We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 28 July 2009
As the pioneer of the New England Awakening and its literary defender, Edwards has long been associated with revivalism and sectarianism in American Protestantism. Several writers have noted that his Faithful Narrative (1737) of the 1734 Northampton revival, with its many translations and reprints, not only stimulated the Great Awakening of 1740 and later revivals but helped set the pattern of conversion experience in its more “enthusiastic” features. Attention has been called to his involvement in the “hell-fire” preaching of the revival, its emotional excesses, its distorted conception of childhood religion, and its pietistic individualism.
1. Greene, M. Louise (The Development of Religous Liberty in Connecticut [Boston, 1905], pp. 227–228)Google Scholar lists this work and the preaching of Whitefield as the powers of the 1740 Awakening. Ola Winslow is severe on the Faithful Narrative for its models of piety (Jonathan Edwards, 1703–1758 [New York, 1940], pp. 166–169)Google Scholar. In Edwards' later criticisms of the revival, she says, “He spoke too late and too temperately. Besides, all New England remembered Phoebe Bartlett” (Ibid., p. 205). In his essay on Edwards, (Hours in a Library [New York, 1894], I, 307–312)Google Scholar, Leslie Stephen is bitter against him for defending his revival against the charge of enthusiasm and for afflicting poor little wretches like the “detestable infant” of the Faithful Narrative with threatenings of hell fire. Oliver Wendell Holmes opined that the people of Northampton ejected Edwards primarily for preaching terror to them and for calling their little children vipers (Writings [Boston, 1891], VIII, 391–393).Google Scholar
2. In a generally perceptive article (“Jonathan Edwards and the Revivalists,” Christian Examiner, XLIII [1847], 374–394)Google Scholar, W. H. Channing insists that the revivalist conception of conversion, especially as preached by Whitefield, strengthened the tendency to individualism and private religion already dominant in Protestantism. He admits, however, the existence of other elements in Edwards' thought which favored the larger unities of the Christian faith.
3. That separatist congregational churches resulted from the Great Awakening, along with the multiplication of Baptist and Quaker congregations, is well known. See, e.g., Sweet, W. W., Religion in Colonial America (New York, 1952), pp. 139, 290–292.Google Scholar
4. Jonathan Edwards (Boston, 1889), pp. 254–256.Google Scholar
5. The Religious Background of American Culture (Boston, 1930), pp. 148–151.Google Scholar
6. This Dissent, with its theology of the unmediated encounter between God and the individual conscience, “is more Protestant than either Lutheranism or Calvinism” (Ibid., p. 151).
7. Main Currents in American Thought: I. The Colonial Mind (New York, 1927), p. 162.Google Scholar
8. This is particularly true of the large number of sermons still in manuscript. Those who in the past selected the sermons to be published posthumously were not primarily interested in the doctrine of church and sacraments—in itself a significant fact. What is probably the next most important unpublished source has, however, yielded a substantial part of the material on which this study is based; that is, the MS. “Miscellanies,” which are used and quoted with the kind permission of the Sterling Library at Yale University, where the originals are preserved.
9. The Works of President Edwards, ed. Sereno E. Dwight (New York, 1829–1830), III, 21.Google Scholar The italics have been dropped from this quotation but are elsewhere retained. The essay will be cited as the “End in Creation,” and all citations of Works refer to this ten-volume edition.
10. “This propensity to diffuse himself, may be considered as a propensity to himself diffused; or to his own glory existing in its emanation” (Ibid., p. 23).
11. MS. sermon on I John 3:2, in the Yale Collection.
12. This is argued at length in the “End in Creation,” Works, III, 27ff.Google Scholar Edwards' early MS. sermons and notes are full of the theme.
13. “Miscellanies,” No. 87.
14. This is the implication of the argument in the “End in Creation,” Works, III, 18–21.Google Scholar The idea is more forcibly expressed in the MSS. (“Miscellanies,” No. 1218, e.g.) but always stops short of pantheistic necessity.
15. “Miscellanies,” No. 445.
16. “Miscellaneous Remarks,” Works, VII, 435–436.Google Scholar
17. An Unpublished Essay of Edwards on the Trinity, ed. G. P. Fisher (New York, 1903), p. 133.Google Scholar
18. “Miscellanies,” No. 104.
19. Ibid.
20. Works, V, 19.
21. Charity and its Fruits, ed. Tryon Edwards (New York, 1856), p. 23.Google Scholar
22. “The Nature of True Virtue,” Works, III, 94.Google Scholar
23. Ibid., pp. 95–98.
24. Ibid., pp. 97–98.
25. “The Mind,” Works, I, 697–701.Google Scholar
26. Ibid., p. 695.
27. “Miscellanies,” No. 41. On the infinite evil of sin, see Edwards', great work on “Original Sin,” Works, II, 329–330.Google Scholar
28. MS. sermon on Rev. 21:18, in the Yale Collection. Cf. “Miscellanies,” No. 571, printed in Works, VIII, 549.Google Scholar
29. This covenant is described in the essay printed by Smyth, E. C. as Observations concerning the Scripture Oeconoiny of the Trinity and Covenant of Redemption (New York, 1880).Google Scholar
30. Edwards, accepts this scheme (“Original Sin,” Works, II, 542;Google Scholar “Miscellanies,” No. 35).
31. “Original Sin,” Works, II, 542–549.Google Scholar This was not a later idea of Edwards; it developed out of his idealism and is explicitly stated in “Miscellanies,” No. 18, long before he shows any acquaiutanee with Stapfer, whose authority he cites in the Original Sin.
32. “Justification by Faith,” Works, V, 364–364.Google Scholar For a fuller discussion, see my article on “Jonathan Edwards and Justification by Faith,” Church History, XX (1951), 55–67.Google Scholar
33. This is the burden of Edwards“Treatise on Grace.” See Grosart, A. B., ed., Selections from the Unpublished Writings of Jonathan Edwards, of America (Edinburgh, 1865), pp. 41ff.Google Scholar
34. “Miscellanies,” No. 2. “The new covenant itself witnesses that it is made with Christ, and not with believers considered as distinct from him” (Ibid., No. 163).
35. “The Mind,” Works, I, 697.Google Scholar
36. Edwards' own attachment to those who evidenced Christian grace appears in many of his writings. Cf. his “Personal Narrative,” Works, I, 66–67, 99,Google Scholar and his tribute to Sarah Pierrepont (Ibid., pp. 114–115).
37. “… consent to Being is dissent from that, which dissents from Being” (“The Mind,” Works, I, 700)Google Scholar. Cf. “The End of the Wicked Contemplated by the Righteous,” Works, VI, 474.
38. “Christ loves all his saints in heaven. And they all, with one heart and soul, unite in love to their common Redeemer. … All the members of the glorious society of heaven are sincerely united. … Not a heart is there that is not beloved by all the others. And as all are lovely, so all see each other's loveliness with full complacence and delight” (Charity and Its Fruits, p. 478).
39. Ibid., p. 470.
40. Ibid., pp. 480–481. Cf. “Miscellanies,” Nos. 5 and 198, Works, VIII, 527–529, 532–533.
41. See the numbers in Ibid., pp. 496–527. Edwards makes envy and a refusal to be ministering spirits to the saints prime causes for the fall of some of the angels.
42. Ibid., p. 549.
43. “End in Creation,” Works, III, 85–87.Google Scholar
44. “Miscellanies,” No. 777.
45. Ibid., No. 86.
46. Ibid., No. 565.
47. Works, VIII, 543. Edwards, with his Lockean psychology, makes various attempts to work out a satisfactory theory of perception for “separate spirits” in order to make this possible. Cf. “The Mind,” Works, I, 678–679Google Scholar; “Miscellanies,” No. 264, Works, VIII, 534.
48. The scheme is briefly indicated by Ames, William (Medulla Theologica [Amstelodami, 1628], chapters 38–41Google Scholar); as elaborated by later writers (e.g., Mastricht, Peter van (Theoretico-Practica Theologia [ed. nova; Trajecti ad Rhenum, 1699]Google Scholar, Lib. VIII), the “dispensation of the covenant of grace”includes whole textbooks in Biblical history, church history, and eschatology.
49. Edited posthumously by John Erskine, it was based on a 1739 series of sermons. So important did Edwards consider this theme that he planned to organize a whole body of divinity aroundit. See his letter to the Princeton trustees (Works, I, 568–571).Google Scholar
50. “History of the Work of Redemption,” Works, III, 367ff.Google Scholar Cf. “An Humble Attempt to Promote Explicit Agreement and Visible Union of God's People in Extraordinary Prayer for the Revival of Religion and the Advancement of Christ's Kingdom on Earth …,” Ibid., pp. 486–91.
51. “Thoughts on the Revival,” Works, IV, 128–133.
52. “An Humble Attempt …,” Works, III, 517–540.Google Scholar
53. “Miscellanies,” No. 777 sets forth these ideas in a long article entitled “The Happiness of Heaven Is Progressive.” Such eras were inaugurated by the reign of Solomon, the ascension of Christ, and the Reformation.
54. Ibid.
55. Ibid., No. 72.
56. Ibid., No. 852.
57. Edwards' defense of the revival is in a sense an expression of that belief, which in turn is based on his doctrine of spiritual light. Cf. “Thoughts on the Revival,” Works, IV, 171–176Google Scholar; “A Treatise concerning Religious Affections,” Works, V, 183–185;Google Scholar“A Divine and Supernatural Light,” Works, VI, 186.Google Scholar
58. See “Thoughts on the Revival,” Works, IV, 241–246,Google Scholar and Edwards' letter of rebuke to a layman who had begun to preach (printed in Miller, Samuel, Life of Jonathan Edwards [New York, 1856], pp. 71–73)Google Scholar. In the Congregationalism of Edwards' day the office of lay elder was practically extinct. The pastor was “the elder of his church and was charged with the duties once exercised by the “presbytery” of the church, among which was the proposal of candidates for admission and discipline” (Walker, Williston, A History of the Congregational Churches in the United States [6th edition; New York, 1907], pp. 227–229)Google Scholar. Edwards accepted and justified this situation (e.g., in “Miscellanies,” Nos. mm, qq, 40, 65), even so far as to suggest that in the New Testament Church the function of government was not a “standing office” distinct from that of pastor (MS. note on I Cor. 12:28).
59. “Miscellanies,” No. 339. Cf. the Cambridge Platform, Chapter II (Walker, Williston, Creeds and Platforms of Congregationalism [New York, 1893], pp. 204–205)Google Scholar.
60. Letter of July 5, 1750, to Erskine, John, Works, I, 412.Google Scholar
61. “Miscellanies,” Nos. 90, 349. Here is to be seen, no doubt, the influence of the Saybrook Platform. In the Breek case, we find Edwards writing in defense of the disciplinary powers of consociations and associations (see A Letter to the Author of the Pamphlet Called an Answer to the Hampshire Narrative [Boston, 1737], pp. 20ff.Google Scholar
62. “Miscellanies,” Nos. 69, 90.
63. He denies (Ibid., Nos. 9, 11) that civil authority gives any right to dictate in ecclesiastical affairs.
64. Cf. , Allen, Jonathan Edwards, pp. 56, 254–257,Google Scholar and Schneider, Herbert W., The Puritan Mind (New York, 1930), pp. 106–107, 126.Google Scholar The magistrate's task seems to be limited to the general promotion of religion and the protection of congregations in such rights as assembly and public worship (“Thoughts on the Revival,” Works, IV, 144–147, 266)Google Scholar. Certain of these rights, though dealing with spiritual matters, become civil to the extent that they affect a people's “advantage in this world” (“Miscellanies,” No. 14).
65. “Thoughts on the Revival,” Works, IV, 272.Google Scholar See Edwards' letter of September 23, 1747 to Mcculloch, William (Works, I, 242–243).Google Scholar
66. Works, IV, 460–468.Google Scholar
67. Ibid., p. 492.
68. See Rouse, Ruth and Neill, Stephen C., eds., A History of the Ecumenical Movement, 1517–1948 (London, 1954), p. 228.Google Scholar
69. “Miscellanies,” No. 339.
70. Ibid., No. 338. Edwards was willing privately to hear and evaluate such “particular experiences.” His criteria are set forth in a private list of “Directions for Judging of Persons' Experiences” (Grosart, Selections, pp. 183–185).
71. There is still some disagreement as to the extent of this right in Stoddard's own practice. Cf. Walker, Williston (History of the Congregational Churches, p. 181Google Scholar) with Miller, Perry (“Solomon Stoddard, 1643–1729,” Harvard Theological Review, XXXIV [1941], 298Google Scholar; The New England Mind: From Colony to Province [Cambridge, Mass., 1953], p. 227).Google Scholar
72. “Miscellanies,” No. 462. This seems to have been the purpose of the North-ampton church covenant of 1742 and its place in the development of Edwards' thought (Works, I, 165–168).
73. Cf. Winslow, Ola, Jonathan Edwards, pp. 224–225, 251–252,Google Scholar with Miller, Perry, Jonathan Edwards (New York, 1949), pp. 218–219.Google Scholar
74. “An Humble Inquiry into the Rules of the Word of God concerning the Quailfications Requisite to a Compleat Standing and Full Communion in the Visible Christian Church” (1749), Works, IV, 297Google Scholaret passim. This work is hereafter cited as “Qualifications for Communion.”
75. “Misrepresentations Corrected, and Truth Vindicated, in a Reply to the Rev. Mr. Solomon Wiiiams's Book …” Works, IV, 465–466.Google Scholar
76. See Sereno Dwight's life of Edwards, Works, I, 300–305, and Miller's, Perry article on Stoddard, Harvard Theological Review, XXXIV, 305–308.Google Scholar
77. “Qualifications for Communion,” Works, IV, 302, 333–334, 366.Google Scholar
78. Ibid., pp. 365–368. Edwards expressed disappointment in the revival for not increasing the frequency of this “feast-day with God's saints” and indicated weekly celebration as the norm (“Thoughts on the Revival,” Works, IV, 273–274).Google Scholar
79. “Misrepresentations Corrected,” Works, IV, 467–468 and n.Google Scholar
80. “Qualifications for Communion,” Works, IV, 301.Google Scholar “To say a man is visibly a saint, but not visibly a real saint, but only visibly a visible saint, is a very absurd way of speaking … and to use words without signification” (Ibid.).
81. Ibid., pp. 320ff. Confirmation is admission to the Eucharist. “What is there pretended to be done in episcopal Confirmation, that Christ did not design the Lord's Supper for!”—“Miscellanies,” No. 207.
82. Ibid., p. 432.
83. Ibid., pp. 285–286 (Preface).
84. For example, by Dexter, H. M., The Congregationalism of the Last Three Hundred Years, as Seen in Its Literature (New York, 1880), p. 487n.Google Scholar
85. “Qualifications for Communion,” Works, IV, 423ff.Google Scholar
86. Ibid., p. 425.
87. “Miscellanies,” No. 577.
88. “Qualifications for Communion,” Works, IV, 427;Google Scholar “Miscellanies,” No. 595.
89. “Miscellanies,” No. 485.
90. Ibid., No. 689.
91. Ibid. “There is just so much difference between this covenanting and the invisible covennnting with a believing soul, and no more, as will naturally and necessarily arise from God's acting in the one case as the Searcher of hearts, and in the other not, supposing God in both cases to proceed on the same foundation and with the same drift” (Ibid.).
92. Ibid., No. 539.
93. It is significant that the imputationist Charles Hodge listed, as Edwards' sole departures from Old Calvinism, these two: “that he taught Stapfer's scheme of the mediate imputation of Adam's sin“ and ”that he held an eccentric philosophical theory of the nature of virtue, as consisting wholly in love to being in general” (“Jonathan Edwards and the Successive Forms of New Divinity,” Biblical Repertory and Princeton Review, XXX [1858], 589)Google Scholar. Both of these, as we have shown, involve elements of realism which influenced Edwards' doctrine of the unity of the Church.
94. See especially his article, “Jonathan Edwards' Sociology of the Great Awakening,” New England Quarterly, XXI (1948), 50–77.Google Scholar
95. Trinterud, L. J., The Forming of an American Tradition (Philadelphia, 1949), p. 180.Google Scholar
