Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadJonathan Edwards Collection: Edwards, Jonathan - Personal Writings: 25b
TOPIC: Edwards, Jonathan - Personal Writings (Other Topics in this Collection)
SUBJECT: 25b
Other Subjects in this Topic:
To what, it may not improperly be asked, are this reputation and this
success to be ascribed? It was not to his style of writing: that had
no claims to elegance, or even to neatness.--It was not to his voice;
that, far from being strong and full, was, in consequence of his
feeble health, a little languid, and too low for a large assembly;
though relieved and aided by a proper emphasis, just cadence, well
placed pauses, and great clearness, distinctness, and precision of
enunciation.--It was not owing to attitude or gesture, to his
appearance in the pulpit, or to any of the customary arts of
eloquence. His appearance in the pulpit was with a good grace, and his
delivery easy, perfectly natural, and very solemn. He wrote his
sermons; and in so fine and so illegible a hand, that they could be
read only by being brought near to the eye. "He carried his notes with
him into the pulpit, and read most that he wrote: still, he was not
confined to them; and if some thoughts were suggested to him while he
was preaching, which did not occur to him when writing, and appeared
pertinent, he would deliver them with as great propriety and fluency,
and often with greater pathos, and attended with a more sensibly good
effect on his hearers, than what he had written." [88] While
preaching, he customarily stood, holding his small manuscript volume
in his left hand, the elbow resting on the cushion or the Bible, his
right hand rarely raised but to turn the leaves, and his person almost
motionless--It was not owing to the pictures of fancy, or to any
ostentation of learning, or of talents. In his preaching, usually all
was plain, familiar, sententious, and practical.
One of the positive causes of his high character, and great success,
as a preacher, was the deep and pervading solemnity of his mind. He
had, at all times, a solemn consciousness of the presence of God. This
was visible in his looks arid general demeanour. It obviously had a
controlling influence over all his preparations for the pulpit; and
was most manifest in all his public services. Its effect on an
audience is immediate, and not to be resisted. "He appeared," says Dr.
Hopkins, "with such gravity and solemnity, and his words were so full
of ideas, that few speakers have been able to command the attention of
an audience as he did."--His knowledge of the Bible, evinced in his
sermons--in the number of relevant passages which he brings to enforce
every position, in his exact discernment of the true scope of each, in
his familiar acquaintance with the drift of the whole Scriptures on
the subject, and in the logical precision with which he derives his
principles from them--is probably unrivalled.--His knowledge of the
human heart, and its operations, has scarcely been equalled by that of
any uninspired preacher. He derived this knowledge from his
familiarity with the testimony of God concerning it in the Bible; from
his thorough acquaintance with his own heart; and from his profound
knowledge of mental philosophy. The effect of it was, to enable him to
speak to the consciousness of every one who heard him; so that each
one was compelled to reflect, in language like that of the woman of
Sychar, "Here is a man, who is revealing to me the secrets of my own
heart and life: is not this man from God?"--His knowledge of theology
was so exact and universal, and the extensiveness of his views and of
his information was so great, that while he could shed unusual variety
and richness of thought over every discourse, he could also bring the
most striking and impressive truths, facts, and circumstances, to bear
upon the point, which he was endeavouring to illustrate or
enforce.--His aim, in preparing and delivering his sermons, was
single. This is so obvious, that no man probably ever suspected him of
writing or delivering a sermon, for the sake of display, or
reputation. From the first step to the last, he aimed at nothing but
the salvation of his hearers, and at the glory of God as revealed in
it. This enabled him to bring all his powers of mind and heart to bear
on this one object.--His feelings on this subject were most intense.
The love of Christ constrained him; and the strong desire of his soul
was, that they for whom Christ died might live for Him who died for
them. "His words," says Dr. Hopkins, "often discovered a great degree
of inward fervour, without much noise or external emotion, and fell
with great weight on the minds of his hearers; and he spake so as to
reveal the strong emotions of his own heart, which tended, in the most
natural and effectual manner, to move and affect others"--The plan of
his sermons is most excellent. In his introduction, which is always an
explanation of the passage, he exhibits uncommon skill, and the
sagacity with which he discovers, and the power with which he seizes
at once, the whole drift and weaning of the passage in all its
bearings, has rarely if ever been equalled. In the body of the
discourse, he never attempts an elaborate proof of his doctrine, from
revelation and reason; but rather gives an explanation of the
doctrine, or places the truth on which he is discoursing directly
before the mind, as a fact, and paints it to the imagination of his
hearers. In the application, where he usually lays out his strength,
he addresses himself with peculiar plainness to the consciences of his
hearers, takes up and applies to them minutely all the important ideas
contained in the body of the discourse, and appropriates them to
persons of different characters and situations in life, by a
particular explanation of their duties and their dangers: and lastly,
by a solemn, earnest, and impressive appeal to every feeling and
active principle of our nature, he counsels, exhorts, warns,
expostulates, as if he were determined not to suffer his hearers to
depart, until they were convinced of their duty, and persuaded to
choose and to perform it.--His graphic manner of exhibiting truth, is,
perhaps, his peculiar excellence. The doctrines of the gospel, in his
hands, are not mere abstract propositions, but living realities,
distinctly seen by the author's faith, and painted with so much truth
and life, and warmth of colouring, as cannot fail to give his hearers
the same strong impression of them, which already exists in his own
mind. With all this, he preached the real truth of God, in its
simplicity and purity, keeping nothing back, with so much weight of
thought and argument, so much strength of feeling, and such sincerity
of purpose, as must enlighten every understanding, convince every
conscience, and almost convert every heart.--I inquired of Dr West,
Whether Mr. Edwards was an eloquent preacher. He replied, "If you
mean, by eloquence, what is usually intended by it in our cities; he
had no pretensions to it. He had no studied varieties of the voice,
and no strong emphasis. He scarcely gestured, or even moved; and he
made no attempt, by the elegance of his style, or the beauty of his
pictures, to gratify the taste, and fascinate the imagination. But, if
you mean by eloquence, the power of presenting an important truth
before an audience, with overwhelming weight of argument, and with
such intenseness of feeling, that the whole soul of the speaker is
thrown into every part of the conception and delivery; so that the
solemn attention of the whole audience is rivetted, from the beginning
to the close, and impressions are left that cannot be effaced; Mr.
Edwards was the most eloquent man I ever heard speak."--As the result
of the whole, we are led to regard him as, beyond most others, an
instructive preacher, a solemn and faithful preacher, an animated and
earnest preacher, a most powerful and impressive preacher in the sense
explained, and the only true sense, a singularly eloquent preacher,
and, through the blessing of God, one of the most successful preachers
since the days of the apostles. It ought here to be added, that the
sermons of Mr. Edwards have been, to his immediate pupils, and to his
followers, the models of a style of preaching, which has been most
signally blessed by God to the conversion of sinners, and which should
be looked to as a standard, by those who wish, like him, to turn many
to righteousness, that with him they may shine, as the stars, for ever
and ever.
His prayers," says Dr. Hopkins, "were indeed extempore. He was the
farthest from any appearance of a form, as to his words and manner of
expression, of almost any man. He was quite singular and inimitable in
this, by any, who have not a spirit of real and undissembled devotion;
yet he always expressed himself with decency and propriety. He
appeared to have much of the grace and spirit of prayer; to pray with
the spirit and with the understanding; and he performed this part of
duty much to the acceptance and edification of those who joined with
him. He was not wont, in ordinary cases, to be long in his prayers: an
error which, he observed, was often hurtful to public and social
prayer, as it tends rather to damp, than to promote, true devotion."
His practice, not to visit his people in their own houses, except in
cases of sickness or affliction, is an example, not of course to be
imitated by all. That, on this subject, ministers ought to consult
their own talents and circumstances, and visit more or less, according
to the degree in which they can thereby promote the great ends of
their ministry, cannot be doubted. That his time was too precious to
the church at large, to have been devoted, in any considerable degree,
to visiting, all will admit. Yet it is highly probable, that, if he
had been somewhat less in his study, and seen his people occasionally
in the midst of their families, and known more of their circumstances
and wants, and entered more into their feelings, his hold on their
affections would have been stronger, and more permanent. Certainly
this will be true with ministers at large.--In other pastoral duties,
in preaching public and private lectures, in extraordinary labours
during seasons of attention to religion, and in conversing with the
anxious and inquiring, he was an uncommon example of faithfulness and
success. "At such seasons, his study was thronged with persons, who
came to lay open their spiritual concerns to him, and seek his advice
and direction. He was a peculiarly skilful guide to those who were
under spiritual difficulties; and was therefore sought unto, not only
by his own people, but by many at a great distance." For this duty he
was eminently fitted, from his own deep personal experience of
religion, from his unwearied study of the word of God, from his having
had so much intercourse with those who were in spiritual troubles,
from his uncommon acquaintance with the human heart, with the nature
of conversion, and with revivals of religion, and from his skill in
detecting and exposing every thing like enthusiasm and counterfeit
religion How great a blessing was it to a church, to a people, and to
every anxious inquirer, to enjoy the counsels and the prayers of such
a minister!
But it is the theological treatises of Mr. Edwards, especially, by
which he is most extensively known, to which he owes his commanding
influence, and on which his highest reputation will ultimately depend.
It is proper, therefore, before we conclude, to sketch his character
as a theologian and controversialist, and to state the actual effects
of his writings.
As a theologian, he is distinguished for his scriptural views of
divine truth. Even the casual reader of his works can scarcely fail to
perceive that, with great labour, patience, and skill, he derived his
principles from an extensive and most accurate observation of the word
of God. The number of passages which he adduces from the Scriptures,
on every important doctrine, the critical attention he has evidently
given them, the labour in arranging them, and the skill and integrity
with which he derives his general conclusions from them, is truly
astonishing. We see no intermixture of his own hypotheses; no
confidence in his own reason, except as applied to the interpretation
of the oracles of God; nor even that disposition to make extended and
momentous inferences, which characterizes some of his successors and
admirers.
Another characteristic of his theology, is the extensiveness of his
views. In his theology, as in his mind, there was nothing narrow, no
partial, contracted views of a subject: all was simple, great, and
sublime. His mind was too expanded to regard the distinctions of sects
and churches. He belonged, in his feelings, to no church but the
church of Christ, he contended for nothing but the truth; he aimed at
nothing but to promote holiness and salvation. The effect of his
labours so exactly coincides with the effects of the gospel, that no
denomination can ever appropriate his name to itself, or claim him as
its own.
Viewing Mr. Edwards as a controversialist, the most excellent, if not
the most striking, trait in his character, is his integrity. Those who
have been most opposed to his conclusions, and have most powerfully
felt the force of his arguments, have acknowledged that he is a
perfectly fair disputant. He saw so certainly the truth of his
positions, and had such confidence in his ability to defend them by
fair means, that the thought of employing sophistry in their defence
never occurred to him. But, if he had felt the want of sound
arguments, he would not have employed it. His conscience was too
enlightened, and his mind too sincere. His aim, in all his
investigations, was the discovery and the defence of truth. He valued
his positions, only because they were true; and he gave them up at
once, when he found that they were not supported by argument and
evidence.
Another trait in his character, as a reasoner, is originality, or
invention. Before his time, the theological writers of each given
class or party, had, with scarcely an exception, followed on, one
after another, in the same beaten path, and, whenever any one had
deviated from it, he had soon lost himself in the mazes of error. Mr.
Edwards had a mind too creative to be thus dependent on others. If the
reader will examine carefully his controversial and other theological
works, and compare them with those of his predecessors on the same
subjects; he will find that his positions are new, that his
definitions are new, that his plans are new, that his arguments are
new, that his conclusions are new, that his mode of reasoning and his
methods of discovering truth are perfectly his own; and that he has
done more to render theology a new science, than, with perhaps one or
two exceptions, all the writers who have lived since the days of the
fathers.
Another characteristic of his controversial writings, is the excellent
spirit which every where pervades them. So strikingly is this true,
that we cannot but urge every one, who peruses them, to examine for
himself, whether he can discover, in them all, a solitary deviation
from Christian kindness and sincerity. By such an examination he will
discover in them, if I mistake not, a fairness in proposing the real
point in dispute, a candour in examining the arguments of his
opponents, in stating their objections, and in suggesting others in
which had escaped them, and a care in avoiding every thing like
personality, and the imputation of unworthy motives, rarely paralleled
in the annals of controversy. It should here be remembered, that he
wrote his treatise on the Affections, and his several works on
revivals of religion, in the very heat of a violent contest, which
divided and agitated this whole country; that in his treatises on the
Freedom of the Will, on Original Sin, and on Justification, he handles
subjects, which unavoidably awaken the most bitter opposition in the
human heart, and opposes those, who had boasted of their victories
over what he believed to be the cause of truth, "with no little
glorying and insult;" that his treatise on the Qualifications for
Communion, was written amid all the violence, and abuse, and injury of
a furious parochial controversy; and that, in the Answer to Williams,
he was called to reply to the most gross personalities, and to the
most palpable misrepresentations of his arguments, his principles, and
his motives.
He has, I know, been charged sometimes with handling his antagonists
with needless severity. But let it be remembered, that his severity is
never directed against their personal character, but merely against
their principles and arguments; that his wit is only an irresistible
exposition of the absurdity which he is opposing; [89] that he stood
forth as the champion of truth, and the opponent of error; and that,
in this character, it was his duty not merely to prostrate error, but
to give it a death-blow, that it might never rise again.
But the characteristic of his controversial, and indeed of all his
theological, writings, which gives them their chief value and effect,
is the unanswerableness of his arguments. He not only drives his enemy
from the field, but he erects a rampart, so strong and impregnable,
that no one afterwards has any courage to assail it; and his
companions in arms find the great work of defending the positions,
which he has occupied, already done to their hands.
This impossibility of answering his arguments, arises, in the first
place, from the strength and conclusiveness of his reasoning. By first
fixing in his own mind, and then exactly defining, the meaning of his
terms, by stating his propositions with logical precision, and by
clearly discerning and stating the connexion between his premises and
conclusions, he has given to metaphysical reasoning very much of the
exactness and certainty of mathematical demonstration.
Another cause of the unanswerable character of his reasonings, is,
that he usually follows several distinct trains of argument, which all
terminate in the same conclusion. Each of them is satisfactory; but
the union of all, commencing at different points, and arriving at the
same identical result, cannot fail to convince the mind, that that
result is not to he shaken.
A third cause of this is, that he himself anticipates, and effectually
answers, not only all the objections that have been made, but all that
apparently can be made, to the points for which he contends. These he
places in the strongest light and examines under every shape which
they can assume in the hands of an evasive antagonist, and shows that,
in every possible form, they are wholly inconclusive.
A fourth cause is his method of treating the opinions of his
opponents. It is the identical method of Euclid. Assuming them as
premises, he with great ingenuity shows, that they lead to palpable
absurdity. He demonstrates that his opponents are inconsistent with
themselves, as well as with truth and common sense;--and rarely stops,
until he has exposed their error to contempt and ridicule.
This unanswerableness of Mr. Edwards's reasonings, in his
controversial works, has been most publicly confessed. The Essay on
the Will treats of subjects the most contested within the limits of
theology; and, unless it can be answered, prostrates in the dust the
scheme of doctrines, for which his antagonists so earnestly contend.
Yet, hitherto, it stands unmoved and unassailed; and the waves of
controversy break harmless at its base. [90] The treatise on Original
Sin, though written chiefly to overthrow the hypothesis of an
individual, is perhaps not less conclusive in its reasonings. That he
succeeded in that design, as well as in establishing the great
principles for which he contends will not be doubted by any one who
examines the controversy; and is said to have been virtually
confessed, in a melancholy manner, by Taylor himself. He had
indiscreetly boasted, in his larger work, that it never would be
answered. The answer was so complete, that it admitted of no reply.
His consequent mortification is said to have shortened his days.
Whether it was true, or not, that the grasp of his antagonist was
literally death, it was at least death to the controversy. The
treatise on the Qualifications for Communion, attacked the most
favourite scheme of all the lax religionists of this country, the only
plausible scheme, ever yet devised, of establishing a communion
between light and darkness, between Christ and Belial. They regarded
this attack with indignation, from one end of the country to the
other. One solitary combatant appeared in the field; and, being left
in a state of irrecoverable prostration, he has hitherto found no one
adventurous enough to come to his aid. The Treatise, and Reply, of Mr.
Edwards, by the conclusiveness of their reasonings, have so changed
the opinion and practice of the ministers, and the churches, of New
England, that a mode of admission, once almost universal, now scarcely
finds a solitary advocate.
But it may not unnaturally be asked, What are the changes in theology,
which have been affected by the writings of President Edwards. It
gives me peculiar pleasure that I can answer this question, in the
words of his son, the late Dr. Edwards, President of Union College,
Schenectady.
"CLEARER STATEMENTS
OF THEOLOGICAL TRUTH,
MADE BY PRESIDENT EDWARDS, AND THOSE WHO HAVE FOLLOWED HIS COURSE OF
THOUGHT.
"1. The important question, concerning the ultimate end of the
creation, is a question, upon which Mr. Edwards has shed much light.
For ages it had been disputed, whether the end of creation was the
happiness of creatures themselves, or the declarative glory of the
Creator. Nor did it appear that the dispute was likely to be brought
to an issue. On the one hand, it was urged, that reason declared in
favour of the former hypothesis. It was said that, as God is a
benevolent being, he doubtless acted under the influence of his own
infinite benevolence in the creation; and that he could not but form
creatures for the purpose of making them happy. Many passages of
Scripture also were quoted in support of this opinion. On the other
hand, numerous and very explicit declarations of Scripture were
produced to prove that God made all things for his own glory. Mr.
Edwards was the first, who clearly showed, that both these were the
ultimate end of the creation, that they are only one end, and that
they are really one and the same thing. According to him, the
declarative glory of God is the creation, taken, not distributively,
but collectively, as a system raised to a high degree of happiness.
The creation, thus raised and preserved, is the declarative glory of
God. In other words, it is the exhibition of his essential glory.
"2. On the great subject of Liberty and Necessity, Mr. Edwards made
very important improvements. Before him, the Calvinists were nearly
driven out of the field, by the Arminians, Pelagians and Socinians.
The Calvinists, it is true, appealed to Scripture, the best of all
authority, in support of their peculiar tenets. But how was the
Scripture to be understood. They were pressed and embarrassed by the
objection,--That the sense, in which they interpreted the sacred
writings, was inconsistent with human liberty, moral agency,
accountableness, praise and blame. It was consequently inconsistent
with all command and exhortation, with all reward and punishment.
Their interpretation must of course be erroneous, and an entire
perversion of Scripture. How absurd, it was urged, that a man totally
dead, should be called upon to arise and perform the duties of the
living and sound--that we should need a divine influence to give us a
new heart, and yet be commanded to make us a new heart, and a right
spirit--that a man has no power to come to Christ, and yet be
commanded to come to him on pain of damnation! The Calvinists
themselves began to be ashamed of their own cause and to give it up,
so far at least as relates to liberty and necessity. This was true
especially of Dr. Watts and Doddridge, who, in their day, were
accounted leaders of the Calvinists. They must needs bow in the house
of Rimmon, and admit the self-determining power; which, once admitted
and pursued to its ultimate results, entirely overthrows the doctrines
of regeneration, of our dependence for renewing and sanctifying grace,
of absolute decrees, of the saints perseverance, and the whole system
of doctrines, usually denominated the doctrines of grace.--But Mr.
Edwards put an end to this seeming triumph of those, who were thus
hostile to that system of doctrines. This he accomplished, by pointing
out the difference between natural and moral, necessity and inability,
by showing the absurdity, the manifold contradictions, the
inconceivableness, and the impossibility, of a self-determining power,
and by proving that the essence of the virtue and vice, existing in
the disposition of the heart and the acts of the will, lies not in
their cause, but in their nature. Therefore, though we are not the
efficient causes of our own acts of will, yet they may be either
virtuous or vicious; and also that liberty of contingence, as it is an
exemption from all previous certainty, implies that free actions have
no cause, and come into existence by mere chance. But if we admit that
any event may come into existence by chance, and without a cause, the
existence of the world may be accounted for in this same way; and
atheism is established.--Mr. Edwards and his followers have further
illustrated this subject by showing, that free action consists in
volition itself, and that liberty consists in spontaneity. Wherever,
therefore, there is volition, there is free action; wherever there is
spontaneity there is liberty; however and by whomsoever that liberty
and spontaneity are caused. Beasts, therefore, according to their
measure of intelligence, are as free as men. Intelligence, therefore,
and not liberty, is the only thing wanting, to constitute them moral
agents.--The power of self-determination, alone, cannot answer the
purpose of them who undertake its defence; for self-determination must
be free from all control and previous certainty, as to its operations,
otherwise it must be subject to what its advocates denominate a fatal
necessity, and therefore must act by contingence and mere chance. But
even the defenders of self-determination themselves, are not willing
to allow the principle, that our actions, in order to be free, must
happen by chance.--Thus Mr. Edwards and his followers understand, that
the whole controversy concerning liberty and necessity, depends on the
explanation of the word liberty, or the sense in which that word is
used. They find that all the senses in which the word has been used,
with respect to the mind and its acts, may be reduced to these two: 1.
Either an entire exemption from previous certainty, or the certain
futurity of the acts which it will perform: or, 2.
Spontaneity.--Those, who use it in the former sense, cannot avoid the
consequence, that, in order to act freely, we must act by chance,
which is absurd, and what no man will dare to avow. If then liberty
means an exemption from an influence, to which the will is or can be
opposed, every volition is free, whatever may be the manner of its
coming into existence. If, furthermore, God, by his grace, create in
man a clean heart and holy volitions, such volitions being, by the
very signification of the term itself, voluntary, and in no sense
opposed to the divine influence which causes them, they are evidently
as free as they could have been, if they had come into existence by
mere chance and without cause. We have, of course no need of being the
efficient causes of those acts, which our wills perform, to render
them either virtuous or vicious. As to the liberty, then, of
self-determination or contingence, it implies, as already observed,
that actions, in order to be free, must have no cause; but are brought
into existence by chance. Thus have they illustrated the real and wide
difference between natural and moral necessity. They have proved that
this difference consists, not in the degree of previous certainty that
an action will be performed--but in the fact, that natural necessity
admits an entire opposition of the will, while moral necessity
implies, and, in all cases, secures, the consent of the will. It
follows that all necessity of the will, and of its acts, is of the
moral kind; and that natural necessity cannot possibly affect the will
or any of its exercises. It likewise follows, that if liberty, as
applied to a moral agent, mean an exemption from all previous
certainty that an action will be performed, then no action of man or
any other creature can be free; for on this supposition, every action
must come to pass without divine prescience, by mere chance, and
consequently without a cause.--Now, therefore, the Calvinists find
themselves placed upon firm and high ground. They fear not the attacks
of their opponents. They face them on the ground of reason, as well as
of Scripture. They act not merely on the defensive. Rather they have
carried the war into Italy, and to the very gates of Rome.--But all
this is peculiar to America; except that a few European writers have
adopted, from American authors, the sentiments here stated. Even the
famous Assembly of Divines had very imperfect views of this subject.
This they prove, when they say, "Our first parents, being left to the
freedom of their own will, fell from the state wherein they were
created;"--and "God foreordained whatsoever comes to pass, so as the
contingency of second causes is not taken away, but rather
established."--These divines unquestionably meant, that our first
parents, in the instance, at least, of their fall, acted from
self-determination, and by mere contingence or chance. But there is no
more reason to believe or even suppose this, than there is to suppose
it true of every sinner, in every sin which he commits.
"3. Mr. Edwards very happily illustrated and explained The nature of
True Virtue, or Holiness.--What is the nature of true virtue, or
holiness?--In what does it consist?--and, Whence arises our obligation
to be truly virtuous or holy?--are questions which moral writers have
agitated in all past ages. Some have placed virtue in self-love;--some
in acting agreeably to the fitness of things;--some in following
conscience, or moral sense;--some in following truth;--and some in
acting agreeably to the will of God. Those who place or found virtue
in fitness, and those who found it in truth, do but use one synonymous
word for another. For they doubtless mean moral fitness, and moral
truth; these are no other than virtuous fitness, and virtuous truth.
No one would pretend that it is a virtuous action to give a man
poison, because it is fit or direct mode of destroying his life. No
person will pretend that the crucifying of Christ was virtuous,
because it was true, compared with the ancient prophecies.--To found
virtue in acting agreeably to conscience, or moral sense, justifies
the persecutions of Christians by Saul of Tarsus, as well as a great
proportion of heathenish idolatry.--If we found virtue in the will of
God, the question arises, Whether the will of God be our rule, because
it is in fact what it is, wise, good and benevolent; or whether it be
our rule, merely because it is his will, without any consideration of
its nature and tendency; and whether it would be a rule equally
binding, as to observance, if it were foolish and malicious?--Mr.
Edwards teaches, that virtue consists in benevolence. He proves that
every voluntary action, which, in its general tendency and ultimate
consequences, leads to happiness, is virtuous, and that every such
action, which has not this tendency, and does not lead to this
consequence, is vicious. By happiness, in this case, he does not mean
the happiness of the agent only, or principally, but happiness in
general, happiness on the large scale. Virtuous or holy benevolence
embraces both the agent himself and others--all intelligences,
wherever found, who are capable of a rational and moral blessedness.
All actions, proceeding from such a principle, he holds to be fit, or
agreeable to the fitness of things--agreeable equally to reason, and,
to a well-informed conscience, or moral sense, and to moral
truth;--and agreeable especially to the will of God, who "is love," or
benevolence.--In this scheme of virtue or holiness, Mr. Edwards
appears to have been original. Much indeed has been said, by most
moral writers, in favour of benevolence. Many things they had
published, which imply, in their consequences, Mr. Edward's scheme of
virtue. But no one before him had traced these consequences to their
proper issue. No one had formed a system of virtue, and of morals,
built on that foundation.
"4. Mr. Edwards has thrown much light on the inquiry concerning The
Origin of Moral Evil. This question, comprehending the influence which
the Deity had in the event of moral evil, has always been esteemed
most difficult and intricate. That God is the author of sin, has been
constantly objected to the Calvinists, as the consequence of their
principles, by their opponents. To avoid this objection, some have
holden that God is the author of the sinful act, which the sinner
commits, but that the sinner himself is the author of its sinfulness.
But how we shall abstract the sinfulness of a malicious act from the
malicious act itself; and how God can be the author of a malicious
act, and not be the author of the malice, which is the sinfulness of
that act; is hard to be conceived. Mr. Edwards rejects, with
abhorrence, the idea that God either is, or can be, the agent, or
actor, of sin. He illustrates and explains this difficult subject, by
showing that God may dispose things in such a manner, that sin will
certainly take place in consequence of such a disposal. In maintaining
this, he only adheres to his own important doctrine of moral
necessity. The divine disposal, by which sin certainly comes into
existence, is only establishing a certainty of its future existence.
If that certainty, which is no other than moral necessity, be not
inconsistent with human liberty; then surely the cause of that
certainty, which is no other than the divine disposal, cannot be
inconsistent with such liberty.
"5. The followers of Mr. Edwards have thrown new and important light
upon `The Doctrine of Atonement. It has been commonly represented,
that the atonement, which Christ made, was the payment of a debt, due
from his people. By this payment, they were purchased from slavery and
condemnation. Hence arose this question,--If the sinner's debt be
paid, how does it appear that there is any pardon or grace in his
deliverance?--The followers of Mr. Edwards have proved, that the
atonement does not consist in the payment of a debt, properly so
called. It consists rather in doing that, which, for the purpose of
establishing the authority of the divine law, and of supporting in due
time the divine government, is equivalent to the punishment of the
sinner according to the letter of the law. Now, therefore, God,
without the prostration of his authority and government, can pardon
and save those who believe. As what was done to support the divine
government, was not done by the sinner, so it does not at all diminish
the free grace of his pardon and salvation. [91]
"6. With respect to The Imputation of Adam's Sin, and The Imputation
of Christ's Righteousness, their statements also have been more
accurate. The common doctrine had been, that Adam's sin is so
transferred to his posterity, that it properly becomes their sin. The
righteousness of Christ, likewise, is so transferred or made over to
the believer, that it properly becomes his righteousness. To the
believer it is reckoned in the divine account.--On this the question
arises, How can the righteousness or good conduct of one person be the
righteousness or good conduct of another? If, in truth, it cannot be
the conduct of that other; how can God, who is omniscient, and cannot
mistake, reckon, judge, or think it to be the conduct of that
other?--The followers of Mr. Edwards find relief from this difficulty,
by proving that to impute righteousness, is, in the language of
Scripture, to justify; and that, to impute the righteousness of
Christ, is to justify on account of Christ's righteousness. The
imputation of righteousness can, therefore, be no transfer of
righteousness. They are the beneficial consequences of righteousness,
which are transferred. Not therefore the righteousness of Christ
itself, but its beneficial consequences and advantages are transferred
to the believer.--In the same manner they reason with respect to the
imputation of Adam's sin. The baneful consequences of Adam's sin,
which came upon himself, came also upon his posterity. These
consequences were, that, after his first transgression, God left him
to an habitual disposition to sin, to a series of actual
transgressions, and to a liableness to the curse of the law, denounced
against such transgression.--The same consequences took place with
regard to Adam's posterity. By divine constitution, they, as
descending from Adam, become, like himself, the subjects of an
habitual disposition to sin. This disposition is commonly called
original depravity. Under its influence they sin, as soon as, in a
moral point of view, they act at all. This depravity, this disposition
to sin, leads them naturally to a series of actual transgressions, and
exposes them to the whole curse of the law.--On this subject two
questions have been much agitated in the Christian world:--1. Do the
posterity of Adam, unless saved by Christ, suffer final damnation on
account of Adam's sin?--and, if this be asserted, how can it be
reconciled with justice?--2. How shall we reconcile it with justice,
that Adam's posterity should be doomed, in consequence of his sin, to
come into the world, with an habitual disposition themselves to
sin?--On the former of these questions, the common doctrine has been,
that Adam's posterity, unless saved by Christ, are damned on account
of Adam's sin, and that this is just, because his sin is imputed or
transferred to them. By imputation, his sin becomes their sin. When
the justice of such a transfer is demanded, it is said that the
constitution, which God has established, makes the transfer just.--To
this it may be replied, that in the same way it may be proved to be
just, to damn a man without any sin at all, either personal or
imputed. We need only to resolve it into a sovereign constitution of
God. From this difficulty the followers of Mr. Edwards relieve
themselves, by holding that, though Adam was so constituted the
federal head of his posterity, that in consequence of his sin they all
sin or become sinners, yet they are damned on account of their own
personal sin merely, and not on account of Adam's sin, as though they
were individually guilty of his identical transgression. This leads us
to the second question stated above:--viz. How shall we reconcile it
with perfect justice, that Adam's posterity should, by a divine
constitution, be depraved and sinful, or become sinners, in
consequence of Adam's apostacy?--But this question involves no
difficulty, beside that, which attends the doctrine of divine decrees.
And this is satisfactory; because for God to decree that an event
shall take place, is, in other words, the same thing as if he make a
constitution, under the operation of which that event shall take
place. If God has decreed whatever comes to pass, he decreed the fall
of Adam. It is obvious that, in equal consistency with justice, he may
decree any other sin. Consequently he may decree that every man shall
sin; and this too, as soon as he shall become capable of moral action.
Now if God could, consistently with justice, establish, decree, or
make a constitution, according to which this depravity, this
sinfulness of disposition, should exist, without any respect to Adam's
sin, he might evidently, with the same justice, decree that it should
take place in consequence of Adam's sin. If God might consistently
with justice decree, that the Jews should crucify Christ, without the
treachery of Judas preceding, he might with the same justice decree,
that they should do the same evil deed, in consequence of that
treachery.--Thus the whole difficulty, attending the connexion between
Adam and his posterity, is resolved into the doctrine of the divine
decrees; and the followers of Mr. Edwards feel themselves placed upon
strong ground--ground upon which they are willing, at any time, to
meet their opponents.--They conceive, furthermore, that, by resolving
several complicated difficulties into one simple vindicable principle,
a very considerable improvement is made in the representations of
theological truth. Since the discovery and elucidation of the
distinction, between natural and moral necessity, and inability; and
since the effectual confutation of that doctrine, which founds moral
liberty on self-determination; they do not feel themselves pressed
with the objections, which are made to divine and absolute decrees.
"7. With respect to The State of the Unregenerate, The Use of Means,
and The Exhortations, which ought to be addressed to the Impenitent,
the disciples of Mr. Edwards, founding themselves on the great
principles of moral agency, established in the Freedom of the Will,
have since his day made considerable improvement upon former
views.--This improvement was chiefly occasioned by the writings of
Robert Sandeman, a Scotchman, which were published after the death of
Mr. Edwards. Sandeman, in the most striking colours, pointed out the
inconsistency of the popular preachers, as he called them; by whom he
meant Calvinistic divines in general. He proved them inconsistent, in
teaching that the unregenerate are, by total depravity, `dead in
trespasses and sins,'--and yet supposing that such sinners do often
attain those sincere desires, make those sincere resolutions, and
offer those sincere prayers, which are well pleasing in the sight of
God, and which are the sure presages of renewing grace and salvation.
He argued, that, if the unregenerate be dead in sin, then all that
they do must be sin; and that sin can never be pleasing and acceptable
to God. Hence he taught, not only that all the exercises and strivings
of the unregenerate are abominable in the Divine view, but that there
is no more likelihood, in consequence of their strictest attendance on
the means of grace, that they will become partakers of salvation, than
there would be in the total neglect of those means. These sentiments
were entirely new. As soon as they were published, they gave a
prodigious shock to all serious men, both ministers and others. The
addresses to the unregenerate, which had hitherto consisted chiefly in
exhortations to attend on the outward means of grace, and to form such
resolutions, and put forth such desires, as all supposed consistent
with unregeneracy, were examined. It appearing that such exhortations
were addresses to no real spiritual good; many ministers refrained
from all exhortations to the unregenerate. The perplexing inquiry with
such sinners consequently was--`What then have we to do? All we do is
sin. To sin is certainly wrong. We ought therefore to remain still,
doing nothing, until God bestow upon us renewing grace.' In this state
of things, Dr. Hopkins took up the subject. He inquired particularly
into the exhortations delivered by the inspired writers. He published
several pieces on The character of the Unregenerate; on Using the
Means of Grace; and on The Exhortations, which ought to be addressed
to the Unregenerate. He clearly showed that, although they are dead in
depravity and sin, yet, as this lays them under a mere moral inability
to the exercise and practice of true holiness,--and as such exercise
and practice are their unquestionable duty,--to this duty they are to
be exhorted. To this duty only, and to those things which imply it,
the inspired writers constantly exhort the unregenerate. Every thing
short of this duty is sin. Nevertheless, `as faith cometh by hearing,'
those who `hear,' and attend on the means of grace, even in their
unregeneracy, and from natural principles, are more likely than others
to become the subjects of divine grace. The Scriptures sufficiently
prove, that this is the constitution which Christ has established. It
likewise accords perfectly with experience and observation, both in
apostolic and subsequent ages.
"8. Mr. Edwards greatly illustrated The Nature of Experimental
Religion. He pointed out, more clearly than had been done before, the
distinguishing marks of genuine Christian experience, and those
religious affections and exercises, which are peculiar to the true
Christian. The accounts of Christian affection and experience, which
had before been given, both by American and European writers, were
general, indiscriminate, and confused. They seldom, if ever,
distinguished the exercises of self-love, natural conscience, and
other natural principles of the human mind under conviction of divine
truth, from those of the new nature, given in regeneration. In other
words, they seldom distinguished the exercises of the sinner under the
law work, and the joys afterwards often derived from a groundless
persuasion of his forgiveness, from those sincere and evangelical
affections, which are peculiar to the real convert. They did not show
how far the unregenerate sinner can proceed in religious exercises,
and yet fall short of saving grace. But this whole subject, and the
necessary distinction, with respect to it, are set in a striking light
by Mr. Edwards, in his treatise concerning Religious Affections.
"9. Mr. Edwards has thrown much light upon the subject of affection as
disinterested. The word disinterested, is, indeed, capable of such a
sense, as affords a ground of argument against disinterested
affections; and scarcely perhaps is an instance of its use to be
found, in which it does not admit of an equivocation. It seems to be a
mere equivocation to say, that disinterested affection is an
impossibility; and that, if we are not interested in favour of
religion, we are indifferent with respect to it, and do not love it at
all. But who ever thought that, when a person professes a
disinterested regard for another, he has no regard for him at all.
[92] The plain meaning is, that his regard for him is direct and
benevolent, not selfish, nor arising from selfish motives. In this
sense, Mr. Edwards maintained that our religious affections, if
genuine, are disinterested; that our love to God arises chiefly--not
from the motive that God has bestowed, or is about to bestow, on us
favours, whether temporal or eternal, but--from his own infinite
excellence and glory. The same explanation applies to the love which
every truly pious person feels for the Lord Jesus Christ, for every
truth of divine revelation, and for the whole scheme of the gospel.
Very different from this is the representation given by most
theological writers before Mr. Edwards. The motives presented by them,
to persuade men to love and serve God, to come unto Christ, to repent
of their sin; and to embrace and practise religion, are chiefly of the
selfish kind. There is, in their works, no careful and exact
discrimination upon this subject.
"10. He has thrown great light on the important doctrine of
Regeneration. Most writers before him treat this subject very loosely.
They do indeed describe a variety of awakenings and convictions, fears
and distresses, comforts and joys, as implied in it; and they call the
whole, regeneration. They represent the man before regeneration as
dead, and no more capable of spiritual action, than a man naturally
dead is capable of performing those deeds, which require natural life
and strength. From their description, a person is led to conceive,
that the former is as excusable, in his omission of those holy
exercises, which constitute the christian character and life, as the
latter is, in the neglect of those labours, which cannot be performed
without natural life. From their account, no one can determine in what
the change, effected by regeneration, consists. They do not show the
inquirer, whether every awakened and convinced sinner, who afterwards
has lively gratitude and joy, is regenerated; or whether a gracious
change of heart implies joys of a peculiar kind: neither, if the
renewed have joys peculiar to themselves, do the teachers, now
referred to, describe that peculiarity; nor do they tell from what
motives the joys, that are evidence of regeneration, arise. They
represent the whole man, his understanding, and his sensitive
faculties, as renewed, no less than his heart and affections.
According to them generally, this change is effected by light. As to
this indeed they are not perfectly agreed. Some of them hold, that the
change is produced by the bare light and motives exhibited in the
gospel. Others pretend, that a man is persuaded to become a Christian,
as he is persuaded to become a friend to republican government. Yet
others there are, who hold that regeneration is caused by a
supernatural and divine light immediately communicated. Their
representation of this seems to imply, and their readers understand it
as implying, an immediate and new revelation. But, according to Mr.
Edwards, and those who adopt his views of the subject, regeneration
consists in the communication of a new spiritual sense or taste. In
other words, a new heart is given. This communication is made, this
work is accomplished, by the Spirit of God. It is their opinion, that
the intellect, and the sensitive faculties, are not the immediate
subject of any change in regeneration. They believe, however, that, in
consequence of the change which the renewed heart experiences, and of
its reconciliation to God, light breaks in upon the understanding. The
subject of regeneration sees, therefore, the glory of God's character,
and the glory of all divine truth. This may be an illustration. A man
becomes cordially reconciled to his neighbour, against whom he had
previously felt a strong enmity. He now sees the real excellencies of
his neighbour's character, to which he was blinded before by enmity
and prejudice. These new views of his neighbour, and these different
feelings towards him, are the consequence of the change: its evidence,
but not the change itself.--At the same time, Mr. Edwards and others
believe, that in saving experience, the sensitive faculties are
brought under the due regulation by the new heart or holy temper. None
of the awakenings, fears, and convictions, which precede the new
heart, are, according to this scheme, any part of regeneration; though
they are, in some sense, a preparation for it, as all doctrinal
knowledge is. The sinner, before regeneration, is allowed to be
totally dead to the exercises and duties of the spiritual life. He is
nevertheless accounted a moral agent. He is therefore entirely
blamable in his impenitence, his unbelief, and his alienation from
God. He is therefore, with perfect propriety, exhorted to repent, to
become reconciled to God in Christ, and to arise from his spiritual
death, that "Christ may give him light."--According to this system,
regeneration is produced, neither by moral suasion, i.e. by the
arguments and motives of the gospel, nor by any supernatural,
spiritual light; but by the immediate agency of the Holy Spirit. Yet
the light and knowledge of the gospel are, by divine constitution,
usually necessary to regeneration, as the blowing of the rams' horns
was necessary to the falling of the walls of Jericho; and the moving
of the stone from the mouth of the sepulchre, was necessary to the
raising of Lazarus."
Thus it appears, that Mr. Edwards taught us in his writings, in a
manner so clear, that mankind have hitherto been satisfied with the
instruction, Why God created this material and spiritual
universe;--What is the nature of that government which he exercises
over minds, and how it is consistent with their perfect freedom;--What
is the nature of that virtue, which they must possess, if they are to
secure his approbation;--What is the nature, the source, the extent,
and the evidences of that depravity,. which characterizes man, as a
fallen being;--What is the series of events by which his redemption is
accomplished;--What are the qualifications for that church, to which
the redeemed belong;--What are the grounds on which they are
justified;--What are the nature and evidences of that religion, which
is imparted to them by the Spirit of grace;--What are the nature and
effects of that revival of religion which accompanies an effusion of
his divine influences on a people;--And what are the inducements to
united and extraordinary prayer, that such effusions may be abundantly
enjoyed by the church of God. [93] --By what is thus said, we do not
intend, that all his reasonings are solid, or all his opinions sound
and scriptural; but we know of no writer, since the days of the
apostles, who has better comprehended the word of God; who has more
fully unfolded the nature and design of the revelation of his mind,
which it contains; who has more ably explained and defended the great
doctrines which it teaches; who has more clearly illustrated the
religion which it requires; who has done more for the purification and
enlargement of that church which it establishes; or who, in
consequence of his unfoldings of divine truth, will find, when the
work of every man is weighed in the balances of eternity, a larger
number to be "his hope, and joy, and crown of rejoicing in that
day."--And when we remember, in addition to all this, that we can
probably select no individual, of all who have lived in that long
period, who has manifested a more ardent or elevated piety towards
God, a warmer or more expanded benevolence towards man, or greater
purity, or disinterestedness, or integrity of character--one, who gave
the concentrated strength of all his powers, more absolutely, to the
one end of glorifying God in the salvation of man;--and then reflect
that at the age of fifty-four, in the highest vigour of all his
faculties, in the fulness of his usefulness, when he was just entering
on the most important station of his life, he yielded to the stroke of
death; we look towards his grave, in mute astonishment, unable to
penetrate those clouds and darkness, which hover around it. One of his
weeping friends [94] thus explained this most surprising
dispensation:--"He was pouring in a flood of light upon mankind, which
their eyes, as yet, were too feeble to bear."--If this was not the
reason; we can only say--"Even so, Father! for so it seemed good in
thy sight."
_________________________________________________________________
[79] The last article under this head, is obviously the foundation of
the author's subsequent Treatise on the Nature of True Virtue.
[80] On a preceding page it is stated, on the authority of Dr.
Hopkins, that he regularly spent thirteen hours, every day, in close
study, After receiving his invitation to Princeton, he told his eldest
son, that he had for many years spent fourteen hours a day in study:
and mentioned the necessity of giving up a part of this time to other
pursuits, as one of his chief objections against accepting the office
of president.
[81] "As both the giver, and the object of his charity, are dead, and
all the ends of the proposed secrecy are answered; it is thought not
inconsistent with the above-mentioned promise, to make known the fact,
as it is here related."
[82] His height was about six feet one inch.
[83] See Preface to Five Sermons, vol. i. p. 621.
[84] Sir Charles Grandison. I had this anecdote through his eldest
son.
[85] The treatise on Affections, and on United Extraordinary Prayer,
are the most incorrect of all his works, published by himself. In his
sermons, published in his life-time, somewhat of the linae labor is
discernable. The works published by his son, Dr. Edwards, in this
country, are but little altered from the rough draught, but those
first published in Edinburgh, are generally more so. The History of
Redemption was considerably corrected by my father, and afterwards
thrown in the form of a treatise by Dr. Erskine. The Sermons published
by Dr. Hopkins, are the least correct of all his works.
[86] I suppose the writer referred to here, and in various other
places, to have been Dr. Finley.
[87] For many of the remarks on the character of Mr. Edwards, as a
preacher and writer, I am indebted to a well written review of the
Worchester edition of his works, in the Christian Spectator; but they
are usually so blended with my own, that it is impossible to designate
the passages.
[88] "Though, as has been observed," says Dr. Hopkins, "he was wont to
read so considerable a part of what he delivered, yet was far from
thinking this the best way of preaching in general; and looking up on
using his notes, so much as he did, a deficiency and infirmity, and in
the latter part of his life, he was inclined to think it had been
better, if he had never been accustomed to use his note