throw the position itself, which carries much of its own evidence with it, and is the thing of chief importance to the purpose of the ensuing discourse; and the truth of it I hope will appear with great clearness before I have finished what I have to say on the subject of human liberty.

SECTION III.

CONCERNING THE MEANING OF THE TERMS, NECESSITY, IMPOSSIBILITY, INABILITY, &C., AND OF CON

TINGENCE.

THE words necessary, impossible, &c. are abundantly used in controversies about free-will and moral agency; and therefore the sense in which they are used should be clearly understood.

Here I might say, that a thing is then said to be necessary, when it must be, and cannot be otherwise. But this would not properly be a definition of necessity, or an explanation of the word, any more than if I explained the word must, by there being a necessity. The words must, can, and cannot, need explication as much as the words necessary and impossible; excepting that the former are words that children commonly use, and know something of the meaning of, earlier than the latter.

The word necessary, as used in common speech, is a relative term, and relates to some supposed opposition made to the existence of the thing spoken of, which is overcome, or proves in vain to hinder or alter it. That is necessary, in the original and proper sense of the word, which is, or will be, notwithstanding all supposable opposition. To say that a thing is necessary, is the same thing as to say that it

is impossible it should not be but the word impossible is manifestly a relative term, and has reference to supposed power, exerted to bring a thing to pass, which is insufficient for the effect; as the word unable is relative, and has relation to ability or endeavour, which is insufficient; and as the word irresistible is relative, and has always reference to resistance which is made, or may be made, to some force or power tending to an effect, and is insufficient to withstand the power, or hinder the effect. The common notion of necessity and impossibility implies something that frustrates endeavour or desire. Here several things are to be noted:

1. Things are said to be necessary in general, which are or will be, notwithstanding any supposable opposition from us or others, or from whatever quarter But things are said to be necessary to us which are or will be notwithstanding all opposition supposable in the case from us. The same may be observed of the word impossible, and other such like terms.

2. These terms, necessary, impossible, irresistible, &c., do especially belong to controversy about liberty and moral agency, as used in the latter of the two senses now mentioned; viz. as necessary or impossible to us, and with relation to any supposable opposition or endeavour of

ours.

3. As the word necessity, in its vulgar and common use, is relative, and has always reference to some supposable insufficient opposition; so, when we speak of any thing as necessary to us, it is with relation to some supposable opposition of our wills, or some voluntary exertion or effort of ours to the contrary. For we do

not properly make opposition to an event, any otherwise than as we voluntarily oppose it. Things are said to be what must be, or necessarily are, as to us, when they are, or will be, though we desire or endeavour the contrary, or try to prevent or remove their existence; but such opposition of ours always either consists in, or implies, opposition of our wills.

It is manifest, that all such like words and phrases, as vulgarly used, are used and accepted in this manner. A thing is said to be necessary, when we cannot help it, let us do what we will. So any thing is said to be impossible to us, when we would do it, or would have it brought to pass, and endeavour it; or at least may be supposed to desire and seek it; but all our desires and endeavours are, or would be, vain. And that is said to be irresistible, which overcomes all our opposition, resistance, and endeavour to the contrary. And we are to be said unable to do a thing, when our supposable desires and endeavours to do it are insufficient.

We are accustomed, in the common use of language, to apply and understand these phrases in this sense: we grow up with such a habit, which by the daily use of these terms, in such a sense, from our childhood, becomes fixed and settled; so that the idea of a relation to a supposed will, desire, and endeavour of ours, is strongly connected with these terms, and naturally excited in our minds, whenever we hear the words used. Such ideas, and these words, are so united and associated, that they unavoidably go together-one suggests the other, and carries the other with it, and never can be separated as long as we live. And if we use

the words as terms of art, in another sense, yet, unless we are exceeding circumspect and wary, we shall insensibly slide into the vulgar use of them, and so apply the words in a very inconsistent manner. This habitual connexion of ideas will deceive and confound us in our reasonings and discourses, wherein we pretend to use these terms in that manner, as terms of art.

4. It follows from what has been observed, that when these terms, necessary, impossible, irresistible, unable, &c. are used in cases wherein no opposition, or insufficient will, or endeavour, is supposed, or can be supposed, but the very nature of the supposed case itself excludes and denies any such opposition, will, or endeavour, these terms are then not used in their proper signification, but quite beside their use in common speech. The reason is manifest; namely, that in such cases we cannot use the words with reference to a supposable opposition, will, or endeavour. And therefore, if any man uses these terms in such cases, he either uses them nonsensically, or in some new sense, diverse from their original and proper meaning. As, for instance, if a man should affirm after this manner-That it is necessary for a man, and what must be, that a man should choose virtue rather than vice, during the time that he prefers virtue to vice; and that it is a thing impossible and irresistible, that it should be otherwise than that he should have this choice, so long as this choice continues. Such a man would use the terms, must, irresistible, &c. with perfect insignificance and nonsense, or in some new sense, diverse from their common use;

which is with reference, as has been observed, to supposable opposition, unwillingness, and resistance; whereas, here, the very supposition excludes and denies any such thing: for the case supposed is that of being willing, and choosing.

5. It appears from what has been said, that these terms, necessary, impossible, &c., are often used by philosophers and metaphysicians in a sense quite diverse from their common use and original signification: for they apply them to many cases in which no opposition is supposed or supposable. Thus, they use them with respect to God's existence before the creation of the world, when there was no other being but He: so, with regard to many of the dispositions and acts of the divine Being, such as his loving himself, his loving righteousness, hating sin, &c. So they apply these terms to many cases of the inclinations and actions of created intelligent beings, angels, and men; wherein all opposition of the will is shut out and denied, in the very supposition of the case.

Metaphysical or philosophical necessity is nothing different from their certainty. I speak not now of the certainty of knowledge, but the certainty that is in things themselves, which is the foundation of the certainty of the knowledge of them; or that wherein lies the ground of the infallibility of the proposition which affirms them.

What is sometimes given as the definition of philosophical necessity-namely, That by which a thing cannot but be, or, whereby it cannot be otherwise, fails of being a proper explanation of it, on two accounts; first, the words can, or