cessity and impossibility: And in p. 54, 55, he says, “ The scheme which determines 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 virr tue. For the sublimest of virtues, and the vilest of vices, seem rather to be matters of fate and necessity, flowing natur, ally and necessarily from the existence, the circumstances, and present situation of persons and things; for this exist ence and situation necessarily makes such an appearance to the mind; from this appearance flows a necessary perception and judgment, concerning these things; this judgment, neeessarily determines the Will; and thus, by this chain of nec essary causes, virtue and vice would lose their nature, and be, come 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 choose what is most fit; and says, p. 102, 103, “I grant, and always have granted, that wheresoever there is such antecedent superior fitness of things, God acts according to it, so as never to contradict it; and, particularly in all his judicial proceedings as ■ Governor, and distributer of rewards and punishments." Yea, he says expressly, 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 pase sages 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 itself supremely 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 Habistical fatality; as a Being indeed of vast understanding, as well as power and efficiency (as he said before) but without a

Will to choose, being a kind of Almighty Minister of fate, acting under its supreme influence. For he allows, that in all these things, God's Will is determined constantly and certainly by a superior 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 does not, in the least, derogate from the honor of any being, that through the moral perfection of his nature, he necessarily acts with supreme 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 choose 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 it is contrariwise with the blessed God; not that he suffers himself to be directed by fitness, when he can choose contrary to the fit. ness of things, but that he cannot choose 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 supremacy, 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 to detract from it; ther

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 choose 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 confessed, that in those things where there is any real preferableness, it is no dishonor, 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 Stoics, and the necessity, maintained by Mr. Hobbes. From which it will follow, that if it were so, that in all the different things, among which God chooses, there were evermore a superior fitness, or preferableness on one side, then it would be no dishonor, 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; viz. 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 an swer 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 difference, between different objects of choice, that are proposed to the Divine Understanding?

And here, in the first place, it may be worthy to be cons sidered, whether the contradiction there is in the terms of the question proposed, does not give reason to suspect, that there is an inconsistence in the thing supposed. It is enquired whether different objects of choice may not be absolutely without difference? If they are absolutely without differences then how are they different objects of choice? If there be ab solutely 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 differ ence of determination. For that détermination of a thing, which is not different in any respect, is not a different deter mination, but the same. That this is no quibble, may appear more fully anon.

The arguments, to prove that the Most High, in some instances, chooses 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 do not 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.

t

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: Vita interminabilis, tota, simul et perfecta possessio. Which is so generally allowed, that I need not stand to demonstrate it.*

"If all created beings were taken away, all possibility of any mutation or succession, of one thing to another, would appear to be also removed. Abstract succession in eternity is scarce to be understood. What is it that suc 'ceeds? One minute to another, perhaps, velut unda supervenit undam. But when we imagine this, we fancy that the minutes are things separately existing. This is the common notion; and yet it is a manifest prejudice. Time is nothing but the existence of created successive beings, and eternity the necessary existence of the Deity. Therefore, if this necessary being hath no change or succession in his nature, his existence must of course be unsuccessive. We seem to commit a double oversight in this case; first, we find succession in the necessary nature and existence of the Deity himself; which is wrong, if the reasoning above be conclusive. And then we ascribe this succession to eternity, considered abstractedly from the Eternal Being; and suppose it, one knows not what, a thing subsisting by itself, and flowing one minute after another. This is the work of pure imagination, and contrary to the reality of things. Hence the common metaphorical expressions: Time runs apace, let us lay hold on the present minute, and the like. The philosophers themselves mislead us by their illustrations. They compare eternity to the motion of a point running on forever, and making a traceless infinite line. Here the point is supposed a thing actually subsisting, representing the present minute; and then they ascribe motion or succession to it; that is, they ascribe motion to a mere nonentity, to illustrate to us a successive eternity, made up VOL. V. 2 L