and competition, prompts them to the greatest exertions. The tone of public feeling in this country, on the contrary, is an inducement to activity, and as we have the literature of England imported we feel a less urgent necessity of directing our efforts in that way and have less hope of distinguishing ourselves by literary exertions.

Add to these facts, their extensive universities, libraries, and cabinets, their professorships, and fellowships; the antiquity of their nation and its institutions inviting deeper and still deeper research, and promising a rich reward of praise to the learning and erudition of the student; the associations with which a long and eventful history has invested, almost every visible object, making it stand as a monument of the valour, and the patriotism of their forefathers, to excite the enthusiasm of the historian and the poet; all these circumstances and many others, which in their nature cannot exist in a newly settled country and in the infancy of a nation, give to their writers such a decided superiority in advantages, that eveu a moderate degree of comparative excellence in our authors,ought to excite surprise, and call forth admiration rather than censure of their taste and genius. That such causes are sufficient, and more than sufficient to account for any supposed superiority in their authors, is manifest from the fact, that notwithstanding the obstacles they present, our speakers in Congress, and our writers on politics and religion, and on every branch of knowledge which there are motives and means to cultivate, do not appear at all inferior to those of Great Britain. In proof of this as sertion we refer to Edwards as an author. He has commanded the admiration of Europeans, even of his enemies; many who have been opposed to his conclusions, have done ample justice to the strength of his reasoning powers. A religious magazine of that country, the most ably supported, the most widely extended, the most judicious and perhaps the most useful that ever was published,

has styled "Jonathan Edwards, King of Calvinists," and given at different times, commendation of his works.

In his own country the labours of President Edwards have produced lasting and constantly increasing effects. He has settled some of our most difficult disputes in controversial Theology, he has given a character to our preaching which distinguishes our country from every other portion of christendom, and he has presented to us a general view of the doctrines of the Gospel, which is more and more extensively gaining credit among the orthodox christians of America. We may add, he has explained the nature of personal religion, and the distinguishing characteristics of religious affections, in a manner SO agreeable to the word of God, and to the effects of his gracious operations, in the heart, that the study of the one, and observation of the other continually confirm his views. We know not that an author ran give greater proof of the power of his genius, than thus to stamp upon the public mind, through successive generations, the form of his own sentiments. tracing back the effects to their origin, we shall attempt to sketch his most prominent features as an author, especially his character as a theologian, a controversialist, and a preacher.

In

As a theologian, President Edwards is distinguished for his scriptural views of divine truth. It has been said of Kepler's laws of the planets motions, "that the knowledge of each of them was the result of much research, and of the comparison of a vast multitude of observations, in so much that it may be doubted if ever three truths in science were discovered at the expense of so much labour and patience or with the exertion of more ingenuity and invention in combining observations."

Those who read with attention the volumes before us, will be satisfied that with equal labour, and patience and skill, the Author deduced his general conclusions from extensive and accurate observation of the word

of God. The number of passages which he adduces from the scriptures on every important doctrine, the critical attention which he has evidently given them, the labour in arranging them, and we may add the skill and integrity with which he shews his general conclusions from them, is truly astonishing. We see no intermixture of his own hypotheses, no confidence in his own reason, except as applied to the interpretation of the oracles of God, nor even that disposition to make extended and momentous inferences, which characterises some of his successors and admirers.

In this respect he strikingly resembles Newton, who in his philosophical investigations confined his powerful mind, simply to the observation and interpretation of nature, firmly rejecting those unfounded but captivating theories which had so long amused and bewildered the world. He did not think that human reason was capable of understanding the manner in which God carries on his operations—and therefore coufined himself to the knowledge of general facts. With similar views of the mode of the Divine existence and operations did President Edwards confine himself to the declarations and general doctrines of God's word. It is the Gospel, in its simplicity and purity, which he gives us.

Another characteristic of his theology, is the extensiveness of his views. In his theology, as in his mind, there was nothing narrow; no partial, contracted views of a subject; all was simple, great and sublime.

It is probably owing to the union of these two qualities in his religious opinions, that they have been so extensively adopted or approved in different nations, and by christians of different name. His works, as they were published, were read and admired in Scotland, the evangelical clergy of the church of England, as well as the dissenters, acknowledge their obligations. to him; especially we may mention Fuller, Milner, and Scott. The churches of New-Eng

land, if they could wish to be named after any man, would choose that it should be after Edwards, and even our Southern neighbors, who seem determined to think that they differ from us on important doctrinal points, yet acknowledge the distinguished talents of Edwards, and the general correctness of his opinions. But no denomination has ever yet been able to appropriate his name to themselves. In this respect he has attained higher honor than Calvin, or Luther, or Zuingle. As no sect of chris. tians has ever been able to appropri ate the name of Christian, exclusively to themselves, so no sect will ever be denominated Edwardean. The effect of his labours so exactly coincides with the general effects of the Gospel, that his own name and honor is mer ged, as he would wish it to be, in the glory of his Saviour. The simplicity of his intentions, and his modesty of character, prevented him from endeavouring to place himself at the head of a party. He directed the force of his genius to illustrate and defend those great truths of revelation, which in every age and portion of the christian church, have been the ground of hope and comfort to the sincere believer. His works are too generally approved, and his name too extensively known, and too much beloved by those of different denominations, to suffer any one to monopolize it. For ourselves we profess to call no man Master on earth. If we, in general, embrace the same opinions as Edwards, it is not because he taught them, but because he has shewed us that Christ and his apostles taught them. We would not have it understood, however, that we think every opinion which he has advanced, is entirely correct; but we do think that no writer since the days of the apostles, has better understood and taught the word of God, or has more ably defended its doctrines.

But we find ourselves insenisbly advancing to the character of Edwards as a Controversialist. Before leaving his character as a Divine, we

would just observe that we cannot be expected to give extracts from the volumes before us, to illustrate or confirm the opinions we have advanced. To do this, would require that we should present the whole of his works to our readers, instead of simply reviewing them.

The most excellent, if not the most striking trait in the character of Edwards as a controversialist, is his integrity. He is a perfectly fair disputant. Those who have been most opposed to his conclusions, and have most powerfully felt the force of his arguments, have not dared to call them sophistical. The fact is, he had such a confidence in the truth of his positions, and in his ability to defend them by fair means, that he would have despised sophistry even if it could have occurred to him. But he would not have consented to use it, had he felt a want of sound arguments. His principles would not have permitted him. His aim in all investigations was the discovery of truth, and he followed the train of reasoning prepared to adopt the legitimate result, whether agreeable or repugnant to his previous opinions..

Another characteristic of his reasoning powers, is originality or invention in discovering new media of proof, and new methods of discovering truth. In this kind of originality he was peculiarly distinguished. His son of the same name, has been thought by some even to excel his father, in connecting the premises of an argument with the conclusion, in a manner approaching to demonstration; but he is universally acknowledged to be inferior in the original and inventive genius which so peculiarly distinguished the father.

But that quality in his controversial writings which has most universally established the character of Edwards, is the unanswerable nature of his arguments. He seems to have so entire ly exhausted a subject, as to leave no room for addition or reply.

The impossibility of answering his writings on controversial subjects,

arises, in the first place, from the strength and conclusiveness of his reasoning. He has given to metaphysical investigations, as much of demonstration as they seem capable of receiving. The great source of error in reasoning on moral and metaphysical subjects, is the unsettled and variable signification of terms, which insensibly changes as the writer advances, and gives the form of demonstration to conclusions which are erroneous and even absurd. This difficulty was fully pointed out by Locke and others, but no writer has been able more completely to avoid it than President Edwards. Having clearly fixed in his mind, and limited by definitions, the meaning of the principal terms in the beginning of a dispute, he steadily keeps it in bis mind, and with wonderful quickness detects the first and least deviation from it in the reasonings of others.

A second cause of the unanswerable character of his reasonings, is that he usually follows several distinct trains of argument, which all terminate in the same conclusion. Each of them is satisfactory-one will make a deeper impression on one mind, and another on another; but the union of them all, commencing at different points but arriving at the same conclusion, cannot fail to impress every mind that is aware of the unity there is in truth, and of the inconceivable variance there is between all truth and error.

A third cause of the unanswerable character of his reasonings is, that he has himself anticipated and effectual ly answered, not only all the objections which had actually been made to his conclusions, but all that it seemed possible to make. These he places in the fairest, strongest lights, views them under every shape which they can assume in the hands of an evasive antagonist, and shews that in every possible form they are inconclusive. These several qualities of his reasoning, never appear in greater perfection than when he attacks the opinions of his adversaries. Assu

ming these as premises, he with great ingenuity shews that they lead to acknowledged absurdity. He demonstrates that his opponents are inconsistent with themselves, as well as with truth, and common sense,--and is hardly satisfied with shewing their incorrectness, until he has exposed their error to contempt and ridicule.

It is often said, that the writings of Edwards, are diffuse and tedious. This, in a qualified sense, must be admitted, and yet it is owing to the same causes which render him unanswerable. We who have been convinced, and have had our doubts all removed by his reasonings, requite him with our complaints, that he says more than is necessary to shew us the truth. But let us go back to the time when every inch of ground was disputed on these topics, when a general obscurity hung over them, let us mark how by his writings doubts and darkness were dissipated, and opposition silenced, and we shall cease to regret the existence of those qualities which secured so signal a victory, and which have rendered his works a strong hold of arguments, to which the enquirer may repair for satisfaction, and the young combatant for weapons of tried temper, with which to defend the truth. In this Achillean armor he may go fearless to the conflict, confident that no instrument of error can have power to reach him.

The three great controversial works, are, On qualifications for communion; On the freedom of the will; and on original sin. We had flattered ourselves that we should be able either to give a concise view of the arguments in each, or at least to extract some particular argument, to confirm the remarks we have ventured to make on his character as a controversialist. But his reasonings cannot be condensed, or extracted, within the limits of this article, without serious injury. It is sufficient to refer to the effects of each of the publications. The first has been instrumental of changing the opinion and practice of the clergy in this State, so

completely, that a practice, which was once almost universal, now scarcely finds among the ministers of the denomination to which he belonged, a single advocate.

His essay on the will, needs only be mentioned, to suggest its effect to any person acquainted with religious controversy. It is a standing monument of the triumph of truth, and of the shame, defeat and disgrace of her opposers. Frango me frangentes, may be inscribed upon it, if upon any work of merely hu man effort. It is indeed a rock in the sea of contest, which breaks the billows, that endeavour in vain to shake it.

The same cannot be said of the treatise on original sin, though perhaps not less conclusive in its reasonings. The subject did not admit of the same kind of argument, and it was, moreover, principally an attempt to overthrow the hypothesis of a particular author. That he completely succeeded in this attempt, cannot be doubted by any one who examines the controversy. If indeed report be true, it was virtually confessed, in a melancholy manner by Taylor himself. He had indiscreetly boasted, in his great work, that it never would be answered. The answer was so complete, that it admitted of no apol

ogy.

His chagrin, his disappointment, his unceasing efforts to find some hold or subterfuge to prolong the controversy, was said to have shortened his days. Whether it was literally true, that his grasp was death,' we cannot say, but at least, it was death to controversy.

But we wish to fix the attention of our readers upon the moral character of our author's controversial writings, as that in which he can be more extensively imitated, than in the exertion of mental power exhibited in them. By their moral character, we mean, the christian spirit in which they are written, the fairness with which he proposes the real point in dispute, the candour with which be examines the arguments of his oppo