The Holy War — Page 225
Proceedings—Debate 2 June 1893 225 etc. —these are not examples having to do with freedom of choice or not. I do not accuse the gentleman of deceit, but he has certainly been deceived. Fifth: The proof of the Unity of God is not advanced in this way at all that God Almighty, being the First Cause, should leave no latitude for the secondary cause. If the First Cause is Omnipotent, then He can create the latter with free will as well, and once He has made him with free will, then He cannot interfere in his free will because it is against His plan. Sixth: I never said that the free will of man is limitless, but within his limits, he has absolute free will and your rejecting this is futile. Seventh: There is nothing against free will in the statement of Isaiah which says, ‘I make peace and create evil. ’ I do not under- stand why the gentleman referred to this verse. Why did the heart of Pharaoh become hard? We explained this yesterday that when he was not stopped from committing his mis- chief and the hand of grace was withdrawn, then its consequence is that he necessarily became hard-hearted. Does the gentleman not understand that there is a big difference in causing something to happen and letting it happen? In English, there is a clear difference that ‘commission’ means to do something yourself and ‘permission’ means to let something happen. So, is letting something happen equal to being guilty of causing something to happen? And if this is the objection, then it is not right. Eighth: It is stated in the third example you cited that He made them mischievous for Himself; the meaning of this is clear that He let them become mischievous. This is that same permis- sion, not commission. Why do you plunge into philosophical meaning while ignoring the metaphorical and ordinary usage of language? Do you converse with the ordinary public in this same manner that every word must be philosophical; in other words, according to philosophic usage?