Skip to main content

Full text of "Exercises commemorating the two-hundredth anniversary of the birth of Jonathan Edwards, held at Andover theological seminary, October 4 and 5, 1903"

See other formats







1703 1003 










Printed under the direction of the Faculty 

An dover, Massachusetts 








186 3-1904 


As the oldest Congregational school of theology in 
America, Andover Seminary esteemed it a duty, while 
she also counted it an honor, to celebrate the bicentenary 
of America's foremost theologian. Within her lecture- 
rooms the system of Jonathan Edwards has been diligently 
studied and sympathetically expounded. Her first pro- 
fessor of sacred theology, Dr. Leonard Woods, is 
commonly represented as a mediator between the two 
divisions of orthodox Congregationalism in his day, yet in 
substance he was a vigorous advocate of the Edwardean 
system, and his successor, Professor Park, was even more 
widely known as its interpreter. If Edwardeanism no 
longer controls the doctrinal instruction at Andover, the 
fact is due to no lack of reverence, on the part of her 
teachers, for the power of philosophical analysis and logi- 
cal construction which has made Edwards famous for all 
time, or for the fundamental truths which he strove in 
thought to apprehend, but rather to causes whose opera- 
tion no philosophical or theological system of the past is 
able permanently to withstand. 

The aim of the bicentennial celebration was not merely 
to honor the memory of a great Christian leader, but also 
to attempt a discriminating estimate of the enduring value 
of his work, — an attempt which the lapse of time and the 
subsidence of dogmatic strife have at last brought within 
the range of possibility. Accordingly, in addition to 
representatives of her own faculty, the Seminary invited 
scholars of widely different antecedents, from outside of 
New England, to participate in the proceedings. The 
reader of the papers here published will observe differ- 
ences in point of view which will at least relieve the 
record of monotony, and, it is hoped, will not detract 
from its value. 


The celebration began on Sunday, October fourth, with 
public worship in the Chapel, where a large congregation 
gathered to listen to the commemorative sermon by the 
Reverend William R. Richards, D.D., an alumnus of the 
Seminary, now pastor of the Brick Presbyterian Church 
in New York. For the public exercises on Monday after- 
noon a distinguished audience was assembled, including a 
large number of alumni and other ministers from neigh- 
boring towns, together with professors from Harvard and 
from Boston University. The church had been handsomely 
decorated for the occasion, and portraits of President and 
Mrs. Edwards, loaned by Miss Park, stood on either side 
of the pulpit. Professor Day presided, and on behalf of 
the Seminary extended a welcome to the guests. By way 
of introduction to the more formal papers, Professor 
Platner sketched in outline the religious conditions of 
New England in the time of Edwards, after which Pro- 
fessor Woodbridge, of Columbia University, presented a 
critical analysis of Edwards's work as a philosopher. At 
the close of this session the invited guests adjourned to 
Bartlet Chapel, where a reception was held and supper was 
served. Many took advantage of this opportunity to ex- 
amine the loan exhibition, consisting of the principal 
editions of Edwards's works, unpublished manuscripts and 
letters, and other objects of historical interest. 1 

Another large audience assembled for the evening ex- 
ercises, at which Professor Hincks presided. The first 
address was a sympathetic presentation of the salient 
features of Edwards's theology by Professor Smyth, who 
was a life-long student of the subject. A poem, en- 
titled " A Witness to the Truth," was read by its author, 
an Andover alumnus, the Reverend Samuel V. Cole, D.D., 

1 A list of the most important objects exhibited will be found in 
Appendix II. 


President of Wheaton Seminary. It elicited much 
favorable comment. An interesting feature of the pro- 
gram was the reading of a congratulatory message 1 from 
the Senate of the United Free Church College, Glasgow, 
which formed a suitable introduction to the closing ad- 
dress of the day, by Professor James Orr, D.D., of Glas- 
gow, who spoke upon " The Influence of Edwards." The 
exercises concluded with a piece of ancient psalmody, 
sung by the congregation to the tune of St. Martins. 

The memorial sermon, the poem, and the addresses of 
Professors Smyth and Woodbridge are here printed prac- 
tically without change. Professor Orr's address is slightly 
enlarged. Professor Platner's address, which was not 
read from manuscript, will be found to vary somewhat 
from the form in which it was delivered. In Appendix I 
are printed extracts from hitherto unpublished notes by 
Edwards, collected by Professor Smyth in illustration of 
statements made in his address. 

Thanks are due to Dr. Owen II. Gates for aid in cor- 
recting the proof sheets, and to Miss Mary W. Dwight 
for completing Professor Smyth's copy and for a careful 
revision of the proofs. 

The sudden death of Professor Smyth lends a peculiar 
interest to the publication of this little book, for it con- 
tains the final labors of his pen. He had taken the 
deepest interest in the Edwards celebration from the 
beginning, and was earnestly desirous that the printed 
record should be not unworthy of its subject. It is 
fitting that the volume should forever be closely associated 
with Dr. Smyth, to whose memory it is affectionately 
dedicated. J- W * R 

Andover, May 12, 1904. 

1 This message, with reply, is printed in Appendix II. 



Preface 5 

Programme of the Celebration . . . .11 

Commemorative Sermon 13 

The Rev. William Rogers Richards, D.D. 

Introductory Address — Religious Conditions in New 

England in the time of Edwards ... 29 

Professor John Winthrop Platner, D.D. 
Address — The Philosophy of Edwards .... 47 

Professor Frederick J. E. Woodbridge, LL.D. 
Address — The Theology of Edwards 73 

Professor Egbert Coffin Smyth, D.D., LL.D. 
Poem — A Witness to the Truth . . . , . 95 

President Samuel Valentine Cole, D.D. 
Address — The Influence of Edwards .... 105 

Professor James Orr, D.D. 

Appendices - . .127 


IO.30 A. M. 

PUBLIC WORSHIP in the Seminary Church. 

Sermon by the Rev. William Rogers Richards, D.D. 

New York 



3.30 o'clock 

Professor Charles Orrin Day, D.D., presiding. 


HYMN, No. 38. "All people that on earth do dwell." 

WORDS OF WELCOME. . . Professor Day 

ADDRESS: Religious Conditions in New England in the 
Time of Edwards. 

Professor John Winthrop Platner, D.D. 

ADDRESS: The Philosophy of Edwards. 

Professor Frederick- J. E. Woodbridge, LL.D. 

Columbia University 

HYMN, No. 190. " Holy Spirit, Lord of Light." (5 stanzas) 




(For invited guests) 

Exhibition oi autograph and published writings of President 
Edwards and other objects of historical interest, loaned for the 


7.00 o'clock 

Professor Edward Young Hincks, D.D., presiding. 

HYMN, No. 299. "Come, we who love the Lord." 


ADDRESS : The Theology of Edwards. 

Professor Egbert Coffin Smyth, D.D., LL.D. 

HYMN, No. T4. " Before Jehovah's awful throne." 

POEM. - President Samuel Valentine Cole, D.D. 

Wheaton Seminary 

CONGRATULATORY MESSAGE, from the Senate of the 
United Free Church College, Glasgow. 

ADDRESS: The Influence of Edwards. 

Professor James Orr, D.D., Glasgow. 

HYMN, No. 663. " Let children hear the mighty deeds." 






The Brick Presbyterian Church 



JEREMIAH 33 : 17 — " For thus saith the Lord, 
David shall never want a man to sit upon the throne 
of the house of Israel." 

The words are a prophecy of Christ and his 
eternal Kingdom, but the people who were first 
comforted by them had no clear expectation of 
that coming Kingdom. When they were told that 
David should never want a man, what they could 
first understand, — and no doubt did understand, — 
was this, that the breed of men of the old David- 
type was never to run out in Israel ; that in every 
time of emergency and peril, when hearts were fail- 
ing and knees trembling, — as in the old Philistine 
wars, when some Goliath was striding up and down 
between the camps insolently challenging any cham- 
pion to appear for Israel, — in such dark days the 
right champion would appear ; so the prophet says, 
the good cause would never be left to fall to the 
ground for lack of him. The Lord pledges his word 
to this. The thing is as sure as that covenant of the 
day and night which cannot fail while the world 
stands. And really that was the best promise that 
could be made to a people. For the gift of such a 
man as David was worth more to a nation than 
any other kind of gift that the Providence of God 
has ever bestowed. All the gold of India, and all 
the things that gold could buy, would not compare 
in value with this gift of a man. 



What a poor little kingdom Israel was, judged by 
our common standards of wealth and power. There 
were richer nations on every side, better armed 
nations, more populous nations. But Israel had the 
man ; no other of these nations, not all of them 
together, could show in those days a man like 
David, a man fit to sit on David's throne, a man 
with David's love for God, and trust in God, and 
earnest longing for God : and now those other 
nations, Babylon and Nineveh and Tyre and Egypt, 
with all their wealth and power, are mostly buried 
and forgotten as if they had never been ; but David, 
this king of Israel ! why, more people are singing 
his songs today, a hundred times over, than he ever 
ruled when he was alive. This influence is still in- 
creasing in the world. Such a man as that was the 
best gift that God could make to a nation. Now 
the promise was that so long as the nation of Israel 
continued, God would continue to bless them period- 
ically with this gift of men. Of course there were 
some periods of great degeneracy when such men 
seemed very scarce, but the supply never quite ran 
out. Even in the worst times, when all things were 
falling into chaos, always just at the crisis would 
appear some Elijah, or John Baptist, or other like 
man, firm enough to stand, if need be, alone against 
the world, and pull the world his way, God's way. 
The man was never wanting in the old days in 

And the man never shall be wanting. The 



promise still stands in our Bible, only it has been 
freed from its old restriction to the nation of Israel. 
We have been taught to take all these promises 
more generously, but the promise has not been 
revoked. God is pledged to the world to keep up 
the breed of men. They may not always be Jews 
now ; they may not always be Greeks, or Romans, 
or Englishmen, or even Americans ; but there shall 
be such men ; the race is not to run out. Whatever 
the pessimists may say, the final outcome of this 
great world-experiment is not to be the hopeless 
degeneracy of manhood. Today, tomorrow, next 
year, — so long as the old world stands, if ever old 
David should come back to it again, the promise is 
that he shall find somewhere the man fit to sit upon 
his throne. We may not always see this man, for 
we do not know where to look for him. In times of 
quiet when the world is moving on its way smoothly 
and easily, we may often doubt his existence ; but 
when once more the storm breaks upon us, such 
times as try men's souls, there he stands, your 
Savonarola, Luther, Cromwell, Washington ; all 
down through the ages, David has not lacked his 
man yet. 

That is the promise ; and, friends, how good a 
promise it is. For this manhood is God's most 
precious commodity : of all the things he has made 
this has cost the most to make, and is worth the 
most when made. We Christians always get some 
hint of the infinite costliness of manhood when we 



read in this book the price of our redemption, the 
precious blood of Jesus Christ. But even the older 
records of the rocks could tell a like story, for they 
show how lavishly the Creator has been using up 
whole races of his creatures in making way for man. 
If you are speaking of the expenditure of creative 
energy involved, I suppose a great mountain range 
is a very cheap product compared with one little 
child who is playing at the base of it. The whole 
land of Canaan had not cost so much in the making 
as that one man David. 

And as this gift of manhood has cost more than 
all others, so it is worth more. Any great crisis 
proves it. Watch those tremendous forces of the 
French Revolution running out into horrible disaster, 
because, as Carlyle says, no Cromwell had appeared 
in France, no man able to control these forces. 
There were certain dark days in the earlier part of 
our own civil war, when, as someone has said, a 
man able to lead the army of the Potomac would 
have been worth to the national government in 
hard cash not less than a million dollars a day. For 
lack of such a leader the war was dragging on at 
that awful expenditure of wealth. 

Our own age is one of great material progress, 
and there may be the more need to remind ourselves 
of this superlative value of manhood. Man's life 
consisteth not in the abundance of the things he 
possesseth, said the Master ; but man is always in 
danger of thinking that it does consist in t'hose 



things, when they are over-abundant. If he had 
little, — poor Peter, for instance, with his one little 
fishing boat, — he might make up his mind to throw 
that little away ; but the young ruler who had great 
possessions was in danger of throwing himself away 
instead. And so, in the bewildering abundance of 
good things which the Creator has now granted to 
have and enjoy, there is always danger that we men 
and women may lose a proper self-respect. We 
ought to remember that a nation might be enriched 
with all such gifts beyond the dreams of avarice, 
and yet not be worth a single day's visit from a man 
like David, if there was no hope of his finding in it 
a man to sit upon his throne. 

We must remember this in connection with all 
the different departments of our national life. 

When a foreigner comes to visit our country and 
asks what we have to show him worth seeing, many 
of us would point with peculiar pride to our schools 
and colleges, and that is well. But what if it should 
appear that what we really meant by a school was 
simply the fine building that houses it, or the many 
books in its library, or the costly apparatus in its 
laboratory, or the great size of its endowment ; the 
material things that it possesseth ? That would 
prove that we had not yet learned what a school 
really is. Money is not the school. 

You will read of some great capitalist who has 
turned his pocket inside out and established a great 
university in our newer west ; an excellent thing for 



him to do. His gift creates an opportunity for the 
teacher, if only you can find the teacher ; it sets up 
a throne, if only you can find the king. But that is 
all that money can do. All the wealth in Wall 
Street could not do for a college what Dr. Arnold 
did for Rugby ; or what Longfellow and Lowell and 
Holmes, and the other members of that extraordinary 
literary circle, have done for Harvard ; or what 
General Armstrong did for Hampton. The best 
promise possible for an institution of learning would 
not be that it shall never want money, but 
rather that it shall never want a man. We have 
never been told much about the endowments and 
buildings of the old Academy in Athens, or of the 
Lyceum ; but the world will never forget the men — 
Plato and Aristotle. We do not hear of any en- 
dowments in that little college which grew up more 
than eighteen centuries ago by the shores of the Sea 
of Galilee ; but the world will never forget the words 
that fell from the lips of its head Master, the Son 
of Man. 

It is the man who makes the college, and on the 
other hand the one great work of the college ought 
to be the making of men. And I thank God for the 
old schools and colleges of New England, which, 
whatever their faults, have cherished faithfully the 
traditions of a worthy manhood. 

So it is also in other departments of our national 
life, in the active professions, and in business. It 
might seem at first sight, that here the amount of 



capital was the essential thing, the quality of man- 
hood only a secondary consideration ; but it is not 
so. The life even of the business world consisteth 
not in the abundance of the things that it possesseth, 
but in the character of the men who are using the 
things. Given the right sort of men, and sooner or 
later there will be capital enough. But given the 
capital, you cannot be so sure that you will always 
find the right sort of men. The world has more 
capital now than it quite knows what to do with. 
Even at the low rate of four per cent., your savings 
bank sets a limit to the amount it is willing to 
receive from you. No lack of capital : it is waiting 
all about us for some one to use it. The lack is of 
the man who is strong enough to use it royally ; and 
when once he appears, the man fit to sit on the 
throne of a great railroad corporation, or insurance 
company, or mining trust, and command it and make 
it go, — you know how such a man is prized, how 
much they will give him, — $10,000 a year, $25,000, 
$50,000. If he is man enough, he can almost name 
his own price. 

It has been said lately that civilization is one long 
anxious search for the man who can carry a message 
to Garcia : and, we might add, for some other man 
who has a message worth sending to Garcia. The 
man is the great want in the business world. 

And in the social life of every community, how we 
depend on the men and women of the royal type. 
It is they who make any society worth living in, 


and whose absence would make any society not 
worth living in. They make good society. 

Money cannot make society, though it might 
easily destroy it. When the people had little, and 
lived near the natural realities ; the backwoodsman 
with his ax and gun and paddle ; the sailors who go 
down to the sea in ships and see the works of the 
Lord and his wonders in the deep ; the farmer with 
his horses and cattle, and first-hand knowledge of 
the crops and how they fare in all sorts of weather — 
you know what good company such people are. 
Their range may be narrow, but within it they are 
perpetually interesting. 

But give these same people what we call the 
advantages of wealth ; let them shut themselves off 
from the real world by a multitude of man-made 
conventionalities and artifices ; unless you are care- 
ful, you will find, as Tolstoi affirms with so much 
passion, that you have destroyed all their living 
human interest. The wealth that ought to have lifted 
and broadened them, has really cramped and stifled 
them ; and all the usages of such a social world grow 
weary, stale, flat and unprofitable, till one might 
be tempted to repeat the remark of the witty French 
woman, that the more she saw of men the more highly 
she thought of dogs. That is what society often 
degenerates into. Oh, what need there is to remind 
ourselves in this age of the world that man's life con- 
sisted not in the abundance of the things that he pos- 
sesseth ! The man himself is always what is wanted. 


Now our text brings a promise from God that this 
perpetual want shall be perpetually supplied. If 
only you knew where to look for him, the man is 
somewhere to be found. If not in a palace up in 
Jerusalem, the Prince will be in a manger down in 
Bethlehem. God's promise shall not fail ; David 
shall not want a man to sit upon the throne. 

I have hoped that this old scripture text might be 
appropriate to the theme which will make tomorrow 
a memorable day here, and in so many of our older 
institutions of learning. In the New England of 
two hundred years ago God had his people, a peculiar 
people ; and they found him still faithful to his 
promise, for among those early New Englanders 
there were never wanting men. From the very 
beginning the English Puritan movement had been 
distinguished for the honor it did to simple man- 
hood. To a Puritan, rank and office and wealth, and 
all other outward accessories, sank into insignificance 
as compared with the human personality. Everyone 
knows Macaulay's description of those people, how 
they could look down with contempt on the great 
men of the earth in church and state, " being them- 
selves noble by right of an earlier creation, and 
priests by the imposition of a mightier hand." 
These were the English Puritans. Now send off 
a ship-load of such people into any remote and 
desolate portion of the earth, and you may rest 
assured that they will be carrying with them, in the 
hull of their little ship, all the constituent elements 



of a great and prosperous commonwealth : for the 
reason that they themselves are men, and fit to sit 
on thrones. 

Let me quote the words spoken last spring in the 
Congregational House in Boston, concerning the 
library there, with its treasure of old New England 
books. " For those who look upon these New Eng- 
land fields and hills," Dr. Gordon said, " as invested 
for more than two hundred years with the heroic 
humanity of their ancestors, who see the image of 
kingly men and queenly women burning in the sun 
that lights the world today, who hear in the murmur 
of the brook and the sigh of the river the voices 
that once made glad the holy places of the Most 
High, and who carry into the depth of nature, and 
into the contemporary world of man the sense of 
that pathetic, heroic, majestic past, these dead books 
will live again." 

Yes, they were kingly men and queenly women, 
the writers of these books, and the other founders of 
New England ; but among them all, or their de- 
scendants, there has not yet appeared a more kingly 
character than that great New Englander whose 
memory we shall celebrate tomorrow. 

It is not for me at this service to attempt any 
analysis of Edwards's contributions to philosophy, or 
theology, or education, or the revival of the churches. 
Others fitter for the task will treat of these themes 
tomorrow. But I shall command your assent when 
I affirm that greater than all the wise things that 



Jonathan Edwards may ever have said, and all the 
fine things that he may have done, was the man 
himself. What made that day two hundred years ago 
memorable was that then another man was born 
into the world. That was evident from the time 
when he began to resolve those strange youthful 
resolutions of his. Let me read you one or two of 
them : — 

" Resolved so to live at all times, as I think is best 
in my devout frames, and when I have clearest 
notions of the Gospel and of another world." 

Matthew Arnold was not the first to discover that 

" Tasks in hours of insight willed 
May be through hours of gloom fulfilled." 

Again : " Resolved never to give over, nor in the 
least slacken my fight with my corruptions, however 
unsuccessful I may be." 

Ah, another man had appeared ! 

And now after these long two hundred years, our 
American thought arid life cannot escape the im- 
press of that mighty personality. This celebration 
does not mean that all of us could profess ourselves 
his disciples in philosophy and theology. His teach- 
ings on the operations of human will, or of the divine 
justice, may seem to some of us quite as remote 
from our customary thought as the Ptolemaic system, 
or Plato's ideas. But we do all of us honor and 
celebrate the man. Whatever Edwards had to say, 
he spoke always with the royal accent : whatever he 
had to do, it was with the royal bearing. Watch him 



in the great crisis of his life, those days of bitterness 
and trial, when his people at Northampton turned 
against him, and drove him from the church and 
from the town ; see his patience and magnanimity 
and courage. You see him every inch a king. 

But had ever a great man a smaller stage for the 
display of his greatness ? Through most of his life 
pastor of a little church in the country village 
of Northampton ; then, for the few remaining years, 
a missionary at Stockbridge ministering to a few 
red sheep out there in the wilderness. To be sure 
he was called to the presidency of Princeton ; but as 
if to prove that such a man as he owes nothing to 
the dignity of office, he died before he had fairly 
entered upon it. He had a son whom it may be 
proper to speak of as President Edwards. The 
father needs no such official title ; Jonathan Edwards 
is his name, the man himself. It was a time of 
crisis, and the man was not wanting. God had kept 
his promise to his people. And so through all the 
celebrations of tomorrow we do well to cheer our 
hearts with the assurance that as it has been, so it 
shall be ; and that to the end of the world, in the time 
of sorest need there shall never be wanting a man. 

" Wanted a man. " It is the great want always. 
A friend once asked me to preach a sermon on the 
theme, " Wanted a Saint. " " Put it at your people," 
he said, "as an advertisement, as if it stood in the 
want-column in the newspaper, ' Wanted a Saint.' " 
It struck me as an attractive form of words ; but 



when I tried to plan out the sermon, at once I ran 
up against a difficulty. Such advertisements in our 
papers, for coachmen, gardeners, cooks, and so forth, 
are designed to encourage applications from persons 
who deem themselves qualified to meet the want. 
But if you say "Wanted a Saint," and a stranger 
should then appear at your door and begin to re- 
hearse his own saintly qualifications, you would feel 
like locking the stable and setting a guard on the 
hat-rack. The real saints are not so fluent about 
their own saintliness. You could not advertise for a 
saint, with any hope that the right, person would 


But if not as an advertisement, you can issue this 
as a simple statement of the facts, "Wanted a 
Saint;" wanted a man of faith and character. 
Nothing else in this world is wanted so much ; noth- 
ing else is worth so much. The community wants 
him ; the Lord wants him : and the promise of our 
text is that this want, the world's great want, can 
always be supplied. By God's grace that very kind 
of manhood that is wanted from you or me may be 
had. The man who is wanted shall not be wanting, 
that is the promise. We must let the Lord fulfill 
that promise. 

We are gathered here in a seat of learning, some 
of us in the immediate pursuit of an education. 
But the crown of education, the finest product of 
any school, is not the mere knowledge accumulated, 
it is the living personality developed ; it is the man, 



the king, a man to sit upon the throne. Young 
Edwards, looking forward into the future, wrote 
down that long list of resolutions, and then spent 
his life in keeping them manfully. As we still look 
forward into the unknown future, any of us might 
well take example from him and ourselves subscribe 
a resolution ; and we could not do better than borrow 
it from this ancient word of Sacred Writ : What- 
ever the unknown future may be, and wherever in 
it my lot may be ordered, I hereby resolve that, 
with God's help, "there shall not be wanting 
there a man to sit upon the throne." 


Introductory Address 





Professor of History 

Andover Theological Seminary 


It falls to my lot, by way of introduction to the 
subject of the day, briefly to set before you the 
framework in which Edwards is the picture, to 
sketch the surroundings within which his life was 
passed, and in particular to describe the state of 
religion in New England in his time. To have 
value, this must be done with reference to the life 
and work of Edwards himself. Consequently I 
shall make little effort to examine conditions which 
are unrelated to this central figure, but shall rather 
fix your attention upon those with which he himself 
was intimately concerned, either by reason of their 
influence upon him, or, more important still, by 
reason of his influence upon them. 

It is often asserted that all men, the great in- 
cluded, are the products of their age. The assertion 
contains no doubt a measure of truth. No man, 
however self-sufficient, can wholly shake off the 
influence of those political, social or religious con- 
ditions, in the midst of which he may chance to live. 
But to a certain number in every age it is given to 
bear the grave responsibility and enjoy the immeas- 
urable opportunity of leadership, — to exemplify in 
their own persons not product, but process, — to set 
in order the forces which shall mould the course of 
history, — yes, to incarnate in themselves those 
very forces. Such men are in a true sense creative. 
And as we scrutinize their character, we discover 



there a quality, undefinable yet unmistakable, 
which we call detachment, — a certain independence 
of spirit and action, by virtue of which they rise 
superior to circumstance, superior to the common 
limitations of time and place, and take their station 
among the elect of all the ages. They are not 
wholly emancipated from their age, but they are 
released from bondage to it. They are no longer 
among the ruled, but among the rulers. 

Jonathan Edwards illustrates, to a notable degree, 
this peculiar quality. He lived, and thought, and 
preached, and wrote in the New England of the 
eighteenth century, but in spirit he dwelt apart, 
where neither New England nor the eighteenth 
century controlled him, and from his isolation strove 
to gaze into the soul of things. To discern the con- 
stitution of the mind, to resolve the apparent anti- 
nomies of thought and experience, to justify the 
ways of God to man, even the most arbitrary, — 
these were his favorite employments. And in them 
all Edwards was spokesman for the race, though a 
still half-rude colony might be the theatre of his 
action, and the calendar mechanically register the 
dates of his mortal life. While he was grappling 
with the problem of the freedom of the will, far 
away across the sea another great philosopher, 
younger than himself, Immanuel Kant, was begin- 
ning to analyze the phenomena of consciousness, in 
search of its transcendental elements. How might 
each have elicited the other's best, if these two in- 



tellectual giants could have been brought face to 
face, and have held discourse concerning the fun- 
damental realities ! And how would Europe and 
America have stood in silent admiration at the 
matching of such wit as theirs ! Kant was born, 
and lived, and died in Konigsberg, on the eastern 
border of European civilization ; Edwards dwelt in 
an English colony, on civilization's western frontier. 
But geography has never yet conquered genius, 
and provincial obscurity could not hide the spiritual 
light which streamed from these two great minds. 

The career of Edwards, when judged by ordinary 
standards, would scarcely be called successful. His 
childhood indeed was full of brilliant promise ; his 
student-life, most creditable ; his brief term of 
service in a Yale tutorship, under circumstances 
of peculiar difficulty, an honor to himself and to his 
alma mater. His Northampton pastorate too, begun 
under the most favorable auspices, was carried on 
with earnestness and devotion, and accomplished 
marked results in arousing the indifferent to a new 
sense of the value of religion for human life. But 
with the lapse of time, Edwards encountered grow- 
ing opposition, and his pastorate ended in sorrow for 
himself and dishonor for his parishioners. It seemed 
no doubt very like a professional failure when, at 
the age of forty-seven, he was dismissed from his 
charge and turned adrift upon the world. 

He was not well adapted to meet the daily struggle 
for existence. Mere physical wants were never 



those which he was most interested in satisfying. 
Therefore we may well be thankful that, before too 
long a time had passed, the way was opened to another 
field of labor, where he could at least obtain the 
necessaries of life for his family and for himself. 
Patiently and cheerfully Edwards entered upon his 
new duties, with no word of rebuke for those who 
had rejected him, or of complaint against the lot 
which had brought him to so unpromising a field of 
labor. A true man of God, he won the hearts of the 
rude red men by his noble devotion, and brought 
into their lives a holy influence. Meanwhile he 
found intellectual satisfaction in creative labor, that 
most absorbing of occupations, and his thoughts 
lingered fondly in the most abstruse regions of meta- 
physical theology, where was their rightful home. 
But the settlement of the greatest philosopher of his 
day as a missionary among the Housatonic Indians, 
is again an event which must have seemed sadly to 
contravene the law of adaptation. 

At last there came an opportunity which seemed 
better suited to a man of Edwards's powers, — the 
offer of the presidency of Princeton College. After 
long delay, and with manifest reluctance, he accepted 
and entered upon the duties of the office, but only to 
lay them down almost immediately at the stern bid- 
ding of death. This too, in the eyes of the world, 
would be counted a failure. Yet, standing at our 
vantage point of time, how different appears the 
verdict of history upon the whole of Edwards's 



career. Instead of failure we behold achievement 
of the highest order, we see forces set in operation 
which affected life at many points, stimulating 
thought, quickening conscience, reforming society, 
and creating — it is hardly too much to say — a 
new epoch for American Christianity. 

Great political and religious changes had passed 
over the face of New England before Edwards came 
upon the scene. The original colonists had long 
been dead, and with them had vanished the early 
enthusiasm of their enterprise. Two generations 
had grown up under the hard conditions of frontier 
life, struggling with the reluctant northern soil, and 
constantly exposed to possible outbreaks of Indian 
ferocity. This contact with nature on her cruel 
side had rendered manners rude, and deadened 
spiritual sensibilities. Such education as Harvard 
was able to provide, although highly creditable to 
the colony, had not quite the same value as the 
university training the first settlers had enjoyed in 
their early English homes, and Yale College had 
but just opened its doors. At the beginning of the 
eighteenth century there were about one hundred 
and twenty churches of the Congregational order 
in New England, two-thirds of which were in 
Massachusetts. These embraced within their mem- 
bership the large majority of professedly Christian 
people, yet the population was no longer religiously 
homogeneous. Not even the short and easy method 
of exclusion, formerly in vogue, had availed to 



preserve ecclesiastical purity. If non-conformists 
to " the New England way " had not succeeded in 
becoming permanent residents of the colonies, they 
at least had managed occasionally to stay long 
enough to start their propaganda, and always long 
enough to arouse dissension. 

Baptists had vexed the souls of the dominant 
party ever since John Clarke began to minister in 
Newport, and since Roger Williams and his twelve 
companions were "plunged" in Providence. The de- 
fection of President Dunster had alarmed all those 
interested in Harvard College, and moved the Cam- 
bridge minister to preach " more than half a score of 
ungainsayable sermons " in defence of " the comfort- 
able truth " of infant baptism. As the seventeenth 
century progressed, the leaders of the theocracy 
took vigorous measures to suppress the objectionable 
sect. "Experience tells us," says Samuel Willard, 
" that such a rough thing as a New England Ana- 
baptist is not to be handled over-tenderly." Yet 
the Baptists increased and, in Edwards's time, 
they formed an important element of the population. 

It may seem strange that the Religious Society of 
Friends should ever have been a disturbing element 
in any Christian community, yet so it was. When 
the " truth," as taught by George Fox and his fol- 
lowers, " brake forth in America," like many another 
truth in the course of history, it was unrecognized, 
spurned, and tried in the fires of persecution, that 
its alloy of error might be removed. The time had 



not yet come when the colonists would recognize 
the truth, — which seems now as elementary as it is 
Biblical, — that " the manifestation of the spirit is 
given to every man to profit withal." That time, 
however, would come, and all the sooner for the 
mysticism of Edwards, which after all is not re- 
motely akin to that of Fox. 

By far the most disliked and distrusted of all 
religious bodies in New England, next to the 
" Scarlet Woman" herself, was the Episcopal church. 
In the year of Edwards's birth, Keith and Talbot 
were touring the colonies in the interest of the 
Society for the Propagation of the Gospel. Just 
after Edwards's graduation, Yale College, which 
was relied upon to preserve genuine Puritan tradi- 
tions, along with its cultivation of sound learning, 
threatened to apostatize, losing Rector Cutler and a 
tutor to the Episcopal communion. Not a little of 
the labor and responsibility required to maintain 
order and restore confidence in the college at this 
crisis, rested upon the shoulders of Edwards, and 
worthily did he repay the confidence reposed in him. 
He took no active part, it is true, in open war- 
fare against the Anglicans, but the principles of his 
teaching were such as to give stability and strength 
to the churches of his own order. One finds, how- 
ever, that anxiety over the gains made by Anglican- 
ism throughout New England, and over proposals 
to procure an American episcopate, continued far 
beyond the limits of Edwards's life-time. Among 



the "trials and difficulties," of which the Diary of 
Ezra Stiles gives a formidable list, we find " concern 
for the Congregational churches, and the prevalence 
of episcopacy and wickedness." 

The new charter of the Bay colony, issued the 
year Timothy Edwards was graduated from Har- 
vard, greatly altered the political situation by 
widening the suffrage and substituting what must 
have seemed like a secularized commonwealth in 
place of the old theocracy. Joshua Scottow's 
pathetic book, entitled " Old Men's Tears," bears 
witness to the feeling of despondency felt by con- 
servative men, as they beheld the passing of the old 
order. The year before Edwards was born, in the 
procession in Boston held in honor of the proclama- 
tion of Queen Anne, the ministers no longer took 
precedence of the civil magistrates. 

The change which was perhaps most keenly felt 
was the abolition of the special privileges long 
enjoyed by adherents of the " standing order." 
What the national church was to England, that 
Congregationalism has been to the colony of Massa- 
chusetts Bay. The principle of toleration was new. 
It had but lately and reluctantly been recognized in 
the mother country, and it had many foes both 
there and in America. Increase Mather said of it, 
" I do believe that antichrist hath not in this day a 
more probable way to advance the kingdom of 
darkness." This principle, which permitted the 
existence, and thereby encouraged the growth of 



several ecclesiastical bodies, was destined greatly to 
alter the religious complexion of New England. 
Edwards lived at the time when denominational 
history was just beginning. Now throughout the 
protestant world denominationalism has been largely 
determined by doctrinal divergences. This was the 
case in the eighteenth century, both in England and 
in America, and to Edwards more than to anyone 
else, — far more than to his great contemporary, 
John Wesley, — belongs the responsibility of having 
sharply defined the theological differences of that 
formative period. 

Christian life at the opening of the eighteenth 
century was probably less decadent in the American 
colonies than in England, where the corrupt social 
heritage of the Restoration, the popularity of a 
superficial " natural religion," and the irreligious 
influence of the French school were largely respon- 
sible for the condition of affairs. Orthodox belief 
and moral conduct had seemed there to degenerate 
together. A coarse cynicism characterized the 
speech and action of many of the gentry, and it was 
jestingly proposed that Parliament should pass an act 
omitting the word "not" from the Decalogue and 
inserting it in the Creed. But if moral deterioration 
in New England was less marked, it was never- 
theless grave enough, and the very severe codes of 
law then in force seemed unable to check its 
progress. Religious indifference was correspond- 
ingly wide-spread. 



Then, at the time of greatest need, the cause of 
vital religion in old England, thanks to the Wes- 
leyan movement, received a fresh influx of splendid 
energy, which permeated all classes of society, and 
turned back the tide of irreligion and moral laxity. 
In New England, at the same time, the " Great 
Awakening," as it must ever be called, infused new 
life into every church and community within her 
borders. And it was Jonathan Edwards more than 
anyone else, — with the sincerity, earnestness and 
directness of his preaching, — who started this vast 
movement. The Awakening was far from being 
merely a series of sensational revivals. In spite of 
its fanatical excesses (with which Edwards had no 
sympathy), it was accompanied by a veritable moral 
reformation. Edwards directed all his preaching, 
even the most terrible, towards the great end of 
transforming character in accordance with the will 
of God. How he harmonized his theological deter- 
minism with his proclamation of the Gospel, his 
realistic portraitures of future woe with his doctrine 
of the divine love, we need not here inquire. The 
problems are at least as old as St. Paul. And just 
such antinomies as these, although incapable of 
solution by the laws of logic, are proved historically 
to be no bar to useful and effective service in the 
kingdom of Christ. 

Edwards found New England morally decadent ; 
he left it under the power of an awakened moral 
sense. But this result was wrought by distinc- 



tively religious means. Edwards made no effort to 
be a moral reformer without morality's highest 
sanction, and against the Arminian conception of 
virtue he registered an unqualified protest. No 
human effort, no ethical teaching, however lofty, 
could avail to change the heart or transform char- 
acter. Only divine power could do this, working 
from within outward, making the tree good from its 
roots, cleansing the heart, out of which are the 
issues of life. And the moral tonic thus adminis- 
tered accomplished its cure. " Conversion " did 
result in moral reformation. By means of his 
accurate insight into the nature of true virtue, 
Edwards established anew the rightful relationship 
between cause and effect in character-building. But 
if he denied the efficacy of unaided human effort to 
save the soul, he also .denied the efficacy of a mere 
correct religious theory. " No merely speculative 
understanding of the doctrines of religion " would 
suffice. Only the power of God, with its response 
in the life of obedient faith, could perform the 

Edwards found ecclesiastical discipline relaxed 
under the system of the half-way covenant ; he over- 
threw that system, tightened the cords which bound 
believers into one body, and redeemed the churches 
from secularization. The half-way covenant had 
long been in use in Northampton and in other 
sections of New England, where it had come to 
enjoy all the prestige of established custom. It is a 



shallow optimism which would regard this phenom- 
enon as insignificant. A vital issue was at stake, 
namely this : is religion form, or is it substance ? 
If candidates were admitted to the church without 
manifesting any fitness to assume its responsibilities, 
the church would at once take on the character of a 
corpus permixtum, a character which, however true 
or false in itself, was clearly in violation of the 
historic principles of Puritanism. Edwards corn- 
batted this conception, and it cost him his pastorate; 
but the qualifications for full communion were once 
more stated, in their earlier sense, and sooner or 
later the churches came over to his view. 

Edwards found New England un-theological ; he 
left it equipped with all the apparatus for an 
energetic theological life. When he began his min- 
istry the churches lacked a just appreciation of 
the value of Christian theology, and of the beneficial 
service it should be made to render. To be sure, 
the early colonists had brought with them the 
system of doctrine generally accepted by English 
Puritans, and the Westminster standards had always 
been those of American Congregationalism. But 
orthodoxy, in Edwards's day, had become stereo- 
typed and conventional. The familiar history of all 
scholasticism was here being repeated, the end of 
which is death. No great leaders had arisen to 
state anew the problems of theology, much less to 
attempt their solution. But upon these problems 
Edwards pondered long and deeply. He noted, in 



his own experience, divergences from those conven- 
tional rules which he had been taught were universal. 
And when he discovered that he had not " ex- 
perienced regeneration exactly in those steps in 
which divines say it is generally wrought," he 
resolved " never to leave searching" until he had 
discovered " why they used to be converted in those 

Now this is the first step in theological progress, 
boldly to confront and to interrogate the past. 
Always respectful toward his predecessors, Edwards 
was not the blind follower of any, and his independ- 
ence, and effort to be thorough, while they led him 
into no heresies, as they have led some others, did 
lead him so to restate the doctrines commonly 
called Calvinistic, as to open a new chapter of 
American religious thought. 

Theological parties are rightly described as dating 
from this time, and it was Edwards's sharp definition 
of the issues which called them into being. He 
himself stands at the head of that highly interesting 
succession of divines, — Hopkins, Bellamy, Emmons, 
Dwight and the rest, down to our own Professor Park, 
— who are known as the "New England School." 
Recoiling from the severity of his clear-cut Calvin- 
ism, the Arminian party diverged from the Edward- 
ean, and sub-divided within itself. The more evan- 
gelical wing, under the leadership of Wesley and his 
followers, moved on into Methodism, now numerically 
the strongest protestant communion in the world. 




The less evangelical, under the leadership of Chauncy, 
Mayhew, and later James Freeman, developed into 
the liberal societies called Unitarian, now numerically 
among the weakest. Of other varieties of theological 
opinion, many of which find their beginning in this 
formative period, there is no time to speak. 

But when we ask ourselves what service Edwards 
rendered which appeals most strongly to the religious 
sympathies of today, I think we shall not find it in 
his system of theology. We must rather seek it in 
his spiritual insight tand his mysticism. He had 
beheld not simply the infernal terrors but also the 
beatific vision, and this was for him evermore the 
profoundest of realities. Direct intuition of God's 
, will and personal communion with the Holy Spirit 
were the forces which controlled him. His purely 
religious influence, stamped clear and strong upon 
his own age, is one of the church's most precious 
possessions. Systems of thought may arise, and 
flourish, and decay ; though they bear within them 
the potency of life, yet it is in ever changing forms, 
and the fact of their continuity may easily escape all 
but professional students of the past. In the great 
circuit of the world's intelligence, they have no 
continuing city. But the search of a soul after 
God stands possessed of an imperishable interest. 
Whether it be an Origen or an Augustine, a St. 
Francis or a Luther, a Wesley or an Edwards, 
ancient and modern times unite in paying homage to 
their memory. And upon the face of the fair monu- 



ments which posterity shall rear, this inscription 
should ever stand : Here once more, in the person of 
this man of God, was exemplified the union of the 
human and the divine. As the flower turns upward, 
to drink in the sun's life-giving beams, so this soul 
opened towards heaven, and received the very life of 




Professor of Philosophy 

Columbia University 


In the preface to his book on Jonathan Edwards, 
Professor Allen quotes with approval the remark of 
Bancroft, " He that would know the workings of the 
New England mind in the middle of the last century, 
and the throbbings of its heart, must give his days 
and nights to the study of Jonathan Edwards. " 
And Professor Allen adds, " He that would under- 
stand the significance of later New England thought, 
must make Edwards the first object of his study. " 
Time has at last set the limit to the truth of such 
remarks. To understand the philosophy and theol- 
ogy of today in New England or the country at 
large, the student must undoubtedly seek his founda- 
tions elsewhere than in the thought of Edwards. 
His influence is now largely negligible. The type of 
thinking which most widely prevails, is so far re- 
moved from him, in such notable contrast to him, 
finds its roots so markedly in other sources, that in- 
terest in him is more antiquarian than vitalizing. 
But the remarkable thing is that these statements, 
true today, were not true in 1889, when Professor 
Allen's book appeared. To question then the sound- 
ness of his estimate, or that of Bancroft's, could at 
best involve only the censure of a mild exaggeration. 
A few days and nights, even at that time, might 
have been spared the student of New England 
thought from surrender to Edwards. 

That less than twenty years could have involved 



such a change, is itself a significant commentary on 
the power of Edwards's work. It has failed not 
through refutation, but through inadequacy. Today 
we get so much more elsewhere, and find other 
richer sources to stir us to progress or controversy. 
It is to Greek philosophy, and to British and German 
philosophy and theology, that the student must give 
his days and nights, if he is to understand our 
thought. And so for us, I take it, New England 
thought, impressed in its beginnings so potently by 
Edwards that he dominated it either positively or 
negatively for a century and a half, has failed to af- 
ford a foundation for progressive development in 
either philosophy or theology. It is to be noted 
further that the foundations we now rest upon, have 
not been laid by our contemporaries. They reach 
far back into the past, to Edwards's contemporaries 
abroad, to his predecessors by many centuries. Sig- 
nificant as the thought of New England has been on 
its speculative side, it has not contained enough 
native, original strength to preserve it from the in- 
adequacy which profoundly marked it through its 
ignorance of history. The courses in philosophy 
and theology offered in our colleges, universities, 
and seminaries today, are so immeasurably superior 
to those offered twenty years ago, that one can read- 
ily understand why the types of philosophy and 
theology are so vastly different and owe such differ- 
ent allegiance. But one would be a poor observer, 
if he did not recognize the peculiar vigor of that 



New England thought, which may have ceased to in- 
fluence him profoundly. 

So I would not have these remarks construed into 
a belittling of Edwards or his influence. I have 
made them because, in connection with that in- 
fluence, they indicate the fact from which it must be 
estimated. More than this : this fact, viewed in the 
light of what Edwards himself did and of what his 
early years gave promise, has given me the most 
suggestive insight into the man's power and versatil- 
ity, and a more satisfactory estimate of his person- 
ality as a thinker. For he was a man with an 
undeveloped possibility, greater to my mind than 
the actuality attained. He did not belong to the 
men we cannot imagine different, but to the men, 
whom, the better we know them, the more we seem 
compelled to view in other light. What he might 
have been, becomes, at least for the student of phil- 
osophy, as insistent and suggestive a question as 
what he was. 

One cannot write history as it ought to have been. 
Yet this truth ought not to blind us to the fact that 
there have been great persons, whose position in 
history has been not only influential, but, more sig- 
nificantly, critical. To such persons is chargeable 
not only what their influence has been, but also 
what it has not been. If the thought of New Eng- 
land has been largely determined by Edwards in its 
positive achievements, it has been almost equally 
determined by him in what it has failed to achieve, for 



he undoubtedly possessed, although he did not carry 
through in his work, those elements which in large 
measure would have made that thought more stable 
and lasting. It has failed through lack of real phil- 
osophical insight. But it was just this insight which 
Edwards possessed in a very remarkable degree, but 
failed to carry through in his work. And this is the 
more significant because no other American, per- 
haps, has possessed philosophical insight of equal 

It would of course be futile to attempt to say what 
American thought would have been if Edwards had 
not lacked philosophical thoroughness. Yet it ap- 
pears to me undoubtedly true that it no longer finds 
him influential because of just this lack, and that it 
presents today little continuity with its past. It 
has appeared to me instructive, therefore, to consider 
with some detail, this lack of philosophical thorough- 
ness in Edwards's work, in order to an appreciation 
of his critical significance in the history of American 
thinking, and of the profoundly interesting character 
of his own thought. 

Edwards's " Notes on the Mind," of uncertain 
though doubtless early date, incomplete, detached, 
and of most varying worth, are doubtless for the 
student of philosophy the most impressive products 
of Edwards's thought. While they reveal his philos- 
ophical ability as perhaps none of his publications 
reveals it, they cannot be credited with contributing 
to his influence. They were not a known factor. 



They are not inconsistent with his elaborate treat- 
ises, as Professor Gardiner maintains that they are 
not, but one would not be led to suspect them from 
these treatises. I dismiss consideration of them for 
the present, therefore, to return to them after speak- 
ing of some of his completed works. Foremost of 
these is undoubtedly his " Enquiry into Freedom of 

The reader of this Enquiry today must add his 
tribute to the many bestowed by others on its great- 
ness. But just because it is so great, its lack of 
philosophical thoroughness is remarkable. What 
amazes one about it is that an analysis of the will so 
acute, so sane, so dispassionate, so free from preju- 
dice or tricky argument, and so sound, if the dis- 
tinction of terms made by Edwards is admitted, 
could yet, with hardly a trace of rational justification, 
be linked with a Calvinistic conception of God and 
the world. I do not mean that it is at all amazing 
that Edwards's conception of the will should be held 
by Calvinists, or be thought consistent with their 
positions, but rather that a mind that could so pro- 
foundly philosophize about the will, could be so 
insensible of the need of further philosophy to link 
his results with his theological convictions. More 
than this : that a mind so fair and dispassionate in 
his analysis of the will, could be so unfair and pas- 
sionate in his theological setting of it. 

The first two parts of the Enquiry, with the ex- 
ception of Sections n and 12 of Part II, which are 



exegetical, are to be classed among the greatest of 
philosophical writings. That Edwards is not unique 
in what he here discloses does not detract from his 
greatness. Spinoza, Hobbes and Hume all have 
the same- doctrine, but exhibit no greater philosophi- 
cal skill in the exposition of it. Significant too for 
his remarkable power is the fact that these men had, 
at first hand, acquaintance with other philosophies, 
which he altogether lacked. In these parts, and in- 
deed in the whole work, wherever Edwards seeks to 
fix or distinguish terms, he is remarkably acute. A 
notable illustration of this among many equally nota- 
ble, is his analysis of the term " action " in Part IV f 
Section 2. His clear insistence on the need of such 
analysis, and his skill in executing it, rank him 
among the great logicians. Simple distinctions in 
argument, but of weighty import, abound, such as 
this : " Infallible foreknowledge may prove the 
necessity of the event foreknown, and yet not be 
the thing which causes the necessity." Everywhere 
the impression is left that such simple distinctions 
are the fruit of careful thought and the utterances of 
a mind sure of its grasp. So long as Edwards gives 
himself up to the analysis, this sureness is evident, 
so evident indeed, that he lets the argument carry 
itself by its own worth without any attempt at 

The results of the analysis are notable. Necessity 
may be one in philosophical definition, but it is as 
diverse in existence as the realms where it is found. 



Natural and moral necessity are both necessity, but 
different kinds of it. Causal relations may exist be- 
tween mental events as well as between physical 
events, without making mental events physical. 
What makes moral necessity repugnant is its con- 
fusion with natural necessity, which is as if one were 
to confuse mind with matter. We should recognize 
too that necessity is not some exterior fate, compel- 
ling events, but the actual linkage which the events 
disclose in their existence, and that they do disclose 
such linkage wherever they exist, in the mind as 
well as in nature. Did it not exist in the mind, 
there would then be no linkage between motive and 
act, between end and means. Again, whether an act 
is voluntary, and so free, depends on whether it is 
the result of volition or of something else. The 
causes of volition, whatever they may be, do not 
affect its voluntary aspect or destroy the function of 
the will, any more than the causes of life destroy the 
functions of life. Again, moral praise or blame does 
not belong to the causes of men's acts but to the 
acts themselves, just as natural praise or blame be- 
longs not to the causes of a thing but to its value. 
Yet moral merit is different from natural merit, as 
the mind is different from nature. So one might 
continue until he had exhibited all the results of the 

I am of course aware that attempts have been 
made to overthrow this analysis of Edwards, but I 
confess that I find nothing in the analysis which 



should lead one to make the attempt. Motives to 
that effort are derived from other sources, and 
almost exclusively from ethical or theological in- 
terests. Nothing in the whole analysis is hostile to 
morality, until that analysis ceases to be analysis, 
and becomes instead a revelation of God's activity 
or the secret workings of some ultimate being. It 
is not hostile to morality because it discloses most 
powerfully and convincingly the fact that man by 
the necessity of his own nature must act and judge 
with an appreciation of the value and responsibility 
of his acts, just as the sun by the necessity of 
its own nature must shine. To show that is not to 
drive morality out of human life, but to found it in 
the constitution of things. It is philosophy at its 

And just because it is philosophy at its best, we 
look eagerly for its continuance. But here Edwards 
fails us. He does not continue. Perhaps he could 
not. And the fact that he did not, or could not, is 
the critical thing for his philosophy and influence. 
As we proceed to the remaining parts of the 
Enquiry, containing his polemic against the Armin- 
ians, we pursue arguments which have no philosoph- 
ical relation to what has preceded. There is no 
longer philosophical analysis and construction at a 
sustained height, but only flashes of it here and 
there, amid pages of rhetorical attempts at per- 
suasion, tricky arguments, and sophistry. There is 
no philosophical carrying through of the doctrine of 



the will. Repeatedly he is content to dispose of a 
difficulty in Calvinism by pointing out that Armin- 
ianism has the same difficulty. He argues that if 
total moral inability excuses a man totally, partial 
inability should excuse him partially, and in proper 
numerical proportion. This remarkable argument 
he illustrates by his figure of the balance which can 
turn ten pounds but no more, forgetting, apparently, 
the deep significance of the fact that it can turn 
anything less than ten pounds, forgetting, in short, 
the vast difference between degrees of ability and 
no ability at all. To the objection that men are 
blameless if God gives them up to sin, he can only 
cry, " Then Judas was blameless after Christ had 
given him over." To these instances of philosoph- 
ical weakness many more could be added, especially 
Part IV, Section 9, where the question is discussed, 
" How God is concerned in the existence of sin." 
It is exceptionally remarkable that the man who 
wrote the first two parts of the work could have 
written this section. His apparent unconsciousness 
of the significance of the fact that his own theory of 
the will might, with equal justice, be linked with 
totally different ultimate positions, is also note- 
worthy. He recognizes the simple and cogent 
truth that his doctrine is not false just because 
Hobbes and the Stoics held it. But he fails to see 
that their holding of it may point to other con- 
clusions than the Calvinistic. 

It is not that Edwards prostitutes his philosophy 



to his theological convictions. To my mind there is 
not the slightest proof of that, and, so far as I know, 
it has never been seriously maintained. The fact is 
rather that the philosopher never became the theo- 
logian or the theologian the philosopher. It is futile 
to try to understand Edwards's Calvinism from his 
philosophy or his philosophy from his Calvinism. 
In him they are juxtaposed, not united. But they 
are not equally juxtaposed. The theology over- 
shadows the philosophy. The latter, however, is of 
such superior merit to the former in depth of in- 
sight and cogency of reasoning, that one is irre- 
sistibly led to speculate on what Edwards would 
have been, if the philosophy had overshadowed the 
theology. One recognizes that his influence would 
have been vastly different, that it has consequently 
been a critical influence for American thought. 

This juxtaposition instead of union of philosophy 
and theology is seen in Edwards's other work. I 
will consider it in the two remaining writings which 
are of particular philosophical interest, namely the 
dissertations on " God's Last End in the Creation," 
and the " Nature of True Virtue." These disser- 
tations, although never published by Edwards, were 
written earlier than his last publication in 1757. 
They are not, even if actually written after the 
" Enquiry Concerning Freedom of Will," unpre- 
meditated works. The suggestion of them is 
frequent in his sermons and other writings, from 
which we could largely construct them. One natu- 



rally asks, therefore, why they were not published. 
Unpublished manuscripts left by eminent men is so 
frequent an occurrence, that the question might be 
answered by this common fact. But acquaintance 
with those dissertations gives a pointed interest to 
the question. For while they present a general 
agreement with the rest of Edwards's work, and 
evince that juxtaposition of philosophy and theology 
which has been remarked, they exhibit a real simpli- 
fication of his thought and suggestive indications of 
almost conscious attempts at unification. Their 
total effect is rather to weaken than to strengthen 
his theology. As they are not essentially polemic, 
but rather more the work of a disinterested inquirer, 
the logical trend of the thought becomes more 
natural and inevitable. All the more logical revul- 
sion is occasioned consequently by the juxtaposition 
of the elements of an unrelated theology. One is 
led to suspect that Edwards was becoming conscious 
of his intellectual duality, and that the dissertations 
were not published because they must consequently 
appear to him as incomplete, as faulty, as demand- 
ing the work of adjustment. His original power, 
his versatility, his constant growth, make it improb- 
able that his death in his fifty-fifth year occurred 
when his intellectual life was fixed beyond alteration. 
One is tempted, therefore, to regard these later 
writings, not as the mere conclusions of previous 
positions, but as works of promise. 

It is interesting to note that the dissertation on 



" God's Last End in the Creation " begins, after an 
explanation of terms, with a consideration of " what 
reason dictates in this affair," although it is admitted 
that the affair is " properly an affair of divine reve- 
lation." The justification of reason's dictates in 
spite of this fact, really amounts to submitting the 
facts of revelation to the judgment of reason. For 
Edwards contends that "no notion of God's last end 
in the creation of the world is agreeable to reason, 
which would truly imply any indigence, insufficiency, 
and mutability in God." This dictate of reason, 
with which, as Edwards would show, revelation is in 
most consistent agreeableness, contains in unde- 
veloped form the recognition of God's last end in the 
creation. God is his own last end. The developed 
form of this statement we read, wondering if indeed 
these are the words of the greatest of American 
theologians, and not rather the words of some 
disciple of Plotinus or of a Christian Spinoza. " As 
there is an infinite fulness of all possible good in 
God — a fulness of every perfection, of all excellency 
and beauty, and of infinite happiness — and as this 
fulness is capable of communication, or emanation 
ad extra ; so it seems a thing amiable and valuable 
in itself that this infinite fountain of good should 
send forth abundant streams. And as this is 
in itself excellent, so a disposition to this in the 
divine being, must be looked upon as an excellent 
disposition. Such an emanation of good is, in some 
sense, a multiplication of it. So far as the stream 



may be looked upon as anything besides the foun- 
tain, so far it may be looked on as an increase of 
good. And if the fulness of good that is in the 
fountain, is in itself excellent, then the emanation, 
which is as it were an increase, repetition, or multi- 
plication of it, is excellent. Thus it is fit, since 
there is an infinite fountain of light and knowledge, 
that this light should shine forth in beams of com- 
municated knowledge and understanding : and as 
there is an infinite fountain of holiness, moral excel- 
lence and beauty, that so it should flow out in 
communicated holiness. And that, as there is an 
infinite fulness of joy and happiness, so these should 
have an emanation, and become a fountain flowing 
out in abundant streams, as beams from the sun. 
Thus it appears reasonable to suppose that it was 
God's last end, that there might be a glorious and 
abundant emanation of his infinite fulness of good 
ad extra, or without himself ; and that the disposition 
to communicate himself, or diffuse his own FUL- 
NESS, was what moved him to create the world." 
Mystic pantheism could not be more explicit. 

Edwards appears not to have been wholly insen- 
sible to the possibility of such an interpretation. 
And here is to be noted an instance of that apparent 
consciousness of a need of unification which has 
been remarked. The first objection against his 
view which he considers is to the effect that his 
position may be "inconsistent with God's absolute 
independence and immutability : particularly, as 



though God were inclined to a communication of 
his fulness, and emanations of his own glory, as 
being his own most glorious and complete state." 
To this he answers, " Many have wrong notions of 
God's happiness, as resulting from his absolute self- 
sufficience, independence and immutability. Though 
it be true, that God's glory and happiness are in and 
of himself, are infinite and cannot be added to, and 
unchangeable, for the whole and every part of which 
he is independent of the creature ; yet it does not 
hence follow, nor is it true, that God has no real and 
proper delight, pleasure or happiness, in any of his 
acts or communications relative to the creature, or 
effects he produces in them ; or in anything he sees 
in his creatures' qualifications, dispositions, actions 
and state. God may have a real and proper pleasure 
or happiness in seeing the happy state of the 
creature ; yet this may not be different from his 
delight in himself." To let this answer suffice, 
reason must silence its questions. It is no answer 
at all, but simply a theological proposition juxtaposed 
to the philosophy. 

The silencing of reason is still more apparent in 
his second answer to the objection. " If any are 
not satisfied with the preceding answer, but still 
insist on the objection, let them consider whether 
they can devise any other scheme of God's last end 
in creating the world, but what will be equally 
obnoxious to this objection in its full force, if there 
be any force in it." 



Surely we have in this dissertation no thorough 
consideration of what reason dictates in the affair. 
He has in effect, as Professor Allen justly remarks, 
" sacrificed all that is not God," and all the theology 
of the world superimposed and insisted on, cannot 
avoid that sacrifice. The mind that produced the 
work on the will, and had so irresistibly followed the 
dictates of reason up to this point, may have been 
unconscious of the gap. If so, this unconsciousness 
reveals anew the sharp duality in this great intellect. 
If not, adjustment of some sort must have been felt 
to be necessary, before the work could be given to 
the world. 

If the Calvinistic theology it contains should be 
eliminated from the dissertation on the " Nature of 
True Virtue," there would remain a conception of 
virtue almost identical with Spinoza's. Disinterested 
love to God is presented as the highest exercise of 
the virtuous man, who will exercise it highly in pro- 
portion to his knowledge of God, and also will desire 
that as many as possible should share in the same 
exercise and enjoy its benefits. These benefits do 
not really consist in rewards, but the virtuous soul 
finds in virtue itself its true good and highest happi- 
ness. " So far as the virtuous mind exercises true 
virtue in benevolence to created beings, it seeks chiefly 
the good of the creature ; consisting in its knowledge 
or view of God's glory and beauty, its union with 
God, conformity and love to him, and joy in him." 

This is all in thorough harmony with Spinoza. 



But Edwards's total conception differs from Spinoza's 
in one very important particular. With Spinoza 
man must love God in proportion as he knows God, 
and ignorance of the divine nature is consequently 
the cause of all wickedness, is indeed wickedness 
itself. But with Edwards man may know God com- 
pletely and yet remain vicious. The devils believe 
and tremble, but cease not, therefore, to be devils. 
For while virtue grows as the knowledge of God 
grows, a virtuous disposition must first be given, 
natural or derived. Without such a virtuous dispo- 
sition implanted or native in the heart, there can be 
no virtuous exercise. Wherever in intelligent beings 
this disposition is lacking, vice must prevail in spite 
of perfect knowledge of God and his last end in the 
creation. " Christians," says Edwards, " have the 
greatest reason to believe, from the scriptures, that 
in the future day of the revelation of the righteous 
judgment of God, when sinners shall be called to 
answer before their judge, and all their wickedness, 
in all its aggravations, brought forth and clearly 
manifested in the perfect light of that day ; and God 
shall reprove them, and set their sins in order before 
them, their consciences will be greatly awakened 
and convinced, their mouths will be stopped, all stu- 
pidity of conscience will be at an end, and con- 
science will have its full exercise ; and therefore 
their consciences will approve the dreadful sentence 
of the judge against them ; and seeing that they 
deserved so great a punishment, will join with the 



judge in condemning them Then the sin and 

wickedness of their heart will come to its highest 
dominion and completest exercise; they shall be 
wholly left of God, and given up to their wickedness, 
even as the devils are ! When God has done wait- 
ing on sinners, and his Spirit done striving with 
them, he will not restrain their wickedness as he 
does now. But sin shall then rage in their hearts, 
as a fire no longer restrained and kept under." 

This emphasis on the necessity of a virtuous dis- 
position to the exercise of virtue, was one of the im- 
portant principles in Edwards's doctrine of the will. 
Its reappearance here is natural. But it reappears 
with such force and clearness as to amount to the 
recognition of something arbitrary in the scheme of 
things, an element persistently refusing to be re- 
lated, a reality naturally and originally obnoxious to 
God. It seriously interferes with the divine power. 
It can have no place in a world which is the emana- 
tion of the divine fulness of perfection. One is 
tempted to think that its presence in Edwards's 
thinking is due to a concession to his theology, that 
it is another instance of that unrelated juxtaposition 
I have insisted on. And so it may well be. But it 
serves to make that juxtaposition still more apparent. 
It is true, however, that this dissertation on the 
nature of true virtue, if taken by itself, exhibits a 
greater degree of philosophical thoroughness than is 
to be found elsewhere in Edwards's work. What- 
ever may have influenced him thus to emphasize the 



underlying necessity of a virtuous disposition to the 
exercise of virtue, this dissertation, with the prin- 
ciple admitted, is most thoroughly worked out. And 
it is just this thoroughness which makes the dis- 
sertation emphasize anew the duality of Edwards's 
mind. It emphasizes it so emphatically, that the 
suspicion is once more aroused that he was be- 
ginning to feel the need of adjustment between the 
unrelated elements of his thought. 

Lack of adjustment, the juxtaposition of unre- 
lated principles in an ordinary mind, is not a cause 
of interest. But I have tried to point out that in 
Edwards there is no ordinary juxtaposition. It is 
extraordinary. It is crucial for our understanding 
of the man. It is necessary for a clear character- 
ization of his influence. It reveals itself with such 
steady accumulation as to amount to a demand, not 
altogether conscious perhaps, for a revision of the 
whole system. It reveals Edwards not as a man of 
a single idea, with opinions changelessly fixed and 
doggedly supported, but as a man of remarkable 
versatility, of steady growth, of rich promise, but as 
a man too, who only late in life gave evidence of a 
possible unification of the diverse elements of his 
nature. Of these elements the theological was the 
most prominent both by his exposition and his per- 
sonal influence. It was his theology that he be- 
queathed to New England, his theology, be it said, 
however, stamped with the peculiar force of his 
great personality. And it was not a philosophically 



grounded theology. Its own force spent, it could 
not draw on Edwards's other work. Its failure of 
continued influence becomes his failure. Yet 
philosophy was there with unusual excellence. 
Surely one must recognize that Edwards has influ- 
enced American thought critically, that he gave to 
it, in its first significant and original outburst, the 
theological instead of the philosophical cast, with a 
theology left so unrelated to a real insight into 
human nature and the world's nature, that it was 
bound to fail with the failure of personal conviction 
of its truth. 

A man so profoundly interesting on account of 
his versatility and the peculiar way its elements were 
composed in him, so interesting too on account of 
the nature of his influence, cannot be dismissed 
without some attempt at an understanding of his 
intellectual character. It is too easy an explanation 
of him which would point to his time, his education, 
his occupation. For, let me insist again, he was 
distinctly a great man. He did not merely express 
the thoughts of his time, or meet it simply in the 
spirit of his traditions. He stemmed it and moulded 
it. New England thought was already making 
toward that colorless theology which marked it 
later. That he checked. It was decidedly Arminian. 
He made it Calvinistic. To his own personal con- 
victions he was forced, through his removal from 
Northampton, to sacrifice the work in which he had 
unselfishly spent his best years. His time does not 



explain him. We must look to his intellectual 

Perhaps he would remain altogether enigmatic, 
were it not for what he has told us of himself, and for 
what his early " Notes on the ..Mind " reveal. These 
Notes contain an outline of philosophy, which for 
penetration and breadth of interest finds no superior 
in the work of other minds equally mature. More 
than this, it surpasses the work of many maturer 
minds which have yet received the recognition of 
history. We know that its inspiration was mainly 
Locke, but its promise of superiority to him is 
evident. The remarkable verbal similarity these 
Notes reveal to the writings of Berkeley, has led to a 
comparison of Edwards with the Irish bishop and a 
search for traces of his influence. These have not 
been found. Nor is the philosophy unmistakably 
Berkeley's. It is more the germ of that mystic 
pantheism which was disclosed later with such clear- 
ness in the dissertation on God's Last End in the 
Creation. The trend of his thinking is not so much 
revealed in such Berkeleyan expressions as these : 
•'When we say that the World, i. e. the material 
Universe exists nowhere but in the mind, we have 
got to such a degree of strictness and abstraction, 
that we must be exceedingly careful, that we do not 
confound and lose ourselves by misapprehension. 
That is impossible, that it should be meant, that all 
the world is contained in the narrow compass of a 
few inches of space, in little ideas in the place of the 



brain ; for that would be a contradiction ; for we are 
to remember that the human body, and the brain 
itself, exist only mentally, in the same sense that 
other things do ; and so that, which we call place, is 
an idea too. Therefore things are truly in those 
places ; for what we mean, when we say so, is only, 
that this mode of our idea of place appertains to 
such an idea. We would not therefore be under- 
stood to deny, that things are where they seem to 
be. For the principles we lay down, if they are 
narrowly looked into, do not infer that. Nor will it 
be found, that they at all make void Natural Philos- 
ophy, or the science of the Causes or Reasons of 
corporeal changes. For to find out the reasons of 
things, in Natural Philosophy, is only to find out the 
proportion of God's acting. And the cause is the 
same, as to such proportions, whether we suppose 
the World only mental, in our sense, or no." 

The trend of his thinking is revealed rather in 
such pantheistic expressions as these : " Seeing 
God has so plainly revealed himself to us ; and other 
minds are made in his image, and are emanations 
from him ; we may judge what is the Excellence of 
other minds, by what is his, which we have shown is 
Love. His Infinite Beauty is his Infinite mutual 
Love of Himself. Now God is the Prime and 
Original Being, the First and Last, and the Pattern 
of all, and has the sum total of all perfection. We 
may therefore, doubtless, conclude, that all that is 
the perfection of Spirits may be resolved into that 



which is God's perfection, which is Love." 
" When we speak of Being in general, we may be 
understood of the Divine Being, for he is an 
Infinite Being : therefore all others must necessarily 
be considered as nothing. As to Bodies, we have 
shown in another place, that they have no proper 
Being of their own. And as to Spirits, they are the 
communications of the Great Original Spirit ; and 
doubtless, in metaphysical strictness and propriety, 
He is, as there is none else. He is likewise In- 
finitely Excellent, and all Excellence and Beauty is 
derived from him, in the same manner as all Being. 
And all other Excellence, is, in strictness only a 
shadow of his." " We shall be in danger, when we 
meditate on this love of God to himself, as being the 
thing wherein his infinite excellence and loveliness 
consists, of some alloy to the sweetness of our view, 
by its appearing with something of the aspect and 
cast of what we call self-love. But we are to con- 
sider that this love includes in it, or rather is the 
same as, a love to everything, as they are all com- 
munications of himself. So that we are to conceive 
of Divine Excellence as the Infinite General Love, 
that which reaches all, proportionally, with perfect 
purity and sweetness." 

Indeed if these Notes inspire one to curious re- 
search into the indebtedness of Edwards to others, 
Berkeley is but one of several philosophers that 
will be suggested. But the search thus far has 
been vain, and it appears true that its vanity is 



due, not to the lack of evidence, but to the fact 
that there is no indebtedness which can be counted 
as significant. These Notes are all the greater 
warrant, therefore, for ranking Edwards among the 
great, original minds. 

But for the understanding of his intellectual his- 
tory, it is not mainly important to discover the 
sources of his ideas. It is important rather to note 
that he began his life of constructive thought in 
philosophy, and in a philosophy grounded in reason, 
giving little promise of the theologian that was to 
be, but abundant promise of the philosopher whose 
mysticism should increasingly shine forth in his 
latest works, in part a reminiscence, in part a re- 
covery of the impulse of his youth. 

This philosophy, however, was never to yield its 
proper fruitage. It was arrested by emotional ex- 
periences for which Edwards himself could not ac- 
count. He became a theologian of his peculiar type, 
not through the logical processes of his thinking, 
but through a kind of mystical intuition. He gives 
us this account of it : "I remember the time very 
well when I seemed to be convinced and fully 
satisfied as to this sovereignty of God, and his 
justice in thus eternally disposing of men according 
to his sovereign pleasure ; but never could give an 
account how or by what means I was thus con- 
vinced, not in the least imagining at the time, nor a 
long time after, that there was any extraordinary in- 
fluence of God's Spirit in it, but only that now I 



saw further, and my mind apprehended the justness 
and reasonableness of it. * * * * God's abso- 
lute sovereignty and justice with respect to sal- 
vation is what my mind seems to rest assured of, as 
much as of anything that I see with my eyes." 

Supervening upon his natural philosophical bent, 
such experiences, revealing a nature swayed as much 
by unanalyzed emotions as by reason, account for 
those aspects of Edwards's thought which have been 
noted. So potent were those experiences in their 
effect, that his original position was never recovered 
in its simplicity and originality. So disrupting were 
they intellectually, that his philosophy and theology 
remained to the close of his life almost completely 
divorced and unrelated. Such experiences were so 
consonant with Edwards's native mysticism, that 
one can readily understand why they never fully 
rose to the dignity of a contradiction in his thinking. 
So significant were they for his influence that we 
remember him, not as the greatest of American 
philosophers, but as the greatest of American 




Professor of Ecclesiastical History 

Andover Theological Seminary 


Edwards is too large for ordinary measuring rods. 
The best appreciations suggest more than is said, — 
are best for this reason. There is always in him 
something that seems to require the supposition of 
a fourth dimension. 

You will not expect me, within the time pre- 
scribed, to review his theological treatises, nor to 
state in detail his doctrinal opinions, either with or 
without an attempt to estimate their value. I shall 
take the subject assigned, "The Theology of 
Edwards," in its strictest sense, and speak — mainly 
on a single line — of his Doctrine of God. But in 
doing this I shall endeavor to keep in mind two 
things, — the immediate purpose of this celebration, 
and what is due to Edwards in specializing in re- 
spect to any part of his thinking. 

We meet to offer a sincere, grateful, intelligent 
tribute to his memory, to uncover anew, if we may, 
the sources of his power, to feel afresh the tonic in- 
fluence of his vigorous and rigorous reasoning, to 
catch some fresh inspiration for our own busy 
thoughts and lives, to come again under the influ- 
ence of one who was called of God to bring many of 
His wandering and lost children into their Father's 
house, and guide them to the fountains of eternal 

We honor him most, as we understand him best ; 
and we best understand him as we discover how 



marvellously in him, mind and heart, doctrine and 
life, the boldest and loftiest speculation and the 
purest and deepest feeling were attuned, one to the 
other, in full rich harmony ; how, in the range and 
variety of his inquiries and studies, and the growth 
and progress of his knowledge and opinions through 
years of intensest application and varied ministrations, 
there was one central thought, one controlling pur- 
pose ; how, also, remarkable as is his analytic power, 
he seeks for wholes, and thinks and acts in wholes, 
as when, in his younger years, his whole soul, in a 
way he did not then understand, came into entire 
accord with the absolute sovereignty of God, or, 
when, the year before he died, he gave to the Trust- 
ees of the College at Princeton, as a reason for 
hesitancy about accepting their offer of its Presi- 
dency, that he 'had had on his mind and heart a 
great work, long ago begun, a History of Redemption, 
a body of divinity, in an entire new method, .... 
a method which appeared to him the most beautiful 
and entertaining, wherein every divine doctrine will 
appear to the greatest advantage, in the brightest 
light, in the most striking manner, showing the ad- 
mirable contexture and harmony of the whole.' 

"The admirable contexture and harmony of the 
whole," this is the key that unlocks for us the inner- 
most chamber, discloses the central principle, of 
Edwards's thought. 

It has been easy, in some respects to miss this. 
He left no Summa Theologica, no Body of Divinity. 



His works are special Dissertations and Observations, 
Controversial Treatises, Sermons, a Life of Brainerd, 
Studies and Practical Guides in Experimental Re- 
ligion. His Diary ends early. His Note Books 
have been seen by but few, and have not been used 
so as to derive from them all that is possible for a 
knowledge of the history of his thinking, and es- 
pecially for the light they may shed upon its unity. 
Yet without this appreciation misunderstanding is 
quite sure to arise. I could say more on this point 
were this the appropriate occasion. If ever there was 
a theologian who saw a whole, and was guided and 
controlled by the sense of this relationship of every 
part or aspect of universal being and life — "the 
admirable contexture and harmony of the whole," — 
it was Jonathan Edwards. He shed no tears, so far 
as we are told, when he was dismissed at Northamp- 
ton, deep as was the wound inflicted, but when the 
council at Stockbridge decided in favor of his under- 
taking a most honorable work in a position of emi- 
nence and wide influence, though he had long been 
wonted to self-control, the tears fell. 

A study of Edwards's theology which brings us 
into touch with its inward principle and development 
will naturally start with his college essay entitled 
" Of Being," first published by Dr. Dwight in an 
appendix to the Life \ It was characteristic of its 
author to seize upon this topic, and treat it as of 

1 An exact reprint may be found in the Proceedings of the American 
Antiquarian Society, Oct. 1895, pp. 241-245. See also Ibid., Oct. 1896, 
pp. 251-252. 



primary importance. Something is. " That there 
should absolutely be nothing at all is utterly im- 
possible. The mind can never, let it stretch its 
conceptions ever so much, bring itself to conceive of 
a state of Perfect nothing. It puts the mind into 
mere Convulsion and Confusion to endeavor to think 

of such a state A state of Absolute nothing 

is a state of Absolute Contradiction. Absolute 
nothing is the Aggregate of all the Absurd (?) contra- 
dictions in the World : a state wherein there is 
neither body, nor spirit, nor space ; neither empty 
space nor full space ; neither little nor Great, narrow 
nor broad ; neither infinitely Great space, nor finite 
space, nor a mathematical point ; neither Up nor 
Down; . . no such thing as either here or there, 
this way or that way, or only one way. When we 
go about to form an idea of Perfect nothing we 
must . . shut out of our minds both space that has 
something in it, and space that has nothing in it, . . 
nor must we suffer our thoughts to take sanctuary 
in a mathematical point. When we Go to Expel body 
out of Our thoughts we must Cease not to leave 
empty space in the Room of it, and when we go to 
expel emptiness from Our thoughts we must not 
think to squeeze it out by anything Close, hard and 
solid, but we must think of the same that the sleep- 
ing Rocks dream of, and not till then shall we 
Get a complete idea of nothing." 

Something is, — Being, infinite, omnipresent, eter- 
nal, the consciousness which includes all other con- 



sciousnesses, and in which the universe has its 

Edwards never lost this vivid sense of God, His 
Reality, His Immediacy. It is the first, the funda- 
mental thing to be taken into account in an under- 
standing of his Theology. It is requisite to a just 
interpretation and valuation of his controversial 
treatises — necessary as a knowledge of climate, of 
sky, soil, water-courses, to a science of the growth 
of flowers or forests, necessary as atmosphere to 
vitality. It is more instructive, for instance, to learn 
how and why he was so persistent and uncompro- 
mising a Determinist, could not be satisfied with 
what has been called " soft Determinism," than to 
follow his tireless logic as he chases an ambiguity or 
a fallacy out of the world and beyond the bounds in- 
habitable by any intelligence. And it is this con- 
stant sense of God, irrepressible, pouring forth in 
vivid metaphor and poetic image, and fervent appeal, 
in words of force and fire, and again of calm and 
sweet delight, that draws us to him, and while we 
are with him at once thrills and rests our spirits, as 
when, on a high mountain pass, or in some deep 
ravine, with craggy steeps and signs of Titanic ele- 
mental powers all about us, the eye rests on some 
perfect flower. At the heart of Edwards's most 
rugged and vigorous Determinism is the immediate- 
ness, the very peace, of God. 

This Divine, Infinite Reality, expressed in Being, 
necessary to thought, implicit in all finite conscious- 



ness, is in immediate relation to the human spirit. 
This immediateness does not exclude mediateness, — 
a method of Divine revelation by symbols and types, 
by the ministries of Nature, prophets and priests, 
gospels and sacraments, by the Incarnate Word. 
But it does mean that all such media are of value in 
so far as, and only so far as, there is in them and by 
them in contact with our spirits the living God. Is 
there any other theologian in whose experience and 
teaching this realization of the Divine Presence is so 
palpable ? It is the more noteworthy because never 
was there a divine who gave himself more diligently 
to the study of the written word, following it not only 
in perusal, but in annotation, citation, appli- 
cation, with persevering and tireless fidelity, nor one 
who surpassed him in power of analysis and deduc- 
tion. Yet behind the letter and the logic, broader 
than the range of dialectic, and reaching farther 
than the subtlest discrimination of thought, is evi- 
dent, as the space that holds the countless stars, the 
Presence to his inmost consciousness of the God he 
loved with a pure surpassing love and served with a 
marvelous consecration. 

In this apprehension of the Divine as real Being, 
everywhere present, is implied its knowableness. 
One would like to see in our time a mind like that 
of Edwards, — or Edwards himself, if that might 
be, — dealing with the Agnosticism which oppresses 
many. How he would toss on the horns of his dia- 
lectic a scientific knowing that we do not and can- 



not know, that religious verities cannot be verified ! 
Agnosticism as a belief, a knowledge, or a bar to 
knowledge, would seem to him like that belief in 
nothing which elicited his youthful polemic, and 
this characteristic comment : " If any man thinks 
that he Can think well Enough how there should be 
nothing I'll engage that what he means by nothing is 
as much something as anything that ever he thought 
of in his Life, and I believe that if he knew what 
nothing was it would be intuitively evident to him 
that it Could not be." 

We may presume, also, that with the early Chris- 
tian Apologists he would emphasize that the soul is 
naturally capacitated to know God, and that such 
knowledge has always been in some degree in its 
possession ; that not only is it found where the 
Christian revelation has shed its light, but is con- 
tained in other religions as well. Such is his con- 
tention in one of his unpublished papers, and eagerly 
would he appropriate whatever progress has been 
made in these later days in the science of compara- 
tive religion. The testimony of prophets of Jehovah, 
of Christian experience, above all of Him who spake 
as never man spake, would flame out with surpassing 
splendor, for the theme would kindle his highest 
powers. Especially, we may believe, would he 
speak with reassuring tones to any who are now 
more or less disquieted by what is termed, rather 
vaguely, and sometimes a little emptily, the changed 
view of Scripture, — meaning, however, more par- 



ticularly, new suppositions or conclusions as to the 
origin, construction, collection of its several books, 
in a word new light upon their literary history, and 
their relation to successive changes or stages in the 
religious progress of mankind. 

On the one hand we may be sure that Edwards 
would be no less eager than the most enthusiastic 
scholar to learn all that can be discovered in this 
field of investigation, behind no one in courage and 
sincerity of utterance. Nor would his high idealism 
make him indifferent, in any degree, to historic 
facts, not even in the most narrow and insufficient 
meaning of this much abused phrase. His idealism 
was not subjectivism. He would recognize that 
there are facts with which the truth of divine revela- 
tion is bound up, which are its actual expression. 
Incommensurateness of fact and idea wonld not 
mean to him their disjunction. 

Nor was he a mere mystic. No one in the history 
of our churches has had a greater influence on prac- 
tical piety. He insisted on charity in speech and 
benevolence in deed. Virtue is Love. In the re- 
ligious movements of which he was a leader he ex- 
hibited sanity and sagacity. It is enough to refer 
to his discriminating treatment of the inward testi- 
mony of the Holy Spirit. And though he did not 
mingle directly in political affairs, he has been 
credited by a recent historian with having, " more 
than any other man, settled the principle which fully 
justified to the American mind the complete sever- 



ance of the State from ecclesiastical functions or 
concern." 1 

Yet, on the other hand, it is noteworthy, as the 
author to whom I have just referred points out, 
that this service was rendered, not directly, but 
through Edwards's religious teaching. 2 And it would 
still doubtless be on this line, and with this power, 
that he would influence, if living among us, the 
doubt and distrust of our time. "The gospel," he 
wrote, after witnessing, analysing, and studying in 
many forms its divine power, — "The gospel of the 
blessed God does not go abroad a begging for its 
evidence so much as some think : it has its highest 
and most proper evidence in itself." 3 "Unless men 
may come to a reasonable solid persuasion and con- 
viction of the truth of the gospel .... by a sight 
of its glory, it is impossible that those who are 
illiterate, and unacquainted with history should have 
any thorough and effectual conviction of it at 

all After all that learned men have said to 

them, there will remain innumerable doubts on their 
minds ; they will be ready, when pinched with some 
great trial of their faith, to say ' How do I know 
this or that ? How do I know when these histories 
were written ? Learned men .... tell me there 
is equal reason to believe these facts, as any what- 
soever that are related at such a distance ; but how 

1 The Rise of Religious Liberty in America, A History. By Sanford 
H. Cobb, N. Y. The Macmillan Co., 1902. Page 4^5. 

2/6., pp. 485-486. 

3 Treatise on Religious Affections, Sect. V., I. Works, Vol. V., p. 
186; ed. Dwight. 



do I know that other facts which are related of 
those ages ever were ? ' " 1 

Edwards's solution of the difficulty of the un- 
learned is good for all. The scholar needs it as 
well as others. Still the gospel is its own best evi- 
dence ; its demonstration is "the demonstration of 
the Spirit and of power." Edwards knew this gospel 
by its supreme result in character and life ; knew it 
in his own protracted, analysed, tested, profound ex- 
perience ; saw it in a life, united with his own, so 
constant in cheerfulness, benevolence, devoutness, 
divine communion, that its spiritual raptures seem 
scarcely more wonderful than it would have been 
had they not been vouchsafed ; observed it in its 
effect in many places and successive seasons, in 
persons of various ranks, callings and ages, and this 
with as keen a psychological eye as one may read 
of, quickened in its watchfulness by a profound sense 
of responsibility; and in these impressive and 
memorable words he gives us his testimony both as 
to the reality and value of the knowledge the gospel 
imparts : " He that sees the beauty of holiness, or 
true moral good, sees the greatest and most impor- 
tant thing in the world. . . . Unless this is seen 
nothing is seen that is worth the seeing ; for there 
is no other true excellency or beauty. Unless this 
be understood, nothing is understood worthy the 
exercise of the noble faculty of understanding. This 
is the beauty of the Godhead, the divinity of divinity 

1 Ibid., pp. 182-183. 



(if I may so speak), the good of the infinite fountain 
of good. Without this, God Himself (if that were 
possible) would be an infinite evil ; we ourselves had 
better never have been, and there had better have 
been no being. He therefore in effect knows noth- 
ing that knows not this ; his knowledge is but the 
shadow of knowledge, or the form of knowledge, as 
the apostle calls it And well may regen- 
eration, in which this divine sense is given to the 
soul by its Creator, be represented as opening the 
blind eyes, raising the dead, and bringing a person 
into a new world." 1 

Edwards included in what may be known of God 
His existence as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. In 
the editions of his collected works there is no formal 
discussion of this subject. The doctrine, however, 
plainly appears in various aspects, particularly in 
affecting representations of the excellence and glory 
of the Redeemer, and discriminating discussions of 
the work of the Holy Spirit. In general it may be 
said that it pervades his system of theology, so that 
this would be unintelligible without it. The doc- 
trine, in a word, is present in his published writings, 
as it generally is in Holy Scripture, that is, in ob- 
vious presuppositions, implications, and practical 
applications. It sheds light upon the most intimate 
and profound experiences revealed in the Christian 
consciousness, and is implied in manifold known 
operations and effects pertaining to the life of the 

1 Ibid., p. 158. 



children of God. It makes the via cruris a via lucis. 
It belongs to the far, high, pure, ever burning lights 
that guide upward to the immediate vision of Him 
all whose blessedness and majesty and glory, with 
the entire good of the universe, are involved and 
insured in this, that He is eternally and essentially 
Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. 

In the delightful "Treatise on Grace," printed 
for private circulation by Mr. Grosart, Edwards says, 
"Though the word person be rarely used in the 
Scriptures, yet I believe that we have no word in 
the English language that does so naturally repre- 
sent what the Scripture reveals of the distinction of 
the eternal Three, — Father, Son, and Holy Ghost — 
as to say, they are one God, but three persons." l 
He recognizes also the mystery of the doctrine, and 
our dependence for knowledge and guidance re- 
specting it on Sacred Scripture, which, he says, — 
referring directly to an inquiry into the nature of 
the Holy Spirit, — " certainly should be our rule in 
matters so much above reason and our own notions." 2 

In Manuscripts mostly as yet unpublished, either 
in whole or in part, are numerous papers on the 
subject. I may say in passing that when in this 
address I use the term " Observation," or " Obser- 
vations," for a source of information respecting 
Edwards's opinions, I refer to statements derived 
from these Manuscripts. 

1 Op. cit., p. 43. 
2 lb., pp. 43,47. 



How often we come closest to some great leader, 
in his deepest thoughts and aims, as a biographer 
gives us a glimpse of his youth, its intuitions, per- 
ceptions, aspirations, dreams. The key to the life 
usually hangs in that closet. Whatever critics may 
conclude, the Church will always be profoundly 
grateful for the picture in the Third Gospel of the 
Child Jesus among the doctors. 

A study of the Observations of Edwards shows 
that deep thoughts upon the Trinity came to him in 
the beginnings of his theological studies, indeed, 
some paragraphs in the published Series entitled 
"The Mind," in all probability carry us back yet 
farther. 1 It appears, also, that for a number of 
years, perhaps down close upon the time when he 
must have been much absorbed in labors connected 
with the " Revival," and the " Great Awakening," 
and again after he had left Northampton, that is to 
the last, the same theme engaged his thought. 1 
Nowhere is there any indication of dissatisfaction 
with the accepted historic doctrine. Rather it is an 
endeavor, by what the writer himself regards as in- 
tense thought, to bring the doctrine more clearly to 

1 See No. i. Excellency [Dwight's, ed. I. pp. 696, 697]; also, No. 45, 
Paragraphs 1, 2, 4, 9, 12 [lb., pp. 699, 700, 701]. The earliest Observation 
on the Trinity in the series entitled " Miscellanies " is numbered 94, which 
is equivalent to 142. The number 52 is usually added to those in this series 
on account of its beginning with the alphabet, — first a single letter, then 
double letters. But I find that there is noj nor.#, also no v nor vv, so that 
the added number should be 48. No. 1, of Series " The Mind," is appar- 
ently, unless " Of Being " is prior, the earliest college composition by Ed- 
wards of which we have any knowledge. It was probably composed in his 
Sophomore or early in his Junior year. It contains the germ of his many 
subsequent philosophical remarks upon the Trinity. No. 94(142) of the 
" Miscellanies" is supposed to have been written towards the close of his 
residence at the College as a graduate student (1720-1722), and before his 
Tutorship. See Dwight, I. p. 56; also Appendix I. to this volume, No. A. 



view, and this by seeing it as reflected in the mirror 
of self-consciousness. The attempt was not novel, 
but it is remarkable in its clearness of conception, 
and in its presentation and answering of objections. 

I had prepared a statement of its positions and 
method, with quotations from hitherto unused doc- 
uments, but must omit the reading, that I may 
allude to other topics. 1 What is most striking, for 
myself I should say instructive and helpful, in the 
discussions is the clear conviction, the fearless claim 
of the Reasonableness of the doctrine from the point 
of view of what the writer calls " naked Reason," 
the repeated assertion of the power of human reason 
to deal with the subject, and the foundation of the 
claim in a broader view of the likeness of man to 
God. In the human spirit there is a three-fold dis- 
tinction which is a resemblance to the Trinity of the 
Divine Nature. I may not conceal my impression 
that it would have been happy for the New England 
Theology, at least, and the interests it represents, 
if Edwards's thoughts on this subject had obtained 
an earlier and wider publicity. I must, however, 
add with equal frankness and distinctness that I 
have no suspicion that they have ever been withheld 
from any doubt as to the writer's Trinitarianism. 

For the reason already suggested I must omit 
what I had written respecting his treatment of the 
Incarnation, — except to say that the same principle 
which guides his thought on the Trinity is applied 

1 See Appendix I. A. 



by him to this doctrine. I refer to the principle of 
man's likeness to his Maker. Edwards thus recog- 
nizes distinctly and interestedly, what has become a 
first principle in our later and best Christologies. 1 
He does not, however, follow out this principle to 
its legitimate results in our conception of the Divine 
method of recovering men to God. That which is 
essential in the constitution of the Redeemer's Per- 
son must be fundamental in our interpretation of 
what He is and does for us as our Redeemer. 
There is, through the Divine Creative Son, who be- 
came man, a natural sonship of man to God which 
must have a place in our thought of the sonship 
which is by grace. To have missed this application 
of his own principle may be regarded as a chief 
immediate cause both of what was most excessive 
and defective in Edwards's teaching. 

His thought of God is still further disclosed to us 
in his interpretation of the revealed Purpose or End 
of God in Creation. His "Dissertation" on this 
topic, which ranks with his principal works, was 
written, it is supposed, for publication, though it did 
not appear until several years after his decease. 
From notes found among his papers it was con- 
jectured that he was thinking of some revision of it, 
but no evidence has appeared that he was meditating 
any material change. 

The Observations contain numerous papers on the 
same theme, running from his early days into the 

1 See Appendix I. B. 

8 9 


years at Stockbridge. In these manuscripts we 
overhear Edwards saying to himself in his study 
substantially what is expressed in the " Disserta- 
tion." The light of the one blends harmoniously 
with that of the other. Yet there is in the unpub- 
lished series a fascinating variety and freshness of 
utterance, and as we follow in them the growth of 
his thought, we come in some respects into closer in- 
timacy with it, and are impressed with its richness 
and fulness. 

Several questions have arisen in the interpreta- 
tion of the " Dissertation." 

Does its author regard happiness as the End ? 
Does he subordinate virtue to happiness ? Does he 
understand, in making the glory of God the End, 
that receiving glory is what is aimed at, so that the 
" apparent effect " of what is said is, the glorification 
of " an infinite and celestial selfishness ? " Was he 
perplexed in thought, when he wrote the "Disser- 
tation," by seeing before him, in his recoil from 
Deism, a menacing pantheism ? And for relief was 
he in his last years, turning for the first time to the 
" Christian doctrine of the Trinity ? " 

I think, after examining the Observations as well 
as reading anew the " Dissertation," that these ques- 
tions must all be answered in the negative, although 
Happiness no doubt enters largely into Edwards's 
thought of the Divine Purpose. 

The Observations are most emphatic in their evi- 
dence that Edwards's thought is not that God's 



chief end in creation is that of receiving glory. His 
conception is precisely the opposite. His funda- 
mental thought of God, — one that he connects 
again and again with Creation, — is that of a Being 
whose absolute Perfection implies self-impartation, 
reciprocity, mutual Love, which itself is an energy 
so intense and complete that into it as an act of in- 
tercommunication is poured the fullness of Infinite 
Being. This conception of the Trinity Edwards 
early and late connects with the Creation of the 
Universe. God does not create to meet a deficiency 
in his own nature, but just the contrary. He cre- 
ates because of the plenitude of His Being, as a full 
fountain overflows. His glory is to give. He 
creates to communicate, — to give Himself, to be the 
creature's good. 1 

Edwards taught nothing new in presenting the 
glory of God as the End of the Creation, but he 
greatly enriched its interpretation. He smote the 
rock, and the living waters flowed. With the bless- 
ing of God he made the truth productive of noblest 
service, in our churches at home and on many a 
mission field, from men who lived to glorify God. 
And into what simplicity, purity, disinterestedness 
of motive, and inward tranquility, and liberation of 
energies of consecrated service, they came in the 
divine communion into which their spirits were 
brought. Life under the sternest skies, on the 
stormiest seas, in the farthest wildernesses, was under 

1 See Appendix 1. C 



the care and guidance of a Power known in their 
own reason and deepest experience to be supreme. 
The Universe was their Friend, sustaining them, 
moving them ever onward, as, by a returning 
voyager, his ship beneath his feet is felt, with a 
thrill of joy, to be bearing him, with the whole mo- 
mentum of its mighty mass, homeward. 

Homeward to God, whose we are and from whom 
we came — this is the innermost meaning and the 
climax of Edwards's Theology. 

We may get a better doctrine of the Will than he 
maintained, though never without him, for he has 
made forever secure in thought the doctrine of mo- 
tive. We may widen our conceptions beyond his 
ken in respect to the methods of divine grace, — its 
approaches, and the opportunities of receiving it, 
but well will it be with us if we come as fully as he 
under the constraining power of such love, and drink 
as deeply at its celestial springs. 

I had intended to say something on Edwards's 
views of Divine Sovereignty, on his Determinism, 
perhaps on his severities, — but it is impossible. 
The problem of Liberty and Necessity, like that of 
Realism and Idealism, is not merely one of Psy- 
chology. It must be solved, if at all, in the realm 
of Philosophy. Edwards rises to this higher level. 
It is his native air. His conception of Perfect 
Being contains the Trinity, his thought of personal 
freedom merges in the Liberty of the sons of God. 
We have broken with him, and shall do so again and 



again, but anon shall look and see him on some 
higher range, above our clouds. The deepest phil- 
osophical and religious thought of our time, on most 
important lines, if I mistake not, is moving upward 
on the way which led him in thought to God. 

Homeward to God — this is indeed the sum of 
Edwards's Theology ; yet I should be unjust to one 
who saw all divinity comprised in a History of Re- 
demption, if I did not add, Homeward by Him who 
came to seek and to save the lost, Christ and Him 
crucified. Edwards summons us to know God by 
Reason, — yet by Faith. Would he not say : See 
Him, know Him, and yourself, and all besides, 
through the eyes that opened in the manger, turned 
with compassion to the multitude, looked on Peter 
in his sin, and closed on the cross to open again 
upon a world redeemed. 




President of Wheaton Seminary 


God's truth has many voices ; sun and star 
And mountain and the deep that rolls afar, 
Speak the great language ; and, of mightier worth, 
The lips and lives of Godlike men on earth. 

For truth wrought out in human life has power 

Which no truth else has — since man's natal hour. 

What were the world without the long, strong chain 

Of faithful witnesses, whose heart and brain 

Have throbbed with truth God gave them ? without these 

Who, as with hands that link together, stand 

Reaching across the years to that dear Hand 

Which touched blind eyes to sight, wrote on the sand, 

And lifted Peter from the drowning seas ? 

Who, better than through book or hymn or creed, 

Draw down their living line the fire we need 

Of life from Him who is the Life indeed ? 


A good man's work is of his time and place 
Where Duty lifts the fulness of her face ; 
Translate it elsewhere and you do him wrong ; 
His life, his spirit — what of great and fair 
And true was in him — O, that doth belong 
To all the ages and dwells everywhere ! 



And there he stands, this nobly-moulded man ; 

You can not miss him if you turn and scan 

The land's horizon ; howsoe'er men talk, 

He still is of us ; no mere name ; a rock 

The floods may beat upon nor wash away ; 

Foregatherer of the times ; his loftier height 

Flushed with the gleams of sweetness and of light 

That wait their fulness till some later day ; 

An eagle spirit soaring in the sky 

And mingling with the things that can not die. 

How full of fire he was, and how sincere, 
Soldier of faith and conscience without fear ! 
And humble as the little springtime flower 
Opening its heart out to the Heavenly Power ; 
Poet, and dreamer of the things to be ; 
A man of Godly vision ; — such was he, 
This Dante of New England, who descried 
The dread Inferno of man's sin and pride ; 
The Purgatorio where his eyes might trace 
The workings out and upward of God's grace ; 
And yet who clomb with happier step the slope 
Of man's aspiring and undying hope 
Toward Paradiso, there to find his goal 
At last, — the Blessed Vision of the Soul ! 


All this he was, whatever be the name 
He goes by in the roll of earthly fame. 



We judge him as we would ourselves alway 

Be judged ; as Christ will judge the world one day ; 

Not by things done, however great they be, 

But by those longings which immortally 

Outrun achievement since the world began ; 

Yea, by the spirit in him ; that's the man. 

What though the vain world scoffed and paths grew dim, 

He had one Master and he followed Him. 

He wielded truth to meet the age's stress 

Of circumstance, nor made it truth the less. 

Truth is a sword that flashes, now this way, 

Now that, the single purpose to obey. 

Nay, truth is large ; no man hath seen the whole ; 

Larger than words ; it brooks not the control 

Of argument and of distinctions nice ; 

No age or creed can hold it, no device 

Of speech or language ; ay, no syllogism : 

Truth is the sun, and reasoning is the prism 

You lift before it ; whence the light is thrown 

In various colors ; each man takes his own. 

If this man takes the red, as you the blue, 

Is yours the whole ? and is his truth not true ? 

Spirit is truth, howe'er the colors fall ; 

The fact comes back to spirit after all. 


Secure, invincible, the man who dare 

Obey his vision — mark what courage there ! — 



Dare take the sword of his belief in hand, 
Whole-hearted face the world with it, and stand, 
And mind not sacrifice, and count fame dross, 
For truth's dear sake, and life and all things loss, 
And never dream of failure, never doubt 
What issue when the stars of God come out ! 

And would that we had power like him to rise 
Clear of the thraldom of all compromise, 
Like him whose feet on this foundation stood, — 
That God is sovereign and that God is good. 
Is such a creed outworn ? And tell me, pray, 
Have we no use for it ? Alas the day, 
Amid the things that savor of the sod, 
If men forget the sovereign rights of God ! 
The true life's master-word is still, Obey. 


The man of power rejoicing cries, " I can ; " 
" I may," the man of pleasure : but we trust, 

And all the world trusts with us, still the man 
Hearing a different voice, who says, " I must." 

O Conscience, Conscience, how we need thee now ! 

Wind, fire, and earthquake pass ; the time abounds 
In these great voices ; but, O, where art thou ? 

Is thy voice lost amid life's grosser sounds ? 


Or art thou fled across the golden bars 
Of evening with thy purer light to shine 

Somewhere far off, beyond the quiet stars, 
Far off, and leave us without guide or sign ? 

Not so ; earth's towers and battlements decay ; 

Thrones tremble and fall ; old sceptres lose control 
But, as God lives, thou livest ; thou wilt stay, 

O Conscience, God's vicegerent in the soul. 

We are thy bondmen and thy ways are good ; 

Thou art what makes us greater than the dust 
We came from ; and still, howsoe'er we would, 

Thy law is ever on us and we must. 


The man who takes " an inward sweet delight 

In God," shines like a candle in the night ; 

The world's black shadow of care and doubt and sin 

Is beaten backward by that power within ; 

He walks in freedom ; neither time nor place 

Can fetter such a spirit ; in his face 

A light, not of this earth, forever clings ; 

For, when he will, strong spiritual wings 

Bear him aloft, till silent grows all strife, 

Silent the tumult and the toil of life ; 

The homes of men, far off, like grains of sand 

Lie scattered along the wrinkles of the land, 

All silent ; not a sound or breath may rise 



To mar the eternal harmony of those skies 
Through which he goes, still higher, toward the line 
Where sun and moon have no more need to shine ; 
And there, where sordid feet have never trod, 
He walks in joy the table-lands of God. 


How much he hath to teach us even yet, 
Lest life should kill us with its toil and fret ! 
Things of the earth men seek to have and hold ; 
They build and waste again their mounds of gold. 
O me ! the din of life, the bell that peals, 
The traffic, and the roaring of the wheels ! 
Work glows and grows and satisfies us not ; 
Weary we are of what our hands have wrought, 
Weary of action with no time for thought. 
The much we do — how little it must count 
Without some pattern showed us in the mount ! 

Who seeks and loves the company of great 
Ideals, and moves among them, soon or late 
Will learn their ways and language, unaware 
Take on their likeness, ay, and some day share 
Their immortality, as this man now 
Before whose life we reverently bow. 


So shines the lamp of Edwards ; still it sends 
One golden beam down the long track of years, 



This resolute truth which neither yields nor spends, — 
That life, true life, is not of what appears, 
Not of the things the world piles wide and high ; 
'Tis of the spirit and will never die. 

His life was noble ; wherefore let the day 

White with his memory shine beside the way — 

Adding its comfort to our human need — 

Like some fair tablet whereon men may read : 

" Lo, here and there, great witnesses appear, — 

The meek, the wise, the fearless, the sincere ; 

They live their lives and witness to the word ; 

No time so evil but their voice is heard ; 

Nor sword nor flame can stop them ; though they die 

They grow not silent ; they must cry their cry ; 

Time's many a wave breaks dying on the shore ; 

They cry forever and forevermore ; 

For, in and through such men as these men are, 

God lives and works, and it were easier far 

To dry the seas and roll the mountains flat, 

Than banish God ; we build our hopes on that." 




Professor of Theology, United Free Church College 



To speak of Jonathan Edwards to a company of 
New Englanders, still more to speak of him within 
the walls of an institution built in a manner to 
enshrine his memory and perpetuate his influence, 
is an adventurous task for one whose home is in 
another continent, and whose religious associations 
are different from those by which you are encircled. 
Yet there may be a fitness in one from another land 
being present at this interesting celebration, to bear 
to you greeting, and to testify that we in Scotland 
are not unmindful of the mighty debt we owe to 
New England — which in truth all Christendom 
owes — for the gift of a consecrated genius of such 
rare power and enduring influence as his whom you 
today commemorate. The name of Jonathan Ed- 
wards is one which entwines itself with the oldest 
recollections of many of us. We met with it in 
biography, in the literature of religion, in text-books 
and prelections in philosophy, in divinity systems, in 
allusions to the influence of Edwards on the thought 
and lives of other men ; and, though one's ideas 
were sometimes vague enough of the man himself 
and of his actual surroundings and struggles at a time 
when, politically and religiously, everything in New 
England was yet in the making, the impression 
made upon us was always one of veneration for his 
character, admiration for his extraordinary genius, 



and awe at the searching spiritual power of his 

If I may indulge in reminiscence, it is forty years 
and more since I first made my own serious 
acquaintance with Edwards in poring over his 
treatise on The Freedom of the Will (I think it was 
as holiday reading : I have a dim memory connect- 
ing it with a gooseberry garden in Kilmarnock ! ), 
and I have no doubt that the trains of thought then 
set in motion have continued to vibrate in my con- 
scious or subliminal self till the present hour. It is 
to myself a singular satisfaction to be on the very 
soil from which he sprang, amidst the scenes and 
the people among whom, generations ago, he lived 
his laborious and devoted life, and to stand tonight 
in this honourable gathering, surrounded by me- 
mentos of his influence, where the one object is to 
do him honour. 

How could one contract any other sentiment 
than that of reverence for Jonathan Edwards, when 
his name was never mentioned by any distinguished 
writer except with highest eulogy of his intellectual 
and moral eminence ? That theologians like An- 
drew Fuller, Robert Hall, and Thomas Chalmers — 
all of whom acknowledge their indebtedness to him, 
and in all of whom his influence is distinctly to be 
traced — should place him on this high pedestal is 
perhaps not to be wondered at ; but when writers 
in pure philosophy, in no way enamoured of his 
special doctrines, — as, e. g., Sir James Mackintosh, 

1 08 


Dugald Stewart, F. D. Maurice, and even the Ger- 
man Fichte, — speak of his metaphysical genius in 
praise and astonishment, it is difficult to resist the 
conviction that here is a phenomenon in the history 
of mind worth turning aside to see. You, in your 
own New England theology, prolonged through so 
many phases, yet dominated throughout by the in- 
fluence of Edwards, furnish a measure of the range 
and profundity of that influence which suffices of 
itself to show how many-sided, forceful, and germ- 
inal it has been. And in this connection, as I have 
named F. D. Maurice, I may be permitted, before 
going further, to quote a sentence or two of his, 
which, coming from so impartial a mind, may be 
felt to be apposite to the present occasion : 

" In his own country," Mr. Maurice says, " he 
(Edwards) retains, and must always retain a great 
power. We should imagine that all American 
theology and philosophy, whatever changes it may 
undergo, and with whatever foreign elements it 
may be associated, must be cast in his mould. New 
Englanders who try to substitute Berkeley, or 
Butler, or Malebranche, or Condillac, or Kant, or 
Hegel, for Edwards, and to form their minds upon 
any of them, must be forcing themselves into an 
unnatural position, and must suffer in the effort. 
On the contrary, if they accept the starting-point of 
their native teacher, and seriously consider what is 
necessary to make that teacher consistent with him- 
self — what is necessary that the divine foundation 



upon which he wished to build may not be too weak 
and narrow for any human or social life to rest upon 
it — we should expect great and fruitful results 
from these inquiries to the land which they care for 
most, and therefore to mankind." {Moral and 
Metaphysical Philosophy, II. 472.) 

I shall now, with your permission, come to closer 
quarters, and shall try to state briefly for myself 
the impression I have been led to form of this great 
thinker's genius and influence. It is customary to 
place the supremacy of Edwards in his unrivalled 
metaphysical acuteness ; and even so appreciative a 
critic as Henry Rogers resolves his greatness almost 
exclusively into the possession, in unsurpassed de- 
gree, of the ratiocinative faculty — of Reason. "In 
this respect, at least," he says, " he well deserves the 
emphatic admiration which Robert Hall expressed 
when he somewhat extravagantly said that Edwards 
was ' the greatest of the sons of men.' " But this is 
at least one-sided. I shall not dwell, as I should 
wish to do, on the singularly powerful influence 
which Edwards has exercised, in his personality and 
published writings, through the simple force of his 
pure and intense godliness, but shall content myself 
with saying that it will be difficult, in the long list 
of saints and mystics, to point to one in whom the 
pure light of intellect was more intimately united 
with the pure glow of love to God in the heart — 
with habitual, sustained, all-pervading, spiritual 
affection. One has only to study the fragmentary 



records of his early resolutions and private exper- 
iences, and the parts of his writings which deal with 
experimental religion, to see how entirely in him the 
white light is one with white heat. I name the 
state of his soul godliness ; for while his mind was 
filled, as few have been, with a realization of the 
beauty and excellence of Christ, and with the sense 
of obligation to Christ in redemption, it is still, 
ultimately, God's love from which salvation is always 
viewed as flowing, and to God, as the supreme object 
of affection, that everything in salvation is regarded 
as leading back ; while love to God, contemplation 
of his excellence, and assimilation to his holiness, 
are the supreme elements in the soul's blessedness. 

The intellectual and spiritual or mystical powers 
in Edwards, therefore, exist in inseparable union, 
and even his speculative insight — which is, despite 
Mr. Rogers, far more than mere logical or ratiocina- 
tive acuteness — cannot rightly be understood, if 
divorced from the spiritual perception from which a 
large part of its light arises. There is at the same 
time nothing mystical, in the wrong sense of the 
word, in Edwards's spirituality, for it is never cut 
away from the historical ; neither is there anything 
about it fanatical and visionary, for it has its root in 
humility, is checked by the most vigorous self- 
analysis, and is in essence a pure aspiration after 
God and holiness. Listen only to this, relating to 
the years after his conversion : 

" My longings after God and holiness were much 



increased. Pure and humble, holy and heavenly, 
Christianity appeared exceedingly amiable to me. I 
felt a burning desire to be, in everything, a complete 
Christian ; and conformed to the blessed image of 
Christ ; and that I might live in all things, according 
to the pure, sweet, and blessed rules of the Gospel. 
I had an eager thirsting after progress in these 
things ; which put me upon pursuing and pressing 
after them .... I remember the thoughts I used 
then to have of holiness ; and said sometimes to 
myself, ' I do certainly know that I love holiness, 
such as the Gospel prescribes.' It appeared to me 
there was nothing in it but what was ravishingly 
lovely ; the highest beauty and amiableness — a 
divine beauty ; far purer here upon earth ; and that 
everything else was like mire and defilement in 
comparison with it." 

Nature itself was transfigured to this man of 
spiritual vision ; its objects and glories became as it 
were a pure transparency, through which was visible 
only the Divine excellency. Can anyone wonder at 
the strange spiritual fascination of such a book as 
that on the Religious Affections, coming from a soul 
so penetrated with love to God ? We think of 
Fenelon and Madame Guyon, but Edwards's piety 
burned with as pure a flame as theirs, while it was 
largely free from the morbid and quietistic elements 
which marred their sainthood. 

Having, however, premised these things, I am pre- 
pared to go as far as any — perhaps farther than 



m0 st — in my appreciation of the supreme meta- 
physical faculty of Edwards, and of the influence he 
has exercised on subsequent thought through that. 
I have already said that it is not correct to speak of 
Edwards's intellectual superiority as consisting 
merely in unrivalled ratiocinative ability. Jonathan 
Edwards has the intuitive gift ; he is a great meta- 
physical, not less than a great spiritual, idealist. 
His nature instinctively soars ; the higher the tracts 
in which his thought moves, the freer its action. 
David Hume was a precocious speculator, but the 
few pages of notes and discussions oil Mind, penned 
by Edwards under the impulse of his first study of 
Locke, in his sixteenth or seventeenth year, seem 
to me as remarkable in metaphysical subtlety as 
anything in Hume, while, in the spirit that informs 
them, they are on a far higher level. The singular 
thing is that, in keeping with what has been said of 
his idealistic bent, Edwards, in these notes, and, so 
far as appears, independently, works out a theory 
of idealism closely akin to Berkeley's, sustaining it 
by arguments, and meeting objections with a skill 
that must evoke the admiration of everyone familiar 
with the subject. When one reflects that the 
Berkelean idealism is pretty much the pons asinorum 
of the student of philosophy, getting safely over 
which, he may justly be credited with some degree 
of philosophical vovs, it will be felt that for a youth 
like Edwards, thrown almost entirely upon his own 
resources, to work out this theory as he has done, or, 



even if chance had thrown some work of Berkeley's 
in his way, (which does not seem to have been the 
case), to appropriate and reproduce its thoughts so 
admirably, was a noteworthy achievement. 

It is not, however, only in his theory of the ex- 
ternal world, and of God as the cause of our per- 
ceptions, that Edwards displays his metaphysical 
faculty ; his remarks on space, time, substance, 
cause, are equally acute and mature. There is, it is 
not too much to say, as much pure metaphysical 
thinking packed up in this score or so of pages, as 
would set up many a modern thinker for life ; and 
had Edwards chosen to follow out this line, and had 
he, like Hume, reduced his speculations to the form 
of a book, his place in philosophy would perhaps 
have been as high as his. 

Edwards, however, did better than I have sug 
gested both for himself and for us ; for philosophy 
to him was at no time an end in itself, but was 
valued only as it led back to, or had relations with, 
God and religion. The converse of this is also true, 
that religion, as it moves back on ultimate questions, 
always becomes to him again a kind of philosophy ; 
is lifted up into a region of more or less lofty spec- 
ulation. Here, in discussing such subjects, e. g., 
as the last end of God in creation, the relation of 
eternity to time, the ground of virtue in disin- 
terested love of being, the freedom of the will, 
Edwards is at his loftiest and best ; the language of 
the schools is dropped, and we move in a region of 



pure abstract thought. To follow him in the highest 
of these flights needs the eye of the eagle that is 
not afraid to gaze on the sun. 

The work by which Edwards is best known as a 
metaphysician throughout all lands is probably his 
treatise on The Freedom of the Will. In the mere 
matter of this famous treatise, over which so much 
ink has been spilt, I do not suppose that there is 
much that is absolutely new. It could easily be 
shown, I think, that its leading ideas, and practically 
all its arguments in favour of philosophical necessity, 
had been anticipated by previous writers. What 
gives Edwards's book its classic distinction is not 
its novelty, but the cool, dialetical precision with 
which the argument, as a whole, is presented ; the 
skill with which point after point is driven home ; 
the close concatenation of all its parts ; the phalanxed 
order with which, from opening to close, his reason- 
ing marches to its inevitable conclusion. I do not 
say that Edwards succeeds in satisfying us, or that 
no flaws can be pointed out in his argument, firmly 
riveted as it is. Will is not simply prevailing 
desire ; nor is self-determination to be got rid of by 
conjuring up the supposed necessity of an infinite 
series of self-determining acts. I suppose everyone 
feels, when the utmost has been said in favour of 
the necessity of volition, that there is still an 
irreducible element in consciousness — a something 
that escapes logic — in which yet the essence of 
our personality and moral freedom lies. Still, if the 



question is taken on the ground of strict logic — if 
it is asked, for instance, Is Will absolutely lawless 
in its action ? Is there any volition for which, if 
we get to the bottom of the act, there is not a why ? 
Or, if such a thing could be, would it not be something 
irrational, an act utterly unaccountable, that could, 
as Edwards says, neither be foreknown by God nor 
relied on by man ? — if questions like these are put, 
it is difficult indeed to refute Edwards, or the 
subtler forms of psychological and metaphysical 
determinism that have appeared since his time. It 
is at any rate a curious fact that it is the greater 
metaphysical minds that seem almost always driven 
to determinism — Locke, Spinoza, Leibnitz ; Hobbes 
and Hume, of course ; Kant on the theoretic side ; 
Hegel, from the absolute point of view ; Spencer, 
and with him the greater number of our scientific 
thinkers. I must not dare to discuss the problem 
here ; only Edwards will still be of use to us if he 
warns us from the danger of superficial conclusions. 
One thing, however, in Edwards's presentation, 
which I regard as seriously defective, I should like 
to lay my finger on. It is not his own ; it is bor- 
rowed from Locke ; it is in plainest conflict with his 
own deepest philosophy. All the more need is 
there on that account that it should be pointed out. 
It is the proposition, assumed as an axiom, that 
"the will always is as the greatest apparent good 
is," that the good is " of the same import with 
[the] agreeable," — that "to appear good to the 



mind is the same as to appear agreeable ; " — that 
evil, on the contrary, is " that which is disagreeable 
and uneasy." "Agreeable" or "pleasing," here, of 
course, is agreeable or pleasing to the subject con- 
cerned — to the agent willing. Strictly construed, 
this would reduce ethics to eudaemonism, and that 
of a type in which the happiness which determines 
action is always one's own happiness, not another's. 
I need hardly say that nothing could be further 
from Edwards's own doctrine of the foundation of 
virtue in disinterested benevolence, or from what he 
elsewhere says of the possession by the agent of " a 
moral faculty, or sense of good and evil [not here, 
observe, meaning agreeable or its reverse] .... 
and a capacity which an agent has of being influenced 
in his actions by moral inducements or motives, 
exhibited to the view of understanding and reason, 
to engage to a conduct agreeable to the moral 
faculty." Not that I can accept, without qual- 
ification, Edwards's doctrine of the nature of virtue 
— noble as it is — but the necessary qualifications 
he himself, I think it could be shown, abundantly 
supplies in his doctrine of rectitude, and the obliga- 
tions arising out of fitness in the relations of moral 

I hasten from philosophy to theology, and here so 
vast a field opens itself to view, that I despair of 
doing more than simply casting a glance at a few of 
the greater streams of influence that have issued 
from this abounding source. One thing that at 



once strikes the reader of Edwards in this connec- 
tion is the immense distance the mind has travelled 
within the last two hundred years — or let us say 
within the last forty or fifty years — from the theo- 
logical standpoint which his works represent. 
How are we, it may be asked, to enter with any 
intelligence or sympathy into questions about 
original sin and Adam's relation to his posterity — 
we, who are today discussing whether there ever 
was an Adam, or have exchanged the Adam for our 
scientific ancestor, Mr. Darwin's " hairy-tailed quad- 
ruped, probably arboreal in its habits, and an inhab- 
itant of the ancient world," ; who, instead of original 
sin, speak of " our brute inheritance ", which the 
travail of the ages has been thus far unsuccessful in 
throwing off ? I acknowledge the contrast ; I know 
that we have outgrown much that belongs to the 
fashion of a past age in thought and speech, and in 
our modes of using Scripture ; but I do not, there- 
fore, own that Jonathan Edwards has become 
obsolete, or is of no living value to us today. Just 
because the thoughts with which his mind was per- 
petually occupied were the highest and grandest, — 
just because the questions to which he pierced 
down were the basal ones of all religion, — they 
must, like the perennial stars, retain their interest 
and fascination for us amidst all the vicissitudes in 
mundane opinion. There is a permanent element 
in them because they deal with the eternal. 

It may be taken for granted that there never will 



come a time when men cease to revolve the problem 
of God's last end in creation, or are likely to find a 
sublimer and more satisfying answer than that given 
in Edwards's famous dissertation. We have our 
modern re-handlings of the doctrine of sin, but the 
questions will recur — What is sin ? Is the " brute 
inheritance " after all an adequate explanation of it ? 
How does sin come to be here, and what is the 
holy God's relation to it ? On these subjects Ed- 
wards will open up to us depths, which, whether we 
accept all his own solutions or not, we shall be forced 
to confess that the ordinary evolutionary text-books 
have no line long enough to fathom. Our author 
would find no relief in the idea that man came into 
existence in a state in which the animal propen- 
sities had almost undivided sway in his nature. 
You don't, he would say, show how man became 
sinful, but you start him off on this hypothesis 
already sinful. For a moral being in this turbulent, 
anarchic state — immersed in a life of unregulated 
passion — is already in a wrong moral state — wrong 
for him. The opponent might retort that if so, he 
was in a wrong moral state by " an arbitrary con- 
stitution of God," and Edwards might have difficulty 
in repelling this use of one of his own arguments 
against himself. 

Yet how subtle are some of his ideas even in this 
obscure region ? If we get to the inwardness of his 
theories, we perceive that many of them depend 
really on his original idealistic premises. His theory 



of identity, e. g., as consisting in a continual new 
creation, — how could it be otherwise, if substance 
has no independent existence, and if properties sub- 
sist only through the continual exertion of the 
thought and will of God ? The exercise-theory of 
Dr. Emmons finds here, in fact, a very logical justi- 
fication. Or, again, that constituted identity of 
Adam and his descendants, in virtue of which they 
form one great moral person — how curiously does 
idealism here turn round to a species of organic 
realism, the type of which, in Edwards's own image, 
is the tree and its branches ? And how curiously 
also does physiological science, as represented say 
by Weissmann, with its latest novelty of the dis- 
covery — or alleged discovery — of an undying 
germ-plasm in the living species, give to his theory 
of a single race-life a quasi-corroboration ? 

What impresses one on the large scale in Ed- 
wards is the exceeding grandeur, but hardly less 
the strange contrasts, and often scarcely veiled 
antinomies of his thought. On the one hand, how 
grand the sweep of his thought, as it swings on the 
pivot of the divine sovereignty, in the midst of the 
eternities, between the two great poles of sin and 
redemption ! Yet, on the other, how difficult to 
reconcile this conception of naked sovereignty either 
with his own idea of freedom, or with his doctrine 
of the supremacy of love in God's nature and 
purpose ! In this doctrine of what Dorner calls the 
" teleological " relation of love to the other divine 



attributes, Edwards held in his hands the means of 
correcting the harshness of the older Calvinism, 
without sacrificing anything of its truth ; but he 
failed to use it. The same contrast meets us in 
other respects. How strangely penetrated the soul 
of Edwards was by the love of God, — how entirely 
love was to him the end of creation, the essence of 
virtue, God's very being ; yet how terrible his 
view of the divine justice, how awful his pictures of 
sin and of hell ! On this a word immediately. 

On the doctrines of applied redemption — justi- 
fication, regeneration, sanctification, — there is per- 
haps not much that needs to be said ; but on the 
doctrine of atonement, or as Edwards calls it, 
" Christ's satisfaction for sin," it is not too much to 
say that, with outward and entirely sincere adher- 
ence to the old formulas, Edwards is a path-finder, 
and inaugurates a new period in the treatment of 
that doctrine. I pass over New England develop- 
ments, which are much better known to you than 
they can be to me, and refer to the exceptional 
influence his germinal ideas have had through one of 
the most original and spiritual thinkers of the Scot- 
tish Church, Dr. John McLeod Campbell. Camp- 
bell stands in direct affiliation to Edwards. He 
connects himself directly with a suggestion of Ed- 
wards that there are conceivably two ways in which 
satisfaction for sin might have been made — 
" either," as he expresses it, " an equivalent punish- 
ment or an equivalent sorrow and repentance " ; 



and himself accepts the second of these two ways 
as that in which the atonement has been made 
(a view which Edwards rejected). Christ, he thinks, 
presented to God on men's behalf " an adequate 
sorrow and repentance" — a quite untenable con- 
ception. In reality, however, this formula does 
not express the central and essential thing in 
Campbell's theory, and his view, when closely 
scrutinized, is found closely to resemble Edwards's 
own. The view of Edwards he expounds and de- 
fends from objections, and in its essence accepts. 

Edwards's own statement, however, is, it seems 
to me, the more complete, scriptural, and adequate 
of the two. While granting that Christ passed 
truly under the judgment of God in enduring the 
death threatened against sin, he yet lays the whole 
stress, in explaining the atoning virtue of these 
sufferings, on the moral and spiritual elements con- 
tained in them, and so in effect transforms the 
doctrine of atonement from within. Christ is the 
divine and human mediator, who, standing between 
God and man, is able perfectly to enter into the 
mind of both, and to identify himself with both with 
perfect sympathy. On the one hand, he has a full 
apprehension of the sin of man, and of its evil 
desert ; on the other, he enters fully into the mind 
of God regarding sin, and into the realization of the 
wrath which is its due. He thus truly, yet inwardly 
and not merely by legal imputation, bore our sins, 
rendering through his inward acknowledgement of 



the justice of God in the condemnation of sin a 
tribute to the divine righteousness, which makes 
reparation for the guilt humanity has incurred. 
McLeod Campbell, in his expressive way, speaks of 
this as the " Amen " which went up from the 
humanity of Jesus in response to the divine mind 
about sin, in which lay the essence of atonement. 
I myself think that in these utterances of Edwards 
and Campbell we possibly touch the deepest mean- 
ing of the Cross in its expiatory and propitiatory 

The admiration I have expressed for the genius 
and character of Edwards is not to be construed as 
if I were insensible of the limitations that inhere in 
the piety and thought of this truly great and saintly 
man. I refer only to two points in closing in which 
I think such limitation must be frankly acknowl- 
edged. With all his " inward, sweet delight in God 
and in divine things," one cannot help feeling at 
times a certain strain in the piety of Edwards, as if 
he were bent on disciplining himself to live at a 
height of religious emotion which it does not lie in 
the weakness of human nature to sustain. There 
is a tension as of the over-bent bow in much of his 
experience, resulting, as his Diary faithfully shows, 
in painful fluctuations of feeling — alternations of 
periods of rapture with seasons of depression — 
begetting in himself the suspicion, as he says, that 
" too constant a mortification, and too vigorous an 
application to religion, may be prejudicial to health." 



He puts himself under severe regimen ; talks often 
of the need of " forcing " himself upon religious 
thoughts ; drills himself with maxims in a way that 
reminds one of Marcus Aurelius ; intends, at one 
point, to " live in a continual mortification," though 
his good sense led him afterwards to think better of 
it. This strained, introspective mood is not healthy, 
though it was characteristic of a good deal of the 
piety of the period, and of the times of " attention 
to religion," as revival-seasons were named. 

Connected with this is the second limitation I 
would notice in Edwards. The intensity of his nature 
on the side of religion — absorbing, dwarfing all 
other interests — was not without an effect in limit- 
ing the range of his human sympathies. There is a 
lack of the humanist element in him ; a defect in the 
appreciation of art, literature and culture, which 
was bound again to provoke, and did provoke a 
reaction. There is a lack also of full sympathy 
with human nature in the individual. The terrible 
intensity of his sense of the sovereignty of God, of 
the awfulness of sin, of the utter ruin wrought by 
sin — even with all that existed to balance it in his 
views of the love of God, and of the beauty and 
excellency of God and Christ — threw other truths 
out of proportion. There is a pitilessness sometimes 
in his delineations of the divine justice which amazes 
us. I suppose there are few more terrible pages in 
literature than those of some of Jonathan Edwards's 
sermons on the punishment of the lost. But let us do 



justice to our author even here. I do not know what 
the judgment of anyone of us would be on sin, or on 
ourselves as sinners, if we realized as we should do, 
or as it was given to him to do, the holiness of God. 
To him it was all most real. If we want to see how 
far it is possible for one to go in judgment of the 
damnableness of sin, who sees it in that light, we 
may recall Dante, who surpasses even Edwards in 
his lurid realism and intensity. 

We dare not dismiss this as pure mediaevalism. 
The fact that Dante's Inferno has for many today 
all the fascination of a great classic, embodying 
lessons of eternal import, is a proof that his hell 
is not altogether an arbitrary, barbarous, and ex- 
ploded conception. Still in Dante's pictures of the 
circles there is a touch of sympathy — a sense of 
gradations — which there is not in Edwards. One 
asks in vain where the "few stripes" and "many 
stripes " come in with him. But neither Dante nor 
Edwards in their representations of the future can 
be held to do justice to the possibilities of grace in 
the Gospel. Not nature only, but grace, rises in 
rebellion in us at these merciless descriptions, and 
says — "There must be something more, something 
else," though it may not be possible to tell precisely 
what it is, and though many, in attempting to define 
it, have been wise above what is written. If these 
descriptions by either Dante or Edwards could be 
presumed to be the last words on the subject, I 



think we should have to go back to Dr. Walter 
Smith's picture in his poem on " The Self-Exiled," 

" The meek soul that for love heeds not what sorrow befalls it, 
Heeds not the bliss and the glory, but longs for them that are 

Dim in the outer darkness, tossed in the anguish undying" 

and which, amidst angelic silence, pleads for per- 

" To go away, 

And help, if I yet may help, the dead 

That have no day." 

I do not think however that we are shut up to this 
conclusion either. 

I should like in closing to recall that Scotland also 
may claim its little share of influence on the in- 
fluence of Edwards. Probably nothing in the course 
of his own life ever impressed Jonathan Edwards 
more deeply than his brief association with David 
Brainerd. It is worth remembering therefore that 
when Brainerd went to the Indians, it was as a 
missionary of the Society in Scotland for Propagat- 
ing Christian Knowledge. Further, it was through 
his Life of Brainerd that Edwards produced some 
of his deepest impressions on individual minds. It 
is said that the reading of the work had a potent 
influence on the mind of Carey, of Henry Martyn, 
and of the saintly McCheyne in Scotland. If so, 
in the last case, Edwards was but giving back to 
Scotland what was in part given by it. 





Edwards began in his college days, apparently, four 
series of papers. The first he entitles, " The Natural 
History of the Mental World, or of the Internal World : 
being a Particular Enquiry into the Nature of the Human 
Mind, with respect to both its Faculties — the Under- 
standing and the Will, — and its various Instincts, and 
Active and Passive Powers." A briefer title is " The 
Mind." The second series is referred to by its author as 
" Natural Philosophy," and as dealing with the " External 
World." Dr. Dwight designates it " Notes on Science." 
The third, Edwards calls " Miscellanies." The fourth he 
often refers to as containing a " Note " on this or that 
passage of Scripture. Most of this collection was pub- 
lished by Dr. Dwight under the title " Notes on the 
Bible." "The Mind" and the "Natural Philosophy" 
are to be found in the Appendix to the first volume of 
Dwight's edition of Edwards's " Works." The autographs 
of the papers on the " External World," are in my pos- 
session ; those on the " Mental World " have strangely 
disappeared. The originals of the " Miscellanies " and 
the Scriptural " Notes " are deposited in the Library of 
Yale University, and I am much indebted to Professor 
Franklin Bowditch Dexter, for opportunities and kind 
assistance in the examination of these and other auto- 
graphs, of which he has given an interesting account in a 
communication published in the " Proceedings of the 
Massachusetts Historical Society, March, 1901." The 
remarks on topics in Natural and Mental Philosophy 
seem to have been discontinued after their author was 
ordained, early in 1727, as a minister of the Gospel in 



Northampton. His first biographer, however, a pupil 
and intimate friend, testifies not only that he " had an 
uncommon taste for Natural Philosophy," but that he 
" cultivated " it " to the end of his life, with that justness 
and accuracy of thought which was almost peculiar to 
him." I have noticed in the rich collection at New 
Haven, a loose sheet, on which characteristic questions 
relating to both scientific and philosophical problems 
are noted in a hand-writing which suggests maturity. 
Yet it remains true that the only series which were 
continuously prosecuted through his life were those which 
dealt with Biblical and theological themes. The num- 
ber of topics entered in the " Miscellanies " increased 
to 1408. They are contained, says Professor Dexter, 
" in eight folio or quarto volumes, aggregating over 
1,400 minutely written pages." From this repository 
of his thoughts were drawn the contents of two volumes 
published in Edinburgh from copies supplied by the 
younger President Edwards, and a third collection was 
added to these by Dr. Dwight, and is to be found in 
the eighth volume of his edition of the " Works." Pro- 
fessor Dexter says that what has thus been used is " only 
a fragment of the whole amount." Of numbers in this 
collection, not included in any edition of Edwards's 
" Works," I have copies written by an amanuensis em- 
ployed by Dr. Sereno E. Dwight, and revised by him. 
These, together with others made for the son, Dr. Jona- 
than Edwards, amount to more than 1700 full pages, 
allowing ten and one-half inches by eight and one-half 
inches for each page. The hand-writing of Dr. Dwight's 
scribe is large, and plain as print, so that by these tran- 
scripts the study is greatly facilitated of a collection of 
which Professor Dexter remarks : " No representation of 
Edwards as a thinker is quite complete so long as so 



many of these ' Miscellanies ' are still in manuscript." 
Perhaps some misunderstandings of his theology, or 
apologetic suggestions which appear to have somewhat 
misled, would not have appeared, had the perusal of 
these papers not been so peculiarly difficult. 

They are far from being all of special interest or value. 
Some are mere references to authors, or to Edwards's 
own Notes on passages of Scriptures. Others are brief 
remarks or conclusions. Only a minor part are extended 
discussions. A fair idea of their varying length may be 
gained from the " Notes on the Bible " published by Dr. 
Dwight, who gives the number of each selection which he 

It should be added, that the descriptive phrases 
" Note-book," " Common-place book," often applied to 
the "Miscellanies," though not, as already implied, 
wholly erroneous, may easily mislead. Especially inap- 
plicable is the word " tentative." The Observations 
make a strong impression of being the results of pro- 
tracted thought that had reached careful conclusions and 
results which they were intended to preserve. Progress 
in reflection is observable. The earlier papers should be 
compared with later ones on the same themes. Justice 
to their author requires that they be regarded as written 
primarily for his own eye, and as helps in the prosecution 
of his ever unwearied efforts in the attainment and main- 
tenance of truth. But " tentative " they are not, in the 
sense of something merely set down for further consider- 
ation, and with a reserve of more or less doubt as to its 
validity. Samuel Hopkins, the younger Edwards, and Dr. 
Dwight, as already noticed, have drawn freely from these 
" Miscellanies ; " and we have their author's own testi- 
mony as to their relation to his opinions and judgments, 
as will be evident by the following extract from his letter 



to the Trustees of Nassau Hall, who had chosen him to 
its presidency : " My method of study, from my first 
beginning the work of the ministry, has been very much 
by writing; applying myself, in this way, to improve every 
important hint ; pursuing the clue to my utmost, when 
anything in reading, meditation, or conversation, has been 
suggested to my mind, that seemed to promise light, in 
any weighty point ; thus penning what appeared to me 
my best thoughts, on innumerable subjects, for my own 
benefit." 1 "Best thoughts" would be a not inapt de- 
scription of the contents of the " Miscellanies " as a 

The quotations included in this Appendix relate to 
remarks made in the Address on the " Theology of 
Jonathan Edwards," 2 and are intended to illustrate and 
justify them. They show the life-long presence in 
Edwards's mind of the thoughts expressed, and also, 
so far as this occurred, their growth. I wish particularly 
to remove a suspicion which recently has gained more or 
less currency, — (reversing rather curiously a former sup- 
position) — that Edwards's interest in the doctrine of the 
Trinity was of late origin, and that it arose, in part at 
least, from a distrust in his mind of the validity of his 
own theological system. In the selections from the Obser- 
vations on the " End of God in the Creation " I desire 
especially to indicate what a complete and beautiful 
unity is disclosed between his highest and long cherished 
thought of God, and his conception of the Divine Purpose 
in Creation, a view essentially different, I may add, 
from either a deistic or a pantheistic interpretation of the 
universe. E. C. S. 

'Dwight's Life [Works, Vol. I. p. 569]. 
2 See above, p. 73. 


Before proceeding with citations from the " Miscella- 
nies," I will introduce a few sentences from the first and 
forty-fifth numbers on '* The Mind," since these papers 
are not published in the edition of Edwards's Works in 
common use. No. i was probably written before he 
began his " Miscellanies," and No. 45 is earlier apparently 
than anything on the Trinity in the theological series. 

"1. Excellency. This is an universal definition of 
Excellency : The Consent of Being to Being, or Being's 
Consent to Entity One alone, without any refer- 
ence to any more, cannot be excellent, for in such case 
there can be no manner of relation no way, and therefore 
no such thing as consent. Indeed, what we call One may 
be excellent because of a consent of parts, or some con- 
sent of those in that being that are distinguished into a 
plurality some way or other. But in a being that is abso- 
lutely without any plurality, there cannot be Excellency, 
for there can be no such thing as consent or agreement." 

" 45. Excellence. When we spake of Excellence in 
Bodies we were obliged to borrow the word, Consent, 
from Spiritual things ; but Excellence in and among 
Spirits is in its prime and proper sense, Being's consent 
to Being. There is no other proper consent but that of 
Minds , even of their Will ; which, when it is of Minds 
towards Minds, it is Love, and when of Minds towards 
other things it is Choice. Wherefore all the Primary and 
Original beauty or excellence that is among Minds is 
Love ; and into this may all be resolved that is found 

among them His [God's] Infinite Beauty is His 

Infinite mutual Love of Himself .... the mutual love 
of the Father and the Son. This makes the Third, the! 
Personal Holy Spirit, or the Holiness of God, which is: 


his Infinite Beauty 'Tis peculiar to God, that he 

has beauty within himself, consisting in Being's consent- 
ing with his own Being, or the love of himself, in his own 
Holy Spirit. «... We shall be in danger, when we 
meditate on this love of God to himself as being the 
thing wherein his infinite excellence and loveliness con- 
sists, of some alloy to the sweetness of our view, by its 
appearing with something of the aspect and cast of what 
we call self-love. But we are to consider that this love 
includes in it, or rather is the same as, a love to every- 
thing, as they are all communications of himself. So 
that we are to conceive of Divine Excellence as the 
Infinite General Love, that which reaches all proportion- 
ally with perfect purity and sweetness ; yea, it includes 
the true Love of all creatures, for that is his Spirit, or 
which is the same thing, his Love." 

The following citations are all from the " Miscellanies." 
They are taken from the collections of copies prepared 
for Dr. Dwight in connection with his edition of 
Edwards's works. They have been carefully compared 
with the originals, and in spelling and capitalization more 
closely conformed to those. 

" 94. 1 Trinity. There has been much cry of late 
against saying one word particularly about the Trinity, 
but what the Scripture has said, judging it impossible 
but that, if we did, we should err in a thing so much 
above us. But if they call that, which necessarily results 
from the putting of reason and Scripture [together] 
though it has not been said in Scripture in express words, 
I say if they call this what is not said in the Scriptures, I 
am not afraid to say twenty things about the Trinity, 

1 Forty-eight should be added to each number cited from the " Miscel- 
lanies," as before explained. Dr. Dwight supposes that 150 of the 
Observations were written during Edwards's college days and the two 
years following his graduation. 



which the Scriptures never said. There may be deduc- 
tions of reason from what has been said of the most 
mysterious matters, besides what has been said, and safe 
and certain deductions too, as well as about the most 
obvious and easy matters. 

I think that it is within the reach of naked reason to 
perceive certainly that there are thus, distinct, in God, 
each of which is the same, three that must be distinct, 
and that there are not, nor can be any more, distinct, 
Really and truly distinct, but three, either distinct persons 
or properties, or anything else ; and that, of these three 
one is (more properly than any thing else) begotten of 
the other, and that the other Proceeds alike from both, 
and that the first neither is begotten nor proceeds. It is 
often said that God is infinitely happy from all eternity, 
in the view and enjoyment of himself, in the reflection 
and inverse love of his own essence that is in the in- 
finitely perfect idea he has of himself infinitely perfect. 
The Almighty's knowledge is not so different from ours, 
but that ours is the image of it ; is by an idea as ours 
is only 'tis infinitely Perfect ; if it were not by idea it is 
in no respect like ours : 'tis not what we call knowledge, 
nor anything whereof knowledge is the resemblance ; for 
the whole of human knowledge, both in the beginning 
and end of it, consists in ideas. 'Tis also said that God's 
knowledge of himself includes the knowledge of all things, 
and that he knows, and from eternity knew, all things, by 
the looking on himself, and by the idea of himself, be- 
cause he is virtually all things : so that all God's knowl- 
edge is the idea of himself. But yet it would suppose 
imperfection in God, to suppose that God's idea of him- 
self is anything different from himself. None will sup- 
pose that God has any such ideas as we, that are only as 
it were the shadow of things, and not the very things. 


We cannot suppose that God reflects on himself after the 
imperfect manner we reflect on things, for we can view 
nothing immediately. The immediate object of the 
mind's intuition is the idea alwaies and the soul receives 
nothing but ideas. But God's intuition on himself with- 
out doubt is immediate. But 'tis certain it cannot be 
except his idea be his essence, for his idea is the imme- 
diate object of his intuition. An absolutely perfect idea 
of a thing, is the very thing, for it wants nothing that is 
in the thing ; substance, nor nothing else. That is the 
notion of the perfection of an idea, to want nothing that 
is in [shorthand]. Whatsoever is perfectly and abso- 
lutely like a thing, is that thing; but God's idea is 
absolutely perfect. I will form my reasoning thus : If 
nothing has any existence any way at all but in some 
consciousness or idea or other, and therefore that things, 
that are in us created consciousness, have no existence 
but in the divine idea 1 .... Supposing the things in 
this room were in the idea of none but of God, they 
would have existence no other way ; and if the things in 
this Room would nevertheless be Real things ; then God's 
idea, being a perfect idea, is Really the thing itself ; and 
if so, and all God's ideas are only the one idea of himself, 
as has been shewn, [then God's idea] must be his 
Essence itself, it must be a substantial idea, having all 
the perfection of the substance perfectly ; so that by 
God's reflecting on himself the Deity is begotten : there 
is a substantial image of God begotten, I am satisfied 
that though this word begotten had never been used in 
Scripture, it would have been used in this case ; there is 
no other word that so properly expresses it. It is this 
perfection of God's idea that makes all things truly 

1 After the word "idea" Edwards wrote "as we have shown in Phil- 
osophy our natural [ ? ] Philosophy," and drew a line through these words. 



and Properly present to him from all eternity ; and 
is the reason why God has no succession. For every 
thing that is, has been, or shall be, having been per- 
fectly in God's idea from all eternity ; and a perfect 
Idea (which yet no finite being can have of anything) 
being the very thing; therfore all things from eternity 
were equally Present with God, and there is no alteration 
made in idea by presence and absence, as there is in us. 

Again : That which is the express and perfect image 
of God, is God's idea of his own essence. There is 
nothing else can be an express, and fully perfect image of 
God but God's idea. Ideas are images of things and 
there are no other images of things, in the most proper 
sense, but ideas ; because other things are only called 
images, as they beget an idea in us of the thing of which 
they are the image ; so that all other images of things are 
but images in a secondary sense. But we know that the 
Son of God is the Express and Perfect image of God, and 
his image in the primary and most proper sense : II. Cor. 
iv. 4 ; Philip, ii. 6 ; Coloss. i. 15 ; Heb. i. 3. 

Again : That Image of God which God infinitely loves, 
and has his chief delight in, is the Perfect idea of God. 
It has always been said that God's infinite delight con- 
sists in reflecting on himself and viewing his own perfec- 
tions ; or, which is the same thing, in his own perfect 
idea of himself; so that 'tis acknowledged that God's 
infinite love is to, and his infinite delight in, the perfect 
image of himself. But the Scriptures tell us that the Son 
of God is that Image of God which he infinitely loves. 
Nobody will deny this, that God infinitely loves his Son, 
John iii. 35 ; v. 20. So it was declared from heaven by 
the Father at his baptism and transfiguration, " This is 
my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased." So the 
Father calls him his Elect in whom his soul delighteth, 



Isai. xlii. i. He is called "the Beloved," Ephes. i. 6. 
The Son also declared that the Father's infinite happiness 
consisted in the enjoyment of him, Prov. viii. 30. Now 
none I suppose will say that God enjoys infinite happiness 
in two manners : one in the infinite delight he has in 
enjoying his Son, his Image ; and another in the view of 
himself different from this. If not, then these ways, 
wherein God enjoys infinite happiness, are both the 
same ; that is, his infinite delight in the idea of himself is 
the same with the infinite delight he has in his son : and 
if so, his Son and the idea he has of himself are the same. 

Again : That, which is the Express Image of God, in 
which God enjoys infinite happiness, and is also the 
Word of God, is God's perfect idea of God. The Word 
of God, in its most proper meaning, is a transcript of the 
divine perfections : this Word is either his declared word 
of God or the essential [Word]. The one is the copy of 
the divine perfections given to us ; the other is the per- 
fect transcript thereof in God's own mind. But the 
perfect transcript of the perfections of God in the divine 
[mind] is the same with God's perfect idea of his own 
perfections. But I need tell none how the Son of God is 
called the Word of God. 

Nextly : That which is the Express Image of God, in 
which is his infinite delight, which is his Word, and 
which is the Reason, or Wisdom of God, is God's perfect 
Idea of God. That God's knowledge, or reason, or 
wisdom, is the same with God's idea, none will deny ; and 
that all God's knowledge or wisdom consists in the 
knowledge, or perfect idea, of himself, is shewn before, 
and granted by all ; but none need to be told that the 
Son of God is often called in Scripture by the names of 
the Wisdom and Logos of God. Wherefore God him- 
self has put the matter beyond all debate whether or no 


his Son is not the same with his Idea of himself ; for it is 
most certain that his wisdom and knowledge is the very 
same with his idea of himself. How much does the Son 
of God speak in Proverbs under the name of Wisdom ! 

There is very much of image of this in ourselves. Man 
is as if he were two, as some of the great wits of this age 
have observed ; a sort of genius is with man, that accom- 
panies him and attends wherever he goes, so that a man 
has a conversation with himself, that is, he has a conver- 
sation with his own idea ; so that, if his idea be excellent, 
he will take great delight and happiness in conferring 
and communicating with it: he takes complacency in 
himself, he applauds himself ; and wicked men accuse 
them and fight with themselves, as if they were two ; and 
man is truly happy then, and only then, when these two 
agree, and they delight in themselves, and in their own 
idea, their image, as God delights in his. 

The Holy Spirit is the Act of God, between the Father 
and the Son infinitely loving and delighting in each other. 
Sure I am that, if the Father and the Son do infinitely 
delight in each other, there must be an infinitely pure 
and perfect Act between them, an infinitely sweet energy, 
which we call delight : This is certainly distinct from 
the other two. The delight and energy that is begotten 
in us by an idea, is distinct from the idea ; so it cannot 
be confounded in God ; either with God begetting or 
with his idea and image, or Son. It is distinct from each 
of the other two ; and yet it is God : for the pure and 
perfect Act of God is God, because God is a pure Act. 
It appears that this is God, because that which acts per- 
fectly, is all act, and nothing but act. There is image of 
this in created beings that approach to perfect action ; 
how frequently do we say that the saints of heaven are 
all transformed into love, dissolved into joy, become 



activity itself, changed into pure extasy. I acknowledge 
these are metaphorical in this case ; but yet it is true 
that the more perfect the act is, the more it resembles the 
infinitely perfect act of God in this respect. And I 
believe it will be plain to one that thinks intensely, that 
the perfect act of God must be a substantial act. We 
say that the perfect delights of reasonable creatures are 
substantial delights ; but the delight of God is properly a 
substance, yea, an infinitely perfect substance, even the 
essence of God. It appears, by the holy Scriptures, 
that the holy Spirit is the perfect act of God. The name 
declares it, the Spirit of God denotes to us the activity, 
vivacity, and energy of God ; and it appears that the 
holy Spirit is the pure act of God, and energy of the 
Deity of his office, which is to actuate and quicken all 
things, and to beget energy and vivacity in the creature ; 
and it also appears that the holy Spirit is this act of the 
Deity, even love and delight, because from eternity there 
was no other act in God but thus acting with respect to 
himself, and delighting perfectly and infinitely in himself, 
or that infinite delight there is between the Father and 
the Son, for the object of God's perfect act must neces- 
sarily be himself, because there is no other. But we 
have shown that the Object of the divine mind is God's 
Son and Idea ; and what other act can be thought of in 
God from eternity, but delighting in himself, the act of 
love which God is, I. John iv. 8. And if God is Love, 
and he that dwelleth in love dwelleth in God, and God in 
him, doubtless this intends principally the infinite love 
God has to himself. So that the scripture has implicitly 
told us that that love, which is between the Father and 
the Son, is God. The Holy Spirit's name is the Com- 
forter, but no doubt but 'tis the infinite delight God has 
in himself, in the Comforter, that is the fountain of all 
delight and comfort. 


It may be objected that at this rate one may prove an 
infinite number of persons in the godhead, for each 
person has an idea of the other person, thus the Father 
may have an idea of his Son, but you will argue that his 
idea must be substantial. I answer, that the Son himself 
is the Father's idea, himself : and if he has an idea of this 
idea, it is yet the same idea, a perfect idea of an idea is 
the same idea still to all intents and purposes. 

Thus, when I have a perfect idea of my idea of an 
equilateral triangle, it is an idea of the same equilateral 
triangle to all intents and purposes. So if you say that 
God the Father or Son, may have an idea of their own 
delight in each other ; but I say a perfect idea or percep- 
tion of one's own perfect delight cannot be different, at 
least in God, from the delight itself. You'll say the Son 
has an idea of the Father, I answer the Son himself is 
the idea of the Father, and if you say he has an idea of 
the Father, his idea is still an idea of the Father, and 
therefore the same with the Son ; and if you say the Holy 
Spirit has an idea of the father, I answer the Holy Spirit 
is himself the delight and joyfulness of the Father in 
that Idea and of the Idea in the Father. Tis still the 
Idea of the Father ; so that if we turn it all the ways in 
the world, we shall never be able to make more than 
these three : God, the idea of God, and delight in God. 

I think it really evident from the light of reason that 
there are those three, distinct in God. If God has an 
idea of himself there is really a Duplicity, because [if] 
there is no duplicity it will follow that Jehovah thinks of 
himself no more than a stone ; and if God loves himself, 
and delights in himself, there is really a Triplicity, 
Three that cannot be confounded ; each of which are the 
Deity substantially. 

And this is the only distinction that can be found or 



thought of in God. If it shall be said that there are 
power, wisdom, goodness, and holiness, in God, and that 
these may as well be proved to be distinct persons, be- 
cause everything that is in God is God ; [I answer,] as to 
the Power of God, Power always consists in something ; 
the power of the mind consists in its wisdom, the power 
of the body in plenty of animal spirits and toughness of 
limbs, etc. And as it is distinct from those other things 
tis only a relation of adequateness and sufficiency of the 
essense to everything. But if we distinguish it from 
relation, it is nothing else but the essense of God, and if 
we take it for that where is that by which God exerts 
himself, it is no other than the Father ; for the perfect 
energy of God with respect to himself is the most 
proper exertion of himself, of which the creation of 
the world is but a shadow. As to the Wisdom of God, we 
have already observed that this wholly consists in God's 
idea of himself, and is the same with the Son of God. 
And as to Goodness, the eternal exertion of the essense 
of that attribute, it is nothing but infinite Love, which, 
the Apostle John says, is God ; and as we have ob- 
served that all divine love may be resolved into God's 
infinite love to himself, therefore this attribute, as it was 
exerted from eternity, is nothing but the Holy Spirit, 
which is exactly agreeable to the notion some have had 
of the Trinity. And as to holiness, tis delight in excel- 
lency ; tis God's truest consent to himself, or in other 
words his perfect delight in himself, which we have 
shewn to be the Holy Spirit." 

"96. Trinity. The argument of this Observation is 
from the perfect goodness of God. I quote a few sen- 

" It appears that there must be more than a Unity in 
infinite and eternal Essence ; otherwise the Goodness of 



God Can have no perfect exercises. To be Perfectly 
Good, is to incline to, and delight in, making another 
happy in the same proportion as it is happy itself : that 
is, it delights as much in communicating happiness to 
another as in enjoying it himself, and [is] an inclination to 

communicate all his happiness God must have a 

perfect Exercise of his Goodness, and therefore must have 
the .fellowship of a person equal with himself." 

Ao8^ Trinity" This Observation finds in the Biblical 
application to the Holy Spirit of the Symbol of a Dove 
reason for supposing that He " is nothing but the infinite 
love and delight of God." Part of p. 103 of the " Essay " 
recently published by Professor Fisher is identical with 
this number. The closing sentence of the Observation 
is clearer than the corresponding one in the " Essay." 
It reads : " It was under this representation that the 
Holy [Ghost] descended on Christ at his Baptism, signify- 
ing the infinite love of the Father to the Son, and that 
thereby is signified that infinite love that is between the 
Father and the Son ; which is further illustrated by the 
voice which came with the dove, 'This is my beloved 
Son, in whom I am well Pleased.' " 

"117. Trinity. Love is certainly the Perfection as 
well as Happiness of a Spirit ; God, doubtless, as he is 
infinitely Perfect and happy, has infinite love. I cannot 
doubt but that God loves infinitely, properly speaking, 
and not with that which some Call self-love, whereby 
even the devils desire pleasure, and are averse to pain, 
which is exceeding improperly called love ; and is nothing 
at all akin to that affection or delight, which is called love. 
Then there must have been an object from all Eternity, 
which God infinitely loves. But we have shewed that all 
love arises from the perception, either of Consent to being 
in General, or Consent to that being that percieves. 



Infinite loveliness, to God, therefore must consist either 
in infinite Consent to Entity in General, or infinite con- 
sent to God. But we have shewn that consent to Entity, 
and consent to God are the same, because God is the 
General and only proper Entity of all things ; so that it is 
necessary that that object which God infinitely loves 
must be infinitely and perfectly consenting and 
agreeable to him ; but that which infinitely and perfectly 
agrees is the very same essense, for if it be different it 
dont infinitely consent." 

" 133. Trinity. Coroll. to a former meditation of the 
trinity. hence we see how Generation by the Father, 
and yet Coetaneity with the Father, or being begotten, 
and yet being eternal, are Consistent ; for it is Easy to 
Concieve how this image, this thought, Reason or Wisdom 
of God should be eternally Begotten by him, and be- 
gotten by him from Eternity, and Continually through 
Eternity. And so the holy Spirit, that personal Energy, 
the divine love and delight, Eternally and Continually 
proceeds from both. 

" Coroll. 2. Hence we see how and in what sense the 
Father is the fountain of the Godhead, and how natur- 
ally and Properly God the Father is spoken of in scripture, 
as of the Deity without distinction, as being the only 
True God, and why God the Son should [be] commonly 
spoken of with a distinction, and be called the Son of 
God ; and so the holy Spirit, the Spirit of God. %W Re- 
member to Look, the next time I have the oppor- 
tunity of, to see if Spirit, in scripture Phrase, is not Com- 
monly put for affection, and never for understanding ; 
and to shew that there is no other affection in God but 
love to himself.'' 

" 136.^) Trinity. The word Spirit most Commonly in 
Scripture is put for affections of the mind ; but there is 



no other affection in God essentially, properly, and pri- 
marily, but love and delight, and that in himself ; for into 
this is his love and delight in his Creatures resolvable. 

" I dont Remember that any other attributes are said 
to be God, and God to be them but \.6yos and, dya?^, or 
Reason and love. I Conclude because no other are in 
that (a personal) sense." 

"141. Trinity, vid. I believe that Jesus Christ not 
only is exactly in the image of [God], but in the most 
proper sense is the image of God. Now however exactly 
one being, suppose of one human body, [may be] like 
another, Yet I think one is not in the most proper sense 
the image of the other, but more Properly in the image 
of the other. Adam did not beget a son that was his 
image properly, but in his image ; but the idea of a thing 
is, in the most proper sense of all, its image ; and God's 

idea the most perfect image." 

" 150. Deity. Many have wrong conceptions of the 
difference between the nature of the Deity and that of 
Created spirits. The difference is no contrariety, but 
what naturally Results from his Greatness and nothing 
else ; such as Created spirits come nearer to, or more 
imitate, the Greater they are in their Powers and faculties. 
So that if we should suppose the faculties of a Created 
spirit to be enlarged infinitely, there would be the Deity 
to all intents and Purposes : the same simplicity, im- 
mutability, etc." 

" 179. Logos. It the more Confirms me in it that the 
Perfect Idea, God has of himself, is truly and Properly 
God, that the existence of all Corporeal things is only 
Ideas." 1 

1 Edwards's idealism is not subjective. See Am. Journal of Theology, 
1897, p. 959; Jonathan Edwards' Idealisms: Inaugural Dissertation 
.... von John Henry MacCracken, Ph.D., Halle A. S., C. A. 
Kaemmerer & Co., 1899; The Early Idealism of Edwards, by Prof. 



" 184. Union. Spiritual. [From] What insight I have 
of the nature of minds I am convinced that there is no 
Guessing what kind of union and mixtion by Conscious- 
ness, or otherwise, there may be between them ; so that 
all difficulty is Removed in believing what the scripture 
declares about spiritual union of the Persons of the 
Trinity, of the two natures of Christ, of Christ and the 
minds of Saints." 

" 194. God. That is a Gross and unprofitable idea we 
have of God, as being something Large and Gross as 
bodies are, and infinitely extended throughout the im- 
mense Space. For God is neither little, nor Great, with 
that sort of Greatness : even as the Soul of man is not at 
all extended, no more than an idea, and is not present 
anywhere as bodies are present as we have shewn 
elsewhere. So t'is with respect to the uncreated 
Spirit. The Greatness of a Soul Consists not in any exten- 
sion but [in] its comprehensiveness of Idea and extended- 
ness of operation. So the infiniteness of God Consists in 
his perfect Comprehension of all things, and the extended- 
ness of his operation equally to all Places. . . . We ought 
to concieve of God as being omnipotence, perfect 
knowledge and Perfect Love; .... and not as if it 
was a sort of unknown thing, that we Call substance, 
that is extended." 

" 238. Trinity. Those Ideas which we Call Ideas of 

H. Norman Gardiner, A. M., republished in Jonathan Edwards: A 
Retrospect, Houghton, Mifflin & Co., 1901. 

I noticed on a loose leaf, in the New Haven Collection of Edwards's 
Mss., apparently in a later hand-writing than the early papers, this entry : 
" How there may be more in material Existence than Man's Perception, 
past, Present, or future. 

" Show how far the Perception of superior spirits may belong to this 
[illegible] "and how far the Perception of God." 

Edwards's Idealism (" Spiritualism "-) always includes a something 
"more" than subjectivism recognizes; viz. "a perfectly stable idea 
in God's mind, together with his stable Will .... with respect to cor- 
responding communications to Created Minds, and effects on their minds ; " 
or, as phrased on the leaf referred to above, "an universe of coexisting and 
successive Perceptions connected by such wonderful methods and Laws." 



Reflection, all Ideas of the acts of the mind, such as the 
Idea of thought, of Choice, love, fear, etc., if we diligently 
attend to our own minds we shall find, they are not properly 
Representations, but are indeed Repetitions of those very 
things, either more fully, or more faintly ; they therefore 
are not properly Ideas. Thus, t' is impossible to have an 
Idea of thought, or of an Idea, but it will [be] that same 
Idea Repeated. So if we think of love, either of our past 
love that is now vanished, or of the love of others which 
we have not, we either so frame things in our Imagination 
that we have for a moment a love to that thing, or to 
something we make represent it, or we excite for a mo- 
ment that love which we have, and suppose it in another 
place, or we have only an idea of the Antecedents, Con- 
comitants, and effects of love, and suppose something un- 
seen, and Govern our thoughts about as we have learned 
how by experience and habit. Let any one try himself 
in a particular instance, and diligently observe. So if we 
have an Idea of a Judgment not our own, we have the 
same Ideas, that are the terms of the Proposition, Re- 
peated in our own minds, and recur to something in 
our own minds, that is Really our Judgment, and suppose 
it there, [That is we Govern our thoughts about 
it as if it were there], if we have a distinct Idea of 
that Judgment ; or else we have only an Idea of the atten- 
dants and effects of the Judgment, and supply the name, 
and our actions about it as we have habituated ourselves. 
And so Certainly it is in all our spiritual Ideas ; they are 
the very same things Repeated perhaps very faintly and 
obscurely, and very quick, and momentaneously, and with 
many new References, suppositions, and translations. But 
if the Idea be perfect, it is only the same thing absolutely 
over again. 

Now if this be certain, as it seems to me to be, then its 


quite Clear that if God doth think of himself, and un- 
derstand himself with perfect Clearness, fulness, and dis- 
tinctness, that that Idea he hath of himself is absolutely 
himself, again, and is God perfectly to all Intents and 
purposes. That [idea] which God hath of the divine 
nature and Essence is really and fully the divine nature 
and Essence again. So that by God's thinking of him- 
self, the Deity must certainly be Generated, this seems 
exceedingly Clear to me. 

God doubtless understands himself in the most proper 
sense, for therein his infinite understanding chiefly con- 
sists ; ami he understands himself at all times perfectly, 
without intermission or succession in his thoughts. 

When we have the Idea of another's love to a thing, if 
it be the love of a man to a woman that we are uncon- 
cerned about ; in such eases we have not generally any 
proper Idea at all of his Love, we only have an Idea of 
his actions that are the effects of love, as we have found 
by experience, and of those external things which belong 
to Love, and which appear in Case of Love ; or if we have 
any Idea of it, it is either by forming our Ideas so of per- 
sons and things as we suppose they appear to them, that 
we have a taint vanishing motion of their affection ; or, 
if the thing be a thing that we so hate, that this can't 
be, we have our love to something else faintly and least 
excited, and so in the mind as it were referred to this 
place, we think this is Like that." 

" 259. rrinity. T is Evident that there are no more 
than these three Really distinct in God : God, and his 
Idea, and his Love or Delight. We cant concieve of 
any further Real distinctions. If you say there is the 
Pow r er of God ; I answer, the Tower of a being, even in 
Creatures is nothing distinct from the being itself besides 
a mere Relation to an effect. If you say there is the 



Infiniteness, Eternity, and Immutability of God ; they are 
mere modes and manners of existence. If you say there 
is the wisdom of God ; that is the Idea of God. If you 
say there is the holiness of God ; that is not different 
from his Love as we have shewn, and is the holy Spirit. 
If you say there is the Goodness and mercy of God ; they 
are included in his Love, they are his Love with a Relation. 
We Can find no more in God, that even in Creatures are 
distinct from the very being ; or, there is no more than 
those three in God, but what even in Creatures are 
only but the same with the very being, or only some 
mere modes, or Relations, duration, extension, Changeable- 
ness, or unchangeableness, so far as attributed to 
Creatures, or only mere modes, and Relations of existence. 
There are no more than these three that are distinct in 
God, even in our way of concieving. 

There is in Resemblance to this threefold distinction 
in God a threefold distinction in a Created Spirit : 
namely, the spirit itself, and its understanding, and its 
will, or Inclination, or love ; and this Indeed is all the real 
distinction there is in Created spirits." 

"260. Trinity. There is no other properly Spiritual 
Image but Idea, although there may be another Spiritual 
thing that is exactly like. Yet one thing being exactly 
like another dont make it the proper image of that 
thing. If there be any distinct spiritual substance ex- 
actly like another, yet is not the proper image of the 
other, tho one be made after the other, yet it is not 
any more an Image of the first, than the first is of the 

That Christ is the spiritual Image and Idea of God see 
John xii. 45 ; xiv. 7, 8, 9. Seeing the Perfect Idea of a 
thing, is, to all Intents and purposes, the same as seeing 
the thing. It is not only equivalent to seeing of it, but it 



is seeing of it ; for there is no other seeing but having 
an Idea. Now, by seeing a perfect Idea, so far as we 
see it, we have it. But it cant be said of anything else, 
that, in seeing of it, we see another, speaking strictly, ex- 
cept it be the very Idea of the other. The Oil, that 
signifies the Holy Ghost, with which Christ is anointed, 
is Called the oil of gladness : the Holy Ghost is God's 
delight, joy. Ps. xlv. 7, Isai. lxi. 3. "The oil of joy for 
mourning." They anointed themselves to express Joy. 

Another Name of the Son of God that shows that he is 
God's perfect Idea, is the Amen, which is a Hebrew word 
that signifies truth. Divine truth, or the Eternal truth 
of God, is God's perfect understanding of himself, which 
is his perfect understanding of all things." 

"308. Trinity. With Respect to that Objection against 
this explication of the Trinity, that according to the 
truth of this Reasoning there would not only be three 
persons, but an Infinite number, for we must suppose 
that the Son understands the Father, as well as the 
Father the son, and Consequently the Son has an Idea of 
the father and so that Idea will be another person, and 
so may be said of the Holy Ghost : This objection is 
but a colour without substance, and arises in a Confusion 
of thought and a misunderstanding of what we say. In 
the first place we dont suppose that the Father, the Son, 
and the Holy Ghost, are three distinct beings, that have 
three distinct understandings. It is the Divine essense 
that understands, and it is the divine essence is 
understood ; Tis the Divine being that loves, and tis the 
Divine being that is loved. The father understands, the 
Son understands, and the holy Ghost understands, be- 
cause everyone is the same understanding Divine essense 
and not that Each of them had a distinct understanding 
of their own. 2. We never supposed the Father gene- 



rated the Son by Understanding the Son ; but that God 
Generated the Son by understanding his own Essense, and 
that the Son is that Idea itself, or Understanding of the 
Essense. The Father understands the Son, no otherwise 
than as he understands that essence, that is the essence 
of the Son. The Father understands the Idea he has 
merely in his having that Idea without any other act : 
thus a man understands his own perfect Idea, merely by 
his having that Idea in his mind. So the Son understands 
the Father in that the Essense of the Son understands 
the essence of the Father, or in himself being the un- 
derstanding of that Essense, and so of the holy Ghost. 
After you have In your imagination multiplied under- 
standings and loves never so often, it will be the 
Understanding and loving the very same essense, and you 
can never make more than these three ; God, and the Idea 
of God, and the love of God. But I would not be 
understood to pretend to Give a full explication of the 
Trinity ; for I think it still remains an Incomprehensible 
mystery, the Greatest and the most Glorious of all 

"309. Trinity. The name of the Second person in 
the Trinity, Aoyos, evidences that he is God's Idea ; 
whether we translate the word the Reason of God, or the 
word of God. If the Reason or the Understa?iding of 
God, the matter is past Dispute ; for everyone will own 
that the Reason or understanding of God is his Idea. 
And if we translate it the word of God, he is either the 
outward word of God or his Inward. None will say he is 
his outward. Now the outward word is Speech ; but the 
inward word, which is the Original of it, is thought, the 
Scripture being its own Interpreter ; for how often is 
thinking in Scripture called Speaking, when applied to 
God and men : So that it is the Idea, if we take the 
Scripture for our Guide, that is the Inward word." 



"330. Holy Ghost, It appears that the holy Spirit is 
the holiness or excellency and delight of God, because our 
Communion with God, and with Christ, Consists in our 
Partaking of the holy Ghost: 11. Cor. xiii. 14; 1. Cor. 
vi. 17; 1. John iii. 24; and iv. 13. The Oil that was 
upon Aaron's head Ran Down to the Skirts of his Gar- 
ments. The Spirit, which Christ, our head, has without 
measure, is Communicated to his Church and people. 
The sweet Perfumed oil signified Christ's excellency, and 
sweet delight. Philip, ii. 1. 

Communion we know is nothing else but the Common 
partaking with others of good. Communion with God is 
nothing else but a partaking with him of his excellency, 
his holiness, and happiness." 

" 336. Trinity. All the metaphorical Representations 
of the holy Ghost in the Scripture, such as water, fire, 
breath, wind, oil, wine, a spring, a River of Living water 
as proceeding from God, do Abundantly the most 
Naturally Represent the perfectly active, flowing affection, 
Holy love and Pleasure of God. So the holy Ghost is 
said to be Poured out, and shed forth ; Acts ii. 32, 33. 
Titus iii. 5, 6. So Love is said to be shed abroad in our 

"341. Trinity. I can think of no other Good account 
that Can be Given of the apostle Paul's wishing Grace 
and peace, or Grace, mercy, and Peace from God the 
Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ in the beginning of 
his Epistles without Ever mentioning the holy Ghost, but 
that the holy Ghost is the Grace, the Love and peace of 
God the Father, and (the) Lord Jesus Christ. We find it 
so fourteen times in all his salutations, in the beginning of 
his Epistles ; and, in his blessing at the end of his 
11 Epistle to the Corinthians, where all three Persons are 
mentioned, he wishes Grace and Love from the Son and 



the Father, but the Communion of the holy Ghost, that is 
the Partaking of him. The blessing from the Father and 
the Son, is the holy Ghost ; but the blessing from the holy 
Ghost is himself, a Communication of himself." 

" 362. Trinity. We have a lively Image of the 
Trinity in the Sun ; The Father is as the substance of the 
sun ; the Son is as the brightness and Glory of the disk 
of the sun, or that bright and Glorious form under which 
it appears to our eyes ; the Holy Ghost is as the heat and 
Powerful influence, which acts upon the Sun itself, and 
being Diffusive Enlightens, warms, Enlivens, and com- 
forts the world. The Spirit, as heat is God's Infinite 
Love and happiness, is as the Internal heat of the Sun ; 
but, as it is that by which God communicates himself, he 
is as the Emitted beams of God's Glory: n. Cor. iii. 18, 
that is we are Changed to glory, or to a shining bright- 
ness, as Moses was, from, or by God's glory or shining, 
even as by the Spirit of the Lord, i. e. which Glory or 
shining is the spirit of the Lord. The word, that is 
translated From with Respect to Glory, and By with 
respect to the Spirit, is the same in the Original, it is airo, 
in both, and therefore would have been more intelligibly 
translated, " we are Changed By Glory into Glory, even 
as By the Spirit of the Lord." Moses was Changed by 
God's glory Shining upon him, even as we are Changed 
by God's Spirit, Shed as bright beams on us. 

The Spirit of God is Called the Spirit of glory, 1 Peter 
iv. 14. The Spirit of glory Resteth upon you, upon two 
accounts, because it is the glory of God, and as it were 
his Emitted beams, and as it is the believer's glory, and 
causes him also to shine. 

The various sorts of Rays of the Sun and their Beau- 
tiful Colours do well Represent the Spirit, and the 
amiable excellency of God, and the various beautiful 



Graces and virtues of the Spirit ; the same we find in 
Scripture are made use of by God for that purpose, 
even to signify and Represent the Graces and virtues 
of the Spirit. Therefore I suppose the rainbow was 
Chosen to be a sign of the Covenant, and St. John 
saw a Rainbow Round about the throne of God, Rev. 
iv. 3, and a Rainbow upon the head of Christ, Chap, 
x. i. So Ezekiel saw a Rainbow Round about the 
throne, Ezek. i. 28. And I believe the variety that there 
is in the Rays of the sun, and their various beautiful 
Colours were designed in the Creation for this very pur- 
pose. See Shadows of divine things, No. 58. 

There is yet more of an Image of the Trinity in the 
soul of man. There is the mind, and its understanding 
or Idea, and the will or affection, or Love : answering to 
God, the Idea of God, and the love of God. 

Indeed the whole animal Creation, which is but the 
shadows of beings, is So made as to Represent Spiritual 
things : it might be demonstrated by the wonderful agree- 
ment in thousands of things, much of the same kind as is 
between the types of the old testament and their antitypes ; 
and by their being spiritual things — being so often and 
Continually compared with them in the word of God, and it 
is agreeable to God's wisdom that it should be so, that the 
Inferior and shadowy Parts of his works should be made 
to Represent those things that are more Real and ex- 
cellent, spiritual and divine, to Represent the things that 
Immediately concern himself and the highest Parts of his 
work. Spiritual things are the Crown and glory, the head 
and soul, the very End and alpha, and Omega of all 
other works ; what, therefore, can be more agreeable to 
wisdom than that they should be so made as to shadow 
them forth ? and we know that this is according to God's 
method, which his wisdom has chosen in other matters. 



Thus the Inferiour Dispensation of the Gospel was all to 
shadow forth the highest and most excellent which was 
its end : thus almost Everything that was said or done, 
that we have Recorded in scripture from adam to Christ, 
was typical of Gospel things. Persons were typical per- 
sons ; their actions were typical actions ; the cities were 
typical cities ; the nation of the Jews and other nations 
were typical nations ; their Land was a typical Land ; 
God's Providences towards them were typical Provi- 
dences ; their worship was typical worship ; their houses 
were typical houses ; their magistrates, typical magis- 
trates ; their clothes, typical clothes ; and Indeed the 
world was a typical world. And this is God's manner to 
make inferior things shadows of the Superior, and most 
excellent ; outward things shadows of spiritual ; and all 
other things, shadows of those things that are the End of 
all things, and the Crown of all things. Thus God Glori- 
fies himself and Instructs the minds that he has made." 

"376. Trinity. It Can no other way be accounted 
for, that in the first of John i. 3, ' Our fellowship ' is said 
to be 'with the Father, and with his Son Jesus Christ,' 
and that it is not said to be also with the holy Ghost, but 
because our Communion with them Consists in our Com- 
munion of the holy Ghost with them. It is in our Par- 
taking of the holy Ghost, that we have Communion with 
Father and Son, and with Christians. This is the Com- 
mon excellency and delight, in which they all are united : 
this is the bond of perfectness, by which they are one in 
the Father, and the Son, as the Father is in the Son and 
the Son in the Father." 

" 405. Trinity. It may be thus expressed, the Son is 
the Deity, Generated by God's understanding, or having 
an Idea of himself ; the holy Ghost is the Divine Essence 
flowing out, or breathed forth in Infinite Love and De- 



light ; or which is the same, the Son is God's Idea of 
himself, and the Spirit is God's Love to and delight In 

"446. Trinity. Christ is called the face of God, 
Exod. xxxiii, 14, and the angel of God's face, the word in 
the original signifies face, or looks, form, or appearance 
of a thing : Now what can be so fitly called so as God's 
own Perfect Idea of himself; whereby he has every mo- 
ment a view of his own essence ? This is that face, as- 
pect, form, or appearance, whereby God Eternally ap- 
pears to himself, and more Perfectly than man appears to 
himself by his form or appearance in a looking glass. 
The Root, that the word comes from, signifies to look 
upon or behold. Now what is that which God looks 
upon, or beholds, in so Eminent a manner, as he doth on 
his own Idea, or the perfect Image of himself, which he 
has in view. This is that which is Eminently in his 
presence, this is the Angel of his presence". 

" 1065. Tri?iity. That ,the Spirit of God is the Love 
of God, well agrees to the Scripture names, appellations, 
and representations of this Person of the Trinity : his be- 
ing called the Spirit of God, or Breath of God ; and being 
compared to water, to a Spring, a River, a Shower, to 
flowing oil, and precious ointment, to wind, and Fire ; 
and to his being represented as flowing forth, poured out, 
breathed forth, blowing, burning, being Quenched, etc. 
Holy affection is aptly compared to fire, to breath, to a 
flowing Stream, and is aptly spoken of as burning, being 
enkindled, cherished and quenched, flowing out, breathed 
forth, diffused abroad, etc. But the Representation 
would be very unnatural if we should speak of under- 
standing, wisdom, or Idea, as breathed forth, poured out, 
shed abroad, burning, blowing, etc. And it is not very 
credible that those names, similitudes and Representa- 



tions that are given to the Holy Spirit, are no more 
adapted to him than to the other Persons of the Trinity, 
any other way than by an arbitrary constitution, or agree- 
ment of the Persons of the Trinity, appointing a Par- 
ticular work to the Holy Spirit, no more suited to any 
thing in this person of the Trinity as he is in himself any 
more than to either of the other Persons, and that there 
was nothing in the nature of things but that the Son of 
God, or the Father might as properly have been ap- 
pointed to the same office, and so that either of the 
former Persons of the Trinity, might in that Case as 
properly be Represented by breath, wind, Rain, a River, 
ointment and fire, and be spoken of as flowing, breathing 
forth, burning, shed abroad, being quenched, etc., as the 
Holy Spirit. I have shown No. 1062, Corol. that the 
second Person in the Trinity has not the name of the Son 
of God from his appointment to his office, and work on 
the affair of our Redemption ; and there is no more 
Reason to think that the Spirit of God is so called only 
from his particular office and work in that affair." 

"1162. It may be worthy of consideration whether or 
no some of the Heathen Philosophers had not with re- 
gard to some things, some degree of Inspiration of the 
Spirit of God, which led them to say such wonderful 
things concerning the Trinity, the Messiah, etc. In- 
spiration is not so high an Honor and Privilege as some 
are ready to think. It is no peculiar Privilege of God's 
Special favorites ; many very bad men have been the 
subjects of it, yea some that were Idolaters. Balaam was 
an Idolater, and a great sorcerer, or wizard, and yet He 
was the subject of Inspiration, and that even when in the 
Practice of his witchcraft, when He went to seek by en- 
chantments. Yea, the devils themselves, seem some- 
times to have been immediately actuated by God, and 



forced to speak the Truth in Honor to Christ and his 
Religion. So the Devil at the oracle of Delphi was 
probably actuated by God, and compelled to confess 
Christ, and own that the Hebrew Child to be above him, 
and had sent Him to Hell, and forbidden Him to give 
forth any more oracles. 

Why might not Socrates and Plato, and some others of 
the wise men of Greece have some degree of Inspiration ; 
as well as the wise men from the East, who came to see 
Christ when an Infant. Those wise men dwelt among 
the Heathen, as much as the wise men of Greece, and 
were in like manner Gentiles, born of heathens, and 
brought up among them, and we have no Reason to think 
that they were themselves less of Heathens than several 
of the Grecian Philosophers ; at least before they were 
the subjects of that Inspiration that moved them to follow 
the star that led them to Christ. 

Pharaoh and his Chief Butler and Baker were the 
subjects of a sort of Inspiration in the dreams they had ; 
for it is Evident those dreams were divine Revelations ; 
as were Nebuchadnezzar's dreams. He, though a 
Heathen, and a very wicked man, and a Great Idolater, 
yet had a Revelation concerning the Messiah, and his 
future Kingdom, In his dream of the great Image, and 
the stone cut out of the mountain without Hands. 

If it be objected, that, if we suppose some of the 
Heathen Philosophers to have Truths suggested to them 
by the Inspiration of the Spirit of God, we must suppose 
that God gave those Revelations without giving with 
Them any certain Evidences by which others, to whom 
they declared them might determine them to be such, or 
by which they might be obliged to regard and receive 
them as such : Allowing this to be the Case, yet a 
good end might be answered in giving those Revela- 



tions nevertheless. Though they could be no Rule to 
the heathen, among whom they lived, yet they might 
be of use these three ways. 

i. They might dispose the Heathen nations, as they 
had occasion, to converse with the Jews, and to be in- 
formed of the Revelations and Prophecies that they had 
among them, to attend the more to them, and to enquire 
into them, and their Evidences. 

2. They might prepare the Gentile nations, that had 
among them the Records of those sayings of their 
most noted and famous wise men, to receive the Gospel 
when God's Time came for its promulgation among those 
nations, by disposing them the more diligently and im- 
partially to attend to it. 

3. They may be of Great Benefit to the Christian 
Church, ages after they were delivered ; as they serve as 
a Confirmation of the great Truths of Christianity. 

4. We know not what Evidence God might give to 
the men themselves that were the Subjects of these In- 
spirations, that they were divine, and were true ; (as we 
know not what evidence was given to the wise men of the 
East of the divinity of their Revelations ; ) and so we 
know not of how great Benefit the truths suggested 
might be to their own souls." 




Tis very certain that God did not 
create the world for nothing. Tis most certain that if 
there were not intelligent beings in the world, all the 
world would be without an end at all ; for senseless 
matter, in whatever excellent order it is placed, would be 
useless, if there were no intelligent beings at all, neither 
God nor others ; for, what would it be good for ? So, 
certainly, senseless matter would be altogether useless, if 
there was no intelligent being but God, for God could 
neither receive good himself, nor communicate good 
What would this vast universe of matter placed in 
such excellent order, and governed by such excellent rule 
be good for if there was no intelligence that could know 
anything of it ? Wherefore it necessarily follows that in- 
telligent beings are the end of the creation ; though their 
end must be to behold and admire the doings of God, and 
magnify him for them, and to contemplate his glories in 
them. Wherefore religion must be the end of the creation, 
the great end, the very end. If it were not for this all 
those vast bodies, we see ordered with so excellent skill, 
so acceptable to the surest rules of proportion, according 
to such laws of gravity and motion would be all vanity, 
or good for nothing, and to no purpose at all, for religion 
is the very business, the noble business of intelligent 
beings. And for this end God has placed us on this 
earth. If it were not for men, this world would be 
altogether in vain, with all the curious workmanship of 
it, and accoutrements about it. It follows from this that 
we must be immortal. 

The world had as good have been without us, as for us 
to be a few minutes and then be annihilated. If we are 
not to own God's works to his glory, and only glorify him a 



few minutes and then be annihilated and it shall after that 
be all one to eternity as if we never had been, and be in 
vain, after we are dead, that we have been once, and then 
after the earth shall be destroyed it shall be for the 
future entirely in vain that either the earth or mankind 
have ever been. The same agreement seem to be used, 
Isai. xlv. 17, 18." 

" k k. Religion. Corollary. Since the world would be 
altogether good for nothing without intelligent beings, so 
intelligent beings would be altogether good for nothing 
except to contemplate the Creator. Hence we learn that 
devotion and not mutual love, charity, justice, benefi- 
cence, etc., are the highest end of man,, and devotion is 
his principal business ; for all justice, beneficence, etc., 
are good for nothing without it, or to no purpose at all, 
for those duties are only for the advancement of the great 
business, to assist mutually each other to it." 

" / /. Religion. It may be said, If religion be really 
the very business of man, for which God made him, it is 
a wonder it is no more natural to them ; the world in gen- 
eral learnd and unlearnd say little about it, they are very 
awkward at it ; as if it were contrary to their nature. I 
answer, Tis no wonder, because Sin has brought them 
down nearer to the beast, a sort of animals uncapable of 
religion at all." 

" 87. Happiness. ' Tis evident that the end of man's 
creation must needs be happiness from the motive of 
God's creating the world, which could be nothing else but 
his goodness. If it be said that the end of man's creation 
might be that he might manifest his power, wisdom, holi- 
ness, or justice ; so I say too ; But the question is, Why 
God would make known his power, wisdom, etc. What 
could move him to will that there should be some beings 
that might know his power, and wisdom ? It could be 



nothing else but his goodness. This is the question : 
What moved God to exercise and make known these 
attributes. We are not speaking of subordinate ends, but 
of the ultimate end ; of that motive into which all others 
may be resolved. ' Tis a very proper question to ask, 
What attribute moved God to exert a power ; but ' tis not 
proper to ask, What moved God to exert his goodness ? 
for this is the notion of goodness, an inclination to shew 
goodness. Therefore such a question would be no more 
proper than this, viz., What inclines God to exert his 
inclination to exert goodness ? which is nonsense ; for it is 
an asking and answering a question in the same words. 
God's power is shown no otherwise than by his power- 
fully bringing about some end. The very notion of wis- 
dom is wisely contriving for an end ; and if there be no 
end proposed, whatever is done is not wisdom. Where- 
fore, if God created the world merely from goodness, 
every whit of this goodness must necessarily, ultimately 
terminate in the consciousness of the Creation, for the 
world is no other way capable of receiving goodness in 
any measure, but intelligent beings are the consciousness 
of the world. The end therefore of their creation must 
necessarily be that they may receive the goodness of God, 
that they may be happy." 

" 92. End of Creation. How then Can it be said that 
God has made all things for himself, if it is certain that 
the highest End of the Creation was the communication 
of happiness ? I answer : That which is done for the 
Gratifying of a natural inclination of God may very 
properly be said to be done for God. God takes Com- 
placence in Communicating felicity, and he made all 
things for this Complacence. His Complacence is this, 
this is making happiness the End of the Creation. Rev. 
iv. 11." 



" 104. End of the Creation. We have proved that the 
end of the creation must needs be happiness and the 
communication of the goodness of God ; and that nothing 
but the Almighty's inclination to communicate of his own 
happiness could be the motive to him to create the world ; 
and that man or intelligent being is the immediate object 
of this goodness, and subject of this communicated happi- 
ness. And we have shown also that the Father's be- 
getting of the Son is a complete communication of all his 
happiness, and so an eternal adequate and infinite ex- 
ercise of perfect goodness that is completely equal to 
such an inclination in perfection ; why then did God in- 
cline further to communicate himself, seeing he had done 
it infinitely and completely? Can there be an inclination 
to communicate goodness more than adequately to the 
inclination ? To say so, is to say, that to communicate 
goodness adequate to the inclination, is not yet adequate, 
inasmuch as he inclines to communicate further, as in the 
creation of the world. To this I say, That the Son is the 
adequate communication of the Father's goodness, and is 
an express and complete image of him. But yet the Son 
has also an inclination to communicate himself in an 
image of his person, that may partake of his happiness, 
and this was the end of the creation even the communi- 
cation of the happiness of the Son of God, and this was 
the only motive herein, even the Son's inclination to this. 
But God the Father is not the object of this, for the 
Father is not a communication of the Son, and therefore 
not the object of the Son's goodness ; but men, that is 
those of them that are holy ; as the Son says, Psalm xvi. 
2, 3. It is Christ here speaks, as is evident by the fol- 
lowing passage. And Man, the consciousness or per- 
ception of the creation is the immediate subject of this. 
Therefore the Church is said to be the completeness of 



Christ, Eph. i. 23, As if Christ were not complete with- 
out the Church, as having a natural inclination thereto. 
We are incomplete without that which we have a natural 
inclination to. The man is incompleat without the 
woman ; She is himself, as Christ is not complete without 
his spouse. The soul is not complete without the body, 
because human souls have a natural inclination to dwell 
in a body : So Ephesians i. and ii. last verses. Prov. viii. 
30, 31. First we are told where the Father's delight was, 
and also the mutual delight of the Son, and then where 
the Son's delight is in the object of his communication of 
his goodness. " Then I was by him as one brought up 
with him, etc." The Son is the fulness of God, and the 
Church is the fulness of the Son of God. 

Corol. 1. Then doubtless he is the only proper and fit 
person to be the Redeemer of men. 

Corol. 2. Therefore they are so nearly united to Christ 
and shall have such intimate communion with him, shall 
sit down with him in his throne, even as he is set down in 
his Father's throne and sit with him in the judgment of 
the world, and their glory and honour and happiness 
shall be so astonishingly great, as is spoken of in the 

Corol. 3. Therefore the Son created and doth govern 
the world ; seeing that the world was a communication of 
him, and seeing the communicating of his happiness is 
the end of the world. 

Corol. 4. We may learn in what sense Christ says, 
John xv. 9 : As the Father loveth the Son as a communi- 
cation of himself as begotten in pursuance of his eternal 
inclination to communicate himself, so the Son of God 
loveth the Church or the Saints, as the effect of his love 
and goodness, and natural inclination to communicate 



Corol. 5. Hence the meaning of Col. i. 16, 17, 18. In 
this verse there is a trinity, an image of the eternal 
trinity ; wherein Christ is the everlasting Father, and be- 
lievers are his Seed, and the Holy Spirit, or comforter, is 
the third person in Christ, being his delight and love 
flowing out towards the Church. In believers the Spirit 
and delight of God being communicated unto them flows 
out towards the Lord Jesus Christ, vid. note on Dan. ix. 
25, Mark xiv. 3, and Gen. xxviii. 11, 12. 

Corol. 6. Hence we may plainly percieve how these 
expressions of the Lord Jesus are to be understood, John, 
xvii. 21, 22, 23, 24, John xiv. 20; These sayings at first 
seem like nothing but words carelessly cast together, very 
abstruse and dark, but yet we may here see and know 
what he meant. Many other of Christ's speeches may 
receive light from hence ; the meaning of the apostle 
John's gospel and epistles particularly, and many 
passages through the whole Bible. 

Corol. 7. How glorious is the gospel that reveals to us 
such things. 

Corol. 8. Hence we see why it is most suitable and 
proper that the Son of God should have the immediate 
management of the affairs of the church, and that it 
should be this person of the Trinity that has all along 
manifested himself by the visible tokens of his presence 
to the antediluvians, the Patriarchs and Israelites." 

"197. Christian Religion. It seems to me exceeding 
Congruous and the highest manner Consentaneous that a 
God, a being of infinite Goodness and love, who, it is 
evident from mere Reason, Created the world for this 
very End, to make the Creation happy in his love : I say 
it seems exceeding Congruous, that he should Give to the 
Creature the highest sort of Evidence or Expression of 
love. For why should not that love, which is infinitely 



higher than any other and the love of a being infinitely 
more excellent, of which other love is but the emanation 
and shadow ; why should not that love have the highest 
and most noble manifestations and the surest Evidences ? 
Now we know that the highest sort of manifestations and 
evidence of love is expence for the beloved. How much 
soever the lover Gives, or Communicates to the beloved, 
yet, if he is at no expence himself, there is not that high 
and noble expression of love as if otherwise. Now I Can 
Clearly and distinctly concieve how the Giving of Christ 
should have all that in it, that Renders it every way an 
equal, and like, and perfectly equivalent expression of 
love, as the greatest expence in a lover ; as I have shown 
elsewhere. And this is a way that is exceeding noble and 
excellent, and agreeable to the Glorious Perfections of 
God. But no other way can be Concieved of ; and they 
that deny the Christian Religion Can Pretend no other ; 
and if they do 'tis impossible they should think of any in 
any measure so exalted, noble, and excellent." 

" 243. Glory of God. The first part of the xvii. Chap, 
of John, and the 18 verse of the xii. Chap., and Isai. 
xlviii. 11, and Isai. xlii. 8, and many other such passages 
of Scripture, make me think that God's glory is a good, 
independent of the happiness of the creature ; that it is a 
good absolutely and in itself and not merely as subor- 
dinate to the Creature's real good ; nor not merely because 
it is the Creature's highest good : a good that God seeks, 
(if I may so speak) not merely as he seeks the Creature's 
happiness, but for itself ; that he seeks absolutely, as an 
independent, ultimate good. And many passages in the 
Old Testament that seem to speak as if the end of his 
doing this or that was his honour's sake, or his name's 
sake ; though it still appears to me exceedingly plain that 
to Communicate goodness is likewise an absolute good, 



and what God seeks for itself, and that the very being of 
God's goodness necessarily supposes it ; for to make 
happy is not goodness, if it be done purely for another 
superior end." 

"247. Glory of God. For God to glorify himself is to 
discover himself in his works, or to communicate himself 
in his works, which is all one. For we are to remember 
that the world exists only mentally ; so that the very be- 
ing of the world implies its being perceived, or discovered. 
Or otherwise, for God to glorify himself, is, in his acts 
ad extra, to act worthy of himself, or to act excellently. 
Therefore God does not seek his own glory because it 
makes him the happier to be honoured and highly thought 
of, but because he loves to see himself, his own excel- 
lencies and glories appearing in his works : He loves to 
see himself communicated. And it was his inclination to 
communicate himself, that was a prime motive of his 
creating the world. His own glory was the ultimate end ; 
himself was his end ; that is himself communicated. 
The very phrase the glory seems naturally to signify 
Glory is a shining forth, an effulgence. So the glory 
of God is the shining forth, or effulgence of his 
perfections, or the communication of his perfections; 
for effulgence is the communication of light. For this 
reason that brightness, whereby God was wont to 
manifest himself in the wilderness, and in the tabernacle 
and temple, was called God's glory. So the bright- 
ness of the sun, moon, and stars is called their glory ; 
1 Cor. xv. 41, John i, 14. We beheld his glory \ that is 
his brightness, in his transfiguration. 11 Peter i. 17, 
Heb. i. 3, Rev. xviii, 1, that is brightness. Rev. xxi. 11, 
verse 23. So that the glory of God is the shining 
forth of his perfections ; and the world was created, 
that they might shine forth; that is that they might 
be communicated." 



"271. End of the Creation. It is indeed a condecent 
thing, that God should be the Ultimate End of the 
creation, as well as the Cause ; that in creating he should 
make himself his end, that he should in this respect be 
omega as well as alpha, and the Scripture saith, " God 
hath made all things for himself ; " and this may be, and 
yet the reason of his creating the world be his propensity 
to goodness ; and the communication of happiness to 
creatures be the end. It perhaps was thus : God created 
the world for his Son, that he might prepare for him a 
spouse or bride to bestow his love upon, so that the 
mutual joys between this bride and bridegroom are the 
end of the creation. God is really happy in loving his 
creatures ; because in so doing he as it were glorifies a 
natural propensity in the divine nature, viz., goodness. 
Yea, and he is really delighted in the love of his creatures, 
and in their glorifying him, because he loves them, not 
because he needs ; for he could not be happy therein, 
were it not for his love and goodness. Col. i, 16, "All 
things were made by him, and for him ; " that is for the 

" 332. End of the Creation" The great and universal 
End of God's creating the world was to communicate 
Himself. God is a communicative being. His com- 
munication is really only to intelligent beings. The 
communication of Himself to their understandings is His 
glory and the communication of Himself with respect to 
their wills, the enjoying faculty is their happiness. God 
created the world for the shining forth of his excellency 
and for the flowing forth of his happiness. It dont make 
God the happier to be praised, but it is a becoming and 
condecent and worthy thing for infinite and supreme ex- 
cellency so to do." 

" 445. End of the Creation. There is a necessity of 



supposing that the exercise of God's goodness, or the 
Communication of his happiness is not merely a sub- 
ordinate End, but stands in the Place of an Ultimate 
End ; though there is no necessity of supposing it the 
only ultimate end. But if God's making his Glory to 
appear be an ultimate end, this must stand not in sub- 
ordination to it, but fellow to it, and in the same Rank 
with it ; for to suppose that God's Communication of 
Goodness is wholly subordinate to some other End, is to 
suppose that it is not from God's Goodness. That which 
is Done by any being Entirely in subordination to some 
other End, or that is not done at all for the sake of itself ; 
that is wholly and only for some other thing, that is more 
ultimately in view. The attribute or disposition, that ex- 
cites to that action, is wholly that which seeks that more 
ultimate end. Thus if God makes the Creature happy, 
only for a further end, viz., that he may manifest his own 
perfections by it ; then his making the Creature happy is 
not Indeed from his goodness, or his disposition to com- 
municate good, but wholly from the attribute or dis- 
position of the divine nature, whereby he is disposed to 
shew forth his own excellency. It is not consistent with 
the nature of Goodness to be wholly moved and excited 
by something else that is not Goodness. 

If it be said that God Communicates good to the 
creature only to manifest that Part of his essential Glory, 
viz., his Goodness, this implies a Great absurdity ; for it 
supposes that God is good only to manifest his own 
goodness, which goodness is only an Inclination to mani- 
fest his glory this way. So that now it Comes to this, that 
God is Good in order to manifest his Inclination that he 
has to manifest his Inclination to Communicate good. He 
Communicates that he may glorify his goodness, which 
goodness itself is nothing else but an inclination to com- 



municate good for this end, viz., to glorify his inclination 
to communicate good to this end. And so we may run 
to Endless nonsense. 

If God is Good only to manifest the Glory of his Good- 
ness, then this would be that Glory which was manifested, 
even his Inclination to manifest his own glory. God has 
an Inclination to manifest his own Glory, and the Glory 
which he manifests is this, viz., his disposition to manifest 
his own Glory ; for his Goodness is nothing else, if the 
sole ultimate end of communicating Good be to Glorify 
himself or to shew forth the glory of his goodness. 
Surely God's Glory, that is to be manifested, must be 
Considered as something Prior to his disposition or de- 
sign to manifest it. God's Inclining or designing or 
exerting himself to show his glory, surely, is not that very 
Glory which he shows : the Glory must be something else 
besides the manifestation of it. 

You will say, Why may not the same be said of God's 
Justice ; why can't the exercise of that be argued to be an 
ultimate End of the creation ? I answer, That when the 
world is already Created, merely the Glorifying his Jus- 
tice Cannot be the only motive to his acting Justly ; 
though the Glorifying that attribute might be the motive 
for his giving himself occasion for the exercise of that 
attribute by making the Creatures. 

Indeed the glory of God cannot be Considered as the 
Proper end of God's acts of Justice ; for if it be tis the 
glory of his justice is the End, which will Imply those 
absurdities mentioned concerning God's Goodness being 
altogether for the glory of his goodness. 

A view to the Glorifying of God's Justice is not the 
sole motive to God's acting Justly when there is occasion ; 
for he acts Justly, because tis agreeable to> his nature, 
and he delights so to do. God's glorifying himself 



might be his End in Giving himself occasion for the ex- 
ercise of his Justice. 

So that although God's Glorifying and Communicating 
himself were the sole Ends for which he created the 
world ; yet they cannot be Properly Considered as the 
sole ends of All that God does in the world. Thus God 
when he speaks the truth to his Creatures the sole motive 
to his speaking the truth, when he does speak, (is not to 
glorify his truth ;) for tis impossible that he should speak 
anything else : he speaks the truth, because he delights in 
truth for its own sake. 

But the attribute of Justice, or a Just disposition of the 
Divine nature cannot be directly the motive to God's 
Creating the world, as his Goodness may. For a Just 
disposition has for its object only being, existing either in 
act, or design. It is absurd to suppose that an inclina- 
tion to do Justice, upon all occasions, should Properly 
be his motive to Give Creatures being that there may be 
occasion (to exercise it;) for that is not any part of the 
notion we have of Justice — a disposition to make occa- 
sions for the exercise of Justice. It must be some other 
disposition that does that ; and in God, it is his dis- 
position to cause his attributes to shine forth, or to 
Glorify himself. But now Goodness, or an Inclination to 
Communicate Good, has merely possible being as much 
its proper object, as actual, or designed, being. A dis- 
position to Communicate Good will move a being to 
make the occasion for the Communication ; and Indeed 
Giving being is one part of the Communication. If God 
be in himself Disposed to Communicate himself, he is 
therein disposed to make the Creatures to communicate 
himself to ; because he can't do what he is in himself dis- 
posed to do without it. God's Goodness is not an Inclina- 
tion to Communicate himself, as occasion shall offer, or a 



disposition, conditionally, to Communicate himself; but 

But God's Just and Righteous disposition is only his 
disposition to act Justly upon every occasion. If God be 
in himself just that supposes no more than that he will 
certainly act Justly, whenever there is occasion for his 
being concerned with the rights or deserts of any. It 
dont Imply in its nature a disposition to make occasion 
for it. If God be disposed to make occasions for the 
exercise of his attributes, that must be only because he is 
disposed to cause his excellencies to shine forth, or to 
glorify himself. Vid. 461. Vid. note on the cxxxvi 

" 448. End of Creation. God is glorified within him- 
self these two ways. 

1. By appearing, or being manifested to himself in 
his own perfect Idea ; or in his Son, who is the brightness 
of his glory. 

2. By enjoying and delighting in himself, by flowing 
forth in infinite Love and Delight towards himself ; or in 
his Holy Spirit. 

So God glorifies himself towards the creatures also two 

1. By appearing to them ; being manifested to their 

2. In communicating himself to their hearts, and in 
their rejoicing and delighting in, and enjoying, the mani- 
festations which he makes of himself. 

They both of them may be called his glory in the more 
extensive sense of the word, viz., his shining forth, or the 
going forth of his excellency, beauty and essential glory, 
ad extra. By one way it goes forth towards their under- 
standings, by the other it goes forth towards their wills or 
hearts. God is glorified not only by his glory's being 



seen, but by its being rejoiced in. When those that see 
it delight in it, God is more glorified, than if they only 
see it. His glory is then received by the whole soul, 
both by the understanding and by the heart. God made 
the world that he might communicate, and the creature 
receive, his glory ; and that it might [be] received both 
by the mind and heart. He that testifies his views or 
idea of God's glory, does not glorify God so much, as he 
that testifies also his approbation of it, and his delight in it. 
Both those ways of God's glorifying himself came from 
the same cause, viz., the overflowing of God's internal 
glory, or an inclination in God to cause his internal glory 
to flow out ad extra. What God has in view in either of 
them, either in his manifesting his glory to the under- 
standing or [his] communication of it to the heart, is not 
that he may receive but that he go forth. The main 
end of his shining forth is, not that he may have his rays 
reflected back to himself, but that the rays may go forth. 
And this [is] very consistent with what we are taught of 
God's being the Alpha, and Omega, the first and the last. 
God made all things ; and the end for which all things 
are made, and for which they are disposed, and for which 
they work continually, is that God's glory may shine forth 
and be received. From him all creatures come, and in 
him their well being consists. God is all their beginning, 
and God, received, is all their end. From him, and to 
him, are all things ; they are all from him, and they are 
all to be brought to him ; but it is not that they may add 
to him, but that God might be received by them. The 
damned indeed are not immediately to God, but they are 
ultimately ; they are to the glorified saints and angels, 
and they to God, that God's glory may be manifested in 
them unto the vessels of mercy. 

It is said that God hath made all things for himself ; 



and in the Revelation it is said they are created for God's 
pleasure ; that is they are made that God may in them 
have occasion to fulfil his good pleasure in manifesting 
and communicating himself. In this God takes delight, 
and for the sake of this delight God creates the world, 
but this delight is not properly from the creature's com- 
munication to God, but in his to the creature ; it is a de- 
light in his own act. 

Let us explain the matter how we will, there is no way 
that the world can be for God save than so for It can't 
be so for him, as that he can receive anything from the 

" 553. End of the Creation. There are many of the 
divine attributes, that, if God had not created the world, 
never would have had any exercise : the power of God, 
the Wisdom of God, the prudence and contrivance of 
God, the goodness and mercy, and grace of God, and the 
justice of God. It is fit that the divine attributes should 
have exercise. Indeed God knew as perfectly that there 
were those attributes fundamentally in himself before 
they were in exercise as since. But as God he delights in 
his own excellency and glorious perfections, so he delights 
in the exercise of those perfections. It is true that there 
was from eternity that act in God, within himself, and 
towards himself, that was the exercise of the same 
perfection of his nature. But it was not the same 
kind of exercise ; it virtually contained it, but there 
was not explicitly the same exercise of his perfection. 
God, who delights in the exercise of his own perfection, 
delights in all the kinds of its exercise. That eternal act 
or energy, of the divine nature within him whereby he 
infinitely loves and delights in himself, I suppose does 
imply, fundamentally, goodness and grace towards 
creatures, if there be that occasion, which infinite wisdom 



sees fit. But God, who delights in his own perfection, 
delights in seeing those exercises of his perfection 
explicitly in being, that are fundamentally implied." 

" 662. End of the Creation. Glory of God. It may 
be enquired Why God would have the exercises of his 
perfections and expressions of His glory known, and pub- 
lished abroad. 

Answer, It was meet that His attributes and perfections 
should be expressed ; it was the will of God that they 
should be expressed and should shine forth ; but if the 
expressions of his attributes are not known they are 
not expressions ; the very being of the expression de- 
pends on the perception of created understandings ; and 
so much the more as the expression is known, so much 
the more it is." 

" 1082. End of the Creation. The glory of the Lord 
in scripture seems to signify the excellent brightness and 
fulness of God, and especially as spread abroad, diffused, 
and as it were enlarged : or, in one word, the excellency 
of God flowing forth. This was represented in the 
Shechinah of old. Here, by the excellency of God, I 
would be understood of everything in God in any respect 
excellent, all that is great and good in the Deity; in- 
cluding the excellent sweetness, and blessedness that is 
in God, and the infinite fountain of happiness that the 
Deity is possessed of, that is called the fountain of life, 
the water of life, the river of God's pleasures, God's 
light, etc. The flowing forth of the ineffably bright and 
sweet effulgence of the Shechinah, represented the flow- 
ing out and communicating of this as well as the mani- 
festation of his majesty and beauty ; joy and happiness is 
represented in scripture as often by light, as by water, 
fountains, streams, etc. — And the communication of 
God's happiness is represented by the flowing out of 



sweet light from the Shechinah, as well as by the flowing 
forth [of] a stream of delights, and the diffusing of the 
holy oil, called the fulness of God's house, Ps. xxxvi, 
7, 8, 9. 

A fountain in diffusing itself abroad in streams, and the 
holy anointing oil in diffusing itself in a sweet odour, are, 
in a scripture sense, glorified and magnified, as well as 
the lamps in the temple by diffusing abroad their light. 

Happiness is very often in scripture called by the 
name of glory, or included in that name, in scripture. 
God's eternal glory includes his blessedness ; and when 
we read of the glorifying of Christ, and the glory which 
the Father has given him, it includes his heavenly joy. 
And so, when we read of the glory promised to or con- 
ferred on the saints, and of their being glorified, their un- 
speakable happiness is a main thing intended. Their 
joy is full of glory, and they are made happy in partaking 
of Christ's glory : the fulness of the saints' happiness is 
the riches of God's glory in the saints. Therefore the 
diffusing the sweetness and blessedness of the divine 
nature is God's glorifying himself, in a scripture sense, 
as well as his manifesting his perfection to their under- 
standings. The beams, that flow forth from the infinite 
fountain of light and life, don't only carry light, but life, 
with them ; and therefore this light is called the light of 
life, as the beams of the sun have both light and warmth, 
and do both enlighten and quicken, and so bless, the face 
of the earth. 

This twofold way of the Deity's flowing forth ad extra, 
answers to the twofold way of the Deity's proceeding 
ad intra, in the proceeding and generation of the Son, 
and the proceeding and breathing forth of the Holy 
Spirit ; and indeed is only a kind of second proceeding 
of the same persons : their going forth ad extra, as before 
they proceeded ad intra." 



" 1 151. End of the Creation. It is no just objection 
against God's aiming at glorifying himself, as one way of 
that flowing out, or beaming forth of the infinite good 
that is to be considered under the notion of a last end of 
God's works ; that this adds nothing to God's happiness ; 
any more than it is a just objection against his Com- 
municating his happiness to his creatures being aimed at 
by him as his last end ; for the creature's happiness does 
not properly add anything to God's happiness, any more 
than God's being glorified in the view of the creature, 
and by the creature, adds something to God's happiness. 
It is true, God delights in communicating his happiness 
to the creature, as therein he exercises a perfection of his 
nature, and does that which is condecent, amiable, and 
beautiful, and so enjoys himself and his own perfection 
in it, as his perfection is exercised in it. So, in like 
manner, he delights in glorifying himself, as it is in itself 
condecent and beautiful that infinite brightness and glory 
should shine forth, and it is a part of the perfection of 
God to seek it. 

These two ways of the divine good beaming forth, are 
agreeable to the two ways of the divine essense flowing 
out, or proceeding from eternity within the godhead, in 
the person of the Son and Holy Spirit : the one, in an ex- 
pression of his glory, in the idea or knowledge of it ; the 
other, the flowing out of the essence in love and joy. It 
is condecent that, correspondent to these proceedings of 
the divinity ad intra, God should also flow forth ad extra. 

The one last end of all things may be expressed, thus : 
It is, that the infinite good might be communicated ; that 
it might be communicated to, or rather in, the under- 
standing of the creature, which communication is God's 
declarative glory ; and that it might be communicated 
to the other faculty (usually, though not very express- 



ively, called the Will) which communication is the mak- 
ing the creature happy in God, as a partaker of God's 

" 12 18. End of the Creation, Glory of God, etc. It 
can't be properly said that the end of God's creating of 
the world is twofold; or that there are two parallel co- 
ordinate ends of God's creating the world : one, to exer- 
cise his perfections ad extra; another, to make his 
creatures happy. But all is included in one, viz., God's 
exhibiting his perfections, or causing his essential glory 
to be exercised, expressed and communicated ad extra. 
Tis true that we must suppose that, prior to the creature's 
existence, God seeks occasion to exercise his goodness, 
and opportunity to communicate happiness, and that this 
is one end whereby he gives being to creatures ; and so 
we must conceive this prior to the creature's existence. 
He seeks occasion to exercise other attributes of his 
nature, that can have none but creatures for their objects ; 
as his justice, his faithfulness, his wisdom, etc. But a 
disposition to seek opportunity and occasion for the exer- 
cise of goodness towards those that now have no being, 
and so a being disposed to give being to creatures, that 
there may be such an opportunity, is not the same attri- 
bute that we commonly call Goodness ; any more than a 
disposition to seek opportunity or occasion to exercise 
justice, and so to give being to creatures that there may 
be such occasion, is not the same attribute that we call 
Justice. God seeks occasion for the exercise of one and 
the other of those attributes, by giving existence to beings 
that may be capable objects of their exercise, in the same 
manner, and for one common reason, viz., because it is 
in itself fit and suitable that these attributes of God 
should be exerted, and should not be eternally dormant. 
Tis true tis from an excellent disposition of the heart of 



God, that God seeks occasion to exercise his goodness 
and bounty, and also his Wisdom, Justice, Truth; and 
this in one word is a disposition to glorify himself, ac- 
cording to the Scripture sense of such an expression, or 
a disposition to express and communicate himself ad extra. 

I know there is an inconsistency in supposing that God 
inclines to exercise goodness, and do Good to others, 
meerly for the sake of the Honour of his Goodness ; for 
the very notion of Goodness is an Inclination of Heart to 
do good to others. And therefore, the Existence of such 
an Inclination must be conceived of as prior to an Incli- 
nation to Honour it. There must first be an Inclination 
of Heart to do good, before God desires to honour that 
Inclination. So in like manner it is an inconsistence to 
suppose that God is inclined to Exercise Justice, and do 
justly, only for the sake of the Honour of his Justice ; for 
Justice itself is an Inclination to do justly, which must 
exist before God is inclined to honour it. Therefore 
God's glorifying Himself — that glorifying Himself, 
which is the End of the creation — is a different thing 
from properly seeking his Honour. 

They, that suppose God's inclination to make occasions 
for the doing Good, or communicating Happiness, by 
giving being to capable subjects of it, to be what is 
properly called God's Goodness, seem to have a Notion 
of a bountiful disposition in the Heart of God, disposed 
to increase the sum of Happiness, which is to be found 
in the universality of Existence. But there is no such 
Thing. Man's Benevolence and Bounty, taking his own 
Good, and the Good of the Person benefitted by Him to- 
gether, increases the sum of Good; and therefore tis 
more easy to conceive of a benevolent Disposition in a 
Creature wishing for the being of new subjects of Kind- 
ness, because the Goodness of his Nature causes Him to 
love to see a great deal of Happiness. 



But God sees no more by making creatures that they 
may be happy. 

He hath in his Son an adequate object for all the de- 
sires of this kind that are in his Heart, and in his Infinite 
Happiness, he sees as much Happiness as can be when 
new beings are made that are infinitely less, and there is 
opportunity to do them good, God sees not the sum of 
happiness increased. 

The more proper Notion signified by all such words as 
Goodness, Kindness, Bounty, Favour, Grace, etc., includes 
Love, Benevolence or Good will, but this is not properly 
Love or Good will that has the Existence of the object 
loved first supposed. A disposition to make an object 
that it may be loved, and that we may have good will 
towards must be prior to another, and properly distinct 
from Love and Goodwill itself. It may be an ex- 
cellent Quality, but it must be Quality of some other 
denomination : if it be called Goodness and Grace it must 
be in a less proper sense. To desire new beings to com- 
municate happiness to 'em, especially without increasing 
the sum of Happiness, dont agree with the notion 
mankind have of Goodness, Benevolence, Grace, etc. 
Men may call this disposition in the Heart of God by the 
name of Goodness, if they please ; but tis properly re- 
ferred to another Perfection of which it is one sort of 
exercise ; viz., the disposition that is in the Infinite 
Fountain of Good and of Glory, and Excellency, to shine 
forth, or flow out ; which shining forth or flowing out of 
God's infinite fulness, is called God's Glory in Scripture. 

Indeed God, in making the creature happy, seems as it 
were to express, or exhibit himself ad extra, two ways. 
Not only does one of his perfections exercise itself in it, 
viz., his Goodness ; but there is something of God 
actually communicated, some of that Good that is in God, 



that the creature hereby has communion in, viz., God's 
Happiness : the creature partakes of the happinesss of 
God, at least an image of it. And we must therefore 
conceive that there is a disposition in God not only to 
exercise his attributes and perfections in this, but also to 
communicate of his divine good. But then it is to be 
considered that God does not only communicate of 
happiness, but also his holiness, and his understanding, 
and power, or an image of these ; and we must conceive 
that there is truly a disposition in God to communicate 
of these, as well as his happiness ; which general dis- 
position, though in itself excellent, seems to be a dis- 
position besides the goodness of God, or at least is called 
so in a less proper sense, and in a more extensive sense 
than that which is more frequently called God's goodness. 
But although there are several kinds of good in God, 
that are communicated, and though according to our 
manner of conceiving things there are two ways of God's 
exhibiting himself ad extra : i. His perfections that we 
conceive to be an active nature are exercised ad extra ; 
as his power, wisdom, justice, goodness, holiness ; 2. The 
Good that is in him is communicated ad extra ; and, 
though this good be of various kinds according to our 
manner of conceiving, yet as all this good that is in God, 
of whatever kind, belongs to his essential glory and 
brightness, and there is the same fitness that each part of 
this brightness or glory should shine forth in every pos- 
sible way, and be both exercised and communicated, and 
that all this good should flow out, and that God is dis- 
posed that each part should do so, may well be referred 
to one general disposition, and the effect may well be 
called by one name, viz., God's Glory : Ao£a. TD3. 

Both these dispositions of exerting himself and com- 
municating himself, may be reduced to one, viz., a dis- 



position effectually to exert himself, or to exert himself 
in order to an effect. That effect is the communication of 
himself, or himself ad extra, which is what is called his 
glory. This, communication is of two sorts : the com. 
munication that consists in understanding or idea, which 
is summed up in the knowledge of God ; and the other is 
in the will consisting in love and joy, which may be 
summed up in the love and enjoyment of God. Thus 
that which proceeds from God ad extra is agreeable to 
the twofold subsistences which proceed from him ad intra 
which is the Son, and the Holy Spirit : the Son being the 
idea of God, or the knowledge of God ; and the Holy 
Ghost, which is the love of God and joy in God. 

Although the things which God inclines to and aims at, 
are in some respects two, viz., exercising or exerting the 
perfections of his nature, and the effect of that, viz., com- 
municating himself; yet these may be reduced to one, 
viz., God's exerting himself in order to the effect. The 
exertion and the effect ought not to be separated, as 
though they were two ends ; one is so related to the 
other, and they are so united that they are most properly 
taken together as one end, and the object of one in- 
clination in God ; for tis not an ineffectual exertion that 
God aims at, or inclines to, and God in aiming at these 
makes himself his end. Tis Himself exerted, and 
Himself communicated ; and both together are what is 
called God's Glory. The end, or the thing which God 
attains, is Himself, in two respects. He himself flows 
forth ; and He Him[self] is pleased and gratified : for 
God's pleasure all things are, and were created. 

God has made intelligent creatures capable of being 
concerned in these effects, as being the willing active 
subjects, or means ; and so they are capable of actively 
promoting God's glory. And this is what they ought to 
make their ultimate end in all things." 



" 1266. Glory of God, the End Of the Creation. God's 
Glory, as it is spoken of in scripture, as the End of all 
God's works, is, in one word, The Emanation of that 
Fulness of God, that is from Eternity in God, ad extra, 
and towards those Creatures that are capable of being 
sensible and active objects of such an Emanation. It 
consists in communicating Himself to those two Faculties 
of the Understanding and will ; by which Faculties it is, 
that Creatures are sensible and active objects, or subjects, 
of divine Emanations, and communications. 

God communicates himself to the understanding in the 
manifestation that is made of the divine Excellency ; and 
the understanding, Idea, or view, which Intelligent 
creatures have of it. He communicates his Glory and 
Fulness to the wills of sensible, willing, active beings 
in their rejoicing in the manifested Glory of God ; in their 
admiring it ; in their loving God for it, and being in all 
respects affected and disposed suitably to such Glory, 
and their exercising and expressing those affections 
and dispositions wherein consists their Praising and 
Glorifying God ; and in their being themselves holy, 
and having the Image of this Glory in their Hearts, and 
as it were reflecting it as a Jewel does the Light of the 
Sun, and as it were partaking of God's Brightness ; and 
in their being Happy in God, whereby they partake of 
God's Fulness of Happiness. 

This twofold Emanation or communication of the 
divine Fulness ad extra is answerable to the twofold 
Emanation or going forth of the Godhead ad intra ; 
wherein the internal and Essential Glory and Fulness of 
the Godhead consists : viz., the Proceeding of the Eternal 
Son of God, God's Eternal Idea and infinite under- 
standing and wisdom, and the Brightness of his Glory, 
whereby his Beauty and Excellency appears to Him ; and 



the Proceeding of the Holy Spirit, or the Eternal will, 
Temper, disposition of the Deity, the infinite Fulness of 
God's Holiness, Joy, and Delight." 

" 1275. l^hat Glory of God, that is the End of God's 
Works, is not only a manifestation of his Excellency, but 
a communication of his happiness. Goodwin's Works, 
Vol. 1, Part 2, p. 246, on Happiness. Words, Eph. ii, 7, 
" It implies that God will rejoice over you in glorifying of 
you. It imports that he will not do it merely to show his 
riches, as Ahasuerus made a feast and invited all his 
nobles, to show the riches of his glorious kingdom. God 
indeed will bring us to heaven, and show the exceeding 
riches of his grace ; and that is the chiefest end he aims 
at. But now Ahasuerus did not do this in kindness. 
But God, as he will there show forth the exceeding riches 
of his grace,/<?r the glorifying of it, so he will do it in all 
the sweetness and kindness that your souls can desire or 

Ibid. p. 250. " It hath been questioned by some, 
Whether the first moving cause to move God to go forth 
to save men was the manifesting his own glory, or his 
kindness and love to men, which he was pleased to take 
up towards them. I have heard it argued with much 
appearance of strength, That, however God indeed in the 
way of saving men carries it as becomes a God, so as his 
own glory and grace shall have the pre-eminence, yet that 
which first moved him, that which did give the occasion 
to him to go forth in the manifestation of himself which 
else he needed not, was rather kindness to us than his 
own glory ; yet so as if he resolved out of kindness and 
love to us to manifest himself at all he would do it like a 
God, and he would show forth the exceeding riches of 
his grace, as that that alone should be magnified. Now 
the truth is the text (Eph. ii. 7) compounds the business, 



and doth tell us plainly and truly, that the chief end is 
that God should glorify his own grace. It puts the chief 
and original end upon the showing forth the exceeding 
riches of his grace ; Yet so as that he hath attempered 
and conjoined therewith the greatest kindness, the great- 
est loving affection in the way of manifesting of it, so as 
in the way of carrying it. It shall appear it is not simply 
to glorify himself, but out of kindness towards us, he puts 
that in as that which shall run along with all the mani- 
festation of his own glory. And therefore now he makes 
in the 4th verse mercy and great love to us, to be as well 
the fountain and foundation of our salvation as the mani- 
festation of the riches of his grace here." 

Ibid. p. 253. " Because the chief and utmost thing 
that God desireth is the manifestation of the riches of his 
grace, it argues, that his end of manifesting himself was 
not wholly for himself, but to communicate unto others 
why ? because grace is wholly communicative. There 
can be no other interpretation of showing the riches of 
his grace but to do good unto others. If he had said 
that the supreme end had been the manifestation of his 
power and wisdom, it might have imported something he 
would have gotten from the creature ; not by communi- 
cating anything unto them, but by manifesting these upon 
them. He could have showed his power and wisdom 
upon them, as he hath done upon the men he hath cast 
into hell and yet have communicated no blessedness to 
them. No, saith God, My highest and chief end is not so 
much to get anything from you, but to show forth the 
riches of my grace towards you. Thus, look at faith 
which is the highest grace in us ; it is merely a receiving 
grace from God. So take grace, which is the chief thing 
God would exalt ; what is it from God, a mere bestowing, 
communicating property and attribute. It imports noth- 



ing else but a communication unto us. It is well there- 
fore for us, that God hath made the highest end of our 
salvation in himself (when he will aim at himself too) to 
be that which shall communicate all to us. It is, saith 
the text, to show forth the riches of his grace." 

Ibid : Part 3, p. 63. " Our allwise and infinitely blessed 
Lord who had, from everlasting, riches of glorious per- 
fections, which, though he himself knew, and was in- 
finitely blessed in the knowledge of them, though no saint 
or angel had ever been or ever knew them ; yet all these 
his glorious perfections being crowned with goodness, 
have made him willing to make known what riches of 
glory were in him unto some creatures which yet were in 
Christ. His goodness moved him to it. For Bonum est 
sui communicatio, — and it is the nature of perfection also 
to be manifestatio sui. And that not because any per- 
fection is added to it when made known, but that they 
might perfect others. This set Him upon some ways to 
make known his riches and his glory to some that should 
be made happy by it ; and to that end he would have 
saints, (his saints as being beloved of him) unto whom 
he might as it were unbosom himself, and display all the 
riches of glory that are in him ; into whose laps he might 
withal pour out all his riches, that they might see his 
glory, and be glorified in seeing of it. John xvii, 3, 24." 




Not the least interesting part of the Bicentenary was 
the exhibition, in Bartlet Chapel, of many autograph 
and published writings of Edwards and other objects of 
historical interest, partly in the possession of the Semi- 
nary, and partly loaned by friends for this special 
occasion. The books were in large part from the 
Seminary Library, but several of the most interesting 
came from the Congregational Library of Boston, the 
Boston Public Library, and the Library of Harvard 
University. The manuscripts were mainly from the 
collection of Professor E. C. Smyth. Other objects were 
loaned by Professor Smyth and Miss Park, of Andover, 
Dr. H. C. Hovey, of Newburyport, Mrs. A. C. Stone, of 
Lawrence, and the Rev. Calvin M. Clark, of Haverhill. 
To all these friends the thanks of the Seminary are hereby 
extended for their kind co-operation in making the ex- 
hibition a success. 

The following list includes the most interesting of the 
objects exhibited, leaving out the books : — 

A sketch of the life of Richard Edwards, of Hartford, 
by his son, the Rev. Timothy Edwards. 

Letter from Mrs. Solomon Stoddard to her daughter, 
Mrs. Timothy Edwards, after the birth of her son, 

Letter from the Rev. Timothy Edwards to his son, 
Jonathan, dated Feb. 13, 17 16. 

Letter from Rector Cutler, of Yale, to Timothy Ed- 
wards, congratulating him on the good qualities of his 
son, dated June 30, 1719. 



Unpublished letter of Edwards to his father, dated at 
Yale College, March i, 172 1. 

Various treatises in manuscript, including, Of the 
Rainbow ; Of Insects, being the first draft of Edwards's 
account of The Flying Spider ; The Flying Spider, and 
draft of a letter to a gentleman in England accompanying 
the same ; Notes on Science, with specimens of short- 
hand writing and of illustrative figures ; On the Soul ; 
Of Being, written while a college student ; Manuscripts 
relating to Qualifications for Communion, and Prophecies 
of the Messiah. 

Leaves from Edwards's Hebrew Bible, containing his 
family record. 

Notes of sermons preached to the Mohawk Indians in 
Stockbridge, in January and February, 1751. 

Letter to the Rev. Joseph Bellamy, dated Canaan, Nov. 
5, 1750, concerning a proposed sale of sheep, occasioned 
by Edwards's enforced resignation of his Northampton 

Numerous letters from the later years of his life. 

Notes from which Edwards preached his farewell 
sermon to the Stockbridge Indians, Jan. 8, 1758, just 
before his removal to Princeton. 

Letter of Dr. Shippen, the attending physician, an- 
nouncing the death of Edwards to his wife. Written 
from Princeton, March 22, 1758. 

Letter from Mrs. Edwards to her daughter, Susanna, 
after the death of Edwards. Written April 3, 1758. 

A Latin Dictionary belonging to Sarah Pierpont, who 
became Mrs. Edwards ; a piece of her wedding dress ; a 
wrought iron tray, supposed to be one of her wedding 
presents ; the manuscript containing an account of Mrs. 
Edwards's religious experiences of Jan. 19, 1742, nar- 
rated by her to her husband, and recorded by him. 



Copy of a Covenant entered into by the people of God 
at Northampton, March 16, 1 741-2 ; a fragment of the 
cloth used with the communion service at Northampton 
during Edwards's pastorate. 

Numerous sermons, notes and plans for sermons, show- 
ing his shorthand writing, and his economy in making use 
of newspaper margins, fragments of letters, pulpit notices, 
proclamations, and especially scraps of paper left by his 
daughters from their manufacture of fans. 

A Note Book of " Things to be particularly enquired 
into and written upon ". 

A letter to the Rev. John Erskine of Kirkintilloch, 
Scotland, in which Edwards speaks of his thoughts of 
writing on the Freedom of the Will and Moral Agency. 
It is dated Northampton, Jan. 22, 1746-7. 

A silver bowl or porringer, inscribed with the names of 
its various owners, viz. Pres't Jonathan Edwards, Hon. 
Timothy Edwards, Phoebe (Edwards) Hooker, Edward 
W. Hooker, Edward T. Hooker. By will of Edward W. 
Hooker the porringer must thereafter go to an orthodox 
Congregational clergyman in direct descent. Loaned by 
the present owner, the Rev. Calvin M. Clark, of Haverhill. 




To the Committee of Arrangements for celebrating the 
Bicentenary of the Reverend fonathan Edwards, M.A. 
The Senatus of the Glasgow College of the United 
Free Church of Scotland have deputed their colleague, 
the Reverend James Orr, D.D., to represent them at the 
celebration of the Bicentenary of the celebrated Jonathan 
Edwards within your theological Seminary. Our Senatus 
gladly unites with you in doing honour to one of the 
earliest of renowned American Theologians, whose pre- 
eminent abilities were recognized in his life-time not 
only in the land of his birth but throughout Great Britain 
and Germany, and whose writings, more especially his 
Treatise on the Freedom of the Will, his work on the 
Doctrine of Original Sin, and above all his Treatise on 
the Religious Affections, have taken and must always 
retain a place among the theological master-pieces of 
earlier generations. 

The Senatus congratulate the Andover Theological 
Seminary, so justly celebrated among American Schools 
of Divinity, on this celebration, and they see a peculiar 
fitness in a Seminary, so well known for its theological 
activity in the present, summoning around it theologians 
from all lands to do honour to one of the greatest theo- 
logians of the past. 

The Senatus send cordial fraternal greetings and desire 
to express every wish for the success of the Meetings to 
be held on the fifth of October. 

In the Name and by the Authority of the Senatus 

(signed) Thomas M. Lindsay, 

College of the United Free Church of Scotland, 
Glasgow, June 9, 1903. 




To the Reverend Thomas M. Lindsay, D.D., Principal 
of the Glasgow College of the United Free Church 
of Scotland, Greeting : 
The Faculty of Andover Theological Seminary take 
pleasure in acknowledging the congratulatory message of 
the Senatus of Glasgow College, received on the occasion 
of the two-hundredth anniversary of the birth of Jonathan 
Edwards, to be observed on October fifth. They highly 
value and cordially reciprocate the fraternal good wishes 
therein expressed. They also gratefully acknowledge 
their indebtedness to Glasgow College and the United 
Free Church of Scotland for the favoring presence in 
Andover, at the approaching Bicentenary, of an honored 
representative of modern Scotch Theology, the Reverend 
Professor James Orr, D.D., whose name lends distinction 
to the order of proceedings, and whose address is certain 
largely to enhance their historical value. 

Adopted at a meeting of the Faculty, held in Andover, 
on the sixteenth day of September, Nineteen Hundred 
and Three. 

(signed) Charles Orrin Day, 



Date Due 

F 2138 

ttyftl ^ . , 

N -■- 



my 10 




<-- „, , ^ 

..„,—- -^ 

aafift '