Inquiry into the Freedom of the Will, Part 4 · Section 1
SECTION I. The Essence of the Vertue and Vice of Dispositions of the Heart, and Acts of the Will, lies not in their Cause, but their Nature.
ONE main Foundation of the Reasons, which are brought to establish the foremention'd Notions of Liberty, Vertue, Vice, &c. is a Supposition, that the Vertuousness of the Dispositions or Acts of the Will consists not in the Nature of these Dispositions or Acts, but wholly in the Origin or Cause of them: so that if the Disposition of the Mind or Act of the Will be never so good, yet if the Cause of the Disposition or Act be not our Vertue, there is nothing vertuous or praise-worthy in it; and on the contrary, if the Will in it's Inclination or Acts be never so bad, yet unless it arises from something that is our Vice or Fault, there is Nothing vicious or blame-worthy in it. Hence their grand Objection and pretended Demonstration, or Self-Evidence, against any Vertue and Commendableness, or Vice and Blame-worthiness, of those Habits or Acts of the Will, which are not from some vertuous or vicious Determination of the Will it self.
Now, if this Matter be well considered, it will appear to be altogether a Mistake, yea, a gross-Absurdity; and that it is most certain, that if there be any such Things, as a vertuous, or vicious Disposition, or Volition of Mind, the Vertuousness or Viciousness of them consists not in the Origin or Cause of these Things, but in the Nature of them.
If the Essence of Vertuousness or Commendableness, and of Viciousness or Fault, don't lie in the Nature of the Dispositions or Acts of Mind, which are said to be our Vertue or our Fault, but in their Cause, then it is certain it lies no where at all. Thus, for Instance, if the Vice of a vicious Act of Will, lies not in the Nature of the Act, but the Cause; so that it's being of a bad Nature will not make it at all our Fault, unless it arises from some faulty Determination of our's as it's Cause, or something in us that is our Fault; then for the same Reason, neither can the Viciousness of that Cause lie in the Nature of the Thing it self, but in it's Cause: that evil Determination of our's is not our Fault, meerly because it is of a bad Nature, unless it arises from some Cause in us that is our Fault. And when we are come to this higher Cause, still the Reason of the Thing holds good; tho' this Cause be of a bad Nature, yet we are not at all to blame on that Account, unless it arises from something faulty in us. Nor yet can Blame-worthiness lie in the Nature of this Cause, but in the Cause of that. And thus we must drive Faultiness back from Step to Step, from a lower Cause to a higher, in infinitum: and that is thoroughly to banish it from the World, and to allow it no possibility of Existence any where in the Universality of Things. On these Principles, Vice or moral Evil can't consist in any Thing that is an Effect; because Fault don't consist in the Nature of Things, but in their Cause; as well as because Effects are necessary, being unavoidably connected with their Cause: therefore the Cause only is to blame. And so it follows, that Faultiness can lie only in that Cause, which is a Cause only, and no Effect of any Thing. Nor yet can it lie in this; for then it must lie in the Nature of the Thing it self; not in it's being from any Determination of our's, nor any Thing faulty in us which is the Cause, nor indeed from any Cause at all, for by the Supposition, it is no Effect, and has no Cause. And thus, He that will maintain, it is not the Nature of Habits or Acts of Will that makes them vertuous or faulty, but the Cause, must immediately run Himself out of his own Assertion; and in maintaining it, will insensibly contradict and deny it.
This is certain, that if Effects are vicious and faulty, not from their Nature, or from any Thing inherent in them, but because they are from a bad Cause, it must be on Account of the Badness of the Cause; and so on Account of the Nature of the Cause: A bad Effect in the Will must be bad, because the Cause is bad, or of an evil Nature, or has Badness as a Quality inherent in it: and a good Effect in the Will must be good, by Reason of the Goodness of the Cause, or it's being of a good Kind and Nature. And if this be what is meant, the very Supposition of Fault and Praise lying not in the Nature of the Thing, but the Cause, contradicts it self, and does at least resolve the Essence of Vertue and Vice into the Nature of Things, and supposes it originally to consist in that.— And if a Caviller has a Mind to run from the Absurdity, by saying, No, the Fault of the Thing which is the Cause, lies not in this, that the Cause it self is of an evil Nature, but that the Cause is evil in that Sense, that it is from another bad Cause. Still the Absurdity will follow him; for if so, then the Cause before charged is at once acquitted, and all the Blame must be laid to the higher Cause, and must consist in that's being Evil, or of an evil Nature. So now we are come again to lay the Blame of the Thing blame-worthy, to the Nature of the Thing, and not to the Cause. And if any is so foolish as to go higher still, and ascend from Step to Step, till he is come to that which is the first Cause concerned in the whole Affair, and will say, all the Blame lies in that; then at last he must be forced to own, that the Faultiness of the Thing which he supposes alone blame-worthy, lies wholly in the Nature of the Thing, and not in the Original or Cause of it; for the Supposition is, that it has no Original, it is determined by no Act of our's, is caused by nothing faulty in us, being absolutely without any Cause. And so the Race is at an End, but the Evader is taken in his Flight.
'Tis agreable to the natural Notions of Mankind, that moral Evil, with it's Desert of Dislike and Abhorrence, and all it's other Ill-deservings, consists in a certain Deformity in the Nature of certain Dispositions of the Heart, and Acts of the Will; and not in the Deformity of something else, diverse from the very Thing it self, which deserves Abhorrence, supposed to be the Cause of it. Which would be absurd, because that would be to suppose, a Thing that is innocent and not Evil, is truly evil and faulty, because another Thing is Evil. It implies a Contradiction; for it would be to suppose, the very Thing which is morally evil and blame-worthy, is innocent and not blame-worthy; but that something else, which is it's Cause, is only to blame. To say, that Vice don't consist in the Thing which is vicious, but in it's Cause, is the same as to say, that Vice don't consist in Vice, but in that which produces it.
'Tis true, a Cause may be to blame, for being the Cause of Vice: It may be Wickedness in the Cause, that it produces Wickedness. But it would imply a Contradiction, to suppose that these two are the same individual Wickedness. The wicked Act of the Cause in producing Wickedness, is one Wickedness; and the Wickedness produced, if there be any produced, is another. And therefore the Wickedness of the latter don't lie in the former, but is distinct from it; and the Wickedness of both lies in the evil Nature of the Things which are wicked.
The Thing which makes Sin hateful, is that by which it deserves Punishment; which is but the Expression of Hatred. And that which renders Vertue lovely, is the same with that, on the Account of which, it is fit to receive Praise and Reward; which are but the Expressions of Esteem and Love. But that which makes Vice hateful, is it's hateful Nature; and that which renders Vertue lovely, is it's amiable Nature. 'Tis a certain Beauty or Deformity that are inherent in that good or evil Will, which is the Soul of Vertue and Vice (and not in the Occasion of it) which is their Worthiness of Esteem or Disesteem, Praise or Dispraise, according to the common Sense of Mankind. If the Cause or Occasion of the Rise of an hateful Disposition or Act of Will, be also hateful; suppose another antecedent evil Will; that is entirely another Sin, and deserves Punishment by it self, under a distinct Consideration. There is Worthiness of Dispraise in the Nature of an evil Volition, and not wholly in some foregoing Act which is it's Cause; otherwise the evil Volition which is the Effect, is no moral Evil, any more than Sickness, or some other natural Calamity, which arises from a Cause morally evil.
Thus for Instance, Ingratitude is hateful and worthy of Dispraise, according to common Sense; not because something as bad, or worse than Ingratitude, was the Cause that produced it; but because it is hateful in it self, by it's own inherent Deformity. So the Love of Vertue is amiable, and worthy of Praise, not meerly because something else went before this Love of Vertue in our Minds, which caused it to take Place there; for Instance our own Choice; we chose to love Vertue, and by some Method or other wrought our selves into the Love of it; but because of the Amiableness and Condecency of such a Disposition and Inclination of Heart. If that was the Case, that we did chuse to love Vertue, and so produced that Love in our selves, this Choice it self could be no otherwise amiable or praise-worthy, than as Love to Vertue, or some other amiable Inclination, was exercised and implied in it. If that Choice was amiable at all, it must be so on Account of some amiable Quality in the Nature of the Choice. If we chose to love Vertue, not in Love to Vertue, or any Thing that was good, and exercised no sort of good Disposition in the Choice, the Choice it self was not vertuous, nor worthy of any Praise, according to common Sense, because the Choice was not of a good Nature.
It may not be improper here to take Notice of something said by an Author, that has lately made a mighty Noise in America. A necessary Holiness (says He *Scrip. Doc. of Original Sin, P. 180. 3d Edit.) is no Holiness.— Adam could not be originally created in Righteousness and true Holiness, because He must chuse to be righteous, before He could be righteous. And therefore He must exist, He must be created, yea He must exercise Thought and Reflection, before he was righteous. There is much more to the same Effect in that Place, and also in P. 437, 438, 439, 440. If these Things are so, it will certainly follow, that the first chusing to be righteous is no righteous Choice; there is no Righteousness or Holiness in it; because no chusing to be righteous goes before it. For He plainly speaks of chusing to be righteous, as what must go before Righteousness: And that which follows the Choice, being the Effect of the Choice, can't be Righteousness or Holiness: For an Effect is a Thing necessary, and can't prevent the Influence or Efficacy of it's Cause; and therefore is unavoidably dependent upon the Cause: And He says, A necessary Holiness is no Holiness. So that neither can a Choice of Righteousness be Righteousness or Holiness, nor can any Thing that is consequent on that Choice▪ and the Effect of it, be Righteousness or Holiness; nor can any Thing that is without Choice, be Righteousness or Holiness. So that by his Scheme, all Righteousness and Holiness is at once shut out of the World, and no Door left open, by which it can ever possibly enter into the World.
I suppose, the Way that Men came to entertain this absurd inconsistent Notion, with Respect to internal Inclinations and Volitions themselves, (or Notions that imply it,) viz. that the Essence of their moral Good or Evil lies not in their Nature, but their Cause; was, that it is indeed a very plain Dictate of common Sense, that it is so with Respect to all outward Actions, and sensible Motions of the Body; that the moral Good or Evil of 'em don't lie at all in the Motions themselves; which taken by themselves, are nothing of a moral Nature; and the Essence of all the moral Good or Evil that concerns them, lies in those internal Dispositions and Volitions which are the Cause of them. Now being always used to determine this, without Hesitation or Dispute, concerning external Actions; which are the Things that in the common Use of Language are signified by such Phrases, as Men's Actions, or their Doings; Hence when they came to speak of Volitions, and internal Exercises of their Inclinations, under the same Denomination of their Actions, or what they do, they unwarily determined the Case must also be the same with these, as with external Actions; not considering the vast Difference in the Nature of the Case.
If any shall still object and say, Why is it not necessary that the Cause should be considered, in order to determine whether any Thing be worthy of Blame or Praise? Is it agreable to Reason and common Sense, that a Man is to be praised or blamed for that which he is not the Cause or Author of, and has no Hand in?
I answer, such Phrases as being the Cause, being the Author, having a Hand, and the like are ambiguous. They are most vulgarly understood for being the designing voluntary Cause, or Cause by antecedent Choice: And it is most certain that Men are not in this Sense the Causes or Authors of the first Act of their Wills, in any Case; as certain as any Thing is, or ever can be; for nothing can be more certain, than that a Thing is not before it is, nor a Thing of the same Kind before the first Thing of that Kind; and so no Choice before the first Choice.—As the Phrase, being the Author, may be understood, not of being the Producer by an antecedent Act of Will; but as a Person may be said to be the Author of the Act of Will it self, by his being the immediate Agent, o… the Being that is acting, or in Exercise in that Act; If the Phrase of being the Author, is used to signify this, then doubtless common Sense requires Men's being the Authors of their own Acts of Will, in order to their being esteemed worthy of Praise or Dispraise on Account of them. And common Sense teaches, that they must be the Authors of external Actions, in the former Sense, namely, their being the Causes of 'em by an Act of Will or Choice, in order to their being justly blamed or praised: But it teaches no such Thing with Respect to the Acts of the Will themselves.—But this may appear more manifest by the Things which will be observed in the following Section.