Calvinism, the Congregational Ministry, and Reform in New England between the Great
∑Ω≤ Notes to Pages 449–56
3. Edwards to John Erskine, July 7, 1752, Works, 16: 491. 4. Misrepresentations Corrected, Works, 12: 501–2. Cf. Clyde A. Holbrook, ''Introduction,'' Works, 3: 20.
5. Paul Ramsey, ''Introduction,'' Works, 8: 10–11. Ramsey points out that Edwards debated whether to put his discussion of moral sense in Original Sin or True Virtue (where he eventually put it, referencing in Original Sin that the other volume was forthcoming).
6. Quoted in Joseph A. Conforti, Samuel Hopkins and the New Divinity Movement: Calvinism, the Congregational Ministry, and Reform in New England between the Great Awakenings (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1981), 55.
7. Samuel Hopkins to Joseph Bellamy, January 19, 1758, quoted in Conforti, Samuel Hopkins, 55.
8. Original Sin, Works, 3: 102. 9. Ibid., 152–53, cf. 107–205. 10. Ibid., 183. 11. Ibid., 129, 190–91, 386–87. 12. Ibid., 380–85. 13. Ibid., 386. 14. Edwards discusses Romans 5 at length, versus Taylor's interpretations, in ibid., 306–49. 15. Edwards di√ered on this point from some Reformed theologians and from the apparent implication of the Westminster Confession of Faith, chap. 6:3, which speaks of the imputation of guilt as though it were a judicial act distinct from the transmission of a corrupted nature: ''They [our first parents] being the root of all mankind, the guilt of his sin was imputed; and the same death in sin, and corrupted nature, conveyed to all their posterity descending from them by ordinary generation.''
16. Ibid., 391n–92n. 17. Cf. Paul Ramsey, ''Introduction,'' Works, 1: 118, on this point and his helpful discussion of related problems, pp. 99–118.
18. Original Sin, Works, 3: 395–409, with quotation on p. 409. Cf. Holbrook's discussion of some of the problems regarding Edwards' multiple levels of causality, Holbrook, ''Introduction,'' Works, 3: 60–64. Some of Edwards' language, such as that ''the existence of each created person and thing, at each moment of it, [must] be from the immediate continued creation of God,'' p. 401, might lead one to think that he regarded God as the e≈cient cause of everything. Yet he says elsewhere, in a typical statement, ''A being may be the determiner and disposer of an event, and not properly an e≈cient or e≈cacious cause. Because, though he determines the futurity of the event, yet there is no positive e≈ciency or power of the cause that reaches and produces the e√ect; but merely a withholding or withdrawing of e≈ciency or power.'' ''Concerning E≈cacious Grace,'' in Works of Jonathan Edwards, ed. Hickman, 2: 557. Edwards must have had in mind a distinction between God's action in sustaining the sequences of ''immediate continued creation'' and the powers he grants to created persons and things to act as e≈cient agents within those sequences. Thus he says with respect to the crucial doctrine of e≈cacious grace, ''we are not passive, nor yet does God do some, and we do the rest. But God does all, and we do all. God produces all, and we act all. For that is what he produces, viz. Our own acts. God is the only proper author and fountain; we only are the proper actors. We are, in di√erent respects, wholly passive and wholly active.'' Ibid.