The daily morning journal and courier., 1901-10-21

ANi NhoiSe' Any otHer view, no con- | tends, is equivalent to a doctrine ot
 chance and, if carried out, would lant
 US advocates in atheism. The points o1 coincidence between his reasoning ir behalf of that moral necessity, "-- which, with many ancient and modern
 leaders in philosophy and theology, he denied to involve "constraint," in any ] proper sense of the term--are nothing
 more than coincidence. They imply nc borrowing on his part from other sup porters of like thesis, While he was unquestionably influenced by sugges- tions of Locke on the significance of
 liberty of choice his independence in i thought, even in relation to Locke ia equally manifest. Generally speaking.
 1t is to be said that the philosophy of
 EdWards-for instance, his view of the
 sources of knowledge--is the antipode
 of that of Locke's. So far as orthodox
 theology was concerned, his sincere de- fence of it's tenets involved, as enter
 prises of like character often have, for
 example, the defence of the Church doe
 Urine of the Atonement against the
 Socinians by Grotius-a modification in
 the form of the doctrine which the pro-
 fessed aim is to shield against assail-
 ants. Edwards departed from the tra
 dtional opinion that liberty possessed
 by man originally was lost in his fall
 On the contrary he professed to hold
 and oteach, as he declares in his let
 ter to Erskine, his Scottish correspond
 ent, that men are to-day in possession
 of all the liberty which 1t ever entered
 into the heart of man to conceive. In
 another letter he expresses his willing
 ness to subscribe to the Westminster
 Confession, adding, however, the signi-
 cant words flor substance" At the
 present day, especially in the light
 which is thrown on the subject of Ed
 wards treatise, and with the just ad-
 imitation of it as 8 product of a most
 sincere and able reasoner, it is conceal
 ed in different camps of religious thinkers that its notion of moral liberty is too restricted and that the over throw of his antagonists was to cer- tain extent owing to the weakness of their oversight and the fragility of the weapons at their command.
 In another polemieal treatise-that on Original Sin-which did not see the light until after his death, Edwards plunged into the thick of the conflict on the old-time subject of the spread and dominion of moral evil in the race of mankind. He sought to disarm the opponents of orthodox doctrines, and to lift the veil on the mystery of sin-the one mystery, as Coleridge said, which makes all other things clear. He dis cards everything in the current beliefs which savers of legal fiction, and seeks to found the responsibility of the in- dividual on a real spiritual continuity of the race, view which he seeks to fortify by a disquisition on the mean ing of personal identity and of the sameness of substance. It is evident that Locke's curious chapter on 'Iden- tity and Diversity" put Edwards on the track on which he advanced to his nov al opinions. But here likewise the doctrine was worked out
 in an original way, and the opinions in were at absolute variance with the tenets of Locke
 The choir-leaders of the New Eng and school were disciples, but not ser vile disciples, of Edwards. They built )n foundations which he had laid His writings were too fruitful of suggestion Q secure unity of opinion among his followers. One principal aim continued 70 be to put an end to the apparent con- lict between human dependence and personal responsibility. The treatise ,n the Will, on the one hand, furnished . he premises for q class of inference on he nature and origin of sin and of con- 'ersion On the other hand, what Ed wards, had taught on the necessity of piritual light imparted directly from iod, led to accordant corolaries rela- i've to the new life and spiritual experi- . nee.
 The question of the theodicy-How s evil, especially moral evil, consistent with infinite power and love in the discussed in writings of 3elamy and other adherents of the New Divinity" as 1t was then called
 amuel Hopkins, whom President Stiles ouples, as a great reasoner," with President Edwards, was graduated at 'ale in TAI. He went to Northampton 9 study for the ministry with Edwards. rom his doctrine of the extension of he reign of law over choices and voli-
 ions, Hopkins deduced the bold infer nee that the acts of the will are to be aferred to divine efficiency. His thesis ,as adopted by Nathaniel Emmons, raduate of Yale in 1767 Emmons, hen his premises were assumed cached his conclusions by an inevitable larch of logic. Moreover, Hopkins pro ounded doctrine of distinterestel love- hich he deduced from the treatise of dwards on the Nature of Virtue,-the octrine, namely, of the obligation to ( we self, not as ones own self, but ally as a fraction of strictly limited l alue in the sum total of rational be- l lgs,-what Edwards had termed be , g in general" The duty of uncondi- onal resignation to the just penalty (
 sin, should it be the will of God to 7 fict it, was an inference This was { culcated not merely as theoretie :, )gma, but even as 4 practical demand {
 be addressed by the Christian pas- c r to the individual seeking place in e Kingdom of God. The same idea f
 in Mystics of earlier days. for exam I e in the little book, the "Dentsche f neologie,' so highly prized by Luther | estitute altogether of the graces of T yle and of speech required to interest ! audience, despite what was thought f harsh tenet Hopkins was revered by { for the depth of his piety, and the f alted purity and benevolence of his I aracter. One of his hearers in his ! rsh at Newport was youth destined t