N05663:697
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.
SECTION XIII. Concerning that Objection against the Reasoning, by which the Calvinistic Doctrine is supported, that it is Metaphysical and Abstruse.
IT has often been objected against the Defenders of Calvinistic Principles, that in their Reasonings, they run into nice Scholastic Distinctions, and abstruse metaphysical Subtleties, and set these in Opposition to common Sense. And 'tis possible, that after the former Manner it may be alleged against the Reasoning by which I have endeavoured to confute the Arminian Scheme of Liberty and moral Agency, that it is very abstracted and metaphysical.— Concerning this, I would observe the following Things.
IT has often been objected against the Defenders of Calvinistic Princples, that in their Reasonings, they run into nice Scholastic Distinctions, and abstruse metaphysical Subtilties, and set these in Opposition to common Sense. And 'tis possible, that after the former Manner it may be alledged against the Reasoning by which I have endeavoured to confute the Arminian Scheme of Liberty and moral Agency, that it is very abstracted and metaphysical.— Concerning this, I would observe the following Things.
I. If that be made an Objection against the foregoing Reasoning, that it is metaphysical, or may properly be reduced to the Science of Metaphysics, it is a very impertinent Objection; whether it be so or no, is not worthy of any Dispute or Controversy. If the Reasoning be good, 'tis as frivolous to enquire what Science it is properly reduced to, as what Language it is delivered in: And for a Man to go about to confute the Arguments of his Opponent, by telling him, his Arguments are Metaphysical, would be as weak as to tell him, his Arguments could not be substantial, because they were written in French or Latin. The Question is not, Whether what is said be Metaphysics, Physics, Logic, or Mathematics, Latin, French, English, or Mohawk? But, Whether the Reasoning be good, and the Arguments truly conclusive? The foregoing Arguments are no more metaphysical, than those which we use against the Papists, to disprove their Doctrine of Transubstantiation; alleging, it is inconsistent with the Notion of corporeal Identity, that it should be in ten Thousand Places at the same Time. 'Tis by metaphysical Arguments only we are able to prove, that the rational Soul is not corporeal; that Lead or Sand can't think; that Thoughts are not square or round, or don't weigh a Pound. The Arguments by which we prove