Doctrine of the Will

by Asa Mahan

OBJECTION. THE WILL HAS ITS LAWS.

1. An objection, often adduced, to the entire view of the subject presented in this Treatise, demands a passing notice here. All things in existence, it is said, and the Will among the rest, are governed by Laws. It is readily admitted, that all things have their laws, and that the Will is not without law. It is jumping a very long distance to a conclusion, however, to infer from such a fact, that Necessity is the only law throughout the entire domain of existence, physical and mental. What if, from the fact, that the Will has its law, it should be assumed that Liberty is that law? This assumption would be just as legitimate as the one under consideration.

[OBJECTION. GOD DETHRONED FROM HIS SUPREMACY, IF THE DOCTRINE OF LIBERTY IS TRUE.]

2. Another objection of a general nature, is the assumption, that the doctrine of Liberty destroys the Divine supremacy in the realm of mind. “If man,” says Dr. Chalmers, “is not a necessary agent, God is a degraded sovereign.” A sentiment more dishonorable to God, more fraught with fatal error, more revolting to a virtuous mind, when unperverted by a false theory, could scarcely be uttered. Let us, for a moment, contemplate the question, whether the doctrine of Liberty admits a Divine government in the realm of mind. The existence and perpetuity, as stated in a former Chapter, of free and moral agency in creatures, depend wholly upon the Divine Will. With a perfect knowledge of the direction in which they will exert their powers, under every kind and degree of influence to which they may be subjected, He holds all these influences at his sovereign disposal. With such knowledge and resources, can God exercise no government, but that of a degraded sovereignty in the realm of mind? Can He not exercise the very sovereignty which infinite wisdom and love desire? Who would dare affirm the contrary? If the doctrine of Liberty is true, God certainly does not sit upon the throne of iron destiny, swaying the sceptre of stern fate over myriads of subjects, miscalled moral agents; subjects, all of whom are commanded, under infinite sanctions, to do the right and avoid the wrong, while subjected to influences by the Most High himself, which render obedience in some, and disobedience in others, absolute impossibilities. Still, in the light of this doctrine, God has a government in the domain of mind, a government wisely adapted to the nature of moral agents—agents capable of incurring the desert of praise or blame; a government which all approve, and under the benign influence of which, all who have not forfeited its protection by crime, may find “quietness and assurance for ever.”

[OBJECTION. GREAT AND GOOD MEN HAVE HELD THE DOCTRINE OF NECESSITY.]

3. In reply to what has been said in respect to the tendencies of the doctrine of Necessity, the fact will doubtless be adduced, that the greatest and best of men have held this doctrine, without a development of these tendencies in their experience. My answer is, that the goodness of such men, their sense of moral obligation, &c., did not result from their theory, but existed in spite of its intrinsic tendencies. They held this doctrine in theory, and yet, from a consciousness of Liberty, they practically adopted the opposite doctrine. Here, we have the source of the deep feeling of obligation in their minds, while the intrinsic and exclusive tendency of their Theory, even in them, was to weaken and annihilate this hallowed feeling. The difference between such men and sceptics is this: The piety of the former prevents their carrying out their theory to its legitimate results; while the impiety of the latter leads them to march boldly up to those results—a fearless denial of moral obligation in every form.

[LAST RESORT.]

4. The final resort of certain Necessitarians, who may feel themselves wholly unable to meet the arguments adduced against their own and in favor of the opposite theory, and are determined to remain fixed in their opinions, may be readily anticipated. It is an assumption which may be expressed in language somewhat like the following: “After all, the immortal work of Edwards still lives, and will live, when those of his opponents will be lost in oblivion. That work still remains unanswered.” A sweeping assumption is a very easy and summary way of disposing of a difficulty, which we might not otherwise know what to do with. Let us for a moment contemplate some of the facts which have been undeniably established in reference to this immortal work.

(1.) At the outset, Edwards stands convicted of a fundamental error in philosophy, an error which gives form and character to his whole work—the confounding of the Will with the Sensibility, and thus confounding the characteristics of the phenomena of the former faculty with those of the phenomena of the latter.

(2.) His whole work is constructed without an appeal to Consciousness, the only proper and authoritative tribunal of appeal in the case. Thus his reasonings have only an accidental bearing upon his subject.

(3.) All his fundamental conclusions have been shown to stand in direct contradiction to the plainest and most positive testimony of universal Consciousness.

(4.) His main arguments have been shown to be nothing else but reasoning in a circle. He defines, for example, the phrase “Greatest apparent good,” as synonymous with choosing, and then argues, from the fact that the “Will always is as the greatest apparent good,” that is, that it always chooses as it chooses, that it is subject to the law of Necessity.

So in respect to the argument from the Strongest Motive, which, by definition, is fixed upon as the Motive in the direction of which the Will, in each particular instance, acts. From the fact that the action of the Will is always in the direction of this Motive, that is, in the direction of the Motive towards which it does act, the conclusion is gravely drawn, that the Will is and must be subject, in all its determinations, to the law of Necessity. I find my mind acted upon by two opposite Motives. I cannot tell which is the strongest, from a contemplation of what is intrinsic in the Motives themselves, nor from their effects upon my Intelligence or Sensibility. I must wait till my Will has acted. From the fact of its action in the direction of one Motive, in distinction from the other, I must then draw two important conclusions. 1. The Motive, in the direction of which my Will did act, is the strongest. The evidence is, the fact of its action in that direction. 2. The Will must be subject to the law of Necessity. The proof is, the action of the Will in the direction of the Strongest Motive, that is, the Motive in the direction of which it did act. Sage argument to be regarded by Philosophers and Theologians of the 19th century, as possessing the elements of immortality!

(5.) His argument from the Divine fore-knowledge has been shown to be wholly based upon an assumption unauthorized by reason, or revelation either, to wit: that he understands the mode of that Fore-knowledge,— an assumption which cannot be made except through ignorance, as was true in his case, without the greatest impiety and presumption.

(6.) The theory which Edwards opposes has been shown to render sacred, in all minds that hold it, the great idea of duty, of moral obligation; while the validity of that idea has never, in any age or nation, been denied, excepting on the avowed authority of his Theory.

(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 assumption 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 assumed 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 God as that which cannot possibly occur, may come into such a relation to the Most High, that the desire shall arise that God were not. With this desire, the Will may concur, in the wish, that there were no God. 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 God; 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 assured 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 assurance” 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 constitutes 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.