Immediate and progressive divine agency: Jonathan Edwards' rhetoric of history

! ! ! IMMEDIATE AND PROGRESSIVE DIVINE AGENCY: JONATHAN EDWARDS’ RHETORIC OF HISTORY by Juan Sánchez Na zige BA, Uni e si y o Se ille, 2005 MA, Uni e si y o Se ille, 2010 A DISSERTATION Submi ed o he acul y in pa ial ul illmen o he equi emen s o he deg ee o DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY in English and No h Ame ican Li e a u e Concen a ion in Ame ican S udies a he Uni e si y o Se ille Se ille, Spain Ap il 2015 Acknowledgemen s The ollowing disse a ion would ne e ha e been comple ed wi hou he con inued encou agemen and in aluable help o p o esso Ramón Espejo Rome o. He has been ins umen al (p o iden ial, i I may pu i in mo e Edwa dsean e ms) in b inging abou he inal esul in mo e ways han he ‘me e’ e ision and co ec ion o he ex . I was h ough a schola ship o e ed by he depa men he is cu en ly he Di ec o o ha I was able o come o he Uni ed S a es, whe e I ha e ound he ime and inspi a ion o inish my eadings and disse a ion w i ing. Had D . Espejo no p omp ed me o go o he ‘Ame ican expe ience’, I p obably would ne e ha e inished he ollowing s udy. I ce ainly would no ha e been able o include o consul many o he wo ks ( ecen schola ly s udies on Jona han Edwa ds, old le e s and se mons, e c.) ha ha e been made a ailable o me a UNC Chapel Hill, and which now make up wha I belie e is a solid bibliog aphy. My mos g a e ul ecogni ion and special hanks, he e o e, o his excellen p o esso o No h Ame ican li e a u e a he Uni e si y o Se ille, Spain. The lo e and suppo o my wi e h ough he las i e yea s, as I locked mysel away o ead and w i e du ing Ch is mas, Eas e and summe holidays, dese e he deepes hanks. Thank you P iscila o being he kind o woman who makes a man eel blessed. While I ha e endea o ed o gi e bi h o his disse a ion, she has li e ally gone h ough labo and bo n ou beau i ul son. A ound he ime ha he began o ake a keen in e es in ‘wheels’ (one o his i s wo ds in English), I was caugh up in he analysis o he ‘wheel me apho ’ as used by Jona han Edwa ds in he 1739 se mon se ies. Sammy is simply a g ea and angible eminde ha God’s Wo k o Redemp ion is ca ied ou elen lessly om gene a ion o gene a ion, as he wheels o p o idence con inue o ‘go ound and ound’. Finally, au ho s who a e no quo ed o named in he pages below, like John Pipe o J. I. Packe , mus be men ioned and acknowledged as esponsible o my one decade long in e es in he Pu i ans. They ha e sough o b ing Jona han Edwa ds’ wo ks o bea on hei li es, hei p eaching and hei pas o al minis y. They a e consequen ly no quo ed e y o en in schola ly w i ings since hei wo k seems o lie ou side he con ex o academia. Howe e , p esen -day Edwa dsean s udies a e undoub edly indeb ed o hem in mo e ways han we can ell, and such pas o s/ heologians a e p obably mo e deeply imme sed in he essence o wha Jona han Edwa ds w o e and augh han many enowned schola s. Juan Sánchez Na zige Chapel Hill, No h Ca olina May 2015 IMMEDIATE AND PROGRESSIVE DIVINE AGENCY: JONATHAN EDWARDS’ RHETORIC OF HISTORY CONTENTS In oduc ion …………………………………………………………. pp. i-xi • Chap e 1: THE SETTING FOR JONATHAN EDWARDS’ RHETORIC OF HISTORY……………………………………………………….…… pp. 1-41 1. 1. The G ea Awakening ………………………………………….. pp. 1-18 1. 1. a. Re i al o Old Doc ines; Rise o New Mo emen s … p. 2 1. 1. b. Expec a ions and Con o e sy in he Colonies ………. p. 6 1. 1. c. F om Theological Con o e sy o Re olu iona y Implica ions ………………………………………………………… p. 13 1. 2. Jona han Edwa ds: Biog aphical and Con ex ual Keys ………… pp. 19-30 1. 2. a. Edwa ds he Thinke …………………………………. p. 20 1. 2. b. Edwa ds he Con e ……………………………….… p. 24 1. 2. c. Edwa ds he Minis e ……………………………….… p. 26 1. 3. The No hamp on Re i al ……………………………………… pp. 30-41 1. 3. a. Deep Anxie ies Leading o he Heigh o Re i al ……. p. 31 1. 3. b. Decline and he Scene o he Redemp ion Discou se … p. 36 • Chap e 2: RHETORIC OF HISTORY & DIVINE AGENCY ……... pp. 42-136 2. 1. Edwa ds s. Win h op: Lo e, Communi y and His o y ……………………………………………………………….………. p. 43 2. 2. Edwa ds s. Co on: God’s Kingdom on Ea h …...………………………………………………………….………. p. 57 2. 3. Edwa ds s. Shepa d: The Visibili y o God’s Wo k in he Sain s ……………………………………………………………….………. p. 72 2. 4. Edwa ds s. Ma he : The Ope a ions o P o idence in His o y pp. 91-136 2. 4. a. P o idence and Na u e ……………………………….. p. 92 2. 4. b. P o idence and Sac ed His o y ………………………. p. 108 2. 4. c. Wo ldly A ai s, Secula His o y and God’s Absolu e So e eign y ………………………………………………………………… p. 120 • Chap e 3: PROGRESSIVE DIVINE AGENCY: THE RHETORIC OF PIETY …………………………………………………………….. pp. 137-209 3. 1. God’s Building …………………………………………...…. pp. 147-177 3. 1. a. Mo al Decay and he Ruins o Sa an’s Kingdom …………………………………………………………………… p. 147 3. 1. b. The Solid S uc u e o Pie y …………………………………………………………………… p. 156 3. 2 Mode n Science and Mechanics in Na u e………………....…pp. 177-209 3. 2. a. Cyclical His o y and Mechanical P o idence. ………….. p. 178 3. 2. b. Na u e, Na u al Cycles and he Goal o he Uni e se. ….. p. 194 • Chap e 4: IMMEDIATE DIVINE AGENCY: THE RHETORIC OF REVIVAL …………………………………………………….………… pp. 210-247 4. 1. The ‘Hub’ o His o ical P og ess: The Pu chase o Redemp ion ….. p. 211 4. 2. O he Sun’s Dawning and he Spi i ’s Ou pou ings ………..… pp. 216-247 4. 2. a. The Pa adigma ic Case o Pen ecos …………………….. p. 217 4. 2. b. Ancien , Biblical Re i als ………………………………. p. 222 4. 2. c. Re i als Ou side he Sc ip u es: The P o es an Re o ma ion ………………………………………………………………..….. p. 231 • Chap e 5: CONCLUDING REMARKS & FURTHER PERSPECTIVES: EDWARDS AT THE CROSSROADS OF AMERICAN HISTORY …………………………………………………….………… pp. 248-258 Wo ks Ci ed ………………………………………………………… pp. 259-268 ! i IMMEDIATE AND PROGRESSIVE DIVINE AGENCY: JONATHAN EDWARDS’ RHETORIC OF HISTORY INTRODUCTION The esea ch leading o his disse a ion began as an a emp o unde s and he ways in which Pu i anism had a long- e m in luence on colonial Ame ican cul u e. Since Jona han Edwa ds came ac oss as a c i ical and pi o al igu e in Ame ican hough and his o y in se e al majo wo ks by in ellec ual and li e a y his o ians like Pe y Mille o Sac an Be co i ch, I ead h ough Edwa ds’ majo ea ises in sea ch o he easons why he migh ha e been, as i we e, singled ou by such no able au ho s. His skill as a he o ician and logician was clea om he e y beginning al hough i was no un il I ca e ully ead some o his homile ic wo ks (o he han he amous e i al se mon “Sinne s in he Hands o an Ang y God”) ha I s a ed o iew his New England heologian as i s a pas o -p eache , and only seconda ily a philosophe o hinke . In gauging he o a o ical alue o Edwa ds’ ex an se mons one is d awn o analyze his use o me apho ical language, logical a gumen a ion and o he s ylis ic ai s ha may ha e con ibu ed o he impac his pulpi deli e y had du ing he e i als. My speci ic inqui y in o Edwa ds’ his o ical hough and discou se is no unconnec ed o he conside a ion ha he was, i s and o emos , an o a o . Wha la e became an in luen ial book among e angelicals in he Uni ed S a es and ab oad, A His o y o he Wo k o Redemp ion, had i s been concei ed as a se mon se ies ha he No hamp on minis e p eached o his cong ega ion li le be o e he G ea Awakening. This se ies, deli e ed in 1739, was no published in i s o iginal o m un il 1989, when i came ou as olume nine o Yale’s 26- olume edi ion o The Wo ks o Jona han Edwa ds (New Ha en, 1957-2008). ! ii A ew yea s be o e his au ho i a i e edi ion o Edwa ds’ w i ings was comple ed, p o esso A ihu Zakai published Jona han Edwa ds’s Philosophy o His o y: The Reenchan men o he Wo ld in he Age o Enligh enmen (P ince on, 2003). His comp ehensi e analysis o he colonial minis e ’s philosophy o his o y goes beyond he 1739 se ies al hough Zakai does emphasize he impo ance o he 1730s in Edwa ds’ in ellec ual de elopmen , especially as ega ds his “ edemp i e mode o his o ical hough ”. One poin he au ho makes, which de ini i ely de e mined he ajec o y o his s udy, is ha Edwa ds de eloped a “singula he o ic o his o y” du ing he yea s o e i al in New England (275). This disse a ion, he e o e, owes much o Zakai’s wo k (and no jus his one book) and, mo e speci ically, o he insigh s he p o ides ega ding he colonial au ho ’s ision and unde s anding o he his o ical p ocess. Bu since his book ocuses mainly on hough , no discu si e modes, and co e s a wide ange o w i ings, no jus hose deli e ed in he se monic o m, he issue o Edwa ds’ “singula he o ic o his o y” is by no means exhaus ed. I emains o be de e mined how his he o ical o iginali y and his o ical imagina ion we e leshed ou om he No hamp on pulpi in he o a o ical endea o o 1739. Wha cha ac e ized Edwa dsean e i alis ic homile ics du ing he six mon hs de o ed o he exposi ion o sal a ion his o y in pa icula , and du ing he 1730s in gene al? In o de o es ablish wha he dis inguishing ea u es o Edwa ds’ discu si e modes and he o ic exac ly we e when he expounded he his o y o he Wo k o Redemp ion, I i s needed o ha e a g asp o colonial Ame ican his o ical discou se in my au ho ’s li e a y and ideological se ing. The immedia e con ex o his cons uc ion o a singula he o ic o his o y was he G ea Awakening and his apocalyp ic belie ha ! iii God’s kingdom had o be mani es ly se up in he wo ld be o e he inal con lag a ion. Since hese la e elemen s had been p esen in colonial Pu i an heology and discou se o mo e han h ee gene a ions, I chose o compa e Edwa ds’ concep o di ine agency and his ideas abou how God speci ically in e ened in his o y wi h he same ene s in he w i ings o o he ele an colonial Ame ican au ho s (chap e wo). To ca y ou he in ended s udy, some p ima y ex s om he canon o p e-Re olu iona y Ame ican li e a u e we e looked in o in a p elimina y su ey. Such we e he local his o ies o colonial Pu i ans like Co on Ma he , William B ad o d o John Win h op. Likewise, and since se monic li e a u e and o a o y we e o be my main ocus, a wide ange o homile ic ex s had o be su eyed as well. John Win h op’s amous “A Model o Ch is ian Cha i y” p eached on boa d he A bella in 1630 was an ob ious se mon o s a wi h (2. 1. below), and he ex s o o he New England cle ical o a o s such as John Co on, Thomas Shepa d and, again, Co on Ma he ell na u ally in o place as I became amilia wi h hei w i ings and unde s ood hei ele ance and hei ela ion o Edwa ds’ ideological con ex and li e a y ac i i y. The se mons o some o Jona han Edwa ds’ own con empo a ies, like Geo ge Whi e ield, John Wesley o Gilbe Tennen , we e also s udied and aken in o accoun , especially o se he wide scene o e i als in he Ame ican colonies and Eu ope. As o he bibliog aphical s a ing poin o seconda y sou ces, he pe usal o ce ain ‘miles ones’ in connec ion wi h Pu i anism (bo h Eu opean and colonial) and i s cul u al legacy was c ucial. Such we e The New England Mind: The Se en een h Cen u y (Pe y Mille ), The Rise o Pu i anism (William Halle ) o mo e ecen wo ks like The Language o Canaan (Mason Lowance) and The Ri es o Assen (Sac an Be co i ch). O he less well-known bu equally aluable wo ks ha p o ided me ! i wi h he necessa y backg ound in Pu i an pulpi o a o y, escha ology and symbolism we e Ha y S ou ’s The New England Soul, Richa d Bauckham’s Tudo Apocalypse and A ihu Zakai’s Exile and Kingdom. The gene al aims o my doc o al esea ch we e hus a icula ed and he me hod o inqui y, pa ly igge ed and in o med by he ounda ional eadings named abo e, was es ablished along he ollowing lines. The immedia e eligious and social con ex o he G ea Awakening had o be examined closely and Edwa ds’ own li e and p eaching ac i i y explained wi hin he e i al se ing. Thus, his mos au ho i a i e biog aphy, Geo ge Ma sden’s Jona han Edwa ds: A Li e (New Ha en, 2003), and he mos ecen and comp ehensi e s udy o he yea s whe e Edwa ds’ se mon se ies is amed, Thomas Kidd’s The G ea Awakening (New Ha en, 2007), cons i u ed he backbone o he i s chap e o his disse a ion. A he heological and ideological le els, he same could be said abou Ma k Noll’s Ame ica’s God (Ox o d, 2002). Bu as someone who was al eady amilia wi h Edwa ds’ se monic a is y and wi h his 1739 se ies in pa icula , I se ou o dis inc ly iden i y he easons o Jona han Edwa ds’ e ec i e and compelling a icula ion o di ine agency in his o y no jus in he con ex o colonial e i als bu agains he backd op o he Enligh enmen . By analyzing he hi y se mons ha made up Edwa ds’ edemp i e-his o ical exposi ion wi h li e a y c i e ia and in sea ch o discu si e modes and igu a i e pa e ns, his heology o he dei y’s e y essence as well as his philosophy o his o y eme ge in wha is a cohesi e he meneu ic o he sc ip u al God and a symbolic unde s anding o eali y ha , while challenging mode n modes o hough and sligh ly de ia ing om adi ional ones, sh ewdly d aws on bo h o hem. 2 ! socie y, as New England was, and he consequences and wide implica ions i had o he gene a ion o colonial Ame icans ha wi nessed he bi h o he Uni ed S a es. Bo h o hese aspec s may be summed up in Hugh B ogan’s wo ds when he says ha he G ea Awakening no only “sa ed souls, bu i spli chu ches; indeed, i s emphasis on he impo ance o indi idual expe ience may be said o ha e democ a ized Ame ican Religion” (91). In a simila ein, Ca oll and Noble asse ha “a plu alis ic app oach o ma e s o eligion became possible” as a consequence o he “majo in ellec ual wa ” which ollowed he awakening (68). 1. 1. a. Re i al o Old Doc ines; Rise o New Mo emen s. As he e ms ‘awakening’ and ‘ e i al’ a e o en used in e changeably, i may easonably be asked wha i was ha was being e i ed du ing he G ea Awakening. This eligious mo emen was no he esul o he in oduc ion o any o eign doc ine o new ashion bu , a he , i d ew hea ily on Pu i an and Re o ma ion he i age. Whe he Anglican, P esby e ian o Cong ega ional, e i alis p eache s (Jona han Edwa ds among hem) emphasized “ he impo ance o a pe sonally el con e sion expe ience –a ene ha had been cen al o he se en een h-cen u y chu ch in New England” (Ma cus & Sollo s, 82). The awakening was ho oughly Cal inis ic, pa icula ly in New England, as i was ma ked by “ he old Pu i an conce n” wi h sin, he new bi h and “ he necessi y o con e sion” (B ogan, 91). While some his o ians will go no u he han o say ha “[i]n some espec s he G ea Awakening was a e u n o he old belie in sal a ion h ough ai h and God’s sa ing g ace” (Middle on, 263), o he s eckon ha he pe iod o colonial e i als om 1735 o 1745 was “simila o he si ua ion unde he Pu i ans” (Noll, Ame ica’s God, 75). 3 ! A ai ly solid piece o e idence in a o o he opinion ha his was essen ially a edisco e y o se en een h-cen u y Pu i an doc ine and ha e i al p eache s we e no misin e p e ing hei o e a he s’ eaching, o p esen ing i in a biased o inaccu a e manne , is he ac ha he demand o eligious w i ings, pa icula ly Pu i an classics, ose signi ican ly du ing his pe iod. One example will su ice o illus a e his. Following he depa u e o Gilbe Tennen (an in luen ial P esby e ian i ine an p eache om he Middle Colonies), he p ominen Bos on minis e Thomas P ince explained ha The people [ om he Bos on a ea] seemed o ha e a enewed as e o hose old pious and expe imen al w i e s, M . Hooke , Shepa d, Gu nal, William Gu h ie, Joseph Alein, Isaac Amb ose, D . Owen, and o he s […] The e angelical w i ings o hese deceased au ho s, as well as o he s ali e […] we e now ead wi h singula pleasu e; some o hem ep in ed and in g ea numbe s quickly bough and s udied. And he mo e expe imen al ou p eaching was, like hei s, he mo e i was elished. (Gaus ad, 34) Thus, we see ha he con en o hose se mons which so many people swa med o hea was no new doc ine. Ne e heless, he G ea Awakening did become closely linked o he eme gence o new mo emen s. One o hese was Me hodism, which eme ged wi hin he Chu ch o England as a mo emen o spi i ual enewal. Me hodism began o sp ead du ing he decade o he 1730s, p ecisely when he i s signs o e i al in he colonies became appa en . The e m ‘Me hodis ’ was i s applied in Ox o d o he Wesley b o he s, John and Cha les, and o hei ollowe s because o hei holy, disciplined (‘me hodic’) p inciples and li es yle (“Me hodism”). In he p esen s udy, howe e , he igu e we a e mos conce ned wi h is Geo ge Whi e ield. Like he Wesleys, Whi e ield expe ienced a adical con e sion du ing his yea s a Pemb oke College (Ox o d) and placed g ea 4 ! emphasis on holy li ing2 (Dallimo e, I, 70-77). Unlike he Wesleys, hough, he came o s ic ly Cal inis con ic ions. This would be a key ac o o Whi e ield o play such a p ominen ole in he e i al o he colonies, since he es ablished chu ches o New England and he Middle Colonies s ill held as o Cal inism and saw A minianism,3 wi h i s denial o God’s absolu e so e eign y, as a h ea . Whe he i is his o ically accu a e o call Geo ge Whi e ield “The Founde o Me hodism” o no , i is undeniable ha he became he leading igu e o he mo emen in colonial Ame ica and, mos signi ican ly, he in oduced he p ac ice o open-ai i ine an p eaching, la e ollowed by John Wesley (Dallimo e, II, 531). Mo e will be said on he ele ance o he i ine an p eaching s yle below. Re u ning o he issue o ‘old doc ine’ and he no el y o alleged inno a ions o he G ea Awakening, i migh be claimed (as some his o ians ha e) ha since he e was “no se ious declension in eligious belie ” in chu ches in he colonies du ing he yea s p eceding he e i al, only he in oduc ion o new elemen s o o ces can accoun o such social u moil and o he shaking o he eligious es ablishmen , especially in New England. The o he side o he s o y, howe e , is ha he e was an inc easingly complacen and elaxed membe ship in hese chu ches who we e “adop ing a mo e a ional app oach” o Ch is ian ai h and p inciples, which unde mined he essence o belie in a supe na u al ebi h o he soul. As o he cle gy’s ole in he decline o !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 2 Apa om an emphasis on con e sion and he s udy and medi a ion o he Bible, hey p omo ed he doing o good o o phans, sla es and o he dis inc g oups wi hin communi ies. Likewise, “an in ense de o ion o hymnody” was de eloped in Me hodism (Noll, Rise, 64). 3 A minian doc ine was a eac ion agains he de e minis ic implica ions o a Cal inis ic unde s anding o p edes ina ion and i a i med he key ole o ee will in he p ocess o sal a ion. I was named a e he Du ch Re o med heologian Jacobus A minius, whose doc inal legacy was se o h one yea a e his dea h in he ‘Remons ance’ o 1610 (“A minianism”). 5 ! expe ien ial (o ‘hea ’) eligion, hei se mons had la ely become “mo e heo e ical and philosophical in con en ” (Middle on, 262, 263). Fu he mo e, he e had aken place a “ aming” o he so e eign God “as wo gene a ions o Pu i an minis e s had ied o e ade he classic Cal inis dilemmas o en o cing mo al beha io when i could no ea n sal a ion and sa ing men om despai when he e was no ea hly ce ain y o being among he elec ”. The de elopmen o he so-called ‘ ede al heology’4 had come o con ey he idea “ ha God would elec hose who beha ed as hough hey we e sain s” wi hin he communi y. This endency in New England eligious hough had ound a sou ce and a doc inal sanc ion in he adi ion o he ‘p epa a ionis ’ model o con e sion which could be aced back o he Pilg im Fa he s.5 This ein o colonial Pu i anism es ablished a numbe o ‘s eps’ which we e deemed essen ial o eaching he s a us o ue con e and sain . I emphasized he “use o means” ( he p ac ice o mo al du ies) “such as p aye , o dinances [and] since e mo al e o m” so as o imply “ ha God would ewa d hose who p epa ed” (T acy, 25, 204 n. 19). Thus, he way was pa ed o a mo alis ic eligious o malism ha depa ed essen ially om he expe ien ial concep o Ch is ian li ing. This concep emphasized he genuineness o mo i a ions and he ole o he a ec ions in con e sion as well as he need o lead a pious and eligious li e. The e was likewise an in e na ional on whe e pu e Re o med and Pu i an ideals o eligious expe ience we e quickly losing g ound in he i s hal o he !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 4 Rega ding his heological de elopmen in New England and he abo e men ioned implica ion, see Mille , E and, 89-98. 5 Thomas Hooke is he majo i s -gene a ion colonial igu e which ep esen s he beginning o his “depa u e om he expe ien ial adi ion” o Pu i anism (Goen, 4: 12). An in e es ing s udy compa ing his doc ine o spi i ual ‘p epa a ion’ o ha o John Co on is ound in Habegge , “P epa ing he Soul o Ch is : The Con as ing Se mon Fo ms o John Co on and Thomas Hooke ” (1969). 6 ! eigh een h cen u y. Colonial cle gy looked o hei Eu opean b e h en o guidance and new inspi a ion, and in doing so hey ound ( o name one signi ican example) I ish and Sco ish P esby e ians being “in luenced by he sp ead o Enligh enmen opinions ha unde cu he o ce o adi ional Cal inism” (Noll, Rise, 45). Fo he e i alis s o he G ea Awakening, he abandonmen o he dis o ion o sound doc ine we e as deadly o ‘ ue eligion’ as indi e ence owa d o coldness in spi i ual ma e s. Genuine con e sion should no simply be a hea el expe ience, bu had o p oceed om a igh ly in o med mind. Wi hou he backbone o heology, chu chgoe s’ pie y would no low om a godly mo i a ion and eligion could only be expec ed o degene a e in o hypoc isy and o malism. Thus, he main g ie ance b ough o h by e angelical6 p eache s was no in p inciple agains he ecclesias ical es ablishmen i sel o wha i ep esen ed bu , a he , hey iewed hemsel es as igh ing a “ba le agains deadness and o mali y in he chu ches”, whe he on he cle gy’s o he lai y’s pa (Dallimo e, I, 433). 1. 1. b. Expec a ions and Con o e sy in he Colonies. The momen ous a i al in Ame ica o he English Me hodis p eache Geo ge Whi e ield a he end o he yea 1739 may be said o ha e ma ked he beginning o he G ea Awakening. Al hough he e we e some p eache s om he colonies, like Gilbe Tennen o Jona han Edwa ds himsel , who would play no small ole in i ing up he lames o e i al, Whi e ield was undoub edly “ he mos impo an igu e in omen ing !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 6 The way he e m ‘e angelical’ will be used in he p esen s udy basically coincides wi h he de ini ion o “e angelicalism” p o ided by Noll: “The o m o mode n P o es an ism cha ac e ized by a s ess on con e sion, he Bible as sup eme au ho i y, ac i ism mani es especially in e o s o sp ead he Ch is ian message, and a ocus on he c oss as he de ining eali y o Ch is ian ai h” (Ame ica’s God, 564-565).! 7 ! he massi e awakenings o he 1740s” (Kidd, 40). Tens o housands ga he ed a ound he cha isma ic p eache and he e was ha dly any place in he colonies whe e he winds o e i al did no blow. His hunde ing oice, which, acco ding o he es imony o Benjamin F anklin, could each an assembly o no less han 30,000 people ou in he open ai (Dallimo e, I, 439),7 announced he u gen need o he new bi h and exho ed e e yone o lee om eligious o malism as well as om w a h o come. The idea o and he longing o a gene al ‘ e i al o ue eligion’ had been passed down by some key New England igu es o he p e ious gene a ion, like Solomon S odda d o Co on Ma he (Kidd, 8). Al hough Whi e ield, o dained in he Chu ch o England and beginning his p eaching minis y he e, migh seem an “unlikely essel” o he ad ancemen o his expec ed e i al, Jona han Edwa ds and a g ea pa o New England we e willing o look h ough he co up ion ha he Anglican Chu ch was no mally associa ed wi h, o see in his ‘G and I ine an ’8 a di ine ins umen which had been aised up “ o e i e he mys e ious, spi i ual, despised, and exploded doc ines o he gospel” and was “ ull o a spi i o zeal o he p omo ion o eal i al pie y” (Ma sden, A Li e, 204). Expec a ions a Whi e ield’s a i al we e p obably lowe bu also exis ed in o he pa s o colonial Ame ica like New Je sey (whe e he P esby e ian Chu ch, and he e o e Cal inism, was well es ablished), Sou h Ca olina o Geo gia (Kidd, 75). Apa om his p eache ’s undoub ed cha isma and he di ec impac o his se mons (which we e ead by many e en be o e hey had seen o hea d him), a g ea pa o his ou s’ !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 7 A nold Dallimo e e e s o a pe sonal accoun whe e F anklin explained ha hea ing Whi e ield p each li e in he open ai and ca ying ou some es ima es o he adius wi hin which he migh be hea d, “ econciled [him] o he newspape accoun s o his ha ing p eached o wen y- i e housand people in he ields” (I, 439). 8 Geo ge Whi e ield was commonly known by his name (Ma cus & Sollo s, 81). 8 ! success and a ac ion in he colonies was due o newspape publici y and he publica ion o his own jou nals (Kidd, 45, 47). Benjamin F anklin, ha ing no e angelical con ic ions himsel bu seeing he g ea po en ial in he igu e o he G and I ine an and ha ing el he powe o his o a o y, became his admi e and one o his mos coope a i e publishe s. He published a conside able numbe o Whi e ield’s w i ings om his p in ing i m in Philadelphia and es ablished a long- e m pe sonal, as well as inancial, ela ionship wi h him (Noll, Rise, 106). Whi e ield was, like Edwa ds, ho oughly Cal inis ic in his heology and hey bo h helped o e i e “ he old Pu i an conce n wi h he con ic ion o sin, he necessi y o con e sion, and he ce ain y o sal a ion”. I is no exagge a ion o say ha “[s]pec acula esul s we e achie ed” (B ogan, 91). The old message, ne e heless, acqui ed new o ce when p eached “ex empo aneously” (using no se mon no es) and in highly emo ional d ama iza ions like hose o Whi e ield. His se mons we e no jus o al bu isual spec acles (Ma cus & Sollo s, 80). Ha y S ou quo es an ins ance o a memo able p eaching momen as Whi e ield’s ea ly biog aphe , John Gillies, desc ibed i : “See he e!” said he, poin ing o he ligh ning [a hunde s o m was passing nea by], which played on he co ne o he pulpi ─ “’Tis a glance om he ang y eye o Jeho ah! Ha k!” con inued he, aising his inge in a lis ening a i ude, as he dis an hunde g ew loude and loude , and b oke in one emendous c ash o e he building. “I was he oice o he Almigh y as he passed by in his ange !” As he sound died away he co e ed his ace wi h his hands, and knel beside his pulpi […] Rising and poin ing o he beau i ul objec , he exclaimed, “Look upon he ainbow…” Whi e ield’s p eaching me hod, especially his imp o isa ion wi hou no es, “had ne e been p ac iced by Cong ega ional minis e s o augh a he colleges” (S ou , Soul, 190- 9 ! 192). The impac and in luence o he new homile ic me hod may be summed up in Ma k Noll’s wo ds: Fo h igh p eaching o epen ance, he edemp i e wo k o Ch is , he necessi y o ai h and he p i ileges o holy li ing we e Whi e ield’s se monic s ock in ade. Bu because he usually dispensed wi h a w i en-ou se mon ex , because he p eached in en ionally o emo ional as well as in ellec ual e ec , and because he called on indi iduals o espond as indi iduals o his message, hese ai s also became cha ac e is ic o e angelical p eaching in gene al. (Rise, 132; au ho ’s i alics) I was impossible o anyone in a socie y so eligious as New England’s o emain neu al be o e such powe ul and compelling p eaching. Al hough con o e sy would comple ely ake o e owa ds he end o he G ea Awakening, he e was an o e whelming majo i y who welcomed he esh message deli e ed by i ine an p eache s and nume ous local minis e s a o ed he mo emen . The con en o wha was p eached om New England pulpi s and he longings o cong ega ions we e pe asi ely a ec ed by he a i al o Whi e ield be o e bi e dispu es began o ea he Cong ega ional es ablishmen apa . Unde he in luence o Whi e ield, “weekday lec u es and sabba h se mons we e gi en o e en i ely o he subjec o he new bi h”. E en in Bos on, whe e eligious o malism migh be expec ed o ha e aken deepe oo , he e was a demand o “a ec i e p eaching” (S ou , Soul, 195, 196). While some ha e assumed ha e i alis p eache s we e “pa icula ly e ec i e in eaching people in ulne able places” (Ca oll & Noble, 67), Edwin Gaus ad seems o ha e p o ided enough e idence o p o e ha a leas in New England he awakening “knew no bounda ies, social o geog aphical, ha i was bo h u ban and 10 ! u al, and ha i eached bo h lowe and uppe classes” (42).9 Fu he mo e, he e was a conside able inc ease in he numbe o communican s in chu ches h oughou he land, young people being he mos hea ily ep esen ed g oup (S ou , Soul, 197). Whe he he eligious mo emen be conside ed as a “pou ing ou o he Spi i o God” o a phenomenon whe e “mul i udes we e se iously, sobe ly and solemnly ou o hei wi s” (Gaus ad, 135), he G ea Awakening had an as ounding in luence on colonial spi i ual li e a leas du ing he ea ly 1740s. The le el o expec a ion and he gene al welcome o news and symp oms o e i al on he pa o minis e s and cong ega ions a o ed his ea ly success. Those minis e s who we e in a o o e i al and agains he d y in ellec ualism o Ha a d and Yale began o be labeled “New Ligh s”.10 The adi ionalis Cong ega ional cle gy o New England, who (in p inciple) we e also Cal inis s, came o be called “Old Ligh s” in opposi ion o he incipien doc inal school, and ad oca ed o a mo e a ionalis ic in e p e a ion o he Sc ip u es. The la e ca ica u ed he o me as “en husias s” and we e, in u n, accused o being spi i ually dead and “uncon e ed” (S ou , Soul, 194, 199). The ollowing gene a ion o Ame icans would wi ness bo h he “sha e ing o he Cong ega ional es ablishmen in New England” (Goen, Re i alism, ix) as many chu ches u ned Uni a ian o A minian and he numbe and size o cong ega ions waned no ably in ela i e e ms, and he d ama ic expansion o hose denomina ions which we e imbued wi h he heology o he e i alis , New Di ini y !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 9 Fo a de ailed su ey o he e i al’s ex en , see he whole chap e en i led “The Flood, 1741-1742” (Gaus ad, 42- 60). Richa d Middle on (264, 265) p o ides a bibliog aphical no e (n. 6) on he a ious pe spec i es which ha e exis ed ega ding he possible socio-economic causes behind he e i al’s success and opposi ion. 10 Fo a b ie explana ion o he mo emen and i s link o Edwa ds and o e i alism in gene al, see Ma sden, “Biog aphy”, 27-28 and Sweeney, “E angelical T adi ion in Ame ica”, 218-220. 11 ! school.11 This mo emen would become associa ed wi h esis ance o B i ish ule du ing he e olu iona y age as eligious sen imen and ideals pe mea ed he poli ics o independen s and pa io s (S ou , Soul, 263, 286).12 Bu he seed o a heology “o , by and o he people” (Noll, Ame ica’s God, 145), and he e o e he idea o a God who was close o indi iduals han o ins i u ions o s uc u es, had been sown du ing he awakening o he 1740s. The issue o how and whe e he p eaching o he Wo d was o ake place, and (mos impo an ly) who had he au ho i y o pe o m i , soon became a cause o di ision among p o- e i al cle gy. Old ligh s used he ac ha “lay exho e s” we e being encou aged o p each by some e i alis s o a ack he mo emen as a whole and lay o wa d accusa ions o bo h social and ecclesias ical “g ea diso de ” (S ou , Soul, 204). Since many se led minis e s who looked a o ably upon he awakening hough ha ha ing lay Ch is ians p each he gospel au ho i a i ely was a h ea o hei posi ion and ole in socie y, he uni y o he p o- e i alis pa y s a ed o b eak down (S ou , Soul, 198). Jona han Edwa ds was one o hose mode a es who, while essen ially suppo ing he e i al, could no app o e o un ained lai y being sen ou o minis e he Wo d o mul i udes o e en o small ‘socie ies’.13 !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 11 Figu es showing he ela i e decline o he Cong ega ional Chu ch and he no able g ow h o e angelical chu ches a e ound in Noll, Ame ica´s God, 162-169. 12 Fo u he analysis o he di e en ways in which he New Di ini y mo emen and pa io ism du ing he Re olu ion we e linked in New England, see Webe , Rhe o ic and His o y. A mo e gene al bu equally aluable discussion is ound in Be co i ch, Je emiad, 93-131. 13 Edwa ds, ne e heless, had been one o he i s minis e s in New England o encou age eligious mee ings apa om he es ablished Sabba h se ices and weekday lec u es, especially among he you h. Ye , i p obably seemed igh o Edwa ds ha such mee ings o “social eligion” should ake place only because i had been him who “p oposed i o he young people”. Unde he minis e ’s supe ision and sanc ioned by him, i was “acco dingly 18 ! deli e ance om bo h human and spi i ual sla e y) e lec ed on he “Impa ial Sa iou ” she had hea d he Me hodis i ine an p each abou in and ou o season. I God’s Wo d was ue, his sa io would make “sons and kings, and P ies s o God” (51) ou o A ican- as well as Anglo-Ame icans. I was only na u al ha Whea ley’s epublican odes, composed du ing he Re olu ion, should be b imming wi h commonplace e angelical doc ines, like Ch is ’s a onemen on he c oss o e e nal punishmen , as well as wi h he hemes o eedom and libe y (Noll, Ame ica’s God, 147). Thus, pe sonal and collec i e eligious expe ience du ing he e i al o he 1740s and New Ligh ( e i alis ) heology became a signi ican con ibu ion o change h ough he mani old social and ideological ami ica ions o he G ea Awakening. The ole and place o he G ea Awakening in he his o y o Ame ican hough also dese es a b ie commen a his poin . Ma k Noll conside s Jona han Edwa ds and he Anglican minis e Samuel Johnson o be “Ame ica’s wo mos impo an Ch is ian hinke s a midcen u y” (Ame ica’s God, 102). Edwa ds, he e o e, s ands as he o emos ep esen a i e o he e en ual in ellec ual and philosophical de elopmen s associa ed wi h he e i al, which Noll’s wo ds succinc ly desc ibe: A g ea social ans o ma ion lay behind he shi in e hical axioms. Tha shi began in he eligious and domes ic ci cums ances o he 1730s and 1740s be o e i ook poli ical shape a gene a ion la e . The colonial e i alis s, who we e conse a i e in doc ine, none heless helped c ea e he social condi ions in which a new in ellec ual pe spec i e could lou ish. The e i al comp omised he adi ional impo ance o inhe i ed s uc u es by placing mo e emphasis on he indi idual’s ecep ion o God’s g ace han on he indi idual’s place in an inhe i ed ecclesias ical o de . I s ideal o he pu e chu ch has ened a sec a ian agmen a ion o he adi ionally inclusi e s a e chu ches. I s 19 ! e en millennialism encou aged a nega i e opinion o he heological pas . (Ame ica’s God, 106) The la e aspec (i.e., e i alis millennialism) will be gi en special a en ion in due cou se and is pa icula ly ele an o his s udy as i is closely linked o he issue o ‘his o y’ in Edwa ds’ hough and se mons. Bu he main conclusion is ha (pa adoxical hough i may seem) e i alism, which was essen ially a enewal o he Re o ma ion and Pu i anism (Noll, Ame ica’s God, 95), pa ed he way o a kind o epublican and mode n hough which, in u n, was wedded o Enligh enmen mo al philosophy. Edwa ds p obably would no ha e app o ed o he way e angelicalism and epublicanism became mu ually adap ed19 bu , i onically, his p ominen ole in and his elen less de ense o he e i al in he colonies played a c ucial pa in ha de elopmen . 1. 2. Jona han Edwa ds: Biog aphical and Con ex ual Fac o s Since my pu pose in his in oduc ion is o e en ually a i e a he scene ha cons i u ed Edwa ds’ s age o ac ion as a e i alis p eache and o a o (namely, he No hamp on pulpi om he mid 1730s o he ea ly 1740s), his second sec ion will no ye deal wi h he local awakening o 1734-35 bu will simply a emp o ske ch ou a biog aphical po ai , ocusing on some key ac o s. A de ailed desc ip ion o he No hamp on e i al will be p o ided in he hi d (1. 3) and closing sec ion o he p esen in oduc o y chap e . The mos comp ehensi e biog aphy o Edwa ds o da e is Geo ge Ma sden’s Jona han Edwa ds: A Li e (New Ha en, 2003), upon which he ollowing accoun la gely depends. !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 19 See Noll, Ame ica’s God, 82-87 o a desc ip ion o his ‘mu ual adap a ion’. 20 ! 1. 2. a. Edwa ds he Thinke . One key o he he o ic and a o any o a o o li e a y au ho su ely lies in he in ellec behind he ideas exp essed. The e o e, i seems app op ia e o begin wi h some de ails abou Jona han Edwa ds’ educa ion and in ellec ual li e. Being he only male child o he Edwa ds household, his schooling was gi en high p io i y by his a he , Timo hy, who was a minis e in Eas Windso , Connec icu . Edwa ds and his sis e s ecei ed a solid educa ion om hei pa en s a home and we e sen o Bos on o inish school (Ma sden, A Li e, 17-19). In he all o 1716, ha ing jus u ned hi een, he le home o We he s ield, nea Ha o d, o begin college a Connec icu ’s Collegia e School. The e we e a his ime h ee compe ing b anches o he college, one o which was loca ed in New Ha en. Th ough he media ion o Co on Ma he , he newly bo n ins i u ion had ecei ed a subs an ial dona ion om an English me chan called Elihu Yale, which he college us ees employed o build a ine building in New Ha en. E en ually, his b anch o he college p e ailed and all s uden s, he young Edwa ds among hem, had o mo e o he new p emises. Howe e , he coming oge he o all h ee b anches o he college only became possible a e he con o e sy o e he uno hodox belie s o a u o had been se led. The u o was he A minian heologian Samuel Johnson, who, a e being emo ed om Yale College, would “de ec o he g ea Pu i an nemesis, Anglicanism” (Ma sden, A Li e, 35). Thus, by 1719, he ledgling academic ins i u ion al eady seemed o show i s de e mina ion o be he gua dian o o hodoxy in New England. The new college was conside ed necessa y by many in New England since Ha a d College had, om he ea ly eigh een h cen u y, “begun o adop mo e libe al a i udes in eligious ma e s, e lec ing he g ow h o A minian iews” (Middle on, 21 ! 270). Mode n hough had al eady ound i s way in o he college’s cu iculum du ing he second hal o he se en een h cen u y, as is shown by he ac ha i s g adua es we e amilia wi h, and o some deg ee in luenced by, he hough o key con empo a y philosophe s like Desca es (Mille , Mind, 121, 512 n. 15). Solomon S odda d (Edwa ds’ ma e nal g and a he ), o ins ance, owned a copy o Desca es’ wo ks as ea ly as he 1660s, when he was s ill a s uden a Ha a d College. Al hough some medie al assump ions abou educa ion we e s ill made a Ha a d in he eigh een h cen u y, he new ends o “na u al philosophy” (i.e., na u al science) became inc easingly in luen ial and we e e en ually in oduced as pa o he cu iculum (Ma sden, A Li e, 61). I is clea ha in he ea ly 1700s Yale was “ a behind Ha a d in he assimila ion o mode n lea ning” (Fie ing, 29). Du ing Edwa ds’ s uden yea s, he college o New Ha en s ill s ood o o hodoxy. Howe e , by 1760 he e was no subs an ial di e ence be ween he wo colleges (Middle on, 270). Despi e belonging o a class and social ci cle ha in some espec s esis ed mode n hough and new heological no ions, he young s uden was clea ly a ec ed by he p e ailing conce n “wi h s aying cu en ” ha exis ed among New England cle gy. His “exhila a ing eading o Locke, New on, and a hos o o he mode n hinke s con inced him ha he s ood a a pi o al poin in New England’s his o y”. As Edwa ds’ no ebooks om his pe iod show, he was well awa e o his in ellec ual abili ies and was qui e de e mined o become an in e na ional igu e. Though his ambi ion included he ad ancemen o he hea enly cause in he souls o men h ough he p eaching o he gospel, he also hoped o “play a ole in p omo ing God’s ea hly kingdom a a c ucial momen in he his o y o edemp ion” by pa aking in he sp ead o Ch is ian knowledge h ough “plain eason and demons a ion, deduced om he Wo d o God” (Ma sden, A Li e, 60- 63; my i alics). 22 ! In i s s uggle o i he mould o he Enligh enmen and mode ni y, Ame ican socie y ecei ed a conside able impulse om he Cal inism which pe mea ed he G ea Awakening and which Edwa ds so loyally de ended. Howe e , in gene al e ms and in e na ionally speaking, “ he sp ead o Enligh enmen opinions unde cu he o ce o adi ional Cal inism” (Noll, Rise, 45). Edwa ds played a signi ican ole in his day due o his a duous in ellec ual e o s o commend a declining se o Re o med doc ines. He may be said o ha e been “bo h he las o he Pu i ans and he i s o he e angelicals” in a mode n sense (Ame ica’s God, 258).20 The No hamp on pas o was no , as he has some imes been made ou o be, a p o incial o a chaic hinke . As No man Fie ing has shown, he e may no ha e been any subs an ial di e ence be ween he quali y o he educa ion he ecei ed a Yale and ha impa ed in Ha a d du ing he same pe iod (28- 31). Edwa ds was amilia wi h he la es in luen ial philosophe s and was eage o en e in o dialogue wi h con empo a y hough . He had he abili y o use he ideas and language o Enligh enmen philosophy as a means o ad ance his own a gumen s and cause: Edwa ds in a sense e e sed he ongoing p ocess [o he secula iza ion o hough ] by assimila ing he mo al philosophy o his ime and con e ing i back in o he language o eligious hough and expe ience […] [H]is p og essi ism mus be seen no so much as a ision o a adically di e en u u e o socie y, bu as a ema kable ecep i i y o he philosophical specula ion o his own e a inso a as i bo e on he well-being o eligion (Fie ing, 60). !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 20 See n. 6 abo e o a de ini ion o he e m ‘e angelical’. 23 ! Al hough a e his con e sion Edwa ds adop ed an essen ially ‘hea enly’ and ‘o he wo ldly’ mindse ,21 his did no mean ha he in ellec ual disciplines o s udy and keeping in ouch wi h con empo a y cul u e and hough we e neglec ed. Edwa ds’ quali y and s a u e as a philosophe has gene ally been measu ed by he dep h and skill he displayed as logician and polemicis in his la e ea ises on O iginal Sin, F eedom o he Will, The Na u e o T ue Vi ue and God’s End in C ea ion. These we e w i en du ing he S ockb idge pe iod (1751-1758), a e being dismissed om No hamp on, when pas o al ca es we e no so in ense and less ime and ene gy we e de o ed o se mon making. A ihu Zakai, howe e , has signi ican ly no ed ha be ween 1735 and 1739 Edwa ds “imme sed himsel in his p i a e no es in he e o o inco po a e he New England awakening in he con ex o p o iden ial his o y”. His pains aking e o o “de ine God’s end in c ea ion and o g asp he ela ionship be ween di ine ac i i y and his o y”, oge he wi h “ he de elopmen o his apocalyp ic in e p e a ion” o bo h secula and sac ed his o ical e en s, ende his pe iod c ucial and pi o al in Edwa ds’ in ellec ual ajec o y (Zakai, His o y, 211, 212). I was p ecisely a e p eaching his Redemp ion Discou se22 se mon se ies in 1739 ha he changed his mind as o he “me hod” he should ollow in w i ing wha he in ended o be an all-encompassing mas e wo k whe e he would “ indica e he ai h agains i s de ac o s” (Ma sden, A Li e, 482). One las momen in Edwa ds’ in ellec ual li e mus be highligh ed in o de o g asp he ele ance o hese la e conside a ions ega ding his iew o di ine ac i i y in his o y and his g ea es li e a y ambi ion. No wi hou much eluc ance, in 1758 Edwa ds had inally accep ed he call om he us ees o he College a P ince on o !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 21 As he himsel exp essed i in his Pe sonal Na a i e (16: 793-795).! 22 See n. 1 abo e. 24 ! become p esiden o he young ins i u ion. In 1757 he had eplied o he us ees’ o e by lis ing his pe sonal and schola ly disquali ica ions. A e explaining hese, he w o e: “Beside hese, I ha e had on my mind and hea , (which I long ago began, no wi h any iew o publica ion) a g ea wo k, which I call a His o y o he Wo k o Redemp ion, a body o di ini y in an en i e new me hod, being h own in o he o m o a his o y” (Mille , Edwa ds, 307). Jona han Edwa ds was no able o comple e his ambi ious wo k as he died a e being inocula ed and con ac ing smallpox he same yea he wen o ake his posi ion as p esiden o P ince on College. We know, howe e , ha he seminal wo k o he “g ea ” p ojec he en isioned a he ime o his dea h had been concei ed, w i en and p eached in he con ex o a duous s udy and in he pas o ’s homile ic zeni h o he la e 1730s (Kimnach, 10: 91). 1. 2. b. Edwa ds he Con e . The momen s and aspec s which ha e been highligh ed abo e as ele an and decisi e o he shaping o Edwa ds’ hough would undoub edly be conside ed by him o be lacking he mos impo an o all, namely, his con e sion. Wha could be mo e c i ical o his wo ld iew han ecei ing he “sense o di ine hings” ha would lead o he ans o ma ion o he “appea ance o e e y hing”? (16: 793; my i alics) Edwa ds g ew up in a eligious cul u e whe e child en om an ea ly age “lea ned ha in hei na u al s a e hey dese ed he lames o hell”. Edwa ds’ a he , Timo hy, who no doub exe ed g ea in luence on his iew o spi i uali y, emphasized one s ep o con e sion in pa icula : “Po en ial con e s no only had o ecognize hei guil dese ing e e nal lames, bu be ‘ uly humbled’ by a o al sense o hei unwo hiness” (Ma sden, A Li e, 27, 28). Some o his son’s ea lies memo ies o 25 ! eligious expe iences we e linked o Timo hy Edwa ds’ minis y in Eas Windso , as he i s became conce ned abou spi i ual ma e s some yea s be o e I wen o college, a a ime o ema kable awakening in my a he ’s cong ega ion. I was hen e y much a ec ed o many mon hs, and conce ned abou he hings o eligion, and my soul’s sal a ion; and was abundan in du ies. I used o p ay i e imes a day in sec e , and o spend much ime in eligious alk wi h o he boys; and used o mee wi h hem o p ay oge he . I expe ienced I know no wha kind o deligh in eligion. My mind was much engaged in i , and had much sel - igh eous pleasu e […] Bu in p ocess o ime, my con ic ions and a ec ions wo e o ; and I en i ely los all hose a ec ions and deligh s, and le o sec e p aye […] and wen on in ways o sin. (16: 790, 791) La e , du ing his college yea s, he e was ano he momen o spi i ual awa eness when “i pleased God […] o seize me wi h a pleu isy; in which he b ough me nigh o he g a e, and shook me o e he pi o hell”. Howe e , Edwa ds ells us, “I ell again in o my old ways o sin” (16: 791). The hi d and de ini i e ins ance o pe sonal awakening Edwa ds ecalls in his Pe sonal Na a i e came when he was eigh een, du ing his inal pe iod a Yale, and was also linked o he igu e o his a he . While s aying a home o aca ion in he sp ing o 1721, Edwa ds alked o his a he abou a ecen b eak h ough ha was accompanied by an “o e whelming spi i ual mani es a ion” (Ma sden, A Li e, 41, 42): No long a e I i s began o expe ience hese hings, I ga e an accoun o my a he , o some hings ha had passed in my mind. I was p e y much a ec ed by he discou se we had oge he . And when he discou se was ended, I walked ab oad alone, in a soli a y place in my a he 's pas u e, o con empla ion. And as I was walking he e, and looked up on he sky and clouds; he e came in o my mind, a swee sense o he glo ious majes y and g ace o God, ha I know no how o exp ess […] A e his my sense o 26 ! di ine hings g adually inc eased, and became mo e and mo e li ely, and had mo e o ha inwa d swee ness. The appea ance o e e y hing was al e ed: he e seemed o be, as i we e, a calm, swee cas , o appea ance o di ine glo y, in almos e e y hing. (16: 793) We mus assume ha he sel - igh eousness o his you h had been eplaced by a duly humbled spi i ual disposi ion. Edwa ds’ expe ience o con e sion, howe e , is exp essed in s ikingly posi i e e ms and en eloped in he language o glo y a he han in Thomas Hooke ’s language o humilia ion.23 Pe haps o his eason he young candida e o he minis y, being imbued wi h he New England Pu i an adi ion, had no hough a i s “ ha he e was any hing spi i ual, o o a sa ing na u e in his” (16: 793). 1. 2. c. Edwa ds he Minis e . Whe eas he igu e o his a he is almos pe asi e in he acing o Edwa ds’ jou ney owa ds a consolida ed con e sion, his i s s eps in he pas o al and p eaching minis y ook place a away om pa en al o e sigh . In Augus 1722, he young Yale M. A. g adua e se o o New Yo k as an uno dained assis an , o “supply”, pas o a a P esby e ian chu ch (Ma sden, A Li e, 46). The e, he in ensi y o his pe sonal awakening did no wane as he con inued wi h his “eage pu sui a e mo e holiness”. His keenness and in en on making he mos o he ime lying ahead was ueled by “ e lec ions on my pas li e, conside ing how la e i was, be o e I began o be uly eligious”. On he 12 h o Janua y 1723, Edwa ds w i es, “I made a solemn dedica ion o mysel o God […] gi ing up mysel , and all ha I had o God; o be o he u u e in no espec my own” (16: 795, 796). The young minis e combined an essen ially !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 23 A ihu Zakai makes his same obse a ion abou he “mo phology o Edwa ds’s con e sion”, quo ing Ya b ough and Adams (7): “Wha is absen om Edwa ds’s con e sion is ‘ he expe ience o “legal ea ,”’, o e o , which cons i u ed ‘a key elemen in mos [Pu i an] mo phologies’ (His o y, 66, 69, 70). The same issue is deal wi h in Ma sden’s biog aphy (A Li e, 57, 58). 27 ! con empla i e and ‘o he wo ldly’ mindse , ma ching his a he melancholy cha ac e , wi h a keen in e es in “any hing ha happened in any pa o he wo ld”. He was “ea nes o ead public newsle e s […] o see i I could no ind some news a o able o he in e es o eligion in he wo ld”, and a he same ime “ equen ly used o e i e in o a soli a y place, on he banks o Hudson’s Ri e , a some dis ance om he ci y, o con empla ion on di ine hings, and sec e con e se wi h God”. When he ound he ime o socialize wi h M . John Smi h, wi h whom he li ed, hei “con e sa ion used much o u n on he ad ancemen o Ch is ’s kingdom in he wo ld, and he glo ious hings ha God would accomplish o his chu ch in he la e days” (16: 797). I is c ucial o unde s and, be o e dealing wi h Edwa ds’ homile ics in he Redemp ion Discou se o 1739, ha in his escha ological scheme he cou se o uni e sal his o y was closely ied o God’s ac ion in and h ough “his chu ch”. Wha wen on a he pulpi and he pew was as decisi e as go e nmen s’ policies, mili a y s a egies o o e seas comme cial de elopmen s. His apocalyp ic in e p e a ion o sac ed and secula his o y, oge he wi h his se monic and exege ical s a egies, cons i u ed, acco ding o Sac an Be co i ch, one o his majo con ibu ions o u he ing colonial Pu i an na ionalis ic hough (Je emiad, 98, 99). The ine i able conclusion esul ing om Edwa ds’ p emises was ha e i als and minis e s o he Wo d (and hence himsel ) we e a he cen e o his o ical climax and p ophe ic ul illmen (S ou , Soul, 204). Whe he one conside s his iew o he impo ance o he p eaching o ice a deli ious exagge a ion o no , he momen was d awing nea when Edwa ds would ake up an objec i ely ele an posi ion in he social and eligious scene o New England. In coming yea s, he would be called o ake he place o his epu able g and a he , Solomon S odda d, as leade o he Connec icu Ri e Valley cong ega ion a No hamp on. 34 ! many mo e people in hei mid and la e wen ies li ing wi h hei pa en s han in p e ious gene a ions. A he geopoli ical le el, he e we e ecu en Indian hos ili ies in se lemen s nea he bo de , which would ce ainly ha e caused social un es (Ma sden, A Li e, 150-152). Jona han Edwa ds would make he mos o e e y ea hly anxie y o he ad ancemen o God’s kingdom. Ne e heless, his anxie y was no an end in i sel bu he means o ealizing one’s absolu e dependence on God and, ul ima ely, o expe iencing he new bi h. As Geo ge Ma sden has exp essed i : “The a ail o he new bi h migh be exc ucia ing, bu ha was God’s way o wo king” (A Li e, 164, 165). The di ec social impac on he own’s li e was conside able e en i hei pas o ended o magni y some aspec s when he w o e abou he e i al e ospec i ely. His own li e and ela ionships wi h his ela i ely new lock we e ce ainly a ec ed as his pa ishione s, Ma sden explains, daily “ illed his home, wai ing o see him o counseling”. Unde his in luence, “ he spi i ual e o o he own seems o ha e gone beyond wha anyone had p e iously seen” and he people seemed o ollow hei “wo ldly business” only as an ine i able pa o hei du y, o hey in ini ely p e e ed o be occupied in he “immedia e exe cise o eligion” han in pu suing wo ldly gain. P aye mee ings, bimon hly communion se ices whe e dozens o new con e s we e ecei ed, p i a e mee ings (o ‘socie ies’) whe e hymns we e sung o he i s ime;28 all hese communal expe iences made up he a mosphe e ha a ac ed nume ous isi o s o No hamp on and caused much con o e sy o e “en husiasm” in New England. Whe he sympa he ic o skep ical, he e seemed o be no ques ion among obse e s abou he ac ha he own was unde going an “ex ao dina y ans o ma ion” (Ma sden, A Li e, 156-161). !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 28 In mos Cal inis chu ches since he Re o ma ion only psalms we e sung in mee ings, and almos exclusi ely du ing o mal public wo ship. 35 ! Many o he ai s o he No hamp on awakening ( eligious ‘socie ies’ in pa icula )29 became a model o o he owns in he Connec icu Ri e Valley whe e e i als had begun a ound he same ime. The la e was ob iously in e p e ed as p o iden ial by many who looked on he mo emen wi h a iendly eye. I mus no be o go en, howe e , ha while Jona han Edwa ds was a e i alis and a g ea ad oca e o p eaching o mo e he a ec ions, he also “deplo ed he hys e ia” and ep esen ed he mode a e posi ion in he con o e sies ha ollowed he G ea Awakening (T acy, 137, 138). P obably due o his i s -hand expe ience be o e he p e alen , in e colonial e i al o he 1740s, he was wa y o excesses and ana icism. Fo Edwa ds, as soon as he wo k o God’s Spi i began in he li es o a people, Sa an should be expec ed o be wo king agains i and imi a ing he genuine ui s o e i al. Spi i ual isions o ecs a ic expe iences we e p ecisely he so o wo k ha Sa an could easily imi a e and, he e o e, hese should ne e be conside ed de ini i e signs o ‘ma ks’ o a ue con e sion o genuine awakening. The mos impo an ui o ue pie y and e i al was “communal holiness” (T acy, 123). Fo his eason Edwa ds’ p eaching shi ed om he in ense and u gen call o epen ance and ai h (a he heigh o he e i al), o an emphasis on g ow h in holiness du ing he second hal o he decade (Mu ay, New Biog aphy, 150, 151). The pic u e o he ‘hell i e p eache ’ making supe s i ious people e i ied ha has so o en been handed down in his o y is clea ly unwa an ed. O cou se, he se e i y and emphases o e i alis p eache s now seem o belong o ano he e a. Bu Edwa ds, while being keen on exploi ing people’s anxie ies (as I ha e a gued abo e), was well awa e ha some o his hea e s “o en su e ed many needless dis esses o hough , in which Sa an p obably [had] a g ea hand, o en angle hem and block up hei way” o !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 29 See n. 13 abo e. 36 ! con e sion and spi i ual com o (4: 162). Such was he case o Edwa ds’ own uncle, Joseph Hawley, who was a success ul me chan and a cong egan a No hamp on’s chu ch. A he heigh o he awakening he had become “despai ing and unable o sleep” due o a deep conce n o e “ he s a e o his soul”. A dep ession and his unwillingness o “lis en o eason o ake ad ice” inally led him o commi suicide by sli ing his own h oa on he Sabba h mo ning o 1 June 1735 (Ma sden, A Li e, 163, 164). Al hough his e en has o en been aken o ma k he beginning o he awakening’s decline, Edwa ds obse ed ha by “ he la e pa o May, i began o be e y sensible ha he Spi i o God was g adually wi hd awing om us, and a e his ime Sa an seemed o be mo e le loose, and aged in a d ead ul manne . The i s ins ance whe ein i appea ed was a pe son's pu ing an end o his own li e, by cu ing his h oa ” (4: 206). And so he e en s seemed o be p o iden ially in sync wi h he beginning o decline jus as hey had accompanied he hope ul ea ly s ages o he e i al. 1. 3. b. Decline and he Scene o he Redemp ion Discou se. Since he p esen s udy mus g adually mo e on om he biog aphical o mo e he o ical and li e a y conside a ions, his las poin o he in oduc o y sec ion will ocus pa icula ly on wha di e en schola s ha e ga he ed om hei ca e ul analysis o Edwa ds’ homile ics and p eaching minis y du ing he second hal o he 1730s. Ne e heless, some obse a ions ha e al eady been made p e iously ega ding he in ellec ual signi icance o hese yea s (p. 22 abo e) and a couple o con ex ual de ails will s ill be poin ed ou . In his in oduc ion o olume 19 o he Yale edi ion o Edwa ds’ wo ks, M. X. Lesse obse es ha among he se mons om he pe iod going om 1734 o 1738 he heme which s ands ou is “con e sion and declension” (19: 4). F om he pulpi , 37 ! Edwa ds had sough o e e se “dullness” and immo ali y in “degene a e imes” and he elen lessly ough agains wha he pe cei ed as an A minian ide h ea ening New England (Lesse , 19: 9-13). When he ui s o e i al began o be el , Edwa ds combined “ echnical mas e y [o he se mon] wi h g ea op imism conce ning wha could be accomplished h ough pas o al p eaching” (Lesse , 19: xii).30 He was no , howe e , so naï e as o hink ha he in ensi y and le el o emo ion expe ienced du ing he win e and sp ing o 1734-35 could be main ained inde ini ely. As Ha y S ou obse es ega ding he la e 1730s, “in each ma k o i ali y he saw signs o decay and app oaching judgmen ” (22: 3). Though Edwa ds is su e o ha e been disappoin ed a e he gene al decline o eligious zeal (Ma sden, A Li e, 159), he con enien ly de eloped a iew whe eby “decline” was, oge he wi h “ e i al”, inco po a ed in o he “his o ical s uc u e and pa e n o he edemp i e p ocess”. Edwa ds was hus able o combine a he o ic o u gency, insinua ing po en ially imminen changes, wi h a ision o God’s ac ion in his o y as “g adual” (Zakai, His o y, 250) and, consequen ly, he could call his cong ega ion (and himsel ) o pe se e e pa ien ly. Again, he o e a ching doc ine o di ine so e eign y p o ided assu ance and he com o ha he “sudden su ge and all” o No hamp on’s “li le e i al” did no escape God’s pu pose o b inging glo y o himsel (Zakai, His o y, 211). The waxing and waning o he Spi i ’s p esence, as pe cei ed and el by men, we e bo h pa o he un olding o God’s p ede e mined plan o he chu ch and he wo ld. E en i he waning o he own’s spi i ual e o had o some ex en been a humbling expe ience o hei leade , he yea s 1736 o 1739 would see he publica ion !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 30 These wo ds a e ac ually om he gene al edi o o he ‘Se mons and Discou ses’ olumes, Wilson Kimnach, in his ‘No e o he Reade ’. 38 ! and wide ci cula ion o he Fai h ul Na a i e31 and he i s and only se mon compila ion published du ing Edwa ds’ li e ime, Discou ses on Va ious Impo an Subjec s (Bos on, 1738). In he wide scene, his leade ship was being s eng hened despi e empo al appea ances o de ea . While many local conce ns kep him busy in his demanding pas o al o ice, a he indi idual and pe sonal le el Jona han Edwa ds may ha e been qui e sa is ied and hope ul, as i was du ing his ime ha he “won in e na ional a en ion as a p eache ” (Kimnach, 10: 91). I was p ecisely he English edi o s o he Fai h ul Na a i e, Isaac Wa s and John Guyse, who we e i s in in eg a ing he No hamp on awakening wi hin he uni e sal amewo k o sal a ion his o y (Zakai, His o y, 208, 209). In eply o he Bos on minis e Benjamin Colman, who had sen hem a d a o he accoun o con e sions, Isaac Wa s w o e: “We a e o [ he] opinion ha so s ange and su p ising wo k o God ha we ha e no hea d any hing like i since he Re o ma ion, no pe haps since he days o he apos les, should be published…” (Goen, 4: 36). The allusion o he “days o he apos les” e inces he le el o exci emen and expec a ions a e ecei ing he news o e i al in he Ame ican colonies. Edwa ds himsel had no minimized he ma e and had “cons uc ed he e i al as an in e colonial e en ” (Kidd, 18). Du ing he la e 1730s, he No hamp on minis e ied o make sense o some hing as eal, angible, and wi h so many pas o al implica ions as he ecen e i al, while a he same ime he began o show “a mo e specula i e p eoccupa ion wi h his o y”, bo h his o iog aphical and my hic (S ou , 22: 4, 9). En isioning he g and-scale implica ions o he ecen pas and ponde ing he po en ial o he p esen , Edwa ds “ ound b ea hing oom o big hough s and subs an ial eading” while he wen on wi h he du ies o weekly se mon making (S ou , 22: 10). !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 31 See n. 26 abo e. 39 ! Gene al edi o o Edwa ds’ ‘Se mons and Discou ses’32 Wilson Kimnach poin s ou ha in he se mons p oduced and p eached du ing his decade he e was a g owing complexi y ha inally made he “se mon se ies” he only sui able o m o se ing o h his hough s and e lec ions: [A] mos no able de elopmen in his pe iod is he ine i able b eaking up o long and complex se mons in o ue se ies. Thus, he e is he se ies o h ee se mons on John 16:8 (1730), he se ies o i e se mons on 2 Co in hians 13:5 (1735), he se ies o six een se mons (1738) la e published as Cha i y and i s F ui s, he se ies o hi y se mons (1739) la e published as A His o y o he Wo k o Redemp ion, he se ies o six se mons on he pa able o he sowe […] Indeed, i seems ob ious ha , a leas om 1735, he e is an inc eased endency o p each ea ises om he pulpi . S udy o he “His o y o Redemp ion” se mon se ies manusc ip s e eals ha much o he se ies was w i en in he manne o a ea ise. (10: 105) Se mon se ies we e pa o he homile ic adi ion handed down om Pu i anism bu wha made he Redemp ion Discou se a “di e en kind o p ojec ” was he ac ha Edwa ds was basing hi y se mons on a single e se o Sc ip u e (Wilson, 9: 5). Apa om he eligious ‘pulse’ o Jona han Edwa ds’ cong ega ion and his in ellec ual and homile ic de elopmen s, some de ails conce ning he s a e o No hamp on ha e o be men ioned a his s age. Al hough Edwa ds had by now secu ed his posi ion as he successo o Solomon S odda d, he social and economic e olu ion o he own a e 1735 made he people g ow “away om he abili y o he desi e o pa icipa e” in wha had become hei pas o ’s “ideal ision o communi y li e” (T acy, 122). The se ies he p eached on lo e (o ‘cha i y’) du ing 1738 was aimed a es ablishing and s eng hening he bonds o he communi y, and i was no unconnec ed !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 32 The Yale edi ion has a o al o se en olumes (ou o wen y-six) consis ing o se mons only. 40 ! o he ollowing yea ’s disse a ion on his o y, since Edwa ds had ound, Ma sden a gues, ha “Ch is ’s edemp i e lo e was he key o all his o y” (A Li e, 193). The Pu i an ideal o a Ch is ian commonweal h con inued o be he one ha John Win h op had spelled ou in “A Model o Ch is ian Cha i y” a cen u y ea lie bu , as we shall see in chap e 2, Edwa ds had signi ican and inno a i e con ibu ions o make. No hamp oni es had la ely busied hemsel es wi h p ac ical conce ns such as he building o a new mee inghouse and a “ own house o secula mee ings”. The o me was inished in 1737 and he la e in 1739 (T acy, 130). Fo he i s ime in he own’s his o y, “ecclesias ical and go e nmen al unc ions” we e physically sepa a ed. Taken symbolically, his “seg ega ion” was a h ea o he New England adi ion o cle ical au ho i y and Edwa ds, who may ha e pe cei ed i as such, was hence all he mo e keen o “asse he impo ance o eligion”. The new and la ge chu ch building was a sui able “s age” o he ingenious heologian’s exposi o y and apologe ic en e p ise o he Redemp ion Discou se (Wilson, 9: 3, 4). I “ he minis e ’s p ope sphe e was [now] clea ly sepa a e om he business o e e yday li e” (T acy, 130), he would make i his business o endow Sabba h and lec u e days33 wi h solemn impo ance. While Jona han Edwa ds’ loss o empa hy o his being ou o ouch wi h his people du ing hese yea s may be ha de o ace34, he loss o powe , o he s uggle o main ain i , as he own’s minis e is mani es ly seen in a leas wo ac s. Fi s , he was signi ican ly le ou o he commi ee (o which his g and a he S odda d had always been a membe ) ha was o decide o e he assignmen o sea s in he new !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 33 The Redemp ion Discou se was p eached (a leas pa ly) on Thu sday e enings, which we e he appoin ed days o lec u es in No hamp on and elsewhe e. 34 Ob iously, by he mid and la e 1740s we can ind clea signs o he dis ance he e was be ween Edwa ds and his people in gene al, which inally esul ed in his dismissal om he No hamp on pas o a e in 1750. 41 ! mee inghouse. These decisions we e highly con o e sial in he own du ing he wo yea s p eceding Edwa ds’ deli e y o he his o y o edemp ion se ies (T acy, 125, 126). The second ac showing ensions be ween pas o and chu ch membe s we e he ongoing qua els o e his sala y. In he yea 1744, Edwa ds ag eed o ha e an amoun ixed pe manen ly because he was wea y o “ he annual s uggle o an adequa e sala y” (Clagho n, 16: 149). We may assume ha his s uggle35 had been going on o se e al yea s, including 1739. In Ma ch 1739, he e o e, Edwa ds se ou o sha e his e lec ions on he his o y o edemp ion wi h he chu ch o No hamp on om a posi ion o g owing p es ige h oughou he colonies and ab oad bu a less la e ing one a he local le el. I was also a ime o high expec a ions in he colonies as Geo ge Whi e ield’s i s ou was o s a owa d he end o ha same yea . And al hough Edwa ds pa ook in he en husiasm caused by he la e e en , his mos immedia e pas o al wo ies we e hose conce ning he es ablishing o his people in he u h and he consolida ion o a cong ega ion who had expe ienced e i al ecen ly enough o s ill be mind ul o spi i ual ma e s, bu oo long ago o no be aking a new s ep in spi i ual g ow h and o no be conside ing he deepe implica ions o hei con e sion, which was “no an end in i sel ” in hei pas o ’s iew (Mu ay, New Biog aphy, 151). !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 35 Edwa ds did no hesi a e o add ess he issue o minis e s’ sala ies om he pulpi as a back as 1741, in he middle o he G ea Awakening. See his se mon “Pas o and People Mus Look o God” in The Sal a ion o Souls (145, 146). 42 2. RHETORIC OF HISTORY AND DIVINE AGENCY In he p esen chap e I se ou o sea ch o he main keys in Jona han Edwa ds’ he o ic o his o y and in his concep o di ine agency. Be o e I ac ually analyze he Redemp ion Discou se closely (chap e s 3 and 4), i is essen ial o know whe e Edwa ds was simply ollowing a adi ional app oach o his o y and whe e and how he was depa ing om New England and Pu i an legacy. In o de o make a comp ehensi e app oach o his his o ical discou se, he scope o his sec ion will go om he mos pa icula obse a ions abou his ision o his o y o he mos gene al, seeking o unde s and and analyze how each aspec ela es o he di e en s ands o Edwa dsean he o ic. A ‘pa icula ’ obse a ion could be, o ins ance, he me e inding ha in his his o iog aphy, as opposed o all o he English and Ame ican Pu i an his o ians, Edwa ds did no exal any poli ical igu e since he e used “ o acco d ea hly ule s a ole in p o iden ial his o y” (Zakai, His o y, 251). Mo e gene al obse a ions (again, ega ding his o ical discou se) will need o be made and explained, as, o example, he acknowledged ac ha Jona han Edwa ds en isioned his o y as p og essi e, in con as wi h he Augus inian concep o un esol ed and ongoing con lic be ween he hea enly and ea hly ci ies (Augus ine, The Ci y o God, passim.; c . Lee, Theology, 214, 215; Ma sden, A Li e, 197). The me hod I ha e chosen o help me spell ou hese ‘keys’ in Edwa ds’ he o ic o his o y is o compa e his concep o di ine agency in his o y (whe he pas , p esen o u u e), in ela ion o se e al heological ene s o he P o es an ai h, wi h ha de eloped by p eceding ep esen a i e colonial igu es. Fou New English au ho s will se e his pu pose, h ee belonging o he i s gene a ion o Ame ican Pu i ans (John Win h op, John Co on and Thomas Shepa d) and one o he hi d (Co on Ma he ). The la e will be pa icula ly help ul in se ing he New England philosophical/ heological 43 scene a he u n o he cen u y. Fu he mo e, since Ma he ’s Magnalia Ch is i Ame icana was delibe a ely w i en as a his o ical wo k, i will se e o close up on some o he mos ele an aspec s o his disse a ion, such as he use o his o ical na a i e in colonial o a o y, he ole o his o ical conside a ions in se mons,1 o ‘p o idence’ as a key o God’s in e en ion in his o y. By ske ching ou he e olu ion o hese Pu i ans’ heological no ions, how hey ela e o colonial his o ical hough , and Ame ican socie y’s simul aneous ansi ion om he se en een h o he eigh een h cen u y, i will become much clea e why and how Jona han Edwa ds de eloped “a singula he o ic o his o y” (Zakai, His o y, 275). I mus also be poin ed ou ha while a his s age I am s ill d awing mos o he ma e ial o analysis om se mons and wo ks o he han he Redemp ion Discou se, special a en ion is paid o he ch onology o all sou ces due o he ele ance o hei connec ion wi h he e en s, al eady laid ou in chap e 1, p eceding and ollowing he 1739 se mon se ies. 2. 1. Edwa ds s. Win h op: Lo e, Communi y and His o y John Win h op’s2 ision o he chu ch, indi idual Ch is ians and God’s means o uling o e a people o communi y mus be amed in he con ex o he “ heoc a ic uni e se” o se en een h cen u y Pu i anism. Mo eo e , in he con ex o he mig a ion and he se ing up o he New England colonies, he backg ound o “A Model o 1 Se e al se mons, mos by Ma he himsel , a e inse ed h oughou his eclec ic wo k. 2 Be o e immig a ing o and es ablishing he colony o Massachuse s, whe e he was o be go e no , John Win h op was jus ice o peace in he English own o G o on. A Camb idge g adua e, like mos Pu i ans, Win h op’s mo i a ion o mig a ing du ing he eign o Cha les I seems o ha e been mos ly eligious since, humanly and inancially speaking, he “s ill had so much o lose a G o on” when he le (Middle on, 73-75). He has been acco ded a place in colonial Ame ican li e a u e due o he p eaching o “A Model o Ch is ian Cha i y” on boa d he A bella (Heime & Delbanco, 81 ). 50 p edic ing di ine judgmen as a consequence o he excessi ely indi idualis ic spi i ha was d i ing some wi hin he communi y (Heime & Delbanco, 98, 99). The e y cong ega ion ha was add essed on boa d he A bella in 1630 may ha e been seen as a po en ial p ey o he same spi i ual malady ha uling Pu i ans pe cei ed in he en ep eneu ial endencies o mig an s. In con as wi h his pe spec i e, o Edwa ds “ he ue ma k o sac ed, ecclesias ical his o y was no he social and poli ical e en bu he eligious e i al, whe eby he Spi i ans o med he human condi ion”. Though his “his o iog aphy” includes “ea hly occu ences” (na u al phenomena, poli ical o mili a y con lic s, e c.), he “his o y o God’s wo k o edemp ion conce ns p ima ily he sa ing ac s o God in ime and does no depend on wo ldly a ai s” (Zakai, His o y, 180, 181). In colonial Pu i an o ‘co enan al’9 hough , he indi idual’s spi i ual expe ience was no dis inc ly inco po a ed in o hei ision o God’s in e en ion wi hin he his o ical p ocess (especially when iewing e en s aking place in hei own immedia e con ex ) bu , a he , di ine agency was mainly conside ed wi hin he dimension o a communi y’s ela ion o a somewha dis an bu p edic able dei y. Pe y Mille disco e ed some key ac o s in his comp ehensi e s udy o he ‘New England mind’ which a e pe inen o his p esen s udy. He ound ha in i s - gene a ion, o hodox Pu i anism he di ine “ac i i ies” o “e e yday p o idence” and “g ace” we e kep “on sepa a e planes” (Mind, 33). The di ine ac i i ies o g ace (which conce ned only he elec ) included coming o ai h, achie ing ce ain y o one’s new bi h, o expe iencing ellowship wi h God h ough p aye , eading o lis ening o he 9 ‘Co enan hough ’ is used he e o e e o he iew o God and socie y which de i ed om ‘ ede al heology’, and i alludes o na ional, chu ch o o he collec i e co enan s (see chap. 1, p. 5, n. 4 abo e). Al hough i has been a gued ha Edwa ds’ heological amewo k was in no way di e en om his inhe i ed one in his espec (S ou , “The Pu i ans and Edwa ds”), i seems o me, as I explain, ha he e we e undamen al ways in which his philosophy o his o y led him o modi y he way he concei ed o God’s ela ionship wi h indi iduals and communi ies. 51 Wo d. These hings, which we e demons a ions o di ine ini ia i e and His ai h ulness o he “Co enan o G ace”, and hei applica ion o he indi idual belonged o he insc u able dimension o God’s so e eign dec ees, while he collec i e co enan had “a icles” which “we e o be ul illed in ime” and i s ewa ds and punishmen s “we e o be angible and immedia e”.10 God’s dealings wi h a people o na ion implied his po en ial p esence “he e and now” whe eas indi idual ellowship wi h he Spi i emained wi hin he sphe e o he in isible. By con e ing such signi icance on he subs ance o chu ch and o he collec i e social co enan s, which (conside ed on he spi i ual scale) should ha e been second o he co enan o g ace, New England socie y e en ually los sigh o he anscendence o he la e , aking i o g an ed and mixing i wi h he social co enan de i ed om ‘ ede al heology’ (see n. 8 abo e): By 1700 he minis e s we e speaking amilia ly o he Co enan o G ace, by which hey mean he sec e ansac ion o he indi idual and God, o he co enan o bap ism, which pledged he child en o sain s o he chu ch on he assump ion ha hey we e included in he Co enan o G ace, o he chu ch co enan , o he social and poli ical co enan , and las ly o his na ional co enan . A one le el New England had de eloped he idea ha hey we e an excep ional case, as he Jewish na ion in Old Tes amen imes, and he e o e “li ed ou o he lux o na u e” and made o be “an excep ion o he cycles o his o y”. Consequen ly, God’s “special p esence” and he po en ial o immedia e di ine in e en ion emained (in heo y) unp edic able. Ne e heless, he heological and social endency o his colonial co enan al hough was gene ally11 o “pu es ain s upon he absolu e so e eign y o Jeho ah” a bo h he collec i e and indi idual le els. A “good co enan ed socie y” 10 See chap. 1 p. 13 o how he ‘co enan o g ace’ ook p ecedence o e collec i e co enan s du ing colonial e i als. 11 C . chap. 1 abo e, pp. 4, 5. 52 would p ospe in his wo ld and “a bad one” would ge wha i dese ed; hus, he po en ial o a ‘mechanis ic’ o cyclical ision o his o y was in he e y ab ic o New England hough (Mille , Mind, 478-484). As we saw in he p eceding chap e 12 ega ding Edwa ds’ con e sion, he can be said o ha e depa ed subs an ially om New England’s ‘p epa a ionis ’ adi ion, whe eby ce ain s eps (including a high deg ee, and a p olonged p ocess, o con i ion) we e o be unde gone by any would-be con e . The mechanis ic po en ial o his imposed pa e n o con e sion was adically di e en om he con ic ion Edwa ds came o h ough his own expe ience and heological disco e ies. He saw his immedia ely and so e eignly bes owed ‘sense’13 (as opposed o one ecei ed g adually h ough p epa a ion o g ace) as c ucial in being made i o pe cei e glo y and disce n God’s c ea i e and edemp i e ac i i y. By claiming ha he “appea ance o e e y hing was al e ed” as a esul o con e sion, Edwa ds was con e ing an objec i e alue on a highly subjec i e expe ience since his newly acqui ed “swee sense o he glo ious majes y and g ace o God” (16: 793) enabled him o pe cei e ul ima e eali y and no jus seconda y causes behind i (Lee, Theology, 82).14 No hing was mo e glo ious han God’s immedia e p esence wi h humans o c ea ion, and hence i would seem inconcei able o ind Edwa ds saying wha Win h op a i ms in he opening lines o “A Model o Ch is ian Cha i y”: 12 See pp. 24-26 abo e, especially n. 23. 13 See pp. 32, 33 abo e. 14 Lee poin s ou ha his idea o a God-gi en ‘sense’ does no imply ha such “pe ec ing o ision” is o be achie ed “ h ough a spi i ual ascen ha o ally anscends he ea hly ideas o sensa ion bu a he by se ing hose e y ideas side by side—ul ima ely, side by side wi h he meaning o he whole eali y as mani es ed in God’s his o y o edemp ion. Any mys icism ha would ab oga e he essen ial place o ime and his o y in cogni ion is undamen ally incompa ible wi h Edwa ds’ concep ion o he imagina ion” (Theology, 131). 53 God Almigh y in his mos holy and wise p o idence ha h so disposed o he condi ion o mankind […] o hold con o mi y wi h he es o his wo ks, being deligh ed o show o h he glo y o his wisdom in he a ie y and di e ence o he c ea u es; and he glo y o his powe , in o de ing all hese di e ences o he p ese a ion and good o he whole; and he glo y o his g ea ness, ha as i is he glo y o p inces o ha e many o ice s, so his g ea king will ha e many s ewa ds, coun ing himsel mo e hono ed in dispensing his gi s o man by man, han i he did i by his own immedia e hands. (83, my i alics) No ha Edwa ds did no deligh o see and explain he di ine wisdom shown in se ing up he wo ld in such a way ha seconda y ‘means’ we e appoin ed o o de and b ing abou e en s; on he con a y, much o his ision o his o y analyzed in his disse a ion is pa icula ly conce ned wi h his e y dynamics in edemp i e his o y (Schwei ze , 115, 116). Bu Edwa ds conside ed God o be glo i ied i s and o emos in man’s u e and di ec dependence on him,15 whe he conside ed indi idually o collec i ely. Inso a as Win h op’s ex quo ed abo e is e e ing o he c ea ed o de o ‘common g ace’,16 and no o he dispensa ion o sa ing g ace o he Spi i , i may be hough ha Edwa ds could ha e exp essed himsel in a simila way. Ne e heless, in his mo e sophis ica ed and ma u e hough (see n. 5 abo e), he concep s o con ingency and di ine agency we e de eloped in a way ha makes i di icul o es ablish di e en 15 See his ea ly se mon God Glo i ied in Man’s Dependence (17: 200-212), he ull i le o which was “God Glo i ied in he Wo k o Redemp ion, by he G ea ness o Man’s Dependence upon Him in he Whole o I ” (Wo ks, II, 2). Rega ding he signi icance o Edwa ds’ iew o con e sion as a icula ed in his se mon, and i s ela ion o his his o ical hough , see Zakai, His o y, 64, 198, 199. 16 ‘Common g ace’ is he Cal inis ic doc ine which se es o dis inguish be ween he g ace which Ch is ians a e exclusi ely he objec s o and ha which socie y a la ge bene i s om, as, o example, h ough he es ain o g oss sin by means o go e nmen and ules o decency, o h ough he achie emen s o a and science (“Common G ace”). 54 ‘deg ees’ o immediacy o di ec ness in God’s in ol emen in his o y and c ea ion’s dependence on his cons an ac i i y: “The Pu i ans, o cou se, commonly belie ed he uni e se o be dependen upon God o i s exis ence. Bu as Edwa ds makes plain, hough he assumes his he in ends o go beyond i ; he is no hinking o God jus ‘upholding’ he wo ld, bu cons an ly ec ea ing i ” (Moody, 101).17 As Mille ’s conclusions ha e shown, New England co enan hough unwi ingly led o, as i we e, he aming o he so e eign God, and he ca ego ies o ‘p o idence’ in he gene al sense and di ine ‘dec ees’ became muddled, hus losing he po en ial o subjec ing bo h collec i e and indi idual expe iences o he “hidden God” ha was o iginally he essence o Pu i anism (E and, 94; Mind, 21). Edwa ds’ ejec ion o his inhe i ed heological de elopmen and his inno a i e idea ha God is, as i we e, cons an ly ec ea ing he cosmos and egene a e souls in pa icula (6: 204; 3: 385, 401) made i possible o es o e John Cal in’s doc ine o di ine so e eign y o i s p eeminen ole o encompassing all spi i ual expe ience (Mille , E and, 98). This is why he opening lines o Win h op’s amous se mon (“A Model”, 82, 83) seem once again ma kedly applicable only o a collec i e whole, and he e is no compelling a gumen o his 17 See Sang Hyun Lee, Theology, 70-72 o a de ailed explana ion o how Edwa ds main ained he “in eg i y” o he c ea ed o de and na u al laws while ac ually holding a adical iew o God’s “immedia e in ol emen in he cosmos” (72). The indi idual’s s a us as a ela i ely independen agen in Edwa dsean on ology was ne e heless qui e e ec i ely and cohe en ly a icula ed wi hin his scheme o unques ionable di ine so e eign y. The singula i y o “pe cei ing beings” (i.e., indi iduals) was accoun ed o in ha Edwa ds iewed “ he posi ion o human beings as bo h con inuous wi h and also anscending na u e. In elligen beings as well as ma e a e all go e ned by simila p inciples─namely, laws […] As God c ea es, sus ains, and wo ks h ough he laws ha go e n human beings, he is ac ing wi hou making use o ce ain o he laws (i. e., he laws o ma e ial exis ence). God’s in ol emen in he exis ence and ope a ion o in elligen c ea u es, hen, is mo e immedia e and di ec han his ela ionship wi h he ma e ial ealm” (73-75). Con e he same au ho ’s discussion in his “Edi o ’s In oduc ion” o Yale’s edi ion o he wo ks o Jona han Edwa ds (Lee, 21: 53 ). 55 lis ene s o in e p e wha is being said as es ablishing an essen ial nexus be ween hei own egene a ion and he subsis ence o he communi y whose ounda ions a e allegedly being laid. Win h op’s add ess, his o ic and momen ous in many ways, does no b ing oge he e ec i ely he i al ma e s o he indi idual’s ellowship wi h God and ellowship wi h he communi y al hough hese issues a e, in ac , add essed in his ex . In New England’s co enan adi ion God appea ed as an enemy o iend o he communi y wi h li le o no e e ence o he indi idual’s abili y o deal di ec ly wi h o pe cei e ha dei y. A con e ’s ebi h o his con inued ellowship wi h God ( o name jus wo ins ances o wha was supposed o be an e ec o immedia e di ine ac i i y) we e le ou o wha was conside ed angible spi i ual expe ience and consigned o he ealm o insc u able di ine dec ees. Visible wo ldly e en s o na u al phenomena we e gi en, by con as , a spi i ual s a us and we e easily and consis en ly in e p e ed, in colonial li e a u e a la ge, as majo mani es a ions o he di ine pu pose in he communi y’s his o y. Edwa ds, on he o he hand, was able o add ess he b oades subjec s om he pulpi , like ‘uni e sal his o y’ in he Redemp ion Discou se, wi hou lea ing ou he indi idual’s expe ience, hus showing “his aim o b ing he anscenden in o he immanen ” (Moody, 23).18 In an explana o y no e on how he p esen ed his cong ega ion wi h God’s inescapable “objec i i y” o anscendence and his immedia e p esence, Josh Moody w i es: Edwa ds builds on his me aphysical unde s anding o he p esence o God o p each he p esence o God o bo h sinne s and sain s. Sinne s should be awakened by he “amazing Conside a ion o hink ha hey li e and mo e in God who is ang y wi h hem 18 So much so, ha William Scheick belie es Edwa ds “ ea s his o y as an allego y o he con e sion expe ience” (178). 56 e e y momen he is no an enemy a a dis ance om hem no is he only nea o hem he is in hem and hey in him …,” and also, “i should be o G ea Com o o sain s ha he ha is hei iend and a he is alwaies p esen wi h hem and In hem...” (117, n. 137)19 Jona han Edwa ds buil his hough on New England’s he i age, and ye depa ed om i s he o ical and heological adi ion in mo e han one espec . Apa om he gene al aspec o ‘collec i e’ o ‘communal’ cul u e ensh ined in John Win h op’s se mon ha I ha e b ie ly ouched on, he e is s ill ano he poin ega ding Edwa ds’ ision o his cong ega ion and o communal (ecclesias ical) li e ha is mo e conc e ely linked o he issue o God’s p esence and agency in ime and space: he adminis a ion o he sac amen o communion (o he Lo d’s Suppe ) and he o dinance o he Wo d. The o me had been, o a whole cen u y be o e he ime o he G ea Awakening, an essen ial elemen o “hea eligion” in Eu opean Re o med ci cles as well as in he Ame ican colonies. In ac , some o he e i alis p eache s o Edwa ds’ own ime conside ed “communion seasons” o be “a c i ical means o e i al” (Kidd, 30-31, 35; Noll, Rise, 14, 15). As o he p eaching o God’s Wo d, i was ob iously conside ed by colonial Pu i ans (and e angelical chu ches a la ge) he main means by which he di ine made i sel p esen h ough he Spi i ’s con ic ion o sinne s, leading hem o epen and be con e ed, and h ough i s agency in ins uc ing and edi ying he sain s. Al hough Win h op implici ly e e s o communion and p eaching when he men ions “o dinances” (“A Model”, 89), i will be much mo e help ul o ou pu poses o analyze he issue o chu ch go e nmen h ough, and he p esence o God in, o dinances by compa ing Edwa ds wi h he igu e and hough o John Co on. 19 Moody is quo ing om an unpublished se mon manusc ip ; hence he lack o punc ua ion and he odd capi aliza ion. 57 2. 2. Edwa ds s. Co on: God’s Kingdom on Ea h H. R. Niebuh insigh ully no ed ha he e i alism o he 18 h cen u y did no iden i y di ine ule wi h he p ospe i y and s abili y o he ecclesias ical o he “ins i u ional”. The ‘kingdom o God’, he e o e, was no o be seen as p og essing p ima ily h ough he well-being and ad ancemen o he “ isible chu ch”20 bu , a he , “ he eign o Ch is was abo e all a ule o knowledge in he minds o men” (104, 105). A he ime o , and du ing he un-up o, he G ea Awakening in Ame ica, he idea o God’s p esence among His people and he issues o chu ch go e nmen (membe ship, o dinances, e c.) we e becoming inc easingly dissocia ed in con e s’ and, mo e signi ican ly, in some minis e s’ minds. The gene al weakening o he New England ecclesias ical es ablishmen du ing hese yea s caused many o ques ion he adi ional ole o cle gymen as he only he alds o God’s message. Due o he popula i y o lay and i ine an p eaching and o eligious socie ies, which cons i u ed an al e na i e o one’s pa ish chu ch, a lo o people (especially he you h) le hei o iginal cong ega ions. The adi ional c i e ia o egula ing chu ch membe ship o pa icipa ion in communion simply became imp ac icable and doc inal di e si y g ew apidly due o he bu geoning o chu ches ou side he ax-suppo ed Cong ega ional chu ch (see pp. 9- 15 abo e). Thus, no only p o essing Ch is ians bu some o he mos zealous ones in 20 The dis inc ion be ween he isible and in isible chu ch has exis ed a leas since Sain Augus ine bu aqui ed pa icula impo ance du ing he English Re o ma ion and la e in Pu i anism. I basically poin s o he impossibili y o a pu e chu ch on ea h and, he e o e, o he assump ion ha he e is a body o people (local cong ega ions o o ganized denomina ions a he na ional, egional le els) who make up a p o essing Ch is ian chu ch bu who a e no li e ally he Chu ch, o he body o ue belie e s. Fo a succin explana ion o hese ideas and hei ele ance in ea ly colonial Ame ica, see he i s chap e o Edmund Mo gan’s Visible Sain s: The His o y o a Pu i an Idea (1-32). 58 he land had no doub o God being a wo k in and a ound hem while hey no longe conside ed adi ional o dinances o be essen ial o hei communion wi h he di ine. Jona han Edwa ds’ and John Co on’s iews on communion and chu ch membe ship e ol ed in somewha opposi e di ec ions. A no ably skilled o a o and a na u al leade , Co on’s ea ly minis y in Old Bos on, England, had been ma ked by con o e sy o e he “ ea men o he sac amen s” and he exclusion “ om ull chu ch membe ship” o some people in his cong ega ion since he “main ained he highes s anda ds o admission” o communion and membe ship (Heime & Delbanco, 27-28, 93). Howe e , du ing he 1640s, mo e han a decade a e his mig a ion o he colonies, he Bos on senio minis e ’s s ance du ing he con o e sy wi h Roge Williams21 showed an e olu ion owa ds a mo e mode a e (o lax) posi ion ega ding he issue o who should be welcome o join o emain in he ecclesias ical es ablishmen (see pp. 60- 63 below). As o Edwa ds, his inc easingly s ic opinion on admission o he Lo d’s Table and chu ch membe ship was p ecisely he eason why he was con on ed by his cong ega ion in he la e 1740s and inally dismissed om No hamp on chu ch in 1750.22 A e he G ea Awakening had died ou , Edwa ds began o conside ha his g and a he ’s p ac ice o keeping communion open o any who me ely p o essed he 21 Ha ing been ained o he minis y in England, Roge Williams a i ed in Massachuse s in 1631. His conce n o Ch is ian pu i y and his ideas abou he need o sepa a e chu ch and s a e led him o hold sepa a is iews which we e mos unwelcome in Massachuse s. He li ed o wo yea s in Plymou h and William B ad o d himsel said ha he was “godly and zealous ... bu e y unse led in judgemen ”. A e a ew bu in ense yea s o con o e sy and o denying he au ho i y o he gene al cou in spi i ual ma e s, Williams was banished in 1635 and he se led in Rhode Island (Middle on, 79, 80). Con o e sy wi h John Co on, howe e , con inued du ing he 1640s h ough an exchange o le e s and essays e u ing each o he ’s iews on ci il and ecclesias ical go e nmen (Heime & Delbanco, 196- 199). 22 Fo a de ailed accoun o his episode, see Ma sden, A Li e, 345-365. 59 Ch is ian ai h and did no lead a scandalous li e was no biblical. He unsuccess ully ied o con ince No hamp oni es ha his p edecesso had been w ong in conside ing he Lo d’s Suppe a means o con e sion and he held ha any candida e o communican membe o he chu ch should, om hen on, p o ide (o ally o in w i ing) a hea el and con incing na a i e o his o he con e sion. Al hough he exac momen o Edwa ds’ change o mind is no easy o ace, i seems clea ha i was no un il he decline o he G ea Awakening ha he began o se iously ques ion he chu ch policy he had inhe i ed om his g and a he , Solomon S odda d (Hall, 12: 53-62). The way John Co on’s iew o chu ch and socie y e ol ed, which e en ually de e mined he model passed down o eigh een h cen u y New England, is closely linked o his iew o di ine agency h ough he es ablishmen o Ch is ’s kingdom on ea h and in his o y. Likewise, he ac ha Edwa ds could see no law in he inhe i ed socio-ecclesias ical model by he end o he 1730s is linked o wha his expec a ions we e conce ning e i al, which he iewed as he conc e e o m o di ine in e en ion in he o de o ime. John Co on concei ed o he Pu i an ‘e and’ in he Ame ican colonies as a climac ic, apocalyp ic23 e en , and he g adually came o endow his own way ( he ‘cong ega ional way’) o chu ch go e nmen wi h his o ical signi icance: “Rejoicing a he Wilde ness-Exile s a e o he Chu ch in New England, whe e Pu i ans could ashion hei cong ega ional way, Co on was mo e han con iden ha he e he way was open no only o he ealiza ion o he Kingdom o Ch is bu e en o he imminen coming o he New Je usalem as o e old in he Apocalypse”. His model, acco ding o which he 23 A ihu Zakai explains in Exile, 184-190 how John Co on’s ision o he e en ual consumma ion o his o y was “based upon he cou se and p og ess o Cong ega ionalism in sac ed his o y”. The key wo k in his in ellec ual de elopmen was a “ e olu iona y exposi ion” o chap e 13 o he book o Re ela ion (188, 189). 66 and chu ch li e, always ela ed o e i al, was no essen ially dependen on o dinances, social o de o any o he ex e nal aspec s. The limi ed in luence o John Co on’s wo ks and social heo y on Edwa ds (Mille , “Sociology”, 50) may accoun o he s iking de achmen he e is be ween he essence o spi i uali y and chu ch o dinances o he No hamp on e i alis . In one o his se mon se ies p eached du ing he pa icula ly signi ican in e - e i al pe iod (Minkema, Neele & McCa hy, ix), jus o e a yea be o e beginning he Redemp ion Discou se, Edwa ds obse ed ha he eason why “ alse p o esso s” o Ch is iani y abounded in he chu ch was ha “[ ]hose ha a e indeed membe s o he mys ical body o Ch is , hey can’ look in o o he s’ hea s, and ce ainly de e mine who a e o hei socie y and who a e no , so as o e use o admi o ecei e any o be o hei company, o o pa ake wi h hem in hei ex e nal p i ileges”. Rega ding an indi idual’s ecep ion in o he isible chu ch, “o ice s and ule s o he chu ch, hey a e none o hem sea che s o men’s hea s. And hough some o hem may be well-skilled in expe imen al eligion and soul conce ns, ye Ch is has no seen i o make hei p i a e judgmen o he s a e o men’s souls, hei ule in admission o membe s in o he chu ch” (Pa ables, I, 69). Ex e nal o dinances and appea ances a e no jus seconda y in he spi i ual o de ; hey a e so unconnec ed o he eal essence o God’s p esence28 wi h a people ha he un egene a e may “abound” in he isible chu ch wi hou dis u bing chu ch o de o condi ioning he adminis a ion o he sac amen s. Howe e , he implica ions o his obse a ion ake he a gumen (in a ypically Edwa dsean ashion) one s ep u he : i an appa en ly heal hy açade does no necessa ily de e mine ha ‘all 28 Edwa ds’ iew would be di e en by he end o he 1740s ega ding he eali y o God’s p esence wi h his people in communion (Ma sden, A Li e, 353, 354), bu in he p esen s udy I am examining he iews and he o ic o he e i alis du ing he second hal o he 1730s and ea ly 1740s. 67 is well’ in a cong ega ion, nei he does a declining, appa en ly dead, s age in he Chu ch’s jou ney h ough his o y au oma ically ule ou he eali y o God’s hand and p esence upon i . Edwa ds wan ed his hea e s o en ision di ine ac i i y in hei own hea s and in his o y as one and he same; as p oceeding om he anscenden God who had made himsel so mani es in hei ecen local e i al (p o iden ially synch onized wi h o he colonial awakenings),29 and whose un emi ing lo e could be immanen ly expe ienced by he elec despi e he appea ance o p esen ci cums ances. In o de o d i e home he message o he pa able o he en i gins in Ma hew 25, Edwa ds iden i ied he momen when he en i gins “began o g ow d owsy and all asleep” as a pe iod which may ep esen he imes ha commonly ollow ema kable ou pou ings o he Spi i o God, iz., imes o deadness in eligion, and he p e ailing o sin. Ch is , in his pa o his pa able, doub less means o each us he same hings as he eaches he disciples in he o egoing chap e , a he 12 h e se: “and because iniqui y shall abound, he lo e o many shall wax cold.” Ch is is he e speaking how i would be amongs his p o essing people be o e his coming, and so i is in his pa able. When iniqui y abounds, and i is a ime o gene al decay o eligion, he lo e o many waxes cold, i.e., o ally ceases. Though hey seemed o ha e hei a ec ions much wa med o a while, and when hey hea d he Wo d, e en wi h joy ecei ed i ; ye hei goodness p o es as he “mo ning cloud, and he ea ly dew ha passe h away” [Hos. 13:3]. And he lo e o ue Ch is ians in a sense waxes cold; as i ceases, i s li eliness and he exe cises o i do g ea ly ail, hough i don’ o ally cease in hei hea s. (Pa ables, I, 93) In he Edwa dsean scheme, he p inciple o lo e (as we obse ed when compa ing i wi h Win h op’s ‘cha i y’ in 2. 1.) is an ac i e, dynamic o ce which communica es 29 See chap. 1 p. 38 abo e. 68 God’s immedia e p esence a con e sion and is bound o con inue g adually wo king in any pe son o communi y ha has ecei ed i .30 This p og essi e aspec o God’s ac i i y does no exclude a measu e o di ine agency in edemp i e his o y h ough he e y pa e n o ise and all o lo e, zeal o e i al. The e is, on he one hand, he assu ance ha di ine lo e “don’ o ally cease” in he elec ’s hea s, so ha he e is a elen less p og essi e aspec o God’s in e en ion. On he o he hand, an awakening o he Spi i ’s ou pou ing “in an excep ional way [would happen] only when he wel a e o his chu ch was g a ely h ea ened, o when a despe a e s a e o sin and degene a ion p e ailed among his chosen, o du ing a sad decline o in e es in eligion in he wo ld as a whole” (Zakai, His o y, 250, 256). The issue o he in insic ine iciency o ex e nal o dinances is no wholly absen om he ci ed passage, as in Edwa ds’ in e p e a ion o he pa able some people “hea d he Wo d” bu inally p o ed o be ou o ouch wi h he di ine. Being unde he o dinance o he Wo d, e en unde he eaching o sound doc ine, was no seen ul ima ely by Edwa ds as a gua an ee ha a people we e he objec o posi i e di ine ac i i y, no did i mean ha hose minis e s p eaching we e being used as ‘means’ in he ad ancemen o God’s wo k. 30 I is signi ican ha in a ime o g owing indi idualism like he 18 h cen u y Edwa ds should de ine he indi idual as an essen ially ‘ ela ional’ being: “The egene a e pe son is no hing less han a dynamic o ce ha would seek ou and know and lo e an unending numbe o beings in an unending numbe o ci cums ances [...] The egene a e minds and hea s pa icipa e in God’s ne e -ending ac i i y o sel -communica ion” (Lee, Theology, 113). Though his p inciple was e e nal in i s essence and he e o e anscended his o y, i was ne e heless inse ed and had i s ui ion wi hin he his o ical p ocess and he immedia e social con ex . Fo Edwa ds, hen, he ce ain y o ha ing pa aken in a genuine e i al (whe e a numbe o people a e known o ha e been bo n again a a gi en ime) is cause enough o be con iden ha he e a e ou wa d e ec s o be expec ed, no only om each indi idual who is assu ed o his sal a ion and seeks o bea ui s in keeping wi h his p o ession, bu in ela ionships which ine i ably ollow he unde going o “a enewed expe ience o he p esence o God” (Moody, 21). 69 Be o e mo ing on o ano he ep esen a i e, and compa a i ely mo e impo an , ex ega ding Edwa ds’ iew o o dinances, and o he Wo d in pa icula , i is in e es ing o no e ha jus a e a con en ionally s uc u ed and deli e ed passage like he one abo e,31 we ind a clea example o an e o on he p eache ’s pa o “ o ge” in his people “a new his o ical consciousness”32 apa om exho ing hem o pie y and sel -examina ion in he ‘applica ion’ o he ex (Pa ables, I, 96-101), as was he cus om. He ells No hamp oni es ha he “insensibili y ha he e [is] in sleep, does consis in o ge ing wha is pas , and in being insensible o wha is p esen , and inconside a e o wha is o come”. Edwa ds hen b eaks each o hese empo al conside a ions in o h ee di e en heads, backing each one o hem wi h Old Tes amen e ses. The unde lying ho a o y one o his sec ion, and especially o he e se om Deu e onomy used o ein o ce he poin ha some a e “unmind ul o wha is u u e”, is somewha s iking as he se mon has no ye eached he momen o applica ion (93, 94; see Deu . 32:29). This e inces, i would seem, a keen in e es on he p eache ’s pa o ha e his hea e s apply hemsel es o a his o ically-o ien ed medi a ion and due e lec ion on he doc ine. To illus a e how clea ly e i al had become, in Edwa ds’ amewo k and he o ic o his o y, he ‘conc e e agen ’ o di ine agency, as opposed o John Co on’s 31 Edwa ds is simply ca ying ou an exegesis o he Ma . 25 passage. He p edic ably akes he immedia e con ex in o accoun in his e e ence o “ he 12 h e se” o he “ o egoing chap e ”, and es ablishes connec ions wi h Old Tes amen p ophecy (p ophe Hosea) which, ega ding he escha ological na u e o he Ma hean ex , would be expec ed by his audience. 32 Zakai, His o y, 275. A ihu Zakai and Ha y S ou (22: 9, 14) bo h make he same obse a ion, namely, ha Edwa ds’ own g owing in e es in a ious his o ical issues and hei ela ion o he wo k o edemp ion condi ioned no jus his own hough bu he way he add essed his cong ega ion du ing he yea s o e i al, especially he la e 1730s and ea ly 1740s (c . 1. 3. b. abo e, especially pp. 36 and 37). 70 apocalyp ic ision (and ha o his successo s) whe eby he ealiza ion o he Kingdom o God and his di ec ule o e a people was achie ed h ough he es ablishmen o Cong ega ionalis chu ch-go e nmen (Zakai, Exile, 196-198), a close look a his mos impo an ex on he G ea Awakening will su ice. In Some Though s Conce ning he Re i al (Bos on, 1743), whe e e i alism is mode a ely de ended agains eligious o malism and he de ac o s o he mo emen , we ind Edwa ds solemnly claiming ha God’s awakening in he colonies is no less han he “day o his powe ” and will p o e o be he day o his “w a h” o hose who oppose he wo k. When he w i es ha minis e s mus “acquain hemsel es wi h hings pe aining o he Kingdom o God”, he clea ly means no jus suppo ing bu ca ying ou e i al. To be su e, he gospel minis y consis s in he “adminis a ion o God’s wo d and o dinances”, as hese a e he “p incipal means” appoin ed o wo k “on he souls o men”. So a , Edwa ds seems o be in line wi h s anda d New England ecclesias ical legacy. Howe e , he makes his mind known o his eade s by asse ing ha i “minis e s p each ne e so good doc ine, and a e ne e so pain ul and labo ious in hei wo k, ye i a such a day as his, hey show o hei people ha hey a e no well a ec ed o his wo k […] hey will be e y likely o do hei people a g ea deal mo e hu han good” (4: 371, 374, 375). The e is no doub ha o Edwa ds no conside a ions o chu ch o de o minis e ial p e oga i es, like p eaching o he adminis e ing o o dinances, could be placed highe on he spi i ual scale han he wo k o e i al, which was a his ime so mani es ac oss he land. Howe e , i may be a gued om one o he abo e-quo ed asse ions ha he “p incipal means” in he in e nal and las ing wo k o he Spi i “on he souls o men” was s ill ound in chu ch “o dinances” o Edwa ds (4: 374), as i had been o New England Pu i ans. And su ely his in e nal ac ion in he hea was mo e ul ima e han 71 any appa en , ex e nal signs o ‘ eligious a ec ions’, howe e genuine. So i has been a gued in his e y sec ion. Bu hough Edwa ds’ own logic migh seem o suppo his objec ion, his use o he ph ase “p incipal means” in ye ano he passage om Some Though s be ays his in en ion o main aining e i al as he mos immedia e and de ini e o m o di ine go e nmen and in e en ion in he o de o ime. Among he many e i al p ac ices denounced by Old Ligh s as con a ening he ules o chu ch o de , he e was ha o keeping pe sons oge he ha ha e been unde g ea a ec ions, which ha e appea ed in such ex ao dina y ou wa d mani es a ions. Many hink his p omo es con usion […] and ha when any in a cong ega ion a e [so] s ongly seized ha hey can' o bea ou wa d mani es a ions o i , hey should be emo ed […] Bu I can' bu hink ha hose ha hus objec go upon qui e w ong no ions o hings: o hough pe sons ough o ake heed ha hey don' make an ado wi hou necessi y, o his will be he way, in ime, o ha e such appea ances lose all hei e ec ; ye he una oidable mani es a ions o s ong eligious a ec ions end o an happy in luence on he minds o bys ande s, and a e ound by expe ience o ha e an excellen and du able e ec ; and so o con i e and o de hings, ha o he s may ha e oppo uni y and ad an age o obse e hem, has been ound o be blessed as a g ea means o p omo e he wo k o God; and o p e en hei being in he way o obse a ion, is o p e en he e ec o ha which God makes use o as a p incipal means o ca ying on his wo k a such an ex ao dina y ime, iz. example. (4: 400; my i alics) Whe eas Win h op, Co on and o he ep esen a i e New England Pu i ans de eloped a philosophy o his o y which e en ually led colonial Ame icans o iew “sac ed space” (i.e., hei own colony) as ha which made hem an excep ional people in God’s eyes (Zakai, Exile, 120-155), o Edwa ds i is he e en (no a place) o e i al which calls o excep ional conside a ions. The o e u ning o social and ecclesias ical o de was 72 jus i iable in e ms o he “ex ao dina y ime” he colonies we e acing and unde going. The adminis a ion o adi ional o dinances and ins i u ed chu ch p ac ices made i possible o obse e only he “ isible chu ch”, p o iding no angible e idence o wha God was doing in he hea s o indi iduals; howe e , “ou wa d” o ex e nal mani es a ions, inso a as hey we e he “e ec ” o “s ong eligious a ec ions”, mus no be hidden om he public eye since hey we e he immedia e e ec o di ine in e en ion. Wha was li le less han epulsi e o Old Ligh s was o Jona han Edwa ds “blessed as a g ea means” o , a he , “p incipal means” in he cause-e ec chain whe ein he un olding o God’s p o iden ial plan could be disce ned. The e is s ill mo e o be said on he isibili y o he e ec s o God’s g acious wo k in a people, and he ole his played in bo h New England hough and Jona han Edwa ds’ philosophy, and consequen ly his he o ic, o his o y. Was i possible o es ablish some ‘ma ks’ whe eby he eal membe s o Ch is ’s in isible and mys ical body migh be dis inguished om he es , hus enabling he keenes obse e o disce n God’s g acious ac i i y mo e accu a ely? This poin , howe e , will be deal wi h in he nex sec ion as we compa e Edwa ds o Thomas Shepa d. The la e , as opposed o John Co on, ecei ed ample conside a ion om and g ea ly in luenced he No hamp on pas o . 2. 3. Edwa ds s. Shepa d: The Visibili y o God’s Wo k in The Sain s Thomas Shepa d, oge he wi h John Co on and o he s, belonged o ha i s gene a ion o colonial Pu i ans whose escha ology es ablished ha he ad ancemen o he “Kingdom and Go e nmen o Ch is in his Chu ches” la gely depended on 73 success ully implemen ing and en o cing he cong ega ional way (Zakai, Exile, 191).33 Shepa d’s pe sis en use o he wo d “Chu ches” in he plu al o m be ays he idea ha he es ablishing o pa icula cong ega ions acco ding o his ule was in a way an amoun o making Ch is ’s Kingdom conc e e and, in a way, isible. E en be o e he mig a ion ook place, he conce n o holiness in he sain s’ li es mean o Shepa d and o he English Pu i ans ha hose who would “keep hei co enan wi h God” mus “wi hd aw in o godly co enan ed socie ies” as a way o making he ue Chu ch isible in his wo ld. I God’s wo k was o be disce ned in a momen o his o ical climax, like he one mig a ing Pu i ans el hey we e li ing in, i mus be done by dis inguishing be ween hose who we e he eal subjec s o God’s wo k and hose who we e no . The ecclesias ical means o implemen ing his ideal was o exclude he ungodly om communion (Zakai, Exile, 214, 215). A u he means o sepa a ing he whea om he a es, a he o ical one, would be pu sued by Thomas Shepa d a e se ling as pas o in Camb idge, Massachuse s: he p eaching o a se mon se ies whe e he se ou o es ablish wha he ma ks o a ue belie e we e. This se mon se ies, which un olds and applies he pa able o he en i gins (Ma hew 25), dese es pa icula a en ion om anyone who wishes o unde s and Jona han Edwa ds’ hough wi h ega d o his issue o he ue Ch is ian’s ma ks o ui s. In his majo ea ise on Religious A ec ions (Bos on, 1746), he quo ed “mo e om Shepa d han om any o he w i e , depending chie ly upon The Pa able o he Ten Vi gins” (Smi h, 2: 54). Edwa ds’ own exposi o y e o on he same biblical passage,34 hough much sho e , shows a simila app oach and conce n o ha o Shepa d, namely, “ he dis inc ion be ween ue and alse Ch is ians” (Minkema, Neele 33 Zakai is quo ing om he p e ace in Allin & Shepa d, 28-32. 34 Al eady e e ed o abo e (pp. 66-69). 74 & McCa hy, 33). Recognizing di ine agency wi hin and God’s go e nmen o e his o y was o bo h p eache s linked o he issue o he new bi h and, in Edwa ds’ case, o he doc ine o assu ance.35 Mo eo e , he his o ical anscendence o he ma e o him lay in he no ion ha in pe cei ing he di ec esul o eal con e sions (o e en jus one con e sion), a Ch is ian could be said o be wi nessing, whe he in himsel o in o he s, an e en “mo e glo ious […] han he c ea ion o he whole ma e ial uni e se”. Indeed, [i] is spoken o in Sc ip u e as ha which shews he exceeding g ea ness o God's powe , and he glo y and iches o di ine g ace, and whe ein Ch is has he mos glo ious iumph o e his enemies, and whe ein God is migh ily exal ed: and i is a wo k abo e all o he s glo ious, as i conce ns he happiness o mankind; mo e happiness, and a g ea e bene i o man, is he ui o each single d op o such a showe , han all he empo al good o he mos happy e olu ion in a land o na ion amoun s o, o all ha a people could gain by he conques o he wo ld. (4: 344, 345) Such an ele a ed iew o God’s wo k o edemp ion explains Edwa ds’ long-las ing conce n abou he ‘ma ks’ o ue Ch is iani y, his inc easingly s ic and exhaus i e ‘ es s’ o assu ance and he appeal o Shepa d’s Pa able. Be o e con inuing wi h he conside a ion o Shepa d’s in luence on Edwa ds’ iew o he impo ance o he ‘ isibili y’ o he sain s, i is wo h no ing ha in he Redemp ion Discou se he idea o God’s wo k being beheld by men, o i s appea ing be o e he eyes o hea enly and ea hly c ea u es, becomes c ucial o he p eache ’s he o ic o his o y. The isibili y o di ine in e en ion in his o y may no be, as one migh suspec , p opo ional o how sudden i is and how quickly i s e ec s appea o sp ead. Edwa ds p o ides one his o ical example ( ha o he Roman empi e being se 35 ‘Assu ance’ is he “ques ion o whe he ce ain y o ul ima e sal a ion is possible in his li e” (“Assu ance”). 75 up a e he G eek) which o him showed ha an “o e u ning o he wo ld” being b ough abou “g adually” in no way mean ha i was less adical o imp essi e; on he con a y, such p o iden ial changes could a exceed o he s in g ea ness and ha e mo e las ing, i empo a y, e ec s (9: 276). Such logic p o ided a a ionale o wha I am calling ‘p og essi e’ di ine agency in his disse a ion. Edwa ds en isioned God as ac ing immedia ely i s and o emos in e i al and con e sion (see p. 31 abo e and chap. 4 below). A he same ime, p o iden ial di ine ac i i y could be expec ed o be p og essi e, as e en s we e di ec ed and chained in sequences o b ing abou God- appoin ed ends. Though p o idence and he in e nal sa ing wo k o he Spi i had adi ionally been conside ed as eminen ly sec e and insc u able, Edwa ds seemed pa icula ly in e es ed in un eiling no jus he mo i es o ends in speci ic his o ical ins ances o he ad ancemen o God’s kingdom, bu he di ine dynamics implici in all ‘p o idences’, whe he in he dispensa ion o sa ing g ace o in he accomplishmen o ‘ empo al’ pu poses (e.g. he down all o an empi e, a de ea o ic o y in a ba le, e c.). Ha ing laid ou wha he unde s ood o be he biblical doc ine o he all o “des uc ion o An ich is ” (which, ollowing he Re o med adi ion, p ima ily mean he loss o powe and in luence by he Roman Ca holic Chu ch),36 Edwa ds e lec ed on how angible and mani es di ine agency was in his o y: I mus also b ie ly answe o an inqui y, iz. why he se ing up o Ch is ’s kingdom a e his humilia ion should be so g adual, by so many s eps ha a e so long in accomplishmen , when God could easily ha e inished i a once. Though i would be p esump ion in us o p e end o decla e all God’s ends in his, ye doub less much o he wisdom o God may be seen in i by us […] In his way he glo y o God’s wisdom in 36 Though Edwa ds held his iew in b oad e ms, ‘ e i al’ came o eplace he s uggle be ween P o es an ism and he Roman Ca holic Chu ch as he cen al escha ological e en (Zakai, His o y, 181). 82 hypoc i e unde hea en has” (219). Bu since eligious en husiasm and an excessi e show o a ec ions was a de ini e sign o hypoc isy (234), he in e nal wo k which had o be iden i ied in o de o a ain assu ance was mo e like a quie “ e ealing” o he Spi i o an inwa dly con i med “wo d o p omise” (213, 215).40 All in all, he e was li le ‘ angibili y’ in his in e nal ma k o he ue belie e . I genuine di ine ac i i y was o be hus disce ned and measu ed, how could Edwa ds, who did no asc ibe o con o mi y o o dinances he anscendence ha his Pu i an o e a he s did, be sa is ied in his keen obse a ion o spi i ual phenomena a ound him? In Edwa ds’ scheme, e i al and he con empla ion o God and his wo k o edemp ion s ayed a he cen e o assu ance, keeping him op imis ic abou he genuineness o God’s wo k in and a ound him h oughou he in e - e i al pe iod which mainly conce ns his s udy. Though i is known ha he e en ually ejec ed any ‘me hods’ whe eby Ch is ians migh be led o ely on “momen a y expe ience o assu ance”, we mus no assume ha by he la e 1730s he had al eady elabo a ed he doc ine in such a way ha he belie e was exclusi ely, o e en mainly, encou aged o “ ind his hopes o hea en in he e idence o his holy li e”. This was he me hod o sel - examina ion, ensh ined in Religious A ec ions, which Edwa ds de eloped a e many pe sonal and collec i e expe iences, disappoin men no being he leas o hem. Howe e , he e is one ai o his ma u e hough ega ding assu ance which can be seen in he pos - e i al41 yea s p eceding he p eaching o he Redemp ion Discou se, 40 Simila ly, S odda d conside ed i su icien o ind o emembe one “ac o sa ing g ace” in he soul in o de o be assu ed o one’s sal a ion (Pu i an Pulpi , 148 ). C . Eugene Whi e’s con as be ween Edwa ds’ and his g and a he ’s e i al p eaching in Pu i an Rhe o ic, 36-48. 41 Tha is o say, he yea s a e he No hamp on e i al o 1734-35 (see 1. 3 abo e). 83 namely, ha in exe cising he ‘sense o he hea ’42 g an ed o e e y ue con e one “did no hink abou his own sal a ion” (B ei enbach, 184). The e was a p e ailing endency in he message deli e ed om he No hamp on pulpi o encou age hea e s o look away om hemsel es and exe hemsel es in some hing o he han sel -cen e ed in ospec ion. In his espec , Jona han Edwa ds a his s age o his minis y may ha e con ibu ed o he edisco e y o Cal in’s ocus on he doc ine o assu ance, which colonial Pu i anism in pa icula had depa ed om, whe eby he key o one’s ce ain y o sal a ion “is aken o he wo hiness o he subjec and his ac s and placed upon he wo hiness o he objec and his wo k” (Pa ke , 58). Some o he easons why Shepa d’s Pa able would ha e appealed o Edwa ds so much, despi e he di e gen hinking o bo h heologians b ie ly s a ed abo e, a e no ha d o g asp. To begin wi h, Edwa ds sha ed o a conside able ex en (especially a imes o e i al declension) Thomas Shepa d’s skep icism abou en husiasm: “And ano he de ice o Sa an o hu he c edi o his wo k […] has been o lead away and decei e some pa icula p o esso s by en husias ical imp essions and imagina ions; which hey ha e concei ed we e di ine e ela ions, such as we e won o be gi en o he p ophe s o old” (19: 550). Also implici in his quo e is he issue o spi i ual p ide, which always kep Edwa ds ale du ing his o e sigh o No hamp on’s chu ch as i did Shepa d du ing his yea s o minis y a Camb idge. Ye , i would be misleading o equa e Edwa ds’ skep icism abou exp essions o a ec ions wi h ha o he 17 h cen u y Pu i an. In addi ion o he example om Some Though s (pp. 69-72 abo e), whe e we obse ed ha “ex ao dina y ou wa d mani es a ions” (4: 400) which we e clea ly he esul o a genuine e i al we e o be encou aged and seen by o he s as a means o p omo e he G ea Awakening, he e is se monic and he o ical e idence o show ha in 42 See chap. 1 abo e, pp. 24-26. 84 he yea s immedia ely p eceding he Redemp ion Discou se Edwa ds asc ibed mo e impo ance o subjec i e (i God-cen e ed) expe iences han would appea by eading his 1740s and 1750s pe spec i e back in o he pe iod he e deal wi h. Take, o ins ance, a se mon om July 1736 which is conce ned ( ele an ly o my p esen pu pose) wi h making “a p o essing people o socie y as a ci y se on an hill” in o de o be “g ea ly obse ed and aken no ice o ”. In o he wo ds, Edwa ds in ends o s i up his cong ega ion o display and make isible wha is he di ec esul o wha he s ill con iden ly called a “ e y ema kable and dis inguishing” season o “occasion”, in e e ence o hei local awakening he p eceding yea , exp essed in he me apho ical e ms o he gospel image: “As a ci y se on an hill s ands on dis inguished g ound, abo e he le el o he common su ace o he ea h, he place is eminen and li ed up; and his se s i o h o iew […] I can’ be hid, and no o he can be expec ed han ha all should obse e i ”. Gi en ha he main h us o he se mon, acco ding o i s s a ed ‘doc ine’, is o call “any p o essing socie y” o “hono eligion in hei p ac ice”, one migh expec Edwa ds o ha e de o ed some ink and deli e y ime o emphasizing he ole o good wo ks o ‘Ch is ian p ac ice’ in a aining assu ance o sal a ion as well as hei impo ance o he chu ch’s wi ness in he wo ld. O , o apply i collec i ely (since mos o he se mon ocuses on No hamp on chu ch as a whole), hei conduc migh ha e been p esen ed as a po en ial wi ness o he genuineness o coun e ei ness o hei ecen expe ience du ing he Spi i ’s ou pou ing. On he con a y, wha Edwa ds does is o con iden ly assume “ ha g ea e numbe s o [his cong egan s] a e holy” compa ed o o he communi ies, and asse ha he hopes “many o [ hem] a e he child en o God” (19: 540-42, 558; my i alics). His ce ain y as o he di ine o igin o hei collec i e and indi idual ecen expe iences pe mea es he whole se mon. 85 In an appa en ly mo e hypo he ical s a emen om “A Ci y on a Hill”, no di ec ly applied (in p inciple) o his audience, Edwa ds explains ha when Ch is ians make a p o ession o ha ing g ea e deg ees o he p esence o God wi h hem, o God ha ing done mo e o hem, and o g ea e me cies ha God has bes owed upon hem han on o he people; when he e is a a g ea e numbe among hem ha do make p o ession o special expe iences, and o ex ao dina y ligh , ha hey ha e had; when hey make p o ession o g ea e acquain ance wi h God, and mo e communion wi h him, and o g ea e hopes o wha God will do o hem he ea e […] [Such] a people a e se o h o he no ice o o he s. Such a people will be much obse ed. (19: 542; my i alics) I is wo h no ing ha he p eache does no hide he ac ha he conside s his hypo he ical communi y o belie e s o be be e ins uc ed han mos as ega ds his o ical, especially u u e, edemp i e e en s: hey claim o ha e “g ea e hopes o wha God will do o hem he ea e ”.43 Soon, in he second poin o he ‘applica ion’, Edwa ds makes i clea ha in he abo e desc ip ion he alluded o his own people: I come now pa icula ly, o apply his doc ine o he case o his own. This own is in a ema kable deg ee such a socie y, as is spoken o in he ex and doc ine. I has been so in a conside able deg ee o me ly. I has in ime pas been a own o an highe p o ession, and mo e no ed, o he wo ks which God had w ough in i han mos owns, i no han any own in he land. Bu i is become mo e ema kably so o la e, by means o he la e wonde ul pou ing ou o he Spi i o God upon us. (19: 548, 549; my i alics) God’s wo k o edemp ion is, o Edwa ds, ma e ialized and b ough o conc e e, his o ical ealiza ion in and h ough e i als. Re i al is he conc e e agen o di ine in e en ion in he o de o ime. Edwa ds s o e o se o h be o e his chu ch a ision 43 This may be a eiled e e ence o he millennium. Fo o he examples which e ince la en millennial expec a ions in Edwa ds’ pulpi o a o y du ing he 1730s, see Sanchez, “Di ine Communica ions” 26, 23 n. 19. 86 o his o y which could encompass hei pe sonal ebi h expe iences, he ecen local awakening, he his o y o No hamp on’s p e ious gene a ions and he ul ima e e i al which would ushe in he millennium (see 4. 2. c., p. 245 below). Thomas Shepa d’s doc ine o assu ance was essen ially applied, as we ha e al eady seen, h ough he exe cise o in ospec ion and was basically dissocia ed om his escha ology and ision o his o y. Al hough his o ical e e ences a e p esen h oughou his exposi ion o he Ma hean pa able, mos o hem se ed o ocus on New England as a p o iden ially p i ileged space whe e pu e eligion could be p ac iced in eedom. This dissocia ion o one’s assu ance o sal a ion and conc e e p ophe ic ul illmen , in u n, caused Shepa d and he colonial Pu i an adi ion a e him o consign he immedia e, e i iable ac ings o God’s Spi i o he in angible and sec e ealm o he soul, while he a ious s ains o escha ology44 de eloped by New England’s i s h ee gene a ions poin ed o, and deal wi h, a ai s and obse able e en s aking place a ound hem o bound o happen in his o y. These, when hey came o pass, would cons i u e de ini e and angible examples o di ine in e en ion in ime and space ha could be co obo a ed. This di ision be ween his o ical hough and he applica ion o he doc ine o assu ance did no happen in Jona han Edwa ds’ homile ics du ing he la e 1730s. When, a yea and a hal a e p eaching “A Ci y on a Hill”, No hamp on hea d he pa able o he en i gins being applied o hem in a “Use o Examina ion”, he commended way o gauge hei igh s anding be o e God was o conside whe he hey we e no “mo e in luenced by he Spi i o God by a [du ing he awakening] han you a e now”. While hey a e equi ed o examine whe ein hey a e “guil y o declining and backsliding”, hei e dic is no o be in e ed by unning a es 44 Fo a b ie bu accu a e summa y o he p emillennialis , amillennialis and pos millennialis posi ions on he Second Coming o Ch is de eloped in English and colonial Pu i anism, see Lo elace 69, 70. 87 o sel -examina ion in hei own souls. The issue is no so much ha hey mus ind an inw ough sign o ma k o ue g ace les hey should u n ou o be ep oba es; a he , hey a e o conside he ou come o hei expe ience inso a as i has a ec ed he way e i al is seen by hem and by o he s: “Ch is iani y, when i s i ues a e uly exci ed and i s ules uly p ac iced, is lo ely in he eyes o he wo ld” (Pa ables, I, 96, 97, 99). The e is undoub edly g ea e op imism in, and g ea e concessions a e made by, his Edwa ds han he one we ind in o he s ages o his p eaching ca ee . Why is his so? Whe eas Shepa d used he image o he en i gins being asleep basically o p o ide a desc ip i e ame whe e he chu ch could be en isioned, Edwa ds used i o encou age his hea e s and himsel : “Use II. Le us ouse ou o sleep. Le e e y one whe ein, on examina ion, he inds himsel [asleep, awake]. Le na u al men [ ouse hemsel es]”.45 O , in he “Use o Exho a ion” o ano he se mon in he same exposi o y se ies: “Labo as i we e o ealize he midnigh c y o you sel …” (Pa ables, I, 100, 136, 137; my i alics). This is a su p isingly op imis ic mode o Pu i an he o ic, which had usually been pe asi ely suspicious o and pessimis ic abou human na u e and e o s in bo h egene a e and un egene a e lis ene s. The Cal inis heological he i age, which he No hamp on pas o ully emb aced, was ecei ing a esh and new impulse om he posi i e and inno a i e Edwa dsean concep ion o “ he egene a e pe son” as a “dynamic o ce ha would seek ou and know and lo e an unending numbe o beings in an unending numbe o ci cums ances” (Lee, Theology, 113). Said mo e plainly: in e e y Ch is ian he e is a o ce ha is uns oppable due o he sou ce om which i d aws i s li e; al hough his dynamic o ce is no immedia ely om him bu om God, i is easonable and necessa y o call he ai h ul o ac ion, e en ‘sel -awakening’ ac ion. O , as Edwa ds himsel exp essed i mo e han hal way 45 Edi o ’s addi ions. 88 h ough he same exposi ion o he pa able o Ma hew 25: “[I] is om he Spi i in using a new and di ine p inciple. ’Tis no only a na u al p inciple, s i ed up and se o wo k by God’s Spi i , as men’s na u al conscience is s i ed up […] bu ’ is om he c ea i e powe o he Spi i o God, gi ing a new hea , in using a new p inciple”. And wha was he dynamics o his p inciple wo king in he belie e ? P ecisely he same as he dynamics o God’s ac i i y in his o y ha was b ie ly ouched on a he s a o his sec ion (pp. 74, 75 abo e). Edwa ds had no uled ou , as Shepa d had, he po en ial genuineness and alue o a ‘sudden’46 wo k o God, whe he in some ea hly ma e o in he sal a ion o souls. Di ine agency ough o be ecognized when ope a ing in bo h i s immedia e and p og essi e modes: “[This p inciple] is con inually om he Spi i o God, dwelling as a sp ing o li e in he soul. I is a i s immedia ely om he Spi i o God, and ’ is always immedia ely om he Spi i ” (Pa ables, I, 147; my i alics). The con inual o p og essi e ope a ion mus no be aken o a weake so o di ine ac i i y due o i s g adual and hidden appea ance o he inexpe ienced eyes o some. On he con a y, God may choose o wo k hus in his o y, in an indi idual soul o in a communi y o belie e s p ecisely because his powe appea s g ea e in doing so. The e o e, he way Edwa ds con eyed assu ance o he di ine na u e o he wo k his cong ega ion had been he subjec o was h ough an unde lying op imism bo h in his exposi o y and ho a o y modes o discou se (co esponding oughly o he sec ions o ‘doc ine’ and ‘applica ion’ in se mons espec i ely). This op imism was oo ed in he i m belie ha wha had been bes owed on he No hamp on communi y by he ecen spi i ual ou pou ing o 1734-35 was no “inac i e and mo ionless” (Pa ables, I, 148). Edwa ds was no ye saying ha “assu ance is no o be ob ained so much by sel - 46 Shepa d, Pa able, 346. Edwa ds would, as la e as 1743, con inue o pa ly sanc ion he wo k o e i al on he basis o he “suddenness o con e sions”, hough he change p oduced had o p o e o be “mani es ly du able” (4: 346). 89 examina ion, as by ac ion”47 (wi h all he po en ial o mo alism ha ocus had) as he would in he mid 1740s, and his ‘me hod’ o a aining ce ain y o a igh s anding be o e God de ini ely had mo e o do wi h coming ou o onesel han wi h looking inside onesel o e idences o g ace: Don’ es in any so o a ec ion, wi hou a eal and deep con ic ion o he eali y and di ine excellency o spi i ual hings. […] ’Tis one hing o be a ec ed wi h ha , ha God has been e y good o us and has se his lo e on us; and ano he hing o be inwa dly con inced, and o see ha God is supe la i ely lo ely in himsel and wo hy o be lo ed, whe he he has lo ed us o no. (Pa ables, I, 166) The powe ul na u e o he sou ce o e i als gua an eed he isibili y o i s ui s o he spi i ual naked eye. The e was no only a need o Ch is ians o long o mo e o God’s p esence in hei mids , al hough, ollowing Edwa ds’ escha ological scheme, No hamp oni es had enough easons o expec u he e i als a he h eshold o and h oughou he millennium. Abo e all, he e ough o be a communi y o sel - o ge ul and ai h ul con e s who, on being exho ed and admonished, could elease hemsel es om emaining co up ion and es on God alone o he soul’s e e nal wellbeing, and an unshakable ai h ha could obse e di ine ac i i y in all i s o ms. Despi e he e olu ion o ce ain aspec s o Edwa ds’ p ac ical heology, such as he ul ima e sou ce o assu ance o he biblical way o adminis e ing communion, his idea o di ine agency h ough e i al in i s immedia e and p og essi e modes would emain unal e ed. E en a e being h ough expe iences o pe sonal disappoin men and wha he saw as spi i ual decline in he own, Edwa ds e ospec i ely e alua ed he e ec s o he awakenings wi h he lens o his pa icula mode o his o ical hough . W i ing in wo di e en le e s du ing he second hal o 1743, he could speak abou a 47 As he would pu i in Religious A ec ions (2: 195; i alics in o iginal). 90 “g ea and abiding al e a ion” in No hamp on since hei local awakening, and also abou a “ isible al e a ion” a Geo ge Whi e ield’s coming o p each o his chu ch in 1740 (16: 110, 116). Thus, seeing h ough he pa e n o “degene a ion and awakening” ha was in insic o e i al as o ches a ed by he Spi i (Zakai, His o y, 250), he cons ued his own’s ecen his o y o sal a ion as ha ing ad anced un emi ingly: i s , by ecognizing he “abiding” ui s ha esul ed om he i s e i al expe ience, and second, by ecalling one ins ance o ema kable, immedia e di ine isi a ion h ough he i ine an p eache ha had been God’s main human ins umen du ing he G ea Awakening. The issue o he isibili y o God’s wo k h oughou his o y b ings me o he conside a ion o he las key o unde s anding Edwa dsean and colonial his o ical hough : di ine p o idence. This basic doc ine o Cal inis ic heology had a bea ing no jus on obse able e en s ha came o pass in Ch is endom bu on e e y hing ha came o pass in humani y’s exis ence and in na u e. Thus, i ough o unc ion as an all- encompassing eali y and dialec ic ool o any Pu i an a emp ing o w i e a his o y ha would go beyond me e Chu ch his o y. The wide implica ions o he doc ine o p o idence o human his o y we e kep in mind by Co on Ma he as he compiled and w o e a his o y o he se en een h cen u y in New England. Though Ma he ’s Magnalia Ch is i Ame icana was no as ambi ious in i s scope as Edwa ds’ Redemp ion Discou se, se ing hese wo gian in ellec s o colonial Ame ica (a guably he wo g ea es Pu i an hinke s) side by side will se e he compa a i e pu pose o his chap e . How does he issue o di ine so e eign y o p o idence de e mine hei he o ic and hei espec i e a emp s o w i e his o ical accoun s a he ou se o he Enligh enmen e a? 91 2. 4. Edwa ds s. Ma he : The Ope a ions o P o idence in His o y The igu e o Co on Ma he will be pa icula ly help ul in syn hesizing some o he poin s al eady discussed in his chap e , as well as analyzing di ine p o idence, o a leas h ee easons. Fi s ly, his iews on issues like chu ch o dinances o he isible and in isible chu ch in his o y a e no ha d o ace due o he scope o his nume ous w i ings. As a minis e o Bos on’s Second Chu ch, his wo k consis ed mainly in o e seeing ecclesias ical a ai s. Secondly, he was he son o Inc ease Ma he , who was i ually as much a s a esman as he was a cle gyman.48 He he e o e had well-in o med (i deba able) insigh s in o poli ics, ci il go e nmen ma e s and ele an episodes a ec ing ea ly colonial his o y. As he g andson o John Co on, he also had, h ough his amily connec ions, access o i s -hand es imonies om people in au ho i y belonging o he i s and second gene a ions o Pu i ans. Finally, he ex en o which he keeps p o idence in mind h oughou his his o ical w i ing is qui e ema kable, e en o a Pu i an.49 Co on Ma he does no simply a emp o jus i y and p o e God’s so e eign y o e all e en s, which would be expec ed om any o hodox Cal inis , bu goes o g ea leng hs in expounding di ine p o idence in New England’s ecen pas wi h all he in icacies ha a e de i ed om a due conside a ion o he ma e ial and spi i ual dimensions o his o y. 48 Lo elace explains how, in one o his many ips ac oss he A lan ic, Inc ease Ma he was in ol ed in “seeking unsuccess ully o in e es King James in es o ing he aca ed cha e and secu ing Pu i an heoc acy in New England”. His “diploma ic skill […] gained him espec in London” as he ook pa in ob aining a new cha e , adop ed in 1691, and “he was pe mi ed o name he chie o ice s who we e o pu [ he new] go e nmen in o ope a ion” (14, 15). Lo elace’s biog aphical inqui y in he in oduc o y chap e o The Ame ican Pie ism o Co on Ma he (1-31) is he main sou ce consul ed o con ex ual de ails o Co on Ma he ’s li e and wo k in his sec ion. 49 The six h book o he Magnalia ( he e a e se en in o al) consis s o app oxima ely 130 pages and is exclusi ely de o ed o ins ances o p o iden ial di ine in e en ions in his o y. 98 p o iden ial ope a ions (whe he ligh ning s iking o a aging sea) is escaped om by he sain s and se es God o punish his enemies o u n hem o himsel h ough he ea and awe p oduced in hem. Wi h he excep ion o one ins ance, in which a c ew o s a ing seamen who a e los ecei e di ec supply om he sea when “ he e leap’d a migh y ish in o hei boa ” (II, 297), he ole o na u al elemen s in p o iden ial ope a ions is essen ially nega i e. Al hough a comp ehensi e discussion on he issue o na u e and Pu i anism would equi e a longe inqui y han he p esen one can a o d o be, I wan o b ing some o he conclusions o expe s on colonial li e a u e o bea on his b ie compa ison be ween Ma he and Edwa ds. Fi s , Sac an Be co i ch a e s ha “[c]on a y o gene al opinion, he Pu i ans nei he ha ed no ea ed hei en i onmen ” bu , a he , belie ed ha “ he land belonged o hem be o e hey belonged o he land, and hey ook possession [...] imposing hei own image upon i ” (Je emiad, 162; Ri es, 35). Howe e , he “image” Pu i ans saw in he na u al en i onmen o Ame ica be o e a p ope se lemen was es ablished would ha e been ha e ul in some measu e since he con inen was conside ed o be “unde he da k dominion o he de il” (Zakai, His o y, 263). The la e iew was, acco ding o p o esso Zakai, common o bo h Edwa ds and Ma he . I can, I belie e, be a gued ha he gene al opinion Be co i ch gainsays is ue a leas o some ex en , and ha , hough Zakai may be igh in gene al e ms abou Edwa ds ha ing adop ed Ma he ’s iew o he Ame ican con inen as being unde Sa an, he Edwa dsean iew o na u e i sel was mo e posi i e han ha o ea lie colonial Pu i ans. Pe y Mille may ha e gone oo a (as he himsel conceded) in es ablishing a link be ween Eme son’s and Edwa ds’ in e p e a ion o hei “imp essions” om na u e, bu he was ce ainly accu a e when he desc ibed ou au ho as passiona ely in lo e wi h na u e (E and, 184, 185). Co on Ma he e inces an 99 un a o able pe cep ion o na u e by consis en ly assigning a nega i e ole o i in p o iden ial ope a ions, and he shows he same p ejudice by his use o ce ain allusions (analyzed below) when dealing wi h p e e na u al phenomena. Jona han Edwa ds, on he o he hand, ound g ea deligh in e i ing o soli a y places, like his “ a he ’s pas u e” o he banks o he Hudson Ri e a om he ci y (see pp. 25, 26 abo e), o medi a e in a na u al en i onmen . The essen ial eason o his app ecia ion o na u e was ha he saw an analogy be ween he “wo ks o c ea ion and p o idence” (18: 192; 11: 53).56 Up o his poin o he chap e , immedia e di ine agency has been mainly linked o he conside a ion o he Holy Spi i ’s ac i i y in his o y owa d pa icula g oups o indi iduals (sec ions 2. 1, 2. 2, and 2. 3). This has also been e e ed o as he ‘o de o g ace’, as opposed o he ‘o de o na u e’ in which God ope a es indi ec ly acco ding o es ablished laws o o he seconda y causes. The assump ion in he ‘nega i e examples’ o spi i ual agency in space and ime ha ollow in his b ie s udy o he Magnalia is ha , o bo h Edwa ds and Ma he , nei he sa anic agen s (demons o ‘de ils’) no Sa an himsel could ha e in e ened o dis up o a ec human a ai s wi hou explici pe mission om God. The e o e, hough he e m di ine agency is no wholly inapp op ia e, i is no he dei y’s di ec bu indi ec in luence o in ol emen in his o y 56 Based on his concep ion o c ea ion, Edwa ds also “a gued ha Sc ip u e endo ses a sys em o ypes in na u e”. In his e o o unde s and and elabo a e his sys em o ypes and images, he “depa ed in s yle i no in subs ance om he Pu i an ypological adi ion” (McClymond & McDe mo , 120). Since he use o images om na u e is an ins umen al he o ical de ice h oughou he Redemp ion Discou se (Wilson, 9: 57), i will be analyzed and discussed ully in chap e s 3 and 4 (p. 194 ). A his s age, i is enough o no e ha , due o his concep o c ea ion as being subo dina ed o his o y and ul ima ely o p o idence (Zakai, His o y, 39), Edwa ds “ easoned om he end o pu pose o c ea ion o he cha ac e o he na u al wo ld” (McClymond & McDe mo , 121). 100 ha he au ho s would ha e en isioned when gauging and examining his kind o supe na u al and spi i ual occu ences. In one o his many displays o biblical and e ymological e udi ion, Ma he opens he chap e ha deals wi h “ he wonde s o he in isible wo ld”, o he sphe e o ‘Hea en’, by es ablishing a connec ion be ween he i ual whe eby a goa ca ied he sins o ancien Is ael o he dese on he day o expia ion (Le i icus 16: 9, 10) and dese s hemsel es as he place “ he De il and his angels” we e belie ed o inhabi in he “days o Moses” (II, 388, 389). A New Tes amen con i ma ion o his doc ine is he ac ha hose goa s, which h ough he Le i ical i ual became an a onemen o Is ael’s sins, a e a p e igu a ion o Ch is , as he was me and emp ed by he De il in he wilde ness a he s a o his minis y acco ding o he gospel (Ma hew 4: 1-11). Based on his exposi ion, he way Co on Ma he cons ues a ame o New Englande s’ expe ience o he demonic in hei own wilde ness is o con end ha egions, like he land o Is ael, whe e he ue God is con inually p ay’d un o, and whe e he wo d o God is con inually sounding, a e illed wi h such hings as a e e y uneasie un o he de ils: The de ils o en ecede much om hence in o he wilde ness [...] [T]he ch is ians who we e d i en in o he Ame ican desa , which is now call’d New-England, ha e o hei so ow seen [Sa an] dwelling and aging he e in e y agical ins ances. The de ils ha e doub less el a mo e han ex ao dina y exa ion, om he a i al o hose ch is ians wi h hei sac ed exe cises o ch is iani y in his wilde ness... (II, 389) The pa allelism wi h Is ael is commonplace in Pu i an li e a u e and qui e clea in his pa icula case. Though New England as a whole is e e ed o as “ his wilde ness”, he wo d “ he e” (my emphases) indica es ha o Ma he he e is a dis ance be ween he places whe e God’s people abound ( owns like, say, Bos on) and he wilde ness o coun yside whe e demons lee due o hei ho o a he ai h ul’s holiness. The e a e 101 se e al examples o show ha he Bos onian minis e consis en ly associa es he wild, na u al su oundings o New English se lemen s wi h exposu e o demonic in luences. The i s ins ance Ma he na a es o his eade s is ha o Ann Cole, “a pe son o se ious pie y” who el she was being haun ed. The woman who was examined by he magis a es on accoun o he being suspicious o he wi chc a behind Ann’s o men s “decla ’d ha he de il appea ’d un o he i s in he shape o dee ; skipping abou he , and a las p oceeded so a as in ha shape o alk wi h he : and ha he de il had equen ly ca nal knowledge o he ”. This woman’s execu ion a e he con ession b ough abou he deli e ance o Ann Cole om he o me “ex ao dina y oubles” (II, 389, 390). The poin is ha he eade is able o ecognize he same connec ions in he na a i es o he occul in he Magnalia as in he ame Ma he has es ablished o hem, jus i ied in e ms o biblical exegesis and sac ed his o y (II, 389). Th ough se e al de ails in hese s o ies, a nexus be ween he wilde ness (o he ‘wild’ and ‘animal’ ins inc s a oused by i ) and sa anic in luences is clea ly hin ed a . O he allusions a e mo e sub le bu equally signi ican as ega ds he way na u e comes ac oss in a ca e ul eading o hese accoun s. In he case o a ma ied couple whose house “nea he Salmon- alls” was being haun ed, he e il spi i made i sel isible while “going o e he i e in a canoo”. Up o his momen , hey had only hea d noises and oices while hey we e a home and had objec s inexplicably h own agains hem (“by an in isible hand”, Ma he in ima es). Bu only when hey we e owing “o e he i e ”, on hei way o and back om a ce ain place, did he g uesome appa i ion o a man’s head magically joined o a ca ’s ail mani es he demonic p esence sca cely h ee ee om hei canoe (II, 394). A hi d example o allusion o an elemen om na u e ca ying conno a ions o a de ilish in luence o p esence is ound in he s o y o Philip Smi h. A “deacon o a chu ch” in u al and ag icul u al Hadley, Massachuse s, one o he jobs 102 he man had was as “a jus ice in he [sic] coun ey Cou ”. The se ing is, o a s a , one o closeness o he wilde ness. The s ange allusion, in ol ing ‘dee ’ once again, comes when we a e old M . Smi h saw an appa i ion o he woman who was using wi chc a agains him in e enge o some unsa is ac o y se ices ecei ed in he pas : “In his dis esses he exclaim’d much upon he woman a o esaid [...] as being seen by him in he oom; and he e was di e s imes bo h in ha oom, and o e he whole house, a s ong smell o some hing like musk” (II, 394, 395). Since ‘musk’ is a sec e ion p oduced benea h he skin o he abdomen o he male musk dee , he same associa ion o ideas is igge ed when eading his s o y as in he p e ious wo sho na a i es. Al hough hese ales may ha e been passed down o Co on Ma he almos exac ly as he na a es hem, he consciously selec ed he ones he would include in his sho his o y o he p e e na u al in New England (II, 389). These h ee include such elemen s as I sea ched o in my su ey o he ou een s o ies, and hey con i m he iew ha he e is a consis en ep esen a ion o he occul o sa anic as connec ed o na u e in he Ame ican wilde ness. The o he ele en s o ies con ain no such e e ences, bu wo mo e gene al obse a ions may be pe inen ly inse ed he e. Fi s ly, Ma he is clea ly ying o p esen hese supe na u al episodes in a way ha would make p o idence consis en wi h he obse able dynamics o na u e and accep able om he poin o iew o Enligh enmen science. His insis ence on he p esence o an “in isible hand” o “in isible spi i ” behind mos o he ex ao dina y e en s na a ed (II, 391, 392, 393, 394, 398; my i alics) e inces he sel -consciousness o someone w i ing du ing he age o empi ical science, which demanded a me hod o obse a ion in o de o asce ain ac s. Indeed, Mille is p obably accu a e when he says “Co on Ma he was en u ing beyond he limi s o Pu i an p udence when he ac ually did see an angel; he mo e no mal a i ude was ha by close obse ance o some me ely na u al occu ence, 103 he p esence o angels o o God Himsel could be de ec ed” (Mind, 229). The p esence o doc o s in some o he s o ies, eaching a common diagnosis wi h he cle gy, also poin s in he same di ec ion. Ma he would ha e his eade s know ha in se e al cases o demonic possession he seizu es o he ic ims we e “p onounced ex ao dina y and p e e na u al” by “ he mos expe ienc’d physicians” (II, 396, 397). Thus, e en in he pa o New England’s his o y ha is ha dly explainable in scien i ic e ms, Ma he ’s na a i e is cloaked wi h he plausibili y bes owed by he sanc ion o scien is s. The o he aspec ha should no go unno iced is ha , since many o he accoun s a e conce ned wi h cases o wi chc a , he ole o magis a es and execu ions is c ucial in pu ing a s op o he spi i ual e il ha a ec s he di e en owns and people. Thus, he Ch is ian es ablishmen , ep esen ed by he au ho i ies ca ying ou hei o ice, de ends i sel agains he sa anic onslaugh . The an i hesis o his godly es ablishmen , p e ailing ou side he se lemen s and some imes p esen wi hin, is associa ed also wi h he p esence o Na i e-Ame icans, ha is o say, he na u al inhabi an s o he wilde ness. In he ou een h and las s o y, he e appea s an “Indian woman” who is esponsible o he o men o many in “Salem-Village” du ing 1691 and 1692 (II, 409). Be co i ch’s con en ion ha colonial Pu i ans’ iew o hei na u al su oundings was no nega i e inasmuch as he wilde ness was he e o he se le s o impose “ hei own image upon i ” (Je emiad, 162) is suppo ed by my p esen a gumen . The Ch is ian commonweal h’s depic ion in he Magnalia as p o iden ially ad ancing o esis ing in e ms o i s abili y o s and agains a spi i ually and na u ally wild and hos ile en i onmen implies ha he wo ld beyond he se le s’ on ie awai s i s subjec ion o he kingdom o God (Je emiad, 163, 164). A compa ison be ween Ma he ’s and Edwa ds’ use o me apho ical language o e e o wha hey iewed as he his o ical e en o he all o An ich is will show ha hei di e en pe cep ions o na u e 104 de e mined hei espec i e use o igu a i e language aken om he na u al ealm in hei he o ic o his o y. In a se mon se ies p eached owa ds he end o his li e,57 Ma he used an “accessible he o ic” o “ es a e he old p epa a ionis hope ha man, wi h he help o a s e n bu lo ing minis y, can ende himsel i o he a ishing expe ience o g ace” (Heime & Delbanco, 330, 331). To desc ibe he p og ess o g ace o o God’s kingdom in he human soul, he p eache eminds his hea e s ha “ he wo d o God, accompanied by he in luences58 o he Holy Spi i , is he plow wi h which his wo k o God is ca ied on”. Taking his me apho om Je emiah 4: 3 (“B eak up you allow g ound”), Ma he desc ibes man’s soul and hea as “ea h” ha needs o be “b oken by he plow”, o signi y ha i mus be “b oken wi h he so ow o epen ance” (Ag icola, 331). E en hough he image y is om na u e, he explici me apho employed o ep esen God’s g acious ac i i y is om ag icul u e (a man-made “plow”) and poin s o he idea ha he na u al elemen i sel ( he lump o “ea h”) is digni ied, o made i o con ac wi h he di ine, by he ex e nal human ac ion o subduing na u e. In e es ingly o he p esen s udy (and mo ing on o he example ha was an icipa ed), in a la e se mon om he same se ies he e is a somewha simila depic ion o he “ uin o An ich is ”. This is o pa icula impo ance o his disse a ion because o he b oad sense in which ‘his o y’ is being conside ed and analyzed, namely, as encompassing 57 Ci ca 1725 (Heime & Delbanco, 330). 58 No e ha Ma he ’s language in dealing wi h he wo k o epen ance leading o con e sion seems o be in line wi h he Old Ligh heology ha held he e was no di ec illumina ion o he soul by he Spi i bu , a he , an “in luence” coope a ing wi h he u h p esen ed o he po en ial con e . Howe e , since Ma he ’s li e does no o e lap wi h he G ea Awakening (he died in 1727), he e is no ce ain y ha he would ha e opposed he e i al as o he conse a i e minis e s om Bos on did (see p. 94 abo e). In ac , some au ho s ha e gone so a as o a gue ha his hopes o he enewal o he chu ches in New England and in he wo ld, based on a p emillennial escha ology, we e no unlike hose o e i alis s like Edwa ds himsel o Gilbe Tennen (Lo elace, 240-250, 274). 105 u u e ul illmen o biblical p ophecy as well as pas his o ical e en s. Mo eo e , he ele ance o his pa icula escha ological e e ence in Ma he ’s Ag icola is wo old: i s , i d aws on he image y o na u e, and, second, Edwa ds in he Redemp ion Discou se expounds he issue o he down all o An ich is comp ehensi ely since i is a c i ical e en in his scheme o edemp i e his o y. Ma he ’s exposi ion o Psalm 37:2 s a s: Desec o . The G ass be o e he Mowe Psalms 37:2. They shall soon be cu down as he g ass O whom speaks he psalmis his? Those whom he spi i o God calls e il-doe s and wo ke s o iniqui y [...] We ind he e o e old he uin o An ich is , in a emendous con lag a ion, whe ein he enemies o God shall be consumed [...] When he wicked a e cu down as he g ass, ’ is ha hey may be cas in o he o en and h own in o he de ou ing i e. (Ag icola, 333) Co on Ma he chooses, once again, an image in which na u e (me onymically e e ed o in “ he g ass”) su e s he onse o human ag icul u al ac i i y ( he “Mowe ” cu ing i down), he la e signi ying, as in he p e ious example, he ad ancemen o God’s kingdom.59 Edwa ds’ depa u e om he colonial li e a y s ain ha consis en ly (i sub ly, in many cases) ep esen ed na u e in a nega i e ligh can be clea ly disce ned in one passage om his manusc ip s on he his o y o edemp ion. The ex unde conside a ion was w i en by Edwa ds in his no ebooks o expand a sec ion on he g adual ise o An ich is om he wen y-second se mon o he 1739 se ies (9: 413 n. 8). To be mo e p ecise, he was e lec ing on he ac ha he Roman 59 The kingdom o Sa an o An ich is o he Pu i ans, as explained ea lie (pp. 74, 75), means in p inciple any in luence o es ige o he Roman Ca holic chu ch in he wo ld. Ne e heless, he ‘kingdom’ in a b oade sense (i.e., he gospel) was seen as p og essing o ad ancing whene e a soul was uly con e ed as well as when a Roman- Ca holic s onghold ell o yielded. Ma he , in his case, is simply alluding o An ich is and does no de elop on he opic u he due o he de o ional cha ac e o his pa icula se mon se ies. 106 chu ch had been co up ed “g adually” un il apos asy culmina ed when “a leng h [ he bishop o Rome], as Ch is ’s ica on ea h, claimed he e y same powe ha Ch is would ha e i he was p esen ly on ea h” and came o be called “God on ea h” (9: 412). On e ising his se mon manusc ip , hen, he de eloped on he idea ha he an i hesis o his an i-Ch is ian kingdom would likewise ad ance g adually in he p o iden ially appoin ed ime. God had his “elec imes and seasons” o spi i ual enligh enmen o he p esen and u u e jus as He had hem du ing Old Tes amen imes. In he di ine edemp i e pa e n, “one ema kable dispensa ion and ano he ” b ing inc easing knowledge o God and He “shows g ea a o o his chu ch accomplishing g ea hings”. The ul ima e dispensa ion o millennium, hose glo ious imes[,] how hey will g adually come on he chu ch o God on ea h, will g adually ipen o ha g ea es glo y when all hings a e se led in clea es b igh ness and g ea es peace and pu i y, as he imes a e g adually p epa ed o hei lou ishing s a e in summe by he g adual inc ease o hea om he dep h o he win e . Some imes a e y wa m and pleasan season and hen cold e u ns again o gi e a check o he sap. O he wise he oo sudden g ow h o he ees would issue in hei dea h. (9: 413) In he las wo sen ences i is clea ha he g adual iumph o God’s kingdom does no ule ou o Edwa ds a dynamics o cyclical ise and all wo king as pa o he same pa e n (see pp. 67, 68 abo e). Bu wha conce ns ou compa ison wi h Ma he ’s use o image y in e e ence o he end o An ich is ’s eign is ha , whe eas he la e en isioned he wi hd awal o Sa an’s o ces as “g ass” being “cu down” and h own in o an “o en” (again, a man-made de ice is he p e e ed me apho o ep esen he iumph o igh eousness; Ag icola, 333), he No hamp on pas o picked his images om na u e o pain his pic u e a he di e en ly. The e is indeed a sco ching hea o signi y he a i al o God’s migh y kingdom and His igh eousness, bu , ins ead o coming om an “o en”, i is like he “g adual inc ease o hea ” in he summe ha is 107 accompanied wi h he “ ipen[ing]” o ui and “ lou ishing” as well as “b igh ness”. The da kness and he “win e ” o an i-Ch is ian ule yield no a he hands o man, his ins umen s o husband y o a he appoin ed seasons o ha es ing, bu hey wi hd aw g adually as he na u ally es ablished cycles b ing “a e y wa m and pleasan season and hen cold e u ns again o gi e a check o he sap”. I is “ ees” ha a e g owing on he ield o Edwa ds’ depic ion o God’s ad ancing kingdom, no any c op o p oduce om he plowed allow g ound o Co on Ma he . The wise, God-appoin ed, na u al cycles “gi e a check” o he p og ess o edemp ion, no he skill o he husbandman whose ools (whe he a mowe o a plow) en o ce he di ine commandmen o subduing he ea h. The issues o e i al and he ad ancemen o God’s kingdom hin ed a in his las passage om Edwa ds b ing us o he nex subsec ion in his las poin o chap e 2. Fo he Pu i ans, p o idence encompassed, as has been a gued, absolu ely e e y hing in na u e and in his o y. La e Pu i anism had unwi ingly dissocia ed di ine so e eign y om na u e and, by hus obscu ing he idea o God’s immanence, i had g adually come o de elop an essen ially nega i e, o a leas no a glo ious, ision o he na u al ha clashes wi h wha we ind in Edwa ds. Though colonial hough had also sub ly ende ed he wo kings o g ace man-dependen , as opposed o he adi ional humani y- humbling ‘so e eign g ace’, he e is s ill in Ma he ’s Magnalia a high iew o he Chu ch, he communi y o sain s, as p o iden ially guided and sus ained h oughou sac ed his o y. Sac ed his o y comp ehends he biblical na a i e, chu ch his o y om Ch is ’s ime o he p esen and he un olding o all e en s ha con i m p ophecy un il Judgmen Day. These s ages and elemen s s uc u ed and enhanced he hinking and his o ical w i ings o Ma he as much as Edwa ds’. Be co i ch e e s o Ma he ’s 114 2. 1. abo e. Taking his ex and he p e ious one om he chap e on con e sions in book VI, i would seem ha he eal answe , o Ma he and all Pu i ans who ollowed his a ionale, o he ques ion “Bu how?”, is ul ima ely: “Th ough he co enan ”, a he han mys e iously and so e eignly. God is bound by his co enan , openly equa ed he e wi h he “co enan o g ace”, and mus ‘dispense’ His g ace o e e yone in he “ isible Chu ch”. I is a “minis e ial dispensa ion”, indica ing ha he p esence and ole o minis e s (p ima ily in he o dinances o he Wo d and he sac amen s) is ins umen al in ma e ializing his g ace. Edwa ds’ p emises and conclusions in his p eaching du ing he yea s o he local awakening and he la e 1730s clash wi h Ma he ’s hough and amewo k jus desc ibed abo e. In a se mon which emphasized he helplessness and ileness o men apa om God’s g ace, Edwa ds wa ned his lis ene s ha “he is no he co enan God o hose who a e in an uncon e ed s a e [...] They a e wi hou God in all hei a ai s, in all he business hey unde ake, in hei amily a ai s, and in hei pe sonal a ai s, in hei ou wa d conce ns, and in he conce ns o hei souls” (Wo ks, II, 819). The las wo ema ks seem o ha e been made wi h ega d o a po en ial con idence in some cong egan s who migh soo he hemsel es wi h he hough ha hey belonged o he isible chu ch. In he applica ion o he se mon i becomes clea wha kind o pa ishione Edwa ds has in mind: “You may possibly la e you sel ha you condi ion is no so dole ul, because you ha e always walked o de ly, you ha e been mo al and eligious. He e also you decei e you sel . Fo no wi hs anding you mo al and eligious beha iou , and all you sob ie y, you ne e did he leas hing om a g acious espec o God” (II, 827). Con o mi y o ex e nal o ou wa d eligious p op ie y is wo hless o Edwa ds and has no essen ial connec ion wi h he dispensa ion o God’s g ace o His in isible chu ch. Fo he Edwa ds o he 1730s, he 115 “ex e nal p i ileges”, o o dinances, which e e yone in he isible chu ch was en i led o (Pa ables, I, 69), we e no he channel o means h ough which he Spi i necessa ily, o e en p ima ily, wo ked wi hin ime and space; e i al was. Be o e inishing wi h a ew obse a ions on e i al and ou au ho s’ escha ology, i is in e es ing o no e ha o Co on Ma he signs o God’s displeasu e also bo e a ela ion o chu ch o dinances. Two accoun s o di ine judgmen na a ed in a se mon om 1697, inse ed in he six h book o he Magnalia, clea ly es ablish a link be ween neglec ing o con a ening chu ch o dinances and being an objec o di ine w a h. Fi s , he e a e some people who ha e da ed o pu sue a se lemen in “ he eas e n pa s o his p o ince” wi hou any ega d o “ he o dinances o he gospel”. An ecclesias ical es ablishmen “no [being] se led among hem”, he “jealousie o he neglec ed Lo d Jesus Ch is , has b oke o h like an unquenchable i e upon hose plan a ions; he ie y w a h o hea en has b ough a swi des uc ion upon hem”. Bu Ma he is speaking in igu a i e e ms, o i was a “ba ba ous enemy” (p esumably Indians) who “has once and again b oke in upon hose owns, like an i esis ible o en , ca ying all be o e i , un il hey come o hose owns, whe e he o dinances o he gospel a e mo e upheld” (II, 336, 337). The second example may ha e been mo e o a wa ning o Ma he ’s lis ene s a his lec u e (325), as i conce ned a membe o a chu ch in “a ce ain own in Connec icu ” who, on he absence o hei “godly minis e ”, da ed o disobey he pas o ’s o de s ega ding he o dinance o he Wo d. Ins ead o eading he se mon appoin ed o he Sunday se ice, his chu ch membe (who was “ epu ed a pious man”) p eached one o his own. No only ha , bu “he be ook himsel o bewail he en y o he cle gy in he land, in ha hey did no wish all he Lo d’s people o be p ophe s, and call o h p i a e b e h en publickly o p ophesie”. While p eaching his e y message “God smo e him wi h ho ible madness; he was aken a ingly dis ac ed: 116 The people we e o c’d wi h iolen hands o ca y him home”. F om ha day on, when anyone “began a discou se o any hing in eligion wi h him, he would e e ly ou in o a i o madness” (337). So i is ob ious ha in Ma he ’s his o ical scheme di ine p o idence ope a ed wi hin he pa ame e s o he co enan , and was he e o e mo e pa en ly obse able whe e e an es ablishmen o God’s o dinances was p esen , o whe e i s absence led o an ou pou ing o w a h ins ead o blessing. Bu his che ished es ablishmen , hese highly- alued o dinances, had a e h ee gene a ions b ough abou p ecisely he kind o o malism denounced by he p eaching o Edwa ds and o he e i alis s (Mu ay, New Biog aphy, 125-128, 202, 209, 215). As I ha e al eady a gued, i was a o malism ha a ec ed colonial hough as well as mo als, o en leading o an unconscious in ellec ual comp omise when aced wi h he inc easingly in luen ial and secula izing Enligh enmen philosophy. In he Redemp ion Discou se, Edwa ds challenged he “new modes o his o ical hough ” which placed an “inc easing impo ance” on “his o ia humana” and “acco ded o human agency” a de e mining ole in he his o ical p ocess (Zakai, His o y, 224). By conside ing human ac ions me ely a “by-p oduc o he di ine agency”, he was no jus con on ing secula assump ions abou he his o ical p ocess bu also shaking o he Pu i an he i age o his o ians who had always ( om John Foxe, h ough John Mil on and igh down o Co on Ma he ) sough o asc ibe a g ea e ole o human au ho i ies and ule s64 in b inging abou God’s pu poses han, o ins ance, o o dina y men. Edwa ds did no le such hie a chical, poli ical conside a ions unde mine he absolu e heocen ici y o his ision o his o y (Zakai, His o y, 233, 225). And i God was he main ac o in he 64 The espec i e exal a ions o Queen Elisabe h I, Oli e C omwell and John Win h op by he au ho s named abo e a e some examples (Zakai, His o y, 251). 117 hea e o his o y, e i al was o be pa icula ly ins umen al du ing he las ac o he sac ed play, namely, in he millennium. Acco ding o Edwa ds’ pos millennial escha ology, he e we e many hings ha would be unp eceden ed du ing he millennium, such as he powe and cla i y o gospel p eaching (9: 460) o he amoun o “a bi a y” o “mi aculous” e en s aking place (Fie ing, 101). Howe e , his language in he Redemp ion Discou se poin s o any hing bu a sudden o s a k a i al o he expec ed ‘glo ious imes o he Chu ch’. This s age o sac ed his o y would, a he , be ushe ed in “swi ly, ye g adually”, by “means” like he p eaching o he Wo d (9: 459). This ambigui y (“swi ly” s. “g adually”) p e ails in Edwa ds’ o a o y h oughou he e i al yea s. S ephen S ein, in his in oduc ion o Apocalyp ic W i ings, a gues ha he No hamp on pas o was oo cau ious o sugges om he pulpi ha hei local e i al had been “a beginning o e en a ype o he millennium”, and ha only in his p i a e e lec ions did he de ine awakenings as “p epa a o y” and “leading o he u u e glo ious s a e o he chu ch on ea h” (S ein, 5: 20). Bu in one o he las se mons o he Redemp ion Discou se he opposi e seems o be he case. A e explaining ha he “Spi i shall be glo iously pou ed ou o he wonde ul e i al and p opaga ion o eligion”, he s e ches his use o language enough o sugges he millennium may ha e begun: “We know no whe e his pou ing ou o he Spi i shall begin, o whe he a many places a once, o whe he wha has al eady been ben’ some o e unne and beginning o i ” (9: 460; my i alics). Only a ew mon hs la e , in Decembe 1739, p eaching a a p i a e mee ing, Edwa ds emphasized he ac ha awakenings had happened in many colonies and ac oss he A lan ic, and called o se ious conside a ion ega ding he his o ic momen hey we e li ing in: “Le i be conside ed ha we know no wha hese hings [ he ecen e i als] may be o e unne s o . I is gene ally supposed by di ines ha mos o all hose hings ha ha e been 118 o e old be o e God begins o accomplish hose glo ious hings, ha shall ushe in he glo ious ime o he chu ch, a e al eady ul illed” (22: 109). Despi e his e e ence o “di ines”, one hing Edwa ds was no doing was looking o he ealiza ion o he millennium in he same way ha o he New England heologians, Co on Ma he among hem, had done i be o e him.65 The basic idea ha sac ed his o y would culmina e wi h a glo ious pe iod o he sain s on ea h was commonplace, no jus in colonial w i ings, bu in all Pu i an li e a u e h oughou he se en een h cen u y. Ne e heless, Ma he ’s p emillennialis s ance on he issue led him e en ually o hold sligh ly pessimis ic iews ega ding he possibili y o a gene al e i al p io o he Second Coming. P o esso Lo elace a gues ha Ma he pu sued an implici ly op imis ic o m o in e na ional ecumenism among P o es an s, bu he concedes ha [ ]he posi i e amillennial and pos millennial s ains we e d i en owa d an Edwa dsian concep o e i al because hei unde s anding o he chu ch’s pe se e ance in he u u e had o depend no on he bodily e u n o Ch is bu on his spi i ual ule h ough he ou pou ing o he Holy Spi i . I migh be assumed ha li e al chilias s [i.e., p emillennialis s like Co on Ma he ] would lack his dynamic and would be indi e en o he cause o e o ma ion. (70; my i alics) Al hough he la e has been ue in some pe iods and b anches o P o es an Ch is iani y, Ma he , as Lo elace p o es in his book, did ake an in e es in he p og ess and s a e o he wide P o es an chu ch. None heless, he expec a ions o Ch is ’s imminen and isible coming could ha dly be kep high inde ini ely by someone who, like he Bos on minis e , i mly belie ed he would pe sonally wi ness Ch is ’s Second Coming and li ed o be mo e han six y. So, oughly in he las wo decades o his li e, 65 McClymond and McDe mo , in ac , a gue ha he escha ology o he Redemp ion Discou se is i s main inno a i e aspec (225). 119 he e is a aceable decline o mo i a ion based on escha ology, and Ma he inally “su ende ed his ins umen o awakening he chu ch’s sense o mission” (71, 72). One o he keys o he con as he e is be ween his pessimism and Edwa ds’ op imis ic escha ological ou look lies in he idea o “spi i ual ule” a ached o he e i al o e i als he expec ed would in oduce human his o y in o i s las chap e . One c ucial aspec ha dis inguishes Ma he ’s and Edwa ds’ concep o di ine agency o p esence du ing he millennial e a has o do wi h hei disc epancy o e he ole o ci il o secula go e nmen in p o iden ial his o y. This issue will be explo ed in he nex subsec ion. Howe e , my su ey o ‘sac ed his o y’ in bo h au ho s’ his o ical schemes has logically and ine i ably66 b ough he p esen discussion o deal wi h hei di e en escha ological iews, so I shall conclude wi h some obse a ions abou he dis inc way in which Edwa ds en isioned immedia e o di ec di ine go e nmen du ing he millennium. A ihu Zakai’s syn hesis is help ul o my p esen pu pose: Edwa ds’s concep o he millennium hus di e ed adically om hose o p e ious P o es an and Pu i an exege es. He deemphasized Ch is ’s millennial ule. He did no look o he pe sonal e u n o Ch is in his majes y o inaugu a e he millennium, as he New England di ine John Co on did,67 no did he en ision any millennial eign o Ch is and his sain s upon ea h. Fu he , in con as o he o e millennial expec a ions among P o es an s and Pu i ans in England and New England du ing he se en een h cen u y, he e used o iden i y he millennium wi h any iolen social and poli ical ans o ma ion ha would ushe in he ans o ma ion o he wo ld in o he kingdom o God [...] He dwel mo e on he powe o he Spi i han on millena ian expec a ions o ea hly dominium. (His o y, 270) 66 Since u u e p ophe ic ul illmen is encompassed by sac ed his o y, he millennium had o be included in his subsec ion. 67 O bo h Inc ease and Co on Ma he , among o he s (Lo elace, 70). 120 Mo ing away om he heoc a ically d i en pe spec i e o p eceding gene a ions, Edwa ds a icula ed a his o ical ision which did no sea ch o he angibili y o he kingdom in he inhe i ed Pu i an es ablishmen (ecclesias ical o go e nmen al) o any o he ins i u ional s uc u e. This, howe e , was no done a he expense o he no ion ha God’s plan would ul ima ely be imposed by an i esis ible ule o o ce. Qui e on he con a y, God’s au ho i y would ul ima ely p e ail. Bu i would no iumph h ough ea hly go e nmen s and means bu o e hem. This esh emphasis on absolu e di ine so e eign y made i a logical necessi y o ela i ize he impo ance o he seconda y means God used o en o ce His agenda, like human ule s o go e nmen s. 2. 4. c. Wo ldly A ai s, Secula His o y and God’s Absolu e So e eign y. The e is a con ex ual simila i y be ween Ma he ’s and Edwa ds’ posi ion as he minis e s o no able and enowned cong ega ions ha may shed ligh on he di e en aspec s which conce n his las poin in chap e 2 o he p esen s udy. As was poin ed ou in chap e 1 (p. 40), Edwa ds could obse e a ound him he signs o g owing secula iza ion, which was made isible by he ac ha , o he i s ime in No hamp on’s his o y, a building o he han he mee inghouse was e ec ed o hos he own’s poli ical mee ings. His Redemp ion Discou se was p eached p ecisely du ing he i s mon hs o his symbolic and de ini i e physical sepa a ion o he secula and he ecclesias ical. Simila ly, Ma he w o e his his o y o New England in a ime when he “au ho i y o minis e s was g ea ly educed [and] he s a e no longe ac ed as he p o ec i e a m o he chu ches” (A ch, 144). In Be co i ch’s a he s a k e ms, hi d gene a ion Pu i ans wi nessed he “demise o he chu ch-s a e”, al hough o Ma he “ he anished heoc acy [s ill] ensh ined he ue meaning o he coun y” and i s e and. (Ri es, 88, 94). His inabili y o come o e ms wi h his new social and ecclesias ical 121 eali y p obably explains he pe asi ely ho a o y one o he Magnalia and o he w i ings om he las decade be o e he u n o he cen u y (Lo elace, 239). He was assuming he ole o p ophe as well as his o ian in an a emp o con ince a gene a ion o join him in his “allegiance o he pas ” (Be co i ch, Ri es, 94). The abo e quo e om A ihu Zakai has se ed o poin ou ha he Edwa dsean a i ude owa ds secula ins i u ions and he pa hey played in his o y (pa icula ly in he millennium) was signi ican ly di e en om ha o p e ious colonial Pu i ans. Howe e , Edwa ds and Ma he showed a keen in e es in secula e en s (p esen , pas and u u e) ha needs o be accoun ed o , as bo h heologians assigned o hem a mo e o less di ec ole in he b inging abou o God’s pu poses in his o y. Colonial Pu i ans (o “Bay heoc a s”, as Be co i ch pu s i ) who s ill held on o he heoc a ic ideal o New England a he h eshold o he eigh een h cen u y, like hose o he wo p e ious gene a ions, “had joined secula o sac ed his o y” (Ri es, 156).68 Jus as he ad ance and success o Cong ega ional chu ch poli y was an amoun o he p og ess o Ch is ’s Kingdom on ea h, he con inuance o an ope a i e heoc a ic ci il es ablishmen was essen ial o he ma e ializa ion o God’s plans be o e he millennium. In b oad e ms, Ma he ’s “in e es in wo ldly a ai s” du ing he mid-1690s was linked o his i m belie in he “imminen ” e u n o Ch is , which was he closing ac o sac ed his o y. His hopes and p aye s o e i al h oughou he na ions we e no unconnec ed o wha he iewed ( ollowing wha e e news he ecei ed om Eu ope) as “ e olu ions” in places like F ance o Tu key, e en i he de elopmen s in hose coun ies we e no di ec ly connec ed o eligion (Lo elace, 20, 245). Ma he also 68 C . Richa d Bauckham’s Tudo Apocalypse on he English o igins o his Pu i an s and o his o ical hough . A e he de ea o he Spanish A mada in 1588, op imism g ew o e he ole o empo al (i.e., go e nmen al, ci il) powe s in ad ancing he cause o he gospel (173, 174). 122 looked a ound him and associa ed any se backs su e ed by secula ins i u ions (especially hose se up acco ding o God’s will) wi h di ine displeasu e o w a h. Thus, he conside ed i was only logical ha he “loss o P o es an e i o y” a an in e na ional le el as well as some ins ances o wo ldwide Popish pe secu ion should be accompanied by a gene al spi i ual decline (240). Such was Co on Ma he ’s ou look no only when conside ing he p esen and he millennial u u e, bu when he looked back a New England’s pas . Some examples om he Magnalia may se e o show how he p og ess o pie y o he communi y’s expe ience o he di ine p esence a e en isioned by he au ho as in e wined wi h, and a imes dependen on, he secula go e nmen ’s ac ion. When Ma he asse ed i was a “ma e o e e y body’s obse a ion” ha he “di ine dispensa ions owa ds his coun y” changed as a consequence o decline in eligion (II, 270), he had in mind a di ine p o idence ha ope a ed a he poli ical le el as well as he na u al and ecclesias ical ones (sec ions 2. 4. a. and 2. 4 .b. abo e). In book V o he Magnalia, he e is a ecapi ula ion o he 1662 synod’s69 decisions and conclusions. Ma he inse s e e ences o e en s o New England’s ecen his o y (maybe ecalled by he synod’s pa icipan s hemsel es) whe e his iew o he place and ole o ci il and go e nmen al ins i u ions in p o iden ial dispensa ions becomes appa en : T uly, i New-England had no abounded wi h he like o ences, i may be supposed, such calami ies [some na u al/acciden al disas e s p e iously alluded o] had no be allen i . I in ima ed a mo e han o dina y displeasu e o God o some o ences, when he p oceeded so a , as o pu o e his poo people in o he hands o awny and bloody sal ages: and he whole a my had cause o enqui e in o hei own ebellions, when hey saw he Lo d o Hos s, wi h a d ead ul decima ion, aking o so many o ou 69 See chap e 1, p. 28 abo e. 123 b e h en by he wo s o execu ione s […] The se ious people h oughou he coun y, we e awakened by hese in ima ions o di ine displeasu e, o enqui e in o he causes and ma e s o he con o e sie. (II, 270, 271) Now al hough he sinne s in he a my who needed o examine hemsel es a e dis inguished om mo e pious Ch is ians ( he “se ious people” o he land), he emphasis o he passage is on he whole communi y’s dealing wi h di ine ange . The Indians a e he ins umen o punishmen h ough he “lamen able wa s” New England su e s (270). Then, he people, ha ing no iced ha his is clea ly a “mo e han o dina y displeasu e o God”, u n co po a ely o Him: And besides he sel - e o ming e ec s o hese calami ies on he hea s and li es o many pa icula Ch is ians, who we e he eby b ough un o an exac e walk wi h God, pa icula chu ches exe ed hei powe o sel - e o ma ion, especially in he ime o he Indian wa […] Mo eo e , he gene al cou s enac ed wha laws we e judged p ope o he ex inc ion o hose p o oking e ils, which migh expose he land un o he ange o hea en. (271) The de ini i e pa played by he gene al cou s in his episode is qui e elling. Ci il go e nmen is he e and elsewhe e in he Magnalia (I, 90, 91, o ins ance) assigned he du y, no only o allowing o e en p ese ing pie y, bu ac i ely p omo ing and en o cing i . Mili a y success and he su i al o he communi y depend on his ins umen o “ e o ma ion” being pu o i s igh use, and no simply on a spi i ual exe cise o con i ion, as ing o p aye . La e on, in he same accoun o he i h book, Ma he con inues o de ine wha he “ e o ma ion o he land” mean acco ding o he 1662 synod. I is “ou wa d con o mi y” o he ideals o bo h chu ch and social o de ha is o be sough . This, oge he wi h he enewal o co enan s, shall “di e empo al judgemen s” and b ing back he “p esence o God” o he land. In hese co enan s, New Englande s a e asked 130 anscendence made immanen : “The no el elemen in Edwa ds is his concep ion o God’s ad ex a no only as God’s ela ion o he wo ld bu as God’s ex e nal epe i ion o his own being” (Lee, Theology, 204; i alics in o iginal). God’s in ol emen , hen, in c ea ion and in human a ai s alike was o igina ed in he di ine disposi ion o communica e and exe himsel , and he “ex e nal” ui s and i ali y mi o ed by c ea u es and he his o ical p ocess i sel made God’s p esence mani es and his cha ac e known. The wo d “ex e nal” as i is used by Lee in his de ini ion o hese philosophical in icacies in he Edwa dsean concep ion o he di ine mus no be unde s ood as when he pas o , du ing he mid-1730s awakening, ep o ed his cong ega ion o la e ing hemsel es on accoun o he ‘ou wa d’ o ‘ex e nal’ eligion hey p ac iced and he ea hly, empo al p ospe i y hey migh enjoy (p. 114 abo e). Though his was Edwa ds’ use o he e m a imes in his p eaching o he 1739 se ies (9: 231, 287, 322), he e is one se mon, deli e ed ba ely six mon hs a e inishing he Redemp ion Discou se, whe e “ex e nal hings” e e s o he necessa y ac ion in o de o e i e he lame, which he pas o assumes has no been ex inguished (no can i be), ha was spa ked by he Spi i i e yea s be o e he cu en decline: “And o all he ex e nal hings ha we can do o ha e he Spi i o God con inued amongs [us], I belie e he mos likely hing o be success ul o ha end, o any one hing wha soe e , is abounding in deeds o lo e and cha i y. The abounding in deeds o lo e is he likelies way o ha e he God o lo e and peace always dwelling wi h us”. Fi s , i should no go unno iced ha he use o he ph ase “lo e and peace” in his con ex o he ou wo kings o he Spi i amids a socie y is e y much like he one encoun e ed when Edwa ds desc ibed he millennial u u e o uling classes (p. 128 abo e). Secondly, hough (a ew lines on) he people a e exho ed o p omo e “any design ha ends o encou age [ he] du y [o gi ing o he needy]”, he 131 main he o ical unc ion o his pa o he se mon’s applica ion is no so much o call cong egan s o some o m o o ganized ac i ism as o de ine wha is he logical consequence o ha ing he “Spi i o God con inued amongs [ hem]” (22: 260). Niebuh ’s wo ds seem a his s age a good syn hesis o he poin I ha e been ying o cla i y and expound, namely, he way e i alis s (“Edwa ds abo e all”) sough o, i s , sp ead God’s knowledge and, only hen, exp ess compellingly ha “[s]uch knowledge equi e[d] ac ion”: In p eaching he kingdom o Ch is as he kingdom o lo e hey did no commi he mis ake hei successo s [i.e., 19 h cen u y e angelicals] o en made, ha o de ining lo e o neighbo as he essence o Ch is iani y, as hough men could p ac ice his lo e wi hou e e ence o o he elemen s in he Ch is ian li e, wi hou app ehension o he di ine so e eign y o wi hou e olu iona y change om na u al o di ine a ec ion. Nei he did hey all in o he o he e o o con using lo e wi h amiable sen imen . Sen imen which does no p ess o p ac ice is like knowledge which does no issue in ac ion; i he la e is he abho ed specula i e knowledge, ha is, spec a o knowledge, he o me is coun e ei a ec ion, sa is ied wi h i sel and no based on knowledge o eali y. P ac ice is he es o genuine lo e. (112, 113) The obse a ion made abou he doc ine o di ine so e eign y in he abo e- quo ed agmen om Niebuh ’s The Kingdom o God in Ame ica is pa icula ly pe inen as I come o he close o his sec ion on p o idence. Much has been said h oughou his second chap e abou how Edwa ds le behind Ma he ’s heoc a ically d i en ision o di ine agency in his o y, how he did no a ibu e he same in insic spi i ual alue o chu ch o dinances as John Co on and Thomas Shepa d did, o how his mode n ou look on he indi idual’s pa icipa ion in communion wi h God con as s wi h Win h op’s communal ideal, ensh ined in his ‘Model o Ch is ian Cha i y’. Bu , hough 132 i is unde s andable ha Jona han Edwa ds should o en be iewed as a ansi ional igu e, due o he pi o al momen a which he s ands in he his o y o colonial hough , i is easy o o e s a e (i unwi ingly) he inno a i e cha ac e o his heology and he o ic. Nine een h cen u y e angelicals, as Niebuh ema ks, inhe i ed he ac i ism ha e i alism os e ed bu hey would ob ia e he e i alis s’ emphasis on God’s absolu e so e eign y. Edwa ds in no way comp omised his doc ine bu , a he , de ended i wi h he same (i no g ea e ) ehemence as his o e a he s. In his espec , he may mo e accu a ely be called “ he las o he Pu i ans” han “ he i s o he e angelicals” (Noll, Ame ica’s God, 258). As many schola s ha e no ed when analyzing he Pu i an adi ion and he di e en cul u al de elopmen s ha an pa allel o i , he “high Cal inis ic doc ine o di ine so e eign y”, mo e o en han no , cons i u ed an “impulse” (Goen, 4: 3).72 P edes ina ion, being one o he mos con o e sial ideas di ec ly associa ed wi h his emphasis on God’s so e eign y, a he han leading men o despe a ion o some o m o s a ic a alism, was o en a he cen e o belie e s’ mo i a ion o lead indus ious and p ac ical li es in e e y sphe e. Bu , since he conce n o his chap e is o disco e how his ene , like o he s, o Edwa ds’ heology de e mined he way he a icula ed and p esen ed God’s in e en ion in his o y, le us conside one example connec ed o he issue o knowledge. I has been s a ed ha knowledge o God was in he Edwa dsean scheme a means whe eby he same dei y exe cised au ho i y o e he minds o people in and h ough e i als, and ha , in a e y speci ic manne , knowledge would se e o b ing abou an i esis ible di ine eign o e humankind (e en o e he mos powe ul men) du ing he las ac o human his o y. How did Edwa ds manage o emain 72 C . Pe y Mille in The New England Mind: The Se en een h Cen u y p. 37 and William Halle in The Rise o Pu i anism p. 192, o name jus wo o he mos widely ecognized schola s who ha e exp essed his iew. 133 op imis ic abou he p oximi y o he millennium when Enligh enmen philosophy was aking o e heological ins i u ions like Ha a d, and i s implica ions unde mined he co e o Ch is iani y? Indeed, signi ican ly o his disse a ion, Enligh enmen his o ical hough was inc easingly leading o a “de achmen ” o “di ine agency om empo al e en s” (Zakai, His o y, 229). The key o esis ing he onse o wo ldly wisdom was p ecisely a ea i ma ion o God’s absolu e con ol o e e e y hing ha came o pass. God would u n he e y igno ance and p ide (as Edwa ds pe cei ed i ) ha p e ailed in secula philosophy in o a means o make his p esence and u h known. And He could do so immedia ely; ha is, ac ing bo h di ec ly and soon. Co on Ma he had unde s andably looked back a God’s p epa a ion o he Re o ma ion, and la e o New England’s coloniza ion, and ecognized in wha he called he “ esu ec ion o li e a u e” (Magnalia, I, 41) an agen o o ce behind he success o P o es an ism. He was iewing he apogee o he humani ies du ing he Renaissance and he ins umen ali y o he p in ing p ess as p o iden ial de elopmen s which God made use o in he g adual ad ancemen o His kingdom. Edwa ds would ha e essen ially ag eed wi h Ma he ’s su ey o he pas . He himsel had had he endency o hink ha he inc ease o human lea ning was des ined o be subse ien o he cause o ai h. Howe e , du ing his own imes, “ he ad ance o lea ning […] p o ed o be an obs acle o he g ow h o Ch is ian ai h and knowledge”. His assump ion ha he p og ess o di ine e ela ion would go hand-in-hand wi h bu geoning secula and scien i ic knowledge p o ed o be w ong, a leas a p esen (Zakai, His o y, 264). Conside ing he ole o human lea ning du ing he millennium, Edwa ds held he same basic idea as Ma he when he analyzed he Re o ma ion: “God will imp o e his g ea inc ease o lea ning as a handmaid o eligion, a means o a glo ious ad ancemen o he kingdom o his Son” (9: 441; my i alics). The age o “midnigh da kness” he chu ch 134 was li ing in did no change he ac ha di ine pu poses we e p og essing (9: 440). The e y same knowledge and e udi ion which o a ime keeps men in hei p ide (“ his g ea inc ease o lea ning”) can be used by God o humble hem when hey become be e in o med. ‘P og essi e’ di ine agency is always ope a i e a a mul iplici y o le els despi e he appa en ly cyclical pa e n o ‘ ise and decline’ o he eligious cause (p. 68 abo e). In ac , hings a e jus being p epa ed o i di ine pu poses mo e s ic ly, as e i al mus e en ually b eak in o mani es ‘immedia e’ di ine p esence o agency. God was ese ing Enligh enmen lea ning o a ime when He had “su icien ly shown men he insu iciency o ‹human wisdom›, when he ime comes o ha glo ious ou pou ing o God’s Spi i , when he will himsel by his own immedia e in luence enligh en men’s minds”. Human e o s and p og ess a e u ile pe se hough God will use such secula hings as he in en ion o he p in ing p ess o b ing abou his millennial eign (9: 441; my i alics). I is in e es ing ha Edwa ds seems o be sugges ing wo al e na i e ways o mankind o come o he ue knowledge o God: They may come o a poin when i has “su icien ly” ( o hem) been shown ha hei wisdom, use ul as i is in many ways, will no b ing hem o spi i ual sel - ul illmen o in ellec ual sa is ac ion, and hey will he e o e be g adually b ough o he igh disposi ion o he accep ance o all he co olla ies o he gospel ( he o al dep a i y o man, Ch is being wisdom i sel and he au ho o ai h, e c.). Al e na i ely, God may conside ha He has “su icien ly” p o ed o men he u ili y o hei scien i ic and philosophical endea o s, hough hey may e use o accep he u h. In he la e case, God’s “immedia e in luence” will dazzle men by con as ; ha is o say, when he u h o he gospel is i esis ibly and clea ly p esen ed be o e hei eyes, hey will acknowledge hei down igh olly. In he o me ins ance, he change ha ing been w ough g adually ( o a ce ain ex en only, o he 135 coming o he Spi i h ough e i al would decisi ely in o m people’s minds and change hei hea s) would no make i less admi able o mani es (c . pp. 75, 76 abo e). The hope o awakening and he millennium se ed he las o he Pu i ans in imes o di icul y and in ellec ual opposi ion like he Enligh enmen . Belie in absolu e di ine so e eign y o e he his o ical p ocess mean ha , hough one had o concede ha he cause o a ce ain e en o si ua ion migh a e all emain hidden, i was ne e inapp op ia e o sea ch o a logic behind any (o all) p o iden ial ou comes because he e was in ac a di inely appoin ed end in e e y hing ha came o pass, whe he ‘sac ed’ o ‘secula ’, ‘na u al’ o ‘supe na u al’. Jona han Edwa ds g appled wi h he ques ions aised by appa en ly con adic o y me hods in God’s disposi ion o e en s, and he pu all his acumen, his imagina ion and he o ical esou ces a he se ice o o hodox Ch is iani y. Di ine so e eign y and some o i s co olla ies (like mankind’s u e dependence on God o ue and ul ima e knowledge, le alone o sal a ion) we e he p emises ha led Edwa ds h ough his medi a ions on his o y and his a emp s o make sense o all o God’s pas , p esen and u u e ac s. His concep o e i al as a so e eign wo k o God did no di e om Co on Ma he ’s o e en om ha o Pu i ans and some e angelicals be o e and a e hei own gene a ions espec i ely (Mu ay, Re i alism, 374). Bu e i al in Edwa dsean he o ic and philosophy o his o y i ually pa alleled escha ology o p ophecy in impo ance. The la e wo, in ac , we e ma e ialized in he o m o awakenings, which o Edwa ds encompassed any hing om No hamp on’s local expe ience in 1734-35 o he P o es an Re o ma ion, o he zeal o Joshua’s gene a ion o Is aeli es o he pie y o Job. Edwa ds’ compelling a icula ion o e i al as he conc e e agen o di ine in e en ion 136 in his o y de i ed i s eshness om his “unique combina ion o adi ion and inno a ion in heological easoning” (McClymond & McDe mo , 207). ! 137 3. PROGRESSIVE DIVINE AGENCY: THE RHETORIC OF PIETY Some c ucial quo a ions om he se mon se ies ha mainly conce ns his s udy ha e al eady been analyzed in he con ex o chap e 2, whe e ou lining di ine agency in Edwa ds’ he o ic o his o y and sea ching o he keys o his his o ical amewo k we e he p ima y aims. I shall, in he p esen and nex chap e s, con inue o b ing he dis inc ion be ween immedia e and p og essi e di ine agency o bea on he li e a y analysis o he Redemp ion Discou se, ocusing i s on he la e and on how he p eache ’s deeply heological hough was e ec i ely leshed ou in he his o iog aphical and homile ic endea o o his se mon se ies. O a o ical s a egies, he e o e, a e he main ocus in he ollowing pages and also how (o whe he ) hey b ough abou he esponse on he pa o No hamp oni es ha hei pas o in ended. Enough biog aphical backg ound has al eady been ou lined h oughou he o egoing chap e s al hough some key e en s and ci cums ances will be desc ibed again whe e ele an and o cla i y’s sake. Howe e , my pu pose is o look a Edwa ds’ he o ic h oughou he hi y se mons and o analyze i in i s own e ms, aking he ex ’s in e nal cohe ence a all le els o g an ed. This ask depends o a g ea ex en on some elemen s ha ha e al eady been unpacked in chap e 2, such as he Edwa dsean iew o na u e (pp. 92-108 abo e) and, hence, how image y om he ealm o na u e is imbued wi h a anscendence ha was a e in o he colonial Pu i ans;1 o he impo ance o con empla ing God a wo k in his o y (pp. 72-90), bo h local and uni e sal, he ole his had in making spi i ual expe ience angible, as i we e, and he assu ance and encou agemen , bo h collec i e and indi idual, ha we e o be de i ed om such con empla ion. This la e aspec bea s on !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 1 See Mason Lowance’s conclusions in his ega d (273-276). ! 138 my he o ical analysis, o ins ance, as I explo e wha a e some o Edwa ds’ mos sub le uses o allusion and o pa allelism be ween his own cong ega ion and o he ai h ul communi ies in biblical and his o ical na a i es. Al hough i is p obably no necessa y by now, I hink i necessa y o de ine he scope and quali y he complexi y o he ask ha I ha e se o he p esen and nex chap e s in e ms o schola ship. Some ema ks om wo di e en edi o s o he Yale collec ion o Jona han Edwa ds’ wo ks may be quo ed o his end. John F. Wilson makes he ollowing commen in his edi o ial in oduc ion o he Redemp ion Discou se: To mo e in o a sys ema ic analysis o Edwa ds' li e a y s a egies necessa ily mis ep esen s hem, because i ea s as sepa a e elemen s ha a e used in his ex . Bu i ough o be e iden ha , al eady in he hi y se mons p eached in 1739, he had mo ed a owa d he concep ion o a ea ise o sus ained essay on he undamen als o he Ch is ian eligion, which he would o ganize in e ms o he objec i e side o he edemp i e p ocess, namely, God's Wo k o Redemp ion. The se mons s and wi hou he ambi ious de elopmen he in ended o hem. Bu hey s and also as a li e a y achie emen in hei own igh , wi hou he e ision, e inemen , and ex ension he would ha e gi en hem. (9: 34) The e is a udimen a y cha ac e o Edwa ds’ wo k ha does no lessen i s li e a y alue. A he same ime, and despi e he lack o “ambi ious de elopmen ” o elabo a ion in he se mon se ies as i appea s in olume 9 o he Yale edi ion, he e is a s uc u al complexi y and sophis ica ion whe ein Edwa ds inno a es and b eaks away om Pu i an se monic adi ion. The e olu ion om se mon o ea ise du ing he 1730s and ea ly 40s, o wha Wilson Kimnach (Yale gene al edi o o he se mons) calls he “ endency o ! 139 p each ea ises om he pulpi ” (10: 105), p obably wi h u u e elabo a ion in mind,2 mus no lead he eade o Edwa ds’ homile ic wo ks o o ge hey a e i s o a o y and hen li e a u e (Kimnach, 10:115). In ac , he a o o a o y in i s classical sense has e e y hing o do wi h apologe ics and pe suasion, which is p ecisely wha Edwa ds had in mind as he sough o sys ema ize “ he undamen als o he Ch is ian eligion” o a u u e comp ehensi e publica ion. The ‘His o y o he Wo k o Redemp ion’ was o be an (i no he mos ) impo an piece in Edwa ds’ de ense o o hodox Ch is iani y (Ma sden, 482) and ha places his se mon se ies no jus a he cen e o his hough bu o his hea . Fo his pas o -p eache , in o ming he mind o his hea e s abou any hing conce ning he ai h had o go hand-in-hand wi h a esponse o he will. So he mus e ed all his o a o ical skill and esou ces o pain he g and his o ical pic u e, which was mean o no me ely lead lis ene s o accu a e p oposi ional u hs, o ‘doc ine’, bu o become a d i ing o ce o hei indi idual and communal pie y in an ‘applica ion’ o his o y’s pas examples and u u e p omises. Al hough he p esen and ollowing chap e s o my disse a ion will no s ick o a linea analysis o he se mons, bu shall encompass he whole se ies and ollow an o de based on speci ic image y and o he li e a y esou ces, i seems app op ia e o begin wi h some obse a ions abou se mon one. Despi e i s ela i e sho ness, he e a e a numbe o elemen s con ained in i ha begin o se he one o he whole Redemp ion Discou se, es ablish a amewo k o he se ies and de ine he dynamics o di ine ac i i y in his o y. The la e de ini ion Edwa ds p o ides explici ly as well as h ough he use o biblical illus a ions and o he allusion. He seems compelled, a e ha ing es ablished his doc ine !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 2 This was almos ce ainly he case when he concei ed and p eached he Redemp ion Discou se. See pp. 23-24 abo e. ! 242 Despi e his p e alen ly nega i e iew o his own imes and na ion (indeed, people “wande in he da k” and “ all in ma e s o eligion as in midnigh da kness” [440]), Edwa ds mo es on o conside wha had imp o ed since he P o es an Re o ma ion. The h ee poin s which make up his inal sec ion o se mon wen y- ou a e e y elling i iewed in ela ion o he abo e-men ioned hie a chy, as i we e, whe eby Edwa ds holds he spi i ual ou pou ing o God’s immedia e p esence o be he g ea es means o ad ance His Wo k o Redemp ion, as opposed o o he seconda y means like mili a y o poli ical powe . He begins: “The Pope is much diminished in powe and in luence”. Thus, he impo ance ha Edwa ds has a ibu ed o e i als up o his poin in he se mon does no imply ha de elopmen s o a poli ical na u e a e no also o ches a ed by God o a o he p og ess o His kingdom in he wo ld. Likewise, pe secu ion, hough s ill p esen in “some pa s o he P o es an chu ch”, is “now in no measu e as i has been he e o o e”. These human ac o s and hei bea ing on he s a e o eligion we e no o be minimized when conside ing wha he di ine designs migh be h ough hem. Howe e , hey we e no posi i ely decisi e (as e i als we e) since he absence o pe secu ion, o example, mean ha “ he enemies o Ch is ” now ound “ano he channel” o “opposi ion agains his cause” h ough down igh mocke y (9: 439). The hi d and las espec in which hings had imp o ed since he six een h cen u y was he “g ea inc ease o lea ning”. In e es ingly, Edwa ds de o es wice as much space and ink o his poin han o he wo p eceding pu oge he . Also, he e seems o be a eal basis o op imism acco ding o wha he makes o he issue o con empo a y scien i ic knowledge, i s o igin in God’s own in e en ion a he Re o ma ion and how God will use i in he millennium o glo i y Himsel and abase human p ide. ! 243 The pe iod om he Re o ma ion o he p esen day is depic ed, in his conside a ion o “lea ning” o “knowledge”,13 as one abounding in ‘ligh ’. This is done wi hou ac ually using he e m bu by indi ec allusion h ough con as s, image y and ce ain exp essions ha a e sugges i e o he sun being “ aised o a as ly g ea e heigh ” han e e be o e (9: 440). In his ega d, he end o he wen y- ou h se mon wo ks wi h he same no ion o ‘dawn’, o ligh ha has hi he o inc eased g adually bu suddenly ad ances by a ema kable di ine in e en ion, as did he se mons dealing wi h o he ‘ou pou ings’ like hose o he days o Enos, Joshua’s gene a ion o Pen ecos . Tha “ligh ” should be he o ically eplaced by “knowledge” is no su p ising since Pauline discou se o con e sion e e ed o “ he ligh o he knowledge o he glo y o God” shining h ough His Son (2 Co in hians 4:6). And al hough he ‘sun’ is no li e ally p esen in he las h ee pages o he ex unde conside a ion, Edwa ds’ use o ce ain exp essions sub ly e okes i s zeni h. Fi s , he e is he ob ious con as be ween he coming o he six een h cen u y’s ou pou ing o he Spi i and he p eceding “da k imes o pope y”. Also, he e is he ac ha scien i ic as well as eligious “[l]ea ning began o e i e wi h he Re o ma ion”. P o idence assis ed his inc ease and sp ead o knowledge wi h he human in en ion o “ he a o p in ing” jus a he igh ime, and caused “lea ning” o be “inc eased mo e and mo e, and a his day is undoub edly aised highe han e e i was be o e” (9: 439, 440). He e he e is a clea pa allel be ween he cou se o appa en ly na u al o human in ellec ual ad ance and he poin eached by supe na u al ligh ha has Ch is , he Son/sun, as i s sou ce. Edwa ds goes as a as o sugges a pa allelism be ween he cu en si ua ion and he ime o Ch is ’s Fi s Coming in o he !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 13 These wo ds a e epea ed h oughou 9: 439-441. ! 244 wo ld. Basing his in e ence on Daniel’s p ophecies conce ning he inc ease o knowledge ha was o p ecede he Messiah’s ad en , i is sugges ed ha “God in his p o idence now seems o be ac ing o e again he same pa which he did a li le be o e Ch is came” (my i alics). These p ophe ic and, o Edwa ds, his o ical co espondences be ween he i s appea ing o he Son o Man and he millennium imply ha he coming o he la e canno be a o . His in e p e a ion ( wo se mons la e ) o he gospel saying “Ne e heless when he Son o man come h, shall he ind ai h on ea h [?]”, in ac , places ha “coming” announced by Jesus himsel a he ime o his “se [ ing] up his kingdom in he wo ld”, no a Judgmen Day (457). So, how a e p e ailing unbelie and g ea human p ide in hei scien i ic b eak h oughs u ned in o an “excellen handmaid o di ini y”? Men now “seem o wande in he da k, a e mise ably deluded, s umble and all in ma e s o eligion as in midnigh da kness. T us ing o hei lea ning, hey g ope in he day ime as in he nigh ” (440, 441; my i alics). A his poin i is clea ha Edwa ds pic u es he sun, as i we e, shining in i s zeni h bu ligh is p e en ed om en e ing humankind’s unde s anding only due o hei uncon e ed s a e. The p esen his o ical pe iod is objec i ely one o spi i ual ligh in he same way ha secula ad ances ( echnological, scien i ic, e c.) a e undeniably g ea . Despi e all he poin e s o a p edic ably imminen di ine in e en ion, he “appoin ed ime” o he millennium, o “ o ha glo ious ou pou ing o God’s Spi i ”, emains unknown and is iewed by Edwa ds as depending en i ely on an a bi a y and immedia e ac o God. Indeed, He “will himsel by his own immedia e in luence enligh en men’s minds; hen may we hope ha God will imp o e his g ea inc ease o knowledge as an handmaid o eligion” (9: 441; my i alics). So he e is, a e all, an ! 245 op imis ic ou look implici in he Edwa dsean ision o his o y (McClymond & McDe mo , 237) despi e he p eache ’s je emiad-like insis ence, un il he e y las se mon, on “ he p esen da k ci cums ances” o he chu ch and he in e es s o eligion (9: 526). Wha makes his hi d poin o imp o emen since he Re o ma ion (i.e., he inc ease o knowledge) signi ican in compa ison wi h he p e ious wo which we e connec ed o poli ical o mo e human conside a ions ( he Pope’s powe and physical and ma e ial pe secu ion) is ha he unde s anding o in ellec , o Edwa ds, had a pa icula ole o play in pe cei ing and immedia ely expe iencing he di ine p esence wi hin ime and space. Though God’s “o de ing o e en s” and he “de ails o p o idence, which e y much include human ins umen a ion” a e impo an o unde s and “seconda y causa ion” in Edwa dsean heology o his o y (Schwei ze , 115, 116), God’s immedia e p esence and glo y is “mani es ed o [c ea u es’] unde s andings”. Di ine sel -communica ion was possible o in elligen c ea u es by means o he “di ine supe na u al ligh ”14 and hei subsequen abili y o pe cei e glo y in all o God’s wo ks (sup emely in he Wo k o Redemp ion) esul ed in an app op ia e esponse o he hea (26, 27). Edwa ds i mly belie ed his and wi h his con idence he expounded he Bible, which he conside ed o be ins umen al in e i al and in he subsequen inc ease o knowledge o be expec ed, as in Ez a’s days o he Re o ma ion. Likewise, he e was he pa adigm o Pen ecos , ypi ied also by Ez a’s comple ion o he Old Tes amen canon, which es ablished g ea e ela ion o be a co olla y o accompanimen o he e i al expe ience. !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 14 See Schwei ze , 116, 117, and pp. 32 abo e. ! 246 A e se mon wen y- ou , he use o e ms pe aining o he ‘ he o ic o e i al’ se e me ely o poin o wa d o he millennium, and ha only in one single ins ance (9: 460-462). O he wise, he accoun o he Re o ma ion in ela ion o he awakenings o Edwa ds’ own day is he las con ex o his compelling deploymen o o a o ical s a egies designed o elici a esponse om No hamp oni es. These ha e been shown o be, mainly, he iden i ica ion o 16 h o 18 h cen u y e o m and e i al mo emen s wi h biblical ones by means o nume ous connec ions ( ypological o mo e di ec allusions) h ough he use o he e i alis idiom bo h in biblical exegesis and in he cons ual o pos -apos olic his o y. Pa allelisms o “his o ical compa ison” would, in ac , con inue o be one o Edwa ds’ main ools in making an apology o he G ea Awakening du ing i s a e ma h, especially compa ing he si ua ion in he colonies wi h he days o he apos les (Zakai, His o y, 278; c . p. 38 abo e). Bu ex a-biblical e i al, as has been shown, was also ins umen al o enable cong egan s in 1739 o measu e hei own expe ience agains some hing less emo e and easie o iden i y wi h. Likewise, due o he essen ial connec ions be ween he P o es an Re o ma ion begun wo hund ed yea s be o e and Re o med/e angelical iden i y in he colonies, he cons ual o he hi d “spi i ual esu ec ion” in pe iod h ee o human his o y as beginning in he six een h cen u y bu s e ching o he p esen placed hei own local, i s -hand spi i ual expe ience in a “sac ed his o ical momen ” and a ansna ional con ex . By doing his Edwa ds in ended o elici people’s esponse (Zakai, His o y, 286). Re i als we e he “immedia e e ec ” o he pou ing ou o God’s Spi i (235) and, he e o e, he e was no hing o be ound wi hin human ime and space ha mo e di ec ly signaled he p esence o di ine agency. The escha ological dimension o e i als wen beyond he millennial hope ha was implici in ! 247 hem, since he e y e e nal “des iny o human beings is inex icable om he cou se o sal a ion his o y” (282). Tha is o say, wha will be e ealed a Judgmen Day ( he ul ima e escha ological e en ) has al eady been decisi ely ma e ialized in he un olding o he Wo k o Redemp ion, du ing which indi iduals o mul i udes (depending on he kind o ‘season’ one li ed in) we e con e ed by he Spi i . In he same way, i could be said ha e e y con e sion and e i al is, in he Edwa dsean scheme, “inex icable” om he pu chase o edemp ion a Cal a y. The la e was an e en e y much p epa ed o by p o iden ial de elopmen s and ollowed by epea ed and mani old mani es a ions o i s success; howe e , in i sel , i cons i u ed he apex and axis o edemp i e his o y and anscended ime and space, as was shown in Fig. 4 abo e. (p. 215). ! ! 248 5. CONCLUDING REMARKS AND FURTHER PERSPECTIVES: EDWARDS AT THE CROSSROADS OF AMERICAN HISTORY Al hough his disse a ion began wi h, and has e u ned o, plen y o e e ences o wha was essen ially a local o , a he mos , colonial con ex o eligious e i al (1. 3. and chap. 4), I hope i has become inc easingly clea ha Jona han Edwa ds was a isiona y wi h b oade ho izons han may appea a a i s o supe icial glance. The ci cums ances o he yea s ollowing he w i ing and p eaching o he Redemp ion Discou se would a o d his New English o a o a no able posi ion om which he was able o in luence mo e han jus a ew hund ed cong egan s. As he main ep esen a i e o a mode a e s ance on he G ea Awakening he would, om pulpi s and in p in , seek o win colonial Ame icans o e o he e i alis cause, hus con ibu ing decisi ely o wha became, in ime, he collapse o New England’s Cong ega ionalis es ablishmen (1. 1. abo e). Though he may accu a ely be labeled bo h a conse a i e and a a ionalis , Edwa ds would be opposed p ecisely om some Cong ega ional qua e s whe e minis e s ad oca ed o a a ionalis ic in e p e a ion o Sc ip u e and s ood o ecclesias ical conse a ism. They lacked he Edwa dsean amewo k ha p o ided a p ac ical balance be ween Wo d and Spi i (pp. 232, 233 abo e) while acknowledging di ine so e eign y o he poin o le ing God himsel conduc human his o y, e en i his mean a empo a y suspension o ecclesias ical o de o he shaking o social s uc u es (pp. 70-72 abo e). The good old ‘New England Way’ (che ished by igu es like Co on Ma he ), wi h i s lo e o social o de and i s blu ing o he line be ween ci il and spi i ual ca ego ies, was by he middle o he eigh een h cen u y o ally ou da ed. Mo emen s o eligious enewal ! 249 wi h a esh ou look on he u u e we e necessa y bu o hodox Ch is iani y, by de ini ion, could no ha e an iden i y ha was no deeply oo ed in i s his o ical pas . Jona han Edwa ds’ main con ibu ions in his ega d we e his cons ual o sal a ion his o y in e ms o con inuous and eleological p og ess (which s e ched in o bo h an ea hly and a hea enly u u e) and he adical Ch is ocen ici y o his philosophical unde s anding o eali y. Re i als, which we e inex icable om Ch is ’s ‘pu chase o edemp ion’, cons i u ed migh y ac s o an unp edic able God and we e he bes p oo ha immedia e di ine agency had always been, and was s ill, ope a i e in he wo ld. Howe e , his dei y’s edemp i e ac i i y owa ds humankind was no jus ‘immedia e’ bu also ‘p og essi e’, as Edwa ds’ he o ic o pie y made e iden (chap e 3 abo e). Though an emphasis on God’s ema kable i up ions h oughou his o y was c ucial in o de o main ain he adi ional sense o di ine anscendence in his o ical discou se, he Spi i ’s ou pou ings in he Edwa dsean scheme always esul ed in he c ea ion (o , o use he Pauline idiom, he new c ea ion) o pious disposi ions and communal holiness in human objec s o di ine me cy. These people, God’s elec , we e called o expe ience he di ine p esence immanen ly h ough mu ual edi ica ion and by con inual pe se e ance in he basic du ies o he Ch is ian li e. I was wi h espec o hese wo necessa y e ec s o e i al ha Edwa ds’ handling o image y om building o cons uc ion became ins umen al (being di ec ly linked o he idea o ‘edi ica ion’; 3. 1. abo e) and ha an Edwa dsean unde s anding o he new bi h emained undamen al in o de o see he essen ial connec ion be ween indi idual con e sion and he pious li e ha should ollow i . “The c ea i e powe o he Spi i ” ga e he belie e “a new hea , in using a new p inciple”. This p inciple was “con inually om he Spi i o God, ! 250 dwelling as a sp ing o li e in he soul. I is a i s immedia ely om he Spi i o God, and ’ is always immedia ely om he Spi i ” (Pa ables, I, 147; my i alics). This on ological necessi y was no simply explained o No hamp on cong egan s so hey migh go home and igu e ou how o lead a li e ha would mi o such inw ough p inciple. App oxima ely one yea a e he wo ds abo e we e p eached, hey would be summoned by hei minis e o accompany him h ough a six-mon h-long se mon se ies o he sobe con empla ion and comp ehensi e analysis o he Wo k o Redemp ion. I hey we e able o ecognize beau y as well as acknowledge God’s absolu e so e eign y du ing his p olonged conside a ion o sal a ion his o y, he glo y o he Son, Edwa ds hoped, would supe na u ally in luence and nu u e he spi i ual li es ha had begun a each No hamp oni e’s con e sion. Compelling elemen s in Edwa ds’ he o ic o pie y and e i al included no only image y ( om ‘building’, ‘ligh ’, e c.) and ypology (Ch is as he Sun/Son, e i als hemsel es as echoes o ul illmen s o biblical episodes and p ophecies, e c.) bu he p eache ’s sh ewdness as a logician and c ea i e exege e. As I sugges ed abo e, he No hamp on heologian migh be e med a a ionalis inso a as he belie ed ha eason and logical a gumen a ion could play an impo an ole in he belie e ’s g ow h in he knowledge o God’s will. Edwa ds’ his o ical discou se e lec ed his con idence in he powe o eason as he endea o ed o a icula e di ine agency in e ms o easonable and o de ly p o iden ial ac i i y. His depic ion o cyclical and s ic ly symme ical pa e ns wi hin he his o ical p ocess (3. 2. and 4. 1. abo e) con eyed he idea o a God who ac s in no i a ional o a bi a y way bu who, on he con a y, implemen s His e e nal plan and designs acco ding o he highes ideal o eason. By employing logic ( ollowing he ! 251 p inciple o “ easoning a e e ela ion” [Moody, 123]) in his e y de ense o di ine easonableness in he Wo k o Redemp ion, Edwa ds ied o appeal o colonial con empo a ies who had neu alized, o say he leas , he i ali y o ue Ch is iani y wi h hei o malism and who claimed o de end a pu ely a ionalis ic in e p e a ion o he Bible (chap e 1, pp. 4-6, 10 abo e). Despi e his colonial Ame ican con ex , which undoub edly condi ioned Edwa ds’ choice o he o ical s a egies, he e was also he wide philosophical scene o he Enligh enmen , whose shi ing pa adigms h ea ened adi ional app oaches o his o y in pa icula and he Ch is ian in e p e a ion o he cosmos in gene al. In ligh o his in e na ional con ex , he Redemp ion Discou se also seems qui e ambi ious, especially as Edwa ds sub ly engaged he empi icis mode o hough whe eby he ma e ial uni e se was seen as ope a ing and being sus ained by me e mechanical laws. By using language ha is highly sugges i e in e ms o senso ial pe cep ion (especially ‘seeing’; pp. 190, 201, 202 abo e) when conside ing how he his o ical p ocess is e ealed and cla i ied by Sc ip u e’s own accoun and p ophe ic p edic ions, Edwa ds seems o in ima e ha he Bible i sel can wi hs and a es conduc ed acco ding o he empi ical me hod, ha is, based on he obse a ion o e idence. Mo eo e , in conduc ing such a es , one may dis inc ly iden i y pa e ns ha esemble na u al p ocesses hemsel es o human in en ions, which a e se in mo ion by some con i ed mechanism and he in e ac ion o di e en o ces. The disco e y o his appa en ‘mechanics’ wi hin he e y issue o empo al and ma e ial eali y as e ealed in he Sc ip u es, a om poin ing in he di ec ion o a sel -sus aining uni e se, should con i m he exis ence o an immanen , as well as anscenden , dei y. Bu Edwa ds does no in end his hea e s o conside hese ! 258 As much as his pos millennialis ou look on he u u e may ha e led o a ious in ellec ual and social de elopmen s in Ame ica du ing and a e his own li e ime, he ul ima e goal o his o y, i.e. God and hea en, would no doub be conside ed by him he bes legacy o be passed down “ om gene a ion o gene a ion”. Lying ou side human ime, bu no beyond human each due o Ch is ’s Inca na ion and ‘pu chase o edemp ion’, he anscenden , “immu able” God had “buil hea en” o a “happy socie y”, His in isible Chu ch, o enjoy a e e e y wo d in he book o Re ela ion was ul illed (9: 525, 526, 528). Wi h such language and wi h apocalyp ic eadings om he las chap e o he las book o Sc ip u e, Edwa ds a i ed a he end o his hi ie h and las se mon o he his o ic se ies. ! ! 259 WORKS CITED Allin, John, and Thomas Shepa d. A De ence o he Answe . London: R. Co es o And ew C ooke, 1648. EEBO. Web. 15 Oc obe 2014. Ande son, Wallace E., Mason I. Lowance, J ., and Da id H. Wa e s. “Edi o ’s In oduc ion.” The Wo ks o Jona han Edwa ds. Vol. 11. New Ha en: Yale Uni e si y P ess, 1993. 1-33. P in . A ch, S ephen Ca l. Au ho izing The Pas : The Rhe o ic o His o y in Se en een h Cen u y New England. DeKalb, IL: No he n Illinois Uni e si y P ess, 1994. P in . “A minianism.” The Ox o d Dic iona y o he Ch is ian Chu ch. 2nd ed. 1984. P in . “Assu ance.” New Dic iona y o Theology. 1988. P in . Augus ine, Sain . The Ci y o God. Random House: New Yo k, 1950. P in . Ba shinge , Da id. Jona han Edwa ds and he Psalms: A Redemp i e-His o ical Vision o Sc ip u e. Diss. New Yo k: Ox o d Uni e si y P ess, 2014. P in . Bauckham, Richa d. Tudo Apocalypse. Ox o d: Su on Cou enay P ess, 1978. P in . Be co i ch, Sac an. The Ame ican Je emiad. Madison: The Uni e si y o Wisconsin P ess, 1978. P in . ───. The Ri es o Assen . London: Rou ledge, 1993. P in . B ei enbach, William. “Pie y and Mo alism: Edwa ds and he New Di ini y.” Jona han Edwa ds and he Ame ican Expe ience. Ed. Na han O. Ha ch and Ha y S ou . New Yo k: Ox o d Uni e si y P ess, 1988. 177-204. P in . B ogan, Hugh. The Pelican His o y o he Uni ed S a es o Ame ica. London: Penguin Books L d, 1985. P in . ! 260 Bu ns, She a d. “T us ing he Theology o a Sla e Owne .” A God En anced Vision o All Things: The Legacy o Jona han Edwa ds. Ed. John Pipe and Jus in Taylo . Whea on, IL: C ossway Books, 2004. 145-171. P in . Ca oll, Pe e N., and Da id W. Noble. The F ee and he Un ee: A New His o y o The Uni ed S a es. Ha mondswo h, England: Penguin Books L d, 1977. P in . Clagho n, Geo ge S. Edi o ial no es o Le e s and Pe sonal W i ings. The Wo ks o Jona han Edwa ds. Vol. 16. New Ha en: Yale Uni e si y P ess, 1998. Passim. P in . “Common G ace.” New Dic iona y o Theology. 1988. P in . Co on, John. The Bloody Tenen Washed and Made Whi e by he Blood o he Lamb. 1647. The Pu i ans in Ame ica: A Na a i e An hology. Ed. Alan Heime and And ew Delbanco. Camb idge, MA: Ha a d Uni e si y P ess, 1985. 201-206. P in . ───. “God’s P omise o His Plan a ions.” The Pu i ans in Ame ica: A Na a i e An hology. Ed. Alan Heime and And ew Delbanco. Camb idge, MA: Ha a d Uni e si y P ess, 1985. 75-80. P in . ───. The Keys o he Kingdom o Hea en. 1644. Quo ed in Exile and Kingdom: His o y and Apocalypse in he Pu i an Mig a ion o Ame ica. Camb idge: Camb idge Uni e si y P ess, 1992. 188-189. P in . ───. “Le e om New England.” The Pu i ans in Ame ica: A Na a i e An hology. Ed. Alan Heime and And ew Delbanco. Camb idge, MA: Ha a d Uni e si y P ess, 1985. 93-96. P in . C isp, Oli e D. Jona han Edwa ds on God and C ea ion. New Yo k: Ox o d Uni e si y P ess, 2012. P in . ! 261 Dallimo e, A nold. Geo ge Whi e ield: The Li e and Times o he G ea E angelis o he Eigh een h-Cen u y Re i al. 2 ols. Edinbu gh: The Banne o T u h T us , 1980. P in . “Deism.” The Ox o d Dic iona y o he Ch is ian Chu ch. 2nd ed. 1984. P in . Donne, John. “Good F iday, Riding Wes wa d”. 1613. The Comple e Poems o John Donne. Ed. Roge E. Benne . New Yo k: Hend icks House, 1949. P in . Edwa ds, Jona han. The Sal a ion o Souls. Ed. Richa d A. Bailey and G ego y A. Willis. Whea on, IL: C ossway Books. 2002. P in . ───. Se mons by Jona han Edwa ds on he Ma hean Pa ables. Vol. 1. Ed. Kenne h P. Minkema, Ad ian Neele and B yan McCa hy. Eugene, OR: Cascade Books, 2012. P in . ───. The Wo ks o Jona han Edwa ds. 26 ols. Ed. Kenne h P. Minkema. New Ha en: Yale Uni e si y P ess. 1957-2008. P in . ───. The Wo ks o Jona han Edwa ds. 2 ols. Ed. Edwa d Hickman.1834. Peabody, MA: Hend ickson Publishe s, 1998. P in . Fie ing, No man. Jona han Edwa ds’ Mo al Though and i s B i ish Con ex . 1981. Eugene, OR: Wip and S ock Publishe s, 2006. Jona han Edwa ds Classic S udies Se . P in . Gaus ad, Edwin. The G ea Awakening in New England. 1957. Glouces e , MA: Pe e Smi h, 1965. P in . Gillies, John. Memoi s o he Li e o he Re e end Geo ge Whi e ield. New London, CT: P in ed by S. G een, 1798. HATHI TRUST Digi al Lib a y. Web. 15 Janua y 2015. Goen, C. C. Re i alism and Sepa a ism in New England, 1740-1800. Hamden, CT: A chon, 1969. P in . ! 262 ───. “Edi o ’s In oduc ion.” The Wo ks o Jona han Edwa ds. Vol. 4. New Ha en: Yale Uni e si y P ess, 1972. 1-94. P in . Gu a, Philip F. Ame ican T anscenden alism: A His o y. New Yo k: Hill and Wang, 2007. P in . Habegge , Al ed. “P epa ing he Soul o Ch is : The Con as ing Se mon Fo ms o John Co on and Thomas Hooke .” Ame ican Li e a u e 41.1 (1969): 342-354. JSTOR. Web. 19 June 2005. Hall, Da id D. “Edi o ’s In oduc ion.” The Wo ks o Jona han Edwa ds. Vol. 12. New Ha en: Yale Uni e si y P ess, 1994. 1-90. P in . Hall, Timo hy D. Con es ed Bounda ies: I ine ancy and he Reshaping o he Colonial Ame ican Religious Wo ld. Du ham, NC: Duke Uni e si y P ess, 1994. P in . Halle , William. The Rise o Pu i anism. 1938. New Yo k: Ha pe To chbooks, 1957. P in Ha ch, Na han O. The Democ a iza ion o Ame ican Ch is iani y. New Ha en: Yale Uni e si y P ess, 1989. P in . Heime , Alan. Religion and he Ame ican Mind, om he G ea Awakening o he Re olu ion. 1966. Eugene, OR: Wip and S ock Publishe s, 2006. Jona han Edwa ds Classic S udies Se . P in . Heime , Alan, and And ew Delbanco, eds. The Pu i ans in Ame ica: A Na a i e An hology. Camb idge, MA: Ha a d Uni e si y P ess, 1985. P in . Hen y, Ma hew. Ma hew Hen y’s Commen a y on he Whole Bible. 1896. Peabody, MA: Hend ickson Publishe s, 2008. P in . Holy Bible Con aining he Old and New Tes amen s. Nash ille: Holman Bible Publishe s, 1979. Au ho ised King James Ve s. P in . ! 263 Jones, Se ene. Cal in and he Rhe o ic o Pie y. Louis ille: Wes mins e John Knox P ess, 1995. P in . Kidd, Thomas. The G ea Awakening: The Roo s o E angelical Ch is iani y in Colonial Ame ica. New Ha en: Yale Uni e si y P ess, 2007. P in . Kimnach, Wilson H. “Gene al In oduc ion o he Se mons: Jona han Edwa ds’ A o P ophesying.” The Wo ks o Jona han Edwa ds. Vol. 10. New Ha en: Yale Uni e si y P ess, 1992. 3-258. P in . Knigh , Janice. “Lea ning he Language o God: Jona han Edwa ds and he Typology o Na u e.” The William and Ma y Qua e ly 48. 4 (1991): 531-551. JSTOR. Web. 2 Decembe 2009. Lee, Sang Hyun. The Philosophical Theology o Jona han Edwa ds. Expanded ed. P ince on: P ince on Uni e si y P ess, 1988. P in . ───. “Edi o ’s In oduc ion.” The Wo ks o Jona han Edwa ds. Vol. 21. New Ha en: Yale Uni e si y P ess, 2002. 1-106. P in . Lesse , M. X. “Edi o ’s In oduc ion.” The Wo ks o Jona han Edwa ds. Vol. 19. New Ha en: Yale Uni e si y P ess, 2001. 3-36. P in . Lo elace, Richa d F. The Ame ican Pie ism o Co on Ma he : O igins o Ame ican E angelicalism. 1979. Eugene, OR: Wip and S ock Publishe s, 2007. P in . Lowance, Mason I., J . The Language o Canaan: Me apho and Symbol in New England om he Pu i ans o he T anscenden alis s. Camb idge, MA: Ha a d Uni e si y P ess, 1980. P in . Maha ey, Je ome D. P eaching Poli ics: The Religious Rhe o ic o Geo ge Whi e ield and he Founding o a New Na ion. Waco, TX: Baylo Uni e si y P ess, 2007. P in . ! 264 Ma cus, G eil, and We ne Sollo s, eds. A New Li e a y His o y o Ame ica. Camb idge, MA: Ha a d Uni e si y P ess, 2009. P in . Ma sden, Geo ge. Jona han Edwa ds: A Li e. New Ha en: Yale Uni e si y P ess, 2003. P in . ───. “Biog aphy.” The Camb idge Companion o Jona han Edwa ds. Ed. S ephen J. S ein. Camb idge: Camb idge Uni e si y P ess, 2007. 19-38. P in . Ma he , Co on. Ag icola. 1727. The Pu i ans in Ame ica: A Na a i e An hology. Ed. Alan Heime and And ew Delbanco. Camb idge, MA: Ha a d Uni e si y P ess, 1985. 330-336. P in . ───. Magnalia Ch is i Ame icana. 2 ols. 1702. Ha o d, CT: Silas And us, 1820. P in . McClymond, Michael J., and Ge ald R. McDe mo . The Theology o Jona han Edwa ds. New Yo k: Ox o d Uni e si y P ess, 2012. P in . “Me hodism.” The Ox o d Dic iona y o he Ch is ian Chu ch. 2nd ed. 1984. P in . Middle on, Richa d. Colonial Ame ica: A His o y, 1565-1776. Ox o d: Blackwell Publishing, 1992. P in . Mille , Pe y. E and in o he Wilde ness. Camb idge, MA: Ha a d Uni e si y P ess, 1956. P in . ───. Jona han Edwa ds. 1949. Lincoln, NE: Uni e si y o Neb aska P ess, 2005. P in . ───. “Jona han Edwa ds’ Sociology o he G ea Awakening.” The New England Qua e ly 21. 1 (1948): 50-77. JSTOR. Web. 25 June 2010. ───. The New England Mind: The Se en een h Cen u y. Camb idge, MA: Ha a d Uni e si y P ess, 1939. P in . ! 265 Minkema, Kenne h P., Ad ian Neele and B yan McCa hy. “In oduc ion.” Se mons by Jona han Edwa ds on he Ma hean Pa ables. Vol. 1. By Jona han Edwa ds. Eugene, OR: Cascade Books, 2012. 1-34. P in . Moody, Josh. Jona han Edwa ds and he Enligh enmen : Knowing he P esence o God. Diss. Lanham, MD: Uni e si y P ess o Ame ica, 2005. P in Mo gan, Edmund S. The Genuine A icle: A His o ian Looks a Ea ly Ame ica. New Yo k: W. W. No on and Company, 2004. P in . ───. Visible Sain s: The His o y o a Pu i an Idea. New Yo k: New Yo k Uni e si y P ess, 1963. P in . Mu ay, Iain H. Jona han Edwa ds: A New Biog aphy. Edinbu gh: The Banne o T u h T us , 1987. P in . ───. The Pu i an Hope: A S udy in Re i al and he In e p e a ion o P ophecy. Edinbu gh: The Banne o T u h T us , 1971. P in . ───. Re i al and Re i alism: The Making and Ma ing o Ame ican E angelicalism. Edinbu gh: The Banne o T u h T us , 1994. P in . Niebuh , H. Richa d. The Kingdom o God in Ame ica. 1937. Middle own, CT: Wesleyan Uni e si y P ess, 1988. P in . Noll, Ma k. Ame ica´s God: om Jona han Edwa ds o Ab aham Lincoln. Ox o d: Ox o d Uni e si y P ess, 2002. P in . ───. The Rise o E angelicalism: The Age o Edwa ds, Whi e ield and he Wesleys. Downe s G o e, IL: In e Va si y P ess, 2003. P in . Owen, John. The Wo ks o John Owen. Vol. 2. Ed. William H. Goold. London: The Banne o T u h T us , 1966. P in . Pa ke , T. H. L. John Cal in: A Biog aphy. 1975. Louis ille: Wes mins e John Knox P ess, 2006. P in . ! 266 “Pos millennialism.” New Dic iona y o Theology. 1988. P in . Saillan , John. Black Pu i an, Black Republican: The Li e and Though o Lemuel Haynes. New Yo k: Ox o d Uni e si y P ess, 2003. P in . Sanchez, Juan. “Di ine Communica ions in a Time o Re i al: Jona han Edwa ds’ Use o ‘Ligh ’ and ‘Wa e ’ Image y Du ing he No hamp on Re i al, 1734-35.” Re is a de Es udios No eame icanos 15 (2011): 11-32. P in . Scheick, William. “The G and Design: Jona han Edwa ds’ His o y o he wo k o Redemp ion”. C i ical Essays on Jona han Edwa ds. Ed. William Scheick. Bos on: G. K. Hall & Co., 1980. 177-188. P in . Schwei ze , William M. God is a Communica i e Being: Di ine Communica i eness and Ha mony in he Theology o Jona han Edwa ds. New Yo k: T&T Cla k In e na ional, 2012. P in . Shepa d, Thomas. The Pa able o he Ten Vi gins. 1660. Mo gan, PA: Soli Deo Glo ia Publica ions, 1990. P in . Smi h, John E. Re . o Jona han Edwa ds’s Philosophy o His o y: The Reenchan men o he Wo ld in he Age o Enligh enmen , by A ihu Zakai. Jou nal o he His o y o Philosophy. July 2004: 343. P in . ───. “Edi o ’s In oduc ion.” The Wo ks o Jona han Edwa ds. Vol. 2. New Ha en: Yale Uni e si y P ess, 1959. 1-83. P in . S ein, S ephen J. “Edi o ’s In oduc ion.” The Wo ks o Jona han Edwa ds. Vol. 5. New Ha en: Yale Uni e si y P ess, 1977. 1-93. P in . S odda d, Solomon. The Pu i an Pulpi : Solomon S odda d. O lando: Soli Deo Glo ia Publica ions, 2005. The Ame ican Pu i ans Se . P in . S ou , Ha y. The New England Soul: P eaching and Religious Cul u e in Colonial New England. New Yo k: Ox o d Uni e si y P ess, 1986. P in . ! 267 ───. “Edi o ’s In oduc ion.” The Wo ks o Jona han Edwa ds. Vol. 22. New Ha en: Yale Uni e si y P ess, 2003. 3-47. P in . ───. “The Pu i ans and Edwa ds.” Jona han Edwa ds and he Ame ican Expe ience. Ed. Na han O. Ha ch and Ha y S ou . New Yo k: Ox o d Uni e si y P ess, 1988. 142-159. P in . Sweeney, Douglas A. “E angelical T adi ion in Ame ica.” The Camb idge Companion o Jona han Edwa ds. Ed. S ephen J. S ein. Camb idge: Camb idge Uni e si y P ess, 2007. 217-238. P in . Tennen , Gilbe . The Dange o an Uncon e ed Minis y. 1740. Alan Heime and Pe y Mille , eds. The G ea Awakening: Documen s Illus a ing he C isis and I s Consequences. Indianapolis: Bobbs, Me ill, 1967. 71-99. P in . Tho eau, Hen y D. Walden; o , Li e in he Woods. Bos on: Tickno and Fields, 1854. P in . T acy, Pa icia J. Jona han Edwa ds, Pas o : Religion and Socie y in Eigh een h Cen u y No hamp on. 1980. Eugene, OR: Wip and S ock Publishe s, 2006. Jona han Edwa ds Classic S udies Se . P in . Webe , Donald. Rhe o ic and His o y in Re olu iona y New England. New Yo k: Ox o d Uni e si y P ess, 1988. P in . Whea ley, Phillis. Li e and Wo ks o Phillis Whea ley. 1916. Ed. G. He be Ren o. Miami: Mnemosyne P ess, 1969. P in . Whi e, Eugene. Pu i an Rhe o ic: The Issue o Emo ion in Religion. Ca bondale, IL: Sou he n Illinois Uni e si y P ess, 1972. P in . Whi e ield, Geo ge. Eigh een Se mons, p eached by he la e Re . Geo ge Whi e ield. 1771. New Yo k: M’Fa lane & Long, 1809. HATHI TRUST Digi al Lib a y. Web. 2 Ma ch 2015.