This is part II of an ongoing discussion of Jonathan Edwards’ A Treatise Concerning Religious Affections. In case you missed it, please see Part I. Also see the contributions from my friend and conversation partner Andrew Starkey: Part I and Part II.

Q: What is this section about as a whole?

In Part 1, Edwards argued that true religious affections are a necessary component of true religion. However, this raises a question: how may one determine whether such religious affections are ‘true’ or not? Edwards begins to answer this question negatively in part 2, outlining many possible methods for making such a determination, but concluding that each of them is ultimately deficient. In this way, Edwards is clearing the detritus from the building site in order to lay a firm foundation.

Q: What is being said in detail, and how?

Edwards traces 12 possible, but ultimately faulty, rubrics for assessing religious affections. These twelve are surveyed one by one, particularly in the light of Scripture and practical reason, and each is finally rejected. The twelve possibilities are:

1. The magnitude of the affection;
2. The magnitude of physical effects upon the body of the one affected;
3. The affectee is fluent and fervent in talking about religion;
4. The affection is apparently from an external source;
5. The affection is accompanied by Scripture texts being brought to the mind;
6. The affectee presents an appearance of love;
7. Many affections are intertwined and accompany one another;
8. Comfort follows conviction;
9. The affectee is zealously engaged in religion;
10. The affectee praises and glorifies God;
11. The affectee is convinced that their experience is divine; and
12. The affectee has the approval of other saints.

These are not ordered according to any discernible system, though one notes a certain overlap particularly between 3, 9, and 10. Edwards’ method on each point is commonly to argue that the sign is consistent with either true or false religious affections. So, an overwhelmingly large affection may well be a component of a ‘true’ affection; but likewise a ‘false’ affection may be exceedingly powerful in its impact for our enemy is able to simulate such things. Thus, since the sign is consistent with either true or false affections, its presence is insufficient evidence in either direction. What is not clearly discussed is whether the sign’s absence is evidence against the truth of the affection, a point I will return to in the next section.

This idea of ‘counterfeit’ runs like a thread through many of the points Edwards makes. He writes:

It may be observed that the more excellent anything is, the more will be the counterfeits of it. Thus there are many more counterfeits of silver and gold, than of iron and copper: there are many false diamonds and rubies, but who goes about to counterfeit common stones? Though the more excellent things are, the more difficult it is to make anything that shall be like them, in their essential nature and internal virtues; yet the more manifold will the counterfeits be, and the more will art and subtlety be displayed, in an exact imitation of the outward appearance. (969)

Thus, since it is ultimately to the enemy’s advantage to influence the church by means of his own ‘false’ affections, he will work very hard to imitate – in as many particulars as he can – ‘true’ affections. After all, ‘Satan himself masquerades as an angel of light.’ (2 Cor 11:14 NIV) But this leaves us with a question that I hope will be answered in the rest of Edwards’ treatise: what are the attributes of true religious affection and experience that cannot be counterfeited?

Q: Is the section true, in part or in whole?

Edwards’ method is sound, and his conclusions seem supported by the evidence. I thus consider that this section is true. However, as mentioned above, I am left to wonder whether the absence of any of these signs should be taken as evidence against the authenticity of the experience. In particular, if the affectee has no appearance of love (6) or is disapproved by other saints (12) shouldn’t these tell against authenticity?

Q: What of it?

I need to go back and consider my own practices of spiritual discernment. As we have previously discussed, the signs listed above are generally external (although some require revelation by the affectee to become so, such as where certain texts of Scripture are brought to mind), suggesting that the focus is on discerning the affections of others, but I believe that they ought to be practiced on oneself first, and only secondarily on others. As I think over my own life and experience of God, what criteria am I using to evaluate? If any of the points listed above, then that should trigger alarm bells and a closer scrutiny.