N05663:251
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.
Yea, in this Case, Mr. Chubb supposes, that the Event follows an Antecedent or a previous Thing, as the Ground of it's Existence, not only that has no Tendency to it, but a contrary Tendency. The Event is the Preference which the Mind gives to that Motive which is weaker, as it stands in the previous View of the Mind; the immediate Antecedent is the View the Mind has of the two rival Motives conjunctly; in which previous View of the Mind, all the Preferableness, or previous Tendency to Preference, is supposed to be on the other Side, or in the contrary Motive; and all the Unworthiness of Preference, and so previous Tendency to Comparative Neglect, Rejection or Undervaluing, is on that Side which is preferred: And yet in this View of the Mind is supposed to be the previous Ground or Reason of this Act of Preference, exciting it, and disposing the Mind to it. Which, I leave the Reader to judge, whether it be absurd or not. If it be not, then it is not absurd to say, that the ⟨p. 91⟩previous Tendency of an Antecedent to a Consequent, is the Ground and Reason why that Consequent does not follow; and the Want of a previous Tendency to •n Event, yea, a Tendency to the Contrary, is the true Ground and Reason why that Event does follow.
Yea, in this Case, Mr. Chubb supposes, that the Event follows an Antecedent or a previous Thing, as the Ground of it's Existence, not only that has no Tendency to it, but a contra•y Tendency. The Event is the Preference which the Mind gives to that Motive which is weaker, as it stands in the previous View of the Mind; the immediate Antecedent is the View the Mind has of the two rival Motives conjunctly; in which previous View of the Mind, all the Preferableness, or previous Tendency to Preference, is supposed to be on the other Side, or in the contrary Motive; and all the Unworthiness of Preference, and so previous Tendency to Comparative Neglect, Rejection or Undervaluing, is on that Side which is prefer'd: And yet in this View of the Mind is supposed to be the previous Ground or Reason of this Act of Preference, exciting it, and disposing the Mind to it. Which, I leave the Reader to judge, whether it be absurd or not. If it be not, then it is not absurd to say, that the ⟨p. 91⟩previous Tendency of an Antecedent to a Consequent, is the Ground and Reason why that Consequent does not follow; and the Want of a previous Tendency to n Event, yea, a Tendency to the Contrary, is the true Ground and Reason why that Event does follow.