george marsden and jonathan edwards and freedom of the will and original sin and the nature of true virtue and francis hutcheson

The most difficult part of Marsden's book to read are the chapters describing Edwards' long and now rarely-read treastises Freedom of the Will; Original Sin; and The Nature of True Virtue (pp. 432-471). Marsden's discussions are difficult primarily because the obscurity of the subject matter. I will admit, however, that no one's treatment of these three works has been particularly enlightening to me. Rather than devote this essay to a review or critique of Edwards' argument, I think it might be most helpful to explain the context in which Edwards is writing these works and why, ultimately, his works are not responsive to the intellectual spirit of the age.

Impossible Thoughts Before Breakfast..

The Reformed theological tradition provided the intellectual underpinnings for thought in England and Scotland through the mid-17th century. After the Revolution of 1688-89, however, a distinctively different tone was in the air. Christian religion would still prevail, of course, but it would be religion refracted through the prism of reason. Instead of the truth of the miracles and the regular intervention of God in the affairs of the earth, it would be Christianity shorn of divine intervention. In the words of Matthew Tindal, an early 18th century writer, it would be Christianity as Old as the Creation, where Christianity was seen to be the religion "of nature," and where Christian beliefs, in order to be maintained as true, must accord with the principles of reason. Locke wrote a short book in the 1690s entitled The Reasonableness of Christianity, where miracle and prophecy were shorn from the story of faith.

This new emphasis on reason would make at least two doctrines of Reformed Christianity very difficult to continue to accept: the doctrines of the bondage of the will and original sin. Historically the Reformed Churches, following Augustine and sections of St. Paul, had argued that humans were powerless to overcome the strength of sin, because sin had reduced them to a state where they couldn't but sin. The Augustinian phrase was non posse non peccare. The human will, as it were, was in bondage to sin, thus making it impossible for the human will to initiate any movement towards God at all.

By the time you get to the 18th century, however, the doctrine of the bondage of the will, if it ever really had resonance among people, began to lose its luster. The dominant reality of the groups opposing monarchy and an established church was that the people had a choice, a good choice, and this choice would be to overthrow those institutions which had long subjected them. Choice was in the air; you can choose your governmental form; you can choose your church; why is it that you had to continue to believe that your will was, in some inexplicable way, not free to act in ways that you wanted? Of course, this is a simplification, and even a mischaracterization of the philosophical approach to the issue of free choice, but it is not far removed from how people in reality thought. The world seemed to be exploding with choice, and any doctrine that spoke of the bondage of the will (even though Edwards cleverly entitled his work The Freedom of the Will) would simply seem to be playing a faulty note.

Original Sin

Then there was a problem with the Reformed doctrine of sin. The Reformers had believed that we not only have a propensity to sin but that we are born into the world as sinners. We share not only in Adam's tendency, so to speak, to sin, but we partake of his guilt. We were "in Adam," as St. Paul says, and the choice that he made is imputed to us. Without the gracious intervention of God, would be lost. Yet, one belief that was growing in intensity in the 18th century, and which would reach its acme in the American Revolution (and the doctrine begins to emerge just a decade after Edwards wrote Original Sin in 1757), is that there is "no taxation without representation." What this meant, ultimately is that it is unjust of someone to lay a burden on you if you didn't in some way have a say on whether to take on that burden. If there was one thing the Reformed doctrine of original sin taught it is that you are guilty because of Adam. So what if you didn't choose him; you are still guilty before God.

The Result

The Reformed doctrines increasingly seemed to be out of step with the tenor of the times. Indeed, John Taylor, in his 1740 work Scripture-Doctrine of Original Sin, argued that by "comparing Scripture with Scripture," the Bible actually didn't teach this doctrine. Several clear statements seemed to deny it, and therefore those that might be construed to teach it had to be interpreted in light of the clear passages. In addition, if you don't have a strict doctrine of original sin anymore, you also could argue that the human will is not as damaged by sin as the Reformed theologians argued. This would mean that the will isn't really "in bondage," and that, in contrast, one may be able to choose the good and choose God without the intervention even of divine grace.

The emphasis that began to grow in the 18th century, then, was on the moral principles that a benevolent Creator had built into the natural order (p. 468). Francis Hutcheson's famous work from 1725, Inquiry Concerning Beauty, Order, Harmony, Design, argued that humans are endowed by the Creator with a natural faculty to make reliable moral judgments. One simply had to defer to this capacity, and cherish it, rather than submit to those who would say that the will was in bondage or that total depravity was the condition of your soul.

Edwards' Response and Conclusion

So Edwards tried to defend the traditional dogmas, even if he did so with an "Edwardsean" twist (as Marsden argues) in both cases. Though he may not have known it at the time, he was fighting a losing battle. A new world had dawned, and the language of optimism and reason, of natural rights and the creator's benificence, would be the new tone "in the air." Whether Calvinism is consistent or inconsistent with democratic values has been hotly debated; in my reading, however, the melioristic tone of the mid-late 18th century reformers would have nothing to do with the fading voice of a Calvinism that seemingly served Edwards so well for the first 50 years of his life.

[Next]

1389