cause it was true, compared with the ancient prophecies.-To found virtue in acting agreeably to Conscience, or Moral Sense, justifies the persecutions of christians by Saul of Tarsus, as well as a great proportion of heathenish idolatry.-If we found virtue in the Will of God, the question arises, Whether the will of God be our rule, because it is in fact what it is, wise, good and benevolent; or whether it be our rule, merely because it is his will, without any consideration of its nature and tendency: and whether it would be a rule equally binding, as to observance, if it were foolish and malicious. Mr. Edwards teaches, that virtue consists in Benevolence. He proves that every voluntary action, which, in its general tendency and ultimate consequence, leads to happiness, is virtuous; and that every such action, which has not this tendency, and does not lead to this consequence, is vicious. By happiness, in this case, he does not mean the happiness of the agent only, or principally, but happiness in general, happiness on the large scale. Virtuous or holy benevolence embraces both the agent himself and others-all intelligences, wherever found, who are capable of a rational and moral blessedness. All actions, proceeding from such a principle, he holds to be fit, or agreeable to the fitness of thingsagreeable equally to reason, and, to a well-informed conscience, or moral sense, and to moral truth;-and agreeable especially to the will of God, who "is Love," or Benevolence.-In this scheme of virtue or holiness, Mr. Edwards appears to have been original. Much indeed had been said, by most moral writers, in favour of benevolence. Many things they had published, which imply, in their consequences, Mr. Edwards' scheme of virtue. But no one before him had traced these consequences to their proper issue. No one had formed a system of virtue, and of morals, built on that foundation.

"4. Mr. Edwards has thrown much light on the enquiry concerning The Origin of Moral Evil. This question, comprehending the influence, which the Deity had in the event of moral evil, has always been esteemed most difficult and intricate. That God is the author of sin, has been constantly objected to the Calvinists, as the consequence of their principles, by their opponents. To avoid this objection, some have holden that God is the author of the sinful act, which the sinner commits, but that the sinner himself is the author of its sinfulness. But how we shall abstract the sinfulness of a malicious act from the malicious act itself; and how God can be the author of a malicious act, and not be the author of the malice, which is the sinfulness of that act; is hard to be conceived. Mr. Edwards rejects, with abhorrence, the idea that God either is, or can be, the agent, or actor, of sin. He illustrates and explains this difficult subject, by showing that God may dispose things in such a manner, that sin will certainly take place in conse

VOL. I.

78

quence of such a disposal. In maintaining this, he only adheres to his own important doctrine of moral necessity. The divine disposal, by which sin certainly comes into existence, is only establishing a certainty of its future existence. If that certainty, which is no other than moral necessity, be not inconsistent with human liberty; then surely the cause of that certainty, which is no other than the divine disposal, cannot be inconsistent with such liberty.

"5. The followers of Mr. Edwards have thrown new and im→ portant light upon The Doctrine of Atonement. It has been commonly represented, that the atonement which Christ made was the payment of a debt, due from his people. By this payment, they were purchased from slavery and condemnation. Hence arose this question,-If the sinner's debt be paid, how does it appear that there is any pardon or grace in his deliverance?The followers of Mr. Edwards have proved, that the atonement does not consist in the payment of a debt, properly so called. It consists rather in doing that, which, for the purpose of establishing the authority of the divine law, and of supporting in due tone the divine government, is equivalent to the punishment of the sinner according to the letter of the law. Now, therefore, God, without the prostration of his authority and government, can pardon and save those who believe. As what was done to support the divine government, was not done by the sinner, so it does not at all diminish the free grace of his pardon and salvation.*

"6. With respect to The Imputation of Adam's Sin, and The Imputation of Christ's Righteousness, they have made similar improvements.-The common doctrine had been, that Adam's sin is so transferred to his posterity, that it properly becomes their sin. The righteousness of Christ, likewise, is so transferred or made over to the believer, that it properly becomes his righteousness. To the believer it is reckoned in the divine account.-On this the question arises, How can the righteousness or good conduct of one person be the righteousness or good conduct of another. If in truth, it cannot be the conduct of that other; how can God, who is Omniscient, and cannot mistake, reckon, judge or think, it to be the conduct of that other?--The followers of Mr. Edwards find relief from this difficulty, by proving that to impute righteousness, is in the language of Scripture to justify; and that, to impute the righteousness of Christ, is to justify on account of Christ's righteousness. The imputation of righteousness can, therefore, be

*The three Sermons of Dr. Edwards, on the Atonement, are the foundation of all that has hitherto appeared, in the explanation of these longcontested and obscure, but now established, points.

no transfer of righteousness. They are the beneficial consequences of righteousness, which are transferred. Not therefore the righteousness of Christ itself, but its beneficial consequences and advantages, are transferred to the believer.-In the same manner they reason with respect to the imputation of Adam's Sin. The baleful consequences of Adam's sin, which came upon himself, came also upon his posterity. These consequences were, that, after his first transgression, God left him to a habitual disposition to sin, to a series of actual transgressions, and to a liableness to the curse of the law, denounced against such transgression.-The same consequences took place with regard to Adam's posterity. By di vine constitution, they, as descending from Adam, become like himself, the subjects of a habitual disposition to sin. This disposition is commonly called original depravity. Under its influence they sin, as soon as, in a moral point of view, they act at all. This depravity, this disposition to sin, leads them naturally to a series of actual transgressions, and exposes them to the whole curse of the law. On this subject Two Questions have been much agitated in the christian world:-1. Do the posterity of Adam, unless saved by Christ, suffer final damnation on account of Adam's sin?—and, if this be asserted, how can it be reconciled with justice?-2. How shall we reconcile it with justice, that Adam's posterity should be doomed, in consequence of his sin, to come into the world, with a habitual disposition themselves to sin?-On the former of these questions, the common doctrine has been, that Adam's posterity, unless saved by Christ, are damned on account of Adam's sin, and that this is just, because his sin is imputed or transferred to them. By imputation, his sin becomes their sin. When the justice of such a transfer is demanded, it is said that the constitution, which God has established, makes the transfer just. To this it may be replied, that in the same way it may be proved to be just, to damn a man without any sin at all, either personal or imputed. We need only resolve it into a sovereign constitution of God. From this difficulty the followers of Mr. Edwards relieve themselves, by holding that, though Adam was so constituted the federal head of his posterity, that in consequence of his sin they all sin or become sinners, yet they are damned on account of their own personal sin merely, and not on account of Adam's sin, as though they were individually guilty of his identical transgression. This leads us to the second question stated above:-viz. How shall we reconcile it with perfect justice, that Adam's posterity, should, by a divine constitution be depraved and sinful, or become sinners, in consequence of Adam's apostacy?-But this question involves no difficulty, beside that, which attends the doctrine of Divine Decrees. And this is satisfactory; because for God to decree that an event shall take place, is, in other words, the same thing as, if he make a constitution, under the operation of which that event shall take

place. If God has decreed whatever comes to pass, he decreed the fall of Adam. It is obvious that, in equal consistency with justice, he may decree any other sin. Consequently he may decree that every man shall sin; and this too, as soon as he shall become capable of moral action. Now if God could, consistently with justice, establish, decree, or make a constitution, according to which this depravity, this sinfulness of disposition should exist, without any respect to Adam's sin, he might evidently, with the same justice, decree that it should take place in consequence of Adam's sin. If God might consistently with justice decree, that the Jews should crucify Christ, without the treachery of Judas preceding, he might with the same justice decree, that they should do the same evil deed, in consequence of that treachery. Thus the whole difficulty, attending the connection between Adam and his posterity, is resolved into the doctrine of the divine decrees; and the followers of Mr. Edwards feel themselves placed upon strong ground-ground upon which they are willing, at any time, to meet their opponents.-They conceive, furthermore, that, by resolving several complicated difficulties into one simple vindicable principle, a very considerable improvement is made in theology. Since the discovery and elucidation of the distinction, between natural and moral necessity, and inability; and since the effectual confutation of that doctrine, which founds moral liberty on self-determination; they do not feel themselves pressed with the objections, which are made to divine and absolute decrees.

"7. With respect to The State of the Unregenerate, The Use of Means, and The Exhortations, which ought to be addressed to the Impenitent, the disciples of Mr. Edwards, founding themselves on the great principles of Moral Agency established in the Freedom of the Will, have since his day made considerable improvement in Theology.-This improvement was chiefly occasioned by the writing of ROBERT SANDEMAN, a Scotchman, which were published after the death of Mr. Edwards. Sandeman, in the most striking colours, pointed out the inconsistency of the popular preachers, as he called them; by whom he meant Calvinistic divines in general. He proved them inconsistent, in teaching that the unregenerate are, by total depravity, "dead in trespasses and sins," and yet supposing that such sinners do often attain those sincere desires, make those sincere resolutions, and offer those sincere prayers, which are well pleasing in the sight of God, and which are the sure presages of renewing grace and salvation. He argued, that, if the unregenerate be dead in sin, then all that they do must be sin; and that sin can never be pleasing and acceptable to God. Hence he taught, not only that all the exercises and strivings of the unregenerate are abominable in the Divine view, but that there is no more likelihood, in consequence of their

strictest attendance on the means of grace, that they will become partakers of salvation, than there would be in the total neglect of those means. These sentiments were entirely new. As soon as they were published, they gave a prodigious shock to all serious men, both clergy and laity. The addresses to the unregenerate, which had hitherto consisted chiefly in exhortations to attend on the outward means of grace, and to form such resolutions, and put forth such desires, as all supposed consistent with unregeneracy, were examined. It appearing that such exhortations were addresses to no real spiritual good; many ministers refrained from all exhortations to the unregenerate. The perplexing enquiry with such sinners consequently was- "What then have we to do? All we do is sin. To sin is certainly wrong. We ought therefore to remain still, doing nothing, until God bestow upon us renewing grace. In this state of things, Dr. Hopkins took up the subject. He inquired particularly into the exhortations delivered by the inspired writers. He published several pieces on The character of the Unregenerate; on Using the Means of Grace; and on The Exhortations, which ought to be addressed to the Unregenerate. He clearly showed that, although they are dead in depravity and sin, yet, as this lays them under a mere Moral Inability to the exercise and practice of true holiness, and as such exercise and practice are their unquestionable duty,--to this duty they are to be exhorted. To this duty only, and to those things which imply it, the inspired writers constantly exhort the unregenerate. Every thing short of this duty is sin. Nevertheless, "as faith cometh by hearing," those, who "hear," and attend on the means of grace, even in their unregeneracy, and from natural principles, are more likely than others to become the subjects of Divine grace. The scriptures sufficiently prove, that this is the constitution, which Christ has established. It likewise accords perfectly with experience and observation, both in apostolic and subsequent ages.

"8. Mr. Edwards greatly illustrated The Nature of Experimental Religion. He pointed out, more clearly than had been done before, the distinguishing marks of genuine christian experience, and those religious affections and exercises, which are peculiar to the true christian. The accounts of christian affection and experience, which had before been given, both by American and European writers, were general, indiscriminate and confused. They seldom, if ever, distinguished the exercises of self-love, natural conscience, and other natural principles of the human mind under conviction of divine truth, from those of the new nature, given in regeneration. In other words, they seldom distinguished the exercises of the sinner under the law work, and the joys afterwards often derived from a groundless persuasion of his forgiveness, from those sincere and evangelical affections, which are peculiar to the real convert.