3.0 Jonathan Edwards’ Doctrine of the Trinity
3.1 The Trinity in Edwards’ Overall Theology

Jonathan Edwards was a Trinitarian idealist.¹ That is, his philosophical idealism was developed in order to serve his Trinitarian theology. This philosophical tendency can be seen in his musings on “Of Being” and “The Mind”² which appear to be much like his other musings in the “Miscellanies” and in “The End For Which God Created the World.”³ A major element in idealism was the notion that being must be perceived to be. Addressing the question of the possible existence of nothing, Edwards writes,

And how it doth grate upon the mind, to think that something should be from all eternity, and nothing all the while be conscious of it. Let us suppose, to illustrate it, that the world had a being from all eternity, and had many great changes and wonderful revolutions, and all the while nothing knew; there was no knowledge in the universe of any such thing. How is it possible for the mind to imagine? Yea, it is really impossible it should be, and nothing know it. Then you’ll say, if it be so, it is because nothing has any existence anywhere else but in consciousness. No, certainly nowhere else, but either in created or uncreated consciousness.⁴

Edwards also affirmed the notion of emanation and remanation, which involved the unfolding of the Trinity ad intra and the creation of the world ad extra, which includes the allowance for the Fall and the history of redemption and the eventual heavenly consummation.⁵

Additionally, Edwards held to what has been called “continuous creationism” or more commonly in philosophical circles, “occasionalism.”⁶ This is the notion that the cause-and-effect nexus does not come about because of the self-sustained efficacy of created entities, but that each and every nexus is an “occasion” for God to act directly.⁷ Edwards was also fond of describing God as “being in general,” a phrase which may strike our ears as singularly abstract and impersonal, but it is not the invention of Edwards but stems from his interaction with British moral philosophers such as Hamilton and Hutcheson who were known as the “Sentimentalists.”⁸ One element that almost anyone who is familiar with Edwards is aware of is his concern to exalt the sovereignty of God. It was this doctrine that initially kept him from embracing the faith as a youth, but became something he later “relished.” The fact that Edwards relished God’s sovereignty was a sign to him that he had been converted. As Edwards tells us himself in his “Personal Narrative,”

From my childhood up, my mind had been wont to be full of objections against the doctrine of God’s sovereignty, in choosing whom he would to eternal life, and rejecting whom he pleased; leaving them eternally to perish, and be everlastingly tormented in hell. It used to appear like a horrible doctrine to me. But I remember the time very well, when I seemed to be convinced, and fully satisfied, as to this sovereignty of God, and his justice in thus eternally disposing of men, according to his sovereign pleasure. But never could give an account, how, or by what means, I was thus convinced; not in the least imagining, in the time of it, nor a long time after, that there was any extraordinary influence of God’s Spirit in it: but only now that I saw further, and my reason apprehended the justice and reasonableness of it.. .But I have oftentimes since that first conviction, had quite another sense of God’s sovereignty, than I had then. I have often since, not only had a conviction, but a delightful conviction. The doctrine of God’s sovereignty has very often appeared, an exceeding pleasant, bright and sweet doctrine: and absolute sovereignty is what I like to ascribe to God. But my first conviction was not with this.⁹

Sovereignty is, of course, an attribute of God, so it makes a natural segue to discussion of Edwards’ theology of God’s attributes. According to Jonathan Edwards, God has both natural and moral attributes.¹⁰ His natural attributes would consist of such excellencies as eternality, unity, and independence, etc whereas his moral attributes would be his holiness (love), justice, mercy and happiness. When it is asked whether love or justice is paramount in Edwards’ thought, Edwardsean scholar Thomas Schafer has said that love is primary for God chose to create in love and it is that choice to create that establishes the Creator-creature relationship, whereas justice governs the relationship already created in love.¹¹ We believe that Edwards’ discussion of natural and moral attributes reflects a Trinitarian structure, implicit though it may be.

3.2 Edwards’ Doctrine of the Trinity

Generally following the footsteps of St. Augustine, Edwards adopts the so-called psychological model of Trinity with its triad of being, understanding and will.¹² This would fit in well with his idealism with its notion of emanation and remanation. Essentially, it works likes this: God must replicate his fullness and he does this through the inner-Trinitarian involvement of the Son and the
Holy Spirit. As Edwards says in his Unpublished Essay on the Trinity,

It is common when speaking of the divine happiness to say that God is infinitely happy in the enjoyment of himself, in perfectly beholding and infinitely loving, and rejoicing in, his own essence and perfection, and accordingly it must be supposed that God perpetually and eternally has a most perfect idea of himself, as it were an exact image and representation of himself ever before him and in actual view, and from hence arises a most pure and perfect act or energy in the Godhead, which is the divine love, complacence and joy.¹³

God’s replication of himself ad intra involves his very nature or character as Triune and ad extra it leads to creation…

It seems a thing in itself proper and desirable, that the glorious attributes of God, which consist in a sufficiency to certain acts and effects, should be exerted in the production of such effects as might manifest his infinite power, wisdom, righteousness, goodness, etc. If the world had not been created, these attributes never would have had any exercise. The power of God, which is a sufficiency in him to produce great effects, must forever have been dormant and useless as to any effect. The divine wisdom and prudence would have had no exercise in any wise contrivance, any prudent proceeding, or disposal of things; for there would have been no objects of contrivance or disposal. The same might be observed of God’s justice, goodness, and truth. Indeed God might have known as perfectly that he possessed these attributes, if they never had been exerted or expressed in any effect. But then, if the attributes which consist in a sufficiency for correspondent effects, are in themselves excellent, the exercises of them must likewise be excellent. If it be an excellent thing, that there should be a sufficiency for a certain kind of action or operation, the excellency of such a sufficiency must consist in its relation to this kind of operation or effect; but that could not be, unless the operation itself were excellent. A sufficiency for any work is no further valuable, than the work itself is valuable.¹⁴

and we would argue, the allowance for the Fall, the history of the work of redemption (including the regeneration of the elect and their life of sanctification) and the consummation in a new heaven, where the saints continue to grow. In this sense, it can be said that the creation of the universe was for redemption.¹⁵ To put it another way, creation and the Fall were a prelude to the more important thing of redemption and the consummation. It is within this context that we can say that God’s attributes are functional. That is, they must be displayed.¹⁶ But if all of God’s attributes must be displayed (which is an implication of Edwards’s Trinitarian idealism in that being as being must be perceived and because of emanation and remanation), this would appear to make creation necessary or it would make creation correlative with God, yielding as some have argued, a pantheism or panentheism in Edwards. While we agree that some of Edwards’ language in The End for Which God Created the World can be understood that way, Edwards’s theology would not allow that. Edwards’ notion of moral and natural attributes allows him to say that God had to create the universe out of moral necessity. That is, his own internal character led him to create (and to permit the Fall, etc), not some external force.¹⁷

3.2 Man as an Analogue of the Triune God

Edwards held that man was an analogue of God (albeit predicated on the analogia entis) and that both have natural and moral attributes, which are understanding and will. “There are two more eminent and remarkable images of the Trinity among the creatures. The one is in the spiritual creation, the soul of man. There is the mind, and the understanding or idea, and the spirit of the mind as it is called in the sacred Scriptures, i.e., the disposition, will or affection. The other is the
visible creation, viz the Sun.”¹⁸ Paul Ramsay comments,

There is a threefoldness in the natural image (understanding, will, affections) as also in the spiritual image (knowledge of God, virtuous love or excellency, and joy or happiness). Both these images are analogies to God’s “internal glory.” JE sometimes distinguishes the human will from the affections; sometimes not. In the frequent overlap or interpenetration of will and affections in JE, and indeed of understanding (if not “notional” only), will, and affections, there is a correspondence with the internal triune glory of God. …In general, for JE the Triune Identity was the prime analogate; the human soul, the secondary analogate. So, as the persons of the Trinity are interrelated and interpenetrate one another, so also in the integrity of the self do understanding, will, and affections. The movement of one to another person in the innertrinitarian life, and in communication ad extra, was reflected in JE’s account of the human self and its powers.¹⁹

Edwards’ understanding of man as analogue of the Triune God appears implicitly and explicitly in much of his written material, and is a major plank in his arguments in Original Sin, Freedom of the Will, and Religious Affections.²⁰ Edwards’ Trinitarianism is much more implicit in his “two dissertations,” but as Stephen Holmes has told us, Edwards’ idealism was a “Trinitarian idealism” so his understanding of emanation and remanation in both “The End for Which God Created the World” and “True Virtue” and the notions of the unfolding of God internally as a Triune being and externally in creation and in man specifically and of elect man’s response in knowledge and love(that is, in knowing and loving or delighting in God – “esse est amari”) must be understood within that context.

4.0 Conclusion

We have come a long way since we began this exploration of Jonathan Edwards’ Trinitarianism and his corresponding notion of the unitary operation of the human soul, which is but a reflection of God in man. We have barely scratched the surface on this subject. Reference to the notes will bear this out. Our thesis was that Edwards formulated his doctrine along the lines of Augustine’s psychological model of the Trinity and that his corresponding notion of man as an analogue of God with understanding and will (which could be distinguished but never separated) would supply the needed evidence of this fact. Much more could be said, and has been said by others,²¹ but we believe our exploration of the background of the discussions on the doctrine of the Trinity and the notion of the human soul helped us to place Jonathan Edwards within his proper context and helped us to understand him better.

1. This is the helpful expression of Stephen R. Holmes in God of Grace & God of Glory.↩
2. These can be found in Edwards’ Scientific and Philosophical Writings, 202 - 207 and 332 - 393.↩
3. “This can be found as the first of the “Two Dissertations” in Edwards’ Ethical Writings, 401 - 536. Stressing Edwards’ idealism is no way meant to underplay or deny his concern for redemptive history. His idealism was simply the metaphysic that under girded his theology. His philosophy was always in service to his theology. In fact, Edwards’ idealism was learned from Christian sources (Nicholas Malebranche, Henry More and the other Cambridge Platonists and John Locke) and was adopted and adapted by him to oppose the materialism of such thinkers as Thomas Hobbes. For more on this see Norman Fiering, Jonathan Edwards’ Moral Thought and Its British Context and its companion volume, Moral Philosophy at Sixteenth-Century Harvard: A Discipline in Transition . See also Wallace E. Anderson’s fine introduction to the Scientific and Philosophical Writings, 53 -143. To affirm that Edwards’s idealism was in service to his theology and that he learned it from Christian sources does not, of course, by itself, justify his embracing it. It is questionable whether idealism is useful as a Christian metaphysic.↩
4. “Of Being,” Scientific and Philosophical Writings, 203 - 204. See also George Rupp, “The ‘Idealism” of Jonathan Edwards.” (Harvard Theological Review 62 [April 1969]), 209 - 226.↩
5. This can be seen in Edwards’, “The End For Which God Created The World,” “The History of the Work of Redemption,” various Miscellanies, and in the concluding sermon in “Charity and its Fruits,” entitled “Heaven Is A World of Love,” Ethical Writings, 366 - 397.↩
6. Continuous creation and occasionalism are actually two distinct ideas. Continuous creation asserts that all that exists apart from God is created anew every instant (thus appearing to conflate the usual distinction between creation and preservation/conservation)and occasionalism holds that God is the only active agent in the universe (thus appearing to deny the distinction between primary and secondary causes).↩
7. See Fiering, Jonathan Edwards’ Moral Thought for more on Edwards’ occasionalism and probable dependence on the Catholic philosopher Nicholas Malebranche for his thought. Edwards was seeking to counteract the materialism of Thomas Hobbes and David Hume with this. Actually, Edwards’ position makes some sense. Unless we are prepared to hold that created realities are self-sustaining, God must continually uphold his creation. Edwards argues that we usually call the first act of creating “creation” and the second and so on acts of creation “preservation,” but the activity of God is the same in both. See his Original Sin (Edited by Clyde A. Holbrook. The Works of Jonathan Edwards, vol. 2. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1970) for the clearest expression of this doctrine. For a challenge to the idea that Edwards held to a pure occasionalism and for an alternative view that he held to a modified occasionalism, see Sang Hyun Lee, The Philosophical Theology of Jonathan Edwards(Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1988). The problem with occasionalism is that it appears to deny or undercut secondary causation. Both occasionalism and the traditional distinction between creation and providence hold to God as the primary cause of what happens in the world. The question revolves around the existence and agency of secondary causes.↩
8. For more on Edwards’ interaction with the “Sentimentalists,” see Fiering, Jonathan Edwards’ Moral Thought.↩
9. Jonathan Edwards, “Personal Narrative.” Letters and Personal Writings. (Edited by George S. Claghorn. The Works of Jonathan Edwards, vol. 16. New Haven, Ct: Yale University Press, 1998), 791-792.↩
10. See John Gerstner, Rational Biblical Theology, 1:1- 62. In-depth study of Edwards’ theology will reveal that this natural and moral distinction runs throughout it. For instance, man, as made in the image of God, has a natural and moral image that corresponds to God’s Trinitarian nature and in Edwards’ Freedom of the Will (Edited by Paul Ramsay. The Works of Jonathan Edwards, vol.1. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1959), he discusses natural and moral inability.↩
11. Schafer’s comments can be found in the tape series by John Gerstner, The Theology of Jonathan Edwards.↩
12. See Augustine, De Trinitate.↩
13. Edwards, An Unpublished Essay, 77 - 78.↩
14. Edwards, “The End for Which God Created the World,” Ethical Writings, 428 - 430.↩
15. Edwards was, then, in this sense at least, a supralapsarian. More likely he was searching for a mediating position. See Holmes, God of Grace & God of Glory, 126-128.↩
16. See Rudisill, Doctrine of Atonement, 113 -130.↩
17. See Gerstner, Rational Biblical Theology, 1:142f. Interestingly, all this points to Edwards being a supralapsarian, but Gerstner insists that he was in fact an infralapsarian. John Bombaro, already mentioned in a previous segment, argues, following Stephen R. Holmes, God of Grace & God of Glory, that Edwards is an ultra supralapsarian with regard to the elect and an infralapsarian with regard to the reprobate, and in this Bombaro and Holmes both follow Thomas Schafer and Conrad Cherry, cited in Gerstner, Rational Biblical Theology, 2:45.↩
18. Edwards, An Unpublished Essay, 124. A similar point is made by Edwards in “The End for Which God Created the World,” Ethical Writings, 529.↩
19. Comments by the editor of Edwards’ Ethical Writings, 529 note 4.↩
20. See my A Sense of the Heart: The Unitary Operation of the Human Soul in the Theology of Jonathan Edwards written in the Fall of 2000 for a directed reading course on the anthropology of Jonathan Edwards for Dr. Samuel Logan.↩
21. Again see the notes for evidence of this. We would commend the book by Stephen Holmes, God of Grace & God of Glory. While we would agree with Holmes’s Trinitarian assessment of Edwards on the whole, we disagree with him when he argues that the notions of election and reprobation (i.e., permanent distinction in humanity) are inconsistent with the depth, richness and grandeur of Jonathan Edwards’ Trinitarian theology nor would we agree with his discomfort with Edwards’ embrace of limited atonement. Holmes compares Edwards and Karl Barth at times throughout this volume and appears to follow Barth in his quasi-implicit universalism. With all of that said, we still find Holmes an excellent place for someone to start in coming to study Edwards and for the scholar who wants to gain some coherence in his reading of Edwards and the abundant secondary materials.↩