N05663:253
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.
If the most High should endow a Balance with Agency or Activity of Nature, in such a Manner, that when▪ unequal Weights are put into the Scales, it's Agency could enable ⟨p. 92⟩it to cause that Scale to descend which has the least Weight, and so to raise the greater Weight; this would clearly demonstrate, that the Motion of the Balance do's not depend on Weights in the Scales, at least as much, as if the Balance should move it self, when there is no Weight in either Scale. And the Activity of the Balance which is sufficient to move it self against the greater Weight, must certainly be more than sufficient to move it when there is no Weight at all.
Mr. Chubb supposes, that the Will can't stir at all without some Motive; and also supposes, that if there be a Motive to one Thing, and none to the Contrary, Volition will infallibly follow that Motive. This is virtually to suppose an entire Dependence of the Will on Motives: If it were not wholly dependent on them, it could surely help it self a little without them, or help it self a little against a Motive, without help from the Strength and Weight of a contrary Motive. And yet his supposing that the Will, when it has before it various opposite Motives, can use them as it pleases, and choose it's own Influence from them, and neglect the strongest, and follow the weakest, supposes it to be wholly independent on Motives.
Mr. Chubb supposes, that the Will can't stir at all without some Motive; and also supposes, that if there be a Motive to one Thing, and none to the Contrary, Volition will infallibly follow that Motive. This is vertually to suppose an entire Dependence of the Will on Motives: If it were not wholly dependent on them, it could surely help it self a little without them, or help it self a little against a Motive, without help from the Strength and Weight of a contrary Motive. And yet his supposing that the Will, when it has before it various opposite Motives, can use them as it pleases, and chuse it's own Influence from them, and neglect the strongest, and follow the weakest, supposes it to be wholly independent on Motives.