any End or Design whatsoever; which must be the Case, as has been demonstrated, if Volition be not determined by a prevailing Motive. That which is owing to perfect Contingence, wherein neither previous Inducement, nor antecedent Choice has any Hand, is not owing more to Goodness or Benevolence, than that which is owing to the Influence of a wise End.

2. 'Tis acknowledged, that if the Motive that determines the Will of God, in the Choice of the Objects of his Favours, be any moral Quality in the Object, recommending that Object to his Benevolence above others, his chusing that Object is not so great a Manifestation of the Freeness and Sovereignty of his Grace, as if it were otherwise. But there is no Necessity of supposing this, in order to our supposing that he has some wise End in View, in determining to bestow his Favours on one Person rather than another. We are to distinguish between the Merit of the Object of God's Favour, or a moral Qualification of the Object attracting that Favour and recommending to it, and the natural Fitness of such a Determination of the Act of God's Goodness, to answer some wise Design of his own, some End in the View of God's Omniscience.— 'Tis God's own Act, that is the proper and immediate Object of his Volition.

3. I suppose that none will deny, but that in some Instances, God acts from wise Design in determining the particular Subjects of his Favours: None will say, I presume, that when God distinguishes by his Bounty particular Societies or Persons, He never, in any Instance, exercises any Wisdom in so doing, aiming at some happy Consequence. And if it be not denied to be so in some Instances, then I would enquire, whether in these Instances God's Goodness is less manifested, than in those wherein God has no Aim or End at all? And whether the Subjects have less Cause of Thankfulness? And if so, who shall be thankful for the Bestowment of distinguishing Mercy, with that enhancing Circumstance of the Distinction's being made without an End? How shall it be known when God is influenced by some wise Aim, and when not? It is very manifest with Respect to the Apostle Paul, that God had wise Ends in chusing Him to be a Christian and an Apostle, who had been a Persecutor, &c. The Apostle himself mentions one End. 1 Tim. i.15, 16. Christ Iesus came into the World to save Sinners, of whom I am chief. Howbeit, for this Cause I obtained Mercy, that in me first, Iesus Christ might show forth all Long-suffering, for a Pattern to them who should hereafter believe on Him to Life everlasting. But yet the Apostle never look'd on it as a Diminution of the Freedom and Riches of divine Grace in his Election, which He so often and so greatly magnifies. This brings me to observe,

4. Our supposing such a moral Necessity in the Acts of God's Will as has been spoken of, is so far from necessarily derogating from the Riches of God's Grace to such as are the chosen Objects of his Favour, that in many Instances, this moral Necessity may arise from Goodness, and from the great Degree of it. God may chuse this Object rather than another, as having a superiour Fitness to answer the Ends, Designs and Inclinations of his Goodness; being more sinful, and so more miserable and necessitous than others; the Inclinations of infinite Mercy and Benevolence may be more gratified, and the gracious Design of God's sending his Son into the World may be more abundantly answered, in the Exercises of Mercy towards such an Object, rather than another.

One Thing more I would observe, before I finish what I have to say on the Head of the Necessity of the Acts of God's Will; and that is, that something much more like a servile Subjection of the divine Being to fatal Necessity, will follow from Arminian Principles, than from the Doctrines which they oppose. For they (at least most of them) suppose, with Respect to all Events that happen in the moral World depending on the Volitions of moral Agents, which are the most important Events of the Universe, to which all others are subordinate; I say, they suppose with respect to these, that God has a certain Foreknowledge of them, antecedent to any Purposes or Decrees of his about them. And if so, they have a fixed certain Futurity, prior to any Designs or Volitions of his, and independent on them, and to which his Volitions must be subject, as He would wisely accommodate his Affairs to this fixed Futurity of the State of Things in the moral World. So that here, instead of a moral Necessity of God's Will, arising from or consisting in the infinite Perfection and Blessedness of the divine Being, we have a fixed unalterable State of Things, properly distinct from the perfect Nature of the divine Mind, and the State of the divine Will and Design, and entirely independent on these Things, and which they have no Hand in, because they are prior to them; and which God's Will is truly subject to, being obliged to conform or accommodate himself to it, in all his Purposes and Decrees, and in every Thing He does in his Disposals and Government of the World; the moral World being the End of the natural; so that all is in vain, that is not accommodated to that State of the moral World, which consists in, or depends upon the Acts and State of the Wills of moral Agents, which had a fixed Futurition from Eternity. Such a Subjection to Necessity as this, would truly argue an Inferiority and Servitude, that would be unworthy of the supreme Being; and is much more agreeable to the Notion which many of the Heathen had of Fate, as above the Gods, than that moral Necessity of Fitness and Wisdom which has been spoken of; and is truly repugnant to the absolute Sovereignty of God, and inconsistent with the Supremacy of his Will; and really subjects the Will of the most High to the Will of his Creatures, and brings him into Dependence upon them.

SECTION IX. Concerning that Objection against the Doctrine which has been maintain'd, that it makes GOD the Author of Sin.

'TIS urged by Arminians, that the Doctrine of the Necessity of Men's Volitions, or their necessary Connection with antecedent Events and Circumstances, makes the first Cause, and supreme Orderer of all Things, the Author of Sin; in that he has so constituted the State and Course of Things, that sinful Volitions become necessary, in Consequence of his Disposal. Doctor Whitby, in his Discourse on the Freedom of the Will, cites one of the Antients, as on his Side, declaring that this Opinion of the Necessity of the Will absolves Sinners, as doing nothing of their own Accord which was Evil, and would cast all the Blame of all the Wickedness committed in the World, upon God, and upon his Providence, if that were admitted by the Assertors of this Fate; whether he himself did necessitate them to do these Things, or ordered Matters so that they should be constrain'd to do them by some other Cause. And the Doctor says in another Place, In the Nature of the Thing, and in the Opinion of Philosophers, Causa deficious, in rebus necessariis, ad Causam per se efficientem reducenda est. In Things necessary, the deficient Cause must be reduced to the efficient. And in this Case the Reason is evident; because the not doing what is required, or not avoiding what is forbidden, being a Defect, must follow from the Position of the necessary Cause of that Deficiency.

Concerning this, I would observe the following Things.

I. If there be any Difficulty in this Matter, 'tis nothing peculiar to this Scheme; 'tis no Difficulty or Disadvantage wherein it is distinguished from the Scheme of Arminians; and therefore not reasonably objected by them.

Doctor Whitby supposes, that if Sin necessarily follows from God's withholding Assistance, or if that Assistance be not given which is absolutely necessary to the avoiding of Evil; then in the Nature of the Thing, God must be as properly the Author of that Evil, as if he were the efficient Cause of it. From whence, according to what he himself says of the Devils and damned Spirits, God must be the proper Author of their perfect unrestrained Wickedness: He must be the efficient Cause of the great Pride of the Devils, and of their perfect Malignity against God, Christ, his Saints, and all that is Good, and of the insatiable Cruelty of their Disposition. For he allows, that God has so forsaken them, and does so withhold his Assistance from them, that they are incapacitated from doing Good, and determined only to Evil. Our Doctrine, in its Consequence, makes God the Author of Men's Sin in this World, no more, and in no other Sense, than his Doctrine, in its Consequence, makes God the Author of the hellish Pride and Malice of the Devils. And doubtless the latter is as odious an Effect as the former.

Again, if it will follow at all, that God is the Author of Sin, from what has been supposed of a sure and infallible Connection between Antecedents and Consequents, it will follow because of this, namely, That for God to be the Author or Orderer of those Things which he knows before-hand, will infallibly be attended with such a Consequence, is the same Thing in Effect, as for him to be the Author of that Consequence. But if this be so, this is a Difficulty which equally attends the Doctrine of Arminians themselves; at least, of those of them who allow God's certain Fore-knowledge of all Events. For on the Supposition of such a Fore-knowledge, this is the Case with Respect to every Sin that is committed: God knew, that if he ordered and brought to pass such and such Events, such Sins would infallibly follow. As for Instance, God certainly foreknew, long before Iudas was born, that if he ordered Things so, that there should be such a Man born, at such a Time, and at such a Place, and that his Life should be preserved, and that he should, in divine Providence, be led into Acquaintance with Jesus; and that his Heart should be so influenced by God's Spirit or Providence, as to be inclined to be a Follower of Christ; and that he should be One of those Twelve, which should be chosen constantly to attend him as his Family; and that his Health should be preserved so that he should go up to Ierusalem, at the last Passover in Christ's Life; and it should be so ordered that Iudas should see Christ's kind Treatment of the Woman which anointed him at Bethany, and have that Reproof from Christ, which he had at that Time, and see and hear other Things, which excited his Enmity against his Master, and other Circumstances should be ordered, as they were ordered; it would be what would most certainly and infallibly follow, that Iudas would betray his Lord, and would soon after hang himself, and die impenitent, and be sent to Hell, for his horrid Wickedness.

Therefore this supposed Difficulty ought not to be brought as an Objection against the Scheme which has been maintain'd, as disagreeing with the Arminian Scheme, seeing 'tis no Difficulty owing to such a Disagreement; but a Difficulty wherein the Arminians share with us. That must be unreasonably made an Objection against our differing from them, which we should not escape or avoid at all by agreeing with them.

And therefore I would observe,

II. They who object, that this Doctrine makes God the Author of Sin, ought distinctly to explain what they mean by that Phrase, The Author of Sin. I know, the Phrase, as it is commonly used, signifies something very Ill. If by the Author of be meant the Sinner, the Agent, or Actor of Sin, or the Dor of a wicked Thing; so it would be a Reproach and Blasphemy, to suppose God to be the Author of Sin. In this Sense, I utterly deny God to be the Author of Sin; rejecting such an Imputation on the most High, as what is infinitely to be abhor'd; and deny any such Thing to be the Consequence of what I have laid down. But if by the Author of Sin, is meant the Permitter, or not a Hinderer of Sin; and at the same Time, a Disposer of the State of Events, in such a Manner, for wise, holy and most excellent Ends and Purposes, that Sin, if it be permitted or not hindered, will most certainly and infallibly follow: I say, if this be all that is meant, by being the Author of Sin, I don't deny that God is the Author of Sin, (though I dislike and reject the Phrase, as that which by Use and Custom is apt to carry another Sense) it is no Reproach for the most High to be thus the Author of Sin. This is not to be the Actor of Sin, but on the contrary, of Holiness. What God does herein, is holy; and a glorious Exercise of the infinite Excellency of his Nature. And I don't deny, that God's being thus the Author of Sin, follows from what I have laid down; and I assert, that it equally follows from the Doctrine which is maintained by most of the Arminian Divines.

That it is most certainly so, that God is in such a Manner the Disposer and Orderer of Sin, is evident, if any Credit is to be given to the Scripture; as well as because it is impossible in the Nature of Things to be otherwise. In such a Manner God ordered the Obstinacy of Pharaoh, in his refusing to obey God's Commands, to let the People go. Exod. iv.21. I will harden his Heart, and he shall not let the People go. Chap. vii.2—5. Aaron thy Brother shall spek unto Pharaoh, that he send the Children of Israel out of his Land. And I will harden Pharaoh's Heart, and multiply my Signs and my Wonders in the Land of Egypt. But Pharaoh shall not hearken unto you; that I may lay mine Hand upon Egypt, by great Iudgments, &c. Chap. ix.12. And the Lord harden'd the Heart of Pharaoh, and he hearken'd not unto them, as the Lord had spoken unto Moses. Chap. x.1, 2. And the Lord said unto Moses, Go in unto Pharaoh; for I have harden'd his Heart, and the Heart of his Servants, that I might show thse my Signs before Him, and that thou mayst tll it in the Ears of thy Son, and thy Son's Son, what Things I have wrought in Egypt, and my Sign which I have done amongst them, that ye may know that I am the Lord. Chap. xiv.4. And I will harden Pharaoh's Heart, that he shall follow after them: and I will be honoured upon Pharaoh, and upon all his Host. V. 8. And the Lord harden'd the Heart of Pharaoh King of Egypt, and he pursued after the Children of Israel. And it is certain that in such a Manner, God for wise and good End, ordered that Event, Ioseph's being sold into Egypt by his Brethren. Gen. xlv. 5. Now therefore be not grieved, nor angry with yourselves, that ye sold me hither; for God did send me before you to preserve Life. Ver. 7, 8. God did send me before you to preserve a Posterity in the Earth, and to save your Lives by a great Deliverance: so that now it was not you, that sent me hither, but God. Psal. cvii.17. He sent a Man before them, even Joseph, who was sold for a Servant. 'Tis certain, that thus God ordered the Sin and Folly of Sihon King of the Amorites, in refusing to let the People of Israel pass by him peaceably. Deut. ii.30. But Sihon King of Heshbon would not let us pass by him; for the Lord thy God harden'd his Spirit, and made his Heart obstinate, that He might deliver Him into thine Hand. 'Tis certain, that God thus ordered the Sin and Folly of the Kings of Canaan, that they attempted not to make Peace with Israel, but with a stupid Boldness and Obstinacy, set themselves violently to oppose them and their God. Josh. xi.20. For it was of the Lord, to harden their Hearts, that they should cme against Israel in Battle, that he might destroy them utterly, and that they might have no Favour; but that he might destroy them, as the Lord commanded Moses. 'Tis evident, that thus God ordered the treacherous Rebellion of Zedekiah, against the King of Babylon. Jer. lii.3. For thro' the Anger of the Lord i cme to pass in Jerusalem, and Judah, 'till He had cast them out from his Presence, that Zedekiah rebelled against the King of Babylon. So 2 Kings xxiv.20. And 'tis exceeding manifest, that God thus ordered the Rapine and unrighteous Ravages of Nebuchadnezzar, in spoiling and ruining the Nations round about. Jer. xxv.9. Behold, I will send and take all the Families of the North, saith the Lord, and Nebuchadnezzar my Servant, and will bring them against this Land, and against all the Nations round about; and will utterly destroy them, and make them an Astonishment, and an Hissng, and perpetual Desolations. Ch. xliii.10.11. I will send and take Nebuchadnezzar the King of Babylon, my Servant; and I will set his Throne upon these Stones that I have id, and he shall spread his royal Pavilion over them. And when he cometh, he shall site the Land of Egypt, and deliver such as are for Death to Death, and such as are for Captivity to Captivity, and such as are for the Sword to the Sword. Thus God represents himself as sending for Nebuchadnezzar, and taking of him and his Armies, and bringing him against the Nations which were to be destroyed by him, to that very End, that he might utterly destroy them, and make them desolate; and as appointing the Work that he should do, so particularly, that the very Persons were designed, that he should kill with the Sword; and those that should be kill'd with Famine and Pestilence, and those that should be carried into Captivity; and that in doing all these Things, he should act as his Servant: By which, less can't be intended, than that he should serve his Purposes and Designs. And in Ier. xxvii.4, 5, 6. God declares how he would cause him thus to serve his Designs, namely, by bringing this to pass in his sovereign Disposals, as the great Possessor and Governor of the Universe, that disposes all Things just as pleases him. Thus saith the Lord of Hosts, the God of Israel; I have made the Earth, the Man and the Beast that are upon the Ground, by my great Power, and my stretched out Arm, and have given it unto whom it seemed meet unto me: And now I have given all these Lands into the Hands of Nebuchadnezzar MY SERVANT, and the Beasts of the Field have I given also to serve him. And Nebuchadnezzar is spoken of as doing these Things, by having his Arms strengthned by God, and having God's Sword put into his Hands, for this End. Ezek. xxx.24, 25, 26. Yea, God speaks of his terribly ravaging and wasting the Nations, and cruelly destroying all Sorts, without Distinction of Sex or Age, as the Weapon in God's Hand, and the Instrument of his Indignation, which God makes use of to fulfil his own Purposes, and execute his own Vengeance. Jer. li.20, &c. Thou art my Battle-A, and Weapons of War. For with thee will I break in Pieces the Nations, and with thee I will destroy Kingdoms, and with thee I will break in Pieces the Horse and his Rider, and with thee I will break in Pieces the Chariot and his Rider; with thee also will I break in Pieces Man and Woman; and with thee will I break in Pieces Old and Young; and with thee will I break in Pieces the young Man and the Maid, &c. 'Tis represented, that the Designs of Nebuchadnezzar, and those that destroyed Ierusalem, never could have been accomplished, had not God determined them, as well as they; Lam. iii.37. Who is he that saith, and it cometh to pass, and the Lord commandeth it not? And yet the King of Babylon's thus destroying the Nations, and especially the Iews, is spoken of as his great Wickedness, for which God finally destroyed him. Isai. xiv.4, 5, 6, 12. Heb. ii.5,—12. and Ier. Chap. l. and li. 'Tis most manifest, that God, to serve his own Designs, providentially ordered Shimei's cursing David. 2 Sam. xvl.10, 11. The Lord has said unto him, Curse David.— Let him curse, for the Lord has bidden him.

'Tis certain, that God thus, for excellent, holy, gracious and glorious Ends, ordered the Fact which they committed, who were concerned in Christ's Death; and that therein they did but fulfil God's Designs. As, I trust, no Christian will deny it was the Design of God, that Christ should be crucified, and that for this End, he came into the World. 'Tis very manifest by many Scriptures, that the whole Affair of Christ's Crucifixion, with it's Circumstances, and the Treachery of Iudas, that made Way for it, was ordered in God's Providence, in Pursuance of his Purpose; notwithstanding the Violence that is used with those plain Scriptures, to obscure and pervert the Sense of 'em. Act. ii.23. Him being delivered, by the determinate Counsel and Foreknowledge of God,ye have taken, and with wicked Hands, have crucified and slain. Luk. xxii.21, 22. But behold the Hand of him that betrayeth me, is with me on the Table: And truly the Son of Man goeth, as it was determined. Act. iv.27, 28. For of a Truth, against thy holy Child Iesus, whom thou hast anointed, both Herod, and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles, and the People of Israel, were gathered together, for to do whatsoever thy Hand and thy Counsel determined before to be done. Act. iii.17, 18. And now Brethren, I wt that through Ignorance ye did it, as did also your Rulers: But these Things, which God before had showed by the Mouth of all his Prophets, that Christ should suffer, he has so fulfilled. So that what these Murderers of Christ did, is spoken of as what God brought to pass or ordered, and that by which he fulfilled his own Word.

In Rev. xvii.17. The agreeing of the Kings of the Earth to give their Kingdom to the Beast, though it was a very wicked Thing in them, is spoken of as a fulfilling God's Will, and what God had put it into their Hearts to do. 'Tis manifest, that God sometimes permits Sin to be committed, and at the same Time orders Things so, that if he permits the Fact, it will come to pass, because on some Accounts he sees it needful and of Importance that it should come to pass. Matt. xviii.7. It must needs be, that Offences come; but W to that Man by whom the Offence cometh. With 1 Cor. xi.19. For there must also be Heresies among you, that they which are approved, may be made manifest among you.

Thus it is certain and demonstrable, from the holy Scriptures, as well as the Nature of Things, and the Principles of Arminians, that God permits Sin; and at the same Time, so orders Things, in his Providence, that it certainly and infallibly will come to pass, in Consequence of his Permission.

I proceed to observe in the next Place,

III. That there is a great Difference between God's being concerned thus, by his Permission, in an Event and Act, which in the inherent Subject and Agent of it, is Sin, (though the Event will certainly follow on his Permission,) and his being concerned in it by producing it and exerting the Act of Sin or between his being the Orderer of it's certain Existence, by not hindering it, under certain Circumstances, and his being the proper Actor or Author of it, by a positive Agency or Efficiency. And this, notwithstanding what Doctor Whitby offers about a Saying of Philosophers, that Causa deficiens, in Rebus necessariis, ad Causam per se efficientem reducenda est. As there is a vast Difference between the Sun's being the Cause of the Lightsomeness and Warmth of the Atmosphere, and Brightness of Gold and Diamonds, by its Presence and positive Influence; and its being the Occasion of Darkness and Frost, in the Night, by its Motion, whereby it descends below the Horizon. The Motion of the Sun is the Occasion of the latter Kind of Events; but it is not the proper Cause, Efficient or Producer of them; though they are necessarily consequent on that Motion, under such Circumstances: No more is any Action of the divine Being the Cause of the Evil of Men's Wills. If the Sun were the proper Cause of Cold and Darkness, it would be the Fountain of these Things, as it is the Fountain of Light and Heat: And then something might be argued from the Nature of Cold and Darkness, to a Likeness of Nature in the Sun; and it might be justly infer'd, that the Sun itself is dark and cold, and that his Beams are black and frosty. But from its being the Cause no otherwise than by its Departure, no such Thing can be infer'd, but the contrary; it may justly be argued, that the Sun is a bright and hot Body, if Cold and Darkness are found to be the Consequence of its Withdrawment; and the more constantly and necessarily these Effects are connected with, and confined to its Absence, the more strongly does it argue the Sun to be the Fountain of Light and Heat. So, inasmuch as Sin is not the Fruit of any positive Agency or Influence of the most High, but on the contrary, arises from the withholding of his Action and Energy, and under certain Circumstances, necessarily follows on the Want of his Influence; this is no Argument that he is sinful, or his Operation Evil, or has any Thing of the Nature of Evil; but on the contrary, that He, and his Agency, are altogether good and holy, and that he is the Fountain of all Holiness. It would be strange arguing indeed, because Men never commit Sin, but only when God leaves 'em to themselves, and necessarily sin, when he does so, that therefore their Sin is not from themselves, but from God; and so, that God must be a sinful Being: As strange as it would be to argue, because it is always dark when the Sun is gone, and never dark when the S is present, that therefore all Darkness is from the Sun, and that his Disk and Beams must needs be black.

IV. It properly belongs to the supreme and absolute Governor of the Universe, to order all important Events within his Dominion, by his Wisdom: But the Events in the moral World are of the most important Kind; such as the moral Actions of intelligent Creatures, and their Consequences.

These Events will be ordered by something. They will either be disposed by Wisdom, or they will be disposed by Chance; that is, they will be disposed by blind and undesigning Causes, if that were possible, and could be called a Disposal. Is it not better, that the Good and Evil which happens in God's World, should be ordered, regulated, bounded and determined by the good Pleasure of an infinitely wise Being, who perfectly comprehends within his Understanding and constant View, the Universality of Things, in all their Extent and Duration, and sees all the Influence of every Event, with Respect to every individual Thing and Circumstance, throughout the grand System, and the whole of the eternal Series of Consequences; than to leave these Things to fall out by Chance, and to be determined by those Causes which have no Understanding or Aim? Doubtless, in these important Events, there is a better and a worse, as to the Time, Subject, Place, Manner and Circumstances of their coming to pass, with Regard to their Influence on the State and Course of Things. And if there be, 'tis certainly best that they should be determined to that Time, Place, &c. which is best. And therefore 'tis in its own Nature fit, that Wisdom, and not Chance, should order these Things. So that it belongs to the Being, who is the Possessor of infinite Wisdom, and is the Creator and Owner of the whole System of created Existences, and has the Care of all; I say, it belongs to him, to take Care of this Matter; and he would not do what is proper for him, if he should neglect it. And it is so far from being unholy in him, to undertake this Affair, that it would rather have been unholy to neglect it; as it would have been a neglecting what fitly appertains to him; and so it would have been a very unfit and unsuitable Neglect.

Therefore the Sovereignty of God doubtless extends to this Matter: especially considering, that if it should be supposed to be otherwise, and God should leave Men's Volitions, and all moral Events, to the Determination and Disposition of blind and unmeaning Causes, or they should be left to happen perfectly without a Cause; this would be no more consistent with Liberty, in any Notion of it, and particularly not in the Arminian Notion of it, than if these Events were subject to the Disposal of divine Providence, and the Will of Man were determined by Circumstances which are ordered and disposed by divine Wisdom; as appears by what has been already observed. But it is evident, that such a providential disposing and determining Men's moral Actions, though it infers a moral Necessity of those Actions, yet it does not in the least infring the real Liberty of Mankind,; the only Liberty that common Sense teaches to be necessary to moral Agency, which, as has been demonstrated, is not inconsistent whith such Necessity.

On the whole, it is manifest, that God may be, in the Manner which has been described, the Orderer and Disposer of that Event, which in the inherent Subject and Agent is moral Evil; and yet His so doing may be no moral Evil. He may will the Disposal of such an Event, and it's coming to pass for good Ends, and his Will not be an immoral or sinful Will, but a perfectly holy Will. And he may actually in his Providence so dispose and permit Things, that the Event may be certainly and infallibly connected with such Disposal and Permission, and his Act therein not be an immoral or unholy, but a perfectly holy Act. Sin may be an evil Thing, and yet that there should be such a Disposal and Permission, as that it should come to pass, may be a good Thing. This is no Contradiction, or Inconsistence. Ioseph's Brethren's selling him into Egypt, consider it only as it was acted by them, and with Respect to their Views and Aims which were evil, was a very bad Thing; but it was a good Thing, as it was an Event of God's ordering, and considered with Respect to his Views and Aims which were good. Gen. l. 20. As for you, ye thought Evil against me; but God meant it unto Good. So the Crucifixion of Christ, if we consider only those Things which belong to the Event as it proceeded from his Murderers, and are comprehended within the Compass of the Affair considered as their Act, their Principles, Dispositions, Views and Aims; so it was one of the most heinous Things that ever was done; in many Respects the most horrid of all Acts: But consider it, as it was will'd and ordered of God, in the Extent of his Designs and Views, it was the most admirable and glorious of all Events; and God's willing the Event was the most holy Volition of God, that ever was made known to Men; and God's Act in ordering it, was a divine Act, which above all others, manifests the moral Excellency of the divine Being.

The Consideration of these Things may help us to a sufficient Answer to the Cavils of Arminians concerning what has been supposed by many Calvinists, of a Distinction between a secret and revealed Will of God, and their Diversity one from the other; supposing, that the Calvinists herein ascribe inconsistent Wills to the most High: Which is without any Foundation. God's secret and revealed Will, or in other Words, his disposing and preceptive Will may be diverse, and exercised in dissimilar Acts, the one in disapproving and opposing, the other in willing and determining, without any Inconsistence. Because, although these dissimilar Exercises of the divine Will may in some Respects relate to the same Things, yet in Strictness they have different and contrary Objects, the one Evil and the other Good. Thus for Instance, the Crucifixion of Christ was a Thing contrary to the revealed or preceptive Will of God; because, as it was view'd and done by his malignant Murderers, it was a Thing infinitely contrary to the holy Nature of God, and so necessarily contrary to the holy Inclination of his Heart revealed in his Law. Yet this don't at all hinder but that the Crucifixion of Christ, considered with all those glorious Consequences, which were within the View of the divine Omniscience, might be indeed, and therefore might appear to God to be, a glorious Event; and consequently be agreeable to his Will, though this Will may be secret, i. e. not revealed in God's Law. And thus considered, the Crucifixion of Christ was not evil, but good. If the secret Exercises of God's Will were of a Kind that is dissimilar and contrary to his revealed Will, respecting the same, or like Objects; if the Objects of both were good, or both evil; then indeed to ascribe contrary Kinds of Volition or Inclination to God, respecting these Objects, would be to ascribe an inconsistent Will to God: but to ascribe to Him different and opposite Exercises of Heart, respecting different Objects, and Objects contrary one to another, is so far from supposing God's Will to be inconsistent with it self, that it can't be supposed consistent with it self any other Way. For any Being to have a Will of Choice respecting Good, and at the same Time a Will of Rejection and Refusal respecting Evil, is to be very consistent: But the contrary, namely, to have the same Will towards these contrary Objects, and to chuse and love both Good and Evil at the same Time, is to be very inconsistent.

There is no Inconsistence in supposing, that God may hate a Thing as it is in it self, and considered simply as Evil, and yet that it may be his Will it should come to pass, considering all Consequences. I believe, there is no Person of good Understanding, who will venture to say, he is certain that it is impossible it should be best, taking in the whole Compass and Extent of Existence, and all Consequences in the endless Series of Events, that there should be such a Thing as moral Evil in the World. And if so, it will certainly follow, that an infinitely wise Being, who always chuses what is best, must chuse that there should be such a Thing. And if so, then such a Choice is not an Evil, but a wise and holy Choice. And if so, then that Providence which is agreeable to such a Choice, is a wise and holy Providence. Men do will Sin as Sin, and so are the Authors and Actors of it: They love it as Sin, and for evil Ends and Purposes. God don't will Sin as Sin, or for the sake of any Thing evil; though it be his Pleasure so to order Things, that He permitting, Sin will come to pass; for the sake of the great Good that by his Disposal shall be the Consequence. His willing to order Things so that Evil should come to pass, for the sake of the contrary Good, is no Argument that He don't hate Evil, as Evil: And if so, then it is no Reason why he mayn't reasonably forbid Evil as Evil, and punish it as such.

The Arminians themselves must be obliged, whether they will or no, to allow a Distinction of God's Will, amounting to just the same Thing that Calvinists intend by their Distinction of a secret and revealed Will. They must allow a Distinction of those Things which God thinks best should be, considering all Circumstances and Consequences, and so are agreeable to his disposing Will, and those Things which he loves, and are agreeable to his Nature, in themselves considered. Who is there that will dare to say, that the hellish Pride, Malice and Cruelty of Devils, are agreeable to God, and what He likes and approves? And yet, I trust, there is no Christian Divine but what will allow, that 'tis agreeable to God's Will so to order and dispose Things concerning them, so to leave them to themselves, and give them up to their own Wickedness, that this perfect Wickedness should be a necessary Consequence. Besure Doctor Whitby's Words do plainly suppose and allow it.

These following Things may be laid down as Maxims of plain Truth, and indisputable Evidence.

1. That God is a perfectly happy Being, in the most absolute and highest Sense possible.

2. That it will follow from hence, that God is free from every Thing that is contrary to Happiness; and so, that in strict Propriety of Speech, there is no such Thing as any Pain, Grief or Trouble in God.

3. When any intelligent Being is really cross'd and disappointed, and Things are contrary to what He truly desires, He is the less pleased, or has less Pleasure, his Pleasure and Happiness is diminished, and he suffers what is disagreeable to him, or is the Subject of something that is of a Nature contrary to Joy and Happiness, even Pain and Grief.

From this last Axiom it follows, that if no Distinction is to be admitted between God's Hatred of Sin, and his Will with Respect to the Event and the Existence of Sin, as the alwise Determiner of all Events, under the View of all Consequences through the whole Compass and Series of Things; I say, then it certainly follows, that the coming to pass of every individual Act of Sin is truly, all Things considered, contrary to his Will, and that his Will is really cross'd in it; and this in Proportion as He hates it. And as God's Hatred of Sin is infinite, by Reason of the infinite Contrariety of his holy Nature to Sin; so his Will is infinitely cross'd, in every Act of Sin that happens. Which is as much as to say, He endures that which is infinitely disagreeable to Him, by Means of every Act of Sin that He sees committed. And therefore, as appears by the preceeding Positions, He endures truly and really, infinite Grief or Pain from every Sin. And so He must be infinitely cross'd, and suffer infinite Pain, every Day, in Millions of Millions of Instances: He must continually be the Subject of an immense Number of real, and truly infinitely great Crosses and Vexations. Which would be to make him infinitely the most miserable of all Beings.

If any Objector should say; All that these Things amount to, is, that God may do Evil that Good may come; which is justly esteem'd immoral and sinful in Men; and therefore may be justly esteem'd inconsistent with the moral Perfections of God. I answer, That for God to dispose and permit Evil, in the Manner that has been spoken of, is not to do Evil that Good may come; for it is not to do Evil at all.—In Order to a Thing's being morally Evil, there must be one of these Things belonging to it: Either it must be a Thing unfit and unsuitable in it's own Nature; or it must have a bad Tendency; or it must proceed from an evil Disposition, and be done for an evil End. But neither of these Things can be attributed to God's ordering and permitting such Events, as the immoral Acts of Creatures, for good Ends. (1.) It is not unfit in it's own Nature, that He should do so. For it is in it's own Nature fit, that infinite Wisdom, and not blind Chance, should dispose moral Good and Evil in the World. And 'tis fit, that the Being who has infinite Wisdom, and is the Maker, Owner, and supreme Governor of the World, should take Care of that Matter. And therefore there is no Unfitness, or Unsuitableness in his doing it. It may be unfit, and so immoral, for any other Beings to go about to order this Affair; because they are not possess'd of a Wisdom, that in any Manner fits them for it; and in other Respects they are not fit to be trusted with this Affair; nor does it belong to them, they not being the Owners and Lords of the Universe.

We need not be afraid to affirm, that if a wise and good Man knew with absolute Certainty, it would be best, all Things considered, that there should be such a Thing as moral Evil in the World, it would not be contrary to his Wisdom and Goodness, for him to chuse that it should be so. 'Tis no evil Desire, to desire Good, and to desire that which, all Things considered, is best. And it is no unwise Choice, to chuse that That should be, which it is best should be; and to chuse the Existence of that Thing concerning which this is known, namely, that it is best it should be, and so is known in the whole to be most worthy to be chosen. On the contrary, it would be a plain Defect in Wisdom and Goodness, for him not to chuse it. And the Reason why he might not order it, if he were able, would not be because he might not desire it, but only the ordering of that Matter don't belong to him. But it is no Harm for Him who is by Right, and in the greatest Propriety, the supreme Orderer of all Things, to order every Thing in such a Manner, as it would be a Point of Wisdom in Him to chuse that they should be ordered. If it would be a plain Defect of Wisdom and Goodness in a Being, not to chuse that That should be, which He certainly knows it would, all Things considered, be best should be (as was but now observed) then it must be impossible for a Being who has no Defect of Wisdom and Goodness, to do otherwise than chuse it should be; and that, for this very Reason, because He is perfectly wise and good. And if it be agreeable to perfect Wisdom and Goodness for him to chuse that it should be, and the ordering of all Things supremely and perfectly belongs to him, it must be agreeable to infinite Wisdom and Goodness, to order that it should be. If the Choice is good, the ordering and disposing Things according to that Choice must also be good. It can be no Harm in one to whom it belongs to do his Will in the Armies of Heaven, and amongst the Inhabitants of the Earth, to execute a good Volition. If his Will be good, and the Object of his Will be, all Things considered, good and best, then the chusing or willing it is not willing Evil that Good may come. And if so, then his ordering according to that Will is not doing Evil, that Good may come.

2. 'Tis not of a bad Tendency, for the supreme Being thus to order and permit that moral Evil to be, which it is best should come to pass. For that it is of good Tendency, is the very Thing supposed in the Point now in Question.— Christ's Crucifixion, though a most horrid Fact in them that perpetrated it, was of most glorious Tendency as permitted and ordered of God.

3. Nor is there any Need of supposing, it proceeds from any evil Disposition or Aim: for by the Supposition, what is aim'd at is Good, and Good is the actual Issue, in the final Result of Things.

SECTION X. Concerning Sin's first Entrance into the World.

THE Things which have already been offered, may serve to obviate or clear many of the Objections which might be raised concerning Sin's first coming into the World; as though it would follow from the Doctrine maintain'd, that God must be the Author of the first Sin, thro' his so disposing Things, that it should necessarily follow from his Permission, that the sinful Act should be committed, &c. I need not therefore stand to repeat what has been said already, about such a Necessity's not proving God to be the Author of Sin, in any ill Sense, or in any such Sense as to infringe any Liberty of Man, concerned in his moral Agency, or Capacity of Blame, Guilt and Punishment.

But if it should nevertheless be said, Supposing the Case so, that God, when he had made Man, might so order his Circumstances, that from these Circumstances, together with his withholding further Assistance and divine Influence, his Sin would infallibly follow, Why might not God as well have first made Man with a fixed prevailing Principle of Sin in his Heart?

I answer, 1. It was meet, if Sin did come into Existence, and appear in the World, it should arise from the Imperfection which properly belongs to a Creature, as such, and should appear so to do, that it might appear not to be from God as the Efficient or Fountain. But this could not have been, if Man had been made at first with Sin in his Heart; nor unless the abiding Principle and Habit of Sin were first introduced by an evil Act of the Creature. If Sin had not arose from the Imperfection of the Creature, it would not have been so visible, that it did not arise from God, as the positive Cause, and real Source of it.— But it would require Room that can't be here allowed, fully to consider all the Difficulties which have been started, concerning the first Entrance of Sin into the World.

And therefore,

2. I would observe, that Objections against the Doctrine that has been laid down, in Opposition to the Arminian Notion of Liberty, from these Difficulties, are altogether impertinent; because no additional Difficulty is incurred, by adhering to a Scheme in this Manner differing from theirs, and none would be removed or avoided, by agreeing with, and maintaining theirs. Nothing that the Arminians say, about the Contingence, or self-determining Power of Man's Will, can serve to explain with less Difficulty, how the first sinful Volition of Mankind could take Place, and Man be justly charged with the Blame of it. To say, the Will was self-determined, or determined by free Choice, in that sinful Volition; which is to say, that the first sinful Volition was determined by a foregoing sinful Volition; is no Solution of the Difficulty. It is an odd Way of solving Difficulties, to advance greater, in order to it. To say, Two and Two makes Nine; or, that a Child begat his Father, solves no Difficulty: No more does it, to say, The first sinful Act of Choice was before the first sinful Act of Choice, and chose and determined it, and brought it to pass. Nor is it any better Solution, to say, The first sinful Volition chose, determined and produced itself; which is to say, It was before it was. Nor will it go any further towards helping us over the Difficulty, to say, The first sinful Volition arose accidentally, without any Cause at all; any more than it will solve that difficult Question, How the World could be made out of Nothing? to say, It came into Being out of Nothing, without any Cause; as has been already observed. And if we should allow that That could be, that the first evil Volition should arise by perfect Accident, without any Cause, it would relieve no Difficulty, about God's laying the Blame of it to Man. For how was Man to Blame for perfect Accident, which had no Cause, and which therefore, he (to be sure) was not the Cause of, any more than if it came by some external Cause?— Such Kind of Solutions are no better, than if some Person, going about to solve some of the strange mathematical Paradoxes, about infinitely great and small Quantities; as, that some infinitely great Quantities are infinitely greater than some other infinitely great Quantities; and also that some infinitely small Quantities are infinitely less than others, which yet are infinitely little; in order to a Solution, should say, That Mankind have been under a Mistake, in supposing a greater Quantity to exceed a smaller; and that a Hundred multiplied by Ten, makes but a single Unit.

SECTION XI. Of a supposed Inconsistence of these Principles, with GOD's moral Character.

THE Things which have been already observed, may be sufficient to answer most of the Objections, and silence the great Exclamations of Arminians against the Calvinists, from the supposed Inconsistence of Calvinistic Principles with the moral Perfections of God, as exercised in his Government of Mankind. The Consistence of such a Doctrine of Necessity as has been maintained, with the Fitness and Reasonableness of God's Commands, Promises and Threatnings, Rewards and Punishments, has been particularly considered: The Cavils of our Opponents, as though our Doctrine of Necessity made God the Author of Sin, have been answered; and also their Objection against these Principles, as inconsistent with God's Sincerity, in his Counsels, Invitations and Perswasions, has been already obviated, in what has been observed, respecting the Consistence of what Calvinists suppose concerning the secret and revealed Will of God: By that it appears, there is no Repugnance in supposing it may be the secret Will of God, that his Ordination and Permission of Events should be such that it shall be a certain Consequence, that a Thing never will come to pass; which yet it is Man's Duty to do, and so God's preceptive Will, that he should do; and this is the same Thing as to say, God may sincerely command and require him to do it. And if he may be sincere in commanding him, he may for the same Reason be sincere in counselling, inviting and using Persuasions with him to do it. Counsels and Invitations are Manifestations of God's preceptive Will, or of what God loves, and what is in it self, and as Man's Act, agreeable to his Heart; and not of his disposing Will, and what he chuses as a Part of his own infinite Scheme of Things. It has been particularly shown, Part III. Section IV. that such a Necessity as has been maintained, is not inconsistent with the Propriety and Fitness of divine Commands; and for the same Reason, not inconsistent with the Sincerity of Invitations and Counsels, in the Corollary at the End of that Section. Yea, it has been shown, Part III. Sect. 7. Coral. 1. that this Objection of Arminians, concerning the Sincerity and Use of divine Exhortations, Invitations and Counsels, is demonstrably against themselves.

Notwithstanding, I would further observe, that the Difficulty of reconciling the Sincerity of Counsels, Invitations and Persuasions, with such an antecedent known Fixedness of all Events, as has been supposed, is not peculiar to this Scheme, as distinguished from that of the Generality of Arminians, which acknowledge the absolute Foreknowledge of God: And therefore, it would be unreasonably brought as an Objection against my differing from them. The main seeming Difficulty in the Case is this: That God in counselling, inviting and persuading, makes a Show of aiming at, seeking and using Endeavours for the Thing exhorted and persuaded to; whereas, 'tis impossible for any intelligent Being truly to seek, or use Endeavours for a Thing, which he at the same Time knows most perfectly will not come to pass; and that it is absurd to suppose, he makes the obtaining of a Thing his End, in his Calls and Counsels, which he at the same Time infallibly knows will not be obtain'd by these Means. Now, if God knows this, in the utmost Certainty and Perfection, the Way by which he comes by this Knowledge makes no Difference. If he knows it by the Necessity which he sees in Things, or by some other Means; it alters not the Case. But it is in Effect allowed by Arminians themselves, that God's inviting and persuading Men to do Things, which he at the same Time certainly knows will not be done, is no Evidence of Insincerity; because they allow, that God has a certain Foreknowledge of all Men's sinful Actions and Omissions. And as this is thus implicitly allowed by most Arminians, so all that pretend to own the Scriptures to be the Word of God, must be constrained to allow it.— God commanded and counsel'd Pharaoh to let his People go, and used Arguments and Persuasions to induce him to it; he laid before him Arguments taken from his infinite Greatness and almighty Power (Exod. vii.16.) and forewarned him of the fatal Consequences of his Refusal, from Time to Time; (Chap. viii.1, 2, 20, 21. Chap. ix.1—5.13—17. and x.3, 6.) He commanded Moses, and the Elders of Israel, to go and beseech Pharaoh to let the People go; and at the same Time told 'em, he knew surely that he would not comply to it. Exod. iii.18, 19. And thou shalt come, thou and the Elders of Israel, unto the King of Egypt, and you shall say unto him; The Lord God of the Hebrews has met with us; and now let us go, we beseech thee, three Days Iourney into the Wilderness, that we may Sacrifice unto the Lord our God: And, I am sure that the King of Egypt will not let you go. So our blessed Saviour, the Evening wherein he was betrayed, knew that Peter would shamefully deny him, before the Morning; for he declares it to him with Asseverations, to show the Certainty of it; and tells the Disciples, that all of them should be ofended because of him that Night; Matt. xxvi.31,—35. Ioh. xiii.38. Luk. xxii.31,—34. Ioh. xvi.32. And yet it was their Duty to avoid these Things; they were very sinful Things, which God had forbidden, and which it was their Duty to watch and pray against; and they were obliged to do so from the Counsels and Persuasions Christ used with them, at that very Time, so to do; Matt. xxvi.41. Watch and pray, that ye enter not into Temptation. So that whatover Difficulty there can be in this Matter, it can be no Objection against any Principles which have been maintain'd in Opposition to the Principles of Arminians; nor does it any more concern me to remove the Difficulty, than it does them, or indeed all that call themselves Christians, and acknowledge the divine Authority of the Scriptures.— Nevertheless, this Matter may possibly (God allowing) be more particularly and largely considered, in some future Discourse, on the Doctrine of Predestition.

But I would here observe, that however the Defenders of that Notion of Liberty of Will, which I have opposed, exclaim against the Doctrine of Calvinists, as tending to bring Men into Doubts, concerning the moral Perfections of God; it is their Scheme, and not the Scheme of Calvinists, that indeed is justly chargeable with this. For 'tis one of the most fundamental Points of their Scheme of Things, that a Freedom of Will, consisting in self-determination, without all Necessity, is essential to Moral Agency. This is the same Thing as to say, that such a Determination of the Will without all Necessity, must be in all intelligent Beings, in those Things, wherein they are moral Agents, or in their moral Acts: And from this it will follow, that God's Will is not necessarily determined, in any Thing he does, as a moral Agent, or in any of his Acts that are of a moral Nature. So that in all Things, wherein he acts holily, justly and truly, he don't act necessarily; or his Will is not necessarily determined to act holily and justly; because if it were necessarily determined, he would not be a moral Agent in thus acting: His Will would be attended with Necessity: which they say is inconsistent with moral Agency:He can act no otherwise; He is at no Liberty in the Affair; He is determined by unavoidable invincible Necessity: Therefore such Agency is no moral Agency; ye, no Agency at all, properly speaking: A necessary Agent is no Agent: He being passive, and subject to Necessity, what He does is no Act of his, but an Effect of a Necessity prior to any Act of his. This is agreeable to their Manner of arguing. Now then what is become of all our Proof of the moral Perfections of God? How can we prove, that God certainly will in any one Instance do that which is just and holy; seeing his Will is determined in the Matter by no Necessity? We have no other Way of proving that any Thing certainly will be, but only by the Necessity of the Event. Where we can see no Necessity, but that the Thing may be, or may not be, there we are unavoidably left at a Loss. We have no other Way properly and truly to demonstrate the moral Perfections of God, but the Way that Mr. Chubb proves them, in P. 252, 261, 262, 263. of his Tracts; namely, That God must necessarily perfectly know what is most worthy and valuable in it self, which in the Nature of Things is best and fittest to be done. And as this is most eligible in it self, He being omniscient, must see it to be so; and being both omniscient and self-sufficient, cannot have any Temptation to reject it; and so must necessarily will that which is best. And thus, by this Necessity of the Determination of God's Will to what is good and best, we demonstrably establish God's moral Character.

Corol. From Things which have been observed, it appears, that most of the Arguments from Scripture, which Arminians make use of to support their Scheme, are no other than begging the Question. For in these their Arguments they determine in the first Place, that without such a Freedom of Will as they hold, Men can't be proper moral Agents, nor the Subjects of Command, Counsel, Persuasion, Invitation, Promises, Threatnings, Expostulations, Rewards and Punishments; and that without such a Freedom 'tis to no Purpose for Men to take any Care, or use any Diligence, Endeavours or Means, in order to their avoiding Sin, or becoming holy, escaping Punishment or obtaining Happiness: and having supposed these Things, which are grand Things in Question in the Debate, then they heap up Scriptures containing Commands, Counsels, Calls, Warnings, Persuasions, Expostulations, Promises and Threatnings; (as doubtless they may find enough such; the Bible is confssedly full of them, from the Beginning to the End) and then they glory, how full the Scripture is on their Side, how many more Texts there are that evidently favour their Scheme, than such as seem to favour the contrary. But let them first make manifest the Things in Question, which they suppose and take for granted, and show them to be consistent with themselves, and produce clear Evidence of their Truth and they have gain'd their Point, as all will confess, without bringing one Scripture. For none denies, that there are Commands, Counsels, Promises, Threatnings, &c. in the Bible. But unless they do these Things, their multiplying such Texts of Scripture is insignificant and vain.

It may further be observed, that such Scriptures as they bring, are really against them, and not for them. As it has been demonstrated, that 'tis their Scheme, and not ours, that is inconsistent with the Use of Motives and Persuasives, or any moral Means whatsoever, to induce Men to the Practice of virtue, or abstaining from Wickedness: Their Principles, and not ours, are repugnant to moral Agency, and inconsistent with moral Government, with Law or Precept, with the Nature of virtue or Vice, Reward or Punishment, and with every Thing whatsoever of a moral Nature, either on the Part of the moral Governor, or in the State, Actions or Conduct of the Subject.

SECTION XII. Of a supposed Tendency of these Principles to Atheism and Licentiousness.

IF any object against what has been maintain'd, that it tends to Atheism; I know not on what Grounds such an Objection can be raised, unless it be that some Atheists have held a Doctrine of Necessity which they suppose to be like this. But if it be so, I am persuaded the Arminians would not look upon it just, that their Notion of Freedom and Contingece should be charged with a Tendency to all the Errors that ever any embraced, who have held such Opinions. The Stoic Philosophers, whom the Calvinists are charged with agreeing with, were no Atheists, but the greatest Theists, and nearest a-kin to Christians in their Opinions concerning the Unity and the Perfections of the Godhead, of all the Heathen Philosophers. And Epicurus, that chief Father of Atheism, maintain'd no such Doctrine of Necessity, but was the greatest Maintainer of Contingence.

The Doctrine of Necessity, which supposes a necessary Connection of all Events, on some antecedent Ground and Reason of their Existence, is the only Medium we have to prove the Being of God. And the contrary Doctrine of Contingence, even as maintain'd by Arminians (which certainly implies or infers, that Events may come into Existence, or begin to be, without Dependence on any Thing foregoing, as their Cause, Ground or Reason) takes away all Proof of the Being of God; which Proof is summarily express'd by the Apostle, in Rom. i.20. And this is a Tendency to Atheism with a Witness. So that indeed it is the Doctrine of Arminians, and not of the Calvinists, that is justly charged with a Tendency to Atheism; it being built on a Foundation that is the utter Subversion of every demonstrative Argument for the Proof of a Deity; as has been shown, Part II. Sect. 3d.

And whereas it has often been said, that the Calvinistic Doctrine of Necessity, saps the Foundations of all Religion and virtue, and tends to the greatest Licentiousness of Practice: This Objection is built on the Pretence, that our Doctrine renders vain all Means and Endeavours, in order to be virtuous and religious, Which Pretence has been already particularly considered in the 5th Section of this Part; where it has been demonstrated, that this Doctrine has no such Tendency; but that such a Tendency is truly to be charged on the contrary Doctrine: inasmuch as the Notion of Contingence, which their Doctrine implies, in its certain Consequences, overthrows all Connection, in every Degree, between Endeavour and Event, Means and End.

And besides, if many other Things which have been observed to belong to the Arminian Doctrine, or to be plain Consequences of it, be considered, there will appear just Reason to suppose that it is that, which must rather tend to Licentiousness. Their Doctrine excuses all evil Inclinations, which Men find to be natural; because in such Inclinations, they are not self-determined, as such Inclinations are not owing to any Choice or Determination of their own Wills. Which leads Men wholly to justify themselves in all their wicked Actions, so far as natural Inclination has had a Hand in determining their Wills, to the Commission of 'em. Yea, these Notions which suppose moral Necessity and Inability to be inconsistent with Blame or moral Obligation, will directly lead Men to justify the vilest Acts and Practices, from the Strength of their wicked Inclinations of all Sorts; strong Inclinations inducing a moral Necessity; yea, to excuse every Degree of evil Inclination, so far as this has evidently prevailed, and been the Thing which has determined their Wills: Because, so far as antecedent Inclination determined the Will, so far the Will was without Liberty of Indifference and Self-determination. Which at last will come to this, that Men will justify themselves in all the Wickedness they commit. It has been observed already, that this Scheme of Things does exceedingly diminish the Guilt of Sin, and the Difference between the greatest and smallest Offences: And if it be pursued in its real Consequences, it leaves Room for no such Thing, as either virtue or Vice, Blame or Praise in the World. And then again, how naturally does this Notion of the sovereign self-determining Power of the Will, in all Things, virtuous or vicious, and whatsoever deserves either Reward or Punishment, tend to encourage Men to put off the Work of Religion and virtue, and turning from Sin to God; it being that which they have a sovereign Power to determine themselves to, just when they please; or if not, they are wholly excuseable in going on in Sin, because of their Inability to do any other.

If it should be said, that the Tendency of this Doctrine of Necessity, to Licentiousness, appears by the Improvement many at this Day actually make of it, to justify themselves in their dissolute Courses; I will not deny that some Men do unreasonably abuse this Doctrine, as they do many other Things which are true and excellent in their own Nature: But I deny that this proves, the Doctrine itself has any Tendency to Licentiousness. I think, the Tendency of Doctrines, by what now appears in the World, and in our Nation in particular, may much more justly be argued from the general Effect which has been seen to attend the prevailing of the Principles of Arminians, and the contrary Principles; as both have had their Turn of general Prevalence in our Nation. If it be indeed, as is pretended, that Calvinistic Doctrines undermine the very Foundation of all Religion and Morality, and enervate and disannul all rational Motives, to holy and virtuous Practice; and that the contrary Doctrines give the Inducements to virtue and Goodness their proper Force, and exhibit Religion in a rational Light, tending to recommend it to the Reason of Mankind, and enforce it in a Manner that is agreeable to their natural Notions of Things: I say, if it be thus, 'tis remarkable, that virtue and religious Practice should prevail most, when the former Doctrines, so inconsistent with it, prevailed almost universally: And that ever since the latter Doctrines, so happily agreeing with it, and of so proper and excellent a Tendency to promote it, have been gradually prevailing, Vice, Prophaneness, Luxury and Wickedness of all Sorts, and Contempt of all Religion, and of every Kind of Seriousness and Strictness of Conversation, should proportionably prevail; and that these Things should thus accompany one another, and rise and prevail one with another, now for a whole Age together. 'Tis remarkable, that this happy Remedy (discover'd by the free Enquiries, and superior Sense and Wisdom of this Age) against the pernicious Effects of Calvinism, so inconsistent with Religion, and tending so much to banish all virtue from the Earth, should on so long a Trial, be attended with no good Effect; but that the Consequence should be the Reverse of Amendment; that in Proportion, as the Remedy takes Place, and is thoroughly applied, so the Disease should prevail; and the very same dismal Effect take Place, to the highest Degree, which Calvinistic Doctrines are supposed to have so great a Tendency to; even the banishing of Religion and virtue, and the prevailing of unbounded Licentiousness of Manners. If these Things are truly so, they are very remarkable, and Matter of very curious Speculation

SECTION XIII. Concerning that Objection against the Reasoning, by which the Calvinistic Doctrine is supported, that it is Metaphysical and Abstruse.

IT has often been objected against the Defenders of Calvinistic Princples, that in their Reasonings, they run into nice Scholastic Distinctions, and abstruse metaphysical Subtilties, and set these in Opposition to common Sense. And 'tis possible, that after the former Manner it may be alledged against the Reasoning by which I have endeavoured to confute the Arminian Scheme of Liberty and moral Agency, that it is very abstracted and metaphysical.— Concerning this, I would observe the following Things.

I. If that be made an Objection against the foregoing Reasoning, that it is metaphysical, or may properly be reduced to the Science of Metaphysicks, it is a very impertinent Objection; whether it be so or no, is not worthy of any Dispute or Controversy. If the Reasoning be good, 'tis as frivolous to enquire what Science it is properly reduc'd to, as what Language it is delivered in: And for a Man to go about to confute the Arguments of his Opponent, by telling him, his Arguments are Metaphysical, would be as weak as to tell him, his Arguments could not be substantial, because they were written in French or Latin. The Question is not, Whether what is said be Metaphysicks, Physicks, Logick, or Mathematicks, Latin, French, English, or Mohawk? But, Whether the Reasoning be good, and the Arguments truly conclusive? The foregoing Arguments are no more metaphysical, than those which we use against the Papists, to disprove their Doctrine of Transubstantiation; alledging, it is inconsistent with the Notion of corporeal Identity, that it should be in ten Thousand Places at the same Time. 'Tis by metaphysical Arguments only we are able to prove, that the rational Soul is not corporeal; that Lead or Sand can't think; that Thoughts are not square or round, or don't weigh a Pound. The Arguments by which we prove the Being of God, if handled closely and distinctly, so as to show their clear and demonstrative Evidence, must be metaphysically treated. 'Tis by Metaphysicks only, that we can demonstrate, that God is not limited to a Place, or is not mutable; that he is not ignorant, or forgetful; that it is impossible for him to lie, or be unjust; and that there is one God only, and not Hundreds or Thousands. And indeed we have no strict Demonstration of any Thing, excepting mathematical Truths, but by Metaphysicks. We can have no Proof, that is properly demonstrative, of any one Proposition, relating to the Being and Nature of God, his Creation of the World, the Dependence of all Things on him, the Nature of Bodies or Spirits, the Nature of our own Souls, or any of the great Truths of Morality and natural Religion, but what is metaphysical. I am willing, my Arguments should be brought to the Test of the strictest and justest Reason, and that a clear, distinct and determinate Meaning of the Terms I use, should be insisted on; but let not the Whole be rejected, as if all were confuted, by fixing on it the Epithet Metaphysical.

II. If the Reasoning which has been made use of, be in some Sense Metaphysical, it will not follow, that therefore it must needs be abstruse, unintelligible, and a-kin to the Jargon of the Schools. I humbly conceive, the foregoing Reasoning, at least as to those Things which are most material belonging to it, depends on no abstruse Definitions or Distinctions, or Terms without a Meaning, or of very ambiguous and undetermined Signification, or any Points of such Abstraction and Subtilty, as tends to involve the attentive Understanding in Clouds and Darkness. There is no high Degree of Refinement and abstruse Speculation, in determining, that a Thing is not before it is, and so can't be the Cause of itself; or that the first Act of free Choice, has not another Act of free Choice going before that, to excite or direct it; or in determining, that no Choice is made, while the Mind remains in a State of absolute Indifference; that Preference and Equilibrium never co-exist; and that therefore no Choice is made in a State of Liberty, consisting in Indifference: And that so far as the Will is determined by Motives, exhibited and operating previous to the Act of the Will, so far it is not determined by the Act of the Will itself; that nothing can begin to be, which before was not, without a Cause, or some antecedent Ground or Reason, why it then begins to be; that Effects depend on their Causes, and are connected with them; that virtue is not the worse, nor Sin the better, for the Strength of Inclination, with which it is practised, and the Difficulty which thence arises of doing otherwise; that when it is already infallibly known, that a Thing will be, it is not a Thing contingent whether it will ever be or no; or that it can be truly said, notwithstanding, that it is not necessary it should be, but it either may be, or may not be. And the like might be observed of many other Things which belong to the foregoing Reasoning.

If any shall still stand to it, that the foregoing Reasoning is nothing but metaphysical Sophistry; and that it must be so, that the seeming Force of the Arguments all depends on some Fallacy and Wile that is hid in the Obscurity, which always attends a great Degree of metaphysical Abstraction and Refinement; and shall be ready to say, Here is indeed something that tends to confound the Mind, but not to satisfy it: For who can ever be truly satisfied in it, that Men are fitly blamed or commended, punished or rewarded, for those Volitions which are not from themselves, and of whose Existence they are not the Causes. Men may refine, as much as they please, and advance their abstract Notions, and make out a Thousand seeming Contradictions, to puzzle our Understandings; yet there can be no Satisfaction in such Doctrine as this: The natural Sense of the Mind of Man will always resist it. I humbly conceive, that such an Objector, if he has Capacity and Humility and Calmness of Spirit, sufficient impartially and thoroughly to examine himself, will find that he knows not really what he would be at; and that indeed his Difficulty is nothing but a meer Prejudice, from an inadvertent customary Use of Words, in a Meaning that is not clearly understood, nor carefully reflected upon.— Let the Objector reflect again, if he has Candor and Patience enough, and don't scorn to be at the Trouble of close Attention in the Affair.— He would have a Man's Volition be from himself. Let it be from himself, most primarily and originally of any Way conceivable; that is, from his own Choice: How will that help the Matter, as to his being justly blamed or praised, unless that Choice itself be blame or praise-worthy? And how is the Choice itself (an ill Choice, for Instance) blame-worthy, according to these Principles, unless that be from himself too, in the same Manner; that is, from his own Choice? But the original and first determining Choice in the Affair is not from his Choice: His Choice is not the Cause of it.—And if it be from himself some other Way, and not from his Choice, surely that will not help the Matter: If it ben't from himself of Choice, then it is not from himself voluntarily; and if so, he is surely no more to Blame, than if it were not from himself at all. It is a Vanity, to pretend it is a sufficient Answer to this, to say, that it is nothing but metaphysical Refinement and Subtilty, and so attended with Obscurity and Uncertainty.

If it be the natural Sense of our Minds, that what is blame-worthy in a Man must be from himself, then it doubtless is also, that it must be from something bad in himself, a bad Choice, or bad Disposition. But then our natural Sense is, that this bad Choice or Disposition is evil in it self, and the Man blame-worthy for it, on it's own Account, without taking into our Notion of it's Blame-worthiness, another bad Choice, or Disposition going before this, from whence this arises: for that is a ridiculous Absurdity, running us into an immediate Contradiction, which our natural Sense of Blame-worthiness has nothing to do with, and never comes into the Mind, nor is supposed in the Judgment we naturally make of the Affair. As was demonstrated before, natural Sense don't place the moral Evil of Volitions and Dispositions in the Cause of them, but the Nature of them. An evil Thing's being FROM a Man, or from something antecedent in him, is not essential to the original Notion we have of Blame-worthiness: But it is it's being the Choice of the Heart; as appears by this, that if a Thing be from us, and not from our Choice, it has not the Nature of Blame-worthiness or Ill-desert, according to our natural Sense. When a Thing is from a Man, in that Sense, that it is from his Will or Choice, he is to Blame for it, because his Will is IN IT: So far as the Will is in it, Blame is in it, and no further. Neither do we go any further in our Notion of Blame, to enqui whether the bad Will be FROM a bad Will: There is no Consideration of the Original of that bad Will; because according to our natural Apprehension, Blame originally consists in it. Therefore a Thing's being from a Man, is a secondary Consideration, in the Notion of Blame or Ill-desert. Because those Things in our external Actions, are most properly said to be from us, which are from our Choice; and no other external Actions but those that are from us in this Sense, have the Nature of Blame; and they indeed, not so properly because they are from us, as because we are in them, i. e. our Wills are in them; not so much because they are from some Property of ours, as because they are our Properties.

However, all these external Actions being truly from us, as their Cause; and we being so used, in ordinary Speech, and in the common Affairs of Life, to speak of Men's Actions and Conduct that we see, and that affect human Society, as deserving Ill or Well, as worthy of Blame or Praise; hence it is come to pass, that Philosophers have incautiously taken all their Measures of Good and Evil, Praise and Blame, from the Dictates of common Sense, about these overt Acts of Men; to the running of every Thing into the most lamentable and dreadful Confusion. And therefore I observe,

III. 'Tis so far from being true (whatever may be pretended) that the Proof of the Doctrine which has been maintain'd, depends on certain abstruse, unintelligible, metaphysical Terms and Notions; and that the Arminian Scheme, without needing such Clouds and Darkness, for it's Defence, is supported by the plain Dictates of common Sense; that the very Reverse is most certainly true, and that to a great Degree. 'Tis Fact, that they, and not we, have confounded Things with metaphysical, unintelligible Notions and Phrases, and have drawn them from the Light of plain Truth, into the gross Darkness of abstruse metaphysical Propositions, and Words without a Meaning. Their pretended Demonstrations depend very much on such unintelligible, metaphysical Phrases, as Self-determination and Sovereignty of the Will; and the metaphysical Sense they put on such Terms, as Necessity, Contingency, Action, Agency, &c. quite diverse from their Meaning as used in common Speech; and which, as they use them, are without any consistent Meaning, or any Manner of distinct consistent Ideas; as far from it as any of the abstruse Terms and perplexed Phrases of the Peripatetick Philosophers, or the most unintelligible Jargon of the Schools, or the Cant of the wildest Fanaticks. Yea, we may be bold to say, these metaphysical Terms, on which they build so much, are what they use without knowing what they mean themselves; they are pure metaphysical Sound, without any Ideas whatsoever in their Minds to answer them; in-as-much as it has been demonstrated, that there cannot be any Notion in the Mind consistent with these Expressions, as they pretend to explain them; because their Explanations destroy themselves. No such Notions as imply Self-contradiction, and Self-abolition, and this a great many Ways, can subsist in the Mind; as there can be no Idea of a Whole which is less than any of it's Parts, or of solid Extension without Dimensions, or of an Effect which is before it's Cause.— Arminians improve these Terms, as Terms of Art, and in their metaphysical Meaning, to advance and establish those Things which are contrary to common Sense, in a high Degree. Thus, instead of the plain vulgar Notion of Liberty, which all Mankind, in every Part of the Face of the Earth, and in all Ages, have; consisting in Opportunity to do as one pleases; they have introduced a new strange Liberty, consisting in Indifference, Contingence, and Self-determination; by which they involve themselves and others in great Obscurity, and manifold gross Inconsistence. So, instead of placing virtue and Vice, as common Sense places them very much, in fixed Bias and Inclination, and greater virtue and Vice in stronger and more established Inclination; these, thro' their Refinings and abstruse Notions, suppose a Liberty consisting in Indifference, to be essential to all virtue and Vice. So they have reasoned themselves, not by metaphysical Distinctions, but metaphysical Confusion, into many Principles about moral Agency, Blame, Praise, Reward and Punishment, which are, as has been shown, exceeding contrary to the common Sense of Mankind; and perhaps to their own Sense, which governs them in common Life.