N05663:413
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.
And thus the very Supposition of Difficulty in the Way of a Man's Duty, or Proclivity to Sin, thro' a being given up to Hardness of Heart, or indeed by any other Means whatsoever, is an Inconsistence, according to Dr. Whitby's Notions of Liberty, Virtue and Vice, Blame and Praise. The avoiding Sin and Blame, and the doing what is virtuous and Praise-worthy, must be always equally easy.
And thus the very Supposition of Difficulty in the Way of a Man's Duty, or Proclivity to Sin, thro' a being given up to Hardness of Heart, or indeed by any other Means whatsoever, is an Inconsistence, according to Dr. Whitby's Notions of Liberty, Vertue and Vice, Blame and Praise. The avoiding Sin and Blame, and the doing what is vertuous and Praise-worthy, must be always equally easy.
Dr. Whitby's Notions of Liberty, Obligation, Virtue, Sin, &c. lead Him into another great Inconsistence. He abundantly insists, that Necessity is inconsistent with the Nature of Sin or Fault. He says in the forementioned Treatise, P. 14. Who can blame a Person for doing what he could not help? and P. 15. It being sensibly unjust, to punish any Man for doing that which it was never in his Power to avoid. And in P. 341. to confirm his Opinion, he quotes one of the Fathers, saying, Why doth God command, if Man hath not Free-will and Power to obey? And again in the same and the next Page, Who will not cry out, that it is Folly to command him, that hath not Liberty to do what is commanded; and that it is unjust to condemn Him, that has it not in his Power to do what is required? And in P. 373. He cites another saying, A Law is given to Him that can turn to both Parts; i. e. obey or transgress it: But no Law can be against Him who is bound by Nature.
Dr. Whitby's Notions of Liberty, Obligation, Vertue, Sin, &c. lead Him into another great Inconsistence. He abundantly insists, that Necessity is inconsistent with the Nature of Sin or Fault. He says in the foremention'd Treatise, P. 14. Who can blame a Person for doing what he could not help? and P. 15. It being sensibly unjust, to punish any Man for doing that which it was never in his Power to avoid. And in P. 341. to confirm his Opinion, he quotes one of the Fathers, saying, Why doth God command, if Man hath not Free-will and Power to obey? And again in the same and the next Page, Who will not cry out, that it is Folly to command him, that hath not Liberty to do what is commanded; and that it is unjust to condemn Him, that has it not in his Power to do what is required? And in P. 373. He cites another saying, A Law is given to Him that can turn to both Parts; i. e. obey or transgress it: But no Law can be against Him who is bound by Nature.