of the nature of freedom to be uncoiist rained : so that
ive an instance in the case of a free agenl thai
.,- i in some particular manner, but it by no lows from what will be, whether foreseen or not. thai it must be.
third theory amounts, in brief, to this: that the foreknowledge of God musl bo supposed to differ so
much from anything of the kind which we perceive ill
ourselves, and from anj ideas which we can possibly form of that property of the divine nature, thai no ar- gument respecting it can be grounded upon our imper- fect notions, and that all controversy on subjects con- nected with it is idle and fruitless. Bul though fore-
knowledge in God should be admitted to be something of a " very different nature" from the same quality in man. yet as ii i- represented as something equivalent to fore- knowledge, whatever that something may be. since in consequence ofil prophecies have actually been intend and fulfilled, and of such a kind. too. as relate to actions for which men have, in fact, been held accountable, all the original difficulty of reconciling contingent events to this something, of which human foreknowledge is a •■kind of shadow," as " a map of China is to China it- self," remains in full force. The difficulty is shifted, hut not removed.
II. Exit ni. o/" Prescience. It may, therefore, be cer- tainly concluded, if, al least, the Holy Scriptures are to be our guide, thai i be omniscience of God comprehends bis certain prescience of all events, however contingent; and if anything more wire necessary to strengthen the argument above given, it might be drawn from the ir- rational, and, above all. the unscriptural consequences which would follow from the denial of this doctrine. These an- forcibly stated by president Edwards: -It would follow from tin- notion i namely, that the Al- mighty doth not lore-know what will be the result of future contingencies) that as God is liable to be contin- ually repenting what he ha- done, so be mu-i be ex- posed to he constantly changing his mind ami inten- tions as to his future conduct -altering his measures. relinquishing his old designs, and forming new schemes and projections. For his purposes, even as to the main parts of the sclu me ( namely, such as D< long to the state of his moral kingdom), must be alwa_\ s liable to be brok< n through want of foresight, and he must be continually putting his system to rights, as it gets out of order, through the conl ingence of the actions of moral ag< nts: he must be a Being who, instead of being absolutely immutable, must necessarily be the subject of infinite- ly the most numerous .acts of repentance ami changes of intention of any being whatsoever, tor this plain reason, that his vastly extensive charge comprehends an infinitely greater number of those tilings which are to him contingent and uncertain. In such a situation he must have little else tee do but tee mend broken links as well as he can, ami be rectifying bis disjointed frame' and disordered movements in the besl manner the case will allow. The supreme Lord of all things musl ni i ds he under great ami miserable disadvantages iii govern- ing thi- world which he has made ami has tin- care of, through his being utterly unable tee find out things of chief importance w hich hereafter shall befall hi- sj st< m, which, if he- eliel but know, he mighl make' seasonable provision her. In many cases there may be \ e rv meat necessity that he should make provisions in the manner eel' his ordering .ami disposing things for some great events which are i « > happen of vast ami extensive influ- ence ami e-miles> consequence te> the- universe, which he maj see afterwards, when it is too late-, ami may wish in vain that he hail known beforehand, that In- might have ordered his affairs accordingly. Ami it is in the power of man. mi tin ><• principles, by hi- devices, pnr- peese-s. ami actions thus to disappoint God, break his measures, make him continually to change his mind, Bubjecl him lie \ exatioh, ami brine him intee confusion."
III. Speculations "» ih< Subject. — Some oi 'the ancient philosophers denied thai God could ton know events de- pending em free will (see Cicero, I h Divinate, ii. .'«. 7; answered by Augustine, Z>< Civitati Dei,r,9, 10). So- cinus (Pralect. Theol. <■. 8 1 1 1 and his earlj I would not allow that God possesses any know! future contingencies. The schoolmen, in reference to this species ol knowledge in God, invented that called scientia media (q.v.; see also Fonse< \ and Men. in v. which they define as "that by which <;<><! knows, sub conditioner what nun or angels will < i . . according i < > the libertj which thej have when thej are placed in these or those circumstances, or in this or in thai order of things." Winn Gomarus, the- opponent of Arrninius, found that his opinion concerning tin- i . I >J « - . - 1 ofreproba-
PRESCRIPTION
PRESENCE-MONEY