A Review of Edwards's "Inquiry into the Freedom of the Will" — Text and Context

The Structure of Tappan's Argument

Tappan organizes his review into four parts: a statement of Edwards's system, its legitimate consequences, an examination of arguments against a self-determining will, and a conclusion. This architecture mirrors a philosophical disputation, moving from exposition to critique. In the introduction, he sets the terms of engagement: the will must be subjected to psychological investigation, not theological prejudice. He invokes Baconian observation as the proper method, signaling his commitment to empirical, consciousness-based inquiry. The review thus proceeds as a systematic dismantling of Edwards's necessitarian framework, with each section building on the previous one.

Edwards's Moral vs. Natural Inability

Tappan zeroes in on Edwards's distinction between moral and natural inability, a cornerstone of Edwards's defense of divine sovereignty. He argues that Edwards defines moral inability as the impossibility of a volition when no motive exists, likening it to the impossibility of freezing water in the summer sun. Natural inability, by contrast, concerns the failure of volition to produce an effect due to physical defect. Tappan contends that this distinction is futile: if moral inability means no motive can produce a good volition, then commands and exhortations become meaningless. He presses the logic to its extreme, asserting that even divine interposition through truth and persuasion would fail to regenerate a heart that is in no correlation with those objects.

The Collision of Truth and the Unregenerate Will

In a striking passage, Tappan describes a positive opposition between mind and object when truth is presented to the unregenerate. The collision becomes more severe with each attempt to bring them together. Preaching truth and duty, he argues, can only call out more actively the necessary determination not to obey. Enlightening the intelligence, by giving a clearer perception of disagreeable objects, only increases disinclination. This leads Tappan to a radical conclusion: human instrumentality cannot convert, and even divine interposition, if it consists of presenting truth with greater light and power, must fail. He examines hope and fear as possible levers, but finds them inadequate: hope cannot imply desire for religious principles, and fear cannot involve reverence for divine purity.

Tappan's Rhetorical Strategy

Tappan employs a forensic style, using logical deduction and vivid analogies to expose what he sees as the fatal consequences of Edwards's system. He frequently addresses the reader directly, as in his claim that the impossibility of a volition without a motive is equal to the impossibility of freezing water in the sun. This analogy collapses Edwards's moral causation into physical causation, a move Tappan repeats throughout. He also uses hypotheticals—such as the case of natural inability to walk—to clarify distinctions. His prose is dense but precise, reflecting his background as a philosopher and educator. The review is not merely a critique but a counter-system, advocating for a self-determining will that can be known through consciousness.

Tappan's review is best approached as a philosophical counterpoint to Edwards, not a neutral exposition. Readers should attend to how Tappan uses psychological observation to challenge necessitarian logic, and note his insistence that moral responsibility requires a will that is truly self-determining. The excerpts reveal a thinker deeply engaged with the implications of Edwards's arguments for theology and ethics, but the full work likely extends these critiques into a constructive alternative.

Reading Tappan’s careful push against Edwards’s iron chain of causation, I thought of a winter evening years ago, when I first wrestled with The New Christianity; or, The Religion of the New Age — Inside the Classic and felt that same quiet shock—a familiar system loosening, not breaking, but breathing. Both books asked me to set down my certainty like a warm coat I no longer needed.