SIN From Jonathan Edwards: A Mini-Theology

When man sinned he lost all the beauty of his nature. There is nothing left but a filthy and devilish nature that reigns in the hearts of natural men. Edwards constantly preached that man is devoid of the love and presence of God and that this is the root of all evil. We learn from Original Sin that God withdrew when Adam rebelled, and this occasioned man's natural corruption. No infusion or transfusion of corruption was necessary.

The theme was developed in the manuscript sermon on Genesis 3:11.(1) Nothing more was needed to explain the invariable and incorrigible wickedness of mankind than privation of the love of God. Marls evil actions begin at birth and continue through life.(2) Environment and example make no difference because the cause is internal.

The Matthew 10:17 sermon is an especially vivid description of the brutality and cruelty that can be accounted for by the mere absence of God in the soul. ""The nature of man is so corrupted that he is become a very evil and hurtful creature.", Many other sermons are like it. For example, the Romans 5:10 sermon makes it clear that man, being devoid of the divine presence, does indeed actively hate God.(4) Men do not admit it (one thinks of the remark of Henry David Thoreau: "I am not at war with God"), but they are the sworn enemies of God.

In fact, man the sinner claims to be at peace and friendly, but he is at peace with false gods. All true religion professed by unregenerates is "forced."(5) Men do not attack God openly because he is out of their reach, just as a serpent will not strike at a person who is at a distance (6) But men's actions show clearly how they feel. God is placed below the world in their scale of values; even vile lusts are placed above God.(7) There is actually a neverending struggle going on between God and man to see who will be chief.(8) Human worms raise themselves up in defiance of their Creator, and this is why all unconverted persons are wicked and unable to escape the damnation of hell.(9) Jeremiah 44:4 teaches that sinners hate God,(10) Habakkuk 1:13 that God hates sinners,(11) and Zechariah 11:8 that there is mutual loathing,(12) Man's heart without God is as a stone, and God hardens it only by with. drawing further and further. (13)' Needless to say, it is futile for the sinner to argue that God is to blame for hardening his heart, for man's heart becomes hardened only when God is absent.(14)

Christianity and Christian culture make the world still more sinful if the faith is not savingly embraced, as usually it is not. Consequently, the Indians ("savage Americans" in Edwards' terminology), though suffering from original sin, are less wicked than those who conquered them, as is characteristic of the whole history of this fallen world. The "cut flower" civilization Elton Trueblood spoke of turns out to be a garden of weeds:

And as to the Gentile nations, though there was a glorious success of the gospel amongst them in the Apostles' days; yet probably not one in ten of those that had the gospel preached to them embraced it.... And the greater part of the ages which have now elapsed have been spent in the duration of that grand and general apostasy, under which the Christian world, as it is called, has been transformed into that which has been vastly more deformed, more dishonorable and hateful to God, and repugnant to true virtue, than the state of the heathen world before: which is agreeable to the prophetical descriptions given of it by the Holy Spirit (15)

The most tragic evidence of this universal disobedience is not the heathen nations, the savage Americans, and the secularized Christian culture, but the human infant. Edwards exhaustively gathers the texts to show that the Word of God finds infants under condemnation:

Here, not to stay to be particular concerning the command by Moses, concerning the destruction of the infants of the Midianites (Num. 31:17). And that given to Saul to destroy all the infants of the Amalekites (I Sam. 15:3), and what is said concerning Edom (Ps. 137:9), "Happy shall he be that shall take thy little ones, and dash them against the stones." I proceed to take notice of something remarkable concerning the destruction of Jerusalem, represented in Ezekiel 9 when command was given to them that had charge over the city, to destroy the inhabitants (vv. 1 8). And this reason is given for it, that their iniquity required it, and it was a just recommence of their sin (vv. 9, 10).... Command was given to the angel, to go through the city, and set a mark upon their foreheads, and the destroying angel had a strict charge not to come near any man on whom was the mark; yet the infants were not marked, nor a word said of sparing them: on the contrary, infants were expressly mentioned as those that should be utterly destroyed, without pity (vv. 5, 6). "Go . . . through the city, and smite: let not your eye spare, neither have ye pity. Slay utterly old and young, both maids, and little children, and women: but come not near any man upon whom is the mark."(16)

Edwards continues: "No care was taken to preserve the infants of the city. "He concludes that they were involved in that destruction just as the children to whom Christ alludes when he says of the coming tribulation: "Blessed are the barren, and the womb that never bare, and the paps which never gave suck."

All the above is direct evidence that the Bible teaches the condemnation of children in Adam. Edwards cites some negative evidence also which is, perhaps, even more impressive. He observes that God has offered Abraham to spare Sodom if there were but ten righteous in the city. There were not, though there must have been more than that many infants. Nor is Edwards insensitive to the contrary appeal to Christ's taking the children in his arms and saying that of such is the kingdom of heaven. For Edwards, these children are no more virtuous than the doves who have that same image. Grimly he reminds his readers that vipers too, when young, are cute and harmless, though their malignant nature will later appear clearly. If this doctrine is considered harsh, Wesley's Arminianism did not save him from it either, for he, too, argued that since children suffer they must deserve to suffer.

Not only is mankind disobedient universally, but its disobedience is universal. That is, not only is disobedience as extensive as mankind, but it pertains to each individual in the universality of his being. The totality of mankind is totally depraved according to Edwards, who, if anything, is more thoroughgoing than John Calvin on this crucial Calvinistic doctrine. For Edwards, though the image of God in the broader sense is intact, the image in the narrower or proper sense is utterly eradicated.

Lacking all virtue, there is nothing men do (according to numerous sermons) that is good.(17) In fact, all that they do is wrong.(18)) Their minds are carnal,(19) and their bodies are the sepulchers of their dead minds.(20) Their life's trade, or business, is sin.(21) There is always room for further wickedness and only the common grace of God limits it. Men are so wicked that when Christ first told his disciples to beware of wolves he changed it to say beware of men because men are far more ferocious and cruel than animals.(22)

Edwards maintains that virtue does not have finite merit,(23) but sin has infinite demerit:

There is no great merit in paying a debt we owe, and by the highest possible obligations in strict justice are obliged to pay; but there is great demerit in refusing to pay it. That on such accounts as these there is an infinite demerit in all sin against God which must therefore immensely outweigh all the merit which can be supposed to be in our virtue, I think, is capable of full demonstration; and that the futility of the objections, which some have made against the argument, might most plainly be demonstrated.(24)

Sin is against an infinitely worthy being and is therefore infinitely heinous. Every sin, according to Edwards, is an in finite aggravation against an infinitely holy God.(25) He observes in many sermons that an offense against an excellent person is doubtless more serious than against a less excellent person. By a straight line of logical reasoning he concludes that a sin against an infinitely excellent person is an in. finitely heinous deed. Even more clearly he states in the Matthew 25:46 sermon that "if the obligation to love, honor and obey God be infinite, then sin, which is the violation of this obligation, is a violation of infinite obligation, and so is an infinite evil." The same theme is fundamental in Justification by Faith:

We are under greater obligations to love a more lovely being than a less lovely; and if a being be infinitely excellent and lovely, our obligations to love him are therein infinitely great.... The unworthiness of sin or opposition to God rises and is great in proportion to the dignity of the object and inferiority of the subject; but on the contrary, the value of respect rises in proportion to the value of the subject…(26)

Likewise, in one of his most famous sermons, Edwards labors this point in establishing the "justice of God in the damnation of sinners":

Every crime or fault deserves a greater or less punishment, in proportion as the crime itself is greater or less.... The faulty nature of anything is the formal ground and reason of its desert of punishment; and therefore the more anything hath of this nature, the more punishment it deserves. And therefore the terribleness of the degree of punishment, let it be never so terrible, is no argument against the justice of it, if the proportion does but hold....

A crime is more or less heinous, according as we are under greater or less obligations to the contrary.... So the faultiness of one being hating another, is in proportion to his obligation to love him.... And therefore if there be any being that we are under infinite obligations to love, and honour, and obey, the contrary to wards him must be infinitely faulty Our obligation to love, honour, and obey any being, is in proportion to his loveliness, honourableness, and authority; for that is the very meaning of the words. When we say anyone is very lovely, it is the same as to say, that he is one very much to be loved....

So that sin against God, being a violation of infinite obligations, must be a crime infinitely heinous, and so deserving infinite punishment.(27)

Joseph G. Haroutunian has written what is one of the most interesting studies of Edwardsean and New England theology(28) It is titled Piety Versus Moralism, and that very title states its theme: New England theology after Edwards turned away from theology and piety to a mere moralism. What he says is undoubtedly true, but there is a deficiency in Haroutuniads understanding of "moralism" in Edwards. He seems to think that though Edwards does not deny that the natural man may be good, Edwards will not permit himself to lose sight of the fact that to be religious and to be moral are indeed two different things. What Haroutunian does not seem to realize is that, for Jonathan Edwards, to be truly moral without being religious is impossible.

Outward morality is, of course, possible and sometimes highly cultivated by some human sinners; but real morality is something else again. In his sermon on Romans 3:11, Edwards preached: "When they (natural men) do an act of justice it is not wrong as an act of justice and when they do an act of liberality is it not wrong as an act of liberality.... What is done is only a shadow without substance. There is the shell of the duty but the inside is hollow.(29) The natural man may have a "shadow" of morality, but never the real thing.

Thus when a natural man speaks the truth, when he is just in his dealings, when he gives to the poor, he does those things that are right as to the matter of them though altogether wrong as to the manner. As to what is visible in the action it is right. That which is as it were the body of the actions; but, if we look at the inward principle and aim which is, as it were, the soul of the act and is what God looks at and which the rule does chiefly regard it is altogether wrong.(30)

Again, he says in the same unpublished sermons (surely some of the most important ethical deliverances he ever wrote) that natural men do what is "negatively and comparatively right, i.e., that they may do those things whereby they avoid those things that are much more wrong."(31) There are, after all, degrees of sinfulness even where there is no true virtue present "They can avoid many sins."(32) Again, "when natural men do avoid willfully doing that which is directly contrary to a known command of God they may be said to do right.... 'Tis not in itself so wrong as what they avoid.... The path that a man walks in may be comparatively straight as compared with some other paths but yet the path he goes in may be notwithstanding indeed crooked. Of crooked paths there may be a great deal of difference. Some may be much less crooked than others and so as to avoid many great crooks that are in others (yet) 'tis not straight."(33) There are, we would say, bad good works; bad as to motive, good as to appearance.

In a sermon which carries the title Wicked Men Are the Children of Hell, Edwards remarks that "there are many in a natural condition that are a very good sort of man, are sober and moral in their behavior...."(34) Of course, he means moral in the sense of outwardly moral, because Edwards would never say that truly moral men are children of hell.

Likewise, in a sermon entitled The Gadarenes Loved Their Swine Better Than Jesus Christ, Edwards says that if natural men ever part with anything it is not for Christ's sake but to avoid hell. So the morality of swinish people is really centered on hell, not toward heaven.(35)

The famous metaphors of Edwards about the soul destroying character of even one sin have led Haroutunian to suppose that Edwards believed natural men were capable of true morality. We will skip the one in which Edwards mentions that if a boat crossing the Atlantic only sank once it would nevertheless be fatal and cite this one about a servant and a wife:

Therefore how absurd must it be for Christians to object against the depravity of man's nature, a greater number of innocent and kind actions, than of crimes; and to talk of a prevailing innocency, good nature, industry and cheerfulness of the greater part of mankind? Infinitely more absurd, than it would be to insist that the domestic of a prince was not a bad servant because though sometimes he condemned and affronted his master to a great degree yet he did not spit in his master's face so often as he performed acts of service; or than it would be to affirm, that his spouse was a good wife to him, because' although she committed adultery, and that with the slaves and scoundrels sometimes, yet she did not do this so often as she did the duties of a wife. (36)

Since most people cannot see little sins and must be, as it were, hit over the head with gross ones, Edwards is vividly pointing out that one sin would be enough to vitiate the morality of any person. If a servant only spit in his master's face once a year, this would surely label him a bad servant no matter how impeccable his behavior the rest of the time. Edwards never for a moment supposes that there is any time when any man does anything truly virtuous, even though most of the time most men abstain from the gross, conspicuous acts of immorality. Because man is basically sinful in all he does, the atonement is necessary.

Following is what I posted last night when I was trying to get the now-defunct Genesis 3 thread back onto a doctrinal track

***

Satan, manifesting himself as the Serpent of Genesis 3, told man a single lie presented in two different forms. He said that man would not die for unbelieving disobedience. He re-stated the lie in a more alluring form when he said that man would achieve godhood by a God-defying determination to sin (i.e., to know the issues of good and evil, by evil experience, for himself).

One of the reasons why we know that we should regard this as a single lie presented in two different forms--other than the obvious parallel between the two statements!--is found in Romans 1:25. That verse literally says "for they exchanged the truth of God for THE lie."

So, it was THE lie--or, as I have chosen to designate it, the Lie of Eden.

Now, inasmuch as this lie was stated in two different versions, we need to realize that the second version is just designed to be especially seductive. The first statement of the Lie, claiming that man would not die for unbelieving disobedience, is the one on which I would like to focus.

This statement, when we fully appreciate what it is saying, is the one which unmasks Arminianism as a fraud. (Ah, but the whole thing is subtle! See again Genesis 3:1a!)

More to come tomorrow.

Perhaps a good place to repost my comments regarding the AA meeting I attended the other night.

It was my observation that these people concluded that they are powereless over their addiction to alchohol and drugs.

The most profound statements came from a young woman their. This woman is a recovering heroin shooting, crack smoking prostitute. She prostituted herself simply to get money for her drugs. She also was a theif -breaking into homes to steal simply to get money for her drugs.

As well as making the statement that she was powerless over her addictions, she made the statement that her "sobriety was a gift of God" and that she "wouldn't be sober until God made her sober". This is calvinism, folks. We recognize the depraved state we are in and we are greatful for the gift of faith which our Lord has bestowed upon us! For as these addicts always would choose alchohol, we always chose to make a god of ourselves and thumb our nose at the one true God! Just as God made this woman sober, God makes us believe. Just as this woman is now participating in this AA meeting to help spread the AA gospel to others, we are so greatful for what God has done for us that we, too, go out into all the world and preach Christ crucified!

These people get it. They couldn't do it on their own. They rely totally upon the one True God.

One needs to understand the terrible sin in their lives before one can ~truly~ repent of them!

Jean

I had a thought at my Bible study last night that "just happened" to fit into a post done by another freeper last night ...we were all IN Adam when he sinned..it has been noted that the temptation in the garden was the one spoken of in 1Jo 2:16 For all that [is] in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world.

They looked at the food and it was food for their hunger(lust of the flesh ) ,It was beautiful to the eye ..attractive (lust of the eye) and it would make them gods (the pride of life)

Well last night we were studying the Temptation of Christ..and I realized that temptation was necessary..he had to be tempted in all ways as we are (Hebrews)...and His temptation like that of the 1st Adam was the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes and the Pride of life..but the second Adam did not fall.

We are in the first Adam UNTILL we are converted..we now are IN the second Adam..

1Jo 2:17 And the world passeth away, and the lust thereof: but he that doeth the will of God abideth for ever.

Adam died...Christ the second Adam allows us to abide in Him and abide forever..

Because FR is concerned about Americanism, it is worth mentioning the key role which Jonathan Edwards played in shaping our nation for the American Revolution.

***

By about the year 1700, the American colonies were in a miserable mess of religious apostasy. This was only a century after groups like the Pilgrims had come here in pursuit of primarily Christian goals.

Needless to say, the colonies of the early 1700s were in no shape to forge a destiny which would include defying the British Crown in a major revolution. Nor were the colonies in any shape to come together as "One Nation Under God."

In 1734, however, Jonathan Edwards preached a series of sermons on justification by faith in Northampton, Massachusetts. Over three hundred people were converted to Christ in a six-month period.

This is a pretty spectacular figure when we realize that Edwards did not use today's "altar call" strategies for getting people to profess faith in Christ. Edwards was persuaded that profession of faith means nothing in and of itself, and he did not encourage the unconverted to profess a faith which they did not really have. Edwards believed that a false profession of faith would just make the poor sinner's religious dilemma even worse--by sealing him in a vicious hypocrisy.

In short, Edwards demanded reality.

On July 8, 1741, Edwards preached his famous sermon "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God" at Enfield, Connecticut. This sermon was the spiritual catalyst for what became known as the Great Awakening. It was the most significant revival in the history of the Western Hemisphere, and arguably one of the most significant in the history of the world. The Great Awakening lasted for several years.

From New England, the revival spread to the Middle colonies and the South. One of the founders of Methodism, George Whitefield, was a huge factor. Edwards did not travel widely in the way Whitefield did. Whitefield traveled up and down the eastern seaboard by horseback. In one year, as many as 50,000 people were converted to Christ. Prior to the advent of George Washington, George Whitefield was literally the best-known person in the American colonies.

Most history books will not tell you this.

Even Benjamin Franklin, who never became a Christian, personally knew and respected both Jonathan Edwards and George Whitefield. And when Franklin was our first ambassador to France, he delighted to tell the crowned heads of Europe that we had founded a nation on the Bible itself.

Most history books will not tell you that, either.

***

It is important to appreciate the theological ties between Edwards and Whitefield, since Whitefield aided the spread of the revival which had actually started under Edwards.

Edwards was a Congregationalist. Whitefield was an Anglican. But apart from some difference in theories of church government, their theologies were essentially identical. They were Calvinists.

It is practially impossible to overstate the influence of Calvinism in the founding of our nation. By 1775, our colonies really were largely Christian and largely Calvinistic in particular. (Jefferson was no Christian, of course, but he had a grudgingly high respect for Calvinistic Christians [as seen in his liaison with the Danbury Baptists].)

The take-home point is that our colonial leadership was dominated by Christians, and the leading individuals in that Christian leadership were Calvinists. These included all sorts of Calvinists, ranging from Episcopalians (similar in doctrine to Whitefield) to Presbyterians to Congregationalists to Baptists (a very fast-growing group at the time).

The Calvinism was so conspicuous in the American Revolution that one English wag said that it looked like "Cousin America has run off with a Presbyterian parson."

This is not to say that the theology of Edwards and Whitefield was completely unchallenged. Edwards and Whitefield had both faced considerable opposition from the religious establishment during the Great Awakening. Even Whitefield's Methodist partner in the early effort--John Wesley--broke away from Whitefield and went off into Arminianism in vigorous opposition to Whitefield. And he did this during the Great Awakening. (Wesley formed a splinter group and went out on his own.)

At the time of the American Revolution, Wesley was a Tory. I am not bringing that up in an attempt to slander Wesley. Rather, I am trying to set the record straight as to who our nation's real founders were. They were Whitefieldian Christians, not Wesleyan.

***

In our own day, most American churchgoers are Arminians more or less like Wesley. Most American Methodists are diehard Wesleyans. (Curiously, a lot of British Methodists in our day are Whitefieldians. Go figure.)

The Calvinists on FR think it is terribly important for Americans in general and Christians in particular to understand the theology which made this nation great. We think we need a Jonathan Edwards or a George Whitefield in our day.

Just a few comments.

You are correct about Wesley being a Tory. Originally, he sided with the colonies and wrote a tract/pamphlet that explained such. Then he read a tract by Samuel Johnson (whose title I cannot recall) and changed his mind, whereupon he wrote A Calm Address to the American Colonies. Because of the support Wesley started to exhibit towards Britain's crown, the Methodist ministers that he had sent to America were all recalled: the Methodist ministers refused to bear arms with the Patriots, and Wesley's Toryism didn't help Methodism's image in America. The only one to stay behind was Francis Asbury, who continued the monumental work by himself. In fact, it was Asbury himself who turned the tide of sentiment in America back from hostility towards Methodists, when he wrote a letter to a man named Rankin in 1777, writing that he believed America would become an independent nation, that he loved America too much to leave it, and that Methodist preachers had a great work to do given to them by God's own hand. The letter found its way into colonial authorities' hands, and it produced a marked change in their attitudes towards Asbury and the Methodist preachers that were converted in America, like Freeborn Garrettson. (See One Methodist's March issue).

As for Wesley splintering from Whitefield, that was never the case. Wesley was preaching in churches (those few that didn't kick him out for preaching the Gospel) before Whitefield's invitation to come field preach with him. As it stood, Wesley was really the backbone of the Wesleyan (or Evangelical, or Methodist) Revival, which was a seperate revival though vaguely linked to the American First Great Awakening, and which outlasted the Great Awakening by over 50 years (the Wesleyan Revival was considered in full swing from 1739 all the way to at least the 1780s, and very likely even beyond Wesley's death in 1791). Whitefield was a far better revivalist--his way of almost "grand-standing" reminded people of an actor on a stage, and would later have some comparison to the admittedly-heretical Charles Finney--but Wesley was a far better organizer. He was the one that made sure there was a follow-up organization (the Methodist Societies) in place wherever he preached, in order to ensure that he was not, as he would say of a place where the Methodist Society had declined, "begetting children for the slaughter."

In regard to Whitefield, Wesley's Arminianism was in place long before the Evangelical Revival (though this is not to say that that immediately makes it obvious Arminianism is "the lie of Eden;" note also that many Calvinists' Calvinism is in place before their own regeneration). It was in fact Whitefield, in going to the Americas, who "went off into" Calvinism--likely in the hope that this was enable him to work closer with the patently more Calvinistic preachers in New England (e.g., Edwards).

There was indeed a predominantly Calvinistic view of things in Revolutionary America, although this changed very significantly on the frontiers where the Methodist preachers ("circuit riders") roamed. In fact, Methodism's halcyon days in America would probably be placed immediately after the Revolutionary War, when the likes of Peter Cartwright, Bishop Asbury (who continued the rough preaching lifestyle even when his rheumatism got so bad he could no longer walk) and the world-renowned Lorenzo Dow (who could say with Paul that preaching was laid upon him as a necessity, such that when he did not preach he indeed fell ill) were preaching the Gospel and pushing God's kingdom farther and farther into the frontier, and men like Joshua Thomas would preach to and convert British armies during the War of 1812.

As for British Methodism, the vast majority of Methodists are Wesleyan Methodists. The very few Methodists Whitefield had theological influence over are strictly in Wales and the surrounding areas, where they have formed their own distinct church, the Calvinistic Methodist Church, commonly called the "Presbyterian Church of Wales."

Certainly, a Calvinistic interpretation of the Bible has had a major impact on the Revolutionary War time period, but at the same time, to deny the Methodists any powerful influence is to forget that it was Methodism (predominantly, with Baptists not far behind) that tamed the frontiers and that it was Methodism that dominated America's Christianity straight up until the Fundamentalist-Modernist Controversy. It should also be noted that by the Civil War, the Methodist Episcopal Church was actually the largest denomination in America, very opposed to slavery (though not exactly radically opposed--that is why the Wesleyan Church, originally the Wesleyan Methodist Connection, came into being) and it was for this reason that President Lincoln, after receiving a request for a meeting with the MEC's bishops and a delegation already in Philadelphia, wrote this letter in direct reply to the address the clergymen would give:

Gentlemen.
In response to your address, allow me to attest the accuracy of its historical statements; endorse the sentiments it expresses; and thank you, in the nation's name for the sure promise it gives. Nobly sustained as the government has been by all the churches, I would utter nothing which might, in the least, appear invidious against any. Yet, without this, it may fairly be said that the Methodist Episcopal Church, not less devoted than the best, is, by its greater numbers, the most important of all. It is no fault in others that the Methodist Church sends more soldiers to the field, more nurses to the hospital, and more prayers to Heaven than any. God bless the Methodist Church – bless all the churches – and blessed be to God, who, in this our great trial, giveth us the churches.
May 18, 1864
A. Lincoln

If Wesley had his way there would have been no Revolution and America would have been under the Queen today with the Church of England as the offical church..

Origins: The Monarchy and the Methodists

Labor Day weekend, 1997, saw the world pause from its games and picnics to follow in dismay the horrific spectacle of the death of "The People's Princess." Diana Spencer, the Princess of Wales, Princess Di had been killed in a Paris tunnel following a high speed race through the city. The popular outpouring of grief and anguish has surprised even the most devoted Royal Voyeurs throughout the world.

Hundreds and thousands of mourners que up, waiting up to eleven hours just to sign "The Book of Condolences." Plans are made to extend the miles traveled by the funeral processional just to accommodate the people who want to be present to show their respect for this former member of the Royal family.

Loyal devotion to the monarchy is not a new phenomenon for Methodists. John Wesley was a High Churchman and the son of a High Churchman. He was also a staunch supporter of the Crown. (It was not unusual for a person to hold fast to both positions in eighteenth century England when the Church and the State were closely allied.) Wesley was a citizen of two worlds, prepared to travel to great length and at great peril to participate in affairs of state, but exhorting his followers to set their affections on a heavenly realm.

It is clear that John and Charles Wesley were totally loyal to their church, the Anglican Church; and their government represented by the King. They strongly opposed the rebellion of the American colonists against one they considered to be the Lord's anointed. In his poems on the American war and Patriotism, we see Charles, not as a genteel, thoughtful Tory, but as an angry and uncritical supporter of the Crown. Wesley's political conservatism and uncritical attitude toward the law caused him to initially remain silent even about slavery in order to avoid speaking out against the position of political leaders. On the other hand, his language became very intemperate and abusive as he presents George III as almost saintly, and those who question him as "demonic and witting pawns of Satan." (It should be noted that John Wesley later described slavery as "the vilest that ever saw the sun.")

As a high-church Anglican, Wesley favored the political views of the Tories. He strongly supported the King, his ministers and Parliament. He wrote in favor of the institution of the constitutional monarchy, opposed democracy, attacked the American Revolution, and even offered to help raise an army to support the king. He went so far as to contend that religion actually compels us to be obedient to kings, because kingly power comes directly from God. In Certain Sermons or Homilies he says that "loyalty to the prince is the sum of all virtues and disloyalty the sum of all evil." He prohibited his preachers from addressing political topics except to defend the king and government. God has given them the power and responsibility of governing the nation and he supported them in that assignment.

Were John Wesley alive today he would surely face a frustrating paradox. His loyalty to the monarchy would make it very difficult to oppose the decision of the Royal family in not giving Princess Diana the pageantry of a full state funeral. On the other hand, his close identification with the common person would make it very difficult for him to avoid raising his voice in support of the desires of the people to give the Princess a funeral fully befitting Royalty.

LINK

Craven E. Williams
President
Greensboro College

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.