What do you think?
Rate this book
Jonathan Edwards
Perry Miller's study of Jonathan Edwards as a writer and an artist is regarded as one of the great studies of "the life of a mind." He challenges readers to understand Edwards as an intellectual who, living in his own time and place, wrestled with issues relevant to the modern world. This Bison Books edition, with an introduction by John F. Wilson, will help to introduce Jonathan Edwards to a new generation of readers.
348 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1949
3 people are currently reading
66 people want to read
About the author
Perry Miller
100 books21 followersPerry Miller was an American intellectual historian and Harvard University professor. He was an authority on American Puritanism, and one of the founders of what came to be known as 'American Studies'. Alfred Kazin once referred to him as "the master of American intellectual history."
In his most famous book, The New England Mind: The Seventeenth Century (1939), Miller adopted a cultural approach to illuminate the worldview of the Puritans, unlike previous historians who employed psychological and economic explanations of their beliefs and behavior.
At Harvard, he directed numerous PhD dissertations; among his most notable students were historians Bernard Bailyn and Edmund Morgan. Margaret Atwood dedicated her famous book The Handmaid's Tale to Perry Miller. He had been a mentor to her at Harvard.
His major works included:
• (1933) Orthodoxy in Massachusetts, 1630-1650
• (1939) The New England Mind: The Seventeenth Century
• (1949) Jonathan Edwards
• (1953) The New England Mind: From Colony to Province
• (1953) Roger Williams: His Contribution to the American Tradition
• (1956) Errand into the Wilderness
• (1956) The American Puritans [editor]
• (1957) The American Transcendentalists, their Prose and Poetry
• (1957) The Raven and the Whale: Poe, Melville and the New York Literary Scene
• (1958) Consciousness in Concord: The Text of Thoreau’s Hitherto “Lost Journal”
• (1961) The Legal Mind in America: from Independence to the Civil War
• (1965) The Life of the Mind in America: From the Revolution to the Civil War
In his most famous book, The New England Mind: The Seventeenth Century (1939), Miller adopted a cultural approach to illuminate the worldview of the Puritans, unlike previous historians who employed psychological and economic explanations of their beliefs and behavior.
At Harvard, he directed numerous PhD dissertations; among his most notable students were historians Bernard Bailyn and Edmund Morgan. Margaret Atwood dedicated her famous book The Handmaid's Tale to Perry Miller. He had been a mentor to her at Harvard.
His major works included:
• (1933) Orthodoxy in Massachusetts, 1630-1650
• (1939) The New England Mind: The Seventeenth Century
• (1949) Jonathan Edwards
• (1953) The New England Mind: From Colony to Province
• (1953) Roger Williams: His Contribution to the American Tradition
• (1956) Errand into the Wilderness
• (1956) The American Puritans [editor]
• (1957) The American Transcendentalists, their Prose and Poetry
• (1957) The Raven and the Whale: Poe, Melville and the New York Literary Scene
• (1958) Consciousness in Concord: The Text of Thoreau’s Hitherto “Lost Journal”
• (1961) The Legal Mind in America: from Independence to the Civil War
• (1965) The Life of the Mind in America: From the Revolution to the Civil War
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 5 of 5 reviews
December 30, 2012
The late John Gerstner described this book as one of the most important books written on Jonathan Edwards. And when he said this in the 1960s, he was correct. Edwards studies has exploded since then. One must be careful of being too critical of Miller’s work. When he wrote this few academics took the Puritans or Jonathan Edwards seriously. Now we have almost a glut of material. For all of Miller’s faults, he did the the project started.
Miller offers two keys to interpreting Edwards’ life and thought: the philosophy of John Locke and the internecine politics of New England. To phrase it more precisely: Jonathan Edwards’ use of John Locke was a focused and indirect attack on the soon-to-be-labeled “Old Lights” in New England (pp. 3-35). This is (allegedly) seen in Edwards’ early sermon, “A Divine and Supernatural Light,” from which we understand that the senses in themselves do not deceive (45, emphasis added). This is very important for Miller’s reading of Edwards’ reading of Lock, for this is how Miller will interpret Edwards’ work The Religious Affections. In short, Miller reads Edwards as saying “God does not impart religious truth outside sensory experience” (55).
No doubt Edwards was enthralled with John Locke early on. Further, Miller does cogently argue that Edwards’ use of Locke allowed him to formulate his ideas the way he did. However, few of Edwards’ modern interpreters have placed the same level of importance on Locke as Miller did. George Marsden suggests, pace Miller, that Edwards, like any respectable New England thinker of his day, tried to keep apace of modern intellectual currents and this meant reading men like John Locke (Marsden, 60ff).
Nonetheless, there are aspects of John Locke’s thought that did leave a permanent impression on Edwards. Miller asserts, “Metaphysically, this led to the immense conclusion that the entire universe exists in the divine idea” (Miller, 63). Indeed, Edwards will further develop this idea in his defense of Original Sin, arguing that in the realm of the mind all of humanity, like an atom, is a single concept (278). Miller suggests it but doesn’t develop the conclusions: Edwards had implicitly rejected the older substance-ontologies for an ontology based on mind and atom.
Divine Causality
Edwards understands “cause” to mean “a sequence of phenomena, with the inner connection of cause and effect still mysterious and terrifying” (79). Cause, for Edwards, is not simply that which determines an effect. Rather, it is that which is “necessarily antecedent” (257). The first premise in the argument against free will: perception is not the import of an object, for the object is without significance, but the object as seen, the manner of view, and the state of mind that views. Miller adds another premise to clinch the argument: just as the will follows perception’s view of things, rather than the things themselves, so the will lies within the tissue of nature and is caused by something external to it (257).
Against Modernity
Miller sees Edwards as an enlightened critic of modernity, and he places Edwards within a larger anti-modern narrative. In discussing the implications of a Lockean-Newtonian worldview, Miller notes that the “science” of modernity cannot answer the basic questions upon which it is founded: if atoms are so hard that they never break, how small is the smallest atom (83)? Said another way: if atoms are the fundamentally smallest entity in the world, of which all other entities consist, and that is all reality is, then what holds the atoms together? Is that which holds atoms together also made up of atoms? And so the questions could go on. The important point, though, is that the aforementioned questions represent a fatal weakness in modern Scientism. Scientism of its day could not answer one basic question: what holds the atoms together? Miller has a simple answer: magic (83). Unfortunately, Miller does not pursue this. Many of the Enlightenment thinkers were deeply involved in the occult and Miller could have had a field day exploring this.
Now, I like beating up unbelieving science as much as the next guy, but this picture has largely eclipsed Jonathan Edwards. Yes, Edwards would have been aware of this discussion. Further, Edwards would have been a critic of modernity, but as Marsden notes elsewhere, this isn’t the heart of Edwards, and Miller has wasted a lot of time shadow-boxing dead Englishmen.
The Religious Affections
This is the weakest and most frustrating part of Miller’s narrative. Miller is insistent that Edwards be read according to Locke’s dictum that what we can know, we can know from sense experience. During the Great Awakening, so the argument goes, many people had “visible signs” of something at work. Miller, being a pagan, has no understanding of the Holy Spirit, and can only see external effects. Missing this key fact, virtually everything he says about Edwards from this point on is painfully incorrect. The reader is encouraged to consult Iain Murray’s biography on this point.
Conclusion: Pros and Cons
Like any work by Perry Miller, the prose is a delight to read. Unfortunately, that is why the book is misleading. Much of Miller’s scholarship on Puritanism has since been refuted. The Puritans didn’t invent the idea of “covenant” to soften a mean God. To the degree this might have been the case in New England owes more to the structurally flawed nature of Congregationalism and the Half-way covenant than it does to Reformed theology. And to the extent that Miller captures on key ideas in Edwards, he tends to overplay minor issues and miss major points. Further complicating things is that none of Miller’s quotations of Edwards point the reader to specific works. Perhaps accessible editions of Edwards’ corpus weren’t available then (it’s amazing to think of how much good Banner of Truth Trust has done the world on this point).
On the other hand, when it comes to Edwards’ major doctrines Miller summarizes Edwards quite well, and for what it’s worth, cuts off Arminianism at the knees. Should you read this book? I suppose. Any major work on Edwards should consult Marsden first, then Murray, and lastly Miller.
Miller offers two keys to interpreting Edwards’ life and thought: the philosophy of John Locke and the internecine politics of New England. To phrase it more precisely: Jonathan Edwards’ use of John Locke was a focused and indirect attack on the soon-to-be-labeled “Old Lights” in New England (pp. 3-35). This is (allegedly) seen in Edwards’ early sermon, “A Divine and Supernatural Light,” from which we understand that the senses in themselves do not deceive (45, emphasis added). This is very important for Miller’s reading of Edwards’ reading of Lock, for this is how Miller will interpret Edwards’ work The Religious Affections. In short, Miller reads Edwards as saying “God does not impart religious truth outside sensory experience” (55).
No doubt Edwards was enthralled with John Locke early on. Further, Miller does cogently argue that Edwards’ use of Locke allowed him to formulate his ideas the way he did. However, few of Edwards’ modern interpreters have placed the same level of importance on Locke as Miller did. George Marsden suggests, pace Miller, that Edwards, like any respectable New England thinker of his day, tried to keep apace of modern intellectual currents and this meant reading men like John Locke (Marsden, 60ff).
Nonetheless, there are aspects of John Locke’s thought that did leave a permanent impression on Edwards. Miller asserts, “Metaphysically, this led to the immense conclusion that the entire universe exists in the divine idea” (Miller, 63). Indeed, Edwards will further develop this idea in his defense of Original Sin, arguing that in the realm of the mind all of humanity, like an atom, is a single concept (278). Miller suggests it but doesn’t develop the conclusions: Edwards had implicitly rejected the older substance-ontologies for an ontology based on mind and atom.
Divine Causality
Edwards understands “cause” to mean “a sequence of phenomena, with the inner connection of cause and effect still mysterious and terrifying” (79). Cause, for Edwards, is not simply that which determines an effect. Rather, it is that which is “necessarily antecedent” (257). The first premise in the argument against free will: perception is not the import of an object, for the object is without significance, but the object as seen, the manner of view, and the state of mind that views. Miller adds another premise to clinch the argument: just as the will follows perception’s view of things, rather than the things themselves, so the will lies within the tissue of nature and is caused by something external to it (257).
Against Modernity
Miller sees Edwards as an enlightened critic of modernity, and he places Edwards within a larger anti-modern narrative. In discussing the implications of a Lockean-Newtonian worldview, Miller notes that the “science” of modernity cannot answer the basic questions upon which it is founded: if atoms are so hard that they never break, how small is the smallest atom (83)? Said another way: if atoms are the fundamentally smallest entity in the world, of which all other entities consist, and that is all reality is, then what holds the atoms together? Is that which holds atoms together also made up of atoms? And so the questions could go on. The important point, though, is that the aforementioned questions represent a fatal weakness in modern Scientism. Scientism of its day could not answer one basic question: what holds the atoms together? Miller has a simple answer: magic (83). Unfortunately, Miller does not pursue this. Many of the Enlightenment thinkers were deeply involved in the occult and Miller could have had a field day exploring this.
Now, I like beating up unbelieving science as much as the next guy, but this picture has largely eclipsed Jonathan Edwards. Yes, Edwards would have been aware of this discussion. Further, Edwards would have been a critic of modernity, but as Marsden notes elsewhere, this isn’t the heart of Edwards, and Miller has wasted a lot of time shadow-boxing dead Englishmen.
The Religious Affections
This is the weakest and most frustrating part of Miller’s narrative. Miller is insistent that Edwards be read according to Locke’s dictum that what we can know, we can know from sense experience. During the Great Awakening, so the argument goes, many people had “visible signs” of something at work. Miller, being a pagan, has no understanding of the Holy Spirit, and can only see external effects. Missing this key fact, virtually everything he says about Edwards from this point on is painfully incorrect. The reader is encouraged to consult Iain Murray’s biography on this point.
Conclusion: Pros and Cons
Like any work by Perry Miller, the prose is a delight to read. Unfortunately, that is why the book is misleading. Much of Miller’s scholarship on Puritanism has since been refuted. The Puritans didn’t invent the idea of “covenant” to soften a mean God. To the degree this might have been the case in New England owes more to the structurally flawed nature of Congregationalism and the Half-way covenant than it does to Reformed theology. And to the extent that Miller captures on key ideas in Edwards, he tends to overplay minor issues and miss major points. Further complicating things is that none of Miller’s quotations of Edwards point the reader to specific works. Perhaps accessible editions of Edwards’ corpus weren’t available then (it’s amazing to think of how much good Banner of Truth Trust has done the world on this point).
On the other hand, when it comes to Edwards’ major doctrines Miller summarizes Edwards quite well, and for what it’s worth, cuts off Arminianism at the knees. Should you read this book? I suppose. Any major work on Edwards should consult Marsden first, then Murray, and lastly Miller.
April 22, 2018
More of a treatise on the philosophy of Jonathan Edwards, than a biography. Traces much of his theology to John Locke and Isaac Newton. Very difficul read for a layman.
October 27, 2019
It's definitely still worthy of a read, and I think all Edwardsian scholars need to read it. The scholarship is outdated, but it's a rollicking experience and highly suggestive for your own thoughts.
December 15, 2014
Tramping through the forests north of Flagstaff I remembered Sargent Bush and then read his Writings of Thomas Hooker. Hooker reminded of "the howling wilderness" a phrase also in Bradford which had further provoked an animus against the English, especially as one site argued that, omitting Hooker and Bradford, one can go right from Morton to Edwards to Thoreau and find present day Wilderness Society! Nuts.
A teacher in my teens once said he thought Edwards was the smartest man in the world, the first American intellectual. That was enough then to discard him instantly. That teacher confided that when he was in the army he knelt to pray by his cot every night, scared every boy in that class into thinking they should too. This occurred in a nest of Presbyterian Civil War buffs and predestinationalists, people who quoted Donald Barnhouse, which compounded my take on Perry Miller, that he was equally stilted, that he would initiate a theme and talk about everything else. In this biography however I see he is very funny and not a bit stuffed.
I got this bio as a stopgap before acquiring Edward's The Beauty of the World in Images or Shadows of Divine Things (ed. by Perry in 1948). You have to follow where these trails go. It turns out Edwards is as likable as Perry, much the outsider in his approach, much distance:
"he has reached the limits of language...something hidden. There is a gift held back, some esoteric divination that the listener must make for himself. Edwards' writing is an immense cryptogram...his writings are almost a hoax, not to be read but to be seen through" (50,51).
The trail is discontinuous, continues here: http://thewayintothefloweringheart.bl...
A teacher in my teens once said he thought Edwards was the smartest man in the world, the first American intellectual. That was enough then to discard him instantly. That teacher confided that when he was in the army he knelt to pray by his cot every night, scared every boy in that class into thinking they should too. This occurred in a nest of Presbyterian Civil War buffs and predestinationalists, people who quoted Donald Barnhouse, which compounded my take on Perry Miller, that he was equally stilted, that he would initiate a theme and talk about everything else. In this biography however I see he is very funny and not a bit stuffed.
I got this bio as a stopgap before acquiring Edward's The Beauty of the World in Images or Shadows of Divine Things (ed. by Perry in 1948). You have to follow where these trails go. It turns out Edwards is as likable as Perry, much the outsider in his approach, much distance:
"he has reached the limits of language...something hidden. There is a gift held back, some esoteric divination that the listener must make for himself. Edwards' writing is an immense cryptogram...his writings are almost a hoax, not to be read but to be seen through" (50,51).
The trail is discontinuous, continues here: http://thewayintothefloweringheart.bl...
May 22, 2012
Can anyone who has ever taken an American Literature class forget Jonathan Edward's sermon "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God"? I know that I won't--but then hating spiders and hating the thought of Hell as I do, the images he created in that sermon will stick with me forever. Jonathan Edwards was a Puritan minister who was deeply involved in the First Great Awakening. He also came to realize that traditional Puritan religious beliefs were going to be challenged by the works of such philosophers as John Locke and Isaac Newton. Perry Miller presents Edwards both within his Colonial New England environment and as an intellectual wrestling with the changes coming to his world. First published in 1949, this "study of a mind" is a classic.
Displaying 1 - 5 of 5 reviews