Doctrine Of The Will Part 12

(7.) All the arguments in proof of the doctrine of Necessity, with the single exception of that from the Divine Fore-knowledge--an argument resting, as we have seen, upon an a.s.sumption equally baseless,--involve a begging of the question at issue. Take any argument we please, with this one exception, and it will be seen at once that it has no force at all, unless the truth of the doctrine designed to be established by it, be a.s.sumed as the basis of that argument. Shall we pretend that a Theory, that has been fully demonstrated to involve, fundamentally, the errors, absurdities, and contradictions above named, has not been answered?

WILLING, AND AIMING TO PERFORM IMPOSSIBILITIES.

5. We are now prepared to answer a question about which philosophers have been somewhat divided in opinion--the question, whether the Will can act in the direction of perceived and affirmed impossibilities? The true answer to this question, doubtless is, that the Mind may _will_ the occurrence of a known impossibility, but it can never _aim_ to produce such an occurrence.

The Mind, for example, while it regards the non-existence of G.o.d as that which cannot possibly occur, may come into such a relation to the Most High, that the _desire_ shall arise that G.o.d were not. With this desire, the Will may concur, in the _wish_, that there were no G.o.d. Here the Mind wills a known impossibility. In a similar manner, the Mind may will its own non-existence, while it regards its occurrence, on account of its relation to the Divine Will, as impossible.

But while the Mind may thus _will_ the occurrence of an impossibility, it never can, nor will aim, that is, intend, to produce what it regards as an impossibility. A creature may will the non-existence of G.o.d; but even a fallen Spirit, regarding the occurrence as an absolute impossibility, never did, nor will aim to annihilate the Most High. To suppose the Will to set itself to produce an occurrence regarded as impossible, involves a contradiction.

For the same reason, the Will will never set itself upon the accomplishment of that which it is perfectly a.s.sured it never shall accomplish, however sincere its efforts towards the result may be. All such results are, to the Mind, _practical_ impossibilities. Extinguish totally in the Mind the _hope_ of obtaining the Divine favor, and the Divine favor will never be sought. Produce in the Mind the conviction, that should it aim at the attainment of a certain end, there is an infallible certainty that it will not attain it, and the subject of that conviction will no more aim to attain that end, than he will aim to cause the same thing, at the same time, to be and not to be.

In reply, it is sometimes said, that men often aim at what they regard even as an impossible attainment. The painter, for example, aims to produce a _perfect_ picture, while he knows well that he cannot produce one. I answer, the painter is really aiming at no such thing. He is not aiming to produce a perfect picture, which he knows he cannot, and will not produce, but to produce one as _nearly_ perfect as he can. This is what he is really aiming at. Question the individual critically, and he will confirm what is here affirmed. Remind him of the fact, that he cannot produce a perfect picture. I know that, he replies. I am determined, however, to produce one as _nearly_ perfect as possible.

Here his real aim stands revealed. The same principle holds true in all other instances.

THOUGHT AT PARTING.

6. In taking leave of the reader, I would simply say, that if he has distinctly apprehended the great doctrine designed to be established in this Work, and has happily come to an agreement with the author in respect to it, the following hallowed impression has been left very distinctly upon his mind. While he finds himself in a state of profound and most pleasing dependence upon the Author of his being, in the Holy of Holies of the inner sanctuary of his mind, one idea, the great over-shadowing idea of the human Intelligence, has been fully sanctified--the idea of _duty_, of _moral obligation_. With the consciousness of Liberty, that idea must be to the mind an omnipresent reality. From it we can never escape and in all states, and in all worlds, it must and will be to us, as a guardian angel, or an avenging fiend. But one thing remains, and that is, through the grace proffered in the Remedial System, to "live and move, and have our being," in harmony with that idea, thus securing everlasting "quietness and a.s.surance" in the sanctuary of our minds, and ever enduring peace and protection under, the over-shadowing perfections of the Author of our existence, and amid all the arrangements and movements of his eternal government.

FOOTNOTES

[1] See Upham on the Will, pp. 32-35.

[2] The above is a perfectly correct statement of the famous distinction between natural and moral ability made by Necessitarians. The sinner is under obligation to do right, they say, because he might do what is required of him, if he chose to do it. He has, therefore, _natural_ but not _moral_ power to obedience. But the choice which the sinner wants, the absence of which const.i.tutes his moral inability, is the very thing required of him. When, therefore, the Necessitarian says, that the sinner is under obligation to obey, because he might obey if he chose to do it, the real meaning is, that the sinner is under obligation to obedience, because if he should choose to obey he would choose to obey.

In other words he is under obligation to obedience, because, if he did obey, he would obey.