N05663:636
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.
2. 'Tis acknowledged, that if the Motive that determines the Will of God, in the Choice of the Objects of his Favours, be any moral Quality in the Object, recommending that Object to his Benevolence above others, his choosing that Object is not so great a Manifestation of the Freeness and Sovereignty of his Grace, as if it were otherwise. But there is no Necessity of supposing this, in order to our supposing that he has some ⟨p. 250⟩wise End in View, in determining to bestow his Favours on one Person rather than another. We are to distinguish between the Merit of the Object of God's Favour, or a moral Qualification of the Object attracting that Favour and recommending to it, and the natural Fitness of such a Determination of the Act of God's Goodness, to answer some wise Design of his own, some End in the View of God's Omniscience.— 'Tis God's own Act, that is the proper and immediate Object of his Volition.
2. 'Tis acknowledged, that if the Motive that determines the Will of God, in the Choice of the Objects of his Favours, be any moral Quality in the Object, recommending that Object to his Benevolence above others, his chusing that Object is not so great a Manifestation of the Freeness and Sovereignty of his Grace, as if it were otherwise. But there is no Necessity of supposing this, in order to our supposing that he has some ⟨p. 250⟩wise End in View, in determining to bestow his Favours on one Person rather than another. We are to distinguish between the Merit of the Object of God's Favour, or a moral Qualification of the Object attracting that Favour and recommending to it, and the natural Fitness of such a Determination of the Act of God's Goodness, to answer some wise Design of his own, some End in the View of God's Omniscience.— 'Tis God's own Act, that is the proper and immediate Object of his Volition.
3. I suppose that none will deny, but that in some Instances, God acts from wise Design in determining the particular Subjects of his Favours: None will say, I presume, that when God distinguishes by his Bounty particular Societies or Persons, He never, in any Instance, exercises any Wisdom in so doing, aiming at some happy Consequence. And if it be not denied to be so in some Instances, then I would enquire, whether in these Instances God's Goodness is less manifested, than in those wherein God has no Aim or End at all? And whether the Subjects have less Cause of Thankfulness? And if so, who shall be thankful for the Bestowment of distinguishing Mercy, with that enhancing Circumstance of the Distinction's being made without an End? How shall it be known when God is influenced by some wise Aim, and when not? It is very manifest with Respect to the Apostle Paul, that God had wise Ends in choosing Him to be a Christian and an Apostle, who had been a Persecutor, &c. The Apostle himself mentions one End.