A careful and strict enquiry into the modern prevailing notions of that freedom of…

I am sensible, the Doctor's Aim in these Assertions is against the Calvinists; to show, in Opposition to them, that there is no Need of any physical Operation of the Spirit of God on the Will, to change and determine that to a good Choice, but that God's Operation and Assistance is only moral, suggesting Ideas to the Understanding; which he supposes to be enough, if those Ideas are attended to, infallibly to obtain the End. But whatever his Design was, Nothing can more directly and fully prove, that every Determination of the Will, in choosing and refusing, is necessary; directly contrary to his own Notion of the Liberty of the Will. For if the Determination of the Will, evermore, in this Manner, follows the Light, Conviction and View of the Understanding, concerning the greatest Good and Evil, and this be that alone which moves the Will, and it be a Contradiction to suppose otherwise; then it is necessarily so, the Will necessarily follows this Light or View of the Understanding, not only in some of it's Acts, but in every Act of choosing and refusing. So that the Will don't determine it self in any one of it's own Acts; but all it's Acts, every Act of Choice and Refusal, depends on, and is necessarily connected with some antecedent Cause; which Cause is not the Will it self, nor any Act of it's own, nor any Thing pertaining to that Faculty, but something belonging to another Faculty, whose Acts go before the Will, in all it's Acts, and govern and determine them every one.

I am sensible, the Doctor's Aim in these Assertions is against the Calvinists; to shew, in Opposition to them, that there is no Need of any physical Operation of the Spirit of God on the Will, to change and determine that to a good Choice, but that God's Operation and Assistance is only moral, suggesting Ideas to the Understanding; which he supposes to be enough, if those Ideas are attended to, infallibly to obtain the End. But whatever his Design was, Nothing can more directly and fully prove, that every Determination of the Will, in chusing and refusing, is necessary; directly contrary to his own Notion of the Liberty of the Will. For if the Determination of the Will, evermore, in this Manner, follows the Light, Conviction and View of the Understanding, concerning the greatest Good and Evil, and this be that alone which moves the Will, and it be a Contradiction to suppose otherwise; then it is necessarily so, the Will necessarily follows this Light or View of the Understanding, not only in some of it's Acts, but in every Act of chusing and refusing. So that the Will don't determine it self in any one of it's own Acts; but all it's Acts, every Act of Choice and Refusal, depends on, and is necessarily connected with some antecedent Cause; which Cause is not the Will it self, nor any Act of it's own, nor any Thing pertaining to that Faculty, but something belonging to another Faculty, whose Acts go before the Will, in all it's Acts, and govern and determine them every one.