A Dissertation Concerning The Nature of True Virtue, Revised Edition

by Jonathan Edwards

ABOUT THE AUTHOR:
Jonathan Edwards was a preacher, theologian, and missionary to Native Americans. Edwards "is widely acknowledged to be America's most important and original philosophical theologian," and one of America's greatest intellectuals. Edwards's theological work is very broad in scope, but he is often associated with his defense of Reformed theology, the metaphysics of theological determinism, and the Puritan heritage. Recent studies have emphasized how thoroughly Edwards grounded his life's work on conceptions of beauty, harmony, and ethical fittingness, and how central The Enlightenment was to his mindset.
Edwards played a very critical role in shaping the First Great Awakening, and oversaw some of the first fires of revival in 1733–1735 at his church - First Church - in Northampton, Massachusetts. Edwards delivered the sermon "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God", a classic of early American literature, during another wave of revival in 1741, following George Whitefield's tour of the Thirteen Colonies. Edwards is widely known for his many books: The End For Which God Created the World; The Life of David Brainerd, which served to inspire thousands of missionaries throughout the nineteenth century; and Religious Affections, which many Reformed Evangelicals read even today. Edwards died from a smallpox inoculation shortly after beginning the presidency at the College of New Jersey (later to be named Princeton University). He was the grandfather of Aaron Burr, 3rd Vice President of the United States.

Genres: Theology, Philosophy, Christian, Religion, Christianity, Devotional

81 pages, Kindle Edition

First published August 15, 1960

About the author

Librarian Note: There is more than one author in the Goodreads database named Jonathan Edwards.

Jonathan Edwards was the most eminent American philosopher-theologian of his time, and a key figure in what has come to be called the First Great Awakening of the 1730s and 1740s.

The only son in a family of eleven children, he entered Yale in September, 1716 when he was not yet thirteen and graduated four years later (1720) as valedictorian. He received his Masters three years later. As a youth, Edwards was unable to accept the Calvinist sovereignty of God. However, in 1721 he came to what he called a "delightful conviction" though meditation on 1 Timothy 1:17. From that point on, Edwards delighted in the sovereignty of God. Edwards later recognized this as his conversion to Christ.

In 1727 he was ordained minister at Northampton and assistant to his maternal grandfather, Solomon Stoddard. He was a student minister, not a visiting pastor, his rule being thirteen hours of study a day. In the same year, he married Sarah Pierpont, then age seventeen, daughter of Yale founder James Pierpont (1659–1714). In total, Jonathan and Sarah had eleven children.

Stoddard died on February 11th, 1729, leaving to his grandson the difficult task of the sole ministerial charge of one of the largest and wealthiest congregations in the colony. Throughout his time in Northampton his preaching brought remarkable religious revivals.

Yet, tensions flamed as Edwards would not continue his grandfather's practice of open communion. Stoddard believed that communion was a "converting ordinance." Surrounding congregations had been convinced of this, and as Edwards became more convinced that this was harmful, his public disagreement with the idea caused his dismissal in 1750.

Edwards then moved to Stockbridge, Massachusetts, then a frontier settlement, where he ministered to a small congregation and served as missionary to the Housatonic Indians. There, having more time for study and writing, he completed his celebrated work, The Freedom of the Will (1754).

Edwards was elected president of the College of New Jersey (later Princeton University) in early 1758. He was a popular choice, for he had been a friend of the College since its inception. He died of fever at the age of fifty-four following experimental inoculation for smallpox and was buried in the President's Lot in the Princeton cemetery beside his son-in-law, Aaron Burr.

Reviews

[Ezra · Rating 4 out of 5]

Edwards' dissertation on the nature of true virtue, though being immensely heavy to read, was a thoroughly interesting read/listen (I did both simultaneously in an effort not to get lost).
Due to the sheer weight of words and the 17th century style, I understood perhaps 65% of the piece but the parts within my comprehension were a wonderfully ponder-inducing discussion of subjects so deep I have never before considered them, namely, the workings and definitions of benevolence, love, virtue, and beauty and similar things.

If being sat on by metaphysical reasoning is something that appeals to you and you have a spare three hours, I'd recommend it.

[Ryan Hawkins · Rating 4 out of 5]

I give this 4 stars instead of 5 simply because it didn't match up to the other works of Edwards I have recently read, namely, Freedom of the Will and The End for Which God Created the World. This work still has some profound insights, but it just isn't as cohesive and theology-molding as the others.

In this work, Edwards is basically arguing what is true virtue. He defines virtue as "the beauty of the qualities and exercises of the heart, or those actions which proceed from them" (2), and, "a certain king of beautiful nature, form, or quality" (98).

But the thesis of his work is that *true* virtue, meaning, what is truly virtuous, must have its root in caring for the good of being in general. "True virtues most essentially consists in benevolence to being in general. Or perhaps, to speak more accurately, it is that consent, propensity and union of heart to being in general, which is immediately exercised in a general good will" (3). He notes that virtues essentially consists in love, and so he argues that "the primary object of virtuous love is being, simply considered" (8). This is sort of confusing at first, but he basically is saying that true virtue 1) cannot be just a response to someone loving you or being lovely; or 2) that it cannot be small, meaning, if there is being to be benevolent toward outside of the scope of one's virtue, then their virtue is lacking. It isn't true virtue.

He clarifies this in the second chapter. Here he argues, "From what has been said, it is evident, that true virtue must chiefly consist in love to God; the Being of beings, infinitely the greatest and best...It was observed that the first objective ground of that love wherein true virtue consists, is being simply considered...And if we consider the secondary ground of love, or moral excellency, the same thing will appear. For as God is infinitely the greatest Being, so he is allowed to be infinitely the most beautiful and excellent" (14).

This is essentially the argument of his book: that true virtue must chiefly exist in loving God. The whole book is him fleshing this out, by showing that this is what we were made for, and particularly by showing that other virtue is lacking.

Concerning that we were made for this, he says about humanity:

"The true virtue of created beings is doubtless their highest excellency; and their true goodness, and that by which they are especially agreeable to the mind of their Creator. But the true goodness of a thing must be its agreeableness to its end, or its fitness to answer the design for which it was made. Therefore they are good moral agents, whose temper of mind or propensity of heart, is agreeable to the end for which God made moral agents [namely, his glory]...By these things it appears, that a truly virtuous mind, being as it were under the sovereign dominion of love to God, above all things, seeks the glory of God, and makes this his supreme, governing, and ultimate end. This consists in the expression of God's perfections in their proper effects, the manifestation of God's glory to created understandings, the communications of the infinite fullness of God to the creature—the creature's highest esteem of God, love to, and joy in him—and in proper exercises and expressions of these. And so far as a virtuous mind exercises true virtue in benevolence to created beings, it chiefly seeks the good of the creature; consisting in its knowledge or view of God's glory and beauty" (24-25).

This, according to Edwards, is the chief essence of true virtue.

In the remainder of the book, he shows that there is a secondary kind of beauty, which is inferior to the beauty which one has when they love God as being in general. This secondary beauty is the beauty of order and harmony—essentially justice. People see beauty in order, harmony, and equality and justice. But Edwards argues well that this isn't true virtue, for many reasons.

He also mainly shows that self-love really dominates so much of supposed virtue. People love themselves, and so they do many supposedly virtuous things. For example, someone may love certain qualities and characteristics out of self-love, and more.

He also shows that the natural conscious wants to be treated well, and that the natural conscious approves of fairness and equality. But neither of these are true virtue.

Moreover, the natural conscious abundantly expresses pity—and Edwards believes that God put this in man for the protection and preservation of mankind. But Edwards makes a good point that the natural conscious does not equally rejoice in the good of the other. In other words, everyone is prone to have compassion on those suffering, but they do not have the same desire for the abundant good of everyone. They would not be positively happy if they saw their good. As a result, people have more inclinations to pity, but as to true virtue (meaning, wanting the good of beings in general), it is not the same and is lacking.

He also has a chapter showing why people confuse true virtue (which chiefly consists in love to God) with not true virtue. And he gives a handful of reasons: self-love, love for secondary beauty (meaning, justice and order), smallness of their view, etc.

But it is here where my favorite section of the book occurs, and I think it summarizes what Edwards is really going for in the work. Essentially, he argues that people usually don't *really* believe in God, and so they see so many things (which care only for man, or usually even only a small part of man) as true virtue. But when one considers that *God is actually real*, and then sees that he is ignored in all this which is esteemed as 'virtue', then it is clear that all this natural virtue and love is extremely lacking. It makes perfect sense. Here are his own words:

"The reason why men are so ready to take these private affections for true virtue, is the narrowness of their views: and above all, that they are so ready to leave the divine Being out of view, and to neglect him in their consideration, or to regard him in their thoughts as though he did not properly belong to the system of real existence, but was a kind of shadowy, imaginary being. And though most men allow that there is a God, yet in their ordinary view of things, his being is not apt to come into the account, and to have the influence and effect of a real existence, as it is with other beings which they see, and are conversan with by their external senses. In their views of beauty and deformity, and in their inward sensations of dis-license and approbation, it is not natural to them to view the Deity as part of the system, and as the head of it, in comparison of whom all other things are to be viewed with corresponding impressions" (87).

That is exactly right. And that is the argument of his book essentially. If God is real, and as big, sovereign, and important as the Bible says he is, and if he is as excellent as the Bible says he is, *then true virtue cannot consist in ignoring him.* Rather, true virtue must consist first (or as Edwards would say, chiefly) in loving him. From this, as Edwards argues in the book, many other virtues flow—virtues which look similar to the small virtues that others produce from small systems, self-love, and/or a love for justice. But true virtue must primarily consider God.

It is a solid argument, and I encourage you to read the book if you're interested. In short, I felt like he is essentially defending the truth that "without faith it is impossible to please God, for whoever would draw near to God must believe that he exists..." (Hebrews 11:6). God knows what 'true virtue' actually is. He knows what is actually and chiefly praiseworthy. But if he is as great in Being and excellency as the Bible says, then any action disregarding him simply cannot be considered true virtue. The Bible says so, and Edwards defends this so well.

[Brian Eshleman · Rating 4 out of 5]

My experience as a 21st-century reader was a little odd. Edwards is obviously communicating his great passion for the Lord, but, as we are accustomed to a much more casual register, his word choice lends itself to a sort of legal plea. Read for three or four nuggets where his passion for God does connect with my passion for God, still a four-star experience.

[Gage Fowlkes · Rating 4 out of 5]

Cool to think about the social contract theories Edwards would have interacted with in his lifetime as context for his discussion on self-love.

[Zachary · Rating 5 out of 5]

Jonathan Edwards was one of the foremost North American philosophers and theologians of the pre-Revolutionary War period and extremely influential in American Calvinism and Christianity more broadly. The Nature of True Virtue, in which Edwards presents his moral vision, treats many of the most prominent themes in his work. Most notably, in defense of his idea of true virtue, Edwards offers a radically theocentric portrait of reality: he picks up on the Thomistic notion that all of creation flows from and will ultimately return to God and, like his Christian Platonist predecessors, insists that the unity of creation is rooted in the ideas of God, on account of which all reality participates in and is symbolic of the divine. Edwards’ metaphysics is thus in some sense idealist: the world as we know it is a semiotic system which points to its transcendent source and is utterly dependent on that source for its reality. In fact, Edwards understands the cosmos as an interdependent system of being that is constituted and sustained in each and every moment by the power of God. At the same time, despite these idealist tendencies, Edwards picks up on empiricist themes prominent in his day as well. This is most evident in his emphasis on what he calls the affections, by which humans come to know not only about the world but also God. In particular, Edwards speaks of a divine or spiritual sense communicated by grace that allows one to see the divine majesty of the universe and understand it as authored and administered by God. Moreover, this spiritual sense also discloses the nature of true virtue, which Edwards understands as “that consent, propensity and union of heart to being in general, which is immediately exercised in a general good will” (3).

Edwards therefore understands true virtue very differently from philosophers in the Aristotelian tradition, for whom virtue is a character trait acquired by habituation. For Edwards, virtue rather consists in an affirmation of the entire system of being by which one exists in harmony and union with the rest of creation. This consent to and union with being, he claims, is synonymous with benevolence, or love, toward being, since to harmonize with existence necessarily entails that one loves it. Importantly, true virtue does not then consist in love toward particular creatures, but toward being universally conceived, even if particular loves can—and should—follow from benevolence toward being itself. Yet if true virtue entails consent to and benevolence toward being universally conceived, then, insofar as God is the Being of beings, true virtue more precisely consists in love of God. As Edwards explains, “he that has true virtue, consisting in benevolence to being in general, . . . must necessarily have a supreme love to God. . . . And all true virtue must radically and essentially, and as it were summarily consist in this” (15). For Edwards, God is the condition for the possibility of true virtue—without love of God, one cannot have true virtue, and hence love of particulars prior to or absent the love of God opposes true virtue, no matter how similar it seems. Put differently, God and morality are absolutely and inextricably linked on Edwards’ account.

Edwards’ conceptualization of true virtue also has important implications for what it means to love particular creatures rooted in a prior love of God. If true virtue ultimately consists in the love of God, from which flows love of particular creatures, then, since true virtue consists in benevolence, love of particular creatures consists in benevolence as well, which means (per the definition of benevolence) that true virtue as it concerns particular creatures consists in concern for their welfare. And since, for Edwards, true virtue is our proper end, evident in the fact that by it we become most excellent, then benevolence toward particular creatures means concern for their proper end, which consists (per the definition of true virtue) in the subordination of all their particular loves to the love of God. Consequently, due to the nature of true virtue, to love particular creatures in accordance with a prior love of God means that one is concerned that they, too, love God above all other creaturely loves. True virtue is therefore entirely God-directed, manifest in both our own love for God and in our concern that others love God in a similar way.

While, for Edwards, morality principally consists in true virtue, he concedes that there is another, secondary level of morality rooted in the principle of self-love. Humans, he claims, often approve of virtuous behaviors or qualities and disapprove of vicious behaviors or qualities out of concern for their own interest and what corresponds with it. For example, Edwards thinks it common for us to see the necessity of social justice based on the necessity of justice for ourselves, and so we approve of justice and its attendant virtues ultimately on account of our self-love. He also believes that the idea of benevolence is typically associated with the experience or the idea of love received from others, which elicits pleasure in us and hence causes us to approve of benevolence more broadly. Edwards concludes that “there are no particular moral virtues whatsoever, but what in some or other of these ways, and most of them in several, come to have some kind of approbation from self-love, without the influence of a truly virtuous principle; nor any particular vices, but what, by the same means, meet with some disapprobation” (60). Thus, self-love can serve as a motivation to moral action, even if it is not an authentically moral principle like that of true virtue. And this is necessarily the case, since a morality derived from self-love constitutes a limited benevolence that extends toward a smaller sphere of individuals than true virtue, whose benevolence extends toward the whole of reality, rooted as it is in love of God and the universal love that flows from this.

Self-love on Edwards’ account is also closely related to what he calls the natural conscience, or moral sense (not to be confused with the spiritual sense), which he likewise differentiates from true virtue. By the exercise of this moral sense, which is innate even in fallen humans, one can put oneself in the place of another person and assess whether a particular action would be approved or disapproved by that person, based on which assessment one either chooses to act or not to act. Or, as Edwards explains, “hereby we have a disposition to approve our own treatment of another, when we are conscious to ourselves that we treat him so as we should expect to be treated by him, were he in our case and we in his; and to disapprove of our own treatment of another, when we are conscious that we should be displeased with the like treatment from him, if we were in his case” (65). In effect, natural conscience or the moral sense is indexed to the Golden Rule, or the principle of reciprocity, coupled with what Edwards calls a “sense of desert,” i.e. the sense we have that malevolence deserves punishment and benevolence reward. Importantly, Edwards claims the natural conscience “will extend to all virtue and vice” and, when properly tutored, comes to resemble true virtue (68). Nevertheless, natural conscience should not be confused with true virtue: while, “if well informed, [it] will approve of true virtue, and will disapprove and condemn the want of it, and opposition to it,” the moral sense “does not taste its primary and essential beauty,” i.e. the beauty that accompanies consent and benevolence toward being (68-69). Only when aided by divine grace and revelation can this natural moral sense attain the universally benevolent perspective of true virtue.

In fact, for Edwards, when one is aided by grace to attain true virtue, it is not so much that one’s moral sense is elevated as it is that one receives an entirely new sense, i.e. the spiritual sense alluded to above. That is, Edwards makes an important distinction between the moral sense common to all humans and the spiritual or divine sense possessed only by the elect. When it comes to morals, both senses approve of the same virtues and disapprove of the same vices, but for different reasons. The moral sense makes its evaluations based on the principle of reciprocity and a sense of just desert, whereas the divine sense makes its assessments based on consent to being, or true virtue. And, more importantly, whereas benevolence made possible by the moral sense can extend to a wide, but necessarily limited, number of creatures, the benevolence of true virtue made possible by the spiritual sense is universal in its scope. Like Kant, but on different terms, Edwards thereby makes universalizability a condition of true virtue: morality is impartial in its demands and its scope encompasses the entire system of being.

At the end of the treatise, Edwards asks whether true virtue is founded in sentiment or reason and, characteristically, offers a nuanced answer. If all that is meant by the claim that virtue is rooted in sentiment is that those who perceive its beauty do not come to see it by inferences or deduction, but rather by an immediate sensation from which they derive pleasure and so approve of true virtue, then this is correct. On the other hand, if what the moral sentimentalists mean is that our sentiments of approbation and disapprobation are arbitrary and in no way connected with the nature of reality, then this view is incorrect (and, while Edwards does not say as much, ultimately leads to emotivism). For Edwards, true virtue corresponds with the universal constitution of the cosmos as created by God and the particular constitution of human nature. That is, first, insofar as true virtue consists in consent to being, and being must consent to itself, being embodies true virtue in its affirmation of its own existence. True virtue, then, is literally woven into the fabric of the cosmos. Second, and with respect to human nature, that we find true virtue beautiful is not an accident but intrinsic to our constitution as rational creatures whose end and happiness consists in true virtue. More specifically, insofar as true virtue is benevolence toward being, one who desires to be happy (which we all necessarily desire as volitional creatures) must endorse true virtue, since if one were to oppose true virtue, one would be opposed to benevolence toward being, and thus opposed to one’s own happiness, which would be absurd. Consequently, our approbation of true virtue and the pleasure we derive from our perception of its beauty corresponds with our nature as rational, volitional creatures. In this way, Edwards blends empiricist and idealist (and specifically Platonic) themes in his conception of true virtue: on the one (empiricist) hand, he claims that we know and take pleasure in true virtue by way of an immediate sensation enabled by divine grace; on the other (idealist) hand, he claims that true virtue is a necessary feature of existence ultimately rooted in the nature of a creation administered by divine providence and entirely dependent on God, from whom all reality flows.

[Jeremy Counts · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is probably the most difficult, yet rewarding work I've ever read. A major difficulty one will find immediately is the language he uses to define certain ideas have changed since his day. I think once you're able to get past this language barrier and properly understand the terms he uses, everything fits into place. As far as content, I think Edwards successfully substantiates that true virtue lies in us glorifying God, the Chief Being of beings, which all things derive from. Rather than a false sense of virtue, which some in his day asserted arise from self-love or selfish instincts.

Jonathan Edwards has been a key influence in my Christian life, and am grateful for his zeal to glorify God in everything he did.

[W. Littlejohn · Rating 2 out of 5]

Some good stuff, but all shrouded in a cloud of metaphysical fluffiness: "the nature of true virtue is benevolence toward being in general."

Sorry, I ended up having to give this two stars...for once the in-class discussion made me think even less of the book. Not a shred of Scripture in this book; hardly even mentions God; equal parts Plato and Kant.

[Chad · Rating 4 out of 5]

An excellent discussion concerning the nature of virtue as it regards being in general. Edwards provides a brief yet thoroughgoing analysis of virtue, it origins, its relation to conscience, its connection with being, and its correlation to the principle of proportionate regard.

[Mwansa · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book would probably have made it to five stars if Edwards was not so difficult to read! I am a little bit ashamed of myself for not being able to flow very well with him, he really had to slow down and take me by the hand in this philosophical treatise on the true nature of virtue. I had read once that the greatest philosophical mind to come out of the United States of America was Jonathan Edwards but I did not wrap my head around it till I read this book. And from what I am given to understand this is but a drop in the ocean so I look forward to reading more of him. Two things that stood out for me as I read.

The nature of true virtue is only found in relation to God because it is only then that the love is all encompassing. Only God has the love that is free of discrimination and segregation and it is only as well imbibe this love that true virtue is found within us. There are several kinds of virtue that seem to be true but upon closer inspection can be seen for the shallow, unreasonable or partial nature that they really have. He does not say it outright, per say, but one cannot help but see that true virtue is found and kept close to ones heart if one draws closer to God through his word and prayer and cannot be found outside of this.

The second thing is in line with the love that Hollywood displays. I kept thinking back to a movie were a man risked it all to rescue his wife from her wrongful imprisonment. The movie painted that as the purest of all loves that risks everything to bring the loved one back but upon further inspection, in light of the book, what is seen as that there is an inherent selfishness about the actions of the man. Achieving his goal at all costs meant a lot of people were put in very bad positions but he did not care because his actions were selfish in nature. How then can that be called true and beautiful depiction of virtue.

This book was difficult but eye opening

[An Te · Rating 4 out of 5]

A very topical read. Where is our ultimate Good and how do we seek that? This is what is discussed here. Jonathan Edwards writes a century before all of the French existentialists and he considers being as its acknowledgment as what true virtue and benevolence is. He then develops this 'ground of being' as general and true virtue as opposed to the self-love which drives both natural conscience. Natural conscience may drive against sin but its scope if limited (i.e. concerned with yourself or at least a limited sphere of influence) whilst true virtue resounds with God and continues to resonate across all spheres. What is interesting from Edwards' essay is that he has thought deeply about being and virtue and offered several useful articulations of where natural self-motivated concern is indeed different to God-centre virtue. Consequently, genuine love scopes over all object and subjects and thus come to be proportional to its weight and value. It is a love enlightened and leavened by God. I'd be curious to find out whether Edwards obtained this via Augustine of Hippo's disorderly loves or 'The City of God, XII. 24' or of his own accord. Such a love entails order and right action. Self-love may imitate some aspects of 'goodness' and 'proportionality' but when relied upon in any great extent, time or measure will lead to 'good intentions' spoiling the 'circumstantial broth!'

An insightful and concise essay, (Edwards is at times a little abstruse but that's his style; love it or hate it, it's worth reading and mulling over.) Edwards is full of learning and Godly discernment and it is clear he is relevant today as he was in his own day.

[Matthew Bonzon · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is a great book. Maybe the best book I’ve read this year. There is so much packed into this little book. I highly recommend.

“a truly virtuous mind, being as it were under the sovereign dominion of love to God, above all things, seeks the glory of God, and makes this his supreme, governing, and ultimate end. This consists in the expression of God's perfections in their proper effects, the manifestation of God's glory to created understandings, the communications of the infinite fulness of God to the creature-the creature's highest esteem of God, love to, and joy in him-and in the proper exercises and expressions of these. And so far as a virtuous mind exercises true virtue in benevolence to created beings, it chiefly seeks the good of the creature; consisting in its knowledge or view of God's glory and beauty, its union with God, conformity and love to him, and joy in him. And that disposition of heart, that consent, union, or propensity of mind to being in general, which appears chiefly in such exercises, is virtue.”

Gold.

[Dwayne Hicks · Rating 5 out of 5]

First off, yes, this book is 'hard'. Just how hard depends on your exposure to 18th century style, with its long sentences and endless concatenation of phrases and clauses. (Edwards' actual concepts are straightforward.) If you're like me, you may have to go slowly and read aloud some parts to understand how the negations and viz-es and emphases fall into place. What do you get for your pains? Well, let John Piper sell it to you:

"If you have ever felt an aesthetic sense of awe at beholding a pure idea given lucid expression, then you may understand what I mean when I say that this book aroused in me a deeply pleasurable aesthetic experience. But more importantly, it gave me a brand new awareness that ultimately the categories of morality resolve into categories of aesthetics, and one of the last things you can say about virtue is that it is 'a kind of beautiful nature, form or quality.'"

[adeiusclavum · Rating 5 out of 5]

The beauty (True Virtue) of God and the beauty of believers who live with beauty by being born again and living with the Holy Spirit... The life of believers that reflects the beauty of God... This is the purpose for which God created heaven and earth. Nature reveals a subordinate and secondary beauty that reveals the beauty of God. This book should be read as a companion piece to Jonathan Edwards' work, God's Purpose for the Creation of Heaven and Earth. God's passion for His Glory, written by John Piper, contains the text and commentary on the purpose of the creation of heaven and earth.

[Mark Seeley · Rating 3 out of 5]

Dense and obtuse. . . but rewarding in everyway. The reader will need patience.

Took to reading this small monograph after Christopher Lasch in The Revolt of the Elites recommended it. Edwards argument is relentlessly theocentric: Benevolence to Being in general = Love of God. With out love of God, there is no true virtue even though there is much that proceeds out of self-love that is very commendable.

[Alexandru Balaur]

”...it is undeniably true, that if persons have a benevolent affection limited to a party, or to the nation in general, of which they are a part, or the public community to which they belong, though it be as large as the Roman empire was of old; yea, if there could be a cause determining a person to benevolence towards the whole world of mankind, or even all created sensible natures throughout the universe, exclusive of union of heart to general existence and of love to God - not derived from that temper of mind which disposes to a supreme regard to him, nor subordinate to such divine love - it can not be of the nature of true virtue.”

[Katie Plum Johnson · Rating 4 out of 5]

Truthfully, this was way over my head. So the information I should’ve received was not at full capacity. However, what I did comprehend, I did enjoy. Edward’s explores every avenue of how true virtue or a true sense of goodness/morality is really not true. Very interesting

[Michael Caldwell · Rating 5 out of 5]

Excellent!

[Matthew Hinman · Rating 4 out of 5]

Good delineation between true virtue and that which only appears as virtue but is not rooted in benevolence to Being itself. Definitely a bit wordy in many places.

[Melissa]

History philosophy

[Alyssa Prewitt · Rating 1 out of 5]

Couldn’t get through

[Rich · Rating 3 out of 5]

Eighteenth century preacher and philosopher -- so the text is dense with sentences that go on and on. That being said, it was an interesting discourse on virtue, acts which appear to be of true virtue that, well, aren't, and self love.

A little heavy handed with the virtue/religion overlap, but altogether, interesting philosophy from time ago.

[Jeremy Egerer · Rating 5 out of 5]

Absolutely brilliant.
Quite possibly one of the most difficult reads I've encountered yet, but once Edwards gets going, it felt like I finally understood virtue -- and beauty, and instincts, and counterfeit virtues -- for the first time. Extremely powerful, and the brevity makes up for the fact that I had to read certain paragraphs multiple times =)

[Ed Brenegar · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is an important book in early American philosophy and theology by the America's foremost theologian Jonathan Edwards. In this short book, Edwards addresses the relation of virtue or moral good and its connection to love, beauty and conscience.

[Josh Shelton · Rating 5 out of 5]

Wonderful

[Tom · Rating 4 out of 5]

I'm sure I would have given this book 5 stars if I were as smart as Edwards. The thoroughness of this book is simultaneously it's strength and it's shortcoming.

[Philip]

"One of the most profound treatises on social ethics ever written." -Tim Keller

[Yajaira Marmolejo · Rating 3 out of 5]

Very interesting concepts presented but very hard to read at least in my opinion.