Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadJonathan Edwards Collection: Edwards, Jonathan - Rational Biblical Theology: Chapt 15 cont 2
TOPIC: Edwards, Jonathan - Rational Biblical Theology (Other Topics in this Collection)
SUBJECT: Chapt 15 cont 2
Other Subjects in this Topic:
8. Personality
Most Christian theologians have had trouble with the personality of God, as did Augustine, Calvin, and C. S. Lewis. Jonathan Edwards had no trouble with the personality of God - apparently because he had assumed it rather than stated it. In the index to his Works there is no listing under “personality” either under “God” or “man.” In all his sermons we cannot recall a single use of that term. Douglas Elwood in his concentration on the nature of God in The Philosophical Theology of Jonathan Edwards has no listing in his index, nor does Simonson in Jonathan Edwards: Theologian of the Heart. Edwards in his own index to his numerous “Miscellanies” has no entry under that head, nor does Townsend’s Philosophy of Jonathan Edwards. In The Mind there are two entries on the “identity of persons but none on their nature or definition. Of course, there are many references to the persons of the Trinity in his essay on that doctrine, but even there the personality of the Godhead goes unmentioned.
Yet there is nothing especially significant in the silence. Apparently Edwards conceives of the soul as composed of mind and will (or affections) of which the possessor is conscious, indeed self-conscious. Is this not what is usually meant by a “person”? When E. S. Brightman, the famous Personalist, wrote that “personality is concrete conscious experience,” we suppose that it is what Edwards had in mind. *112*
9. Glory
I consider this attribute here finally because it belongs to the next group of attributes as well as this one. The glory of God appears alike in natural and moral attributes.
In the Dissertation the glory of God was expressed in three attributes: knowledge, holiness and happiness:
The whole of God’s internal good or glory, is in these three things, viz. his infinite knowledge; his infinite virtue or holiness, and his infinite joy and happiness. Indeed there are a great many attributesin God, according to our way of conceiving or talking of them: but all may be reduced to these; or to the degree, circumstances and relations of these. *113*
In the sermon on Psa_89:6 Edwards had the glory of God consisting in God’s greatness (natural attribute) and goodness (moral attribute). *114*
So glory is another word used for the sum total of all divine excellencies. It refers to the internal as well as manifestative glory. The latter amounts to a setting forth of the attributes in their reality and fulness. God aims at his glory in all his works. *115* God is infinitely exalted in all his manifestations. *116* At one point Edwards notes that infinite is not so much an attribute as the mode of its manifestation. All attributes require and receive this glory. Especially is His displeasure with sin a manifestation of supreme holiness. *117*
However glory is viewed, it is of utmost importance. While speaking of the Deity of Christ, Edwards remarks, “doubtless, one thing, and infinitely the most important, that may be known of God, is his supreme dignity and glory, that glory which he has as supreme God.” *118*
Conrad Wright has written that according to Edwards, God did all things for his own glory. *119* After Edwards, the theologians came gradually to the “Arminian” view that God created the world for the good of the creatures. Even Joseph Bellamy, while remaining true to Edwardsian Calvinism, found God acting for the happiness of the elect. *120* In time, the elect was broadened to include all men and God’s chief end was to glorify man and enjoy him forever.
In our earlier discussion we saw Edwards’ God creating the world not because of a deficiency in Himself but because of superabundant goodness which caused Him to pour out His love into the creatures. If we had only the Dissertation from Edwards, we would know what he means by saying God creates all things for His own glory. The creation is to manifest His glory, but why? Edwards’ blunt answer in an earlier sermon is: “Because it is a thing meet and suitable in itself.” *121* Why? Not for His glory’s sake, but for those who benefit thereby. The one who benefits by the manifestation of His glory is not God, who cannot be benefited by anything, He possessing all things. Why then does God do all things “for” His own glory? Not for His sake but for their sake. Bellamy is saying nothing different from his mentor but only expressing the same thing differently. We are not, however, saying that Bellamy was fully aware of that fact. We are saying that the ultimate degeneration of American theology was caused by those who coming later “knew not Joseph” - that is, had forgotten why God created all things for His glory in the first place.
Jonathan Edwards son, Jonathan, mentioned this point first among his “Clearer Statements of Theological Truth Made by President Edwards and Those That Followed His Course of Thought”:
1. The important question, concerning the ultimate end of the creation, is a question, upon which Mr. Edwards has shed much light. For ages it had been disputed, whether the end of creation was the happiness of creatures themselves, or the declarative glory of the Creator. Nor did it appear that the dispute was likely to be brought to an issue. On the one hand, it was urged, that reason declared in favour of the former hypothesis. It was said that, as God is a benevolent being, he doubtless acted under the influence of his own infinite benevolence in the creation; and that he could not but form creatures for the purpose of making them happy. Many passages of Scripture also were quoted in support of this opinion. On the other hand, numerous and very explicit declarations of Scripture were produced to prove that God made all things for his own glory. Mr Edwards was the first, who clearly showed, that both these were the ultimate end of the creation, that they are only one end, an. According to him, the declarative glory of God is the creation, taken not distributively, but collectively, as a system raised to a high degree of happiness. The creation, thus raised and preserved, is the declarative glory of God. In other words, it is the exhibition of his essential glory. *122*
The Moral Attributes
Although we have considered what Edwards calls the natural attributes of God before the moral, we remember that he considered the latter more excellent and their appreciation essential to appreciating the natural.
Strength and knowledge don’t render any being lovely, without holiness; but more hateful: though they render them more lovely, when joined with holiness. . . . [A] sight of God’s loveliness must begin here. A true love to God must begin with a delight in his holiness, and not with a delight in any other attribute; for no other attribute is truly lovely without this, and no otherwise than as . . . it derives its loveliness from this. . . . *123*
1. Love or Holiness
God’s most fundamental characteristic is his moral holiness. According to Edwards:
A moral agent is a being that is capable of those actions that have a moral quality, and which can properly be denominated good or evil in a moral sense, virtuous or vicious, commendable or faulty. To moral agency belongs a moral faculty, or sense of moral good and evil, or of such a thing as desert or worthiness of praise or blame, reward or punishment; and a capacity which an agent has of being influenced in his actions by moral inducements or motives, exhibited to the view of understanding and reason, to engage to a conduct agreeable to the moral faculty. *124*
Edwards’ general term for the virtuous nature of God seems to be love or holiness which is the same thing.” *125* The definition of holiness is “excellency and beauty of God’s nature whereby his heart is disposed and delights in everything that is morally good and excellent.” *126* His holiness is infinite *127* and eternal. *128* Holiness “is the moral excellency of a being that has understanding and will.” *129* “The whole of God’s internal good or glory, is in these three things, viz. his infinite knowledge; his infinite virtue or holiness, and his infinite joy and happiness.” *130*
Holiness is also known by what it hates. Thus Edwards argues that “God’s hatred of sin is infinite, by reason of the infinite contrariety of his holy nature to sin. . . .” *131* As God is infinitely holy, He is infinitely opposed to sin because opposition is the proper manifestation of hatred. *132* Furthermore, and therefore, it is utterly impossible that He should love the least evil. *133* Edwards explains the metaphysical significance of this doctrine: “To say that the infinite goodness of God’s nature makes it utterly impossible for God to do evil, is exactly the same as to say, he is under a natural necessity not to do evil.” *134*
This love or holiness of God is as infinite as all His other attributes. It is no deficiency that accounts for its existence and expression. “Men’s love is from want and because they be not sufficiently happy in themselves. But on the contrary Christ’s love is from fullness. Mens love seeks an addition to fill up their emptiness but Christ’s love is from his fullness. Because he is full . . . he overflows.” *135*
If God’s love is known by what it hates, it is also known by what it loves or inclines toward. First, in a sense, it extends to all creatures. All creatures have some good from God. *136* Even the wicked share in this benevolence. “God is kind to the unthankful and evil.” *137* Man is now naturally contrary to God and positively evil, but the Luk_6:35 sermon shows that God still loves him in some ways. Indeed, Edwards goes on to say in another sermon even in damnation.” *138* Yet fundamentally, “holy persons love holy things for their holiness.” *139*
The love of God to the wicked and to his saints is quite different. Edwards uses the traditional distinction between a love of benevolence and a love of complacency. God loved the elect with benevolence before their conversion. In fact, God loves all sinners with benevolence. Out of his benevolence, Christ died for the elect. When they turn to him he loves them with complacency. *140* “When God gave Christ to die for the elect, he looked on them as they are in themselves; but in actually bestowing eternal life, he looks on them as they are in Christ.” *141*
All God’s love flows out to the elect. There is nothing in them that influences him to do so but only his own disposition toward them. “There is but one thing in any being that can influence him to set his love upon an object greatly below him and that is ... goodness - a mere good disposition. The heart of anyone that does so, let him be who he will, must abound with goodness.” *142*
Like God himself, this love for the elect is eternal. “The love wherewith God has loved his saints is an everlasting love.” *143* This was the theme of a communion meditation which led Edwards to warn his people that the most horrid dissimulation occurred at the Lord’s Table. The sermon was preached a decade before the “qualifications” controversy broke out.
As with the medievalists, God, for Edwards, was actus purus. That pure act was love for the elect. “But not only is there an eternal habit of love in God to the saints, but that love is eternal in action. In man the habit or principle differs from the act and may be for a time without the act; it is not so in God. . . . For indeed God’s own being and essence is a pure act.” *144*
Edwards cannot find images or thoughts sufficient to represent the eternal love of God for his people. God is an infinite fountain of love, for God is love. All this love is for the saints. “Nothing ever begins or ceases in God.” Therefore, he chooses them before and afterwards too; he always chooses them. Just as his eternal being continues, so his eternal choice continues. The choice in time follows. Effectual calling is but his “manifestative election.” *145*
Edwards almost finds himself saying that God’s love for the elect overcomes God himself. “In some sense this love reigns over the Almighty Jehovah himself, reigns over his heart. But this little worm as prince has power with God and has prevailed, reigned from all eternity.” *146*
God’s love for the creature is the only source of the creatures love. “When men love, unless it be when they love from a principle of grace and from the influences of the Spirit of Christ upon their hearts, it is because of imitation of him. I say otherwise when they love, either from kindness or good-will to them or some thing that is thought to be lovely, whether it be really so or no. But this is from the scantiness of that principle of love in their hearts” while, by contrast, Christ’s love “needs nothing to attract it.” *147*
This is the foundation of Edwards’ doctrine that sanctification in the saint is the Holy Spirit of love in the heart:
’Tis common for us to speak of various graces of the Spirit of God as though they were so many different principles of holiness, and to call them by distinct names as such, - repentance, humility, resignation, thankfulness, etc. But we err if we imagine that these in their first source and root in the heart are properly distinct principles. They all come from the same fountain, and are, indeed, the various exertions and conditions of the same thing; only different denominations according to the various occasions, objects and manners, attendants and circumstances of its exercise. There is some one holy principle in the heart that is the essence and sum of all grace, the root and source of all holy acts of every kin, and the fountain of every good stream, into which all Christian virtues may ultimately be resolved, and in which all duty and [all] holiness is fulfilled. *148*
This is the only way that true virtue can exist. It is apparent to Edwards that all the creature owes, he owes to God and none else and owes everything to him: “love to God is most essential to true virtue; and . . . no benevolence whatsoever to other beings can be of the nature of true virtue, without it.” *149* He takes pages of The Nature of True Virtue to prove this.
In Original Sin Edwards argued the same case:
[W]e are obliged not only to love him with a love of gratitude for benefits received; but true love to God primarily consists in a supreme regard to him for what he is in himself. The tendency of true virtue is to treat everything as it is, and according to its nature. And if we regard the Most High according to the infinite dignity and glory of his nature, we shall esteem and love him with all our heart and soul, and to the utmost of the capacity of our nature, on this account; and not primarily because he has promoted our interest. If God be infinitely excellent in himself, then he is infinitely lovely on that account; or in other words. . . . If we love not God because he is what he is, but only because he is profitable to us, in truth we love him not at all. *150*
If this is true of mankind, it is especially relevant to the saints. If all men should love God because of his excellence, the pretense to do so, while being motivated otherwise, is especially reprehensible:
(I.) Reason testifies that Divine love is so essential in religion that religion is but hypocrisy and a “vain show” without it. What is religion but the exercise and expressions of regard to the Divine Being? But certainly if there be no love to Him, there is no sincere regard to Him; and all pretenses and show of respect to Him, whether it be in word or deed, must be hypocrisy and of no value in the eyes of Him who sees the heart. How manifest is it that without love there can be no true honour, no sincere praise! And how can obedience be hearty, if it be not a testimony of respect to God? The fear of God without love is no other than the fear of devils; and all that outward respect and obedience, all that resignation, . . . is all of it a practical lie. . . . Here is external worship. The Devil is religious; he prays - he prays in a humble posture; he falls down before Christ, he lies prostrate; he prays earnestly, he cries with a loud voice; he uses humble expressions . . . he uses respectful, honourable, adoring expressions - “Jesus, Thou Son of God most high.” Nothing was wanting but Love. *151*
While Edwards has told us much about love, love from God and love to God, he still finds it difficult to define the idea and tends to appeal to experience.
As to a definition of Divine love, things of this nature are not properly capable of a definition. They are better felt than defined. Love is a term as clear in its signification, and that does as naturally suggest to the mind the thing signified by it, as any other term or terms that we can find out or substitute in its room. But yet there may be a great deal of benefit in descriptions that may be given of this heavenly principle though they all are imperfect. *152*
Nevertheless, Edwards attempts a definition “’Tis the souls relish of the supreme excellency of the Divine nature, inclining the heart to God as the chief good.” *153* The first thing in the object is the excellency of the divine nature. The first effect produced in the soul carries it “above what it has or can have by nature, causing it “to relish or taste the sweetness of the Divine relation.” *154* Everything else proceeds from this.
Allen comments on the apparent change in Edwards’ estimate of virtue:
In his Notes on the Mind he held that love to God was based upon the recognition of the divine existence apart from its moral excellence. He again maintained this view in his Treatise on Virtue. But in his Treatise on Grace he returns to what he had asserted in the Religious Affections, that the foundation of delight in God is His own perfection. Beneath these variations may be traced divergent conceptions of the nature of Deity. *155*
We think that there is no change here. Edwards also conceived of the divine being as consisting of natural and moral virtues, but the natural excellence rested on the holiness of God. Apart from that it would have been a vice. Edwards cannot think of the divine nature as being any otherwise, and therefore Edwards interchangeably (rather than differently) thinks of virtue as directed to the excellence of the being or the morality of God, because in God they are one and the same.
For example, note how he combines the two ideas in M 1077:
God’s Holiness is his having a due meet and proper regard to everything and therefore consists mainly and summarily in his infinite regard or love to himself, he being infinitely the greatest and most excellent Being; and therefore a meet and proper regard to himself is infinitely greater than to all other beings, and as he is, as it were, the sum of all being, and all other positive existence is but a communication from him; hence, it will follow that a proper regard to himself is the sum of his regard.
In this we see that our emphasized references to love and excellence show that more than mere being is in view. Though Edwards does not labor the matter, it seems clear enough that it is the moral attribute of “excellence” and not the natural attribute of infinity (“sum of all being”) that makes God the only worthy object of his own love.
2. Justice
Another virtue of the deity is his inexorable justice. “God is a just and righteous God.” *156* Here again we have a development of the unity of the attributes and of how justice is holy, wise, good and loving. It reveals a “disposition of the divine nature to render to every one their own.” This must be because God is infinitely wise. Injustice arises from ignorance and mistakes of which God is incapable. Since He knows the wisdom of justice and cannot be tempted, justice always will out. Furthermore, to think God unjust contradicts all other attributes.
Punishment for sin is one of the major aspects of justice, and God shows himself just in this matter also. “Vengeance for sin properly belongs to God.” Even wicked men realize that sin should be punished. Natural conscience, unless stupefied, so testifies. Heathen laws reveal it, and the wicked flee even when no one pursues.
In fact, Edwards sees the superiority of Christianity in its theory of punishment. It alone among the religions of mankind provides for adequate punishment, for it alone teaches an infinite, eternal punishment which true justice requires for offenses against an eternal and infinite Being. *157* Furthermore, Christianity also accounts for the scandal of the universe the present non-punishment of crimes. This is explained by God’s purpose in providing time to repent and, also, man using that time for more sinning, for which he will be punished according to all sins committed. So whether the problem be punishment or the lack of it, Christianity is ready with another answer that shows that this religion comes from God.
The rationale for justice in Edwards is explained in George Noel Mayhews The Relation of the Theology of Jonathan Edwards to Contemporary Penological Theory and Practice *158* as the “Punitive Justice of God, a Deduction From the Pattern of Political Sovereignty.” Under this he discusses six topics: (1) Sin as Rebellion Against the Sovereign, (2) Punishment of Rebellion the Obligation of Sovereignty, (3) Sovereignty of God Exercised by Law, (4) God the Sovereign of a Moral and Natural Government, (5) Subjects Wholly Dependent Upon God, and (6) Penalty Heaviest on Rebellion Against Sovereignty. This is a fine analysis of Edwards theory of divine monarchy. It amounts, however, to a classic case of the cart before the horse, for Mayhew thinks Edwards derived his theological theory from contemporary political theory. The doctrine of human monarchy was derived from the Bible rather than the Bible doctrine of divine monarchy from the human institution.
This does not imply that the Bible was against democracy. It represents the people of God as choosing their monarches.
The rationale for the justice of punishment is somewhat psychological. It is meet that sin should be an object of hatred. If so, an expression of hatred is meet because the inner disposition should be expressed. We should be “all of a piece.” Action should be agreeable to disposition. Therefore, God must take vengeance. *159* Edwards would never accept the proposition that punishment is the crime. It peculiarly belongs to God to take vengeance. He only has the necessary wisdom, has the infinite power, is perfectly just himself, and is the supreme judge. All sin, furthermore, is against him. It is not, Edwards writes in another sermon, “an arbitrary sovereign act,” for God functions as judge and not as sovereign here. *160*
But is God not being unfair and discriminating in judging the sins of some and not of others? Edwards admits that God does reject some for their wickedness while accepting others, not for their righteousness but in spite of their wickedness. *161* This led Conrad Cherry, following T. A. Schafer, to regard Edwards as supralapsarian with respect to the elect and infralapsarian with respect to the reprobate. *162* When Edwards says that God does not accept the elect because of their righteousness, however, he does not refer to an eternal election of them as unfallen men, which is the supralapsarian idea. He means that it is not their righteousness when they are eternally contemplated as fallen sinners (the infralapsarian viewpoint) that leads God to choose them but his own mercy which bestows righteousness on them. The difference between the elect and reprobate is not in the time of their choosing but in the sovereignty of God in decreeing to bestow and withhold his mercy as he pleases. This moot question will be discussed in the chapter on Decrees.
There is more justice shown in the salvation of the elect than in the damnation of the lost. “Justice ... never can be actually satisfied in your damnation; but it is actually satisfied in Christ.” *163* The suffering of the wicked, which justice requires, can never be infinite, therefore never adequate, and therefore never adequately just and therefore must be endless. The suffering of Christ for the elect, on the other hand, was infinite and infinitely sufficient in the satisfaction of Jesus Christ.
Though inadequate and not perfectly just, the damnation is absolutely demanded by justice in the fullest measure possible. “If when God’s majesty and authority is despised and trod in the dust and there be not a display of the terribleness of God’s wrath that shall be answerable to the gloriousness of that majesty, then his majesty is not fully vindicated. It in some measure lies in the dust still.” *164* Unless there is proportionate manifestation there is not a true manifestation. Furthermore, grace cannot be known unless it is known how much greater his wrath is. It is therefore by no means inconsistent with the attributes of God to punish ungodly men with a misery that is eternal.” *165* This “exquisite torment” is not at all contrary to justice. A crime is more or less heinous according as there is greater or less obligation to the contrary:
It is more heinous to violate a greater obligation than a lesser one. This is self-evident because . . . therein consists the heinousness or faultiness of any action that it is contrary to what they were obliged to do or ought to have done. And therefore the fault is the greater the more they were obliged to do otherwise. And we being infinitely obligated not to hate God . . . it is infinitely dreadful to despise the majesty of God and must be infinitely punished. A long time is no time in relation to an infinite crime, far less than a six pence payment for an attempt to assassinate the king. Better no punishment at all than that.
There is no point to imagining that there will be no more adequate punishment of sin than is in the world. Hell is as logical as it is inevitable. “God’s vindictive justice will appear strict, exact, awful and terrible, and therefore glorious.” *166* Therefore, any attempt to shorten the eternality of the divine vindictive justice is futile:
It is impossible to influence him to be otherwise than strictly just, by any supplications, or tears or cries. God is inexorably just. The cries and the moans of the malefactor will have no influence upon this Judge to pass a more favorable judgment on them, so as in any way to acquit or release them. The eternal cries, and groans, and lamentations of the wicked, will have no influence upon him. Though they are ever so long continued, they will not prevail upon God. *167*
Once again we raise the question: Why? Why does God make his justice so inexorable that eternal hell’s cries can never be heard? It is for the glory of God. “Whatever God bestows upon such . . . is not at all for that end to glorify his love upon them; but all that he does he doth for his own glory and to glorify himself by it some other way, and that is [that] in the end he may shew his wrath and glorify his justice.” *168*
3. Mercy
It is interesting that Edwards can discuss love and mercy apart from each other. Or is he discussing them together under aliases when he speaks of love of benevolence and love of complacency? Is love of complacency what he usually means by love in the purity of its conception? Is benevolence that undeserved love to saints and sinners alike which he elsewhere calls by the name of mercy? At any rate, love is chiefly expressed to the elect, but the form of its expression is chiefly mercy.
“God is a being of transcendent mercy.” *169* It had to be transcendent and infinite or it could not have reached sinners. When the sinner reminds the preacher, Edwards, that he (the sinner) has sinned against a holy God, the preacher answers that he cannot trust mercy alone but that the mercy of Christ has satisfied divine justice. “All mercy is through Jesus Christ and could only come through him.” *170*
Though “God is rich in mercy” *171* and there is great encouragement to the sinner from the infinitude of the divine mercy, *172* mercy is not a necessary property of God. It is not, therefore, contrary to God’s nature to refrain from exercising mercy. It is “not” a necessary inclination of the heart in God but an ability or a sufficiency of heart to show mercy on any object he pleases as that wisdom directs to. *173* “God may be infinitely merciful, and yet he may when it pleases exact what is just.” *174*
The relationship of mercy and justice greatly interested Edwards the preacher and thinker. Mercy, he warned his parishioners, does not mean that God cannot bear to inflict penal justice:
This is to conceive of the mercy of God as a passion to which his nature is so subject that God is liable to be moved, and affected, and overcome by seeing a creature in misery, so that he cannot bear to see justice executed: which is a most unworthy and absurd notion of the mercy of God, and would, if true, argue great weakness. *175*
No, mercy is sovereign or the exercise of a sovereign, not a subject; namely, God. It is not so, he insists, that God “cannot help but deliver sinners from misery.” To demolish the imperious demanders of mercy Edwards resorts to one of his logical steam rollers:
[I]f his mercy be of such a nature, that a very great degree of misery, though just, is contrary to his nature; then it is only to add to the mercy, and then a less degree of misery is contrary to his nature; again to add further to it, and a still less degree of misery is contrary to his nature. And so, the mercy of God being infinite, all misery must be contrary to his nature; which we see to be contrary to fact. . . . *176*
But he concludes with a more psychological argument: “If we saw something in wicked men that should appear as hateful to us, as its misery appears dreadful, all possible objections against this doctrine would disappear at once.”
It would seem that mercy is the opposite of justice and that the latter precludes the former. Not so, argues Edwards. “That which is not contrary to God’s justice is not contrary to his mercy.” That is, if justice is not violated, mercy is possible. Indeed, it is justice which makes mercy possible. For “[i]f damnation be justice, then mercy may choose its own object. They mistake the nature of the mercy of God, who think that it is an attribute, which, in some cases, is contrary to justice. Nay, God’s mercy is illustrated by it, as in the twenty-third verse of the context.” *177* Edwards means that if men in themselves justly deserve damnation, then a just mercy (the satisfaction of Christ) is their only hope. He also often stresses the fact that a necessary mercy is no mercy at all.
In this context he confronts the most difficult case of all. Can God refuse mercy to those who beg for it? Men might be able to live with the notion that God has no obligation to bestow mercy on those who do not want it; but what of those who ask for it? For Edwards, mercy is still sovereign. Can God be excused from showing the sinner mercy when he asks for it? Edwards asks rhetorically:
[I]f this be the case, God has no liberty to vindicate his own honor and majesty; but must lay himself open to all manner of affronts, and yield himself up to the abuses of vile men, though they disobey, despise, and dishonor him, as much as they will; and when they have done, his mercy and pardoning grace must not be in his own power and at his own disposal, but he must be obliged to dispense it at their call. He must take these bold and vile contemners of his Majesty, when it suits them to ask it, and must forgive all their sins, and not only so, but must adopt them into his family, and make them his children, and bestow eternal glory upon them. *178*
Nevertheless, the demand of mercy will not be easily silenced. If God refuses mercy, how can he be merciful? To this objection Edwards bluntly replies that such protestors have a wrong conception of mercy and pity. Incorrigibles do not recommend themselves even to the mercy of men. Even in hell the damned are not as much an object of pity as people imagine that they will be. *179* Obviously, it does not make sense for one to be encouraged to become God’s enemy by presumption on his mercy. God is not anxious to visit the wicked with their due punishment, *180* but when he does do so he will not pity. Edwards was fond of quoting the Proverb which told of wisdom’s ultimate vengeance without pity (Pro_1:24-33). The point is that those who presume on mercy are not truly penitent, which means that they do not truly ask for mercy.
As the parable of the Ten Virgins indicates, the door of pity will be shut forever against those not ready for the coming of Christ. *181* Edwards would have agreed with the contemporary English Puritan Clarkson that “it has been the ruin of millions, to presume on mercy without ground. The Lord does plainly exclude all such from all hopes of mercy (Deu_29:20).”
Nonetheless, the mercy of God is waiting for those who truly call for it. The greatness of sin is no impediment to the bestowment of it. *182* After all, the only difference between the wicked in the world and in hell is the possibility of mercy here. “All that wherein the present state of persons differ from a state of damnation is mercy.” *183*
Moreover, God is the ultimate source of any pity there is in this present world. “Man never would have had any pity from anyone in the miserable state into which he fell if God had not pitied him.” The angels would not have any pity, for they do not possess an infinite pity. And men? “If God had not had pity on men, he would have left their sin and corruption that they were fallen into without restraint, and then men would have been like devils.” *184* They would have had no pity on each other. It is God’s pity, not man’s, that makes men work together in self-interest. Temporal blessings also come only from him ultimately. These blessings continue only because he continues waiting to be gracious.
Not only is the mercy of God to his people the inspiration of all his works in this world, but this world is the inspiration for the mercy of God. That is, until man sinned the mercy of God never came into display. The angels who sinned were damned, and those who did not were established in righteousness by covenant. “The mercy of God was an attribute never seen before in its exercises, till it was seen in this work of redemption, or the fruits of it.” *185* The whole story of redemption is the working out of the mercy in God’s heart. There is no account of it but that God would show mercy. *186*
4. Wrath
We have seen that God’s justice is manifested in mercy but especially in wrath. Now we come to a consideration of wrath in its own right as an aspect of the morality of the deity.
After describing the terror of the Lord, Edwards explains why it must be so terrible:
It is true this punishment is dreadful beyond all expression or conception, and so is the greatness and gloriousness of God as much beyond all expression or conception. . . . The wrath of God that you have heard of, dreadful as it is, is not more dreadful than that Majesty which you have despised and trampled on is awful. *187*
God is infinitely above man. We are utterly incapable of understanding Him. But since God wants not to remain hidden but to be known, He stoops to comparisons that can reach the limited reason of mankind. “There are two ways that God glorifies himself in the creature, first, by showing the emptiness and vanity of the creature in itself and, then, by showing his glory in it.” *188* In this particular sermon Edwards goes on to show how God reveals himself to man especially in His wrath. Creatures, too, show their greatest strength when angry. He warns us here that men are not exactly like God and their anger is not as His anger. Edwards makes a special point of this in another unpublished sermon, on Hos_11:9 : “’tis well for us that God is not as we are.” *189* Nevertheless, He is enough like us that we can learn something about Him from ourselves using the traditional ways: via negativa and via perfectionis.
However congruous and justified the wrath of God may be, Edwards does admit that it is a strange work. “It is a strange punishment that God has assigned to the workers of iniquity.” *190* For one thing, it goes utterly against the grain of human nature. Man desires happiness, but this brings him the exact opposite forever. The wrath of God also appears strange because it has no parallel in this world. It seems unreal because it does not exist here, though it is designed for those who do. Furthermore, it is to a great degree unknown in this world. People do not often hear of it and do not believe it when they do. It is also inconceivable in this present world. In fact, if men in this world ever saw the wrath of God poured out in its fullness, they probably would die at the sight.
Strange as the wrath of God may seem, there are very good reasons for it, the sinner is assured. Fundamentally, it is so because sin is a strange and a monstrous thing. It is contrary to the excellency of the human as well as the divine nature, not to mention the natural order and design of all things. Especially, it seems strange in a present state when the sinner is actually enjoying the mercies of God.
The ultimate rationale and necessity for the wrath of God is the nature of God, especially his holiness (though all his attributes are involved). An infinitely holy God simply must infinitely destroy opposition. *191* There is no other way that the law of God can be fulfilled. *192* Also, God has sworn that He will be revenged, *193* and He has given evidence that He will do it. *194* Most of all, when the grace of the gospel is spurned it is necessarily turned into a wrath most terrible. *195*
God surely hates sin. “God hates sin” because sin carries in it hatred of God. *196* Can God not overlook this hatred? “If he should not hate that which is hatred to him, he would deny himself; but God cannot deny himself.” “[M]en,” Edwards insists in another sermon, “do not hate misery more than God hates sin.” *197*
Edwards knows no comfortable distinction between sin and sinner. The sinner never escapes while God is busy hating only his sin. On the contrary, Edwards warns them, “You may be sure he'll take care of you.” *198* According to Jonathan Edwards, God “abhors persons for their sins.” *199* There before him are some of the very children that God hates. He has no value for them. The “unconverted are objects of his loathing and displeasure.” Christ calls them dogs.” *200* The famous “Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God” sermon warns the sinners of Enfield (and Northampton) that God not only hates them but has the utmost contempt for them (according to Isa_63:1). *201* He is incensed at them. The sermon on Psa_7:11, delivered in 1747-48, sounds like the more famous “Sinners” sermon, as Edwards warns his people that nothing keeps God back from destroying them except His mere good pleasure. *202* He labors the point that God is angry with them, as well as with their sins. Psa_72:18 tells natural men that they should fear being extinguished at any moment. God simply has no regard for some *203* and feels wrath toward all their concerns. *204*
The hatred of God against the sinner is reciprocated. “The hatred is a mutual loathing between God and wicked men.” *205* That men abhor God and God abhors men is the theme of this awakening sermon. Edwards goes further in the early sermon on Rom_3:19. “If God should eternally reject and destroy you, what an agreeableness and exact mutual answerableness there would be between God’s so dealing with you and your spirit and behavior. There would not only be an equality but a similitude.”
God may and does hate sinners, but saints may not and, in so far as they are good saints, do not. The “Miscellanies” deal rather comprehensively with the question of the imprecatory Psalms:
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 (Psa_109:1-31); as in Act_1:2. . . . They wish them ill, not as personal, but as public, enemies to the church of God. *206*
This awful hatred and wrath of God must be expressed. “God doesn’t see meet that one glory of his nature should be greatly manifested and another not at all. And, therefore, it is his pleasure to show how terrible his wrath is as well as how desirable his favor, for both the dreadfulness of his anger and the exceeding worth of his favor are things wherein the glory of God consists.” *207* God shows the meaning of words by acts. One thinks of the modern emphasis on word and act revelation which Edwards stresses not only in his sermons but throughout his History of Redemption.
Consequently, the actual wrath of God must pass understanding, and the images used to convey the idea must be at least literal.
O how miserable may we judge the case of those wretches to be that are fallen into the hands of the living God to be as eternal examples of the exceeding fierceness of God’s wrath. . . . Hence, what the Scripture teaches us concerning the misery of the damned is not incredible because it is represented so great . . . need not seem strange. . . . Hence, we may learn that the Scripture representations of the misery of the damned are not hyperbolical. They are not to be looked upon as false and incredible, nor to be taken in any sense below their proper signification. The metaphors and similes by which the misery of hell is represented do express a very extreme degree of misery unless they are hyperbolical. . . . The principal metaphor is that of fire. . . .
There is no cause to take these expressions (weeping, etc.) as hyperbolical if that be God’s design to shew how terrible his wrath is in the destruction of the ungodly. But those things that are used as similes, instead of exceeding the reality, are only faint images and shadows of the torments of hell. And, therefore, we find everything that gives an idea of an extreme misery is used to set forth hell torments because no one is sufficient. *208*
As terrible as all this may be, it is a necessary display of wrath. “The glory and honor of God requires that his displeasure be manifested against sin.” *209* If he did not do this, it would argue his approbation of sin. Men may have no obligation to manifest vengeance, but God does; for he is the supreme ruler of the world. If he did not do so, it would not be apparent how terrible it is to despise God. This manifestation is necessary for justice which “consists in determining and causing a proportion between man’s moral and natural state. And the creature is made more aware of the benefit of the divine favor. God manifests his justice in the condemnation of sinners, in the sufferings of Christ and in temporal judgments on individuals. However, Edwards warns, “Persons may have cause to judge themselves when it would be rashness in others to judge of them.” He applies this principle especially to Northampton.
In “The Portion of the Wicked” sermon, Edwards spells out the wrath that is manifested to the wicked in this world and the next. In this world the portion of the wicked Isaiah: 1. God oftentimes in wrath leaves them to themselves. . . .
2. Indignation and wrath are sometimes exercised . . . by their being cursed in all that concerns them. . . .
3. After a time they must die. . . .
4. Wicked men are oftentimes the subject of much tribulation and anguish of heart on their death-beds. . . . *210*
The wrath of God attending the wicked soul hereafter Isaiah: 1. The soul, when it is separated from the body, shall be cast down into hell. . . .
2. Here [the prison, where devils and wicked men are reserved till the day of judgment] the souls of wicked men shall suffer extreme and amazing misery, until the resurrection. This misery is not indeed their full punishment. . . .
3. The separate souls of the wicked . . . shall be in amazing fear of their more full punishment at the day of judgment. . . .
4. When the day of judgment comes they shall rise to the resurrection of damnation. . . .
5. Then must they appear before their Judge to give up their account. . . .
6. Then the sentence of condemnation shall be pronounced by the Judge upon them. . . .
7. Then the sentence shall be executed. . . .
8. In this condition they shall remain throughout the never-ending ages of eternity. *211*
The most frightful aspect of all is the eternality of the misery. Since God is always angry with the wicked, as indicated by many cited texts, their torment must continue forever. *212* They are rightly called the children of wrath. They suffer from and for an abiding guilt. It even increases. Edwards cited Charnocke in his Divine Attributes as favoring that notion.
The use to which Edwards put the sermon on Rom_9:22 was to learn that one reason why the punishment of the wicked will be eternal is that the wrath may appear to be infinitely dreadful. “Seeing that God is a being of infinitely terrible majesty, it is meet that his displeasure should appear to be infinitely terrible that it may be in proportion to his goodness. . . . But the punishment of the wicked cannot be infinite in intensity, and therefore it is so in duration. That suffering that is infinite in duration is an infinite evil.” *213* And this sense of the terribleness of wrath is essential to a sense of the glory of grace.
A sense of his awful majesty and terrible wrath against sin and a sense of his wonderful grace and love must go together. Without the sense of one there cannot be a due sense of the other. Without a sense of hell the idea of God is maimed and imperfect, not answerable to his nature and true glory. Therefore, whenever persons are converted, in order to their having a right sense of his grace and more gentle attributes, they must have a and those attributes wherein his terribleness consists.
Here is the conclusion of this awful sermon: “’tis very uncertain whether or no you will escape. You are ready doubtless to promise yourselves that you shall some way or other escape, but nothing is more uncertain. God indeed knows how it will be, but as to anything that appears to men it is exceeding doubtful, so doubtful that the most that were as you are do not escape.”
This wrath of God is eternal because it is not ameliorative. There is a difference between wrath and chastening. Edwards spells it out in his response to John Taylors work on Original Sin. Taylor had argued that death was the only consequence of the Fall and that was to restrain sin and therefore was ameliorative punishment. Edwards asks:
If death be brought on mankind only as a benefit and in that manner which Dr. Taylor mentions, viz. to mortify, or moderate their carnal appetites and affections, wean ’em from the world, excite ’em to sober reflections, and lead ’em to the fear and obedience of God, etc. - is it not strange, that it should fall so heavy on infants, who are not capable of making any such improvement of it? *214*
Edwards does not deny that God does chasten and that this is a divine work of amelioration; but, even in that case, the Scripture represents these chastenings as
being for the sin of the subject, and as evidence of the divine displeasure for its sinfulness. Thus the Apostle in 1Co_11:31-32, speaks of God’s chastening his people by mortal sickness, for their good, “That they might not be condemned with the world,” and yet signifies that it was “for their sin; for this cause many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep”; that is, for the profaneness and sinful disorder before-mentioned. *215*
Edwards has a little fun with Taylor before he is finished with him on this point. “Here is a mighty alteration,” he taunts:
Mankind, once so easy and happy, healthful, vigorous and beautiful, rich in all the pleasures and abundant blessings of Paradise, now turned out, destitute, weak and decaying, into a wide, barren world, yielding briers and thorns instead of the delightful growth and sweet fruit of the Garden of Eden, to wear out life in sorrow and toil on the ground cursed for his sake, and at last, either through long languishment and lingering decay or severe pain and acute disease, to expire and turn to putrefaction and dust. If these are only used as medicines to prevent and to cure the diseases of the mind, they are sharp medicines indeed, especially death.
There is a difference between the punishment of the sinner and the saint. Here is the point at which God loves the sinner - namely when he is a saint - and hates only the sin; but his wrath against the wicked is just that - against the wicked and not merely what they do, as we have seen. *216* In this sermon also Edwards warns his hearers that “nothing preserves you one moment from suffering this wrath but the mere pleasure of the angry God.”
To the problem of pain Edwards gives a clear and unambiguous answer - the glory of God. Mens chief end is to glorify God, even in suffering. “The wrath of God is a thing that is divinely excellent and glorious.” *217* “’Tis to the glory of God that he is terrible in his doings towards the children of men.” God is indeed terrible both to the saints who are filled with reverence and awe and to the wicked who are filled with dreadful apprehensions. William James has said that there is a problem of evil so long as one cockroach suffers from unrequited love. According to Edwards, man is not a cockroach, and it is God whom man would make to suffer from unrequited love. There is no problem of evil because God does not suffer from unrequited love, but those who are guilty of trying to cause him to suffer, suffer themselves.
Joseph Tracy in the nineteenth century found the country incapable of the feelings inculcated by the Puritans:
It would scarce be possible to produce such effects on one of the congregations of the present day. The pulpit has labored so long, and so powerfully, to give all our religious thoughts a practical direction, to engage us in plans for accomplishing appreciable good here on earth, and we have been so thoroughly taught to expend our sensibilities in action for the good of others, that we should need a long and laborious training, to make us capable of such engrossing contemplation of objects purely spiritual. *218*
Mayhew, in a similar vein, shows how the penal system was effected by a puritan Edwardsian mentality no longer present. *219*
The Happiness of God
Edwards does not put special emphasis on this theme - not nearly as much as on some other attributes. Yet this is not, strictly speaking, an attribute so much as the result of the attributes, especially the harmony of natural with moral attributes. If God were infinite without being good, perhaps he could not be happy. If he were good without being infinite, almost certainly he could not be happy. But the blessedness of God is that he is what he wants to be. He is infinitely holy and “holily” infinite.
“God is a perfectly happy Being, in the most absolute and highest sense possible. . . . [I]n strict propriety of speech, there is no such thing as any pain, grief or trouble in God.” *220* That was said in passing by Edwards en route to answering a problem raised by Arminians. He addresses himself more directly and basically to the question in a sermon on 1Ti_6:15 which begins with a citation from 1 Timothy 1:17. *221* What is meant by happiness? he asks. It is a real and proper good in which there is rest and pleasure and the absence of all evil. God’s happiness is perfect in contrast to the saints. Their capacity for it is filled in heaven, but their capacity is imperfect. For one thing, their understanding is imperfect. There is infinitely more that they do not know than that they do know. Also, God is independently happy while their happiness depends on him. The object and the subject must be in harmony, and in God’s case he is both object and subject, in perfect harmony with himself. He, unlike the saints, is immutably so. As if something more needed to be said, Edwards argues that if God delights to behold beauty, He must be infinitely happy because he beholds Himself. He is indeed the fountain of all happiness.
Though the manner of God’s happiness is essentially incomprehensible, the Bible does indicate that it consists in love. The Trinity has an eternal pleasure in each other. This happiness of God being in the eternal delight of the persons of the Trinity in each other is developed in the Essay on the Trinity and in the Treatise on Grace. In the latter, Edwards says that “[t]he happiness of the deity, as all other true happiness, consists in love and society.” *222*
There were those in Edwards’ day, as in ours, who were not happy with the happiness of God thus described. Some, for example, denied the existence of such perfect and independent happiness because of God’s need to create. Edwards is happy with the following reply to the perennial objection:
God may have a real and proper pleasure or happiness in seeing the happy state of the creature; yet this may not be different from his delight in himself, being a delight in his own infinite goodness or the exercises of that glorious property of his nature to diffuse and communicate himself, and so gratifying this inclination of his own heart.
After all, as we have seen, “[t]he sun receives nothing from the jewel that receives its light and shines only by a participation of its brightness.” God rejoicing in the creature is but rejoicing in his own act.” This pleasure in diffusion is not necessary, for it is always present in his mind. “Joy in them is eternally, absolutely perfect, unchangeable, independent.” “God is seeking himself in the creation of the world.” “Divine being, who is in effect universal being. . . .” “God in seeking their glory and happiness seeks himself.” And the bottom line: “eternal progressive; union and communion with him; so the creature must be viewed as in infinite strict union with himself.” *223*
Perhaps the more serious challenge to the perfect happiness of God comes not from the creatures’ happiness but from their misery. The Arminians solve that problem by contending that men’s misery comes from their violation of the will of God, namely, that they frustrate the divine will for them and thus do not enter into His happiness. Of course, Edwards makes short shrift of that view by noting that God would be infinitely unhappy if His will were frustrated. The misery of creatures, under such circumstances, would hurt Him infinitely more than them, and He would be more miserable than they. No, God’s counsel stands fast, and so does His happiness. Edwards teaches that God’s will is always done; it follows that God is infinitely happy. Therefore, the misery of men, which must fall within the will of God, cannot destroy divine happiness but must be a part of it. Edwards turns this point against the Arminians who raised it. Since God must be happy, Edwards triumphantly concludes, God, in some sense, must have willed the misery of men. If the Arminians deny one, they lose both; if they affirm either, they must affirm both. That is, if God does not will the misery of men, God Himself is infinitely miserable, for the misery of men has, in fact, come to pass. If God is not miserable, but happy, then the misery of men cannot be against His will. *224* In another place he puts the matter in a somewhat syllogistic form:
1. That God is a perfectly happy Being, in the most absolute and highest sense possible.
2. That it will follow from hence, that God is free from everything that is contrary to happiness; and so, that in strict propriety of speech, there is no such thing as any pain, grief or trouble in God.
3. When any intelligent being is really crossed and disappointed, and things are contrary to what he truly desires, he is the less pleased, or has less pleasure, his pleasure and happiness is diminished, and he suffers what is disagreeable to him, or is the subject of something that is of a nature contrary to joy and happiness, even pain and grief. *225*
We have already noted, and we will do so in more fullness later, that God communicates Himself morally by the Holy Spirit. Here, too, the happiness of God in the saints is the Holy Spirit. “The Holy Ghost is the pure river of water of life that proceeds from the throne of God and the Lamb, spoken of in Rev_22:1.” *226*
As I bring to a close this brief discussion of the happiness of God, I note that the question of divine suffering is a contradiction to Edwards’ mind. His main concern is to insist that God’s happiness is so superabundant and over-flowing that it brings the creatures happiness without any dimunition of His own and at the same time allows God really to enjoy the creature’s happiness as an enjoyment of Himself. Edwards shows that God not only never suffers, but enjoys the creature’s happiness as a participation in His own uninterrupted blessedness:
Many have wrong notions of God’s happiness, as resulting from his absolute self-sufficience, independence, and immutability. Though it be true that God’s glory and happiness are in and of himself, are infinite and can’t be added to, unchangeable for the whole and every part of which he is perfectly independent of the creature; yet it don’t hence follow, nor is it true, that God has no real and proper delight, pleasure or happiness, in any of his acts or communications relative to the creature; or effects he produces in them; or in anything he sees in the creature’s qualifications, dispositions, actions and state. God may have a real and proper pleasure or happiness in seeing the happy state of the creature yet this may not be different fro; being a delight in his own infinite goodness; or the exercise of that glorious propensity of his nature to diffuse and communicate himself, and so gra