at any man
who is at all fond of speculation finds in his second self the most
obstinate and perplexing of antagonists. No one else raises such a
variety of empty and vexatious quibbles, and splits hairs with such
surprising versatility. It is true that your double often shows a
certain discretion, and whilst obstinately defending certain untenable
positions contrives to glide over some weak places, which come to light
with provoking unexpectedness when you are encountered by an external
enemy. Edwards, indeed, guards himself with extreme care by an elaborate
system of logical divisions and subdivisions against the possibility of
so unpleasant a surprise; but no man can dispense with the aid of a
living antagonist, free from all suspicion of being a man of straw. The
opponents against whom he labours most strenuously were unfortunately
very feeble creatures for the most part; such as poor Chubb, the Deist,
and the once well-known Dr. Whitby, who had changed sides in more than
one controversy with more credit to his candour than to his force of
mind. Certain difficulties may, therefore, have evaded the logical
network in which he tried to enclose them; but, on the whole, he is
rather over than under anxious to stop every conceivable loophole.
Condensation, with a view to placing the vital points of his doctrine in
more salient relief, would have greatly improved his treatise. But the
fault is natural in a philosophical recluse, more intent upon thorough
investigation than upon lucid exposition.

Without following his intricate reasonings, the main position may be
indicated in a few words. The doctrine, in fact, which Edwards asserted
may be said to be simply that everything has a cause, and that human
volitions are no more an exception to this universal law than any other
class of phenomena. This belief in the universality of causation rests
with him upon a primary intuition (v. 55), and not upon experience; and
his whole argument pursues the metaphysical method instead of appealing,
as a modern school would appeal, to the results of observation. The
Arminian opponent of necessity must, as he argues, either deny this
self-evident principle, or be confined to statements purely irrelevant
to the really important question. The book is occupied in hunting down
all the evasions by which these conclusions may be escaped, and in
showing that the true theory, when rightly understood, is obnoxious to
no objections on the score of