N05663:415
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 yet the same Dr. Whitby asserts, that fallen Man is not able to perform perfect Obedience. In P. 165. He has these Words, The Nature of Adam had Power to continue innocent, and without Sin; whereas it is certain, our Nature never had so. But if we haven't Power to continue innocent and without Sin, then Sin is consistent with Necessity, and we may be sinful in that which we have not Power to avoid; and those Things can't be true, which He asserts elsewhere, namely, That if we be necessitated, neither Sins of Omission nor Commission, would deserve that Name. (P. 348.) If we have it not in our Power to be innocent, then we have it not in our Power to be blameless: and if so, we are under a Necessity of being blame-worthy. And how does this consist with what he so often asserts, that Necessity is inconsistent with Blame or Praise? If we have it not in our Power to perform perfect Obedience to all the Commands of God, then we are under a Necessity of breaking some Commands, in some Degree; having no Power to perform so much as is commanded. And if so, why does he cry out of the Unreasonableness and Folly of commanding beyond what Men have Power to do?
And yet the same Dr. Whitby asserts, that fallen Man is not able to perform perfect Obedience. In P. 165. He has these Words, The Nature of Adam had Power to continue innocent, and without Sin; whereas it is certain, our Nature never had so. But if we han't Power to continue innocent and without Sin, then Sin is consistent with Necessity, and we may be sinful in that which we have not Power to avoid; and those Things can't be true, which He asserts elsewhere, namely, That if we be necessitated, neither Sins of Omission nor Commission, would deserve that Name. (P. 348.) If we have it not in our Power to be innocent, then we have it not in our Power to be blameless: and if so, we are under a Necessity of being blame-worthy. And how does this consist with what he so often asserts, that Necessity is inconsistent with Blame or Praise? If we have it not in our Power to perform perfect Obedience to all the Commands of God, then we are under a Necessity of breaking some Commands, in some Degree; having no Power to perform so much as is commanded. And if so, why does he cry out of the Unreasonableness and Folly of commanding beyond what Men have Power to do?