N05663:151
A careful and strict enquiry into the modern prevailing notions of that freedom of…
A careful and strict enquiry into the modern prevailing notions of that freedom of will, which is supposed to be essential to moral agency, virtue and vice, reward and punishment, praise and blame. By Jonathan Edwards, A.M. Pastor of the church in Stockbridge. ; [One line from Romans]A careful and strict enquiry into the modern prevailing notions of that freedom of will, which is supposed to be essential to moral agency, vertue and vice, reward and punishment, praise and blame. By Jonathan Edwards, A.M. Pastor of the church in Stockbridge. ; [One line from Romans]
printed by S. Kneeland, 1754
Modern spelling is a reading aid: the words are the author’s, only the spelling is modernized. Original shows the page as printed, with the transcription marks.
THE Author of the Essay on the Freedom of the Will in God and the Creatures, in Answer to that Objection against his Doctrine of a Self-determining Power in the Will, (P. 68, 69.) That Nothing is, or comes to pass, without a sufficient Reason why it is, and why it is in this Manner rather than another, allows that it is thus in corporeal Things, which are properly and philosophically speaking passive Beings; but denies that it is thus in Spirits, which are Beings of an active Nature, who have the Spring of Action within themselves, and can determine themselves. By which it is plainly supposed, that such an Event as an Act of the Will, may come to pass in a Spirit, without a sufficient Reason why it comes to pass, or why it is after this Manner, rather than another; by Reason of the Activity of the Nature of a Spirit.— But certainly this Author, in this Matter, must be very unwary and inadvertent. For,
1. The Objection or Difficulty proposed by this Author, seems to be forgotten in his Answer or Solution. The very Difficulty, as he himself proposes it, is this; How an Event can come to pass without a sufficient Reason why it is, or why it is in this Manner rather than another? Instead of solving this Difficulty, or answering this Question with Regard to Volition, as he proposes, he forgets himself, and answers another Question quite diverse, and wholly inconsistent with this, viz. What is a sufficient Reason why it is, and why it is ⟨p. 48⟩in this Manner rather than another? And he assigns the Active Being's own Determination as the Cause, and a Cause sufficient for the Effect; and leaves all the Difficulty unresolved, and the Question unanswered, which yet returns, even, How the Soul's own Determination, which he speaks of, came to exist, and to be what it was without a Cause? The Activity of the Soul may enable it to be the Cause of Effects; but it don't at all enable or •elp it to be the Subject of Effects which have no Cause; which is the Thing this Author supposes concerning Acts of the Will. Activity of Nature will no more enable a Being to produce Effects, and determine the Manner of their Existence, within it self, without a Cause, than out of it self, in some other Being. But if an active Being should, through it's Activity, produce and determine an Effect in some external Object, how absurd would it be to say, that the Effect was produced without a Cause!