An Examination of President Edwards' Inquiry into the Freedom of the Will Part 6

In what sense then, let us inquire, does the knowledge of a present event prove it to be necessary? It is necessary, says Edwards, because it is indissolubly connected with the knowledge of it. In other words, it could not possibly be known to exist, unless it did exist; and hence, its existence is said to be indissolubly connected with the knowledge of its existence, or, in other words, it is said to be necessary. This is all true; but is this indissoluble connexion, or necessity, at all inconsistent with the contingency of the event known? _This is the question;_ and let us not lose sight of it in a mist of words. Let it be distinctly borne in mind, and it will be easily settled.

For this purpose, let us suppose, to adopt the language of President Edwards, "that nonent.i.ty is about to bring forth;" and that an event comes into being without any cause of its existence. This event then exists; it is seen, and it is known to exist. Now, even on this wild supposition, there is an infallible and indissoluble connexion between the existence of the event and the knowledge of it; and hence it is necessary, in the sense above explained. But what has this necessary connexion to do with the cause of its existence? This indissoluble connexion, this dire necessity, is perfectly consistent, as we have seen, with the supposition that the event had no cause at all of its existence. How can it conflict, then, with any scheme of free-agency that ever was dreamed of by man?

If this argument proves any thing in regard to human actions, it only proves that a volition has an effect, and not that it has a cause.

Indeed, it has been said, that the knowledge of an event is the effect of its existence; and the same remark has been extended to the foreknowledge of G.o.d with respect to the future volitions of human beings. This position is not denied by Edwards; he considers, in fact, that it strengthens, rather than weakens, his argument. "Because it shows the existence of the event to be so settled and firm, that _it is as if it had already been;_ inasmuch as _in effect_ it actually exists already;" and much more to the same purpose, p.122-3. "It is as strong arguing," says he, "from the effect to the cause, as from the cause to the effect."

This is all true; it is as strong arguing from effect to cause, as it is from cause to effect. But do the arguments prove the same thing? Let us see. I know a thing to exist; and therefore it does exist. This is to reason from effect to cause. The conclusion is inevitable; but what does it prove? Why, it proves that the thing does exist--it proves the bare fact of existence. The indissoluble connexion, or the necessity, in this case, exists between the knowledge and the event known; and it has no relation to the question how the event came to exist. This argument, then, in regard to human volitions, only proves that they are indissolubly connected with their effects, and are necessarily implied by them; just as every cause is implied by its effects: but no libertarian in the world has ever questioned such a position. For all that such an argument proves, all the volitions of moral agents may come into existence, without having the least shadow of reason or ground of their existence. We admit that volitions are efficient causes; and that they have effects, with which they are indissolubly connected. Edwards undertook to show, that volitions are necessary, because they are infallibly and indissolubly connected with their causes; and he has shown that they are necessary, because they are infallibly and indissolubly connected with their effects! This is one branch of his great argument.

There is another sense, in which the knowledge of an event, whether it be _fore_, or _after_, or _concomitant_, knowledge, proves it to be necessary. This sense is not clearly distinguished from the former by Edwards. He recognizes them both, however, although he blends them together, and frequently turns from the one to the other in the course of his argument. It is highly important, and affords no little satisfaction, to keep them clearly distinct in our minds.

A thing is said to be necessary, as we have seen, because it is connected with the knowledge of it; and, if a thing does exist, or is certainly and infallibly known to exist, it may be said to be necessary, on the principle that it is impossible it should exist and not exist at one and the same time. These two things are evidently different; and, for the sake of distinctness in our language, as well as in our thoughts, I shall call the first a _logical_, and the last an _axiomatical_ necessity. A thing, then, which does exist, is said to be necessary with an _axiomatical_ necessity; because it is impossible for it not to exist while it does exist: and it is said to be necessary, with a _logical_ necessity, because it is indissolubly connected with the knowledge of it. The former kind of necessity is frequently presented in this form of expression, that if a thing does exist, it is impossible it should be otherwise than true that it does exist. In this form of expression, it is frequently resorted to by Edwards.

Thus, says he, "I observed before, in explaining the nature of necessity, that in things which are past, their past existence is now _necessary;_ having already made sure of existence, _it is now impossible that it should be otherwise than true, that the thing has existed_," p. 114-15. Just so we may say in relation to things which now exist; for, having already made sure of existence, it is impossible it should be otherwise than true, that they do now exist; or, in other words, it is impossible they should not exist while they do exist. In like manner, if the future existence of any thing is foreknown, "it is impossible it should be otherwise than true," that it should exist, or come to pa.s.s: that is to say, if it will exist, it will be impossible for it not to exist at the time of its existence.

Foreknowledge, I admit, infers this kind of necessity; but is this any thing to the purpose? The conclusion is the same, whether it be deduced from foreknowledge, or concomitant knowledge. Let us suppose, then, for the sake of clearness and convenience, that a thing is now known to exist. It follows from hence, by a _logical_ necessity, that it does exist; for it could not possibly be known to exist, unless it did exist.

And, as it does exist, "it is impossible that it should be otherwise than true that it does exist;" or, in other words, it is impossible for it not to exist now, while it does exist. This is all there is in this part of the argument.

And what does it amount to? It is a simple declaration of what no body ever denied--that if a thing exists, or is to exist, or has existed, it is impossible to conceive of it as not existing at the time of its existence. All this is perfectly true, without the least reference to the question, how it came to exist, or how it will come to exist? It is wholly irrelevant to the point at issue. It controverts no position, held by any sane man that now lives, or that ever has lived.

In other words, if a thing is known to exist, certainly and infallibly, then it does exist; and if it does exist, then "it is impossible it should be otherwise than true" that it does exist; and hence its existence is said to be necessary with an _axiomatical_ necessity. But this does not prove that it is _necessarily produced_. For, supposing it to exist, its existence would be necessary in the above sense, even if it had no cause of its existence. The necessity here referred to, is a necessity _in the order of our ideas_, and not _in the course of events_. It arises from the impossibility of a thing's not existing at the time it does exist; and it has no reference whatever to the causation of any thing: it is a fundamental law of belief, and not a _causal_ necessity. These three things, an _axiomatical_, a _logical_, and a _causal_ necessity, are most strangely confounded in the argument of President Edwards.

Will it be said, that in this argument, it was not the object of Edwards, to prove that there is a moral necessity in regard to our volitions; but only that they are "not without all necessity?" Suppose this to be the case, with whom has he any controversy, or to what purpose has he argued? No one has ever held that human volitions are "without all necessity," according to Edwards' use of that term; and no one can hold it. No one can deny, that there is an indissoluble connexion between the existence of a thing, and the certain and infallible knowledge of its existence; or between the effect of a thing and the thing itself; or that it is impossible for a thing not to exist while it does exist. In these senses of the word, all rational creatures are bound to acknowledge that human volitions are necessary. The most strenuous advocate of free-agency has not one word to say against them; and such being the meaning of Edwards, we must all heartily concur with him, when he says, "that there is no geometrical theorem or proposition whatever more capable of _strict demonstration_, than that G.o.d's certain prescience of the volition of moral agents is inconsistent with such a contingency of these events, _as is without all necessity_," p. 125-6.

If it can be truly said, that a thing is foreknown, it follows that it will come to pa.s.s, or the proposition which affirms the future existence of it, is necessarily true. In other words, it is self-contradictory and absurd, to a.s.sert that a thing is foreknown, and yet that it may not come to pa.s.s; just as it is to a.s.sert that a thing is known to exist and yet at the same time does not exist. Hence, it is frequently alleged by Edwards, that to deny his conclusions, drawn from foreknowledge, is self-contradictory and absurd; unless we deny foreknowledge itself. To admit this, says he, and yet contend that the thing foreknown may possibly not be, is to fall into a plain contradiction, and "to suppose G.o.d's foreknowledge to be inconsistent with itself," p. 117. Is it not strange, that it did not occur to Edwards, that if to deny his position is to deny that G.o.d foreknows what he foreknows; then to affirm it, is only to affirm that he foreknows what he foreknows? Indeed, all those reasonings in which he represents the denial of his position as self-contradictory and absurd, should have convinced him that he could prove nothing to the purpose, by arguing from the foreknowledge of G.o.d, or else he must a.s.sume the very thing in dispute, by taking it for granted that it is future; or, which is the same thing in effect, that it is foreknown. For in admitting any premise, we admit, no more than is contained in it; and if we only deny what is not contained in our admission, we are not involved in a self-contradiction, or absurdity. In alleging that we have done this, therefore, in the present case;--in alleging that we contradict ourselves by admitting the foreknowledge of G.o.d, and in denying necessity, he takes it for granted that the very thing in dispute is included in that foreknowledge. In other words, if Edwards does not mean to say, that the point in dispute is included in the foreknowledge of G.o.d; then he cannot say, that we contradict ourselves by admitting that divine prescience; and if he does mean to say, that the thing which we deny is included in the foreknowledge of G.o.d, then he begs the question.

It is freely conceded, that whatever G.o.d foreknows will most certainly and infallibly come to pa.s.s. He foresees all human volitions; and, therefore, they will most certainly and infallibly come to pa.s.s, in some manner or other: the bare fact of their future existence is clearly established by G.o.d's foreknowledge of them. And if all human volitions will be brought to pa.s.s, by the operation of moral causes; then this manner of their existence is foreknown to G.o.d, and will all come to pa.s.s in this way; but to take this for granted, is to beg the question. We have just as much right to suppose, that G.o.d foreknows that the volitions of moral agents are not necessitated, as the necessitarian has to suppose that He foreknows the contrary; and then it would follow that our volitions are necessarily free, or without any producing causes. If G.o.d foreknows that our actions will come to pa.s.s in the way we call freely, (and we have as much right to this supposition as our opponents have to the contrary,) then, as foreknowledge infers necessity, our actions are necessarily free. And surely, if the necessity which is inferred from foreknowledge, is predicable of freedom itself, it cannot be inconsistent with it.

In other words, if the necessity of human volitions, according to the scheme of Edwards, be a fact, then it was foreknown to G.o.d that such is the fact; and, if we please, we may infer the fact from his foreknowledge, after having inferred his foreknowledge from the fact. On the other hand, if the scheme of necessity be a mere hypothesis, having no corresponding reality in the universe; then G.o.d never foreknew that it is according to such scheme that all human actions are brought to pa.s.s; unless he foreknew things to be necessitated which in reality are not necessitated. Hence, we can prove nothing by reasoning from the foreknowledge of G.o.d; except what we first a.s.sume to be true, and consequently foreknown to Him; and, if we choose to resort to this pitiful way of begging the question, we may prove our hypothesis just as well as any other.

The foreknowledge of an event, as I have already said, proves nothing more nor less than _the bare certainty_ of its future existence; it decides nothing as _to the manner_ of its coming into existence. The necessitarian may ring the changes upon this subject as long as he pleases, and all he can possibly make out of it is, that if G.o.d foreknows a thing, it will certainly be, and to suppose otherwise, is a contradiction. Thus, says Edwards, "To suppose the future volitions of moral agents not to be necessary events; or, which is the same thing, events which it is not possible but that they may come to pa.s.s; and yet to suppose that G.o.d certainly foreknows them, and knows all things, is to suppose G.o.d's knowledge to be inconsistent with itself. For to say that G.o.d certainly, and without all conjecture, knows that a thing will infallibly be, which at the same time he knows to be so _contingent_ that it may possibly not be, is to suppose his knowledge inconsistent with itself; or that one thing he knows is utterly inconsistent with another thing he knows. It is the same as to say, he now knows a proposition to be of certain infallible truth, which he knows to be of contingent uncertain truth. If a future volition is so without all necessity, that nothing hinders but it may not be, then the proposition which a.s.serts its future existence is so uncertain, that nothing hinders but that the truth of it may entirely fail. And if G.o.d knows all things, he knows this proposition to be thus uncertain; and that is inconsistent with his knowing it to be infallibly true; and so inconsistent with his knowing that it is true." p. 117. Now all this going around and around amounts to just this, that if G.o.d certainly and infallibly foreknows a thing, he certainly and infallibly foreknows it, or that if it will certainly come to pa.s.s, it will certainly come to pa.s.s.

We admit that the certainty of all future events is implied in G.o.d's foreknowledge of them. Does the argument in question prove any more than the bare fact of the certainty of the events foreknown? The argument, so far as we have yet followed it, clearly does not. It merely proves the bare fact of the certainty of existence. Indeed, Edwards himself says, that "metaphysical or philosophical necessity," (and this is the necessity for which he here contends,) "is nothing different from their certainty." p. 23. And the younger Edwards frequently says, "If a proposition a.s.serting some future event, be a real and absolute truth, there is an absolute certainty of the event; _such absolute certainty is all that is implied in the divine foreknowledge; and all the moral necessity for which we plead_." p. 160. Now, if these writers merely mean that a thing is certain, when they say it is necessary, it is to be regretted that they did not use the right word. It would have saved their works from no little confusion.

But the truth is, that the moral necessity for which they contend consists sometimes in the certainty of an event, and sometimes in _the ground_ of that certainty. Volitions are said to be morally necessitory in their definition, and in their system, because they are _made certain by the influence of moral causes_. But in their arguments, and the defence of their system, _the bare absolute certainty_, without any reference to the ground of it, is frequently all that is meant by moral necessity. Thus, they build upon one idea of necessity, while they attack and defend themselves upon another idea thereof.

This is our present starting point then, agreed upon by all sides, that the foreknowledge of G.o.d infers the certainty of all future realities.

Now, how can we conclude from hence, that the volitions of moral agents are, not only certain, but rendered certain by the influence of moral causes? It may be said, that it is sufficient that the foreknowledge of G.o.d proves that human volitions will certainly come to pa.s.s in some way or other; for if they will certainly come to pa.s.s in any way, we know that they must have some cause of their existence; and it is just as absurd to suppose that a volition can come into being without any cause of its existence, as it is to suppose that a world can come into being of itself. If this ground should be taken, (and it certainly will be,) the reply is obvious. It would show that the divine prescience can only prove the certainty of future events while it is left to the old maxim, that every effect must have a cause, in order to make out the doctrine of moral necessity, or the point in dispute! It would show, that after all the parade made with the divine prescience, it leaves the whole argument to rest upon ground which has already been occupied by one side, and fully considered by the other! It would only show, that a great pretence of demonstration had been made from the foreknowledge of G.o.d; whereas, in fact, it proves nothing to the purpose, unless "its most impotent and lame conclusion" be helped out by something else!

Another attempt is made to link the conclusion drawn from the foreknowledge of G.o.d, with the point to be established by the necessitarian. It is said, that G.o.d could not foreknow all future events, unless he views them as connected with known causes. This ground is taken by many eminent necessitarians. Thus, says Dr. John d.i.c.k, "Future events cannot be foreseen, unless they are certain; they cannot be certain, unless G.o.d have determined to bring them to pa.s.s."

The same position is a.s.sumed by President Edwards, "There must be a certainty in things themselves," says he, "before they are certainly foreknown." . . . "There must be a certainty in things to be a ground of certainty of knowledge, and render things capable of being known to be certain." p. 122. Now, what is this certainty in things themselves, or in human volitions, without which they are incapable of being foreknown?

The answer is obvious; for Edwards every where contends, that unless volitions are brought to pa.s.s by the _influence_ of moral causes--that unless they are necessarily produced by an "effectual power and efficacy"--they are altogether uncertain and contingent, and connected with nothing that can render them certain. Hence, he clearly maintains, that unless human volitions are necessarily brought to pa.s.s by the influence of motives, they are not certain in themselves, and hence are incapable of being foreknown. And besides, he has a laboured argument to prove, that G.o.d could not foreknow the future volitions of moral agents, unless he views them as "necessarily connected with something else that is evident." pp. 115-117. This something else is not foreknowledge itself; for it is the ground of foreknowledge, it is the necessary influence of motives, or moral causes. But we need not dwell upon this point, as this is so evidently his meaning; and if it is not, then it is nothing to the purpose.

If Edwards means that a thing cannot be foreknown unless it has a sufficient ground and reason for its existence, and does not of itself come forth out of nothing, we are not at all concerned to deny his position. Every advocate of free-agency contends, that volition proceeds from the mind, acting in view of motives; and therefore is not dest.i.tute of a sufficient ground and reason of its existence. He denies that volition is necessarily brought to pa.s.s by the operation of motives.

Hence, if Edwards merely means that G.o.d could not foreknow a human volition, unless he foreknew all the circ.u.mstances in view of the mind when it is to act, as well as the nature and all the circ.u.mstances of the mind from which the act is to proceed; no advocate of free-agency is at all concerned to deny his position. It may be true, or it may be false; but it establishes nothing which may not be consistently admitted by the advocates of free-agency. If he means any thing to the purpose, he must mean, that G.o.d could not foresee human volitions, unless they are necessarily connected with causes, according to his scheme of moral necessity; that is, unless they are necessarily produced by "the action or influence" of motives, or moral causes. If this is his meaning, then indeed it is something to the purpose; but what unbounded presumption is it, on the part of a poor blind worm of the dust, thus to set bounds and limits to the modes of knowledge possesssd by an infinite, all-knowing G.o.d! It is true, that "no understanding, created or uncreated, can see evidence where there is none"; but what kind of evidence that is, by which all things are rendered perfectly clear to the eye of Omniscience, it is surely not for us to determine. That all things are known to G.o.d, is freely admitted; but that they can be known, only by reason of their resulting from the necessitating influence of known causes, which are themselves necessitated, is more than any finite mind should presume to affirm. It were, indeed, to make our shallow, limited, and feeble intellects, the measure of all possible modes of knowledge. It were to make G.o.d like one of ourselves. Yet this position the necessitarian has been compelled to a.s.sume. After all his pretended demonstrations from the foreknowledge of G.o.d, his argument can reach the point in dispute, only by means of this tremendous flight of presumption.

Let the necessitarian show, that G.o.d cannot foresee future events, unless he "have determined to bring them to pa.s.s," or unless they are brought to pa.s.s by a chain of producing causes, ultimately connected with his own will; and he will prove something to the purpose. But let him not talk so boastfully about demonstrations, while there is this exceedingly weak link in the chain of his argument. If G.o.d were so like one of ourselves, that he could not foresee future volitions, unless they are brought to pa.s.s by the operation of known causes; then, I admit, that his foreknowledge would infer the moral necessity for which Edwards contends, provided he really possesses that knowledge; but if he were so imperfect a being, I should be compelled to believe, that there are some things which he could not foreknow.

This a.s.sumption comes with a peculiarly ill grace from the necessitarian. He should be the last man to contend, that G.o.d cannot foresee future events unless they are involved in known producing causes; just as all that we know of the future is ascertained by reasoning from known causes to effects. For he contends that with G.o.d, "there is no time"; but that to His view all things are seen as if they were present. His knowledge is without succession, and there is no before nor after with him; all things are intimately present to his mind from all eternity. Such is the doctrine of both the Edwardses; and Dr.

d.i.c.k believes, that "G.o.d sees all things at a glance."

Now, present things are not known to exist, because they are implied by known causes, but because they are present and seen. And hence, if G.o.d sees all things as present, there is not the shadow of a foundation whereon to rest the proof of "moral necessity" from his foreknowledge.

It is all taken away by their own doctrine, and their argument is left without the least support from it.

Indeed, there is no need of lugging the foreknowledge of G.o.d into the present controversy, except it be to deceive the mind. For all future events will certainly and infallibly come to pa.s.s, whether they are foreknown or not; and foreknowledge cannot make the matter any more certain than it is without it. We may say that G.o.d foreknows all things, and we may mix this up with all possible propositions; but this will never help the conclusion, that "all future things will certainly and infallibly come to pa.s.s." If G.o.d should cease to foreknow all future volitions, or if he had never foreknown them, they would, nevertheless, just as certainly and infallibly come to pa.s.s, as if he had foreknown them from all eternity. The bare naked fact, that they are future infers all that is implied in G.o.d's foreknowledge of them; and it is just as much a contradiction in terms, to say that what is future will not come to pa.s.s, as it is to say, that what G.o.d foreknows will never take place.

Hence, by bringing in the prescience of Deity, we do not really strengthen or add to the conclusion in favour of necessity. It only furnishes a very convenient and plausible method of begging the question, or of seeming to prove something by hiding our sophisms in the blaze of the divine attributes. It only serves as a veil, behind which is concealed those sophistical tricks, by which both the performer and the spectator are deceived. This whole argument from the foreknowledge of G.o.d, is, indeed, a grand specimen of undesigned metaphysical jugglery, by which the mind is called off in one direction, whilst it is deceived, perplexed, and confounded, by not seeing what takes place in another.

It appears from these things, that those persons who have endeavoured to clear up this matter, by supposing that some things are not foreknown to G.o.d; have only got rid of one of the divine attributes, and not of their difficulty. It appears also, that Edwards might have made his argument far more simple and direct, by leaving out the long section in which he proves that G.o.d really foreknows all _future_ things; and confining himself to the simple proposition, "that all future events will certainly and infallibly come to pa.s.s;" that "it is a contradiction in terms to say that a thing is future and yet that it will not come to pa.s.s"; or, in other words, "if a thing is future, _it is impossible it should be otherwise than true_," that it will come to pa.s.s. And how unreasonable are those, who have imagined that we are free-agents, because G.o.d has chosen not to foresee our free actions; as if the supposition that he might have foreseen them, does not infer necessity just as much as the fact that he does foresee them. Indeed, these reasoners seem to have expected to see one truth, by shutting their eyes upon another!

Mr. Hobbes has an argument to prove necessity, precisely like that of Edwards, except that its nakedness is not covered up with the foreknowledge of G.o.d. "Let the case be put," says he, "of the weather: 'tis necessary that to-morrow it shall rain or not rain. If, therefore, it be not necessary that it shall rain, it is necessary it shall not rain; otherwise there is no necessity that the proposition, it shall rain or not rain, should be true." This sophism confounds the _axiomatical necessity_ referred to in the premise, that it must rain or not rain, with the _causal necessity_ intended to be deduced from it in the conclusion. This poor sophism has been adopted by Mr. Locke, and seriously employed to prove that human volitions "cannot be free." Thus, says he, "It is unavoidably necessary to prefer the doing or forbearance of an action in a man's power, which is once proposed to a man's thoughts. The act of volition or preferring one of the two, being that, which he cannot avoid, a man in respect of that act of willing is under necessity." Here we have precisely the same confusion of an _axiomatical_ with a _causal_ necessity, that occurs in the argument of Mr. Hobbes. And yet, the younger Edwards has deemed this argument of Mr.

Locke as worthy of his special notice and commendation; and President Day falls in with the same idea, alleging that "we will because we cannot avoid willing," because we must either choose or refuse. Is it not wonderful, that these philosophers should have imagined, that they had any controversy with any one, in contending so manfully that the mind, under certain circ.u.mstances, must either choose or refuse? or that they could infer any thing from this, in favour of a causal necessity--the only question in dispute? With what clearness! with what force! would President Edwards have dashed this poor flimsy sophism into a thousand atoms, if he had come across it in the atheism of Hobbes!

But, unfortunately, he came across it in a different direction; and hence, he has rescued it from the loathsome dunghill of atheistical trash, invested it with dignity, seeming to clothe it in the solemn sanction of religion, by covering it up in the ample folds of the divine Omniscience.

This, then, is the conclusion of the whole matter. The prescience of G.o.d does not _make_ our volitions necessary; it only _proves_ them to be certain. This is conceded by Edwards. It proves them to be certain, just as present knowledge proves them to be certain. This also is admitted by Edwards. But present knowledge proves an act of the mind to be certain, because it is infallibly connected with that knowledge, and not because it is necessitated by the influence of a cause. It proves it to be certain, because it is impossible for a volition, or any thing else, not to exist at the time of its existence, and not because it is impossible for it to come to pa.s.s without being necessitated. In short, it proves an _axiomatical_ and a _logical_ necessity, but not a _causal_ necessity; that is to say, it proves nothing to the point in dispute.

The necessitarian can connect his conclusion with the thing he has undertaken to prove, in only one of two ways: he may say, that if an event is certain, it cannot come into existence without a producing cause; or he may allege, that G.o.d cannot foresee them, unless he is determined to bring them to pa.s.s. If he takes the former position, he really discards the argument from foreknowledge, and returns for support to the old argument, that every effect must have a cause. And if he a.s.sumes the latter, maintaining that G.o.d cannot foreknow future events unless he reasons from producing causes to effects, he builds his argument, not upon foreknowledge alone, but upon this in connection with a most unwarrantable flight of presumption, without which the argument from prescience is good for nothing.

And besides, the bringing in of the divine prescience, only serves to blind, and not to illuminate. For G.o.d foreknows only what is future; and all future things will come to pa.s.s just as infallibly, without being foreknown, as they will with it. If we a.s.sume them to be future, it is just as much a contradiction to deny that they will come to pa.s.s; as it is to a.s.sume that they are foreknown and yet deny it. Nothing can be proved in this way, except what is a.s.sumed or taken for granted; and the foreknowledge of G.o.d is only a plausible way of begging the question, or concealing a sophism.

In conclusion, the necessitarian takes the wrong course in his inquiries, and lays his premises in the dark. To ill.u.s.trate this point:--I know that I act; and hence, I conclude that G.o.d foreknew that I would act. And again, I know that my act is not necessitated, that it does necessarily proceed from the action, or influence of causes; and hence, I conclude that G.o.d foreknew that I would thus act freely, in precisely this manner, and not otherwise. Thus, I reason from what I know to what I do not know, from my knowledge of the actual world as it is, up to G.o.d's foreknowledge respecting it.

The necessitarian pursues the opposite course. He reasons from what he does not know, that is, from the particulars of the divine foreknowledge, about which he absolutely knows nothing _a priori_, down to the facts of the actual world. Thus, quitting the light which s.h.i.+nes so brightly within us and around us, he seeks for light in the midst of impenetrable darkness. He endeavours to determine the phenomena of the world, not by looking at them and seeing what they are; but by deducing conclusions from G.o.d's infinite foreknowledge respecting them!

In doing this, a grand illusion is practised, by his merely supposing that the volitions themselves are foreknown, without taking into the supposition the whole of the case, and recollecting that G.o.d not only foresees all our actions, but also all about them. For if this were done, if it were remembered that He not only foresees that our volitions will come to pa.s.s, but also _how_ they will come to pa.s.s; the necessitarian would see, that nothing could be proved in this way except what is first tacitly a.s.sumed. The grand illusion would vanish, and it would be clearly seen, that if the argument from foreknowledge proves any thing, it just as well proves the _necessity of freedom_ as any thing else.

Indeed, it does seem to me, that it is one of the most wonderful phenomena in the history of the human mind, that, in reasoning about facts in relation to which the most direct and palpable sources of evidence are open before us, so many of its brightest ornaments should so long have endeavoured to draw conclusions from "the dark unknown" of G.o.d's foreknowledge; without perceiving that this is to reject the true method, to invert the true order of inquiry, and to involve the inquirer in all the darkness and confusion inseparable therefrom: without perceiving that no powers, however great, that no genius, however exalted, can possibly extort from such a method any thing but the dark, and confused, and perplexing exhibitions of an ingenious logomachy.

SECTION XII.

OF EDWARDS' USE OF THE TERM NECESSITY.

IN the controversy concerning the will, nothing is of more importance, it will readily be admitted, than to guard against the influence of the ambiguity of words. Yet, it may be shown, that President Edwards has used the princ.i.p.al terms in this controversy in an exceedingly loose and indeterminate manner. This he has done especially in regard to the term _necessity_. His very definition prepares the way for such an abuse of language.

"_Philosophical necessity_," says he, "is really nothing else than the FULL AND FIXED CONNEXION BETWEEN THE THINGS SIGNIFIED BY THE SUBJECT AND PREDICATE OF A PROPOSITION, which affirms something to be true. When there is such a connexion, then the thing affirmed in the proposition is necessary, in a philosophical sense, whether any opposition or contrary effort be supposed or no. When the subject and predicate of the proposition, which affirms the existence of any thing, either substance, quality, act, or circ.u.mstance, have a full and CERTAIN CONNEXION, then the existence or being of that thing is said to be _necessary_ in a metaphysical sense. And in this sense I use the word _Necessity_, in the following discourse, when I endeavour to prove _that Necessity is not inconsistent with Liberty_."

"The subject and predicate of a proposition, which affirms existence of something, may have a full, fixed, and certain connexion several ways."

"1. They may have a full and perfect connexion _in and of themselves;_ because it may imply a contradiction, or gross absurdity, to suppose them not connected. Thus many things are necessary in their own nature.

So the eternal existence of being, generally considered, is necessary _in itself;_ because it would be in itself the greatest absurdity, to deny the existence of being in general, or to say there was absolute and universal nothing; and as it were the sum of all contradictions; as might be shown, if this were the proper place for it. So G.o.d's infinity, and other attributes are necessary. So it is necessary _in its own nature_, that two and two should be four; and it is necessary, that all right lines drawn from the centre to the circ.u.mference should be equal.

It is necessary, fit, and suitable, that men should do to others, as they would that they should do to them. So innumerable metaphysical and mathematical truths are necessary _in themselves_; the subject and predicate of the proposition which affirms them, are perfectly connected of _themselves_."

"2. The connexion of the subject and predicate of a proposition, which affirms the existence of something, may be fixed and made certain, because the existence of that thing is _already_ come to pa.s.s; and either now is, or has been; and so has, as it were, made sure of existence. And therefore, the proposition which affirms present or past existence of it, may by this means, be made certain, and necessarily and unalterably true; the past event has fixed and decided the matter, as to its existence; and has made it impossible but that existence should be truly predicated of it. Thus the existence of whatever is already come to pa.s.s, is now become necessary; it is become impossible it should be otherwise than true, that such a thing has been."

"3. The subject and predicate of a proposition which affirms something to be, may have a real and certain connexion _consequentially_; and so the existence of the thing may be consequentially necessary, as it may be surely and firmly connected with something else, that is necessary in one of the former respects. As it is either fully and thoroughly connected with that which is absolutely necessary in its own nature; or with something which has already made sure of its existence. This necessity lies _in_, and may be explained _by_, the connexion between two or more propositions, one with another. Things which are _perfectly connected_ with other things that are necessary, are necessary themselves, by a necessity of consequence."

After having defined what he means by philosophical or metaphysical necessity, he tells us, that this is the sense in which he uses the word, when he endeavours to show that necessity is not inconsistent with liberty. And yet under "this sense," how many totally distinct ideas are embraced! The eternal existence of being in general; the attributes of G.o.d; the proposition that two and two are four; the equality of the radii of a circle; the moral duty that we should do as we would be done by; the existence of a thing which has already come to pa.s.s; the existence of things, that are connected with that which is absolutely necessary in itself, or with something that has already made sure of its existence; the connexion of two or more propositions with each other--all these things are included in his definition of philosophical necessity! And yet he tells us, that he uses the term in this sense (in what sense?) when he undertakes to reconcile liberty with necessity!

When he says, that he employs the word in _this_ sense, one would suppose that, as a great metaphysician, he referred to some one of its precise and definite significations; but no such thing. He merely refers to its philosophical sense, which, according to his own explanation, embraces a mult.i.tude of different ideas. Hence, although he may keep close to this philosophical sense of the word, "in the ensuing discourse;" yet he may, before the discourse is concluded, s.h.i.+ft his position a thousand times from one of these ideas to another. And he may always seem, to superficial observers, to speak of the same thing; because although the things spoken of are really different, they are all drawn together under one definition, and called by one name. He not only may have done this; he actually has done it. And if he had formed the express design to envelope the whole subject in a cloud of sophistry, he could not have taken a better course to accomplish his object.