Paul Helm


I thank Richard Muller for his thoughtful and engaging response. I concur with the conclusion of his section 1; that is, concur with his claim that Edwards is Lockean in his outlook on compatibilism,and that Edwards and the Reformed orthodox were each compatibilists, though of a different sort. The similarity that Muller shows exists between the language of Hobbes and Locke on this point seems to imply that Edwards would have concurred with the language of Hobbes had he met it, even though he may not (as far as we can tell) have thought it important to read Hobbes. As far as the understanding of Edwards is concerned a chief concern was over the impression that Richard Muller was giving by his use of the term ‘physical’ to describe Edwards’s view that Edwards inclined (to say the least) to Hobbes’s materialism. But Edwards was an emphatic dualist, as Muller now makes clear.


Philosophy, Early Modern History, Post-reformation Studies

Full Text: