On this page

• Text (1)

  Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software. The text has not been manually corrected and should not be relied on to be an accurate representation of the item.

  • 

    Untitled Article

• Transcript

  • Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software. The text has not been manually corrected and should not be relied on to be an accurate representation of the item.

    Additionally, when viewing full transcripts, extracted text may not be in the same order as the original document.

    Untitled Article

    Ejiclid ; . His antagonist replies , th . at if theV Necessarian speaks truth , then nature lies . He says , I know and feel that niy volitions are perfectly free , ami that I possess the power to give the preponderance to this motive or to

    that , as I please . If it were not so , I should feel neither self-approbation nor disapprobation , which are gone the instant I am convinced of Necessity : my notions of right and wrong would be utterly confounded , which nature ( if she is not playing tricks upon me )

    assures me depend on the power I possess of acting otherwise than I do : ought and ought not can have no meaning where all is must : and justice U rpbhed of her essential prerogative ,

    which- ia to punish those crimes onl y wiich might not have been committed . To pray for the pardon of sin would be , absurd , for no offence can be given , at least no blame can be deserved , wkere the act is unavoidable . And

    coasbience , alas , poor conscience ! how art tnou degraded I I can trust thy suggestions no longer , Thou art a deceiver and an unjust judge . Hast thpu not often inflicted the pangs of remorse upon my soul , assuring me I could have acted otherwise than I did F

    And is it not demonstrably true that I was under a necessity of doing that , for which thou couldst not justly pu ^ nish me , unless I had the power to Jiave acted $ h ¥ erently ? Thus One part of our nature is put in contradiction to another . The

    strongest , internal , constantly-abiding Convictions axe proved to be false . But this is not all . If the doctrine of a moral necessity be true , then is the wickedest wretch on earth , who suffers misery within and all sorts of ill-treatment without , who is scorned , hated

    WX Q ; loathed for his crimes , and finally put to death with ignominy—then is this t , d £ P ravisd and miserable creature entitled to the brightest rewards herea fter y for l ^ e has only been doing Heaven ' s dirty work , and is besmeared

    wifcfy all this moral filth in order that others may be clean and fitted for better society . What are the afflictions of the virtuous , sustained as they are by ! the jb miles of heaven and the sun-&Jj&tt £ of the breast , compared with the sufferings ( of the basely profligate , in-; W # rdly and outwardly wretched ? What jkre- the claims of these to future re - *

    Untitled Article

    wards compared with the claims of th £ bad by necessity ? What lies < foe » nature whisper and the gospel preack if this shocking doctrine be true ! But I shall be reminded of the distinction between the philosophical ami popular languages—the modern esoteexotericismThis

    ricism and . distinctio n can satisfy no inquirer possessed of clearness of perception . It is a mere juggle . Necessity admits of no modification . Voluntary actions are either necessary or free . If necessary , the popular language is false . If free , the philosophical language is false . They cannot both be true .

    Farther , a consistent Necessarian must deny free agency to the Deity , and thus bring us back to the old notion of Destiny . . Push it into all its legitimate consequences , and Atheism is the sure result of Necessity . But happily this doctrine is so revolting to

    common sense , so repugnant to the moral feelings , so contradictory to the practice of § very reasonable bsing , ( including its own advocates , ) that there is little chance ef its ever being generally received . The objections to it are so numerous and weighty , as to be tantamount to the reductio ad

    absurdum . And pray , warm Sir , exclaims an opponent , are there no difficulties attending the opposite doctrine ? Hew do you reconcile the prescience of the

    Deity with the free agency of man ? &c . I reply , there are many difficulties . I cannot reconcile prescience with free agency . But both God and -nature tell me I am free , and I believe them .

    Prescience is the attribute of a Being so utterly beyond my comprehension that I do not think it reasonable to reject a certainty regarding myself , because it appears to me incompatib le with what belongs to One of whom I know so little .

    I confess myself unfriendly to popular discussions of metap hysical subjects , especially such subjects as seem to be quite beyond the grasp of human intellect , and still more especially where nothing new is advanced , either by way of illustration or ar ^ me ^ - This question hag remained m atatu quo for centuries . I imagine ^ it ; m where it was at the creation of Aaaj » I have heard that mine person ^ derive great happiness from fully uiuferfltana-

    Untitled Article

    2 £ 6 On the Doctrine of Necessity .

• Citation
  • Monthly Repository (1806-1838) and Unitarian Chronicle (1832-1833), May 2, 1820, page 276, in the Nineteenth-Century Serials Edition (2008; 2018) ncse.ac.uk/periodicals/mruc/issues/vm2-ncseproduct2488/page/20/