Jonathan Edwards Collection: Edwards, Jonathan - Rational Biblical Theology: Chapt 09 The Canon of Scripture

Online Resource Library

Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | Download

Jonathan Edwards Collection: Edwards, Jonathan - Rational Biblical Theology: Chapt 09 The Canon of Scripture



TOPIC: Edwards, Jonathan - Rational Biblical Theology (Other Topics in this Collection)
SUBJECT: Chapt 09 The Canon of Scripture

Other Subjects in this Topic:

Chapter IX

The Canon of Scripture



Having seen that Edwards’ Word of God extended to each word of the Bible critically ascertained, we now ask how far these words extended - the canonical question. This leads us to consider the Old and New Testaments as comprising the one canon, the closing of this canon, and its historical, ecclesiastical determination.



The Old and New Testaments Comprise the Canon

The unity of revelation runs through all Edwards’ discussions of the Bible.



Christ did not give to the world any new moral precepts that were not either expressed or implied in the precepts of the Old Testament and in the Ten Commandments. He did not, as some have supposed, make by his rule some things duty which before were not duty but only revealed some things more fully. *1*



Essentially, Christ brought greater obligation because of God’s love, which he revealed more perfectly. What the whole Bible teaches us is the good news. The Old Testament saints, however, saw things only in an obscure manner through types and prophecies and lived under a legal dispensation of the covenant of grace as well. *2* The church was then only a child, but grace and truth came through Jesus Christ. “Grace is in opposition of the legalness of their (Old Testament saints’) dispensation, and truth is in opposition to shadows.” *3*

The relation of the covenants, Edwards considered the most difficult theme in biblical theology. His own interpretation can be seen from this important note on Jer_31:33 :



“But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; after those days, saith the Lord, I will put my law in their inward parts and write it in their hearts, and I will be their God and they shall be my people.” I think the difference here pointed forth between these two covenants lies plainly here, that in the old covenant God promised to be their God upon condition of hearty obedience; obedience was stipulated as a condition, but not promised. But in the new covenant this hearty obedience is promised. If a man be but of the house of Israel, as by faith he becomes so, God promises expressly in this new dispensation that he shall perform a hearty obedience and so have God for his God. The old covenant they broke, as it is said in the foregoing. The house of Israel, these were called so under the Old Testament, could break that; but the new covenant is such as cannot be broken by the spiritual house of Israel because obedience is one thing that God engages and promises. And therefore this is called an everlasting covenant upon this account as is plain by chapter 32:40. ’Tis true the true saints in the Old Testament could not fall away any more than they can now, but they were not the Old Testament Israel. And though God had engaged in his covenant with Christ that they should not fall away, yet he had not expressly revealed that to them. God had not in those days so plainly revealed the primary and fundamental condition of the covenant of grace, viz., faith; but insisted more upon the secondary condition, universal and persevering obedience, the genuine and certain fruit of faith. *4*



We can see that the covenant of grace in both testaments was identical and that the terms were also. *5* The difference was merely in what was stipulated, or expressed and what is promised. Obedience was essential to the covenant, but it was more emphasized in the Old Testament than in the New and its fulfillment was not promised in the Old Testament as in the New. In traditional phraseology this would be called a “modal” and not “substantial” difference, though this particular modal difference was no commonplace among reformed theologians.

Thomas Boston of Ettrick, Scotland, had written a rather traditional interpretation under the title, View of the Covenant of Grace. Edwards remarked, “I confess I do not understand the scheme of thought presented in that book.” On the other hand, he felt that Boston’s Fourfold State of Man proved him to be “a truly great divine.” *6*

Edwards’ Harmony of the Genius, Spirit, Doctrines and Rules of the Old Testament and the New, unfinished though it was, demonstrated the profound and extensive unity of the two testaments. The first part of this work compared the two testaments on specific teachings. *7* Edwards later shifted to a consideration of various texts of the Old Testament, in canonical order, and compared their doctrines with those of the New Testament. This part, which ran through the Psalms, was entitled, “Particular Texts in the Old Testament which Harmonize with the Doctrines, Precepts, etc. of the New.” *8*

One example is citations of the Old Testament on “love to enemies.” It is perhaps in this area (love and hate), that the greatest difference between the Old and New Testaments is thought to obtain. From the days of Marcion, the ethic of the two testaments is supposed to have been so diverse as to necessitate even different deities as their sources. During the Reformation many Anabaptists found the alleged materialism and eye-for-eye morality of Israel so contrary to the “non-resistance” doctrine of Christ that they denied covenantal continuity. Calvin accused them, therefore, of reducing Israel to a “herd of swine” *9* because he considered them insensitive to the spirituality of the Old Testament saints. The same misunderstanding continues unabated to the present hour. Edwards here shows by a vast selection of passages from the law, history and wisdom literature (not bothering to mention the prophets), that the morality of the Sermon on the Mount and the law of Mt. Sinai illustrate “The Harmony of the Genius, Spirit, Doctrines and Rules of the Old Testament and the New.” Edwards made no reference at all to the New Testament, assuming apparently that Christ’s teaching in the Sermon on the Mount was too well known to need quoting but that the Old Testament teaching was so little understood as to require extensive citation:



Love to enemies, forgiving injuries, doing good for evil, etc.:



Psa_35:13. “But as for me when they were sick my clothing was sackcloth. I humbled myself with fasting - I behaved myself as though he had been my friend or brother, I bowed down heavily as one that mourneth for his mother.”



Psa_37:7-8. “Fret not thyself because of him who prospereth in his way, because of the man who bringeth wicked devices to pass. Cease from anger and forsake wrath. Fret not thyself in any wise to do evil.”



Exo_23:4-5. “If thou meet thine enemies ox or his ass going astray, thou shalt surely bring it back to him again. If thou see the ass of him that hateth thee lying under his burden and wouldst forbear to help him, thou shalt surely help with him.”



Job_31:29-30. “If I rejoiced at the destruction of him that hated me or lifted up myself when evil found him Neither have I suffered my mouth to sin by wishing a curse to his soul.”



Pro_17:5. “He that is glad at calamities shall not be unpunished.”



Pro_24:17-18. “Rejoice not when thine enemy falleth nor let thy heart be glad when he stumbleth lest the Lord see it and it displease him and he turn away his wrath from him.”



Pro_25:21-22. “If thine enemy be hungry, give him bread to eat; and if he be thirsty, give him water to drink. For thou shalt heap coals of fire on his head and the Lord shall reward thee.”



1Sa_10:27. “But the children of Belial said, How shall this man save us; and they despised him and brought him no presents, but he held his peace.”



Isaac’s peaceable behaviour to the injurious Philistines. Gen_26:17, etc.



Jacob’s treatment of Esau. Gen_32:1-32; Gen_33:1-20.



Joseph’s kindness to his brethren who had been so injurious and cruel to him. Observe particularly Gen_45:1-15; Gen_50:15-21.



Moses’s great benevolence and beneficence to the Israelites that were so exceedingly injurious to him and so obstinate in their evil temper.



David’s behaviour to Saul, his bitter persecuting blood-thirsty enemy. Observe particularly, 1Sa_24:17, etc. “And he said unto David, ‘Thou art more righteous than I. For thou hast rewarded me good whereas I have rewarded thee evil, and thou hast shewed this day how thou hast dealt well with thy servant forasmuch as when the Lord had delivered thee [sic] into mine [sic] hand thou killedst me not. For if a man find his enemy, will he let him go well away: Wherefore the Lord reward thee good for that thou hast done to me this day’.” See also chapter 27:7 to the end.



Pro_20:22. “Say not I will recompense evil, but wait on the Lord and he shall save thee.”



Pro_11:23. “The desire of the righteous is only good. But the expectation of the wicked is wrath.”



Pro_11:30. “The fruit of the righteous is a tree of life, and he that winneth souls is wise.”



Pro_12:18. “There is that speaketh like the piercing of a sword. But the tongue of the wise is health.”



1Sa_24:12-13. “The Lord judge between me and thee, and the Lord avenge me of thee. But mine hand shall not be upon thee. As saith the proverb of the ancients, Wickedness proceedeth from the wicked but mine hand shall not be upon thee.” *10*









The Closing of the Canon

Having seen that inspiration extends to the very words of Scripture, “the things that are already dictated to them by the superior wisdom and knowledge of God,” what, we now ask, are the canonical limits of those words? Although Edwards nowhere to our recollection lists the sixty-six books of the Protestant canon, there can be no doubt that he had the very list in mind which was enumerated by his favorite creed, the Westminster Confession. *11* We have already seen that he defended Moses’ Pentateuch as well as the inspiration of the prophets and *Psa_12:1-8* and *Job_13:1-28* If the Old Testament was necessary, how much more the New? If Christ took care that nothing was received into the Old Testament but what was the Word of God, we may assume that the New Testament would not be neglected. *14* It was especially necessary that we have a record of the life of Christ, for we cannot be Christians without it. But the Apostles themselves were not able to receive Christ’s own explanation of His person and work and so the epistles became indispensable. *15* The beginning of the church, the calling of the Gentiles, the coming revolutions in the world required the final book of Revelation. After the Apostles, revelation ceased.

How does Edwards know and prove that the canon closed with the sixty-six books? He was far more concerned with locating the biblical revelation than fixing its limitations. He had preached a whole series of sermons on 1 Corinthians chapter 13 *16* but later realized that the last five verses had to receive special treatment for this very purpose of closing the canon, as it were. This sermon series sequel has never been published, though it is as important historically as theologically. *17*

Edwards was the human center in New England of a great awakening that he himself believed had been unparalleled since apostolic times. His Faithful Narrative of Surprising Conversions was published in New England in 1737 and shortly after in England. By 1739 it had gone through three editions and twenty printings. The Narrative itself became a center for further surprising conversions in England and Scotland as well as New England. Edwards and many others believed that this awakening was the likely harbinger of the coming millennium.

The conversions may have been surprising, but it is not at all surprising that the charismata or claims to the charismata should appear along with the conversions. What, therefore, Edwards thought about them and related psychological phenomena is interesting for the New England of the eighteenth century and hardly less for the charismatic movement of the times in which we live. The awakening then was greater and the claim to charismata less, while the awakening is less in our time and the claims to charismata more frequent. What concerns us here is the role of the charismata in closing the canon.

I will first attempt to understand Jonathan Edwards’ view of the charismata. Next, I will consider the role of miracles in general and that of the miraculous charismata. We shall then note Edwards’ view that the charismata have permanently ceased, never to reappear even in the millennium, although claims were made for them in the age following the Reformation and in Edwards’ own time. Finally, we will note that this cessation of charismata marked the cessation of miracles; and that marked the cessation of biblical revelation - in a word, the closing of the canon.



The Charismata



1. The Definition of the Charismata

The charismata were miraculous gifts of the Holy Spirit. Edwards distinguishes the gifts of the Spirit into common and saving and into ordinary and extraordinary. The “common” influences include convictions, illuminations, some religious affections and the like; while, on the other hand, saving faith and love are peculiar to the godly. *18*

More to our concern is the distinction between the extraordinary and the ordinary gifts of the Holy Spirit:



Second. Another distinction which divines make of the gifts of the Spirit are of extraordinary and ordinary. The extraordinary gifts of the Spirit are the same with miraculous gifts; such as gifts of prophecy and working miracles, and others mentioned by the Apostle in the text and other parts of the epistle. These are called extraordinary gifts of the Spirit, because they are such as are not given in the ordinary course of God’s providence. They are not bestowed in a way of God’s ordinary providential dealings with his children; but only on extraordinary occasions, as they were bestowed on the prophets and apostles to enable them to reveal the mind and will of God before the canon of Scripture was complete. And so they were bestowed on the primitive church in order to the founding and establishing the Christian church in the world. But since the canon of the Scripture has been completed, and the Christian church fully founded and established, those extraordinary gifts have ceased. The ordinary gifts of the Spirit are such as are continued to the church of God throughout all ages; such gifts as are granted in conviction and conversion, and such as appertain to the building up of saints in holiness and comfort. *19*



In other words, for Edwards the “extraordinary” or miraculous gifts of the Holy Spirit are what we today commonly designate the charismata. The “ordinary” gifts are the gifts of conversion and the spiritual states associated therewith - what we sometimes call “miracles of grace.”

In the later manuscript sermons on 1Co_13:8-13, Edwards relates the charismata or extraordinary gifts more especially to immediate revelation. This is the stress at the beginning and end of the long triple sermon. We shall see later that many in his own day were claiming to see truth not merely in but alongside the Bible and to have the power of discerning the state of their own hearts and the hearts of others. This is what led Edwards to charge them with claiming these extraordinary gifts of the Spirit which consisted originally in immediate revelation, including supernatural discernment which Edwards thought had ceased, to continue.

It seems a strange combination of words, but for Edwards “extraordinary” miraculous gifts are “common” gifts (in the sense of not being restricted to the godly but held in common with all mankind). Charismata are “extraordinary” gifts of the Spirit. He believed that “Many bad men have had these gifts. . . . [Mat_7:22]” *20* Nevertheless, it is a great privilege for any person to have the extraordinary gift. It is a greater privilege than the enjoyment of the outward means of grace. Daniel, for example, was advanced to greater honor than all the wise men, magicians, astrologers, and soothsayers of Babylon, in consequence of these extraordinary gifts which God bestowed upon him. Edwards gives many other instances of the prestige and favor that followed the possession of these gifts by many of God’s servants. For, after all, it is usually a mark of special divine favor on God’s part and a sign of the sanctity and eminence as saints. It is only as exceptions that the unconverted have this privilege. *21*

As noted, the unconverted did on occasion receive these “common” “extraordinary” gifts of tongues, discernment of spirits and the like, which we today normally associate with the charismata. According to Edwards’ usage, any “extraordinary” or miraculous gift of the Spirit, which did not necessarily imply conversion, fits the definition.

In Charity and Its Fruits, Edwards explains how “faith” and even “love” in 1Co_13:13 are “extraordinary” “common” charismatic gifts. This unusual interpretation is as follows:



Besides these there are the common and ordinary gifts of the Spirit of God which in all ages have been bestowed on many natural men; such as common convictions of sin, common illuminations, common religious affections, which, though they have nothing of the nature of divine love or true and saving grace, yet are the fruits of the Spirit or the effects of his influence on the hearts of men. And as to faith and hope, if there be nothing of divine love within them, there can be no more in them which is from the Spirit of God than what is common to natural men, as the Apostle in this chapter says: “Though I have faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing.” Saving faith and hope have love as an ingredient in them and as the essence of them. And take out this ingredient, and what remains is but the body without the spirit. It is nothing, seeing it is at most but a common fruit of the Spirit. *22*



Again, Edwards says essentially the same thing with reference to “common,” “extraordinary,” “knowledge.” *23* This matter is so important that we will enter one of Edwards’ Notes on the Scriptures showing his exegesis of 1Co_13:13 as referring faith, hope and even love to the status of “common” charismata:



[304] 1Co_13:13. “And now abideth faith, hope, charity; these three, but the greatest of these is charity.” The apostle in this place is not comparing these together as three distinct graces, but gifts of the Spirit of God. They cannot be properly three distributively distinct graces, or saving virtues, because charity or love is the sum of all saving virtue, as abundantly appears from the foregoing part of the chapter and from innumerable other places of Scripture. Love is an ingredient in saving faith and is the most essential thing in it, is its life and soul, and so it is in hope. The apostle is here comparing gifts of the Spirit and not graces, as is manifest from the last verse of the foregoing chapter and the former verses of this and the beginning of the next; what is in faith and hope, which is distinct from love, which are principles or exercises of mind that are called also by those names of faith and hope, though they are not Christian and saving faith and hope, yet they are principles that are gifts of God. And in those three gifts of the mind, Faith, Hope, and Love, are the three gifts into which all Christianity, as a principle in the mind, is to be resolved.

The first, viz., Faith, as distinct from love, hath its seat purely in the understanding and consists in the understanding of divine things and an apprehension of the reality. Hope, if we mean that hope that is distinct from love, has its seat both in the understanding and natural will or inclination and apprehends not only the reality of divine things, but our interest in them.

Love has its seat in the spiritual will and apprehends divine things as amiable. And in these three consists the whole of that respect that the mind of man has to divine things wherein the Christianity of the mind consists; and those three, when joined together and united in one, constitute saving faith or the soul’s savingly embracing Christ and Christianity. But of these three constituents of justifying faith, love is the greatest; the other two are the body, that is, the soul. *24*



So we see that for Edwards, charismata are extraordinary common gifts - not graces - of the Holy Spirit. When even faith, hope and love are interpreted as gifts rather than graces, here the extraordinary “common” comes very close to the extraordinary “saving” and makes distinction almost impossible.

Bodily effects may or may not have been the consequence of the Spirit’s influence. They cannot be proven to have been such or not to have been such. In his various writings on the revival Edwards treats this subject with critical care. To The Reverend Charles Chauncy and the Old Lights to the left and to The Reverend James Davenport and the Enthusiasts to the right, he responds cautiously. To the condemnation of both groups Edwards argues that bodily effects are neuters that ought not to be used as counters for or against the Awakening. Commenting on the revival of 1740, Edwards notes the greater appearance of visible accompaniments that led in some instance to conversion. *25* He maintained that these effects in themselves did not indicate a work of the Spirit of God, but they may have been His work and may be carried through ideally to the conversion of the person on whom the Spirit was thus working.

Apparently, the Awakening settled down to a more normal and less visible pattern. However,



in the year 1742, it was otherwise: the work continued more pure till we were infected from abroad: our people hearing of, and some of them seeing, the work in other places, where there was a greater visible commotion than here, and the outward appearances were more extraordinary, were ready to think that the work in those places far excelled what was amongst us, and their eyes were dazzled with the high profession and great show that some made, who came hither from other places. *26*



It was during this period that Edwards’ wife, Sarah, had her own exceptional “bodily effects” which her husband requested her to record. *27* Of these experiences of his wife, the “puritan sage” comments that “if such things are enthusiasm and the offspring of a distempered brain, let my brain be possessed evermore of that happy distemper. If this be distraction, I pray God that the world of mankind may all be seized with this benign, meek, beneficient, beatific, glorious distraction.” *28*

If Edwards’ wife’s and others’ experiences (such as he mentions in Faithful Narrative and later in Some Thoughts on Revival), were examples of bodily effects and feelings that were deemed possible evidence of the presence of the Holy Spirit, still others seemed to be moved by an unholy spirit. The first Awakening in 1734-1735 was virtually terminated when “Uncle Hawley,” who belonged to a family with traces of mental instability, committed suicide in response to an imagined voice saying, “Cut your throat.” Edwards preached a poignant fast-day sermon for the occasion on Rom_5:6 : “We are all in ourselves utterly without any strength or power to help ourselves.” *29*



After this, multitudes in this and other towns seemed to have it strongly suggested to them and pressed upon them to do as this person had done. And many that seemed to be under no melancholy, some pious persons that had no special darkness or doubts about the goodness of their state, nor were under any special trouble or concern of mind about anything spiritual or temporal, yet had it urged upon them, as if somebody had spoke to them, “Cut your own throat, now is the good opportunity: now, NOW!” So that they were obliged to fight with all their might to resist it, and yet no reason suggested to them why they should do it. *30*



Likewise, the revival began well in 1740 and 1741 but degenerated in 1742 and 1743. *31*

In Religious Affections spiritual knowledge is contrasted with “enthusiasm,” a form of spurious knowledge. “Enthusiasm,” Edwards insists, really is a delusion of Satan. Never does a revival occur without the devil planting his enthusiastic bastard children among the true disciples to confuse the work of God:



’Tis by such sort of religion as this chiefly that Satan transforms himself into an angel of light; and it is that which he has ever most successfully made use of to confound hopeful and happy revivals of religion, from the beginning of the Christian church to this day. When the Spirit of God is poured out to begin a glorious work, then the old serpent, as fast as possible and by all means, introduces this bastard religion and mingles it with the true, which has from time to time soon brought all things into confusion. The pernicious consequence of it is not easily imagined or conceived of, ’till we see and are amazed with the awful effects of it and the dismal desolation it has made. If the revival of true religion be very great in its beginning, yet if this bastard comes in, there is danger of its doing as Gideon’s bastard Abimelech did, who never left till he had slain all his three-score and ten true-born sons, excepting one, that was forced to flee. *32*



These spurious gifts, as Edwards judged, were not confined to later ages. Even in the days of the Apostles there were those who professed to have the Holy Spirit but were carnal. “There was a sort of persons in the Apostles’ days who separated themselves from the steady ministers and churches that pretended to have the Spirit and to be very spiritual, but who really were carnal and had not the Spirit of God.” *33* Indeed the Corinthians themselves who abounded in gifts tended to be carnal Christians. *34*

A number of reasons are given for this assertion that grace in the heart is more excellent than any charismatic gift:

1. This blessing is a quality inherent in the nature of him that is the subject of it. *35* 2. “The Spirit of God communicates itself much more in bestowing saving grace than in bestowing those extraordinary gifts.” *36* 3. This grace bestowed is that in which the spiritual image of God consists. *37* 4. This grace is bestowed only on God’s own children. *38* 5. The fruit or effects of this grace is “infinitely more excellent” *39* than the other. 6. Happiness also follows from grace but not from gifts. **Mat_7:1-29. “This gift of the Spirit, which is the fruit of the ordinary influence of the Spirit in the saints, is the end [goal] of all extraordinary gifts of the Holy Ghost.” *41*

Continuing his argument for the superiority of the saving influences of the Holy Spirit to the extraordinary but non-saving, Edwards says that the extraordinary gifts so far from profiting apart from the grace of love “will but aggravate the condemnation of those who have them.” *42* After referring to Judas as a case in point, Edwards appeals to Heb_6:4-6 as evidence that some of those who have had the charismata apostatized and thereupon could never again be forgiven. A little later in this discussion Edwards concludes, observing that these two kinds of privileges are not to be confounded. *43*

Having shown the superiority of graces to charismatic gifts, Edwards shows why this is so:



I shall give but one reason of the doctrine.

The great reason why it is so that other fruits of the Spirit fail and this remains is this is the end of those other fruits of the Spirit. The principle and the exercises of divine love in the heart, and the fruits of it in behavior, and the happiness which consists in it are the end of all those other fruits of the Spirit which fail. Divine love is the end of which all the inspiration and all the miracles which ever were in the world were but the means. Those were only certain means of grace, but divine love is the grace; it is itself the sum of all grace. Revelations and miracles were never given for any other end but only to promote the setting up and building up of Christ’s kingdom in men’s hearts; but divine love is the sum of all holiness. . . . Those extraordinary fruits of the Spirit were given for revealing and confirming the mind and will of God, that men by holiness might be conformed to that will. So that they are useful or good no further than they tend to this end; and therefore, when the end is obtained, the canon of the Scripture, the great and principal means of grace, is completed, and the ordinances of the New Testament, the last dispensation, are fully established, these gifts cease, as being no further useful. *44*



The later separate sermons on 1Co_13:8-13, although dealing with the temporary character of the charismata, take the same position with reference to spiritual graces that is virtually the main theme of the earlier, now published, series on 1Co_13:1-13, that graces are much superior to gifts. We see, then, that for Edwards, charismata are “extraordinary” “common” gifts not to be confused with mere bodily effects (which may be good or bad), nor with spiritual graces which are always good and the true goal of the charismata. *45*



2. The Function of the Charismata.

We have presented this lengthy discussion of the nature of charismata in order to see their significance for the closing of the canon to which we now come. Miracles for Edwards were proofs or seals of divine revelation. People in his day, as in ours, were beginning to offer an apology for miracles rather than with them. He found it necessary to say that spiritual persons were not really above the need for proof of their religious declarations. Even Christ, he observed, had urged his disciples to believe him for his works’ sake. *46* When Christ commissioned His apostles He sent them out equipped with power to produce miracles. This was necessary and especially appropriate at the beginning of a new dispensation. *47* If miracles were not necessary, why were they so considered by Christ?

Miracles, then, are proof of revelation. Revelation claims, apart from miracles, cannot be proven completely. There were many such claimed revelations in his own day, said Edwards, but few alleged miracles. In the absence of miracles, revelation claims were mere pretensions. The reason there are so many pretended revelations and so few pretended miracles is, the Yankee skeptic conjectured, because miracles are not so easy to fake. *48*

Speaking specifically of the charismatic miracles, Edwards says that these too were proofs of revelation. They were especially designed for that purpose, not for the edification of saints so much as for the convicting of sinners. *49*

They were to prove divine revelation and thus establish the ultimate means of grace which is the Bible. In other words, the purpose of gifts is grace, Eph_4:11. Charismata are not necessary for anything else. The gift of prophecy, in particular, made up what was lacking in the childhood of the church until the canon was complete. When it was complete these charismatic attestations were no longer necessary, as the canon became the complete rule of faith. Having said this, Edwards launches into his lengthy proof that the canon indeed is complete and the function of the charismata accomplished.



3. The Cessation of the Charismata

“The extraordinary influence of the Spirit of God imparting immediate revelations to men was designed only for a temporary continuance.” These gifts have ceased, and the reason they have is that they have served their purpose. They were given for a temporary use during the church’s minority, and since the church has grown up these gifts have appropriately disappeared. While the canon was still incomplete, immediate revelations were in order and were demonstrated by the continuing miraculous activity of God in giving further chapters to the book of Scripture. This observation leads Edwards to an important capsule biblical history of the charismata climaxing in the “era of miracles” - the century from the birth of Christ to the death of the Apostle John. “But soon after that, the canon of Scripture being completed . . . these miraculous gifts were no longer continued in the church.” *50*

This discussion ultimately brings Edwards to his fundamental philosophy of the two-fold cessation of the two-fold charismata:



There is a two-fold imperfect, and so a two-fold perfect state of the Christian church. The Christian church in its beginning, in its first age before it was thoroughly established in the world, and settled in its New Testament state, and before the canon of the Scripture was completed, was in an imperfect state, a kind of state of childhood in comparison with what it will be in the elder and latter ages of the church, when it will be in a state of manhood, or a perfect state in comparison with what it was in the first ages. Again, the church of Christ, as long as it remains in its militant state, and to the end of time is in an imperfect state, a state of childhood, and as the Apostle says in the eleventh verse, thinks and speaks as a child, in comparison with what it will be in the heavenly state, when it comes to a state of manhood and perfection, and to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ.



And so there is a twofold failing of those other gifts of the Spirit here mentioned. One is at the end of the first and infant age of the Christian church when the canon of Scripture is complete; and so there are none of them remaining in the church in its later ages, when it shall put away childish things and be in a state of manhood before the end of the world, when the Spirit of God shall be most gloriously poured out and manifested in that love and charity, which is its greatest and everlasting fruit. And again, all common fruits of the Spirit cease at the end of the militant state of the church with respect to particular persons at death, and with respect to the whole church at the end of the world. But charity remains in heaven. There the Spirit shall be poured forth in perfect love into every heart.



The Apostle seems to have respect to both these; but especially the latter. For though the glorious state of the church in its latter age be perfect in comparison with its former state, yet its state in heaven is that state of the church to which the things which the Apostle here says are most applicable, when he says, “when that which is perfect is come, that which is in part shall be done away.” “Now we see through a glass darkly, but then face to face; now I know in part, but then shall I know even as also I am known.” *51*



As was incidentally intimated in the sections cited above, when the canon was closed the charismata proper were over for Edwards. Their function was to call attention to this revelation. When this revelation was fully given they would and did naturally cease. It is evident, therefore, that the concept of a closed canon is vital for Edwards (though it may be said in passing that miracles did not immediately end with the closing of the canon, but gradually ceased as those who had this gift gradually disappeared from the scene by death). *52*

The closed character of the canon is so important to Edwards that he devotes no less than twenty-six pages and nine arguments to this theme in his most important discussion of the cessation of the charismata. *53* First, the Bible itself never foretells any further revelation. Second, the church is founded on the Prophets and Apostles. Third, the words of the Apostles were given as the rule for all succeeding ages. Fourth, the conclusion of the Bible in John’s revelation indicates that the canon is closed. Fifth, no church has ever since claimed any further canonical revelation. Sixth, miracles have ceased and not been revived. Seventh and eighth refer specifically to Dan_9:27 and Heb_1:1-2 as textual indications of a closed canon. Ninth, claimed post-apostolic “miracles” have failed to convince.

Although the charismata proper ceased with the closing of the canon, this has not prevented some from continuing to claim their continuance. Charismata may cease, but claims do not. This was true of the period after the Reformation, the first post-apostolic era in which claims to charismata are mentioned by Edwards. In his unpublished sermon series he gives these comments in this very sketchy outline form:



And it must be dreadful sin to refuse

And at the same time he has given his church no certain marks to distinguish.

Now how lamentable is the case what a door is opened to Satan

How is the church of God like a city brought (?) down and without walls exposed continually to its worst enemies

How unreasonable is it to suppose that God of wisdom and right and the faithful and merciful Father of his church would order things thus. *54*



Separatists in Edwards’ eighteenth-century New England were claiming extraordinary gifts of the Holy Spirit. *55* It was not apparently because they were separatists that they believed in continuing charismata but because they believed in continuing charismata that they became separatists. Edwards himself in Northampton and as he itinerated claimed to have “seen much in this country.” *56* He refers cryptically to a “late extraordinary day.” *57* Generally, he classifies all such claims as delusions of Satan.

One of those delusions of Satan that troubled Edwards was the testimony of many that along with the reading of Scripture a certain impression of truth came which was construed as a communication from God. *58* The devil can suggest words of Scripture “and might make men believe that God sends those words to us.” *59* This delusion Edwards analyzed as a counterfeit of the “knowledge” of 1Co_13:8, a long-ceased extraordinary gift of the Holy Spirit. Now that the revelation of Scripture was fully given, we are to learn from the Bible itself, not by an immediate revelation alongside it. Likewise, voices thought to be heard were delusions. These all amounted to additions to a Scripture which long ago had closed its pages, says Edwards in this very sketchy outline:



Argument 9. The pretended revela[tions] that have been since the primitive times of the Christian church.

So many of them have failed and passed [for] naught.

Many of the fairest and brightest of them.

There were multitudes that pretended to revela[tions] soon after the Reformation.

Their language and behaviour very much like that of such pretenders in these days.

Pretended to great spirituality.

Separated from regular ministers.

From the greatest Reformers that they for a while followed.

Pretended they were carnal and called all that did not cleave to them anti-Christ.

Great love and humility.

Great assurance.

Said God was going to set up a new dispensation.

Pretended to abundance of revelation.

Predictions.

But it proved most evidently at last to be a spirit of delusion.

So in England in Oliver Cromwell’s time.

Afterward a sect arose first in France. Afterwards many of them appeared in England. Called the French prophets.

So in the first times in New England.

And in these latter days. I have had opportunity to see multitudes of instances.

Wonderful impressions(?) with texts of Scripture.

High religious affections.

Indeed such things have been notorious all over the country.

God has remarkable frowned in his providence on all pretenses - since the primitive times.

Here if any object that some predictions of such as have pretended have remarkably come to pass,

This is no proof.

I have known many dreams.

That rule in Deu_13:1-18. Latter end.

Is not that if any come to pass they shall be looked upon as true prophets; but if any of the predictions of pretended prophets fail, it is a sign they are false prophets.

’Tis evident multitudes of the pretended revelations of those pretenders of the fairest and brightest of them and those that others of them have acknowledged and followed have failed.

Now if we suppose that some of these pretenders have true _____ and others that make as specious a pretense have not _____ how shall mankind distinguish when God does not give the seal of miracles to any? If this be supposed, that God does now in these days give to some revelations to be declared to others,

Let us consider what will be the consequences _____. If he gives _____ to be declared to others, then he doubtless requires that others should regard it as his word. *60*



“Discerning of spirits,” whether in oneself or in others, was another form of the claimed revival of charismata that characterized Edwards’ own time and was vigorously opposed by him, even in George Whitefield.



This should make persons exceedingly cautious how they give heed to anything which looks like revelation, or any extraordinary gift of the Spirit. If any persons have any impression on their mind, as though something were immediately revealed to them which would come to pass concerning themselves or concerning their children, or others, or that anything is come to pass which before was hid from them, and if it were not revealed would still remain a secret; if they think the state of the soul of any person is revealed to them, or of their own souls, in any other way than by discerning the works and evidences of grace in their hearts; or if they imagine they have immediate direction from heaven to go and do thus or thus, by any impression immediately made on their minds any otherwise than as they learn it to be their duty by Scripture with reason; or imagine that God reveals any future thing immediately in a dream: these things, if they were from God’s Spirit, would be of the nature of those extraordinary gifts of the Spirit which the Apostle says do cease, fail, and are done away, and which long since failed; and which we have no reason to think God is about to restore; at least not without [a season] of miracles which have always hitherto accompanied a pouring out of the Spirit in extraordinary gifts after a considerable cessation. *61*



So we see that there is no question what Edwards thought of contemporary claims to charismata - they were nothing other than misguided claims to the long-ended extraordinary gifts of the Spirit. But what would he think of such claims in our day? There can be no doubt that if we claim these “extraordinary” “common” (miraculous) charismatic gifts, Edwards would think we too are mistaken. For Edwards, even in the millennium (which no one, except the a-millennialist, thinks we are yet into), the charismata will not be revived. His reasoning is as follows:



If it be as we have heard [that saving grace is more excellent than the extraordinary gifts of the Spirit], then we cannot conclude from what the Scripture says of the gloriousness of the future times of the church that in those times there will be any extraordinary gifts of the Spirit of God. *62*



So Edwards himself closed and sealed the canon at the sixty-six books. At least, if any other inspired books were ever given, the church could not certainly recognize them because no miraculous test has been forthcoming - and will not be even in the halcyon Latter Days. Edwards could never imagine God giving an addition to the inspired canon after he had already closed it and then with no way by which his people could see that He had re-opened it. We turn now to the way the church recognized the completion of the canon.

It was not until M 1060, surprisingly late in Edwards’ life, that he turned to a rather full scrutiny of the history of the canon. If he did not do this earlier, it was probably because he was doing it implicitly. That is to say, in determining the biblical revelation internally and externally he was fixing the canon. If the criteria can be determined, the extent is ipso facto determined. If we know what defines the revelation, we know what confines the canon. We need not discuss M 1060 here, it being rather conventional as the argument for closing the canon (discussed above) was not. Rather we conclude with another aspect of the canonical issue: levels of inspiration within the canon.

Granted that for Edwards the sixty-six books of the Bible constituted the divinely inspired and inerrant canon, were there no varieties or levels of inspiration? “There are doubtless various degrees of inspiration.” There is a difference between things written by those under immediate inspiration of the Spirit and those under His direction. Writing in his interleaved Bible, Edwards approaches Luther’s type of Scriptural evaluation: these epistles [of Paul] and that of John are the most important. He also notes Perkins’ advice to read Romans from chapter 12 to the end and then go to the beginning. Justification and predestination he considers the most difficult themes. In general, Romans and the Fourth Gospel are the most important parts of the Bible.

Although for Edwards all of Scripture is given by divine inspiration, God accomplishes this in at least two different ways, “immediate inspiration” and “divine direction”:



It is to be observed, that we ought to distinguish between those things which were written in the sacred books by the immediate inspiration of the Holy Spirit and those which were only committed to writing by the direction of the Holy Spirit. To the former class belong all the mysteries of salvation, or all those things which respect the means of our deliverance taught in the gospel, which could not be known from the principles of reason, and therefore must be revealed. But to the other class those things belong which either are already known from natural religion, but are of service to inculcate duty on man and to demonstrate the necessity of a revelation of the means of salvation, or are histories, useful to illustrate and to assure us of the doctrines revealed, and which point out the various degrees of revelation, the different dispensations of salvation, and the various modes of governing the church of God, all of which are necessary to be known in the further explanation of mysteries. *63*



However God accomplished the inspiration of the Bible, He accomplished it, and for Jonathan Edwards that was his golden cage.