Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadJonathan Edwards Collection: Edwards, Jonathan - Rational Biblical Theology: Chapt 13 cont 2
TOPIC: Edwards, Jonathan - Rational Biblical Theology (Other Topics in this Collection)
SUBJECT: Chapt 13 cont 2
Other Subjects in this Topic:
(5) 1751-58
We need not review these sermons which were largely a re-use of earlier Northampton sermons and outlines preached to the Indians. It was Edwards’ relative freedom from sermon preparation that afforded him time for the major dissertations on which his fame mainly rests.
Edwards’ Preaching Message
Edwards’ preaching covered the whole Bible. Hardly a single item of revelation was neglected. I will note here only four themes to which he paid unique attention. A fifth, seeking salvation, will be reserved for much fuller treatment in Volume II of this work.
(1) The Sovereignty of God
Edwards did not shrink from declaring the “whole counsel of God.” (Act_20:27) Predestination and the awesome doctrine of reprobation were taught. He would write out, analyze, define and debate these doctrines with sharp finesse and at the same time preach them with startling clarity to ordinary people. All the trappings of scholarship and the technical points of debate eliminated, his congregation was spared none of the essential points.
For example, his sermon on Rom_9:18 is entitled, “God exercises his sovereignty in the eternal salvation of men.” *98* He explains, “God can either bestow salvation on any of the children of men, or refuse it, without any prejudice to the glory of any of his attributes. . . .” *99* Edwards did refer to the Bible which he preached as that “awful book.” *100* The Bible teaches the double destiny of men. God justly designates some to everlasting damnation as He mercifully chooses others to salvation through Christ.
Though Edwards’ own conversion narrative is often referred to, that it turned upon his acquiescence in both decrees is rarely observed:
From my childhood up, my mind had been full of objections against the doctrine of God’s sovereignty, in choosing whom he would to eternal life, and rejecting whom he pleased; leaving them eternally to perish, and be everlastingly tormented in hell. It used to appear like a horrible doctrine to me. But I remember the time very well, when I seemed to be convinced, and fully satisfied, as to this sovereignty of God, and his justice in thus eternally disposing of men, according to his sovereign pleasure. But never could give an account, how, or by what means, I was thus convinced, not in the least imagining at the time, nor a long time after, that there was any extraordinary influence of God’s Spirit in it; but only that now I saw further, and my reason apprehended the justice and reasonableness of it. However, my mind rested in it; and it put an end to all those cavils and objections. And there has been a wonderful alteration in my mind, in respect to the doctrine of God’s sovereignty, from that day to this; so that I scarce ever have found so much as the rising of an objection against it, in the most absolute sense, in God’s shewing mercy to whom he will shew mercy, and hardening whom he will. God’s absolute sovereignty and justice, with respect to salvation and damnation, is what my mind seems to rest assured of, as much as of any thing that I see with my eyes; at least it is so at times. But I have often, since that first conviction, had quite another kind of sense of God’s sovereignty than I had then. I have often since had not only a conviction, but a delightful conviction. The doctrine has very often appeared exceeding pleasant, bright, and sweet. Absolute sovereignty is what I love to ascribe to God. But my first conviction was not Song of Solomon *101*
(2) Terror Preaching
It is in this context of Edwards’ own experience of the wrath of God that his preaching of hell is best understood. Edwards pictured “the kind of hell an infinite God would arrange who was infinitely enraged against a human being who had infinitely sinned in rejecting God’s infinite love.” “It is true,” says Clarence Henry Faust, “that Edwards was much more than a sensational preacher of hell-fire sermons, but no fully rounded picture of the man can disregard that aspect of his work.” *102* Joseph Haroutunian in his Piety Versus Moralism also acknowledges that Edwards meant what he preached. *103*
While others may have preached this doctrine as often or as vividly as Edwards, none of them, in their sermons apparently ever approached the rational demonstrations of Edwards. The same deep rational metaphysic and theology proper is evident in his hell-fire pulpit. What must have been especially terrifying to Edwards’ audience listening to his merciless pictorial representations of the pit was the realization that they were not hearing a sensationalistic ranter striving for an effect, but a prodigious and cool intellect driven by the purest moral earnestness seeking to approach some adequacy of representation for a transcendently awful fact.
“’Tis in itself most rational to suppose that wicked men should be most extremely and eternally miserable in another world” *104* is typical of Edwards’ rationalistic hell sermons. Edwards plunges into his argument, first showing the rightness of sinners being punished, and then of their being extremely and eternally miserable. In support of punishment in another world, he advances the point that there is no adequate or proportionate punishment in this world. Some of the most wicked have the least evidence of divine wrath; some of the least wicked have most evidence. He apparently agrees with Augustine’s sentiment that there is just enough judgment in this world to indicate that there will be a greater one in the world to come, but not enough judgment here to make judgment in the next world unnecessary.
Supposing a righteous God must punish wicked men, how does Edwards argue that this punishment must be eternal? Sin, he says, is enmity against the Giver of all being. It is rational to suppose that this would incur the hatred of this great Being and that this Being’s hatred and wrath would be as infinite as He is. The sermon on Rom_3:19 enters somewhat thoroughly into this difficult theme.
Sereno Dwight wrote that the discourses that, beyond measure more than any others that Edwards preached, had an immediate saving effect were several from Rom_3:19.
The sermon . . . literally stops the mouth of every reader, and compels him, as he stands before his Judge, to admit, if he does not feel, the justice of his sentence. I know not where to find, in any language, a discourse so well adapted to strip the impenitent sinner of every excuse, to convince him of his guilt, and to bring him low before the justice and holiness of God. According to the estimate of Mr. Edwards, it was far the most powerful and effectual of his discourses, and we scarcely know of any other sermon which has been favoured with equal success. *105*
This is the only sermon on Romans which was published in Edwards’ lifetime. Its popular title is “The Justice of God in the Damnation of Sinners.” *106* Edwards’ actual doctrine is: “’Tis just with God eternally to cast off, and destroy sinners.” *107*
The sermon begins with a review of the first part of the epistle to the Romans. Edwards reminds us that this part of Paul’s letter was written to show that all men stood condemned, Gentiles and Jews alike. The words of 3:19 sum it all up: “That every mouth may be stopped.” From this Edwards moves to his doctrine, which he develops by two considerations: man’s sinfulness and God’s sovereignty.
First of all, the “infinitely evil nature of all sin” is shown. This is argued by saying that “a crime is more or less heinous, according as we are under greater or lesser obligations to the contrary” and then going on to maintain that “our obligation to love, honor, and obey any being, is in proportion to his loveliness, honorableness, and authority.” *108* From this it is quickly apparent that there is infinite obligation to obey God and that disobedience is infinitely heinous and, if infinitely heinous, deserves infinite punishment. In answer to an objection against such punishment on the ground of the certainty of sin, Edwards presents a principle that is the thesis of his great treatise on the Freedom of the Will: “The light of nature teaches all mankind, that when an injury is voluntary, it is faulty, without any manner of consideration at what there might be previously to determine the futurition of that evil act of the will.” *109*
Next Edwards considers the sovereignty of God in the punishment of sinners. First, God’s sovereignty relieved God of any obligation to keep men from sinning, in the first creation. Second, it was also God’s right to determine whether every man should be tried individually or by a representative. After the Fall, God had a sovereign right to redeem or not to redeem, and to redeem whom he pleased if he pleased. The rest of the sermon, approximately one fourth, is given over to a probing application which, it was not surprising, found out many. Much of it is a development of the opening words, “This may be matter of conviction to you, that it would be just and righteous with God eternally to reject and destroy you.” *110* Edwards ends with great encouragement to the redeemed.
Edwards himself gives the cue to his eschatological preaching. Speaking of the imprecations of the Bible, he observes:
We cannot think that those imprecations we find in the Psalms and Prophets, were out of their own hearts; for cursing is spoken of as a very dreadful sin in the Old Testament; and David, whom we hear oftener than any other praying for vengeance on his enemies, by the history of his life, was of a spirit very remote from spiteful and revengeful. . . . And some of the most terrible imprecations that we find in all the Old Testament, are in the New spoken of as prophetical, even those in the 109th Psalm; as in Act_1:20. . . . They wish them ill, not as personal, but as public enemies to the church of God. *111*
Apparently, therefore, Edwards regarded himself as the spokesman of God in these sermons. He warned, in God’s name, of what would happen to the impenitent; he does not himself wish it to happen.
As a matter of fact, and herein Edwards suffers most unfairly, all evidence tends to indicate that his fervent preaching of hell stemmed hardly more from his obedience to God than from his deep love to mankind. Believing in the reality of hell for the sinner, what would a benevolent man do but everything in his power to warn against such an awful retribution? Some of the exhortations of Edwards are the most drawn-out, pathetic appeals to the unconverted that can be found in preaching. This is not the spirit of sadism. Ironically, if Edwards, believing as he did, had been a sadist, he would never have mentioned perdition. It is satanic to keep such knowledge from those in danger.
If it be granted that Edwards preached his imprecatory sermons because he believed God ordained his preachers to warn men about perdition, we would still expect him to probe the purpose of God in this. Nor are we disappointed - he has much to say about the strategy of preaching perdition, but, in a word, his reasoning appears to be: hell is about all of spiritual reality that can affect an unconverted man. Self-interest, his motivating principle, would concern him to avoid such a doom. But alas even hell will not teach most men until they go there:
Consider what is the course that God will take to teach those who will not be taught by the instructions of his word. He will teach them by briers and thorns, and by the flames of hell. Though natural men will remain to all eternity ignorant of the excellency and loveliness of God’s nature, and so will have no spiritual knowledge; yet God in another world will make them thoroughly to understand many things, which senseless unawakened sinners are sottishly ignorant of in this world. Their eyes in many respects shall be thoroughly opened in hell. Their judgments will be rectified. They shall be of the same judgments with the godly. They shall be convinced of the reality of those things which they would not be convinced of here; as the being of God; his power, holiness, and justice; that the Scriptures are the word of God; that Christ is the Son of God; and that time is short and uncertain. They will be convinced of the vanity of the world; of the blessed opportunity they had in the world; and how much it is men’s wisdom to improve their time. We read of the rich man, who was so sottishly blind in this world, that “in hell he lift up his eyes, and saw Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom.” [Luk_16:23] With many men, alas! the first time they open their eyes is in hell. *112*
In an early sermon on Heb_9:12 he informed Northhampton:
The consideration of hell commonly is the first thing that rouses sleeping sinners. By this means their sins are set in order before them. And their conscience stares them in the face, and they begin to see their need of a priest and sacrifice. *113*
Most wicked men who have heard of hell have internal uneasiness. *114* On the other hand, a principal means of being lost is thinking there will be no punishment. *115*
Many of Edwards’ sermons illustrate his use of this doctrine in evangelistic preaching. The sermon on Jud_1:13 is an example. “The wicked in another world shall eternally be overwhelmed with the most dismal and perfect gloominess of mind.” This theme is followed by a searching application after which the preacher has his people asking, What shall we do? His answer is, Be born again. The sermon on Mat_23:33 on the rationality of eternal punishment follows the same procedure. In the application Edwards shows the necessity of the new birth. Unlike most modern evangelists, who would either let the matter rest once they had advised men to be born again or would assure them, in Arminian fashion, that they would be born again if they would believe, Edwards tells his hearers to repair to God if, peradventure, he may give them the gift of the new birth. This evangelist does not believe that faith is a potentiality of corrupt natures. Until God gives the disposition to believe, men remain unbelieving. There is therefore, nothing that they can do to produce regeneration. But they can seek God (which Edwards always encourages) in order that God may, if it is his sovereign pleasure, bestow this gift upon them.
On other occasions, Edwards does not proceed from the fear of hell to the topic of the new birth. Rather, he sometimes dilates on the necessity of fleeing the wrath that is to come. Of course there is only one goal in fleeing and that is being born again. But in some sermons the preacher is intent merely on having his people flee. No doubt they understood what was involved in this fleeing and why they were advised to do it.
The famous sermon “Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God” is interesting here. In one of the editions of this sermon we have an abrupt ending without reference to the mercy of God or hope for the seeker. This is not characteristic of Edwards, who normally preached on the judgment in order to bring people to seek salvation, not to await damnation. We find that the original 1741 version of the sermon did have a more typical and hopeful conclusion.
The sermon on Hos_5:15 develops further this rationale of hell- preaching. Edwards never entertained the notion that anyone could be scared into heaven. Constantly he speaks as in the sermon on Job_14:5 :
There is no promise in the whole Word of God that prayings and cries that arise merely from fear and an expectation of punishment shall be heard especially if they have been willfully negligent till then.
He goes further in the sermon on Luk_16:31, “Scripture Warnings Best Adapted to the Conversion of Sinners” *116* by pointing out that sinners are not scared into heaven but that total fear would make them all the more the children of hell. This is the reason he does not believe it would be salutary for men to have a preview of actual hell, as awakening as that might appear to be:
It would make them more like devils; and set them a blaspheming as the damned do. For while the hearts of men are filled with natural darkness, they cannot see the glory of the divine justice appearing in such extreme torments. *117*
The question has been appropriately raised: “If Edwards recognized that a preview of hell would set men blaspheming, why did he not conclude that the preaching of hell would do the same?” We do not know that this question was ever put to Edwards himself or that he ever commented on the point at issue specifically. In any case, the answer may be found in this same sermon on Luk_16:31. In it he argues that God knows best how to speak to his own creatures. Since he has chosen to declare the truth of future judgment through the Scriptures and preaching, it is a natural inference that this is the best way. God is infinitely wise, and if this is his method, there can be no doubt in Edwards’ mind about its prudence. The theme of the sermon is: “The warnings of God’s word are more fitted to obtaining the ends of awakening sinners, and bringing them to repentance, than the rising of one from the dead to warn them.” *118*
This remark about the inadvisability of showing a sinner actual hell reveals, incidentally, that Edwards sought to avoid engendering a wrong kind of fear. The sermon on Jer_5:21-22 affords a good discussion of the two varieties of fear. *119* The doctrine is that “’Tis a sottish and unreasonable thing for men not to fear God and tremble at his presence.” In the course of defining what this fear is, Edwards finds occasion to reflect that “Those that have a sinful fear of God fear God as evil but a right fear fears him as great and excellent.”
Thus there is a right and wrong fear of God. This wrong fear of God, fearing him as an evil and dreadful being, drives men from God. “A sinful fear makes men afraid to come to God.” But, on the other hand, there is a proper fear of God, as the good and holy being that he is. This “Right fear makes men afraid to go from him.” If men fear God as they fear the devil, they flee from him, but if they fear him as the being he really is, they will flee to him. It is this wrong fear or “servile fear” which is cast out by love. *120* But love does not cast out this “dread of displeasing and offending God for this holy fear don’t only dread the fruits of God’s displeasure but the displeasure itself which love causes him to dread.”
Putting the picture together, we get this Edwardsian rationale of the preaching of hell. First, God commands it. It is essential for a steward to be found faithful to his charge. But, second, God ordains such preaching because the sotted sinner is not interested in the things of the Spirit. Therefore, third, he must be shown the danger of his present condition and the impending doom that hangs over him. However, fourth, the sight of hell would be more than frail man could stand, so only the dim pictures found in the Biblical warnings are suitable to awakening. But, fifth, awakening to a state of fear does not take a man out of his natural condition, and though he be desperately frightened, as the devils are, his most importunate prayers (if motivated merely by sinful self-interest), only further enrage God. Sixth, and this is the crucial point, in this awakened condition, operating only from self-interest, the sinner may (and the preacher encourages him earnestly) ask, “What must I do to be saved?” The answer to that question is not, “Be scared to death,” but, “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved.” Finally, true faith in Christ is not a mere desperate or nominal acceptance of him, as a ticket out of hell, but a genuine, affectionate trust in him for the very loveliness and excellency of his being.
This, to be sure, is not in man’s present disposition. He may seek for a new heart.
It would be a great mistake to suppose that Edwards preached hell and nothing but hell to unawakened sinners. While he thought that this was the doctrine most likely to awaken them from their “sottish” corruptions, he also appealed to their love of pleasure.
All men want to avoid pain and cultivate pleasure and can be appealed to from either angle. There is no doubt that Edwards believed there was more likelihood of success in evangelism by appealing to the fear of pain than to the love of pleasure. Nevertheless he often argued very cogently for the superior joys of the converted state. One unpublished early sermon illustrates this particularly well, though this theme is handled in many discourses. The doctrine of the Pro_24:13 manuscript sermon is that “it would be worth the while to be religious if it were only for the pleasantness of it.” One reason is that religion does not deny us moderate earthly pleasures. On the contrary, it allows legitimate ones. It requires moderation which actually heightens the pleasure rather than destroying it. Secondly, religion sweetens pleasures because it pursues them in harmony with reason and conscience. The wicked man, on the other hand, “enjoys his pleasure at war with himself.” Furthermore, the righteous enjoy their pleasures assured of the blessing of God, while the ungodly have no such satisfaction, but, on the contrary, are afraid. A little pleasure with a clear conscience brings more joy than a great deal with trepidation of mind. Of far greater importance is the fact that religion brings spiritual joys that are vastly superior to the joys of this world with which the ungodly are alone occupied. In the application, Edwards fights the wicked “with their own weapons” - those of pleasure - appealing to them to seek God if only for such motives.
(3) Preaching to Children
If the best doctrine to present to sinners is hell, the best time is childhood. The number of special meetings for children that Edwards held, as well as the diligent attention he gave to the salvation of his own family, show his persuasion of this point. His approach to children was basically the same as the approach to their parents. They too were in danger of judgment and must learn to flee from the wrath that is to come upon them as well as upon older sinners. They were “young snakes,” no different in nature from their parents. They, too, were “children of the devil.” Neither can they “bear hell among the devils,” and they must beware of this dread judgment to which they are exposed. “Supposing, children,” he exhorts, “you could now go and hear the cries of other wicked children that are gone to hell - Come therefore hearken to me - If you won’t hearken but will go to hell. . . .” *121*
“Many persons,” he warns the youth, “never get rid of the guilt of the sins of their youth but it attends them to their graves and goes with them into eternity.” *122* Youth is the best period in which to serve God, but in spite of this fact it is usually spent in vanity. God will not excuse children nor does he forget their sins and the aggravation that they have sinned away the best time for their conversion. Young people often quench the motions of the Holy Spirit and as a result never have them again all their lives, for God may be provoked to remove the Spirit in the beginning of their days. Even if God does not act so drastically, they put themselves under great and permanent spiritual disadvantages because the habits that they early contract are difficult to change.
Edwards used the death of young Billy Sheldon as the occasion for serious warning to the youth of his parish. *123* The boy died in the midst of the great revival in February 1740-1741. He was cut off at such a time, said Edwards to his young people in a private meeting, to make you take full advantage of your opportunity. Very few of you, he continued, were more concerned for your souls than he was for his. He was not only deprived of further opportunity to seek salvation, but did not even have the use of his reason through much of his sickness. The exposition of the text is very brief, but the application is long and pleading. Edwards used the same sermon, with an altered application, for the funeral of his own daughter at a later date.
Another consideration that was brought to bear on the thinking of the lambs of his flock was that “early piety is especially acceptable to God.” *124* Various reasons for this doctrine are given, for Edwards always appealed to the youth as rational creatures urging them to test the things that he told them, to see if they were not Song of Solomon *125* First, their youth was the flower of their lives, and it was especially appropriate that this prime period should be given over to the Creator. Second, they should begin their lives with God. Third, if they do give their lives to God in youth, they have more of their lives to spend with God. Men are accepted at any time, but no matter how sincere their conversion may be, if it is late they have very little time left to give to God. This is not so with young people. Fourth, conversion in youth prevents a great deal of sin and it is therefore more acceptable than at any other time of life. Fifth, those who begin early are likely to achieve more godliness and become eminent saints. On the basis of these considerations, Edwards urges the youth to seek God. He says that God is all the more likely to bestow salvation upon them if they seek for it at this, the most propitious, period of their lives.
That early seekers are most likely to find is the theme of a later sermon on Exo_16:21 : “The heavenly manna is rarely found by those that neglect to gather it till late in the day.” The church is the “first fruits;” later seekers have no such promises as their children. The longer seeking is delayed the less likely is salvation to be found.
Childhood is a good time for seeking salvation, not only because youth are more acceptable to God, but because they are also more susceptible to religious impressions. “Persons when in their youth are ordinarily more easily awakened than afterward. Their minds are tender and it is a more easy thing to make impression upon them.” *126* In another sermon he says that it is easier “to terrify a child“ than an adult by setting before it dreadful things. *127* Edwards has no intention of taking any unfair advantage of children. He will not terrify them with bugbears because they are unable to know these things are not so. Rather, he believes what he says to be true and thinks that adults should believe them as well as children. They have no better reasons than children for disbelieving them. Children are more impressionable because they do not oppose so many objections and are not so preoccupied with extraneous matters that they fail to feel the impact of the awful truth.
If children are more susceptible to good impressions, they are also more susceptible to Satan’s impressions. *128* If it is easier to lead them into truth, it is also easier to lead them into error. This is another reason that the careful training of youth is vitally important. If the best opportunity to do them good is in their youth, it is also the most susceptible time for them to suffer harm.
Edwards preached hell-fire to the young vipers of his congregation, but he also wooed them as well. He knew that they were filled with the zest of life and wanted to get most out of it. He appealed very directly to youthful desire for pleasure. Do you think that sin has some advantage, he asks his children. Do you think that it will bring you pleasure, in this world at least? No, he says, it will not. Rather, it will make you sad even in this world. On the other hand, piety will not spoil your fun. It will increase your pleasure. You are, he reminds them, inexperienced with religion now but you know this much: it is better to be at peace with God. I speak to you as reasonable creatures, he continues. You do not know that what I say is true, but try it and see. If you test these things which I tell you, you will find that they are so. You will find that religion increases rather than destroys joy. This is the burden of the application of the sermon on Job_20:11, and it runs through much of Edwards’ preaching to youth.
Because of the opportuneness of youth as a time for conversion, Edwards was persuaded that it was both the most likely time for persons to be converted and the proper place for a revival to begin.
After a dead time in religion ’tis very requisite that religion revive in heads of families and those that have the care of children in order to a people’s being fitted for so great a privilege as to have God remarkably dwelling among them. *129*
In the sermon on Amo_8:11 he especially appeals to the training of children as the sure way to revival.
Perhaps the most remarkable sermon that Edwards ever preached to the youth was based on the incident of Elisha’s cursing the children who had laughed at him. *130* After a graphic recounting of the historical incident that led to the destruction of the children by bears, Edwards presented this doctrine: “God is very angry at the sins of children.” He had originally added the words, “as well as others,” but crossed them out. He first shows his young parishioners that they can be guilty of a great deal of sin while children. Their hearts are naturally full of it. They hate God by nature. They are children of disobedience. There is nothing good in them, according to Psa_58:3. “The wicked are estranged from the womb: they go astray as soon as they be born, speaking lies. Their poison is like the poison of a serpent: they are like the deaf adder that stoppeth her ear. . . .” Furthermore, they are often guilty of much actual sin. They neglect God, desecrate the Sabbath, are naughty at worship, do not seek salvation as they ought, entertain wicked thoughts, hate their parents, and fall into the snares of the devil.
God is angry with them because of these sins. “He is not only angry enough to correct (?) ’em but to cast ’em into hell to all eternity. They deserve to burn in hell forever.” Their being children does not excuse them, for they have more knowledge than they practice. These “young snakes” are the “children of the devil,” and God hates the devil and his children. God is particularly angry because they give the first part of their lives to the devil. God is so angry “that he sends many children to hell for these things.” They are so obnoxious that he will not suffer them to grow up.
So the pastor pleads with his children to get an interest in Christ, that their sins may be forgiven. Continuing:
You all of you have precious souls. Had not I known that I should not have called you together today. Consider how angry God is with you. . . . How dreadful. You cannot bear hell among devils. . . . Consider the day of judgment. You that have played together and that have gone to school together; how dreadful to be separated or to be damned together. Then you will not play together any more but cry together. Your godly parents will not be grieved for you; nor your minister. But, on the other hand, how joyful would it be both to you and to me at the day of judgment if you might be my crown of rejoicing at the day of judgment. If you and I that have been your minister and have preached to you and warned you might stand together at that day in glory at Christ’s right hand, and might say to Christ ‘Here am I and the children which thou has given me.’
Edwards believed in conducting the worship service “decently and in order.” Never was this more evident than when people were actually screaming for divine mercy while Edwards went relentlessly on with his sermon. At one point he even rebuked the miserable people for disturbing the service. Even though it was the Spirit of God who was working so mightily in and on these hearers Edwards did not feel that the Spirit intended to violate His own command to conduct the service in orderly fashion.
Edwards was not a chain preacher. He never preached through any book of the Bible seriatim, Sunday by Sunday. In fact, the only book of the Bible on which he provided what might be called a commentary was the Revelation. The one New Testament book on which Calvin did not provide a commentary was the book on which Edwards did. Stephen Stein, who edited the volume on Apocalyptic Writings of Edwards has said that Edwards was eschatologically oriented from the beginning of his ministry. Revelation was “the only book of the Bible he favored with a separate commentary.” *131*
When I was speaking with one of the head librarians at Yale on one occasion, she was rather surprised to learn that Edwards had preached more sermons on Matthew than on any other book in the Bible. In fact, she was surprised to learn that Edwards had preached much on the New Testament. The prevailing opinion about Edwards is that he was a somber preacher who must necessarily have chosen most of his themes from the wrathful God of the Old Testament.
Edwards’ emphasis on the sovereignty and wrath of God was for an evangelistic purpose. The missing note in contemporary reformed preaching, at least in America, is his Puritan doctrine of seeking salvation. When I introduced it a few years ago in the annual Philadelphia Conference on Reformed Theology, one local resident said it was probably the first time a sermon on that subject had ever been heard in Wheaton, Illinois. The Conference itself is still reeling from it. Most of the strongest reformed theologians in America have not accepted the proposition that this standard Puritan procedure was authentic Calvinism, not to mention the only Calvinistic method of evangelism.
I lectured on seeking at a Christian Reformed Ministers Conference in the fifties. The Dutch Calvinistic tradition has been particularly suspicious of “seeking,” being rather confident that it was a form of Arminianism of which the reformed Puritans were unconscious. Precisely for that reason, I chose to speak on Edwards’ doctrine of seeking. I wanted to see that my reformed brethren, some 400 strong, were properly introduced to the concept in one of its finest advocates, Jonathan Edwards. Furthermore, because a question period followed these addresses, I knew I would get a most thorough criticism.
Let me explain why some reformed pastors past and present are suspicious of this doctrine so common to the preaching of Jonathan Edwards. The sinner under “conviction,” but not yet converted, is urged by the preacher to “seek” the Lord while He may be found. The seeker is told to do something; namely, read the Bible, attend the reformed church, be moral in all of his behavior, and even pray desperately for divine mercy. This very intensive activity on the part of the sinner sounds to some reformed people quite “Arminian.” It seems to be inconsistent with the Westminster Confession’s describing the sinner in conversion as “passive.” *132* This seeking, which could go on for many years, was certainly not passive.
In spite of this intense activity, seeking (certainly, Edwards’) is not at all Arminian or inconsistent with absolute passivity in regeneration. All this activity was recognized by the Puritans in England and New England as the activity of the unregenerate - sinful activity. Seeking was sinful - but less sinful than not seeking. It was a work of the flesh. Never for a moment was a person led to believe that this was in any way even a “work of congruity” that in and of itself would dispose God to bestow the favor for which the seeker, presumably, was seeking. Yet they could hope!
(4) The Message of Mercy
The mercy of God also has a large place in the sermons of the awakening. It is never completely absent from Edwards’ most minatory sermons. It is central in some. The most notable production on this subject is seldom remembered as a series of sermons, that is, The History of Redemption. *133* This is an extended historical discussion of the mercy of God to the elect. Edwards intended to make this a new approach to divinity - a new kind of systematic theology. Actually it is what we today would call a study in historical theology, Heilsgeschichte, and was an anticipation of that notable development in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries.
“What induces Christ to pity and help sinners is not that they deserve it but that they need it” is the doctrine of Mark 2:17. *134* Edwards assures his congregation that all any man deserves from God is His wrath. No man is ever justified by self-righteousness, as the Pharisees thought. He warns Arminians that God never bestows converting grace because a man merits it. Nor does one ever deserve it because somebody else deserves it less. If God hears true prayers it is not because of any merit in them but because God sometimes has mercy. Edwards urges all to pray but to remember, meanwhile, that their prayers are loathsome. They also are to remember that God will not necessarily pity them because they are miserable. It is far better for sinners to go to God with their sins than with their righteousness. To do the latter is like going to a physician on the ground that the patient is well and does not need Him. If we come with our sins there is hope because God is sovereignly merciful.
If the sins of men should not discourage men from praying, neither should the greatness of their need. Though the sins of men merit the divine wrath, God is willing to give nothing less than His Holy Spirit for the asking. “Of the more excellent matter any blessing is that we stand in need of the more ready God is to bestow it in answer to prayer.” This sermon on Luk_11:13 was delivered on the occasion of a fast for the pouring out of the Holy Spirit. The arguments that God is more willing to give greater than smaller gifts are five. First, this is more agreeable to the infinite goodness of His nature. Second, it is more agreeable to His design in the plan of redemption. Third, it gives more success to Christ. Fourth, the designs of the most excellent prayers are for the most excellent blessings. Fifth, this is especially consonant with the covenant of grace which is made to secure nothing less than eternal salvation. Edwards chides his people with having greater concern for the lesser than the greater blessings. If God had withheld His temporal blessings, as He has withheld His spiritual blessings for the past four years, they would not have borne it so well. Exhorting them really to ask for these things that Christ is so willing to bestow, Edwards warns the congregation not to be formal, cold and uninterested, “begging a denial.” If you take no more pain in your prayers than you do every year, you will have what your efforts betray of your desire. Further, away with all strife and hatred (the besetting sin of Northampton, Edwards reminds his neighbors), because so long as they are present, God will not hear.
The mercy of God is principally displayed in His Son, Jesus Christ. In two sermons on Luk_19:10,“I am come to seek and to save that which is lost,” *135* Edwards becomes most tender as an under-shepherd of Christ seeking the straying sheep: “And as I am one of those messengers that he has sent forth to that end I would call after you the lost souls of this congregation.” He “calls loudly.” “Many have lately heard His voice.” The “work of deliverance and salvation goes on every day.”
I saw several instances the week before last in this company of persons that had their eyes open to see their lost condition to see a little of the dreadfulness of the flames of hell and to see how they hung over it by a slender thread that could not forbear crying and shrieking as a person would do that was going that moment into a hot oven.
This was going on day and night, he says. Still many are half asleep, though “God now seems to be gathering in His elect.” “I verily believe that the time is now presently approaching wherein the wicked world are going in a remarkable manner to be overwhelmed. . . .” The sermon ends with Edwards giving directions for seeking the kingdom. “Don’t let your mind be overcharged with cares about the scarcity that the country is subject to or is threatened with.”
An even more tender sermon on the mercy of God deals with the weeping of Jesus. It was delivered in May 1741 at Ipswich on Luk_19:41. We have, begins Edwards, no record of Jesus laughing. But we know He wept - wept for those who had no heart to weep for themselves. He wept over the land of Israel and the city most blessed - Jerusalem. For though blessed as the city of God it had spurned the blessing.
Christ’s weeping over it is in many ways remarkable. First, it was in the presence of a multitude of people who then surrounded Him. Second, Jerusalem was a magnificent city that would have made others admire rather than weep. Third, they would have rejoiced rather than wept had they been treated by it as Jesus had. Fourth, had they been as tender-hearted as Jesus, they would have been overwhelmed with a sense of their own impending misery.
Jesus wept. Why? First, because He knew from His little success among the people, that most of them were in an unconverted condition. Furthermore, He knew how great the misery of such a condition for He knew how dreadful hell was. Third, He knew how aggravated their guilt and therefore how much more terrible their damnation. Fourth, He knew how imminent was their danger. Some of the people were already judicially hardened. Few would escape.
Then Edwards begins to weep over Northampton. He would awaken this “chief of sinners.” They have had more light than the heathen, and they have the New Testament that Jerusalem did not know. He reminds them of the recent work of grace among them and the danger of those still impenitent. “There is no reason to think any other than that sinners that shall go to hell from Northampton will have as low and hot a place in hell as the sinners of Jerusalem.” He then shows them that what was true of Jerusalem was true of them. He pleads most affectionately calling them “children.” Christ, he says, did a thousand times more than shed tears - he shed His blood. “He looked upon their misery so great so intolerably dreadful that to save some of them from it He shed out all His blood out of His body.” It is only because your neighbors do not see your case as Christ did that they do not weep over you. If you saw it you would weep. You would not eat or laugh again until delivered. His final directions are: weep now not later; weep for your sins not your punishment; but do not imagine that your tears will atone: fly to that compassionate Redeemer who wept for the grief of His enemies.
(5) Conversion
Edwards warns about hell. Edwards woos to heaven. But Edwards never says, infers, or allows his people to think that their conversion can be effected either by warning or wooing, but only by the sovereign, converting energy of God. Their duty is raised to the highest degree without encouraging their sense of moral ability in the least. We have noted before the common mistake among interpreters of Edwards at this point - the double mistake - one group thinking that Edwards’ pure Calvinism did away with the use of means (that is Miller’s and a host of others’ error); the other group thinking that Edwards’ pure evangelism did away with human inability (that is W. W. Sweet’s error and a host with him, very recently including Alan Guelzo). As a matter of fact, Edwards favored the use of means (as we shall consider in the next section) but without ever suggesting any efficacy in the means themselves, or in the users of them, but only in the sovereign God who made them effectual or not as He chose.
What God does in regeneration is in the foreground while His sovereignty is in the background in the sermon on Mat_16:17; His sovereignty in regeneration is in the foreground and what He does in regeneration in the background in the sermon on Joh_3:7. The Matthew sermon, the second to be published and probably the most favorably received of all by subsequent generations, is commonly known as “The divine and supernatural light.” *136* Edwards’ statement of his doctrine is, however, much fuller: “That there is such a thing as a spiritual and divine light, immediately imparted to the soul by God, of a different nature from any that is obtained by natural means.” *137* Preached when he was thirty-one years of age, this, in our opinion, is a clearer, sharper, more penetrating analysis of the nature of the internal testimony of the Holy Spirit than the historically much more famous, influential and brilliant handling of the same subject by John Calvin in his immortal Institutes. *138* Although the doctrine as presented by Edwards is in harmony with Calvin’s doctrine, it is impossible to know how much influence of the latter went into its formulation. Karl Barth, Emil Brunner and others have tried, vainly we believe, to subjectivize Calvin’s doctrine and make it independent of the inscripturated Word. No one, so far as we know, had attempted this with Edwards’ doctrine. We question whether any would ever have the temerity. Calvin’s doctrine is clear enough to make Barth inexcusable, but Edwards’ doctrine is blindingly clear. Only the love for a preconceived system could constrain a person to distort the Edwardsian analysis.
It is interesting that Luther had been confronted with the same problem. Luther’s different solution Allen notes:
In the presence of the Zwickau prophets, Luther denied the truth of the immediacy of the divine action, falling back upon the Word and the Sacraments as the external channels of the divine communication. Edwards adhered to his conviction, and labored to purify it from abuse and misinterpretation. *139*