the same substance of the soul before it acts, and the same active nature of the soul before it is exerted (i. e. before in the order of nature) would be the cause of different effects, viz. different volitions at different times. But the substance of the soul before it acts, and its active nature before it is exerted, are the same without variation. For it is some act that makes the first variation in the cause, as to any causal exertion, force, or influence. But if it be so that the soul has no different causality, or diverse causal force or influence in producing these diverse effects; then it is evident that the soul has no influence, no hand in the diversity of the effect, and that the difference of the effect cannot be owing to any thing in the soul; or, which is the same thing, the soul does not determine the diversity of the effect; which is contrary to the supposition. It is true the substance of the soul, before it acts, and before there is any difference in that respect, may be in a different state and circumstances: but those whom I pose will not allow the different circumstances of the soul to be the determining causes of the acts of the will, as being contrary to their notion of self-determination and self-motion. op 5. Let us suppose, as these divines do, that there are no acts of the soul, strictly speaking, but free volitions; then it will follow, that the soul is an active being in nothing further than it is a voluntary or elective being; and whenever it produces effects actively, it produces effects. voluntarily and electively. But to produce effects thus is the same thing as to produce effects in consequence of, and according to, its own choice. And if so, then surely the soul does not by its activity produce all its own acts of will or choice themselves; for this, by the supposition, is to produce all its free acts of choice voluntarily and electively, or in consequence of its own free acts of choice, which brings the matter directly to the fore-mentioned contradiction, of a free act of choice before the first free act of choice. According to these gentlemen's own notion of action, if there arises in the mind a volition, without a free act of the will or choice to determine and produce it, the mind is not the active voluntary cause of that volition; because it does not arise from, nor is regulated by, choice or design. And therefore it cannot be, that the mind should be the active, voluntary, determining cause of the first and leading volition that relates to the affair. The mind's being a designing cause only enables it to produce effects in consequence of its design; it will not enable it to be the designing cause of all its own designs. The mind's being an elective cause will only enable it to produce effects in consequence of its elections, and according to them; but cannot enable it to be the elective cause of all its own elections; because that supposes an election before the first election. So the mind's being an active cause enables it to produce effects in consequence of its own acts, but cannot enable it to be the determining cause of all its own acts; for that is still in the same manner a contradiction, as it supposes a determining act conversant about the first act, and prior to it, having a causal influence on its existence and manner of existence. I can conceive of nothing else that can be meant by the soul's having power to cause and determine its own volitions, as a being to whom God has given a power of action, but this: that God has given power to the soul, sometimes, at least, to excite volitions at its pleasure, or according as it chooses. And this certainly supposes, in all such cases, a choice preceding all volitions which are thus caused, even the first of them; which runs into the fore-mentioned great absurdity. Therefore the activity of the nature of the soul affords no relief from the difficulties which the notion of a self-determining power in the will is attended with; nor will it help, in the least, its absurdities and inconsistencies. SECTION V. SHEWING, THAT IF THE THINGS ASSERTED IN THESE EVA- OBLIGED TO TALK INCONSISTENTLY. WHAT was last observed in the preceding section, may shew, not only that the active nature of the soul cannot be a reason why an act of the will is, or why it is in this manner rather than another; but also that if it could be so, and it could be proved that volitions are contingent events, in that sense, that their being and manner of being is not fixed or determined by any cause, or any thing antecedent; it would not at all serve the purpose of Arminians to establish the freedom of the will, according to their notion of its freedom, as consisting in the will's determination of itself; which supposes every free act of the will to be determined by some act of the will going before to determine it; inasmuch as for the will to determine a thing, is the same as for the soul to determine a thing by willing; and there is no other way that the will can determine an act of the will, than by willing that act of the will, or, which is the same thing, choosing it. So that here must be two acts of the will in the case, one going before another, one conversant about the other, and the latter the object of the former, and chosen by the former. If the will does not cause and determine the act by choice, it does not cause or determine it at all; for that which is not determined by choice is not determined voluntarily or willingly; and to say that the will determines something which the soul does not determine willingly, is as much as to say that something is done by the will which the soul doth not with its will. So that if Arminian liberty of will, consisting in the will's determining its own acts, be maintained, the old absurdity and contradiction must be maintained, that every free act of will is caused and determined by a foregoing free act of will; which doth not consist with the free acts arising without any cause, and being so contingent as not to be fixed by any thing foregoing. So that this evasion must be given up, as not at all relieving, and as that which, instead of supporting this sort of liberty, directly destroys it. And if it should be supposed that the soul determines its own acts of will some other way than by a foregoing act of will, still it will not help the cause of their liberty of will. If it determines them by an act of the understanding, or some other power, then the will does not determine itself; and so the self-determining power of the will is given up. And what liberty is there exercised, according to their own opinion of liberty, by the soul's being determined by something besides its own choice? The acts of the will, it is true, may be directed and effectually determined and fixed; but it is not done by the soul's own will and pleasure: there is no exercise at all of choice or will in producing the effect; and if will and choice are not exercised in it, how is the liberty of the will exercised in it? So that let Arminians turn which way they please, with their notion of liberty consisting in the will's determining its own acts, their notion destroys itself. If they hold every free act of will to be determined by the soul's own free choice, or foregoing free act of will, foregoing either in the order of time or nature, it implies that gross contradiction that the first free act belonging to the affair is determined by a free act which is before it; or if they say that the free acts of the will are determined by some other act of the soul, and not an act of will or choice, this also destroys their notion of liberty consisting in the acts of the will being determined by the will itself; or if they hold that the acts of the will are determined by nothing at all that is prior to them, but that they are contingent in that sense, that they are determined and fixed by no cause at all, this also destroys their notion of liberty consisting in the will's determining its own acts. This being the true state of the Arminian notion of liberty, it hence comes to pass that the writers that defend it are forced into gross |