future, and future in the order of nature before foreknowledge, and were future by the divine agency or by the agency of some other cause, or of no cause at all. If they were future by the agency of God, that is all that the doctrine of absolute decrees implies. If they were future by the agency of any other cause, this supposes another eternal cause. If they were future by no cause, they may and will come into existence by no cause; which is absurd. To imagine, that they are from eternity future by the agency of human free will, is to suppose, that human free will either existed from eternity, or could and did produce effects eternal ages before it existed.

It is said, that there is properly no foreknowledge in God, that all his knowledge is present knowledge, and that past, present and future, are now all present in the divine mind. Still God does not view all possible things as present. The existence of some things is present to God; only the possibility of other things is present to him. Whence arises this difference? What gives some things a present existence in the divine mind, when other things have only a possible existence in the same mind? This difference is an effect; otherwise all real existences and events are necessary existences, or those which are not necessary, become future, and finally come into existence, without a cause. The difference between possible and future volitions cannot be the effect of the mind of the creature; because it existed before that mind existed.

By all things being present in the divine mind, is meant not that God now sees them to be present to creatures and in their view; but that his view of all things, so far as relates to himself, is the same as it will be, when they shall have come into existence in the view of creatures. He sees them not to be in existence as to us, but sees their existence to be as to us future. And this is all that we mean by foreknowledge. So that saying, that all knowledge in God is present knowledge, does not show, that there is no foreknowledge in him. A knowledge of things as future with respect to creatures, is foreknowledge. And the whole objection, that the divine knowledge is all present knowledge, is founded on the ambiguity of words, or of the phrase, all things are present in the divine mind, or this, that all the divine knowledge is present knowledge. If the meaning of that phrase be, that God sees now, that certain things will at some future time be in existence in the view of creatures; this is granted on all hands; and what follows from it? Surely not that there is no certainty previous to the existence of those things in the view of creatures, that they will thus be in existence; but that there is

such a certainty. Therefore in this sense of the phrase it is not at all opposed to, but implies the doctrine of previous certainty and moral necessity, which we maintain. If that phrase mean, that God now sees all events, which ever take place, to have a present existence in the view of creatures; this is not true and will not be pretended by our opponents. Yet this is the only sense of the phrase, which opposes the doctrine of previous certainty as argued from the divine foreknowledge. That all things are present in the divine mind, can mean no more, than that all things are now seen by God, and that there is no past nor future with him. Still he views some things to be past, and other things to be future, with respect to creatures. And his view of some things as future with respect to creatures, is what we mean by the divine foreknowledge; not that he views things as future with respect to himself. If therefore God now sees, that certain volitions will hereafter take place in the minds of Gog and Magog, according to prophecy, they will certainly take place, and there is a moral necessity of it, and a moral necessity now existing ages before those volitions will have an existence in the minds of those men. The consideration, that all things are present with God, does, as before observed, not at all prove, that there is not now a previous certainty or moral necessity, that those volitions will come into existence; but evidently proves that there is such certainty, and that in two respects: (1) A certainty previous in order of time to the existence of those volitions in the minds of Gog and Magog. (2) A certainty previous in the order of nature to the divine foreknowledge itself, and which is the foundation of that foreknowledge.

Most or all the objections brought against moral necessity, may be brought with equal force against divine foreknowledge. For example: "If there be an absolute moral necessity, that John go on in sin, and be finally damned, there is no possibility that he be saved. Then why should he or any other person use any endeavors toward his salvation?" If there be force in this objection, it is equally forcible against divine foreknowledge. Thus, if God foreknow, that John will go on in sin and be finally damned, there is an absolute certainty or moral necessity of it. Therefore there is no possibility of John's salvation; and why should he or any other person put forth any endeavors toward it? This and all objections of the kind imply, that all moral events are left in a state of perfect uncertainty, till they come to pass, that they come to pass by mere chance, and that they are not, and cannot possibly be, the objects of foreknowledge.

It has been already observed, that though divine foreknowledge is not the efficient cause of the certain futurity of any event;

yet it implies, that the event is certainly future, and this certainty, let it be caused by what it will, or though it be uncaused, is with respect to a moral event, moral necessity, and equally consistent or inconsistent with liberty, as if it were caused by foreknowledge. I now observe further, that this certain futurity undoubtedly is caused by something. It is equally absurd to imagine, that an event may become future without a cause, as that it may come into existence without a cause. Certain futurity implies, that the actual existence of the event is secured to take place in due time. And whatever is able thus to secure the event, is able to bring it into existence. If it may be secured without a cause, it may be brought into existence without a cause. This certain futurity of all events from eternity is an effect, and cannot be the effect of any creature, because no creature existed from eternity. It must therefore be the effect of the Creator, who alone existed from eternity, and who alone therefore could from eternity give futurity to any event.

Therefore however frightened Dr. West and other writers be at the idea, that moral actions should be the effect of a cause extrinsic to the subject of those actions, we seem to be necessitated to give into this idea, from the consideration, that all moral actions of creatures were from eternity foreknown and therefore were certainly future. This eternal futurity must be an effect of a cause extrinsic to all creatures. This extrinsic cause secures their existence, and in due time actually brings them into existence.

It is said, that God knows all things from eternity, as we know things presently existing before our eyes. Now the actual existence of things out of our minds is the foundation of our knowledge in the case. But it will not be said, that all things existed from eternity out of the divine mind, and that this existence of them is the foundation of the divine eternal knowledge of them or of their existence in the divine mind. If they did eternally exist out of the divine mind, they were necessarily existent in the same sense in which God is; and consequently none of our actions are caused by ourselves or by our self-determining power. They are as uncaused, as necessary and as eternal, as the divine existence.

Dr. Clarke in his remarks on Collins, says, that "in the argument drawn against liberty from the divine prescience, or power of judging infallibly concerning free events, it must be proved, that things otherwise supposed free, will thereby unavoidably become necessary." On this I remark, (1) That if by the word

* Page 39.

free the Doctor mean anything opposite to the most absolute moral necessity, he must mean contingent, uncertain, not certainly future. But nothing is in this sense supposed, or allowed, to be free. (2) We do not pretend from the divine prescience to prove, that "thereby things unavoidably become necessary," or certainly future. But we do pretend from prescience to prove, that all events were certainly future, in the order of nature, antecedently to the prescience; and that they are certainly future, in the order of time, antecedently to their existence.

Dr. Clarke in his Being and Attributes,* grants, that all things are and were certain from eternity, and yet supposes,† that a universal fatality would be inconsistent with morality. But it seems, that according to the Doctor a universal and eternal certainty of all things is not inconsistent with morality; and if by fatality he meant anything different from certainty, he opposes what nobody holds. The Doctor says, "mere certainty of event does not imply necessity." But mere certainty of event doubtless implies itself, and that is all the necessity, for which we plead. The Doctor's argument to prove, that certainty does not imply necessity, is, that foreknowledge implies no more certainty, than would exist without it. At the same time he grants, that there is "the same certainty of event in every one of man's actions, as if they were never so fatal and necessary." Now any other certainty or necessity than this we do not pretend to be implied in foreknowledge. And as the Doctor himself grants this necessity to exist, whether there be or be not foreknowledge; then in either case all that necessity, for which we plead, is granted to exist.

Dr. West, in Part II, thinks Pres. Edwards inconsistent with himself, in denying, that the divine decrees are founded on foreknowledge, and yet holding, that "the perfection of his understanding is the foundation of his decrees." The Doctor argues, that "If foreknowledge in the Deity, is part of the perfection of the divine understanding. Then is it the foundation of his wise purposes and decrees; and so his objection lies just as strong against him, as against us." Doubtless the perfection of the divine understanding; i. e. God's perfect view of the fitness of certain things to certain uses and ends, is the reason why he decrees and appoints those things to those uses and ends. But this is very different from supposing that foreknowledge is the foundation of decrees, and that God first foresees certain events about to take place, and then decrees to permit them to take place. And the inconclusiveness of Dr. West's argument just + p. 98. § pp. 20, 21.

Page 95, etc.

† p. 97.

quoted, may appear thus: If after-knowledge, or a knowledge, that events have taken place, be a part of the divine understanding; then it is the foundation of his wise purposes and decrees. But it will not be pretended, that the consequent in this case justly follows from the antecedent. Yet it follows as justly as in the argument of the Doctor. Not every perception which belongs to the divine understanding is the foundation of God's decrees universally or generally. Beside the instance already mentioned, I might mention God's perfect knowledge of geometry, mechanics, etc. The divine perfect knowledge of those sciences is not the foundation of all God's decrees. No more is God's foreknowledge.

CHAPTER VII.

OBJECTIONS CONSIDERED.

1. It is argued that we are possessed of a self-determining power and a liberty to either side, because we find, that we have a power to consider and examine an action proposed to us, and to suspend our determination upon it, till we shall have duly considered it. But as the determination to suspend and examine is a voluntary act, it no more appears to be without motive or without moral necessity than any other voluntary act. Suspension is either a voluntary act or not. If it be a voluntary act, it no more appears to be without motive and moral necessity, than any other voluntary act. If it be not a voluntary act, it is not a free act, nor is any liberty exercised in it; and therefore it is nothing to the present purpose.

To argue, that we have a power of self-determination, because we have a power to suspend an action, is as groundless as to argue, that we have a power of self-determination, because we have a power to choose to act, or because we have a power of will. Suspension is a voluntary act or a volition, and the argument under consideration is this: A man has a volition, not at present to determine in a certain case; therefore he has a power efficiently to cause volition in himself. This argument is just as conclusive as the following: A man has a volition at present to determine in a certain case; therefore he has a power efficiently to cause volition in himself. Or as this: A man has a volition, therefore he has a power efficiently to cause volition in himself.