Jonathan Edwards and determinism

Journal of the History of the Behavioral Sciences

Volumn 33, Issue 4, 1997, Pages 365-380

  Tweney, Ryan D ^a  

^a BOWLING GREEN STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0041935157     PISSN: 00225061     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/(SICI)1520-6696(199723)33:4<365::AID-JHBS2>3.0.CO;2-O     Document Type: Article

References (155)

1. M. X. Lesser, Jonathan Edwards: An Annotated Bibliography, 1979-1993 (Westport: Greenwood Press, 1994). See also, for the literature on Edwards prior to 1979, M. X. Lesser, Jonathan Edwards: A Reference Guide (Boston: G. K. Hall & Co., 1981).
2. M. X. Lesser, Jonathan Edwards: An Annotated Bibliography, 1979-1993 (Westport: Greenwood Press, 1994). See also, for the literature on Edwards prior to 1979, M. X. Lesser, Jonathan Edwards: A Reference Guide (Boston: G. K. Hall & Co., 1981).
3. Joseph A. Conforti, Jonathan Edwards, Religious Tradition, & American Culture (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1995) examines the development of Edwards as an icon of popular culture, and his continual construction and reconstruction by nineteenth and twentieth century scholars. For accounts of his impact on psychology, see James G. Blight, "Jonathan Edwards's Theory of the Mind: Its Applications and Implications" in Explorations in the History of Psychology in the United States, J. Brozek, ed. (Lewisburg: Bucknell University Press, 1984), 61-120; Rand B. Evans, "The Origins of American Academic Psychology," in Explorations, Brozek, ed., 17-60; and J. W. Fay, American Psychology before William James (New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press, 1939). A spectacular misreading of Edwards is given by A. A. Roback, History of American Psychology (New York: Library Publishers, 1952). For an account of the specific role of conscious experience in the reaction to Edwards, see James Hoopes, Consciousness in New England: From Puritanism and Ideas to Psychoanalysis and Semiotic (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1989). Hoopes's study, unfortunately, regarded "psychology" and "psychoanalysis" as nearly synonymous, treating Edwards as a precursor of ideas of the unconscious.
4. Joseph A. Conforti, Jonathan Edwards, Religious Tradition, & American Culture (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1995) examines the development of Edwards as an icon of popular culture, and his continual construction and reconstruction by nineteenth and twentieth century scholars. For accounts of his impact on psychology, see James G. Blight, "Jonathan Edwards's Theory of the Mind: Its Applications and Implications" in Explorations in the History of Psychology in the United States, J. Brozek, ed. (Lewisburg: Bucknell University Press, 1984), 61-120; Rand B. Evans, "The Origins of American Academic Psychology," in Explorations, Brozek, ed., 17-60; and J. W. Fay, American Psychology before William James (New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press, 1939). A spectacular misreading of Edwards is given by A. A. Roback, History of American Psychology (New York: Library Publishers, 1952). For an account of the specific role of conscious experience in the reaction to Edwards, see James Hoopes, Consciousness in New England: From Puritanism and Ideas to Psychoanalysis and Semiotic (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1989). Hoopes's study, unfortunately, regarded "psychology" and "psychoanalysis" as nearly synonymous, treating Edwards as a precursor of ideas of the unconscious.
5. Joseph A. Conforti, Jonathan Edwards, Religious Tradition, & American Culture (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1995) examines the development of Edwards as an icon of popular culture, and his continual construction and reconstruction by nineteenth and twentieth century scholars. For accounts of his impact on psychology, see James G. Blight, "Jonathan Edwards's Theory of the Mind: Its Applications and Implications" in Explorations in the History of Psychology in the United States, J. Brozek, ed. (Lewisburg: Bucknell University Press, 1984), 61-120; Rand B. Evans, "The Origins of American Academic Psychology," in Explorations, Brozek, ed., 17-60; and J. W. Fay, American Psychology before William James (New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press, 1939). A spectacular misreading of Edwards is given by A. A. Roback, History of American Psychology (New York: Library Publishers, 1952). For an account of the specific role of conscious experience in the reaction to Edwards, see James Hoopes, Consciousness in New England: From Puritanism and Ideas to Psychoanalysis and Semiotic (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1989). Hoopes's study, unfortunately, regarded "psychology" and "psychoanalysis" as nearly synonymous, treating Edwards as a precursor of ideas of the unconscious.
6. Joseph A. Conforti, Jonathan Edwards, Religious Tradition, & American Culture (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1995) examines the development of Edwards as an icon of popular culture, and his continual construction and reconstruction by nineteenth and twentieth century scholars. For accounts of his impact on psychology, see James G. Blight, "Jonathan Edwards's Theory of the Mind: Its Applications and Implications" in Explorations in the History of Psychology in the United States, J. Brozek, ed. (Lewisburg: Bucknell University Press, 1984), 61-120; Rand B. Evans, "The Origins of American Academic Psychology," in Explorations, Brozek, ed., 17-60; and J. W. Fay, American Psychology before William James (New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press, 1939). A spectacular misreading of Edwards is given by A. A. Roback, History of American Psychology (New York: Library Publishers, 1952). For an account of the specific role of conscious experience in the reaction to Edwards, see James Hoopes, Consciousness in New England: From Puritanism and Ideas to Psychoanalysis and Semiotic (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1989). Hoopes's study, unfortunately, regarded "psychology" and "psychoanalysis" as nearly synonymous, treating Edwards as a precursor of ideas of the unconscious.
7. Joseph A. Conforti, Jonathan Edwards, Religious Tradition, & American Culture (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1995) examines the development of Edwards as an icon of popular culture, and his continual construction and reconstruction by nineteenth and twentieth century scholars. For accounts of his impact on psychology, see James G. Blight, "Jonathan Edwards's Theory of the Mind: Its Applications and Implications" in Explorations in the History of Psychology in the United States, J. Brozek, ed. (Lewisburg: Bucknell University Press, 1984), 61-120; Rand B. Evans, "The Origins of American Academic Psychology," in Explorations, Brozek, ed., 17-60; and J. W. Fay, American Psychology before William James (New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press, 1939). A spectacular misreading of Edwards is given by A. A. Roback, History of American Psychology (New York: Library Publishers, 1952). For an account of the specific role of conscious experience in the reaction to Edwards, see James Hoopes, Consciousness in New England: From Puritanism and Ideas to Psychoanalysis and Semiotic (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1989). Hoopes's study, unfortunately, regarded "psychology" and "psychoanalysis" as nearly synonymous, treating Edwards as a precursor of ideas of the unconscious.
8. Joseph A. Conforti, Jonathan Edwards, Religious Tradition, & American Culture (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1995) examines the development of Edwards as an icon of popular culture, and his continual construction and reconstruction by nineteenth and twentieth century scholars. For accounts of his impact on psychology, see James G. Blight, "Jonathan Edwards's Theory of the Mind: Its Applications and Implications" in Explorations in the History of Psychology in the United States, J. Brozek, ed. (Lewisburg: Bucknell University Press, 1984), 61-120; Rand B. Evans, "The Origins of American Academic Psychology," in Explorations, Brozek, ed., 17-60; and J. W. Fay, American Psychology before William James (New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press, 1939). A spectacular misreading of Edwards is given by A. A. Roback, History of American Psychology (New York: Library Publishers, 1952). For an account of the specific role of conscious experience in the reaction to Edwards, see James Hoopes, Consciousness in New England: From Puritanism and Ideas to Psychoanalysis and Semiotic (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1989). Hoopes's study, unfortunately, regarded "psychology" and "psychoanalysis" as nearly synonymous, treating Edwards as a precursor of ideas of the unconscious.
9. Perry Miller, Jonathan Edwards (New York: William Sloane Associates, 1949). See also Ola Elizabeth Winslow, Jonathan Edwards, 1703-1758: A Biography (New York: Macmillan, 1940), which concentrated on the personal and social aspects of Edwards's life. There is no recent "standard" biography of Edwards. Miller (1905-1963) is generally regarded as having brought new attention to the role of Puritanism generally (and Edwards specifically) in the development of American literature and thought. See, in addition to his biography of Edwards, Miller's The New England Mind: The Seventeenth Century (New York: Macmillan Co., 1939) and The New England Mind: From Colony to Province (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1953). In recent years, Miller's scholarship has been heavily criticized; see, for example, George Selement, "Perry Miller: A Note on His Sources in The New England Mind: The Seventeenth Century," William and Mary Quarterly 31 (1974): 453-464. For a sampling of recent "revisionist" scholarships on Edwards, see the papers in Jonathan Edwards and the American Experience, Nathan O. Hatch and Harry S. Stout, eds. (New York: Oxford University Press, 1988) , and, for a brief overview, Joseph Conforti's review of Hatch and Stout, "Jonathan Edwards and American Studies," American Quarterly 41 (1989): 165-171.
10. Perry Miller, Jonathan Edwards (New York: William Sloane Associates, 1949). See also Ola Elizabeth Winslow, Jonathan Edwards, 1703-1758: A Biography (New York: Macmillan, 1940), which concentrated on the personal and social aspects of Edwards's life. There is no recent "standard" biography of Edwards. Miller (1905-1963) is generally regarded as having brought new attention to the role of Puritanism generally (and Edwards specifically) in the development of American literature and thought. See, in addition to his biography of Edwards, Miller's The New England Mind: The Seventeenth Century (New York: Macmillan Co., 1939) and The New England Mind: From Colony to Province (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1953). In recent years, Miller's scholarship has been heavily criticized; see, for example, George Selement, "Perry Miller: A Note on His Sources in The New England Mind: The Seventeenth Century," William and Mary Quarterly 31 (1974): 453-464. For a sampling of recent "revisionist" scholarships on Edwards, see the papers in Jonathan Edwards and the American Experience, Nathan O. Hatch and Harry S. Stout, eds. (New York: Oxford University Press, 1988) , and, for a brief overview, Joseph Conforti's review of Hatch and Stout, "Jonathan Edwards and American Studies," American Quarterly 41 (1989): 165-171.
11. Perry Miller, Jonathan Edwards (New York: William Sloane Associates, 1949). See also Ola Elizabeth Winslow, Jonathan Edwards, 1703-1758: A Biography (New York: Macmillan, 1940), which concentrated on the personal and social aspects of Edwards's life. There is no recent "standard" biography of Edwards. Miller (1905-1963) is generally regarded as having brought new attention to the role of Puritanism generally (and Edwards specifically) in the development of American literature and thought. See, in addition to his biography of Edwards, Miller's The New England Mind: The Seventeenth Century (New York: Macmillan Co., 1939) and The New England Mind: From Colony to Province (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1953). In recent years, Miller's scholarship has been heavily criticized; see, for example, George Selement, "Perry Miller: A Note on His Sources in The New England Mind: The Seventeenth Century," William and Mary Quarterly 31 (1974): 453-464. For a sampling of recent "revisionist" scholarships on Edwards, see the papers in Jonathan Edwards and the American Experience, Nathan O. Hatch and Harry S. Stout, eds. (New York: Oxford University Press, 1988) , and, for a brief overview, Joseph Conforti's review of Hatch and Stout, "Jonathan Edwards and American Studies," American Quarterly 41 (1989): 165-171.
12. Perry Miller, Jonathan Edwards (New York: William Sloane Associates, 1949). See also Ola Elizabeth Winslow, Jonathan Edwards, 1703-1758: A Biography (New York: Macmillan, 1940), which concentrated on the personal and social aspects of Edwards's life. There is no recent "standard" biography of Edwards. Miller (1905-1963) is generally regarded as having brought new attention to the role of Puritanism generally (and Edwards specifically) in the development of American literature and thought. See, in addition to his biography of Edwards, Miller's The New England Mind: The Seventeenth Century (New York: Macmillan Co., 1939) and The New England Mind: From Colony to Province (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1953). In recent years, Miller's scholarship has been heavily criticized; see, for example, George Selement, "Perry Miller: A Note on His Sources in The New England Mind: The Seventeenth Century," William and Mary Quarterly 31 (1974): 453-464. For a sampling of recent "revisionist" scholarships on Edwards, see the papers in Jonathan Edwards and the American Experience, Nathan O. Hatch and Harry S. Stout, eds. (New York: Oxford University Press, 1988) , and, for a brief overview, Joseph Conforti's review of Hatch and Stout, "Jonathan Edwards and American Studies," American Quarterly 41 (1989): 165-171.
13. Perry Miller, Jonathan Edwards (New York: William Sloane Associates, 1949). See also Ola Elizabeth Winslow, Jonathan Edwards, 1703-1758: A Biography (New York: Macmillan, 1940), which concentrated on the personal and social aspects of Edwards's life. There is no recent "standard" biography of Edwards. Miller (1905-1963) is generally regarded as having brought new attention to the role of Puritanism generally (and Edwards specifically) in the development of American literature and thought. See, in addition to his biography of Edwards, Miller's The New England Mind: The Seventeenth Century (New York: Macmillan Co., 1939) and The New England Mind: From Colony to Province (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1953). In recent years, Miller's scholarship has been heavily criticized; see, for example, George Selement, "Perry Miller: A Note on His Sources in The New England Mind: The Seventeenth Century," William and Mary Quarterly 31 (1974): 453-464. For a sampling of recent "revisionist" scholarships on Edwards, see the papers in Jonathan Edwards and the American Experience, Nathan O. Hatch and Harry S. Stout, eds. (New York: Oxford University Press, 1988) , and, for a brief overview, Joseph Conforti's review of Hatch and Stout, "Jonathan Edwards and American Studies," American Quarterly 41 (1989): 165-171.
14. Perry Miller, Jonathan Edwards (New York: William Sloane Associates, 1949). See also Ola Elizabeth Winslow, Jonathan Edwards, 1703-1758: A Biography (New York: Macmillan, 1940), which concentrated on the personal and social aspects of Edwards's life. There is no recent "standard" biography of Edwards. Miller (1905-1963) is generally regarded as having brought new attention to the role of Puritanism generally (and Edwards specifically) in the development of American literature and thought. See, in addition to his biography of Edwards, Miller's The New England Mind: The Seventeenth Century (New York: Macmillan Co., 1939) and The New England Mind: From Colony to Province (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1953). In recent years, Miller's scholarship has been heavily criticized; see, for example, George Selement, "Perry Miller: A Note on His Sources in The New England Mind: The Seventeenth Century," William and Mary Quarterly 31 (1974): 453-464. For a sampling of recent "revisionist" scholarships on Edwards, see the papers in Jonathan Edwards and the American Experience, Nathan O. Hatch and Harry S. Stout, eds. (New York: Oxford University Press, 1988) , and, for a brief overview, Joseph Conforti's review of Hatch and Stout, "Jonathan Edwards and American Studies," American Quarterly 41 (1989): 165-171.
15. Perry Miller, Jonathan Edwards (New York: William Sloane Associates, 1949). See also Ola Elizabeth Winslow, Jonathan Edwards, 1703-1758: A Biography (New York: Macmillan, 1940), which concentrated on the personal and social aspects of Edwards's life. There is no recent "standard" biography of Edwards. Miller (1905-1963) is generally regarded as having brought new attention to the role of Puritanism generally (and Edwards specifically) in the development of American literature and thought. See, in addition to his biography of Edwards, Miller's The New England Mind: The Seventeenth Century (New York: Macmillan Co., 1939) and The New England Mind: From Colony to Province (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1953). In recent years, Miller's scholarship has been heavily criticized; see, for example, George Selement, "Perry Miller: A Note on His Sources in The New England Mind: The Seventeenth Century," William and Mary Quarterly 31 (1974): 453-464. For a sampling of recent "revisionist" scholarships on Edwards, see the papers in Jonathan Edwards and the American Experience, Nathan O. Hatch and Harry S. Stout, eds. (New York: Oxford University Press, 1988) , and, for a brief overview, Joseph Conforti's review of Hatch and Stout, "Jonathan Edwards and American Studies," American Quarterly 41 (1989): 165-171.
16. For a traditional account that regards the Calvinists as conservative, see Vernon L. Parrington, The Colonial Mind, 1620-1800 (New York: Harcourt, Brace and Co., 1927). Good accounts of the theocratic basis of New England governance are Thomas Jefferson Wertenbaker, The Puritan Oligarchy: The Founding of American Civilization (New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1947) and Bruce Kuklick, Churchmen and Philosophers: From Jonathan Edwards to John Dewey (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1985). The enlightenment roots of the revolution itself are usefully covered by Staughton Lynd, Intellectual Origins of American Radicalism (New York: Pantheon Books, 1968). Jon Butler, "Coercion, Miracle, Reason: Rethinking the American Religious Experience in the Revolutionary Age" in Religion in a Revolutionary Age, Ronald Hoffman and Peter J. Albert, eds. (Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia, 1994), 1-30, noted that churches in all of the colonies were, in effect, tax supported, as was Edwards's church in Northampton in particular. Edwards as conservative has often been contrasted with Benjamin Franklin as liberal, his longer-lived contemporary. See, for a recent discussion, David Levin, "Edwards, Franklin, and Cotton Mather: A Meditation on Character and Reputation" in Jonathan Edwards, Hatch and Stout, eds., 34-49. That Edwards was "Enlightened" in any sense was denied, for example, by Oliver Wendell Holmes, "Jonathan Edwards," International Review 9 (1880): 1-28; Holmes regarded Edwards as "medieval," an especially interesting stance, since Holmes himself was a determinist! See Oliver Wendell Holmes, Mechanism in Thought and Morals (Boston: James R. Osgood, 1871). On the "warfare" between science and religion see also John C. Burnham, How Superstition Won and Science Lost: Popularizing Science and Health in the United States (New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press, 1987). For an unabashed defense of the "theological objectivism" of Edwards thought, see Clyde A. Holbrook, The Ethics of Jonathan Edwards: Morality and Aesthetics (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1973).
17. For a traditional account that regards the Calvinists as conservative, see Vernon L. Parrington, The Colonial Mind, 1620-1800 (New York: Harcourt, Brace and Co., 1927). Good accounts of the theocratic basis of New England governance are Thomas Jefferson Wertenbaker, The Puritan Oligarchy: The Founding of American Civilization (New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1947) and Bruce Kuklick, Churchmen and Philosophers: From Jonathan Edwards to John Dewey (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1985). The enlightenment roots of the revolution itself are usefully covered by Staughton Lynd, Intellectual Origins of American Radicalism (New York: Pantheon Books, 1968). Jon Butler, "Coercion, Miracle, Reason: Rethinking the American Religious Experience in the Revolutionary Age" in Religion in a Revolutionary Age, Ronald Hoffman and Peter J. Albert, eds. (Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia, 1994), 1-30, noted that churches in all of the colonies were, in effect, tax supported, as was Edwards's church in Northampton in particular. Edwards as conservative has often been contrasted with Benjamin Franklin as liberal, his longer-lived contemporary. See, for a recent discussion, David Levin, "Edwards, Franklin, and Cotton Mather: A Meditation on Character and Reputation" in Jonathan Edwards, Hatch and Stout, eds., 34-49. That Edwards was "Enlightened" in any sense was denied, for example, by Oliver Wendell Holmes, "Jonathan Edwards," International Review 9 (1880): 1-28; Holmes regarded Edwards as "medieval," an especially interesting stance, since Holmes himself was a determinist! See Oliver Wendell Holmes, Mechanism in Thought and Morals (Boston: James R. Osgood, 1871). On the "warfare" between science and religion see also John C. Burnham, How Superstition Won and Science Lost: Popularizing Science and Health in the United States (New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press, 1987). For an unabashed defense of the "theological objectivism" of Edwards thought, see Clyde A. Holbrook, The Ethics of Jonathan Edwards: Morality and Aesthetics (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1973).
18. For a traditional account that regards the Calvinists as conservative, see Vernon L. Parrington, The Colonial Mind, 1620-1800 (New York: Harcourt, Brace and Co., 1927). Good accounts of the theocratic basis of New England governance are Thomas Jefferson Wertenbaker, The Puritan Oligarchy: The Founding of American Civilization (New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1947) and Bruce Kuklick, Churchmen and Philosophers: From Jonathan Edwards to John Dewey (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1985). The enlightenment roots of the revolution itself are usefully covered by Staughton Lynd, Intellectual Origins of American Radicalism (New York: Pantheon Books, 1968). Jon Butler, "Coercion, Miracle, Reason: Rethinking the American Religious Experience in the Revolutionary Age" in Religion in a Revolutionary Age, Ronald Hoffman and Peter J. Albert, eds. (Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia, 1994), 1-30, noted that churches in all of the colonies were, in effect, tax supported, as was Edwards's church in Northampton in particular. Edwards as conservative has often been contrasted with Benjamin Franklin as liberal, his longer-lived contemporary. See, for a recent discussion, David Levin, "Edwards, Franklin, and Cotton Mather: A Meditation on Character and Reputation" in Jonathan Edwards, Hatch and Stout, eds., 34-49. That Edwards was "Enlightened" in any sense was denied, for example, by Oliver Wendell Holmes, "Jonathan Edwards," International Review 9 (1880): 1-28; Holmes regarded Edwards as "medieval," an especially interesting stance, since Holmes himself was a determinist! See Oliver Wendell Holmes, Mechanism in Thought and Morals (Boston: James R. Osgood, 1871). On the "warfare" between science and religion see also John C. Burnham, How Superstition Won and Science Lost: Popularizing Science and Health in the United States (New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press, 1987). For an unabashed defense of the "theological objectivism" of Edwards thought, see Clyde A. Holbrook, The Ethics of Jonathan Edwards: Morality and Aesthetics (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1973).
19. For a traditional account that regards the Calvinists as conservative, see Vernon L. Parrington, The Colonial Mind, 1620-1800 (New York: Harcourt, Brace and Co., 1927). Good accounts of the theocratic basis of New England governance are Thomas Jefferson Wertenbaker, The Puritan Oligarchy: The Founding of American Civilization (New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1947) and Bruce Kuklick, Churchmen and Philosophers: From Jonathan Edwards to John Dewey (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1985). The enlightenment roots of the revolution itself are usefully covered by Staughton Lynd, Intellectual Origins of American Radicalism (New York: Pantheon Books, 1968). Jon Butler, "Coercion, Miracle, Reason: Rethinking the American Religious Experience in the Revolutionary Age" in Religion in a Revolutionary Age, Ronald Hoffman and Peter J. Albert, eds. (Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia, 1994), 1-30, noted that churches in all of the colonies were, in effect, tax supported, as was Edwards's church in Northampton in particular. Edwards as conservative has often been contrasted with Benjamin Franklin as liberal, his longer-lived contemporary. See, for a recent discussion, David Levin, "Edwards, Franklin, and Cotton Mather: A Meditation on Character and Reputation" in Jonathan Edwards, Hatch and Stout, eds., 34-49. That Edwards was "Enlightened" in any sense was denied, for example, by Oliver Wendell Holmes, "Jonathan Edwards," International Review 9 (1880): 1-28; Holmes regarded Edwards as "medieval," an especially interesting stance, since Holmes himself was a determinist! See Oliver Wendell Holmes, Mechanism in Thought and Morals (Boston: James R. Osgood, 1871). On the "warfare" between science and religion see also John C. Burnham, How Superstition Won and Science Lost: Popularizing Science and Health in the United States (New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press, 1987). For an unabashed defense of the "theological objectivism" of Edwards thought, see Clyde A. Holbrook, The Ethics of Jonathan Edwards: Morality and Aesthetics (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1973).
20. For a traditional account that regards the Calvinists as conservative, see Vernon L. Parrington, The Colonial Mind, 1620-1800 (New York: Harcourt, Brace and Co., 1927). Good accounts of the theocratic basis of New England governance are Thomas Jefferson Wertenbaker, The Puritan Oligarchy: The Founding of American Civilization (New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1947) and Bruce Kuklick, Churchmen and Philosophers: From Jonathan Edwards to John Dewey (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1985). The enlightenment roots of the revolution itself are usefully covered by Staughton Lynd, Intellectual Origins of American Radicalism (New York: Pantheon Books, 1968). Jon Butler, "Coercion, Miracle, Reason: Rethinking the American Religious Experience in the Revolutionary Age" in Religion in a Revolutionary Age, Ronald Hoffman and Peter J. Albert, eds. (Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia, 1994), 1-30, noted that churches in all of the colonies were, in effect, tax supported, as was Edwards's church in Northampton in particular. Edwards as conservative has often been contrasted with Benjamin Franklin as liberal, his longer-lived contemporary. See, for a recent discussion, David Levin, "Edwards, Franklin, and Cotton Mather: A Meditation on Character and Reputation" in Jonathan Edwards, Hatch and Stout, eds., 34-49. That Edwards was "Enlightened" in any sense was denied, for example, by Oliver Wendell Holmes, "Jonathan Edwards," International Review 9 (1880): 1-28; Holmes regarded Edwards as "medieval," an especially interesting stance, since Holmes himself was a determinist! See Oliver Wendell Holmes, Mechanism in Thought and Morals (Boston: James R. Osgood, 1871). On the "warfare" between science and religion see also John C. Burnham, How Superstition Won and Science Lost: Popularizing Science and Health in the United States (New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press, 1987). For an unabashed defense of the "theological objectivism" of Edwards thought, see Clyde A. Holbrook, The Ethics of Jonathan Edwards: Morality and Aesthetics (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1973).
21. For a traditional account that regards the Calvinists as conservative, see Vernon L. Parrington, The Colonial Mind, 1620-1800 (New York: Harcourt, Brace and Co., 1927). Good accounts of the theocratic basis of New England governance are Thomas Jefferson Wertenbaker, The Puritan Oligarchy: The Founding of American Civilization (New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1947) and Bruce Kuklick, Churchmen and Philosophers: From Jonathan Edwards to John Dewey (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1985). The enlightenment roots of the revolution itself are usefully covered by Staughton Lynd, Intellectual Origins of American Radicalism (New York: Pantheon Books, 1968). Jon Butler, "Coercion, Miracle, Reason: Rethinking the American Religious Experience in the Revolutionary Age" in Religion in a Revolutionary Age, Ronald Hoffman and Peter J. Albert, eds. (Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia, 1994), 1-30, noted that churches in all of the colonies were, in effect, tax supported, as was Edwards's church in Northampton in particular. Edwards as conservative has often been contrasted with Benjamin Franklin as liberal, his longer-lived contemporary. See, for a recent discussion, David Levin, "Edwards, Franklin, and Cotton Mather: A Meditation on Character and Reputation" in Jonathan Edwards, Hatch and Stout, eds., 34-49. That Edwards was "Enlightened" in any sense was denied, for example, by Oliver Wendell Holmes, "Jonathan Edwards," International Review 9 (1880): 1-28; Holmes regarded Edwards as "medieval," an especially interesting stance, since Holmes himself was a determinist! See Oliver Wendell Holmes, Mechanism in Thought and Morals (Boston: James R. Osgood, 1871). On the "warfare" between science and religion see also John C. Burnham, How Superstition Won and Science Lost: Popularizing Science and Health in the United States (New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press, 1987). For an unabashed defense of the "theological objectivism" of Edwards thought, see Clyde A. Holbrook, The Ethics of Jonathan Edwards: Morality and Aesthetics (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1973).
22. For a traditional account that regards the Calvinists as conservative, see Vernon L. Parrington, The Colonial Mind, 1620-1800 (New York: Harcourt, Brace and Co., 1927). Good accounts of the theocratic basis of New England governance are Thomas Jefferson Wertenbaker, The Puritan Oligarchy: The Founding of American Civilization (New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1947) and Bruce Kuklick, Churchmen and Philosophers: From Jonathan Edwards to John Dewey (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1985). The enlightenment roots of the revolution itself are usefully covered by Staughton Lynd, Intellectual Origins of American Radicalism (New York: Pantheon Books, 1968). Jon Butler, "Coercion, Miracle, Reason: Rethinking the American Religious Experience in the Revolutionary Age" in Religion in a Revolutionary Age, Ronald Hoffman and Peter J. Albert, eds. (Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia, 1994), 1-30, noted that churches in all of the colonies were, in effect, tax supported, as was Edwards's church in Northampton in particular. Edwards as conservative has often been contrasted with Benjamin Franklin as liberal, his longer-lived contemporary. See, for a recent discussion, David Levin, "Edwards, Franklin, and Cotton Mather: A Meditation on Character and Reputation" in Jonathan Edwards, Hatch and Stout, eds., 34-49. That Edwards was "Enlightened" in any sense was denied, for example, by Oliver Wendell Holmes, "Jonathan Edwards," International Review 9 (1880): 1-28; Holmes regarded Edwards as "medieval," an especially interesting stance, since Holmes himself was a determinist! See Oliver Wendell Holmes, Mechanism in Thought and Morals (Boston: James R. Osgood, 1871). On the "warfare" between science and religion see also John C. Burnham, How Superstition Won and Science Lost: Popularizing Science and Health in the United States (New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press, 1987). For an unabashed defense of the "theological objectivism" of Edwards thought, see Clyde A. Holbrook, The Ethics of Jonathan Edwards: Morality and Aesthetics (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1973).
23. For a traditional account that regards the Calvinists as conservative, see Vernon L. Parrington, The Colonial Mind, 1620-1800 (New York: Harcourt, Brace and Co., 1927). Good accounts of the theocratic basis of New England governance are Thomas Jefferson Wertenbaker, The Puritan Oligarchy: The Founding of American Civilization (New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1947) and Bruce Kuklick, Churchmen and Philosophers: From Jonathan Edwards to John Dewey (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1985). The enlightenment roots of the revolution itself are usefully covered by Staughton Lynd, Intellectual Origins of American Radicalism (New York: Pantheon Books, 1968). Jon Butler, "Coercion, Miracle, Reason: Rethinking the American Religious Experience in the Revolutionary Age" in Religion in a Revolutionary Age, Ronald Hoffman and Peter J. Albert, eds. (Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia, 1994), 1-30, noted that churches in all of the colonies were, in effect, tax supported, as was Edwards's church in Northampton in particular. Edwards as conservative has often been contrasted with Benjamin Franklin as liberal, his longer-lived contemporary. See, for a recent discussion, David Levin, "Edwards, Franklin, and Cotton Mather: A Meditation on Character and Reputation" in Jonathan Edwards, Hatch and Stout, eds., 34-49. That Edwards was "Enlightened" in any sense was denied, for example, by Oliver Wendell Holmes, "Jonathan Edwards," International Review 9 (1880): 1-28; Holmes regarded Edwards as "medieval," an especially interesting stance, since Holmes himself was a determinist! See Oliver Wendell Holmes, Mechanism in Thought and Morals (Boston: James R. Osgood, 1871). On the "warfare" between science and religion see also John C. Burnham, How Superstition Won and Science Lost: Popularizing Science and Health in the United States (New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press, 1987). For an unabashed defense of the "theological objectivism" of Edwards thought, see Clyde A. Holbrook, The Ethics of Jonathan Edwards: Morality and Aesthetics (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1973).
24. For a traditional account that regards the Calvinists as conservative, see Vernon L. Parrington, The Colonial Mind, 1620-1800 (New York: Harcourt, Brace and Co., 1927). Good accounts of the theocratic basis of New England governance are Thomas Jefferson Wertenbaker, The Puritan Oligarchy: The Founding of American Civilization (New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1947) and Bruce Kuklick, Churchmen and Philosophers: From Jonathan Edwards to John Dewey (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1985). The enlightenment roots of the revolution itself are usefully covered by Staughton Lynd, Intellectual Origins of American Radicalism (New York: Pantheon Books, 1968). Jon Butler, "Coercion, Miracle, Reason: Rethinking the American Religious Experience in the Revolutionary Age" in Religion in a Revolutionary Age, Ronald Hoffman and Peter J. Albert, eds. (Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia, 1994), 1-30, noted that churches in all of the colonies were, in effect, tax supported, as was Edwards's church in Northampton in particular. Edwards as conservative has often been contrasted with Benjamin Franklin as liberal, his longer-lived contemporary. See, for a recent discussion, David Levin, "Edwards, Franklin, and Cotton Mather: A Meditation on Character and Reputation" in Jonathan Edwards, Hatch and Stout, eds., 34-49. That Edwards was "Enlightened" in any sense was denied, for example, by Oliver Wendell Holmes, "Jonathan Edwards," International Review 9 (1880): 1-28; Holmes regarded Edwards as "medieval," an especially interesting stance, since Holmes himself was a determinist! See Oliver Wendell Holmes, Mechanism in Thought and Morals (Boston: James R. Osgood, 1871). On the "warfare" between science and religion see also John C. Burnham, How Superstition Won and Science Lost: Popularizing Science and Health in the United States (New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press, 1987). For an unabashed defense of the "theological objectivism" of Edwards thought, see Clyde A. Holbrook, The Ethics of Jonathan Edwards: Morality and Aesthetics (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1973).
25. For a traditional account that regards the Calvinists as conservative, see Vernon L. Parrington, The Colonial Mind, 1620-1800 (New York: Harcourt, Brace and Co., 1927). Good accounts of the theocratic basis of New England governance are Thomas Jefferson Wertenbaker, The Puritan Oligarchy: The Founding of American Civilization (New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1947) and Bruce Kuklick, Churchmen and Philosophers: From Jonathan Edwards to John Dewey (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1985). The enlightenment roots of the revolution itself are usefully covered by Staughton Lynd, Intellectual Origins of American Radicalism (New York: Pantheon Books, 1968). Jon Butler, "Coercion, Miracle, Reason: Rethinking the American Religious Experience in the Revolutionary Age" in Religion in a Revolutionary Age, Ronald Hoffman and Peter J. Albert, eds. (Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia, 1994), 1-30, noted that churches in all of the colonies were, in effect, tax supported, as was Edwards's church in Northampton in particular. Edwards as conservative has often been contrasted with Benjamin Franklin as liberal, his longer-lived contemporary. See, for a recent discussion, David Levin, "Edwards, Franklin, and Cotton Mather: A Meditation on Character and Reputation" in Jonathan Edwards, Hatch and Stout, eds., 34-49. That Edwards was "Enlightened" in any sense was denied, for example, by Oliver Wendell Holmes, "Jonathan Edwards," International Review 9 (1880): 1-28; Holmes regarded Edwards as "medieval," an especially interesting stance, since Holmes himself was a determinist! See Oliver Wendell Holmes, Mechanism in Thought and Morals (Boston: James R. Osgood, 1871). On the "warfare" between science and religion see also John C. Burnham, How Superstition Won and Science Lost: Popularizing Science and Health in the United States (New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press, 1987). For an unabashed defense of the "theological objectivism" of Edwards thought, see Clyde A. Holbrook, The Ethics of Jonathan Edwards: Morality and Aesthetics (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1973).
26. The standard account of Puritan psychological thought prior to Edwards remains Miller's New England Mind: The Seventeenth Century. A good brief introduction to the context of American Calvinism prior to Edwards was given by Miller in the section introductions to The American Puritans: Their Prose and Poetry, Perry Miller, ed. (Garden City, Doubleday Anchor Books, 1956). See also J. Rodney Fulcher, "Puritans and the Passions: The Faculty Psychology in American Puritanism," Journal of the History of the Behavioral Sciences 9 (1973): 123-139; and Norman S. Fiering, "Will and Intellect in the New England Mind," William and Mary Quarterly 29 (1972): 515-558. On the "New Divinity" followers of Edwards, see F. H. Foster, A Genetic History of the New England Theology (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1907), as well as Miller, Jonathan Edwards, and Kuklick, Churchmen and Philosophers.
27. The standard account of Puritan psychological thought prior to Edwards remains Miller's New England Mind: The Seventeenth Century. A good brief introduction to the context of American Calvinism prior to Edwards was given by Miller in the section introductions to The American Puritans: Their Prose and Poetry, Perry Miller, ed. (Garden City, Doubleday Anchor Books, 1956). See also J. Rodney Fulcher, "Puritans and the Passions: The Faculty Psychology in American Puritanism," Journal of the History of the Behavioral Sciences 9 (1973): 123-139; and Norman S. Fiering, "Will and Intellect in the New England Mind," William and Mary Quarterly 29 (1972): 515-558. On the "New Divinity" followers of Edwards, see F. H. Foster, A Genetic History of the New England Theology (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1907), as well as Miller, Jonathan Edwards, and Kuklick, Churchmen and Philosophers.
28. The standard account of Puritan psychological thought prior to Edwards remains Miller's New England Mind: The Seventeenth Century. A good brief introduction to the context of American Calvinism prior to Edwards was given by Miller in the section introductions to The American Puritans: Their Prose and Poetry, Perry Miller, ed. (Garden City, Doubleday Anchor Books, 1956). See also J. Rodney Fulcher, "Puritans and the Passions: The Faculty Psychology in American Puritanism," Journal of the History of the Behavioral Sciences 9 (1973): 123-139; and Norman S. Fiering, "Will and Intellect in the New England Mind," William and Mary Quarterly 29 (1972): 515-558. On the "New Divinity" followers of Edwards, see F. H. Foster, A Genetic History of the New England Theology (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1907), as well as Miller, Jonathan Edwards, and Kuklick, Churchmen and Philosophers.
29. The standard account of Puritan psychological thought prior to Edwards remains Miller's New England Mind: The Seventeenth Century. A good brief introduction to the context of American Calvinism prior to Edwards was given by Miller in the section introductions to The American Puritans: Their Prose and Poetry, Perry Miller, ed. (Garden City, Doubleday Anchor Books, 1956). See also J. Rodney Fulcher, "Puritans and the Passions: The Faculty Psychology in American Puritanism," Journal of the History of the Behavioral Sciences 9 (1973): 123-139; and Norman S. Fiering, "Will and Intellect in the New England Mind," William and Mary Quarterly 29 (1972): 515-558. On the "New Divinity" followers of Edwards, see F. H. Foster, A Genetic History of the New England Theology (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1907), as well as Miller, Jonathan Edwards, and Kuklick, Churchmen and Philosophers.
30. Kuklick, Churchmen and Philosophers. The term "Arminian" derives from the Dutch theologian Jacobus Arminius (1560-1609), who rejected the Calvinist doctrine of predestination, arguing instead for free will as a manifestation of god's pity for fallen humans. His views were declared heretical by a Calvinist Synod in 1618. See R. L. Colie, "Arminius and Arminianism" in Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Paul Edwards, ed. (New York: Macmillan, 1967), 164-165. No one in New England explicitly allied him or herself with Arminius: Edwards's use of the term was pejorative. See also Conrad Wright, The Beginnings of Unitarianism in America (Boston: Starr King Press, 1955).
31. Kuklick, Churchmen and Philosophers. The term "Arminian" derives from the Dutch theologian Jacobus Arminius (1560-1609), who rejected the Calvinist doctrine of predestination, arguing instead for free will as a manifestation of god's pity for fallen humans. His views were declared heretical by a Calvinist Synod in 1618. See R. L. Colie, "Arminius and Arminianism" in Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Paul Edwards, ed. (New York: Macmillan, 1967), 164-165. No one in New England explicitly allied him or herself with Arminius: Edwards's use of the term was pejorative. See also Conrad Wright, The Beginnings of Unitarianism in America (Boston: Starr King Press, 1955).
32. Jonathan Edwards, A Careful and Strict Enquiry into the Modern Prevailing Notions of That Freedom of Will, Which is Supposed to be Essential to Moral Agency, Venue and Vice, Reward and Punishment, Praise and Blame (Boston: S. Kneeland, 1754). The best modern edition is Jonathan Edwards: Freedom of the Will, Paul Ramsey, ed., vol. 1, Works of Jonathan Edwards (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1957). The most extensive recent study of Edwards's work on the will focused upon his theological agenda: Allen C. Guelzo, Edwards on the Will: A Century of American Theological Debate (Middletown: Wesleyan University Press, 1989).
33. Jonathan Edwards, A Careful and Strict Enquiry into the Modern Prevailing Notions of That Freedom of Will, Which is Supposed to be Essential to Moral Agency, Venue and Vice, Reward and Punishment, Praise and Blame (Boston: S. Kneeland, 1754). The best modern edition is Jonathan Edwards: Freedom of the Will, Paul Ramsey, ed., vol. 1, Works of Jonathan Edwards (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1957). The most extensive recent study of Edwards's work on the will focused upon his theological agenda: Allen C. Guelzo, Edwards on the Will: A Century of American Theological Debate (Middletown: Wesleyan University Press, 1989).
34. Jonathan Edwards, A Careful and Strict Enquiry into the Modern Prevailing Notions of That Freedom of Will, Which is Supposed to be Essential to Moral Agency, Venue and Vice, Reward and Punishment, Praise and Blame (Boston: S. Kneeland, 1754). The best modern edition is Jonathan Edwards: Freedom of the Will, Paul Ramsey, ed., vol. 1, Works of Jonathan Edwards (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1957). The most extensive recent study of Edwards's work on the will focused upon his theological agenda: Allen C. Guelzo, Edwards on the Will: A Century of American Theological Debate (Middletown: Wesleyan University Press, 1989).
35. In Jonathan Edwards, Original Sin, Clyde A. Holbrook, ed., vol. 3, Works of Jonathan Edwards (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1970).
36. Blight, "Jonathan Edwards," has the best account of the psychological model that underlies Edwards's descriptions in the Religious Affections and the Original Sin. Oddly, Blight said relatively little about the Enquiry, focusing instead upon Edwards's account of experience, particularly the experience of religious conversion.
37. Miller, Jonathan Edwards: Foster, Genetic History of the New England Theology; I. Woodbridge Riley, American Philosophy: The Early Schools (New York: Dodd, Mead & Co., 1907); Alexander Campbell Fraser, "Appendix C. Samuel Johnson and Jonathan Edwards" in The Works of George Berkeley, D. D.; Formerly Bishop of Cloyne, Including his Posthumous Works, A. C. Fraser, ed., vol. 3, (Oxford: at the Clarendon Press, 1901), 390-398.
38. Miller, Jonathan Edwards: Foster, Genetic History of the New England Theology; I. Woodbridge Riley, American Philosophy: The Early Schools (New York: Dodd, Mead & Co., 1907); Alexander Campbell Fraser, "Appendix C. Samuel Johnson and Jonathan Edwards" in The Works of George Berkeley, D. D.; Formerly Bishop of Cloyne, Including his Posthumous Works, A. C. Fraser, ed., vol. 3, (Oxford: at the Clarendon Press, 1901), 390-398.
39. Miller, Jonathan Edwards: Foster, Genetic History of the New England Theology; I. Woodbridge Riley, American Philosophy: The Early Schools (New York: Dodd, Mead & Co., 1907); Alexander Campbell Fraser, "Appendix C. Samuel Johnson and Jonathan Edwards" in The Works of George Berkeley, D. D.; Formerly Bishop of Cloyne, Including his Posthumous Works, A. C. Fraser, ed., vol. 3, (Oxford: at the Clarendon Press, 1901), 390-398.
40. Miller, Jonathan Edwards: Foster, Genetic History of the New England Theology; I. Woodbridge Riley, American Philosophy: The Early Schools (New York: Dodd, Mead & Co., 1907); Alexander Campbell Fraser, "Appendix C. Samuel Johnson and Jonathan Edwards" in The Works of George Berkeley, D. D.; Formerly Bishop of Cloyne, Including his Posthumous Works, A. C. Fraser, ed., vol. 3, (Oxford: at the Clarendon Press, 1901), 390-398.
41. Norman Fiering, Jonathan Edwards's Moral Thought and its British Context (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1981). In particular, Fiering argued that the influence of Malebranche on Edwards has been neglected by scholars. He claimed that even the specific wordings used by Edwards are based on Malebranche, a point that has been obscured since most scholars have used the relatively common Thomas Taylor translation of the major work, Father Malebranche's Treatise Concerning the Search After Truth . . . T. Taylor, trans., (London: by L. Lichfield, for Thomas Bennet, 1694), rather than the quite scarce translation by Richard Sault that appeared in the same year and (according to Fiering) may have been available to Edwards: Malebranche's Search after Truth. Or, A Treatise of the Nature of the Humane Mind, and of its Management for Avoiding Error in the Sciences . . . Done out of French. . . , Richard Sault, trans., (vol. 1, London: for F. Dunton, 1694; vol. 2, London: for S. Manship, 1695). See also the Appendix, "Malebranche in Colonial America" in Charles J. McCracken, Malebranche and British Philosophy (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1983), 329-340.
42. Norman Fiering, Jonathan Edwards's Moral Thought and its British Context (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1981). In particular, Fiering argued that the influence of Malebranche on Edwards has been neglected by scholars. He claimed that even the specific wordings used by Edwards are based on Malebranche, a point that has been obscured since most scholars have used the relatively common Thomas Taylor translation of the major work, Father Malebranche's Treatise Concerning the Search After Truth . . . T. Taylor, trans., (London: by L. Lichfield, for Thomas Bennet, 1694), rather than the quite scarce translation by Richard Sault that appeared in the same year and (according to Fiering) may have been available to Edwards: Malebranche's Search after Truth. Or, A Treatise of the Nature of the Humane Mind, and of its Management for Avoiding Error in the Sciences . . . Done out of French. . . , Richard Sault, trans., (vol. 1, London: for F. Dunton, 1694; vol. 2, London: for S. Manship, 1695). See also the Appendix, "Malebranche in Colonial America" in Charles J. McCracken, Malebranche and British Philosophy (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1983), 329-340.
43. Norman Fiering, Jonathan Edwards's Moral Thought and its British Context (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1981). In particular, Fiering argued that the influence of Malebranche on Edwards has been neglected by scholars. He claimed that even the specific wordings used by Edwards are based on Malebranche, a point that has been obscured since most scholars have used the relatively common Thomas Taylor translation of the major work, Father Malebranche's Treatise Concerning the Search After Truth . . . T. Taylor, trans., (London: by L. Lichfield, for Thomas Bennet, 1694), rather than the quite scarce translation by Richard Sault that appeared in the same year and (according to Fiering) may have been available to Edwards: Malebranche's Search after Truth. Or, A Treatise of the Nature of the Humane Mind, and of its Management for Avoiding Error in the Sciences . . . Done out of French. . . , Richard Sault, trans., (vol. 1, London: for F. Dunton, 1694; vol. 2, London: for S. Manship, 1695). See also the Appendix, "Malebranche in Colonial America" in Charles J. McCracken, Malebranche and British Philosophy (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1983), 329-340.
44. Norman Fiering, Jonathan Edwards's Moral Thought and its British Context (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1981). In particular, Fiering argued that the influence of Malebranche on Edwards has been neglected by scholars. He claimed that even the specific wordings used by Edwards are based on Malebranche, a point that has been obscured since most scholars have used the relatively common Thomas Taylor translation of the major work, Father Malebranche's Treatise Concerning the Search After Truth . . . T. Taylor, trans., (London: by L. Lichfield, for Thomas Bennet, 1694), rather than the quite scarce translation by Richard Sault that appeared in the same year and (according to Fiering) may have been available to Edwards: Malebranche's Search after Truth. Or, A Treatise of the Nature of the Humane Mind, and of its Management for Avoiding Error in the Sciences . . . Done out of French. . . , Richard Sault, trans., (vol. 1, London: for F. Dunton, 1694; vol. 2, London: for S. Manship, 1695). See also the Appendix, "Malebranche in Colonial America" in Charles J. McCracken, Malebranche and British Philosophy (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1983), 329-340.
45. Alice M. Baldwin, The New England Clergy and the American Revolution (Durham: Duke University Press, 1928).
46. See especially Jonathan Edwards, Scientific and Philosophical Writings, Wallace Anderson, ed., vol. 6, Works of Jonathan Edwards (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1980).
47. Isaac Newton, Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy, Andrew Motte, trans., Florian Cajori, ed. (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1934). Originally published in 1687 in Latin; this translation first published in 1729. This edition also reprints the important preface to the 1713 second edition by Roger Cotes. A useful brief summary of the argument is given by Dudley Shapere, "Newtonian Mechanics and Mechanical Explanation" in Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Paul Edwards, ed., vol. 5 (New York: Macmillan Publishing Co., 1967), 491-496. The standard biography is Richard S. Westfall, Never at Rest: A Biography of Isaac Newton (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1980). A classic account of Newton's influence on American political thought is Arthur O. Lovejoy, Reflections on Human Nature (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1961). For a recent review of this conception, see Richard Striner, "Political Newtonianism: The Cosmic Model of Politics in Europe and America." William and Mary Quarterly 52 (1995): 583-608.
48. Isaac Newton, Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy, Andrew Motte, trans., Florian Cajori, ed. (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1934). Originally published in 1687 in Latin; this translation first published in 1729. This edition also reprints the important preface to the 1713 second edition by Roger Cotes. A useful brief summary of the argument is given by Dudley Shapere, "Newtonian Mechanics and Mechanical Explanation" in Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Paul Edwards, ed., vol. 5 (New York: Macmillan Publishing Co., 1967), 491-496. The standard biography is Richard S. Westfall, Never at Rest: A Biography of Isaac Newton (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1980). A classic account of Newton's influence on American political thought is Arthur O. Lovejoy, Reflections on Human Nature (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1961). For a recent review of this conception, see Richard Striner, "Political Newtonianism: The Cosmic Model of Politics in Europe and America." William and Mary Quarterly 52 (1995): 583-608.
49. Isaac Newton, Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy, Andrew Motte, trans., Florian Cajori, ed. (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1934). Originally published in 1687 in Latin; this translation first published in 1729. This edition also reprints the important preface to the 1713 second edition by Roger Cotes. A useful brief summary of the argument is given by Dudley Shapere, "Newtonian Mechanics and Mechanical Explanation" in Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Paul Edwards, ed., vol. 5 (New York: Macmillan Publishing Co., 1967), 491-496. The standard biography is Richard S. Westfall, Never at Rest: A Biography of Isaac Newton (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1980). A classic account of Newton's influence on American political thought is Arthur O. Lovejoy, Reflections on Human Nature (Baltimore: Johns
50. Isaac Newton, Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy, Andrew Motte, trans., Florian Cajori, ed. (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1934). Originally published in 1687 in Latin; this translation first published in 1729. This edition also reprints the important preface to the 1713 second edition by Roger Cotes. A useful brief summary of the argument is given by Dudley Shapere, "Newtonian Mechanics and Mechanical Explanation" in Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Paul Edwards, ed., vol. 5 (New York: Macmillan Publishing Co., 1967), 491-496. The standard biography is Richard S. Westfall, Never at Rest: A Biography of Isaac Newton (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1980). A classic account of Newton's influence on American political thought is Arthur O. Lovejoy, Reflections on Human Nature (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1961). For a recent review of this conception, see Richard Striner, "Political Newtonianism: The Cosmic Model of Politics in Europe and America." William and Mary Quarterly 52 (1995): 583-608.
51. Isaac Newton, Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy, Andrew Motte, trans., Florian Cajori, ed. (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1934). Originally published in 1687 in Latin; this translation first published in 1729. This edition also reprints the important preface to the 1713 second edition by Roger Cotes. A useful brief summary of the argument is given by Dudley Shapere, "Newtonian Mechanics and Mechanical Explanation" in Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Paul Edwards, ed., vol. 5 (New York: Macmillan Publishing Co., 1967), 491-496. The standard biography is Richard S. Westfall, Never at Rest: A Biography of Isaac Newton (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1980). A classic account of Newton's influence on American political thought is Arthur O. Lovejoy, Reflections on Human Nature (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1961). For a recent review of this conception, see Richard Striner, "Political Newtonianism: The Cosmic Model of Politics in Europe and America." William and Mary Quarterly 52 (1995): 583-608.
52. On Puritan conceptions of science see Perry Miller, The New England Mind, especially Chapter 26. Some have expressed a need for caution in evaluating the role of science in colonial times in America. In particular, regional differences have been overlooked by scholars.
53. See Ronald L. Numbers, "Science and Religion" in Historical Writing on American Science, Sally Gregory Kohlstedt and Margaret W. Rossiter, eds. (Philadelphia: History of Science Society, 1985), 59-80.
54. Michael P. Winship, "Prodigies, Puritanism, and the Perils of Natural Philosophy: The Example of Cotton Mather," William and Mary Quarterly 51 (1994): 92. Note also that Burnham, How Superstition Won, has argued that superstitious beliefs (like those associated with Mather's cabbage) remained characteristic of American popular culture in both the nineteenth and twentieth centuries.
55. Cadwallader Colden, An Explication of the First Causes of Action in Matter; and of the Cause of Gravitation (London: for J. Brindley, 1746; first published New York: by James Parker, 1745). Colden argued that matter does have an active nature and could serve as its own first cause. For a sample account of earthquakes, part of the great "Earthquake Debate" that followed a severe quake in the Boston area in 1727, see Thomas Prince, Earthquakes the Works of God and Tokens of Just Displeasure, . . . [Sermon] at the Particular Fast in Boston, Nov. 2 and the General Thanksgiving, Nov. 9 . . . , second edition, corrected (Boston, for D. Henchman, 1727). Droughts and rainfall were the subject of Prince's The Natural and Moral Agency of God in Causing Droughts and Rains. A Sermon . . . in Boston, . . . (Boston: Kneeland and Green's, 1749). Interestingly, according to Mark Valeri, "The Economic Thought of Jonathan Edwards," Church History 60 (1991): 37-54, Edwards also delivered a sermon (which has not been published) on the earthquake of 1727, attributing it in part to god's displeasure over economic vices. Edwards, as Valeri notes, was in general unsympathetic to the materialistic capitalism of his day.
56. Cadwallader Colden, An Explication of the First Causes of Action in Matter; and of the Cause of Gravitation (London: for J. Brindley, 1746; first published New York: by James Parker, 1745). Colden argued that matter does have an active nature and could serve as its own first cause. For a sample account of earthquakes, part of the great "Earthquake Debate" that followed a severe quake in the Boston area in 1727, see Thomas Prince, Earthquakes the Works of God and Tokens of Just Displeasure, . . . [Sermon] at the Particular Fast in Boston, Nov. 2 and the General Thanksgiving, Nov. 9 . . . , second edition, corrected (Boston, for D. Henchman, 1727). Droughts and rainfall were the subject of Prince's The Natural and Moral Agency of God in Causing Droughts and Rains. A Sermon . . . in Boston, . . . (Boston: Kneeland and Green's, 1749). Interestingly, according to Mark Valeri, "The Economic Thought of Jonathan Edwards," Church History 60 (1991): 37-54, Edwards also delivered a sermon (which has not been published) on the earthquake of 1727, attributing it in part to god's displeasure over economic vices. Edwards, as Valeri notes, was in general unsympathetic to the materialistic capitalism of his day.
57. Cadwallader Colden, An Explication of the First Causes of Action in Matter; and of the Cause of Gravitation (London: for J. Brindley, 1746; first published New York: by James Parker, 1745). Colden argued that matter does have an active nature and could serve as its own first cause. For a sample account of earthquakes, part of the great "Earthquake Debate" that followed a severe quake in the Boston area in 1727, see Thomas Prince, Earthquakes the Works of God and Tokens of Just Displeasure, . . . [Sermon] at the Particular Fast in Boston, Nov. 2 and the General Thanksgiving, Nov. 9 . . . , second edition, corrected (Boston, for D. Henchman, 1727). Droughts and rainfall were the subject of Prince's The Natural and Moral Agency of God in Causing Droughts and Rains. A Sermon . . . in Boston, . . . (Boston: Kneeland and Green's, 1749). Interestingly, according to Mark Valeri, "The Economic Thought of Jonathan Edwards," Church History 60 (1991): 37-54, Edwards also delivered a sermon (which has not been published) on the earthquake of 1727, attributing it in part to god's displeasure over economic vices. Edwards, as Valeri notes, was in general unsympathetic to the materialistic capitalism of his day.
58. Cadwallader Colden, An Explication of the First Causes of Action in Matter; and of the Cause of Gravitation (London: for J. Brindley, 1746; first published New York: by James Parker, 1745). Colden argued that matter does have an active nature and could serve as its own first cause. For a sample account of earthquakes, part of the great "Earthquake Debate" that followed a severe quake in the Boston area in 1727, see Thomas Prince, Earthquakes the Works of God and Tokens of Just Displeasure, . . . [Sermon] at the Particular Fast in Boston, Nov. 2 and the General Thanksgiving, Nov. 9 . . . , second edition, corrected (Boston, for D. Henchman, 1727). Droughts and rainfall were the subject of Prince's The Natural and Moral Agency of God in Causing Droughts and Rains. A Sermon . . . in Boston, . . . (Boston: Kneeland and Green's, 1749). Interestingly, according to Mark Valeri, "The Economic Thought of Jonathan Edwards," Church History 60 (1991): 37-54, Edwards also delivered a sermon (which has not been published) on the earthquake of 1727, attributing it in part to god's displeasure over economic vices. Edwards, as Valeri notes, was in general unsympathetic to the materialistic capitalism of his day.
59. This aspect of the approach was first explicitly drawn out by Roger Cotes, in a separate preface to the 1713 second edition. Cotes's preface is in the Cajori edition cited above, xx-xxxiii.
60. On the difference between Newtonian and Cartesian physics, see Charles Coulton Gillespie, The Edge of Objectivity: An Essay in the History of Scientific Ideas (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1960). Edwards probably knew Samuel Clarke's translation of Jacques Rohault, Rohault's System of Natural Philosophy, Illustrated with Dr. Samuel Clarke's Notes Taken Mostly out of Sir Isaac Newton's Philosophy, with Additions, Samuel Clarke, trans. (London: for James Knapton, 1723). Rohault was a Cartesian, but Clarke's very extensive notes effectively presented the Newtonian alternative. See L. L. Laudan, "Introduction," in the reprint of Clarke's edition of Rohault (New York: Johnson Reprint Corp., 1969).
61. On the difference between Newtonian and Cartesian physics, see Charles Coulton Gillespie, The Edge of Objectivity: An Essay in the History of Scientific Ideas (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1960). Edwards probably knew Samuel Clarke's translation of Jacques Rohault, Rohault's System of Natural Philosophy, Illustrated with Dr. Samuel Clarke's Notes Taken Mostly out of Sir Isaac Newton's Philosophy, with Additions, Samuel Clarke, trans. (London: for James Knapton, 1723). Rohault was a Cartesian, but Clarke's very extensive notes effectively presented the Newtonian alternative. See L. L. Laudan, "Introduction," in the reprint of Clarke's edition of Rohault (New York: Johnson Reprint Corp., 1969).
62. On the difference between Newtonian and Cartesian physics, see Charles Coulton Gillespie, The Edge of Objectivity: An Essay in the History of Scientific Ideas (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1960). Edwards probably knew Samuel Clarke's translation of Jacques Rohault, Rohault's System of Natural Philosophy, Illustrated with Dr. Samuel Clarke's Notes Taken Mostly out of Sir Isaac Newton's Philosophy, with Additions, Samuel Clarke, trans. (London: for James Knapton, 1723). Rohault was a Cartesian, but Clarke's very extensive notes effectively presented the Newtonian alternative. See L. L. Laudan, "Introduction," in the reprint of Clarke's edition of Rohault (New York: Johnson Reprint Corp., 1969).
63. Newton, Principia, Book III: General Scholium, 547. In the Opticks, or, A Treatise of the Reflections, Refractions, Inflections & Colours of Light, fourth edition (London: for William Innys, 1730; repr. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co., 1931), Newton entertained some speculations on this matter, which bedeviled physics until the emergence of field theory in the nineteenth century. See L. Pearce Williams, The Origins of Field Theory (New York: Random House, 1966) for a good introduction to the issues, and, for analyses of the emergence of field theory, Mary B. Hesse, Forces and Fields: The Concept of Action at a Distance in the History of Physics (London: Thomas Nelson and Sons, 1961) and Nancy J. Nersessian, Faraday to Einstein: Constructing Meaning in Scientific Theories (Dordrecht: Martinus Nijhoff, 1984).
64. Newton, Principia, Book III: General Scholium, 547. In the Opticks, or, A Treatise of the Reflections, Refractions, Inflections & Colours of Light, fourth edition (London: for William Innys, 1730; repr. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co., 1931), Newton entertained some speculations on this matter, which bedeviled physics until the emergence of field theory in the nineteenth century. See L. Pearce Williams, The Origins of Field Theory (New York: Random House, 1966) for a good introduction to the issues, and, for analyses of the emergence of field theory, Mary B. Hesse, Forces and Fields: The Concept of Action at a Distance in the History of Physics (London: Thomas Nelson and Sons, 1961) and Nancy J. Nersessian, Faraday to Einstein: Constructing Meaning in Scientific Theories (Dordrecht: Martinus Nijhoff, 1984).
65. Newton, Principia, Book III: General Scholium, 547. In the Opticks, or, A Treatise of the Reflections, Refractions, Inflections & Colours of Light, fourth edition (London: for William Innys, 1730; repr. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co., 1931), Newton entertained some speculations on this matter, which bedeviled physics until the emergence of field theory in the nineteenth century. See L. Pearce Williams, The Origins of Field Theory (New York: Random House, 1966) for a good introduction to the issues, and, for analyses of the emergence of field theory, Mary B. Hesse, Forces and Fields: The Concept of Action at a Distance in the History of Physics (London: Thomas Nelson and Sons, 1961) and Nancy J. Nersessian, Faraday to Einstein: Constructing Meaning in Scientific Theories (Dordrecht: Martinus Nijhoff, 1984).
66. Newton, Principia, Book III: General Scholium, 547. In the Opticks, or, A Treatise of the Reflections, Refractions, Inflections & Colours of Light, fourth edition (London: for William Innys, 1730; repr. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co., 1931), Newton entertained some speculations on this matter, which bedeviled physics until the emergence of field theory in the nineteenth century. See L. Pearce Williams, The Origins of Field Theory (New York: Random House, 1966) for a good introduction to the issues, and, for analyses of the emergence of field theory, Mary B. Hesse, Forces and Fields: The Concept of Action at a Distance in the History of Physics (London: Thomas Nelson and Sons, 1961) and Nancy J. Nersessian, Faraday to Einstein: Constructing Meaning in Scientific Theories (Dordrecht: Martinus Nijhoff, 1984).
67. Newton, Principia, Book III: General Scholium, 547. In the Opticks, or, A Treatise of the Reflections, Refractions, Inflections & Colours of Light, fourth edition (London: for William Innys, 1730; repr. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co., 1931), Newton entertained some speculations on this matter, which bedeviled physics until the emergence of field theory in the nineteenth century. See L. Pearce Williams, The Origins of Field Theory (New York: Random House, 1966) for a good introduction to the issues, and, for analyses of the emergence of field theory, Mary B. Hesse, Forces and Fields: The Concept of Action at a Distance in the History of Physics (London: Thomas Nelson and Sons, 1961) and Nancy J. Nersessian, Faraday to Einstein: Constructing Meaning in Scientific Theories (Dordrecht: Martinus Nijhoff, 1984).
68. Newton, Principia, Book II: Scholium, 396.
69. The Leibniz-Clarke Correspondence, Together with Extracts from Newton's Principia and Opticks, H. G. Alexander, ed. (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1956). Alexander's "Introduction," pp. ix-lvi, contains an excellent account of the controversy. Fiering, Jonathan Edwards's Moral Thought, 295, stated that Edwards never read this exchange of letters, but did not indicate why he makes this claim. On the face of it, Fiering's claim seems unlikely, since the correspondence was published long before Edwards wrote the Enquiry; Samuel Clarke, A Collection of Papers Which Passed Between the Late Learned Mr. Leibniz and Dr. Clarke . . . (London: for James Knapton, 1717). Ramsey, "Editor's Introduction," Freedom, 114, noted that the Leibniz-Clarke Correspondence was not listed in Edwards's personal catalogue of works read, although it was widely available in New England at the time.
70. The Leibniz-Clarke Correspondence, Together with Extracts from Newton's Principia and Opticks, H. G. Alexander, ed. (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1956). Alexander's "Introduction," pp. ix-lvi, contains an excellent account of the controversy. Fiering, Jonathan Edwards's Moral Thought, 295, stated that Edwards never read this exchange of letters, but did not indicate why he makes this claim. On the face of it, Fiering's claim seems unlikely, since the correspondence was published long before Edwards wrote the Enquiry; Samuel Clarke, A Collection of Papers Which Passed Between the Late Learned Mr. Leibniz and Dr. Clarke . . . (London: for James Knapton, 1717). Ramsey, "Editor's Introduction," Freedom, 114, noted that the Leibniz-Clarke Correspondence was not listed in Edwards's personal catalogue of works read, although it was widely available in New England at the time.
71. The Leibniz-Clarke Correspondence, Together with Extracts from Newton's Principia and Opticks, H. G. Alexander, ed. (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1956). Alexander's "Introduction," pp. ix-lvi, contains an excellent account of the controversy. Fiering, Jonathan Edwards's Moral Thought, 295, stated that Edwards never read this exchange of letters, but did not indicate why he makes this claim. On the face of it, Fiering's claim seems unlikely, since the correspondence was published long before Edwards wrote the Enquiry; Samuel Clarke, A Collection of Papers Which Passed Between the Late Learned Mr. Leibniz and Dr. Clarke . . . (London: for James Knapton, 1717). Ramsey, "Editor's Introduction," Freedom, 114, noted that the Leibniz-Clarke Correspondence was not listed in Edwards's personal catalogue of works read, although it was widely available in New England at the time.
72. The Leibniz-Clarke Correspondence, Together with Extracts from Newton's Principia and Opticks, H. G. Alexander, ed. (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1956). Alexander's "Introduction," pp. ix-lvi, contains an excellent account of the controversy. Fiering, Jonathan Edwards's Moral Thought, 295, stated that Edwards never read this exchange of letters, but did not indicate why he makes this claim. On the face of it, Fiering's claim seems unlikely, since the correspondence was published long before Edwards wrote the Enquiry; Samuel Clarke, A Collection of Papers Which Passed Between the Late Learned Mr. Leibniz and Dr. Clarke . . . (London: for James Knapton, 1717). Ramsey, "Editor's Introduction," Freedom, 114, noted that the Leibniz-Clarke Correspondence was not listed in Edwards's personal catalogue of works read, although it was widely available in New England at the time.
73. The Leibniz-Clarke Correspondence, Together with Extracts from Newton's Principia and Opticks, H. G. Alexander, ed. (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1956). Alexander's "Introduction," pp. ix-lvi, contains an excellent account of the controversy. Fiering, Jonathan Edwards's Moral Thought, 295, stated that Edwards never read this exchange of letters, but did not indicate why he makes this claim. On the face of it, Fiering's claim seems unlikely, since the correspondence was published long before Edwards wrote the Enquiry; Samuel Clarke, A Collection of Papers Which Passed Between the Late Learned Mr. Leibniz and Dr. Clarke . . . (London: for James Knapton, 1717). Ramsey, "Editor's Introduction," Freedom, 114, noted that the Leibniz-Clarke Correspondence was not listed in Edwards's personal catalogue of works read, although it was widely available in New England at the time.
74. Newton, "Advertisement II," [1717], in Opticks, xix. See also his comment, written in 1693 to Richard Bentley, "You sometimes speak of Gravity as essential and inherent to Matter. Pray do not ascribe that Notion to me; for the Cause of Gravity is what I do not pretend to know," in Isaac Newton's Papers & Letters on Natural Philosophy, I. Bernard Cohen, ed. (Cambridge: The Harvard University Press, 1958): 298. Perry Miller provided an interesting account of Bentley and Newton in his section introduction to the Bentley correspondence in this volume, 271-278. See also 110 in Wallace Anderson's "Introduction" to the Yale edition of Edwards's Scientific and Philosophical Writings.
75. Newton, "Advertisement II," [1717], in Opticks, xix. See also his comment, written in 1693 to Richard Bentley, "You sometimes speak of Gravity as essential and inherent to Matter. Pray do not ascribe that Notion to me; for the Cause of Gravity is what I do not pretend to know," in Isaac Newton's Papers & Letters on Natural Philosophy, I. Bernard Cohen, ed. (Cambridge: The Harvard University Press, 1958): 298. Perry Miller provided an interesting account of Bentley and Newton in his section introduction to the Bentley correspondence in this volume, 271-278. See also 110 in Wallace Anderson's "Introduction" to the Yale edition of Edwards's Scientific and Philosophical Writings.
76. Newton, "Advertisement II," [1717], in Opticks, xix. See also his comment, written in 1693 to Richard Bentley, "You sometimes speak of Gravity as essential and inherent to Matter. Pray do not ascribe that Notion to me; for the Cause of Gravity is what I do not pretend to know," in Isaac Newton's Papers & Letters on Natural Philosophy, I. Bernard Cohen, ed. (Cambridge: The Harvard University Press, 1958): 298. Perry Miller provided an interesting account of Bentley and Newton in his section introduction to the Bentley correspondence in this volume, 271-278. See also 110 in Wallace Anderson's "Introduction" to the Yale edition of Edwards's Scientific and Philosophical Writings.
77. Newton, Opticks, 401.
78. A good account of the changes in meaning of the term "mechanistic" is found in G. N. Cantor and M. J. S. Hodge, "Introduction: Major Themes in the Development of Ether Theories from the Ancients to 1900" in Conceptions of Ether: Studies in the History of Ether Theories, 1740-1900, G. N. Cantor and M. J. S. Hodge, eds. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1981), 1-60. See especially 15-24. Note also that, according to Cantor and Hodge (p. 48), the term "mechanical" changed meaning; by the nineteenth century it was being used to describe any Newtonian system that relied upon Newton's laws of motion. In the present paper, I use the tenu consistently only in its earlier sense.
79. Otto Mayr, "A Mechanical Symbol for an Authoritarian World" in The Clockwork Universe: German Clocks and Automata, 1550-1650, Klaus Maurice and Otto Mayr, eds. (New York: Neale Watson Academic Publications, 1980), 1-9. See also Robert H. Hurlbutt III, Hume, Newton, and the Design Argument, rev. ed. (Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1985).
80. Otto Mayr, "A Mechanical Symbol for an Authoritarian World" in The Clockwork Universe: German Clocks and Automata, 1550-1650, Klaus Maurice and Otto Mayr, eds. (New York: Neale Watson Academic Publications, 1980), 1-9. See also Robert H. Hurlbutt III, Hume, Newton, and the Design Argument, rev. ed. (Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1985).
81. Leibniz, "Mr. Leibniz's First Paper, being an Extract of a Letter Written in November, 1715" in Leibniz-Clarke Correspondence, Alexander, Ed., 11.
82. See John W. Yolton, Thinking Matter: Materialism in Eighteenth-Century Britain (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1983).
83. Edwards was not the only one to see that Newton's determinism was not mechanistic. In fact, Samuel Clarke held a similar view, although to very different ends. For him, the point was to defend the freedom of an autonomous will; see Clarke's A Discourse Concerning the Being and Attributes of God, the Obligations of Natural Religion, and the Truth and Certainty of the Christian Revelations, fifth edition (London: for James Knapton, 1719).
84. Newton and Locke even in modern times are often paired as exemplars of "The Enlightenment;" see Gerd Buchdal, The Image of Newton and Locke in the Age of Reason (London: Sheed and Ward, 1961). Locke's scientific education and his relation to the founders of the Royal Society was described by Kenneth Dewhurst, John Locke (1632-1704), Physician and Philosopher: A Medical Biography, With an Edition of the Medical Notes in His Journals (London: Wellcome Historical Medical Library, 1963). Catherine Wilson, The Invisible World: Early Modern Philosophy and the Invention of the Microscope (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1995), has argued that Locke's epistemology was actually conservative, and that he objected to the use of "invisible mechanisms" to account for phenomena, preferring instead, like Newton, to rely on the lawful correlation of visible phenomena. Leibniz, by contrast, was extremely interested in such "invisible worlds," as attested by his monadology and by his use of infinitesimals in the development of the calculus. Some of the psychological implications of Leibniz's infinitesimals and the very different Newtonian "fluxions" are discussed in Elke M. Kurz and Ryan D. Tweney, "The Practice of Mathematics and Science: From Calculus to the Clothesline Problem" in Rational Models of Cognition: Essays on John Anderson's Account of Adaptive Cognition, Michael Oaksford and Nicholas Chater, eds. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, in press). See also Elke M. Kurz, "Representational Practices of Differential Calculus," (Ph.D. diss., Bowling Green State University, 1997).
85. Newton and Locke even in modern times are often paired as exemplars of "The Enlightenment;" see Gerd Buchdal, The Image of Newton and Locke in the Age of Reason (London: Sheed and Ward, 1961). Locke's scientific education and his relation to the founders of the Royal Society was described by Kenneth Dewhurst, John Locke (1632-1704), Physician and Philosopher: A Medical Biography, With an Edition of the Medical Notes in His Journals (London: Wellcome Historical Medical Library, 1963). Catherine Wilson, The Invisible World: Early Modern Philosophy and the Invention of the Microscope (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1995), has argued that Locke's epistemology was actually conservative, and that he objected to the use of "invisible mechanisms" to account for phenomena, preferring instead, like Newton, to rely on the lawful correlation of visible phenomena. Leibniz, by contrast, was extremely interested in such "invisible worlds," as attested by his monadology and by his use of infinitesimals in the development of the calculus. Some of the psychological implications of Leibniz's infinitesimals and the very different Newtonian "fluxions" are discussed in Elke M. Kurz and Ryan D. Tweney, "The Practice of Mathematics and Science: From Calculus to the Clothesline Problem" in Rational Models of Cognition: Essays on John Anderson's Account of Adaptive Cognition, Michael Oaksford and Nicholas Chater, eds. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, in press). See also Elke M. Kurz, "Representational Practices of Differential Calculus," (Ph.D. diss., Bowling Green State University, 1997).
86. Newton and Locke even in modern times are often paired as exemplars of "The Enlightenment;" see Gerd Buchdal, The Image of Newton and Locke in the Age of Reason (London: Sheed and Ward, 1961). Locke's scientific education and his relation to the founders of the Royal Society was described by Kenneth Dewhurst, John Locke (1632-1704), Physician and Philosopher: A Medical Biography, With an Edition of the Medical Notes in His Journals (London: Wellcome Historical Medical Library, 1963). Catherine Wilson, The Invisible World: Early Modern Philosophy and the Invention of the Microscope (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1995), has argued that Locke's epistemology was actually conservative, and that he objected to the use of "invisible mechanisms" to account for phenomena, preferring instead, like Newton, to rely on the lawful correlation of visible phenomena. Leibniz, by contrast, was extremely interested in such "invisible worlds," as attested by his monadology and by his use of infinitesimals in the development of the calculus. Some of the psychological implications of Leibniz's infinitesimals and the very different Newtonian "fluxions" are discussed in Elke M. Kurz and Ryan D. Tweney, "The Practice of Mathematics and Science: From Calculus to the Clothesline Problem" in Rational Models of Cognition: Essays on John Anderson's Account of Adaptive Cognition, Michael Oaksford and Nicholas Chater, eds. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, in press). See also Elke M. Kurz, "Representational Practices of Differential Calculus," (Ph.D. diss., Bowling Green State University, 1997).
87. Newton and Locke even in modern times are often paired as exemplars of "The Enlightenment;" see Gerd Buchdal, The Image of Newton and Locke in the Age of Reason (London: Sheed and Ward, 1961). Locke's scientific education and his relation to the founders of the Royal Society was described by Kenneth Dewhurst, John Locke (1632-1704), Physician and Philosopher: A Medical Biography, With an Edition of the Medical Notes in His Journals (London: Wellcome Historical Medical Library, 1963). Catherine Wilson, The Invisible World: Early Modern Philosophy and the Invention of the Microscope (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1995), has argued that Locke's epistemology was actually conservative, and that he objected to the use of "invisible mechanisms" to account for phenomena, preferring instead, like Newton, to rely on the lawful correlation of visible phenomena. Leibniz, by contrast, was extremely interested in such "invisible worlds," as attested by his monadology and by his use of infinitesimals in the development of the calculus. Some of the psychological implications of Leibniz's infinitesimals and the very different Newtonian "fluxions" are discussed in Elke M. Kurz and Ryan D. Tweney, "The Practice of Mathematics and Science: From Calculus to the Clothesline Problem" in Rational Models of Cognition: Essays on John Anderson's Account of Adaptive Cognition, Michael Oaksford and Nicholas Chater, eds. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, in press). See also Elke M. Kurz, "Representational Practices of Differential Calculus," (Ph.D. diss., Bowling Green State University, 1997).
88. Newton and Locke even in modern times are often paired as exemplars of "The Enlightenment;" see Gerd Buchdal, The Image of Newton and Locke in the Age of Reason (London: Sheed and Ward, 1961). Locke's scientific education and his relation to the founders of the Royal Society was described by Kenneth Dewhurst, John Locke (1632-1704), Physician and Philosopher: A Medical Biography, With an Edition of the Medical Notes in His Journals (London: Wellcome Historical Medical Library, 1963). Catherine Wilson, The Invisible World: Early Modern Philosophy and the Invention of the Microscope (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1995), has argued that Locke's epistemology was actually conservative, and that he objected to the use of "invisible mechanisms" to account for phenomena, preferring instead, like Newton, to rely on the lawful correlation of visible phenomena. Leibniz, by contrast, was extremely interested in such "invisible worlds," as attested by his monadology and by his use of infinitesimals in the development of the calculus. Some of the psychological implications of Leibniz's infinitesimals and the very different Newtonian "fluxions" are discussed in Elke M. Kurz and Ryan D. Tweney, "The Practice of Mathematics and Science: From Calculus to the Clothesline Problem" in Rational Models of Cognition: Essays on John Anderson's Account of Adaptive Cognition, Michael Oaksford and Nicholas Chater, eds. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, in press). See also Elke M. Kurz, "Representational Practices of Differential Calculus," (Ph.D. diss., Bowling Green State University, 1997).
89. Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz, New Essays Concerning Human Understanding . . . , Alfred Gideon Langley, trans. (New York: Macmillan, 1896). David E. Leary provided a good brief summary of Leibniz's psychological views in "The Historical Foundation of Herbart's Mathematization of Psychology," Journal of the History of the Behavioral Sciences 16 (1980): 150-163.
90. Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz, New Essays Concerning Human Understanding . . . , Alfred Gideon Langley, trans. (New York: Macmillan, 1896). David E. Leary provided a good brief summary of Leibniz's psychological views in "The Historical Foundation of Herbart's Mathematization of Psychology," Journal of the History of the Behavioral Sciences 16 (1980): 150-163.
91. See Steven Shapin and Simon Schaffer, Leviathan and the Air-Pump: Hobbes, Boyle, and the Experimental Life (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1985) for an account of the emergence of experimentation as a social means of persuasion, and Geoffrey Cantor,
92. "The Rhetoric of Experiment" in The Uses of Experiment: Studies in the Natural Sciences, David Gooding, Trevor Pinch, and Simon Shaffer, eds. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989), 159-180.
93. John Wilkins, Ecclesiastes, or, A Discourse Concerning the Gift of Preaching As It Falls Under the Rules of Art, third edition (London, by T. R. and E. M. for Samuel Gellibrand, 1651). The passage was quoted by Wilbur S. Howell, Eighteenth-Century British Logic and Rhetoric (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1971), 456.
94. John Wilkins, Ecclesiastes, or, A Discourse Concerning the Gift of Preaching As It Falls Under the Rules of Art, third edition (London, by T. R. and E. M. for Samuel Gellibrand, 1651). The passage was quoted by Wilbur S. Howell, Eighteenth-Century British Logic and Rhetoric (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1971), 456.
95. For Locke's account of language, see Howell, Eighteenth-Century British Logic, 489-502,
96. and Hans Aarsleff, From Locke to Saussure: Essays on the Study of Language and Intellectual History (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1982).
97. Barbara M. Stafford, Artful Science: Enlightenment Entertainment and the Eclipse of Visual Education (Cambridge: MIT Press, 1994) has argued that the Enlightenment produced a reaction against the "deceptiveness" of visual imagery and a search for new ways to establish the verifiability of truth claims, a process that privileged text over the visual.
98. By extension, plain text would be similarly privileged over "rhetorical flourishes." In an earlier book, Body Criticism: Imaging the Unseen in Enlightenment Art and Medicine (Cambridge: MIT Press, 1991), Stafford dealt extensively (and critically) with Locke's theory of abstraction.
99. John Locke, An Essay Concerning Human Understanding, P. H. Nidditch, ed. (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1975.) bk. II, ch. 21: 242. The Essay was first published in 1690. Nidditch reprinted the fourth edition of 1700, with indications of the differences among earlier editions. Edwards evidently based his argument on the will on a reading of Locke's first, 1690, edition, though he clearly had the later edition available to him; the issue is important because Locke made critical revisions to his account of the will after the first edition, revisions which Edwards did not lake fully into account. See Paul Ramsey, "Editor's Introduction" to Edwards, Freedom, especially 53-54.
100. John Locke, An Essay Concerning Human Understanding, P. H. Nidditch, ed. (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1975.) bk. II, ch. 21: 242. The Essay was first published in 1690. Nidditch reprinted the fourth edition of 1700, with indications of the differences among earlier editions. Edwards evidently based his argument on the will on a reading of Locke's first, 1690, edition, though he clearly had the later edition available to him; the issue is important because Locke made critical revisions to his account of the will after the first edition, revisions which Edwards did not lake fully into account. See Paul Ramsey, "Editor's Introduction" to Edwards, Freedom, especially 53-54.
101. P. 138, quoting Locke, bk. II, ch. 21, §17: 242. See also Edwards, Freedom, Ramsey, ed.: 163-165. Locke's argument that it makes no sense to speak of the freedom of the will is detailed in Ch. 21 of bk. II: 233-287.
102. Bk II, ch. 21, §18: 242.
103. Bk II, ch. 21, §19: 243.
104. Jon Pahl, Paradox Lost: Free Will and Political Liberty in American Culture, 1630-1760 (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1992), 151, Fiering, Jonathan Edwards's Moral Thought, 343, and Guelzo, Edwards on the Will, 29-30, also denied that Edwards was a Newtonian, but noted only Edwards's reaction to atomism, which did differ from Newton's. As I have argued, some recent commentators have misunderstood the nature of Edwards's determinism. Thus, for example, Merle Curti, Human Nature in American Thought (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1980) regarded Edwards as defending the freedom of the faculty of will! A more careful account, and one which includes an astute criticism of the philosophical adequacy of Edwards's account of will, is that by Morton White, Science & Sentiment in America: Philosophical Thought from Jonathan Edwards to John Dewey (London: Oxford University Press, 1972). Much of the misunderstanding can seem almost willful, particularly when an overriding theological concern is present (as has often been the case, even very recently).
105. Jon Pahl, Paradox Lost: Free Will and Political Liberty in American Culture, 1630-1760 (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1992), 151, Fiering, Jonathan Edwards's Moral Thought, 343, and Guelzo, Edwards on the Will, 29-30, also denied that Edwards was a Newtonian, but noted only Edwards's reaction to atomism, which did differ from Newton's. As I have argued, some recent commentators have misunderstood the nature of Edwards's determinism. Thus, for example, Merle Curti, Human Nature in American Thought (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1980) regarded Edwards as defending the freedom of the faculty of will! A more careful account, and one which includes an astute criticism of the philosophical adequacy of Edwards's account of will, is that by Morton White, Science & Sentiment in America: Philosophical Thought from Jonathan Edwards to John Dewey (London: Oxford University Press, 1972). Much of the misunderstanding can seem almost willful, particularly when an overriding theological concern is present (as has often been the case, even very recently).
106. Jon Pahl, Paradox Lost: Free Will and Political Liberty in American Culture, 1630-1760 (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1992), 151, Fiering, Jonathan Edwards's Moral Thought, 343, and Guelzo, Edwards on the Will, 29-30, also denied that Edwards was a Newtonian, but noted only Edwards's reaction to atomism, which did differ from Newton's. As I have argued, some recent commentators have misunderstood the nature of Edwards's determinism. Thus, for example, Merle Curti, Human Nature in American Thought (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1980) regarded Edwards as defending the freedom of the faculty of will! A more careful account, and one which includes an astute criticism of the philosophical adequacy of Edwards's account of will, is that by Morton White, Science & Sentiment in America: Philosophical Thought from Jonathan Edwards to John Dewey (London: Oxford University Press, 1972). Much of the misunderstanding can seem almost willful, particularly when an overriding theological concern is present (as has often been the case, even very recently).
107. Jon Pahl, Paradox Lost: Free Will and Political Liberty in American Culture, 1630-1760 (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1992), 151, Fiering, Jonathan Edwards's Moral Thought, 343, and Guelzo, Edwards on the Will, 29-30, also denied that Edwards was a Newtonian, but noted only Edwards's reaction to atomism, which did differ from Newton's. As I have argued, some recent commentators have misunderstood the nature of Edwards's determinism. Thus, for example, Merle Curti, Human Nature in American Thought (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1980) regarded Edwards as defending the freedom of the faculty of will! A more careful account, and one which includes an astute criticism of the philosophical adequacy of Edwards's account of will, is that by Morton White, Science & Sentiment in America: Philosophical Thought from Jonathan Edwards to John Dewey (London: Oxford University Press, 1972). Much of the misunderstanding can seem almost willful, particularly when an overriding theological concern is present (as has often been the case, even very recently).
108. Jon Pahl, Paradox Lost: Free Will and Political Liberty in American Culture, 1630-1760 (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1992), 151, Fiering, Jonathan Edwards's Moral Thought, 343, and Guelzo, Edwards on the Will, 29-30, also denied that Edwards was a Newtonian, but noted only Edwards's reaction to atomism, which did differ from Newton's. As I have argued, some recent commentators have misunderstood the nature of Edwards's determinism. Thus, for example, Merle Curti, Human Nature in American Thought (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1980) regarded Edwards as defending the freedom of the faculty of will! A more careful account, and one which includes an astute criticism of the philosophical adequacy of Edwards's account of will, is that by Morton White, Science & Sentiment in America: Philosophical Thought from Jonathan Edwards to John Dewey (London: Oxford University Press, 1972). Much of the misunderstanding can seem almost willful, particularly when an overriding theological concern is present (as has often been the case, even very recently).
109. Paradox Lost, 216, n. 39.
110. Edwards, Freedom, Ramsey, ed., 141.
111. Ibid., 138.
112. Edwards, Enquiry, 8, emphasis in the first edition of the Enquiry, but not the 1957 edition. I have modernized Edwards's spelling in this quote, but have retained the capitalization and emphasis, because I believe their absence (as in the modern edition edited by Ramsey) alters the force of this important passage.
113. Edwards, Freedom, Ramsey, ed., 141.
114. Blight "Jonathan Edwards's Theory of the Mind," 1984, noted that this places Edwards close to recent cognitive accounts of human nature; some earlier commentators saw a parallel with behaviorism, for example, Joseph Haroutunian, Piety Versus Moralism: The Passing of the New England Theology (New York: Henry Holt and Co., 1932). On the need for understanding the microstructure of cognition, see my "A Framework for the Cognitive Psychology of Science," in Psychology of Science: Contributions to Metascience, Barry Gholson, et al., eds. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989): 342-366. On the need for dynamic approaches to cognition and action, see the papers in Mind us Motion: Explorations in the Dynamics of Cognition, Robert F. Port and Timothy Van Gelder, eds. (Cambridge: MIT Press, 1995).
115. Blight "Jonathan Edwards's Theory of the Mind," 1984, noted that this places Edwards close to recent cognitive accounts of human nature; some earlier commentators saw a parallel with behaviorism, for example, Joseph Haroutunian, Piety Versus Moralism: The Passing of the New England Theology (New York: Henry Holt and Co., 1932). On the need for understanding the microstructure of cognition, see my "A Framework for the Cognitive Psychology of Science," in Psychology of Science: Contributions to Metascience, Barry Gholson, et al., eds. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989): 342-366. On the need for dynamic approaches to cognition and action, see the papers in Mind us Motion: Explorations in the Dynamics of Cognition, Robert F. Port and Timothy Van Gelder, eds. (Cambridge: MIT Press, 1995).
116. Blight "Jonathan Edwards's Theory of the Mind," 1984, noted that this places Edwards close to recent cognitive accounts of human nature; some earlier commentators saw a parallel with behaviorism, for example, Joseph Haroutunian, Piety Versus Moralism: The Passing of the New England Theology (New York: Henry Holt and Co., 1932). On the need for understanding the microstructure of cognition, see my "A Framework for the Cognitive Psychology of Science," in Psychology of Science: Contributions to Metascience, Barry Gholson, et al., eds. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989): 342-366. On the need for dynamic approaches to cognition and action, see the papers in Mind us Motion: Explorations in the Dynamics of Cognition, Robert F. Port and Timothy Van Gelder, eds. (Cambridge: MIT Press, 1995).
117. Blight "Jonathan Edwards's Theory of the Mind," 1984, noted that this places Edwards close to recent cognitive accounts of human nature; some earlier commentators saw a parallel with behaviorism, for example, Joseph Haroutunian, Piety Versus Moralism: The Passing of the New England Theology (New York: Henry Holt and Co., 1932). On the need for understanding the microstructure of cognition, see my "A Framework for the Cognitive Psychology of Science," in Psychology of Science: Contributions to Metascience, Barry Gholson, et al., eds. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989): 342-366. On the need for dynamic approaches to cognition and action, see the papers in Mind us Motion: Explorations in the Dynamics of Cognition, Robert F. Port and Timothy Van Gelder, eds. (Cambridge: MIT Press, 1995).
118. Edwards, Freedom, Ramsey, ed., 180.
119. Guelzo, Edwards on the Will, 49 . Ramsey has noted, in his "Introduction" to the Enquiry, 34-35, that Edwards's notion of causation resembled Hume's, although without Hume's further commitment to the uncertainty of knowledge of causation. See also Blight, "Edward's Theory of the Mind."
120. Guelzo, Edwards on the Will, 49 . Ramsey has noted, in his "Introduction" to the Enquiry, 34-35, that Edwards's notion of causation resembled Hume's, although without Hume's further commitment to the uncertainty of knowledge of causation. See also Blight, "Edward's Theory of the Mind."
121. Guelzo, Edwards on the Will, 49 . Ramsey has noted, in his "Introduction" to the Enquiry, 34-35, that Edwards's notion of causation resembled Hume's, although without Hume's further commitment to the uncertainty of knowledge of causation. See also Blight, "Edward's Theory of the Mind."
122. The example of the drunkard was used in Freedom, 143; Locke used the example also, (as was noted by Edwards just before his own description of the drunkard example) but to very different purpose. For Locke "uneasiness" precedes an act of the will (see Essay, 252-253), a position that Edwards rejected, since his account required no antecedent emotional state, given that the will "is as" the apparent good. Note also that this is a further example where Edwards explicitly rejected a mechanistic account.
123. Isaac Watts, Essay on the Freedom of the Will in God and in Creatures, and on Various Subjects Connected Therewith. In The Works of the Reverend and Learned Isaac Watts, D.D.: Containing, Besides his Sermons, and Essays on Miscellaneous Subjects, Several Additional Pieces, George Burder, David Jennings, and Phillip Doddridge, comps., vol. 6 (London: J. Barfield, 1810): 239-280 (First published 1734). Edwards dealt with Watts primarily in Part IV, Section 7 and 8 of Freedom, Ramsey, ed., 375-396.
124. Quoted by Edwards, Freedom, Ramsey, ed., 385. Wallace Anderson, in discussing Edwards's reply to Watts, misread this passage; see Edwards, Scientific and Philosophical Writings, Anderson, ed., 87-89. Edwards did use a principle like Leibniz's principle of sufficient reason. But doing this is not the same as accepting Leibniz's point on the identity of indiscernibles! Ramsey, "Editors Introduction," in Edwards, Freedom: 113-115 has a more careful treatment of the issue.
125. Quoted by Edwards, Freedom, Ramsey, ed., 385. Wallace Anderson, in discussing Edwards's reply to Watts, misread this passage; see Edwards, Scientific and Philosophical Writings, Anderson, ed., 87-89. Edwards did use a principle like Leibniz's principle of sufficient reason. But doing this is not the same as accepting Leibniz's point on the identity of indiscernibles! Ramsey, "Editors Introduction," in Edwards, Freedom: 113-115 has a more careful treatment of the issue.
126. Quoted by Edwards, Freedom, Ramsey, ed., 385. Wallace Anderson, in discussing Edwards's reply to Watts, misread this passage; see Edwards, Scientific and Philosophical Writings, Anderson, ed., 87-89. Edwards did use a principle like Leibniz's principle of sufficient reason. But doing this is not the same as accepting Leibniz's point on the identity of indiscernibles! Ramsey, "Editors Introduction," in Edwards, Freedom: 113-115 has a more careful treatment of the issue.
127. Edwards, Freedom, Ramsey, ed., 392. Note that Edwards here appeared to accept Newton's concept of absolute space.
128. Ibid., 393.
129. Norman Fiering regarded Perry Miller's attribution of Edwards's ideas to Newton (in Miller, Jonathan Edwards, 71-99) as "ahistorical," and would presumably regard the argument of the present paper in a similar light. Perry Miller can be criticized for the specifics of his reading of Edwards's physical ideas, though not for suggesting that they were Newtonian in character. As noted, however, Fiering neglected the overwhelming differences between Cartesian physics and Newton's. It is known that Edwards read Newton (and Locke) while at Yale, between 1719 and 1722; many of his unpublished scientific notes dealt with Newtonian physics. See Anderson "Editor's Introduction" in Edwards, Scientific and Philosophical Writings, Anderson, Ed. See also Max Jammer, Concepts of Force: A Study of the Foundations of Dynamics (New York: Harper Torchbooks, 1962), for the theological bearing of More's, Clarke's, and Newton's concepts of force.
130. Norman Fiering regarded Perry Miller's attribution of Edwards's ideas to Newton (in Miller, Jonathan Edwards, 71-99) as "ahistorical," and would presumably regard the argument of the present paper in a similar light. Perry Miller can be criticized for the specifics of his reading of Edwards's physical ideas, though not for suggesting that they were Newtonian in character.
131. Norman Fiering regarded Perry Miller's attribution of Edwards's ideas to Newton (in Miller, Jonathan Edwards, 71-99) as "ahistorical," and would presumably regard the argument of the present paper in a similar light. Perry Miller can be criticized for the specifics of his reading of Edwards's physical ideas, though not for suggesting that they were Newtonian in character. As noted, however, Fiering neglected the overwhelming differences between Cartesian physics and Newton's. It is known that Edwards read Newton (and Locke) while at Yale, between 1719 and 1722; many of his unpublished scientific notes dealt with Newtonian physics. See Anderson "Editor's Introduction" in Edwards, Scientific and Philosophical Writings, Anderson, Ed. See also Max Jammer, Concepts of Force: A Study of the Foundations of Dynamics (New York: Harper Torchbooks, 1962), for the theological bearing of More's, Clarke's, and Newton's concepts of force.
132. The quote is from Edwards, "The Mind," unpublished notebook, in Edwards, Scientific and Philosophical Writing, Anderson, ed., 380. There is uncertainty about the dating of this manuscript. As Anderson noted, it has long been regarded as an early work, perhaps dating from Edwards's college days (c. 1718). Anderson convincingly argued, however, that it dates from a much later time, parts of it perhaps not long before the composition of the Enquiry. See Anderson, 313-331. The issue is especially important for the frequent view that Edwards anticipated Berkeley even as a youth, a claim that is now suspect. As noted above, the claim that Edwards was a Berkeleyan idealist has been the subject of much debate. See Leon Howard, "The Mind" of Jonathan Edwards: A Reconstructed Text (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1963); Edwin S. Gaustad, George Berkeley in America (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1979); and Hoopes, Consciousness in New England, especially 75-81.
133. The quote is from Edwards, "The Mind," unpublished notebook, in Edwards, Scientific and Philosophical Writing, Anderson, ed., 380. There is uncertainty about the dating of this manuscript. As Anderson noted, it has long been regarded as an early work, perhaps dating from Edwards's college days (c. 1718). Anderson convincingly argued, however, that it dates from a much later time, parts of it perhaps not long before the composition of the Enquiry. See Anderson, 313-331. The issue is especially important for the frequent view that Edwards anticipated Berkeley even as a youth, a claim that is now suspect. As noted above, the claim that Edwards was a Berkeleyan idealist has been the subject of much debate. See Leon Howard, "The Mind" of Jonathan Edwards: A Reconstructed Text (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1963); Edwin S. Gaustad, George Berkeley in America (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1979); and Hoopes, Consciousness in New England, especially 75-81.
134. The quote is from Edwards, "The Mind," unpublished notebook, in Edwards, Scientific and Philosophical Writing, Anderson, ed., 380. There is uncertainty about the dating of this manuscript. As Anderson noted, it has long been regarded as an early work, perhaps dating from Edwards's college days (c. 1718). Anderson convincingly argued, however, that it dates from a much later time, parts of it perhaps not long before the composition of the Enquiry. See Anderson, 313-331. The issue is especially important for the frequent view that Edwards anticipated Berkeley even as a youth, a claim that is now suspect. As noted above, the claim that Edwards was a Berkeleyan idealist has been the subject of much debate. See Leon Howard, "The Mind" of Jonathan Edwards: A Reconstructed Text (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1963); Edwin S. Gaustad, George Berkeley in America (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1979); and Hoopes, Consciousness in New England, especially 75-81.
135. The quote is from Edwards, "The Mind," unpublished notebook, in Edwards, Scientific and Philosophical Writing, Anderson, ed., 380. There is uncertainty about the dating of this manuscript. As Anderson noted, it has long been regarded as an early work, perhaps dating from Edwards's college days (c. 1718). Anderson convincingly argued, however, that it dates from a much later time, parts of it perhaps not long before the composition of the Enquiry. See Anderson, 313-331. The issue is especially important for the frequent view that Edwards anticipated Berkeley even as a youth, a claim that is now suspect. As noted above, the claim that Edwards was a Berkeleyan idealist has been the subject of much debate. See Leon Howard, "The Mind" of Jonathan Edwards: A Reconstructed Text (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1963); Edwin S. Gaustad, George Berkeley in America (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1979); and Hoopes, Consciousness in New England, especially 75-81.
136. See Fay, American Psychology. Space does not permit an account of the earliest (non-Scottish!) controversy over Edwards. See especially [James Dana], An Examination of the Late Reverend President Edwards's Enquiry on Freedom of Will; More Especially the Foundation Principle of his Book, with the Tendency and Consequences of the Reasoning Therein Contained, . . . With an Appendix, Containing a Specimen of the Coincidence Between the Principles of Mr. Edwards's Book, and Those of Ancient and Modern Fatalists (Boston: Daniel Kneeland, 1770). Dana saw Edwards's Enquiry as an extremely threatening work; see Allen C. Guelzo, "From Calvinist Metaphysics to Republican Theory: Jonathan Edwards and James Dana on Freedom of the Will," Journal of the History of Ideas, 56 (1995): 399-418. Guelzo's article demonstrates the complexity of assigning either Edwards, his successors, or his opponents to "conservative" or "liberal" categories.
137. See Fay, American Psychology. Space does not permit an account of the earliest (non-Scottish!) controversy over Edwards. See especially [James Dana], An Examination of the Late Reverend President Edwards's Enquiry on Freedom of Will; More Especially the Foundation Principle of his Book, with the Tendency and Consequences of the Reasoning Therein Contained, . . . With an Appendix, Containing a Specimen of the Coincidence Between the Principles of Mr. Edwards's Book, and Those of Ancient and Modern Fatalists (Boston: Daniel Kneeland, 1770). Dana saw Edwards's Enquiry as an extremely threatening work; see Allen C. Guelzo, "From Calvinist Metaphysics to Republican Theory: Jonathan Edwards and James Dana on Freedom of the Will," Journal of the History of Ideas, 56 (1995): 399-418. Guelzo's article demonstrates the complexity of assigning either Edwards, his successors, or his opponents to "conservative" or "liberal" categories.
138. See Fay, American Psychology. Space does not permit an account of the earliest (non-Scottish!) controversy over Edwards. See especially [James Dana], An Examination of the Late Reverend President Edwards's Enquiry on Freedom of Will; More Especially the Foundation Principle of his Book, with the Tendency and Consequences of the Reasoning Therein Contained, . . . With an Appendix, Containing a Specimen of the Coincidence Between the Principles of Mr. Edwards's Book, and Those of Ancient and Modern Fatalists (Boston: Daniel Kneeland, 1770). Dana saw Edwards's Enquiry as an extremely threatening work; see Allen C. Guelzo, "From Calvinist Metaphysics to Republican Theory: Jonathan Edwards and James Dana on Freedom of the Will," Journal of the History of Ideas, 56 (1995): 399-418. Guelzo's article demonstrates the complexity of assigning either Edwards, his successors, or his opponents to "conservative" or "liberal" categories.
139. A good account of the scientific response to Hume is given by Richard Olson, Scottish Philosophy and British Physics, 1750-1880: A Study in the Foundations of the Victorian Scientific Style (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1975). For the American context, see Rand Evans, "Origins."
140. A good account of the scientific response to Hume is given by Richard Olson, Scottish Philosophy and British Physics, 1750-1880: A Study in the Foundations of the Victorian Scientific Style (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1975). For the American context, see Rand Evans, "Origins."
141. Reid was also heavily influenced by Newton; see Ryan D. Tweney. "Isaac Newton's Two Uses of Hypothetical Reasoning." Storia e critica della Psicología 1 (1980): 235-249. For Taylor and Upham, see Foster, Genetic History; Kuklick, Churchmen and Philosophers; and Evans, "Origins."
142. Reid was also heavily influenced by Newton; see Ryan D. Tweney. "Isaac Newton's Two Uses of Hypothetical Reasoning." Storia e critica della Psicología 1 (1980): 235-249. For Taylor and Upham, see Foster, Genetic History; Kuklick, Churchmen and Philosophers; and Evans, "Origins."
143. Reid was also heavily influenced by Newton; see Ryan D. Tweney. "Isaac Newton's Two Uses of Hypothetical Reasoning." Storia e critica della Psicología 1 (1980): 235-249. For Taylor and Upham, see Foster, Genetic History; Kuklick, Churchmen and Philosophers; and Evans, "Origins."
144. Reid was also heavily influenced by Newton; see Ryan D. Tweney. "Isaac Newton's Two Uses of Hypothetical Reasoning." Storia e critica della Psicología 1 (1980): 235-249. For Taylor and Upham, see Foster, Genetic History; Kuklick, Churchmen and Philosophers; and Evans, "Origins."
145. Guelzo, Edwards on the Will, 245-246, notes that Taylor did try to offer an alternative conception, replacing Edwards's "moral necessity" with "moral certainty," thus allowing more scope for free choice within what we might today regard as a conception of "probabilistic law." Such conceptions played an important part in later American thought; see Elke Kurz and Ryan D. Tweney. "The Heretical Psychology of Egon Brunswik" in A Pictorial History of Psychology, Wolfgang G. Bringmann, H. E. Leuck, R. Miller, and C. E. Early, eds. (Carol Stream: Quintessence Publishing Co., 1997), 221-232.
146. Guelzo, Edwards on the Will, 245-246, notes that Taylor did try to offer an alternative conception, replacing Edwards's "moral necessity" with "moral certainty," thus allowing more scope for free choice within what we might today regard as a conception of "probabilistic law." Such conceptions played an important part in later American thought; see Elke Kurz and Ryan D. Tweney. "The Heretical Psychology of Egon Brunswik" in A Pictorial History of Psychology, Wolfgang G. Bringmann, H. E. Leuck, R. Miller, and C. E. Early, eds. (Carol Stream: Quintessence Publishing Co., 1997), 221-232.
147. Thomas C. Upham. Elements of Intellectual Philosophy: Designed as a Text-book (Portland, Maine: William Hyde, 1827).
148. Upham, Elements, 401.
149. Thomas C. Upham. A Philosophical and Practical Treatise on the Will (Portland, Maine: William Hyde, 1834). Later, he added, as the third volume of his Elements, a slightly revised version of this book: A Philosophical and Practical Treatise on the Will. Forming the Third Volume of a System of Mental Philosophy (New York: Harper & Brothers, 1841).
150. See also Todd L. Adams, "Agency Theory: The Dilemma of Thomas C. Upham," Transactions of the Charles S. Peirce Society 28 (1992): 547-568.
151. Upham, Treatise on the Will, 244.
152. Upham, Treatise on the Will, 279-280.
153. Kuklick, Churchmen and Philosophers; Haroutunian, Piety Versus Moralism; Hoopes, Consciousness in New England.
154. Kuklick, Churchmen and Philosophers; Haroutunian, Piety Versus Moralism; Hoopes, Consciousness in New England.
155. Kuklick, Churchmen and Philosophers; Haroutunian, Piety Versus Moralism; Hoopes, Consciousness in New England.