Christian Classics
‹ Works of Jonathan Edwards, Volume One
Contents
The Works of Jonathan Edwards, Volume 1CHAPTER I. Birth. Parentage. Early religious advantages. Serious impressions and account of his experienceCHAPTER II. Intellectual progress. Earliest productions. Entrance at college. Mental habitsCHAPTER III. Early religious productions. Miscellanies. Notes on the Scriptures. Commencement of his preaching. Resolutions.CHAPTER IV. His DiaryCHAPTER V. His tutorship. Sickness. Invitation to Northampton. Personal narrative continued. Diary concluded.CHAPTER VI. Settlement in the ministry at Northampton. Situation of things at the time of his settlement. Attention to religion in the parish. Course of study. Habits of life. Marriage. Death and Character of Mr. Stoddard. Sickness of Mr. Edwards. Death and character of his sister Jerusha. His first publicationCHAPTER VII. Remarkable revival of religion, in 1734, and 1735. Its extent and power. Manner of treating awakened sinners. Causes of its decline. Religious controversy in Hampshire. Death of his sister Lucy. Characteristics of Mrs. Edwards. Remainder of personal narrativeCHAPTER VIII. Narrative of Surprising Conversions. His views of revivals. Five Discourses. Mr. Bellamy, a resident in his family. Extra-parochial labours of Mr. Edwards. Sermon at Enfield. Funeral Sermon on the Rev. W. WilliamsCHAPTER IX. Commencement of a second great revival of religion, in the spring and summer of 1740. Visit of Mr. Whitefield at Northampton. Impulses. Judging of the religious character of others. Letter to Mr. Wheelock. Great effects of a private lecture of Mr. E. Letter to his daughter. Letter to a young lady in Connecticut. Lay preaching. Letter of Rev. G. Tennent. Sermon at New-Haven. 'Distinguishing Marks of a Work of the Spirit of God.' Prefaces by Mr. Cooper and Mr. Willison. Mr. Samuel HopkinsCHAPTER X. Temporary abatement of religious attention. Letter to Mr. Bellamy. Missionary tour. Success at Leicester. Mr. Hopkins becomes a member of his family. Mr. Buell's successful labours at Northampton. Mr. Edwards's narrative of the revival at Northampton, in 1740-1742. Covenant entered into by the churchCHAPTER XI. Mrs. Edwards. Her solemn self-dedications. Her uncommon discoveries of the Divine perfections and glory; and of the excellency of Christ. Remarks concerning themCHAPTER XII. Extent of the revival of 1740-1742. Auspicious opening. Opposed by its enemies, and injured by its friends. “Thoughts on the Revival in New England. ” Attestations of numerous ministers. Causes of its decline. Influence of Mr. Whitefield, Mr. Tennent, and others. Influence of Mr. Edwards's publications in Scotland. Great revival of religion there. His correspondents in that country. Letter to Mr. M'Cullock. Answer to do. Letter from Mr. RobeChapter XIII. First Interview with David Brainerd--Separations From Churches--Letter to Rev. Mr. WhimanCHAPTER XIV. Mistakes extensively prevalent at this time, as to the nature and evidences of true godliness. “Treatise on Religious Affections.” Design and character of the work. Republished abroad. Letter from Mr. Gillespie concerning it. Letter from Mr. Edwards to Mr. M'Cullock. Reply to Mr. Gillespie. Proposal made in Scotland, for united extraordinary prayer. Efforts of Mr. Edwards to promote it. Letter to Mr. M'Cullock. “Humble Attempt to promote Extraordinary Prayer” · Part 1CHAPTER XIV. Mistakes extensively prevalent at this time, as to the nature and evidences of true godliness. “Treatise on Religious Affections.” Design and character of the work. Republished abroad. Letter from Mr. Gillespie concerning it. Letter from Mr. Edwards to Mr. M'Cullock. Reply to Mr. Gillespie. Proposal made in Scotland, for united extraordinary prayer. Efforts of Mr. Edwards to promote it. Letter to Mr. M'Cullock. “Humble Attempt to promote Extraordinary Prayer” · Part 2CHAPTER XIV. Mistakes extensively prevalent at this time, as to the nature and evidences of true godliness. “Treatise on Religious Affections.” Design and character of the work. Republished abroad. Letter from Mr. Gillespie concerning it. Letter from Mr. Edwards to Mr. M'Cullock. Reply to Mr. Gillespie. Proposal made in Scotland, for united extraordinary prayer. Efforts of Mr. Edwards to promote it. Letter to Mr. M'Cullock. “Humble Attempt to promote Extraordinary Prayer” · Part 3CHAPTER XV. Arrival of David Brainerd at Northampton. His sickness and death at the house of Mr. Edwards. His papers. Death of Jerusha, the second daughter of Mr. E. Her character. Correspondence of Mr. E. with Rev. John Erskine. Abstract of Mr. E.'s first letter to Mr. Erskine. Plan conceived of the Freedom of the Will. Death of Col. Stoddard. Kindness of Mr. Erskine. Letter of Mr. E. to him. Second Letter from Mr. Gillespie. Letter to Mr. M'Cullock. Letter to Mr. Erskine. Letter from Mr. Willison. Life and diary of Brainerd. Letters to Messrs. Erskine, M'Cullock, and Robe. Ordination of Rev. Job Strong. Anecdote of Rev. Mr. Moody. Letter of Mr. E. to his daughter Mary. Second Letter to Mr. Gillespie · Part 1CHAPTER XV. Arrival of David Brainerd at Northampton. His sickness and death at the house of Mr. Edwards. His papers. Death of Jerusha, the second daughter of Mr. E. Her character. Correspondence of Mr. E. with Rev. John Erskine. Abstract of Mr. E.'s first letter to Mr. Erskine. Plan conceived of the Freedom of the Will. Death of Col. Stoddard. Kindness of Mr. Erskine. Letter of Mr. E. to him. Second Letter from Mr. Gillespie. Letter to Mr. M'Cullock. Letter to Mr. Erskine. Letter from Mr. Willison. Life and diary of Brainerd. Letters to Messrs. Erskine, M'Cullock, and Robe. Ordination of Rev. Job Strong. Anecdote of Rev. Mr. Moody. Letter of Mr. E. to his daughter Mary. Second Letter to Mr. Gillespie · Part 2CHAPTER XV. Arrival of David Brainerd at Northampton. His sickness and death at the house of Mr. Edwards. His papers. Death of Jerusha, the second daughter of Mr. E. Her character. Correspondence of Mr. E. with Rev. John Erskine. Abstract of Mr. E.'s first letter to Mr. Erskine. Plan conceived of the Freedom of the Will. Death of Col. Stoddard. Kindness of Mr. Erskine. Letter of Mr. E. to him. Second Letter from Mr. Gillespie. Letter to Mr. M'Cullock. Letter to Mr. Erskine. Letter from Mr. Willison. Life and diary of Brainerd. Letters to Messrs. Erskine, M'Cullock, and Robe. Ordination of Rev. Job Strong. Anecdote of Rev. Mr. Moody. Letter of Mr. E. to his daughter Mary. Second Letter to Mr. Gillespie · Part 3CHAPTER XV. Arrival of David Brainerd at Northampton. His sickness and death at the house of Mr. Edwards. His papers. Death of Jerusha, the second daughter of Mr. E. Her character. Correspondence of Mr. E. with Rev. John Erskine. Abstract of Mr. E.'s first letter to Mr. Erskine. Plan conceived of the Freedom of the Will. Death of Col. Stoddard. Kindness of Mr. Erskine. Letter of Mr. E. to him. Second Letter from Mr. Gillespie. Letter to Mr. M'Cullock. Letter to Mr. Erskine. Letter from Mr. Willison. Life and diary of Brainerd. Letters to Messrs. Erskine, M'Cullock, and Robe. Ordination of Rev. Job Strong. Anecdote of Rev. Mr. Moody. Letter of Mr. E. to his daughter Mary. Second Letter to Mr. Gillespie · Part 4CHAPTER XV. Arrival of David Brainerd at Northampton. His sickness and death at the house of Mr. Edwards. His papers. Death of Jerusha, the second daughter of Mr. E. Her character. Correspondence of Mr. E. with Rev. John Erskine. Abstract of Mr. E.'s first letter to Mr. Erskine. Plan conceived of the Freedom of the Will. Death of Col. Stoddard. Kindness of Mr. Erskine. Letter of Mr. E. to him. Second Letter from Mr. Gillespie. Letter to Mr. M'Cullock. Letter to Mr. Erskine. Letter from Mr. Willison. Life and diary of Brainerd. Letters to Messrs. Erskine, M'Cullock, and Robe. Ordination of Rev. Job Strong. Anecdote of Rev. Mr. Moody. Letter of Mr. E. to his daughter Mary. Second Letter to Mr. Gillespie · Part 5CHAPTER XVI. Commencement of difficulties at NorthamptonCHAPTER XVII. Account of difficulties at Northampton continuedCHAPTER XVIII. Letter to Mr. M'Cullock—to Mr. Erskine. Account of the troubles at Northampton concludedThe Works of Jonathan Edwards, Volume 1 · CHAPTER XIXCHAPTER XX. Letter to Sir W. Pepperell. Letter to Lady Pepperell. Letter to his father. Arrival of Mr. Hawley. Increasing importance of Indian establishments. Schemes of its enemies. Firm stand taken by Mr. Edwards. Letter to Mr. Oliver. Letter to commissioners. Difficulties of the mission. Answer to Mr. Williams. Letter to the people of Northampton. Marriage of Mr. and Mrs. Burr. Letter To Mr. Erskine. Letter to Mr. Hollis. Letter to Mr. Hubbard · Part 1CHAPTER XX. Letter to Sir W. Pepperell. Letter to Lady Pepperell. Letter to his father. Arrival of Mr. Hawley. Increasing importance of Indian establishments. Schemes of its enemies. Firm stand taken by Mr. Edwards. Letter to Mr. Oliver. Letter to commissioners. Difficulties of the mission. Answer to Mr. Williams. Letter to the people of Northampton. Marriage of Mr. and Mrs. Burr. Letter To Mr. Erskine. Letter to Mr. Hollis. Letter to Mr. Hubbard · Part 2CHAPTER XX. Letter to Sir W. Pepperell. Letter to Lady Pepperell. Letter to his father. Arrival of Mr. Hawley. Increasing importance of Indian establishments. Schemes of its enemies. Firm stand taken by Mr. Edwards. Letter to Mr. Oliver. Letter to commissioners. Difficulties of the mission. Answer to Mr. Williams. Letter to the people of Northampton. Marriage of Mr. and Mrs. Burr. Letter To Mr. Erskine. Letter to Mr. Hollis. Letter to Mr. Hubbard · Part 3CHAPTER XXI. Vote of thanks of commissioners. Sermon at Newark. Measures of the enemies of the mission defeated. Letter to Mr. Oliver. “Freedom of the Will.” Letter to Mr. Erskine. Deposition of Mr. Gillespie. Letter to do. Letter to Mr. M'Cuulloch. Report of Indian agent. Reply of Mr. Edwards. Further defeat of the enemies of the missionCHAPTER XXII. Letter to his eldest son. Return of greater PART of the Mohawks. Letter to commissioners. Mission of Mr.Hawley to Onohquauga. Remainder of Mohawks directed to return. 'Freedom of the Will.' Letter to Mr. Erskine. Proposals of society in London. Letter to Mr. Gillespie. Design and character of the 'Freedom of the Will.' Letters from Mr. Hollis. Surrender of Mohawk school to Mr. Edwards. Entire defeat of enemies of mission. Return of remaining MohawksCHAPTER XXIII. Sickness of Mr. Edwards. “God's Last End in Creation.” “Nature of Virtue.” Mr. Edwards's second son resides at Onohquauga. Dangers of the war. Letter to Mr. Erskine. Letter to Col. Williams. Lord Kaimes. Letter to Mr. Erskine. Letter to Mr. M'Cullock. Letter of Dr. Bellamy. “Treatise on Original Sin.” Letter to his father. Letter to Mr. Erskine.CHAPTER XXIV. Death of President Burr. His character. Mr. Edwards chosen his successor. Letters of Mrs. Burr—To a gentleman in Scotland—To a gentleman in Boston—To her mother. Letter of Mr. Edwards, to the trustees of the college. Letter of Mrs. Burr, to her father. Letter to Dr. Rellamy. Council dismiss Mr. Edwards. Inauguration as president. First Sermon at Princeton. Sickness, Death. Letter of Dr. Shippen. Letters of Mrs. Edwards and of her daughter, to Mrs. Burr. Death of Mrs. Burr. Death of Mrs. Edwards.CHAPTER XXV. Concluding remarks · Part 1CHAPTER XXV. Concluding remarks · Part 2CHAPTER XXV. Concluding remarks · Part 3CHAPTER XXV. Concluding remarks · Part 4A Farewell Sermon · ON JUNE 32, 1750;A Farewell Sermon · PREFACE.A Farewell Sermon · APPLICATIONNO.NO.II. Particulars as to the Life and Death of Mr. Richard Edwards, the grandfather of Jonathan EdwardsNO.III. Account of the Children of Timothy and Esther Edwards.NO.IV. Remarks in Mental Philosophy. The Mind. · Part 1NO.IV. Remarks in Mental Philosophy. The Mind. · Part 2NO.IV. Remarks in Mental Philosophy. The Mind. · Part 3NO.IV. Remarks in Mental Philosophy. The Mind. · Part 4NO.IV. Remarks in Mental Philosophy. The Mind. · Part 5NO.V. Family and Descendants of President EdwardsNO. VIPreface.SECTION I. Concerning the Nature of the WillSECTION II. Concerning the Determination of the Will.SECTION III. Concerning the meaning of the terms, Necessity, Impossibility, Inability, &c. and of Contingence.SECTION IV Of the distinction of natural and moral Necessity, and Inability.SECTION V. Concerning the notion of Liberty, and of moral Agency.SECTION I. Showing the manifest inconsistence of the Arminian notion of Liberty of Will, consisting in the Will's self-determining Power.SECTION II. Several supposed ways of evading the foregoing reasoning, considered.SECTION III. Whether any Event whatsoever, and Volition in particular, can come to pass without a Cause of its existence.SECTION IV. Whether Volition can arise without a Cause, through the activity of the nature of the soul.SECTION V. Showing, that if the things asserted in these Evasions should be supposed to be true, they are altogether impertinent, and cannot help the cause of Arminian Liberty; and how, this being the state of the case, Arminian writers are obliged to talk inconsistently.SECTION VI. Concerning the Will determining in things which are perfectly indifferent in the view of the mind.SECTION VII. Concerning the notion of Liberty of Will, consisting in Indifference.SECTION VIII. Concerning the supposed Liberty of the Will, as opposite to all Necessity.SECTION IX. Of the Connexion of the Acts of the Will with the Dictates of the Understanding.SECTION X. Volition necessarily connected with the influence of Motives; with particular observations of the great inconsistence of Mr. Chubb's assertions and reasonings about the Freedom of the Will.SECTION XI. The evidence of God's certain Foreknowledge of the Volitions of moral Agents.SECTION XII. God's certain Foreknowledge of the future volitions of moral agents, inconsistent with such a Contingence of those violations as is without all Necessity.SECTION XIII. Whether we suppose the volitions of moral Agents to be connected with any thing antecedent, or not, yet they must be necessary in such a sense as to overthrow Arminian Liberty.SECTION I. God's moral Excellency necessary, yet virtuous and praise-worthy.SECTION II. The Acts of the Will of the human soul of Jesus Christ, necessarily holy, yet truly virtuous, praise-worthy, rewardable, &c.SECTION III. The case of such as are given up of God to sin, and of fallen man in general, proves moral Necessity and Inability to be consistent with Blameworthiness.SECTION IV. Command and Obligation of Obedience, consistent with moral Inability to obey.SECTION V. That Sincerity of Desires and Endeavours, which is supposed to excuse in the non-performance of things in themselves good, particularly considered.SECTION VI. Liberty of Indifference, not only not necessary to Virtue, but utterly inconsistent with it; and all, either virtuous or vicious habits or inclinations, inconsistent with Arminian notions of Liberty and moral Agency.SECTION VII. Arminian notions of moral Agency inconsistent with all influence of Motive and Inducement, in either virtuous or vicious actions.SECTION I. The Essence of the virtue and vice of dispositions of the heart, and acts of the Will, lies not in their Cause, but their Nature.SECTION II. The Falseness and Inconsistence of that metaphysical notion of Action, and Agency, which seems to be generally entertained by the defenders of the Arminian Doctrine concerning Liberty, moral Agency, &c.SECTION III. The reasons why some think it contrary to common Sense, to suppose those things which are necessary to be worthy of either Praise or Blame.SECTION IV. It is agreeable to common sense, and the natural notions of mankind, to suppose moral Necessity to be consistent with Praise and Blame, Reward and Punishment.SECTION V. Objections, that this scheme of Necessity renders all Means and Endeavours for avoiding Sin, or obtaining Virtue and Holiness, vain, and to no purpose; and that it makes men no more than mere machines, in affairs of morality and religion, answered.SECTION VI. Concerning that objection against the doctrine which has been maintained, that it agrees with the Stoical doctrine of Fate, and the opinions of Mr. Hobbes.SECTION VII. Concerning the Necessity of the Divine Will.SECTION VIII. Some further objections against the moral Necessity of God's Volitions considered.SECTION IX. Concerning that objection against the doctrine which has been maintained, that it makes God the Author of Sin.SECTION X. Concerning sin's first Entrance into the world.SECTION XI. Of a supposed Inconsistence between these principles and God's moral character.SECTION XII. Of a supposed tendency of these principles to Atheism and Licentiousness.SECTION XIII. Concerning that objection against the reasoning, by which the Calvinistic doctrine is supposed, that it is metaphysical and abstruse.SECTION XIV. The Conclusion.SECTION XV. Containing Remarks on the Essays on the Principles of Morality and Natural Religion, in a Letter to a Minister of the Church of Scotland.Preface.Introduction—Explanation of terms.SECTION I. The general dictates of reason.SECTION II. What reason supposes.SECTION III. How God regards himself.SECTION IV. Some objections considered.SECTION I. Scripture makes God his last end.SECTION II. Concerning a just method of arguing.SECTION III. Particular texts of Scripture.SECTION IV. God created the world for his name, &c.SECTION V. Communication of good to the creature.SECTION VI. What is meant by the glory of God, &c.SECTION VII. God's last end is but one.CHAPTER I. Concerning the essence of true virtue.CHAPTER II. How love respects different beings.CHAPTER III. Concerning the secondary beauty.CHAPTER IV. Of self-love and its influence.CHAPTER V. Natural conscience, and the moral sense.CHAPTER VI. Of particular instincts of natureCHAPTER VII. The reasons of many mistakesCHAPTER VIII. Whether virtue be founded in sentiment.VII. The great christian doctrine of original sin defended.Advertisement, containing a brief account of this book and its author, by the first editor.The author's Preface.SECTION I. All men tend to sin and ruin.SECTION II. Universal sin proves a sinful propensity.SECTION III. This tendency most corrupt and pernicious.SECTION IV. All men sin immediately, &c.SECTION V. All have more sin than virtue.SECTION VI. Men's proneness to extreme stupidity, &c.SECTION VII. Generality of mankind, wicked.SECTION VIII. Great means used to oppose wickedness.SECTION IX. Several evasions considered.CHAPTER II. Arguments from universal Mortality.SECTION I. Concerning Adam's original righteousness.SECTION II. Death threatened to our first parents.SECTION III. Adam a federal head, &c.CHAPTER II. Observations on Texts, chiefly of the Old Testament, &c.SECTION I. Observations on John iii.6.SECTION II. Observations on Rom. iii. 9-24.SECTION III. Observations on Rom. v. 6-10. and Eph. ii. 3SECTION I. Remarks on Dr. Taylor's way of explaining this text.SECTION II. The true scope of Rom. v. 12, &c.CHAPTER I. Proofs from Redemption by Christ.CHAPTER II. Proof from Application of Redemption.PART IV. Containing Answers to Objections.CHAPTER II. God not the Author of Sin.CHAPTER III. The Imputation of Adam's Sin stated.CHAPTER IV. Several other Objections answered.VIII. A TREATISE CONCERNING RELIGIOUS AFFECTIONS, IN THREE PARTS.PrefaceSECTION I. Previous remarks on the affections.SECTION II. True religion lies much in affections.SECTION III. Inferences from the doctrine.PART II. Showing what are no certain Signs that Religious Affections are truly gracious, or that they are not.SECTION I. Raised very high, are no sign.SECTION II. Great effects on the body, are no sign.SECTION III. Fluency and fervour, are no sign.SECTION IV. That they are not excited by us, is no sign.SECTION V. That they come with texts of Scripture, is no sign.SECTION IV. That they are not excited by us, is no sign.SECTION VII. Religious affections of many kinds, are no sign.SECTION VIII. Joys following in a certain order, are no sign.SECTION IX. Much time and zeal in duty, are no sign.SECTION X. Much expression of praise, is no sign.SECTION XI. Great confidence, is no certain sign.SECTION XII. Affecting relations, are no sign.Introductory remarks.SECTION I. Gracious affections are from divine influence. · Part 1SECTION I. Gracious affections are from divine influence. · Part 2SECTION I. Gracious affections are from divine influence. · Part 3SECTION II. Their object is the excellence of divine things.SECTION III. They are founded on the moral excellency of objects.SECTION IV. They arise from divine Illumination.SECTION V. They are attended with a conviction of certainty.SECTION VI. They are attended with evangelical humiliation. · Part 1SECTION VI. They are attended with evangelical humiliation. · Part 2SECTION VI. They are attended with evangelical humiliation. · Part 3SECTION VII. They are attended with a change of nature.SECTION VIII. They beget and promote the temper of Jesus.SECTION IX. Gracious affections soften the heart.SECTION X. They have beautiful symmetry and proportion.SECTION XI. False affections rest satisfied in themselves.SECTION XII. Their fruit is Christian practice.SECTION XIII. Christian practice is the chief sign to others.SECTION XIV. Christian practice is the chief sign to ourselves · Part 1SECTION XIV. Christian practice is the chief sign to ourselves · Part 2SECTION XIV. Christian practice is the chief sign to ourselves · Part 3SECTION XIV. Christian practice is the chief sign to ourselves · Part 4APPENDIX to the Treatise on the Affections.LETTER I. To Mr. Gillespie, in answer to objections.II. To Mr. Gillespie, in answer to further objections.PrefaceSECTION I. A general introductory statement.SECTION II. Manner of conversion various, yet bearing a great analogy. · Part 1SECTION II. Manner of conversion various, yet bearing a great analogy. · Part 2SECTION II. Manner of conversion various, yet bearing a great analogy. · Part 3SECTION III. This work further illustrated in particular instances.Preface.PART I. A glorious Work of God.SECTION I. We should judge of it by its effects.SECTION II. We should judge by Scripture.SECTION III. We should not judge of the whole by a part.SECTION IV. Nature of the work.SECTION V. Nature of the work in a particular instance.SECTION VI. The work glorious.SECTION I. Indifference dangerous.SECTION II. The probability that the latter-day glory will begin in America.SECTION III. The danger of slighting the work.SECTION IV. Obligations of rulers and others to promote the work.PART III. Wherein the zealous Promoters of this Work have been injuriously blamed.PART IV. What things are to be corrected and avoided.SECTION I. Spiritual pride.SECTION II. Wrong principles.SECTION III. Ignorance of inward experiences.SECTION IV. Of censuring professing Christians.SECTION V. Errors relative to lay-exhorting.SECTION VI. Errors relative to singing.PART V. What ought to be done to promote this work.SECTION I. We should remove stumbling blocks.SECTION II. What should be done to advance it.SECTION III. Some things that concern all.XI. INQUIRY CONCERNING QUALIFICATION FOR COMMUNION.Preface by the Author.Preface by the Author's American friends.Advertisement to the Edinburgh edition.PART I. The Question stated and explained.PART II. Reasons for the Negative of the Question.SECTION I. Church members should be visible saints.SECTION II. Profession of religion.SECTION III. Profession should be of real piety.SECTION IV. Reason requires a hearty profession.SECTION V. Christ requires it.SECTION VI. Primitive admissions.SECTION VII. The epistles prove it.SECTION VIII. Members united by brotherly love.SECTION IX. Qualifications for the Lord's supper.OBJ. I. The churchy is the school of Christ.OBJ. II. Israel was God's people.OBJ. III. Jews partook of the Passover.OBJ. IV. John's disciples made no profession of piety.OBJ. V. Many are called, but few chosen.OBJ. VI. Wheat and tares grow together.OBJ. VII. Case of Judas.OBJ. VIII. No certain rule given.OBJ. IX. If grace be required, it must be known.OBJ. X. Perplexity occasioned.OBJ. XI. All duties of worship holy.OBJ. XII. Tendency of the Lord's supper.OBJ. XIII. God does not require impossibilities.OBJ. XIV. Unsanctified persons may live as saints.OBJ. XV. Better admit hypocrites than exclude saints.OBJ. XVI. Hypocrites will be admitted.OBJ. XVII. True saints doubt of their state.OBJ. XVIII. Men's opinion of themselves no criterion.OBJ. XIX Infant baptism.OBJ. XX. Some have been converted at the sacrament.Appendix. Mr. Foxcroft's letter.XII. MISREPRESENTATIONS CORRECTED AND TRUTH VINDICATED, IN REPLY TO THE REV. SOLOMON WILLIAMS.Preface.SECTION I. What is the question?SECTION II. Degrees of evidence.SECTION I. His concessions.SECTION II. Consequences.SECTION III. Of ungodly men's communing.SECTION IV. Of an indeterminate profession.SECTION V. Mr. W. inconsistent with Mr. Stoddard.SECTION VI. Visibility without probability.SECTION VII. A converting ordinance.SECTION VIII. Of sincerity.SECTION IX. Public covenanting.SECTION I. Method of disputing.SECTION II. Misrepresentations.SECTION III. Irrelevant arguments.SECTION IV. Extraordinary notions.SECTION V. Assertions instead of arguments.SECTION VI. Sacramental actions.SECTION VII. Begging the question.SECTION VIII. Mr. W. begs the question.SECTION IX. Mr. W. is inconsistent with himself.SECTION X. Other inconsistencies.SECTION XI. Arguments hostile to both sidesSECTION XII. The passover and circumcision.SECTION XIII. Of Judas's communicating.SECTION XIV. Of being born in covenant.SECTION XV. Of coming without a known right.SECTION XVI. Tendency to perplexity.SECTION XVII. Of commanding to partake.Appendix. A letter to the people of Northampton.Preface.Advertisement.General Introduction.PERIOD I. From the Fall to the Incarnation.PART I. From the Fall to the Flood.PART II. From the Flood to the calling of Abraham.PART III. From Abraham to Moses.PART IV. From Moses to David.PART V. From David to the Babylonish Captivity. · Part 1PART V. From David to the Babylonish Captivity. · Part 2PART V. From David to the Babylonish Captivity. · Part 3PART VI. From the Captivity to Christ. · Part 1PART VI. From the Captivity to Christ. · Part 2PART VI. From the Captivity to Christ. · Part 3PART VII. Improvement of the First PERIOD.PERIOD II. From Christ's Incarnation to his Resurrection.PART I. Of Christ's Incarnation.PART II. The Purchase of Redemption.PART III. Improvement of the Second PERIOD.PERIOD III. From Christ's Resurrection the End of the World.SECTION I. Scriptural Representations of this PERIOD.SECTION II. How Christ was capacitated for effecting his Purpose.SECTION III. Established Means of Success.SECTION IV. How the Success was carried on.PART I. To the Destruction of Jerusalem.PART II. To the Time of Constantine.PART III. To the Rise of Antichrist.PART IV. To the Reformation.PART V. To the present Time.PART VI. Improvement of past Events.PART VII. To the Fall of Antichrist.PART VIII. To the End of Time.PART IX. The General JudgmentPART X. Improvement of the Whole.XIV Five discourses on the soul's eternal salvation.Preface.DISCOURSE. I. Justification by Faith alone. · Part 1DISCOURSE. I. Justification by Faith alone. · Part 2DISCOURSE. I. Justification by Faith alone. · Part 3DISCOURSE. I. Justification by Faith alone. · Part 4DISCOURSE. I. Justification by Faith alone. · Part 5DISCOURSE. I. Justification by Faith alone. · Part 6DISCOURSE. I. Justification by Faith alone. · Part 7DISCOURSE. I. Justification by Faith alone. · Part 8DISCOURSE. I. Justification by Faith alone. · Part 9DISCOURSE. I. Justification by Faith alone. · Part 10DISCOURSE. II. Pressing into the Kingdom of God. · Part 1DISCOURSE. II. Pressing into the Kingdom of God. · Part 2DISCOURSE. II. Pressing into the Kingdom of God. · Part 3DISCOURSE. II. Pressing into the Kingdom of God. · Part 4DISCOURSE. II. Pressing into the Kingdom of God. · Part 5DISCOURSE. II. Pressing into the Kingdom of God. · Part 6DISCOURSE. II. Pressing into the Kingdom of God. · Part 7DISCOURSE. II. Pressing into the Kingdom of God. · Part 8DISCOURSE. II. Pressing into the Kingdom of God. · Part 9DISCOURSE. II. Pressing into the Kingdom of God. · Part 10DISCOURSE. II. Pressing into the Kingdom of God. · Part 1DISCOURSE. II. Pressing into the Kingdom of God. · Part 2DISCOURSE. II. Pressing into the Kingdom of God. · Part 3DISCOURSE. III. RuthDISCOURSE. IV. The Justice of God in the Damnation of Sinners. · Part 1DISCOURSE. IV. The Justice of God in the Damnation of Sinners. · Part 2DISCOURSE. IV. The Justice of God in the Damnation of Sinners. · Part 3DISCOURSE. IV. The Justice of God in the Damnation of Sinners. · Part 4DISCOURSE. V. The Excellency of Jesus Christ. · Part 1DISCOURSE. V. The Excellency of Jesus Christ. · Part 2DISCOURSE. V. The Excellency of Jesus Christ. · Part 3DISCOURSE. V. The Excellency of Jesus Christ. · Part 4XV THEOLOGICAL QUESTIONS.

Jonathan Edwards · 328 of 349

DISCOURSE. II. Pressing into the Kingdom of God. · Part 2

(2.) This relation or union to Christ, whereby Christians are said to be in Christ, (whatever it be,) is the ground of their right to his benefits. This needs no proof; the reason of the thing, at first blush, demonstrates it. It is exceeding evident also by Scripture, 1 John v.12. “He that hath the Son, hath life; and he that hath not the Son, hath not life.” 1 Cor. i.30. “Of him are ye in Christ Jesus, who of God is made unto us–.” First we must be in him, and then he will be made or to us. Eph. i.6. “Who hath made us accepted in the beloved.” Our being in him is the ground or our being accepted. So it is in those unions to which the has thought fit to compare this. The union of the members of the body with the head, is the ground of their partaking of the life of the head; it is the union of the branches to the stock, which is the ground of their partaking of the sap and life of the stock; it is the relation of the wife to the husband, that is the ground of her joint interest in his estate; they are looked upon, in several respects, as one in law. So there is a legal union between Christ and true Christians; so that (as all except Socinians allow) one, in some respects, is accepted for the other by the Supreme Judge.

(3.) And thus it is that faith is the qualification in any person that renders it meet in the sight of God that he should be looked upon as having Christ’s satisfaction and belonging to him, viz. because it is that in him which, on his part, makes up this union between him and Christ. By what has been just now observed, it is a person’s being, according to scripture phrase, in Christ, that is the ground of having his satisfaction and merits belong to him, and a right to the benefits procured thereby. The reason of it is plain; it is easy to see how our having Christ’s merits and benefits belonging to us, following from our having (if I may so speak) Christ himself belonging to us, or our being united to him. And if so, it must also be easy to see how, or in what manner, that in a person, which on his part makes up the union between his soul and Christ, should be the thing on the account of which God looks on it as meet that he should have Christ’s merits belonging to him. It is a very different thing for God to assign to a particular person a right to Christ’s merits and benefits from regard to a qualification in him in this respect, from his doing it for him out of respect to the value or loveliness of that qualification, or as a reward of its excellency.

As there is nobody but what will allow that there is a peculiar relation between Christ and his true disciples, by which they are in some sense in Scripture said to be on; so I suppose there is nobody but what will allow, that there may be something that the true Christ does on his part, whereby he is active in coming into this relation or union; some uniting act, or that which is done towards this union or relation (or whatever any please to call it) on the Christian’s part. Now faith I suppose to be this act.

I do not now pretend to define faith, or to determine precisely how much is contained in it, but only to determine thus much concerning it, viz. That it is that by which the soul, which before was separate and alienated from Christ, unites itself to him, or ceases to be any longer in that state of alienation, and comes into that forementioned union or relation to him; or to use the scripture phrase, it is that by which the soul comes to Christ, and receives him; and this is evident by the Scriptures using these very expressions to signify faith. John vi. 35-39. “He that cometh to me, shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me, shall never thirst. But I said unto you, that ye also have seen me and believe not. All that the Father giveth me, shall come to me; and him that cometh to me, I will in no wise cast out. For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me.” Ver. 40. “And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life; and I will raise him up at the last day.” . Chap. 5.38-40. “Whom he hath sent, him ye believe not. Search the Scriptures, for—they are they which testify of me. And ye will not come unto me, that ye might have life.” Ver. 43, 44. “I am come in my Father’s name, and ye receive me not: if another shall come in his own name, him ye will receive. How can ye believe, which receive honour one of another—?” Chap. i.12. “But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name.” If it be said that these are obscure figures of speech, which, however, they might be well understood of old among those who commonly used such metaphors, are with difficulty understood now. I allow, that the expressions of receiving Christ and coming to Christ, are metaphorical expressions; and if I should allow them to be obscure metaphors, yet thus much at least is certainly plain in them, viz. that faith is that by which those who before were separated, and at a distance from Christ, (that is to say, were not so related and united to him as his people are,) cease to be any longer at such a distance, and come into that relation and nearness; unless they are so unintelligible, that nothing at all can be understood by them.

God does not give those that believe an union with or an interest in the Saviour as a reward for faith, but only because faith is the soul’s active uniting with Christ, or is itself the very act of unition, on their part. God sees it, that in order to an union being established between two intelligent active beings or persons, so as that they should be looked upon as one, there should be the mutual act of both, that each should receive other, as actively joining themselves one to another. God, in requiring this in order to an union with Christ as one of his people, treats men as reasonable creatures, capable of act and choice; and hence sees it fit that they only who are one with Christ by their own act, should be looked upon as one in law. What is real in the union between Christ and his people, is the foundation of what is legal; that is, it is something really in them, and between them, uniting them, that is the ground of the suitableness of their being accounted as one by the Judge. And if there be any act or qualification in believers of that uniting nature, that it is meet on that account the Judge should look upon them and accept them as one, no wonder that upon the account of the same act or qualification, he should accept the satisfaction and merits of the one for the other, as if these were their own satisfaction and merits. This necessarily follows, or rather is implied.

And thus it is that faith , or gives an interest in Christ’s satisfaction and merits, and a right to the benefits procured thereby, viz. as it thus makes Christ and the believer one in the acceptance of the Supreme Judge. It is by faith that we have a title to eternal life, because it is by faith that we have the Son of God, by whom life is. The apostle John in these words, 1 John v.12. “He that hath the Son, hath life,” seems evidently to have respect to those words of Christ of which he gives an account in his gospel, . chap. iii. 36. “He that believeth on the Son, hath everlasting life; and he that believeth not the Son, shall not see life.” And where the Scripture speaks of faith as the soul’s receiving or coming to Christ, it also speaks of this receiving, coming to, or joining with, Christ, as the ground of an interest in his benefits. To as many as received him, “to them gave he power to become the sons of God. ” Ye will not come unto me that ye might have life. ” And there is a wide difference between its being suitable that Christ’s satisfaction and merits should be theirs who believe, because an interest in that satisfaction and merit is a fit reward of faith—or a suitable testimony of God’s respect to the amiableness and excellency of that —and its being suitable that Christ’s satisfaction and merits should be theirs, because Christ and they are so united, that in the eyes of the Judge they may be looked upon and taken as one.

Although, on account of faith in the believer, it is in the sight of God fit and congruous, both that he who believes should be looked upon as in Christ, and also as having an interest in his merits, in the way that has been now explained; yet it appears that this is very wide from a merit of congruity, or indeed any moral congruity at all to either. There is a twofold fitness to a state; I know not how to give them distinguishing names, otherwise than by calling the one a moral, and the other a natural fitness. A person has a moral fitness for a state, when his moral excellency commends him to it, or when his being put into such a good state is but a suitable testimony of regard to the moral excellency, or value, or amiableness of any of his qualifications or acts. A person has a natural fitness for a state, when it appears meet and condecent that he should be in such a state or circumstances, only from the natural concord or agreeableness there is between such qualifications and such circumstances; not because the qualifications are lovely or unlovely, but only because the qualifications and the circumstances are like one another, or do in their nature suit and agree or unite one to another. And it is on this latter account only that God looks on it fit by a natural fitness, that he whose heart sincerely unites itself to Christ as his Saviour, should be looked upon as united to that Saviour, and so having an interest in him; and not from any moral fitness there is between the excellency of such a qualification as faith, and such a glorious blessedness as the having an interest in Christ. God’s bestowing Christ and his benefits on a soul in consequence of faith, out of regard only to the natural concord there is between such a qualification of a soul, and such an union with Christ, and interest in him, makes the case very widely different from what it would be, if he bestowed this from regard to any moral suitableness. For, in the former case, it is only from God’s love of order that he bestows these things on the account of faith; in the latter, God doth it out of love to the of faith itself. God will neither look on Christ’s merits as ours, nor adjudge his benefits to us, till we be in Christ; nor will he look upon us as being in him, without an active unition of our hearts and souls to him; because he is a wise being, and delights in order, and not in confusion, and that things should be together or asunder according to their nature; and his making such a constitution is a testimony of his love of order. Whereas if it were out of regard to any moral fitness or suitableness between faith and such blessedness, it would be a testimony of his love to the act or qualification itself. The one supposes this divine constitution to be a manifestation of God’s regard to the beauty of the act of faith; the other only supposes it to be a manifestation of his regard to the beauty of that order that there is in uniting those things that have a natural agreement, and congruity, and unition of the one with the other. Indeed a moral suitableness or fitness to a state includes a natural; for, if there be a moral suitableness that a person should be in such a state, there is also a natural suitableness; but such a natural suitableness as I have described, by no means necessarily includes a moral.

This is plainly what our divines intend when they say, that faith does not as a work, or a , viz. that it does not as a part of our moral goodness or excellency, or that it does not as man was to have been by the of works, which was, to have a title to eternal life given to him of God, in testimony of his pleasedness with his works, or his regard to the inherent excellency and beauty of his obedience. And this is certainly what the apostle Paul means, when he so much insists upon it, that we are not by works, viz. that we are not by them as good works, or by any goodness, value, or excellency of our works. For the proof of this I shall at present mention but one thing, and that is, the apostle from time to time speaking of our not being by works, as the thing that excludes all boasting, Eph. ii. 9. Rom. iii. 27. and chap iv. 2. Now which way do works give occasion for boasting, but as good? What do men use to boast of, but of something they suppose good or excellent? And on what account to they boast of any thing, but for the supposed excellency that is in it?

From these things we may learn in what manner faith is the only condition of and salvation. For though it be not the only condition, so as alone truly to have the place of a condition in an hypothetical proposition, in which and salvation are the consequent, yet it is the condition of in a manner peculiar to it, and so that nothing else has a parallel influence with it; because faith includes the whole act of unition to Christ as a Saviour. The entire active uniting of the soul, or the whole of what is called coming to Christ, and receiving of him, is called faith in Scripture; and however other things may be no less excellent than faith, yet it is not the nature of any other graces or virtues directly to close with Christ as a , any further than they enter into the constitution of faith, and do belong to its nature.

Thus I have explained my meaning, in asserting it as a doctrine of the gospel, that we are by faith only, without any manner of goodness of our own.

I now proceed,

II. To the proof of it; which I shall endeavour to produce in the following arguments.

First, Such is our case, and the state of things, that neither faith, nor any other qualifications, or act or course of acts, does or can render it suitable that a person should have an interest in the Saviour, and so a title to his benefits, on account of any excellency therein, or any other way, than as something in him may unite him to the Saviour. It is not suitable that God should give fallen man an interest in Christ and his merits, as a testimony of his respect to any thing whatsoever as a loveliness in him; and that because it is not meet, till a sinner is actually , that any thing in him should be accepted of God, as any excellency or amiableness of his person; or that God, by any act, should in any manner or degree testify any pleasedness with him, or favour towards him, on the account of any thing inherent in him: and that for two reasons:

1. The nature of things will not admit of it. And this appears from the infinite guilt that the sinner till is under; which arises from the infinite evil or heinousness of sin. But because that is what some deny, I would therefore first establish that point, and show that sin is a thing that is indeed properly of infinite heinousness; and then show the consequence, that it cannot be suitable, till the sinner is actually , that God should by any act testify pleasedness with or acceptance of any excellency or amiableness of his person.

That the evil and demerit of sin is infinitely great, is most demonstrably evident, because what the evil or of sin consists in, is the violating of an obligation, or doing what we should not do; and therefore by how much the greater the obligation is that is violated, by so much the greater is the of the violation. But certainly our obligation to love or honour any being is great in proportion to the greatness or excellency of that being, or his worthiness to be loved and honoured. We are under greater obligations to love a more lovely being than a less lovely; and if a being be infinitely excellent or lovely, our obligations to love him are therein infinitely great. The matter is so plain, it seems needless to say much about it.

Some have argued exceeding strangely against the infinite evil of sin, from its being committed against an infinite object, that then it may as well be argued, that there is also an infinite value or worthiness in and love to God, because that also has an infinite object; whereas the argument, from parity of reason, will carry it in the reverse. The sin of the creature against God is ill deserving in proportion to the distance there is between God and the creature; the greatness of the object, and the meanness of the subject, aggravates it. But it is the reverse with regard to the worthiness of the respect of the creature to God; it is worthless (and not worthy) in proportion to the meanness of the subject. So much the greater the distance between God and the creature, so much the less is the creature’s respect worthy of God’s notice or regard. The unworthiness of sin or opposition to God rises and is great in proportion to the dignity of the object and inferiority of the subject; but on the contrary, the value of respect rises in proportion to the value of the subject; and that for this plain reason, viz. that the evil of disrespect is in proportion to the obligation that lies upon the subject to the object; which obligation is most evidently increased by the excellency and superiority of the object. But on the contrary, the worthiness of respect to a being is in proportion to the obligation that lies on him who is the object, (or rather the reason he has,) to regard the subject, which certainly is in proportion to the subject’s value or excellency. Sin or disrespect is evil or heinous in proportion to the degree of what it denies in the object, and as it were takes from it, viz. its excellency and worthiness of respect; on the contrary, respect is valuable in proportion to the value of what is given to the object in that respect, which undoubtedly (other things being equal) is great in proportion to the subject’s value, or worthiness of regard; because the subject in giving his respect, can give no more than himself: so far as he gives his respect, he gives himself to the object; and therefore his gift is of greater or lesser value in proportion to the value of himself.

Hence, (by the way,) the love, honour, and obedience of Christ towards God, has infinite value, from the excellency and dignity of the person in whom these qualifications were inherent; and the reason why we needed a person of infinite dignity to obey for us, was because of our infinite comparative meanness, who had disobeyed, whereby our disobedience was infinitely aggravated. We needed one, the worthiness of whose obedience might be answerable to the unworthiness of our disobedience; and therefore needed one who was as great and worthy as we were unworthy.

Another objection (that perhaps may be thought hardly worth mentioning) is, that to suppose sin to be infinitely heinous, is to make all sins equally heinous; for how can any sin be more than infinitely heinous? But all that can be argued hence is, that no sin can be greater with respect to that aggravation, the worthiness of the object against whom it is committed. One sin cannot be more aggravated than another in that respect, because the aggravation of every sin is infinite; but that does not hinder, that some sins may be more heinous than others in other respects: as if we should suppose a cylinder infinitely long, it cannot be greater in that respect, viz. with respect to the length of it; but yet it may be doubled and trebled, and made a thousand-fold more, by the increase of other dimensions. Of sins that are all infinitely heinous, some may be more heinous than others; as well as of divers punishments that are all infinitely dreadful calamities, so that there is no finite calamity, however great, but what is infinitely less dreadful, or more eligible, than any of them, yet some of them may be a thousand times more dreadful than others. A punishment may be infinitely dreadful by reason of the infinite duration of it; and therefore cannot be greater with respect to that aggravation of it, viz. its length of continuance, but yet may be vastly more terrible on other accounts.

Having thus, as I imagine, made it clear, that all sin is infinitely heinous, and consequently that the sinner, before he is , is under infinite guilt in God’s sight; it now remains that I show the consequences, or how it follows from hence, that it is not suitable that God should give the sinner an interest in Christ’s merits, and so a title to his benefits, from regard to any qualifications, or act, or course of acts in him, on the account of any excellency or goodness whatsoever therein, but only as uniting to Christ; or (which fully implies it) that it is not suitable that God, by any act, should, in any manner or degree, testify any acceptance of, or pleasedness with, any thing, as any virtue, or excellency, or any part of loveliness, or valuableness in his person, until he is actually already interested in Christ’s merits. From the premises it follows, that before the sinner is already interested in Christ, and , it is impossible God should have any acceptance of or pleasedness with the person of the sinner, as in any degree lovely in his sight, or indeed less the object of his displeasure and wrath. For, by the supposition, the sinner still remains infinitely guilty in the sight of God; for guilt is not removed but by pardon: but to suppose the sinner already pardoned, is to suppose him already ; which is contrary to the supposition. But if the sinner still remains infinitely guilty in God’s sight, that is the same thing as still to be beheld of God as infinitely the object of his displeasure and wrath, or infinitely hateful in his eyes; and if so, where is any room for any thing in him, to be accepted as some valuableness or acceptableness of him in God’s sight, or for any act of favour of any kind towards him, or any gift whatsoever to him, in testimony of God’s respect to an acceptance of something of him lovely and pleasing? If we should suppose that a sinner could have faith, or some other in his heart, and yet remain separate from Christ; and that he is not looked upon as being in Christ, or having any relation to him, it would not be meet that such true should be accepted of God as any loveliness of his person in the sight of God. If it should be accepted as the loveliness of the person as in some degree lovely to God; but this cannot be consistent with his still remaining under infinite guilt, or infinite unworthiness in God’s sight, which that goodness has no worthiness to balance. While God beholds the man as separate from Christ, he must behold him as he is in himself; and so his goodness cannot be beheld by God, but as taken with his guilt and hatefulness, and as put in the scales with it; an so his goodness is nothing; because there is a finite on the balance against an infinite whose proportion to it is nothing. In such a case, if the man be looked on as he is in himself, the excess of the weight in one scale above another, must be looked upon as the quality of the man. These contraries being beheld together, one takes from another, as one number is subtracted from another; and the man must be looked upon in God’s sight according to the remainder. For here, by the supposition, all acts of or favour, in not the guilt as it is, are excluded, because that supposes a degree of pardon, and that supposes , which is contrary to what is supposed, viz. that the sinner is not already ; and therefore things must be taken strictly as they are; and so the man is still infinitely unworthy and hateful in God’s sight, and he was before, without diminution, because his goodness bears no proportion to his unworthiness, and therefore when taken together is nothing.

Hence may be more clearly seen the force of that expression in the text, of believing on him that the ungodly; for though there is indeed something in man that is really and spiritually good, prior to , yet there is nothing that is accepted as any godliness or excellency of the person, till after . Goodness or loveliness of the person in the acceptance of God, in any degree, is not to be considered as prior but posterior in the order and method of God’s proceeding in this affair. Though a respect to the natural suitableness between such a qualification, and such a state, does go before , yet the acceptance even of faith, as any goodness or loveliness of the believer, follows . The goodness is on the forementioned account justly looked upon as nothing, until the man is ; and therefore the man is respected in , as in himself altogether hateful.–Thus, the nature of things will not admit of a man having an interest given him in the merits or benefits of a Saviour, on the account of any thing as a , or a virtue, or excellency in him.

2. A divine constitution antecedent to that which establishes by a Saviour, (and indeed to any need of a Saviour,) stands in the way of it, viz. that original constitution or law which man was put under; by which constitution or law the sinner is condemned, till he has actually an interest in the Saviour, through whom he is set at liberty from that condemnation. But to suppose that God gives a man an interest in Christ in reward for his or virtue, is inconsistent with his still remaining under condemnation till he has an interest in Christ; because he supposes, that the sinner’s virtue is accepted, and he accepted for it, before he has an interest in Christ; inasmuch as an interest in Christ is given as a reward of his virtue. But the virtue must first be accepted, before it is rewarded, and the man must first be accepted for his virtue, before he is rewarded for it with so great and glorious a reward; for the very notion of a reward, is some good bestowed in testimony of respect to and acceptance of virtue in the person rewarded. It does not consist with the honour of the majesty of the King of heaven and earth, to accept of any thing from a condemned malefactor, condemned by the justice of his own holy law, till that condemnation be removed. And then, such acceptance is inconsistent with, and contradictory to, such remaining condemnation; for the law condemns him that violates it, to be totally rejected and case off by God. But how can a man continue under this condemnation, i.e. continue utterly rejected and case off by God. But how can a man continue under this condemnation, i.e. continue utterly rejected and case off by God, and yet his or virtue be accepted, and he himself accepted on the account of it, so as to have so glorious a reward as an interest in Christ bestowed as a testimony of that acceptance?

I know that the answer will be, that we now are not subject to that constitution which mankind were at first put under; but that God, in mercy to mankind, has abolished that rigorous constitution, and put us under a new law, and introduced a more mild constitution; and that the constitution or law itself not remaining, there is no need of supposing that the condemnation of it remains, to stand in the way of the acceptance of our virtue. And indeed there is no other way of avoiding this difficulty. The condemnation of the law must stand in force against man, till he is actually interested in the Saviour who has satisfied and answered the law, so as effectually to prevent any acceptance of his virtue, either before, or even in order to, such an interest, unless the law or constitution itself be abolished. But the scheme of those modern divines by whom this is maintained, seems to contain a great deal of absurdity and self-contradiction: they hold, that the old law given to Adam, which requires perfect obedience, is entirely repealed, and that instead of it we are put under a new law, which requires no more than imperfect sincere obedience, in compliance with our poor, infirm, impotent circumstances since the fall, whereby we are unable to perform that perfect obedience that was required by the first law; for they strenuously maintain, that it would be unjust in God to require any thing of us that is beyond our present power and ability to perform; and yet they hold, that Christ died to satisfy for the imperfections of our obedience, that so our imperfect obedience might be accepted instead of perfect. Now, how can these things hang together? I would ask, What law these imperfections of our obedience are a breach of? If they are not a breach of no law, then they are not sins; and if they be not sins, what need of Christ’s dying to satisfy for them? but if they are sins, and so the breach of some law, what law is it? They cannot be a breach of their new law, for that requires no other than imperfect obedience, or obedience with imperfections; and they cannot be a breach of the old law, for that they say is entirely abolished, and we never were under it; and we cannot break a law that we never were under. They say it would not be just in God to exact of us perfect obedience, because it would not be just in God to require more of us than we can perform in our present state, and to punish us for failing of it; and therefore, by their own scheme, the imperfections of our obedience do not deserve to be punished. What need therefore of Christ’s dying to satisfy for them? What need of Christ’s suffering to satisfy for that which is no fault, and in its own nature deserves no suffering? What need of Christ’s dying to purchase that our imperfect obedience should be accepted, when according to their scheme it would be unjust in itself that any other obedience than imperfect should be required? What need of Christ’s dying to make way for God’s accepting such an obedience, as it would in itself be unjust in him not to accept? Is there any need of Christ’s dying to persuade God not to do unjustly? If it be said, that Christ died to satisfy that law for us, that so we might not be under that law, but might be delivered from it, that so there might be room for us to be under a more mild law; still I would inquire, What need of Christ’s dying that we might not be under a law that (according to their scheme) it would in itself be unjust that we should be under, because in our present state we are not able to keep it? What need of Christ’s dying that we might not be under a law that it would be unjust that we should be under, whether Christ died or no?