Religious Affections

[Ryan&Amber2013]

Good eve. Have any of you read Religious Affections? I read a bit of it about 10 years ago, but stopped because of the difficulty comprehending Edwards' style and philosophical mind. I just downloaded a Kindle sample of a newer edition in modern simplified English. I'm considering buying it and reading through it. People seem to say it's one of the best Christian writings.

On a side note, when watching a biography on Edwards last night, they implied that he was almost a foundational piece of the charismatic movement beginning. I knew he sought emotional experience, but I didn't know he had modern charismatic tendencies. Is this true?

 

[Polanus1561]

Broad brush opinion, not intending to discuss further—whatever excellent in Edwards is far more excellent in the Puritans.

 

[davejonescue]

Good eve. Have any of you read Religious Affections? I read a bit of it about 10 years ago, but stopped because of the difficulty comprehending Edwards' style and philosophical mind. I just downloaded a Kindle sample of a newer edition in modern simplified English. I'm considering buying it and reading through it. People seem to say it's one of the best Christian writings.

On a side note, when watching a biography on Edwards last night, they implied that he was almost a foundational piece of the charismatic movement beginning. I knew he sought emotional experience, but I didn't know he had modern charismatic tendencies. Is this true?

Of what I understand, and this is my limited knowledge on the issue, is Edwards was part of what was known as the "New Lights" who put much credence into religious experience, via "revivals" in America. This was in contrast to the "Old Lights" who believed such sporadic events untrustworthy and rather preferred the normal rote of faithful exposition and unemotional, but serious conviction. George Whitfield I believe was considered a "New Light" as well. What Dr. Beeke describes in one of his messages, is that when Edwards became more mature, he later reflected back on the genuineness of the rival conversions, and observed that many simply didnt last. This, I believe was his turning point from sporadic emotionalism, to the normal working of the field.

With this being said, I could be wrong on all of this, just thought I heard this somewhere.

 

[Solparvus]

Good eve. Have any of you read Religious Affections? I read a bit of it about 10 years ago, but stopped because of the difficulty comprehending Edwards' style and philosophical mind. I just downloaded a Kindle sample of a newer edition in modern simplified English. I'm considering buying it and reading through it. People seem to say it's one of the best Christian writings.

On a side note, when watching a biography on Edwards last night, they implied that he was almost a foundational piece of the charismatic movement beginning. I knew he sought emotional experience, but I didn't know he had modern charismatic tendencies. Is this true?

Edwards believed in having high and supreme affections for God, but He was very cautious about emotional displays. The story is that when he preached "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God" he stopped the sermon at least once to tell people to get ahold of themselves. He did not assume that just because someone acted outwardly exuberantly that therefore their experience was real. In fact, you could have such experiences and it be an entirely natural phenomenon. Works like "Religious Affections" were meant to help sift the chaff from the wheat in evaluating these experiences.

The Charismatic bit is interesting, because Edwards had admonished George Whitefield to stop relying on so-called impressions of the Holy Spirit. That was needed, as Whitefield was outspoken on the receipt of these so-called impression, and he supposedly received a revelation that his newborn son would be a great preacher (he died in infancy). Nor was Edwards too fond of those like James Davenport who claimed to be able to tell the elect from the reprobate.

When I was coming out of Charismaticism, a friend helped get me out of it by using Edwards. Two parts I remember distinctly: Edwards did not like the "flip your Bible open at random" method; and he says somewhere that you could write volumes on the number of times people have claimed impressions from God, and yet under the most favorable circumstances they did not come to pass.

That being said, the whole scenario of the First Great Awakening was an unique experience for all the ministers of New England, with many questions and scenarios to navigate that they hadn't dealt with before (or not on so great a scale), so it's possible there is inconsistency between Edwards earlier and Edwards later on these matters.

 

[Steve Curtis]

Broad brush opinion, not intending to discuss further—whatever excellent in Edwards is far more excellent in the Puritans

And yet you can't really say that without inviting discussion, can you?
There's a reason why Edwards is so vastly investigated and dissected in countless books and journals; quite simply, his mind plunged depths as few ever have. He certainly cannot be dismissed as being *far* less excellent than anyone.

 

[arapahoepark]

Edwards believed in having high and supreme affections for God, but He was very cautious about emotional displays. The story is that when he preached "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God" he stopped the sermon at least once to tell people to get ahold of themselves. He did not assume that just because someone acted outwardly exuberantly that therefore their experience was real. In fact, you could have such experiences and it be an entirely natural phenomenon. Works like "Religious Affections" were meant to help sift the chaff from the wheat in evaluating these experiences.

The Charismatic bit is interesting, because Edwards had admonished George Whitefield to stop relying on so-called impressions of the Holy Spirit. That was needed, as Whitefield was outspoken on the receipt of these so-called impression, and he supposedly received a revelation that his newborn son would be a great preacher (he died in infancy). Nor was Edwards too fond of those like James Davenport who claimed to be able to tell the elect from the reprobate.

When I was coming out of Charismaticism, a friend helped get me out of it by using Edwards. Two parts I remember distinctly: Edwards did not like the "flip your Bible open at random" method; and he says somewhere that you could write volumes on the number of times people have claimed impressions from God, and yet under the most favorable circumstances they did not come to pass.

That being said, the whole scenario of the First Great Awakening was an unique experience for all the ministers of New England, with many questions and scenarios to navigate that they hadn't dealt with before (or not on so great a scale), so it's possible there is inconsistency between Edwards earlier and Edwards later on these matters.

Any books on this?

 

[Lalo]

....whatever excellent in Edwards is far more excellent in the Puritans.

I totally agree. I remember reading that Edwards' doctrine of justification is problematic and that Hodge thought of his doctrine of God as pantheistic. There are quotes and resources about that in the Heidelblog. Rev. Clark has lots of resources on that.

On the religious affections, you can find this interesting: https://heidelblog.net/2011/04/helm-replies-to-lucas-on-the-nature-of-affections-in-edwards/

 

[Ed Walsh]

Good eve. Have any of you read Religious Affections? I read a bit of it about 10 years ago, but stopped because of the difficulty comprehending Edwards' style and philosophical mind. I just downloaded a Kindle sample of a newer edition in modern simplified English. I'm considering buying it and reading through it. People seem to say it's one of the best Christian writings.

Greetings, David from Texas, and all-ye-all Sinner-Saints,

Have I? Oh, man, yes, I read every word–often in utter terror–about 15 years ago.

My Posts on Religious Affections:

1. My first post on Religious Affections (RA) was seven years ago (2016).
2. My last RA post was on March 7, 2023. (several more of my posts are later in this Thread)
3. I made ten more posts on RA between 2016-2023.

Here's what I said in my last post on RA in March.

​

I imagine few will agree with me,​

but one of the scariest books I have ever read was​

Jonathan Edward's Religious Affections.​

But I plan to read it again.​

I have since come to terms with what and why Edwards wrote as he did, but I will stop for now to see if there's any interest.

~~~~~~~
[Everything from here on could be in the daily devotions Forum, but I hope you don't mind]
~~~~~~~

Have a great Day at the feet of your greatest Admiror. Your not-so-secret lover-firstly, then, The Everlasting God, Creator, Sustainer, and Governor all things visible and invisible, Frind who sticks closer than a brother, Older brother, and the "Only Redeemer of God's elect." etc.

But back to the main theme. Jesus – Lover of your Soul. And what's not to love about us in His beautiful eyes?

I made reference to Jesus as your "not-so-secret" Lover (Admiror). There is no secret on Jesus' end, for with Him it's never "yea and nay," but everything is "For all the promises of God in him are yea, and in Him, Amen, unto the glory of God by us." But it seems to me that this self-professed insistence the He, the Father, as the fountainhead of the Three. I.e., "for God so loved the World that He sent..." Next, the Son poured out His very soul in the estate of his humiliation. See attached PDF of the 46 sub-questions Fisher's Catechism has on the Westminster Shorter Catechism.

QUESTION 27. Wherein did Christ’s humiliation consist?​

ANSWER: Christ’s humiliation consisted in his being born, and that in a low condition, made under the law,​

undergoing the miseries of this life, the wrath of God, and the cursed death of the cross; in being buried,​

and continuing under the power of death for a time."​

What was/is the heart of Jesus' message to those given to Him by the Father? Is it not His the same as the Father's?
Yes, the same. God is Love (itself). This is His own statement on the primacy of Love in God. But is He (the Godhead) not also a God of wrath? Yes indeed. He said several times after finishing the "God is Love" motif that He is a righteous Judge that can be provoked to wrath, but the only claim the Three Persons profess promiscuously is that:

1. The Father – loved and gave everything–His precious Son to die.
2. The Son – for the joy set before Him–that joy be you and me, folks – endured the cross.
3. The Holy Spirit – The Spirit's task is to bring it all to life.
   (If you think the first Six Days were tough, try the cat-herding task to bring about New Birth in the heart of
   willing sinners before–and after–conversion).
   
   A Summary:
   1. God the Father so loved
   2. Jesus fell in love
   3. The Holy Spirit gives God's love to live in the "dry bones" (elect).

A Gospel reminder from the Apostle​

Romans 5:1-11 (paragraph breaks are mine)
Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ: by whom also we have access by faith into this grace wherein we stand and rejoice in hope of the glory of God.

And not only so, but we glory in tribulations also: knowing that tribulation worketh patience; and patience, experience; and experience, hope: and hope maketh not ashamed; because the love of God is shed abroad in our hearts by the Holy Ghost which is given unto us.

For when we were yet without strength, in due time, Christ died for the ungodly. For scarcely for a righteous man will one die: yet peradventure for a good man some would even dare to die. But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.

Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him. For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life.

And not only so, but we also joy in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom we have now received the atonement.

 

[Solparvus]

Any books on this?

Interestingly, today is the anniversary of preaching "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God."

For the account of the sermon this was from a RPTS class on Edwards conducted by Dr. Matthew Everhard. I highly recommend you go to him for anything Edwards. I've heard the account of SIHAG from a few sources, and Dr. Everhard reiterated in class that this did happen. I don't have a book source for it.

As for evaluation of emotional reactions to the work going on, you can read his sermon "Distinguishing Marks of a Work of the Spirit of God." Here is the PDF. This sermon made for some of the content of "Religious Affections." The relevant paragraph, Point 2 under what is not a mark of the work of the Spirit:

"A work is not to be judged by any effects on the bodies of men, such as tears, trembling, groans, loud outcries, agonies of body, or failing bodily strength. The influence persons are under is not to be judged one way or another by such effects on the body; and the reason is because the Scripture nowhere gives us any such rule. We cannot conclude that persons are under the influence of the true Spirit because we see such effects on their bodies, because this is not given as a mark of the true Spirit. Nor on the other hand, do we have any reason to conclude from any such outward appearances, that persons are not under the influence of the Spirit of God, because there is no rule of Scripture given to us to judge of spirits by, that either expressly or indirectly excludes such effects on the body; nor does reason exclude them. It is easily accounted for from the consideration of the nature of divine and eternal things, and the nature of man, and the laws of the union between soul and body, how a right influence, a true and proper sense of things, might have such effects on the body, even those that are of the most extraordinary kind, such as taking away bodily strength, or throwing the body into great agonies, and extorting loud outcries. "

Somewhere you can find his wife Sarah's account of her experiences in the revival. It may be in the two-volume standard of the works of Edwards in the biographical section. "Ecstatic" is appropriate enough to describe it; though even in her case Edwards was very careful to judge what she claimed as her experience in light of the Word. He thoroughly believed it was real.

The matter with George Whitefield was directly from Dr. Everhard, and it may be in Dallimore's biography of Whitefield (worth reading!). Edwards explained to Whitefield that the Spirit will give understanding, but not new revelation.

The bit on impressions is also from "Distinguishing Marks," the section on extraordinary gifts. It reads a little different from the piece of writing I remember, but this contains the same substance:

I would therefore entreat the people of God to be very cautious how they give heed to such things. I have seen them fail in very many instances, and know by experience that impressions being made with great power upon the minds of true, even eminent saints — even in the midst of extraordinary exercises of grace, and sweet communion with God, and attended with texts of Scripture strongly impressed on the mind — are no sure signs of their being revelations from heaven. I have known such impressions to fail in some instances, even though attended with all these circumstances. Those who leave the sure word of prophecy which God has given us as a light shining in a dark place — to follow such impressions and impulses — leave the guidance of the polar star, to follow a Jack with a lantern.26 Therefore it is no wonder that sometimes they are led into woeful extravagancies.

I highly recommend Dr. Everhard on Jonathan Edwards. Everhard's dissertation was on the man, and he was very helpful to bring out what makes Edwards to be very good, as well as quirks and issues where we shouldn't follow him (as is the case with us all). For me, the class revolutionized how I study.

 

[RamistThomist]

One possible innovation is the claim that Edwards broke, whether he intended to or not, with the faculty psychology of older Reformed writers.

 

[Ryan&Amber2013]

I was thinking more about this book today. I was taking my 3-year-old on a bike ride, and I was thinking about how for each of my 3 children, I try to teach them everything in life that will help them. With my first-born, it was very easy to be passionate and excited to teach him everything I know, because it was a new experience for me to be able to do that. Now that I'm doing it for our third, I'm not as passionate and excited to teach life lessons as I once was, but I still have to do it. Of course there is joy in doing so, but a lot of it now is because I know it is my duty to do so. I am wondering if this is where I may be starting to disagree with Edwards' stance on affections being the main indicator of true religion.

In my Christian duties, it is not always affection for the things of God which indicate my spiritual status. A lot of the time, it is simply my "understanding" and not "affection", which keeps me walking and growing.

 

[RamistThomist]

I am wondering if this is where I may be starting to disagree with Edwards' stance on affections being the main indicator of true religion.

And you've put your finger on a possible problem. It's not entirely clear to what extent Edwards connected faith with affections. If he did, and I am willing to grant him the charity that he didn't, then you can see the problem.

 

[davejonescue]

For further insight, you might want to check out Dr. Matthew Everhard. He is pretty well known on Youtube, but he is also an Edwards scholar. I personally do not know much about him, but his website can be found here.

Rev. Dr. Matthew Everhard, Editor

Dr. Matthew Everhard is one of the most well-known Jonathan Edwards scholars in the world, having contributed to some of the most important Edwards-related publications available today, including s…

edwardsstudies.com

 

[Solparvus]

I mentioned yesterday I couldn't find a primary source on the reaction of the people at Enfield when "Sinners" was preached, and then a friend posted the source on FB. This from the diary of a contemporary named Stephen Williams. The big takeaway? Edwards never got to finish the sermon, the distress was too great. Here is the entry:



The same friend relates an account by Eleazer Wheelock, that people in the neighborhood were prostrate before God the night before that the Lord would not pass by their town in the midst of the great work of God. Seems their prayer was answered.

 

[alexanderjames]

As long as one realises that the immediate burning of the affections is not the necessary or sole indicator of a lively faith I think Edwards can be read to much profit.

Otherwise you would live in despair at all the time you are not experiencing some intense affection.
Thankfully we can look back on the times we have felt much affection towards the Lord and His people as well as the tangible presence of God, and look forward with perseverance in hope to the culmination and fullness of such undisturbed joy unspeakable of the new heavens and the new earth (Psalm 30:5, Isaiah 65:18, John 16:22, Revelation 21:3).

 

[jwithnell]

Yes I've read Religious Affections and believe it is a work that should be studied by anyone with a claim to understanding American history, theology in the US, or the puritans in general. It is significant because it is a primary source to an important late-colonial period with lasting influance on the church in the Americas.

What's remarkable is that Jonathan Edwards demands respect far beyond the Reformed fold and is studied by virtually all branches of the church and even those who reject the faith altogether. (Why else would both Yale and Princeton maintain major collections and study centers and continue to pay to have works put in digital format?)

Points to keep in mind: the original awakening around Northampton would likely have been welcomed by any church as it originated, in part, among the young people in the congregation who wanted to meet for prayer and additional sermons.

Reflections on the awakenings changed across time. It's been a while since I've read it, but if memory serves correctly, Jonathan Edwards' work about this earlier stage was far more positive than the reflections (only two years later? I'd have to check the dates) given in Religious Affections where he is reluctant to accept an emotional outburst as a certain religious awakening.

As others in this thread have noted, the pastor became concerned about the nascent charasmtic undertones of George Whitefield's ministry. This and his strong tie to Methodist Pietism makes me reluctant to include much of the Great Awakening under his influence as puritan.

This late colonial time stands between much. Don't draw conclusions too rapidly or try to back-migrate on that time what we know today.

Jonathan Edwards clearly had fascination with what was developing in the Enlightenment. To color everything he wrote with this possible shortcoming is reaching conclusions that I don't believe are well supported. Knowing his other writings, I doubt he would have been comfortable with the Thomas Jeffersons and French Revolutionists even if the ideas were beginning to bubble up in the 1840s.

This late colonial time also stands between the more consistently reformed teachings of the Puritans and the strands that led to the Second Great Awakening. Too often the New School/Old School and New Light/Old Light and the other "new" and "olds" of the era are taught from a victor's perspective. Of course history turned out this way. Of course we'd want the more "spiritually alive" choices made in the eras. I'm not so sure, particularly as they lead to deemphasizing the peculuar role of the church, and the personal experience over the objective truth of the scripture.

 

[Ryan&Amber2013]

So I'm reading through the book and making an outline. I didn't realize he is so heavy on emotions. I have two questions, and if anyone can answer them, I would be very grateful.

1. Edwards is very clear in saying that because genuine religion is deeply rooted in emotions, that we should promote those things of our religion such as preaching, prayer, etc, in a way that stirs up the emotions. Do you think this is accurate?

2. He seems to almost equate the soul with the mind. He says the two functions of the soul are basically understanding, and feelings and emotions springing forth from the understanding. He also says that the soul apart from the body is capable of feelings and emotions. Does this sound right, or is this just scientifically inaccurate?

Thanks!

 

[Ed Walsh]

1. Edwards is very clear in saying that because genuine religion is deeply rooted in emotions, that we should promote those things of our religion such as preaching, prayer, etc, in a way that stirs up the emotions. Do you think this is accurate?

Greetings all,

When you asked, "Do you think this is accurate?" I would assume you mean, "Do you think my understanding of Edwards understanding is accurate?" Or, could you be asking if we think Edwards is correct?

Here are a few of my thoughts on the work while I wait to get an answer to my question about your question. : -)

I haven't read RA in quite a while, but in retrospect, I think Edwards had his philosopher's hat on during most of his writing. It was not often that you could get a specific Doctrine of Scripture. A TRUTH that is reliable, bible-based, and properly interpreted, and, perhaps this is the most important point, the truth that has been understood and confessed by the church. You didn't get much in the way of Dogma from Religious Affections.

Regarding the discussion on the importance of emotions, well, let me put it this way. I hope that he means what we hope he means and is speaking of the work of the Holy Spirit in the believer and how that can affect their emotions.

Emotions? I deny that emotions are somehow more fallen or less reliable than careful intellectual study and conclusions.

The statement, "genuine religion is deeply rooted in emotions," sounds a little weird, no matter who it's coming from. Emotions are not persons that can have religion rooted in them. One might as well argue that genuine religion is deeply rooted in the heart. I mean the physical beating heart. Not 'heart' as it is usually spoken of in Scripture.

Religious Affections by Edwards is not the work of a systematic theologian.

 

[Ryan&Amber2013]

Greetings all,

When you asked, "Do you think this is accurate?" I would assume you mean, "Do you think my understanding of Edwards understanding is accurate?" Or, could you be asking if we think Edwards is correct?

Here are a few of my thoughts on the work while I wait to get an answer to my question about your question. : -)

I haven't read RA in quite a while, but in retrospect, I think Edwards had his philosopher's hat on during most of his writing. It was not often that you could get a specific Doctrine of Scripture. A TRUTH that is reliable, bible-based, and properly interpreted, and, perhaps this is the most important point, the truth that has been understood and confessed by the church. You didn't get much in the way of Dogma from Religious Affections.

Regarding the discussion on the importance of emotions, well, let me put it this way. I hope that he means what we hope he means and is speaking of the work of the Holy Spirit in the believer and how that can affect their emotions.

Emotions? I deny that emotions are somehow more fallen or less reliable than careful intellectual study and conclusions.

The statement, "genuine religion is deeply rooted in emotions," sounds a little weird, no matter who it's coming from. Emotions are not persons that can have religion rooted in them. One might as well argue that genuine religion is deeply rooted in the heart. I mean the physical beating heart. Not 'heart' as it is usually spoken of in Scripture.

Religious Affections by Edwards is not the work of a systematic theologian.

Thank you. I'm basically asking if you think Edwards is correct on those issues.

 

[Ed Walsh]

Thank you. I'm basically asking if you think Edwards is correct on those issues.

Assuming your statement is representative of Jonathan Edwards's view, then at least the words he used in your quote were incorrect, in my opinion.

Take care,

Ed

 

[Solparvus]

1. Edwards is very clear in saying that because genuine religion is deeply rooted in emotions, that we should promote those things of our religion such as preaching, prayer, etc, in a way that stirs up the emotions. Do you think this is accurate?

Are you sure that he is not saying affections rather than emotions, or that you're not confusing the two? These are two different things. The former is a soul disposition, the latter is more the expression of affection. Maybe we should see an original quote here.

 

[Solparvus]

2. He seems to almost equate the soul with the mind. He says the two functions of the soul are basically understanding, and feelings and emotions springing forth from the understanding. He also says that the soul apart from the body is capable of feelings and emotions. Does this sound right, or is this just scientifically inaccurate?

Thanks!

Does he believe will to be in the soul? Or does he consider that as part of one of the other two?

The soul can experience affection without the body. Otherwise, how do deceased Christians enjoy the presence of the Lord between the times of their death and resurrection? If emotion is expression of affection, then I imagine they must. I can't imagine there is no way for them to express their joy when actually in the presence of Christ. Revelation 6 (granted, it's an apocalyptic vision), there's definite expression to the prayers of the slain saints. It may just look far different than it does for us now.

 

[Ryan&Amber2013]

Are you sure that he is not saying affections rather than emotions, or that you're not confusing the two? These are two different things. The former is a soul disposition, the latter is more the expression of affection. Maybe we should see an original quote here.

So from going through the book, and the translation I'm reading, I believe they're basically a synonym. In the book I am reading, the word emotions is used, but in this translation I found online, affections is used.

"If it be so, that true religion lies much in the affections, hence we may infer, that such means are to be desired, as have much of a tendency to move the affections. Such books, and such a way of preaching the word, and administration of ordinances, and such a way of worshipping God in prayer, and singing praises, is much to be desired, as has a tendency deeply to affect the hearts of those who attend these means.

Such a kind of means would formerly have been highly approved of, and applauded by the generality of the people of the land, as the most excellent and profitable, and having the greatest tendency to promote the ends of the means of grace. But the prevailing taste seems of late strangely to be altered: that pathetical manner of praying and preaching, which would formerly have been admired and extolled, and that for this reason, because it had such a tendency to move the affections, now, in great multitudes, immediately excites disgust, and moves no other affections, than those of displeasure and contempt.

Perhaps, formerly the generality (at least of the common people) were in the extreme, of looking too much to an affectionate address, in public performances: but now, a very great part of the people seem to have gone far into a contrary extreme. Indeed there may be such means, as may have a great tendency to stir up the passions of weak and ignorant persons, and yet have no great tendency to benefit their souls: for though they may have a tendency to excite affections, they may have little or none to excite gracious affections, or any affections tending to grace. But undoubtedly, if the things of religion, in the means used, are treated according to their nature, and exhibited truly, so as tends to convey just apprehensions, and a right judgment of them; the more they have a tendency to move the affections the better."

 

[Ryan&Amber2013]

Does he believe will to be in the soul? Or does he consider that as part of one of the other two?

The soul can experience affection without the body. Otherwise, how do deceased Christians enjoy the presence of the Lord between the times of their death and resurrection? If emotion is expression of affection, then I imagine they must. I can't imagine there is no way for them to express their joy when actually in the presence of Christ. Revelation 6 (granted, it's an apocalyptic vision), there's definite expression to the prayers of the slain saints. It may just look far different than it does for us now.

Yes, he believes the soul has two functions. One is basically understanding, and the other is the will/inclinations/desires etc.

 

[Solparvus]

So from going through the book, and the translation I'm reading, I believe they're basically a synonym. In the book I am reading, the word emotions is used, but in this translation I found online, affections is used.

"If it be so, that true religion lies much in the affections, hence we may infer, that such means are to be desired, as have much of a tendency to move the affections. Such books, and such a way of preaching the word, and administration of ordinances, and such a way of worshipping God in prayer, and singing praises, is much to be desired, as has a tendency deeply to affect the hearts of those who attend these means.

Such a kind of means would formerly have been highly approved of, and applauded by the generality of the people of the land, as the most excellent and profitable, and having the greatest tendency to promote the ends of the means of grace. But the prevailing taste seems of late strangely to be altered: that pathetical manner of praying and preaching, which would formerly have been admired and extolled, and that for this reason, because it had such a tendency to move the affections, now, in great multitudes, immediately excites disgust, and moves no other affections, than those of displeasure and contempt.

Perhaps, formerly the generality (at least of the common people) were in the extreme, of looking too much to an affectionate address, in public performances: but now, a very great part of the people seem to have gone far into a contrary extreme. Indeed there may be such means, as may have a great tendency to stir up the passions of weak and ignorant persons, and yet have no great tendency to benefit their souls: for though they may have a tendency to excite affections, they may have little or none to excite gracious affections, or any affections tending to grace. But undoubtedly, if the things of religion, in the means used, are treated according to their nature, and exhibited truly, so as tends to convey just apprehensions, and a right judgment of them; the more they have a tendency to move the affections the better."

Translation? Maybe you are reading a modernized version?

I wondered if "affections" might be the word. In other places Edwards clearly does not favor emotional or passioned excitement for its own sake. See his sermon here, from which some of the material of "Religious Affections" is derived. He's looking for a disposition in the soul that loves God, and that can be present in the soul with or without excited emotions (taken as how we display our affections).

If that's Edwards' idea, he's absolutely right: All of God's commands are rooted in all-encompassing love for God in mind, heart, soul, and strength. There is no obedience without affection. The emotional display itself is not what counts. He says in the third paragraph that you can stir up passions (our capacity to be provoked) without any benefit to the soul. Modern revivalism proves that nicely enough.

I wonder if there's affection/emotion overlap in his use of affection in the last paragraph, though Edwards may simply be saying that there are means that excite non-gracious affections (ie. natural oratory by itself), and some means meant to excite gracious ones (true preaching, the sacraments, etc.). He does confirm in the last sentence that right affections come from right understanding; so it's not about creating excitement; it's about a change in the love of the soul according to right understanding.

 

[Phil D.]

In Affections (1741, first edition) Edwards makes a distinction between affections and emotions.

Upon the whole, I think it clearly and abundantly evident, that true religion lies very much in the affections. Not that I think these arguments prove, that religion in the hearts of the truly godly, is ever in exact proportion to the degree of affection, and present emotion of the mind: for undoubtedly, there is much affection in the true saints which is not spiritual; their religious affections are often mixed; all is not from grace, but much from nature. And though the affections have not their seat in the body; yet the constitution of the body may very much contribute to the present emotion of the mind. And the degree of religion is rather to be judged of by the fixedness and strength of the habit that is exercised in affection, whereby holy affection is habitual, than by the degree of the present exercise; and the strength of that habit is not always in proportion to outward effects and manifestations, or inward effects, in the hurry and vehemence, and sudden changes of the course of the thoughts of the mind. But yet it is evident, that religion consists so much in affection, as that without holy affection there is no true religion; and no light in the understanding is good, which does not produce holy affection in the heart: no habit or principle in the heart is good, which has no such exercise; and no external fruit is good, which does not proceed from such exercises.​

​

He also provides his definition of affections, which seems congruent with the Fruits of The Spirit.

As all the exercises of the inclination and will, are either in approving and liking, or disapproving and rejecting; so the affections are of two sorts; they are those by which the soul is carried out to what is in view, cleaving to it, or seeking it; or those by which it is averse from it, and opposes it. Of the former sort are love, desire, hope, joy, gratitude, complacence*. Of the latter kind are hatred, fear, anger, grief, and such like; which it is needless now to stand particularly to define.​

* (archaic) affability​

 

[Ed Walsh]

Translation? Maybe you are reading a modernized version?

I wondered if "affections" might be the word. In other places Edwards clearly does not favor emotional or passioned excitement for its own sake. See his sermon here, from which some of the material of "Religious Affections" is derived. He's looking for a disposition in the soul that loves God, and that can be present in the soul with or without excited emotions (taken as how we display our affections).

If that's Edwards' idea, he's absolutely right: All of God's commands are rooted in all-encompassing love for God in mind, heart, soul, and strength. There is no obedience without affection. The emotional display itself is not what counts. He says in the third paragraph that you can stir up passions (our capacity to be provoked) without any benefit to the soul. Modern revivalism proves that nicely enough.

Some years and a culture closer to Edwards's Day is Websters's Dictionary, 1828.

​