14 July 2023

Divine Light and Holy Love: Genuine Conversion in the Works of Jonathan Edwards

’Tis the most important change that ever persons are the subjects of.
– Jonathan Edwards, The Reality of Conversion (1740)

I. Introduction

“The world abounds with millions of unconverted people who say they believe in Jesus.”^[1]
– John Piper, Desiring God

The above statement only makes sense if we allow that it is one thing to profess Christ, and another to possess Christ, and that conversion is the difference between the two. “Conversion” denotes a fundamental change of direction and a radical change of nature. Recognising its importance to genuine Christianity, a biblical understanding of conversion and evangelism is the “fourth mark” in Mark Dever’s influential book Nine Marks of a Healthy Church. And yet if Piper’s statement is accurate, the church is not in the best of health. Furthermore, several Western governments are now seeking to ban “conversion therapy” in such broad terms that biblical preaching which aims at such a radical change could soon be outlawed. But are we sufficiently confident in our understanding of conversion to explain it, defend it, and recognise it? It is our argument here that if the church wishes to regain a robust and profound understanding of conversion, it would do well to turn to Jonathan Edwards as a scriptural guide whose insights into the nature of conversion and, crucially, the difference between genuine and false conversion, deserve to be retrieved and reflected upon afresh.

Jonathan Edwards (1703 – 1758) pastored during times both of localised and widespread religious revival in Britain’s American colonies. The Northampton, Massachusetts, community of which he was pastor experienced its own revival in the years 1734-5. A few years later the Great Awakening swept through Northampton as it did the rest of New England, in the early 1740s. In keeping with the concerns of the early evangelical movement of which he was a part, the great burden of Edwards’ preaching was conversion: “the turning of the heart from sin to God”.^[2] One recent scholarly article asserts: “one cannot deny the preeminent place of conversion in his thought and preaching.”^[3] Edwards stressed the overarching significance of conversion thus: “If there be such a thing as conversion, ’tis the most important thing in the world.” ^[4] Stressing the essence of conversion as “a great change”, Edwards states, “’Tis the most important change that ever persons are the subjects of.”^[5] The simple reason for this was that the difference between eternal life and damnation lay in whether a person was converted or not.

Amongst Calvinist pastors such as Edwards and his colleagues, the sovereignty of God in conversion was stressed, but not in such a way that the responsibility of the sinner to seek conversion was in any way diminished. Edwards inherited a “preparationist” view of conversion, whereby subjects of God’s saving grace were (generally) prepared for it through their diligent use of various God-appointed means.^[6] Alongside this idea of preparation came an inherited “morphology” or recognised pattern, whereby a sinner passed through a number of steps or stages before it could be said they had indeed “come through” or been converted.^[7] Whilst Edwards did not reject either aspect of this legacy outright, his view of conversion possessed a different emphasis. Perhaps not least because his own conversion had not strictly followed the steps of the inherited “morphology” (his deepest experience of conviction of sin occurred after his conversion, not before it), the pastor of Northampton brought a combination of logical rigour and profound scriptural insight to bear in his exploration of the nature of true conversion. “Nature” is the operative word: in the words of a trio of Edwards’ scholars he saw conversion “not so much a matter of a certain order or structure of experience as it is of an altered ‘nature’”.^[8]

Edwards’ theology was born out of an intense, lifelong study of scripture. As D.W. Kling puts it: “To understand Edwards is to understand that scripture informed the core of his being.” ^[9] During times of revival Edwards observed that individuals were prone to interpret their personal experiences as proof of having been converted – imagining that they saw Christ, texts of scripture suddenly coming to mind or hearing voices assuring them of salvation, amongst others. To this Edwards responded: “’Tis abundantly safer… to follow the light of Scripture, than to draw up rules from our own experiences.” People could be deceived by such experiences, which could be caused by the devil, and “the Scripture is very careful to lay the main stress upon such things as Satan cannot imitate.”^[10] The Bible formed his understanding of conversion and provided reliable examples, both of genuine conversion and, just as importantly, its counterfeit.

Revival brought converts, but it also brought hypocrites – people who made a great show of having been converted but whose lives called into question the credibility of their profession. Some cases of false conversion were easy to identify, others far less so. As Edwards’ experience of revivals grew, his position moved from the almost unbridled optimism of his early reports on the Northampton awakening, to a more seasoned and discerning view, borne out of much disappointment at seeing those who had claimed to be converted either backslidden or apparently never converted at all.^[11] Edwards’ great concern was the damage such false conversions did to the internal peace of the church and its witness to a watching world:

’Tis by the mixture of counterfeit religion with true, not discerned and distinguished, that the devil has had his greatest advantage against the cause and kingdom of Christ, all along, hitherto.^[12]

If he could better ascertain where the essence of true conversion lay, pastors could be better instructed in discerning who among their flocks had indeed been “savingly wrought upon” and who were simply making “a vain show”. Even more importantly, those who were self-deceived might be awakened to their perilous condition before it was too late.

II. Thesis

This paper seeks to outline the main emphases of Edwards’ teaching on genuine conversion and its counterfeit, from the perspective that a thoughtful retrieval of these insights would be of significant pastoral benefit to the contemporary church. Much of what we would consider definitive proof of a person being genuinely converted would not be viewed by Edwards as such, and his highly perceptive and biblically rooted approach can give us a richer understanding of what conversion really is and how it manifests itself. However, contemporary Christians risk misinterpreting, and thereby misapplying, what Edwards meant by “affections”. Further, Edwards himself was the first to stress that the signs of grace which he described were not in themselves a comprehensive test to give assurance of salvation one way or another, and he also warned against making absolute and definitive pronouncements about the spiritual condition of others.

III. Scope

The question of conversion permeates virtually all of Edwards’ work, which currently runs to 73 volumes in the Yale Works of Jonathan Edwards Online, with still more of Edwards’ papers and manuscripts awaiting transcription! A cursory search through his treatises, sermons and extensive Miscellanies yields myriad insights, meditations, and reflections on the nature of true conversion. A survey of everything Edwards had to say about conversion is therefore well beyond the scope of this paper. However, it is our thesis that two powerful motifs dominate Edwards’ thought on conversion: divine light and holy affections, and that in these respects two of Edwards’ works, one composed shortly before the revival in Northampton, and one written in the aftermath of the Great Awakening, enable us to coordinate the best of his thinking on genuine conversion. His 1733 sermon A Divine and Supernatural Light, Immediately Imparted to the Soul By the Spirit of God, Shown to Be Both a Scriptural, and Rational Doctrine (published in 1734) takes the theme of “spiritual light” which permeates so much of Edwards’ work on conversion and distils it into a concise and definite form. Of this work, Edwards’ biographer George Marsden says it “encapsulates better than any other single source the essence of his spiritual insight. More concisely than anywhere else… he related his most profound theological reflections on his understanding of true Christian experience.”^[13]

Some thirteen years later, Edwards had experienced the highs and lows of multiple revivals, most recently the Great Awakening itself. It was in response to the sensationalistic excesses (“delusive enthusiasm” as Marsden describes it^[14]) that took place during the Great Awakening that Edwards’ most comprehensive work on true and false conversion A Treatise Concerning Religious Affections was published. Religious Affections is widely recognised as a masterpiece within the canon of classic Christian literature and could be fairly said to be Edwards’ most thoroughgoing treatment of the signs which indicate a person is truly converted. All of these signs reside in the “affections”, a difficult term for modern readers to understand and which we will endeavour to define in due course.

Whilst reference will be made to other works, it is with A Divine and Supernatural Light and Religious Affections that we will be primarily concerned about in this short study. Between them, they assert a powerful thesis: what distinguishes true converts from false ones is that the former has been granted a new spiritual sense through the Holy Spirit uniting himself to the person’s soul and infusing a new and vital principle into it. This spiritual enlightenment is qualitative – it bestows the ability to apprehend the truth, beauty and glory of God and Christ on an experimental level that the unregenerate are incapable of. It is also effective – those, and only those, who have received this light are truly changed and demonstrate the fact they have been genuinely converted through the lively exercise of holy affections. Such affections can be counterfeited, however, so great care and discernment are required in evaluating their manifestation in ourselves or others. 

IV. A major caveat: No final judgments before the time

For all his depth of study into discerning between true and false converts, Edwards did not believe it was possible to make a final pronouncement on whether a person was truly converted or not and, in fact, strongly urged against doing so. Marsden notes that Edwards took exception to George Whitefield’s hasty pronouncements on the spiritual state of people he barely knew – including many New England pastors – on his first visit to the colonies. Edwards even went so far as to personally admonish the young Whitefield about this.^[15] Edwards states plainly:

Hence they do greatly err that go about to make a separation between true and false Christians in the world, as though they had power of discerning and certainly distinguishing between godly and ungodly, and so will venture positively and absolutely to decide concerning the state of others’ souls. They do err that will positively determine for persons that they are converted, but more especially they who are positive and peremptory in determining against ’em, being forward to say of one and another that they never were converted, and that they hadn’t a jot of true grace in their hearts… Such persons take upon them the part of the judge, and anticipate the work of the day of judgment.^[16]

So, if a final determination on the state of a person’s soul cannot, and indeed should not, be made, why go to such lengths to discover the differences between true and false converts and to elucidate the qualities that are peculiar only to genuine conversion? The answer is that whilst absolute pronouncements were not possible, very helpful indications as to whether a person was converted or not could indeed be discerned. People could be disabused of notions that in their minds proved decisively one way or another as to their own or another’s condition. An emphasis on discerning between true and false religion was not a warrant to be censorious of others, but rather an impetus for individuals to “see to their own souls”.^[17] They could be directed away from the quicksand of inconclusive signs of conversion to surer biblical grounds for their hope.

V. Regeneration, conversion and hypocrites

As we have seen above, by “conversion”, Edwards generally meant the great change by which a sinner becomes a Christian. It is a person’s entrance into the Christian life. He generally used the term “regeneration” to refer specifically to the new birth, but also used “conversion” in this sense.^[18] At other times he was at pains to distinguish them, even asserting that regeneration could take place some considerable time before conversion. This short explanation is given by way of a disclaimer to readers who may wish to explore some of the works of Edwards for themselves and be somewhat bemused by the differing uses of terms. For our purposes, we are considering conversion as Edwards usually referred to it, as “the great change” whereby a person who was dead in sin becomes alive in Christ, encompassing regeneration, repentance, and faith in Christ.

Edwards’ preferred term for false converts was “hypocrites”. By this he did not mean that such false converts were deliberately deceiving others, but rather that in most cases they were also self-deceived. Furthermore, Edwards freely acknowledged the presence of hypocrisy in true believers. What made a person truly a hypocrite was the absence of any sincerity whatsoever. By contrast, regarding true believers, “Though there be a great deal of hypocrisy, yet if there be any sincerity, that little sincerity shall not be rejected because there is so much hypocrisy with it.” ^[19]

VI. “A Great Change”: The reality of conversion (1740)

Before we explore A Divine and Supernatural Light and Religious Affections, another work of Edwards provides a helpful point of entry into his view of conversion in general terms.

His 1740 sermon The Reality of Conversion begins by asserting the very fact of conversion. “There is such a thing as conversion” he states as his doctrine, drawn from the text of John 3:10-11.^[20]

In this sermon, rather than define conversion as a series of experiences taking place in a specific order, Edwards repeatedly describes it in such terms as “a change”, “a change of nature”, and “a great change”.^[21] The example of suffering Christians who refused to renounce their faith showed that a fundamental inner change had occurred in them. The cause of such resolve can only be “some mighty work of God on their hearts, changing their natures and infusing principles that strengthened them and carried ’em far beyond the strength of nature”.^[22]

Edwards also explains why conversion, understood specifically as a change of nature, is necessary to salvation. Man’s true happiness consists in union with his Creator. Yet “man can never be happy in union with and in the enjoyment of his Creator with an unholy nature, for holiness of nature is conformity of nature with God” and “mankind are, as they are born into the world, universally of an unholy nature and, therefore, they can’t be made holy but by a change of nature”.^[23] Unholiness and holiness cannot be united but rather are at complete odds to one another. The remedy for unholy man to be united to his holy creator is for his unholy nature to be changed to a holy one, and this is the supernatural work of God in conversion.

Interestingly, in the “Application” section of the sermon, Edwards gives numerous directions to his unconverted listeners, at the conclusion of which he says: “If you follow these directions, in all probability you will be converted.”^[24] As a Reformed theologian who stressed the sovereign and supernatural work of God in conversion, he also placed on his hearers their responsibility to diligently use all the appointed channels through which conversion is typically brought about. In this sermon, he gives no less than seventeen directions to that end. It may be that in Edwards’ directions towards those who would be converted we see John “Rabbi” Duncan’s point when he said “I would like to sit at Jonathan Edwards’ feet to learn what is true religion, and at Thomas Boston’s to learn how I am to get it,” the implication being that Boston might not give quite so many directions for would-be converts to follow.^[25]

Given the fact that conversion is absolutely necessary for unholy people to be united to the holy God, and that damnation ensues without conversion, Edwards concludes: “If there be such a thing as conversion, ’tis the most important thing in the world; and they are happy that have been the subjects of it and they most miserable that have not”.^[26]

VII. True conversion and “The Sense of the Heart”: A divine and supernatural light

Light was Edwards’ favourite biblical image for conversion^[27], depicting God’s saving communication of his truth and love to creatures who were helplessly darkened by sin.^[28] Whilst Edwards’ references to 2 Corinthians 4:6 are understandably frequent in this regard, the text he takes for A Divine and Supernatural Light is in fact Matthew 16:7. The essence of divine truth cannot be revealed by flesh and blood, but only by God acting directly and immediately upon the creature, just as God the Father revealed the identity of Christ to Peter. This light does not propose new information that is not already found in Holy Scripture, nor does it present novel ideas or experiences to the imagination. Rather it illuminates the mind to see divine truth aright, in all its glory, excellency and beauty.

The uniqueness of this divine illumination consists in the way the Holy Spirit communicates it. A common theme in Edwards’ doctrine of conversion is that the Holy Spirit may, and often does, operate upon persons in a non-saving way. There are a range of ways in which the Spirit of God may act on the mind of “a natural man” without conversion. What makes the Spirit’s work in conversion unique is that he communicates himself to the creature: “He unites himself with the mind of a saint, takes him for his temple, actuates and influences him as a new, supernatural principle of life and action.”^[29] The Holy Spirit acts in the mind of a saint “as an indwelling vital principle” and this principle is “infused” into the soul. Edwards’ understanding of the Spirit communicating his own nature to the mind of the creature has been described as “placing him [the illuminated creature] on an entirely different epistemological level” to the unregenerate person.^[30] This divine and supernatural light which has been bestowed grants “a true sense of the divine excellency of the things revealed in the Word of God, and a conviction of the truth and reality of them, thence arising”.^[31]

In this sermon, Edwards takes the difference between the unregenerate and the regenerate to be the depth to which divine truth sinks into a creature. In the unregenerate, there is at best only rational assent and notional understanding. In the regenerate, the truth “reaches the bottom of the heart and changes the nature”.^[32] One person may know only propositionally that honey is sweet, but the other has tasted it and knows it experimentally to be so.^[33]

The word Edwards uses repeatedly to describe the apprehension of divine truth granted by this spiritual light is “sense”; and because this sense is in the inner man, he frequently calls it “the sense of the heart”: “’tis not a thing that belongs to reason, to see the beauty and loveliness of spiritual things; it is not a speculative thing, but depends on the sense of the heart.”^[34] Here Edwards is not pitting “reason” and “sense” against one another, for the assent and approval of the mind play their part in the believer’s reception of the truth. But he is placing the essence of saving faith in this latter quality, the sense of the heart:

Such a conviction of the truth of religion as this, arising, these ways, from a sense of the divine excellency of them, is that true spiritual conviction, that there is in saving faith. And this original of it, is that by which it is most essentially distinguished from that common assent, which unregenerate men are capable of.^[35]

Referring to 2 Corinthians 4:6, Edwards says “This plainly shows, that there is such a thing as a discovery of the divine superlative glory and excellency of God and Christ; and that peculiar to the saints; and also that ’tis as immediately from God, as light from the sun”.^[36]

It might be argued here that Edwards appears to be describing only regeneration rather than conversion as it is more fully understood. Certainly, there is a strong emphasis on the divine action in bringing about the new birth, viewed very much from the perspective of new and transformative light or knowledge imparted to the creature. But in explaining this light’s effects Edwards also encompasses the illuminated person’s hearty approval of God’s plan of redemption, and earnest reception of Jesus Christ as Redeemer: “This light, and this light only, will bring the soul to a saving close with Christ.”^[37] He is, as it were, aiming at the heart of what constitutes genuine conversion, not simply sketching a particular logical stage in the ordo salutis.

Edwards concludes the sermon with an important final observation: the evidence of a person having received this divine and supernatural light, and thus having been genuinely converted, is “universal holiness of life”.^[38] By this Edwards does not mean sinless perfection, but rather an obedience that extends into every department of life that is motivated by a sincere love for God:

But this light, as it reaches the bottom of the heart, and changes the nature, so it will effectually dispose to an universal obedience. It shows God’s worthiness to be obeyed and served. It draws forth the heart in a sincere love to God, which is the only principle of a true, gracious and universal obedience.^[39]

By the time of A Divine and Supernatural Light’s publication for a wider audience the year after it was preached, revival had broken out in the Northampton community of which Edwards was pastor, and he could say confidently in his Preface that such a doctrine, as he had outlined in his treatise, had since been “clearly exemplified” in his own congregation.

VIII. The Great Awakening^[40]

Further revival came about in spectacular fashion when the period known as Great Awakening dawned on Northampton as it did in much of the rest of New England with the visit of the English itinerant preacher George Whitefield in 1740. Whitefield preached for conversions – and got them in great numbers. However, with the Awakening came convulsions that upset the once-settled religious landscape. “Old Lights” who were sceptical of the revival’s “enthusiasm” were pitted against “New Lights” who embraced, often without too much discernment, many of its more sensationalistic manifestations. The result was that whilst many people may have been converted during this period, the church was in a mess. Settled ecclesiastical authority had suffered a major blow, with clergy divided amongst themselves, and New Light converts seceding from their congregations on account of their allegedly “graceless” ministers. It was in response to this confusion that Edwards wrote Religious Affections, and in doing so conferred upon the church a profound, searching and scriptural work on the essence of true religion.

We should point out here, given the title of the work, that Edwards uses the terms “religious” and “religion” positively, in keeping with the Christian tradition up until recent times. In contemporary evangelicalism “religion” is a term that has come to be used pejoratively to denote legalism or “works righteousness”, pitted against the “relationship” of true Christianity, or the “grace” of the gospel. Edwards would not recognise this use of the term. Rather, he contrasted true religion with false religion, and true believers with hypocrites.^[41]

IX. Holy love: Religious affections

But it is doubtless true, and evident from these Scriptures, that the essence of all true religion lies in holy love; and that in this divine affection, and an habitual disposition to it, and that light which is the foundation of it, and those things which are the fruits of it, consists the whole of religion.^[42]

The Great Awakening promised much, and even delivered much, but by its close it had degenerated into chaos and confusion. One of its most prominent critics was Charles Chauncy, the pastor of First Church in Boston. Chauncy, who we might describe today as a moderate or even a “protoliberal”, placed reason above affections, and decried the enthusiasm of the Awakening, especially the emphasis placed on emotional experiences. It is perhaps surprising, given the fact that they engaged in something of a pamphlet war, that Edwards and Chauncy agreed on a great deal; Edwards’ loathed many of the same excesses that Chauncy did. But he was a defender of the genuineness at the heart of the Awakening and was unwilling to concede the heart of authentic Christianity to reason and the intellect. Chauncy’s famous statement was: “an enlightened mind, not raised affections ought always be the guide of those who call themselves men; and this in the affairs of religion, as well as other things.”^[43] In stark contrast, Edwards asserted that a truly enlightened mind resulted in raised affections, leading to the significantly more famous thesis of his treatise: “True religion, in great part, consists in holy affections.” ^[44]

Contemporary readers can immediately run into trouble here, by substituting “emotions” for the less familiar term “affections”. This is a mistake. To begin with, there is no commonly accepted definition of what is meant by the emotions, but such consensus as there is tends to make emotions very much a “felt” experience, rooting them in the body in a fundamental way. By contrast, Edwards’ understanding of the affections situates them in the soul, not the body. More specifically, for Edwards affections are heightened inclinations of the will. The will exists in the soul. Therefore, although affections generally have an effect on the body, they do not reside in the body; a disembodied spirit is just as capable of experiencing affections as an embodied one.^[45] As Ryan J. Martin explains:

By replacing affections with emotions (often done to make Edwards more intelligible and contemporary), interpreters have left readers with a distorted Edwards. Edwards did not conceive of affections as corporeal feelings at all, but as strong movement of the will.^[46]

Further, the crux of Edwards’ argument in Religious Affections is that true religion consists in great part in holy affections. A hypocrite may experience a great many heightened affections, as was the case in the Awakening, but these affections are not holy, and therein lies the fundamental difference. We should therefore be very wary of invoking Edwards in an argument for heightened “emotions” per se in Christian life and worship.^[47]

In his preface to the work, Edwards describes his great burden for the project at hand. The failure of the church to distinguish between true grace and hypocrisy has given the devil the greatest advantage during the past period of revival, and through his mischief, he has succeeded in ruining much of its promise.

And so it is likely ever to be in the church, whenever religion revives remarkably, till we have learned well to distinguish between true and false religion, between saving affections and experiences, and those manifold fair shows, and glistering appearances, by which they are counterfeited; the consequences of which, when they are not distinguished, are often inexpressibly dreadful.^[48]

One of the “inexpressibly dreadful” things, alongside the schism, scandal and sensationalism of the excesses of the revival, is that countless people could be self-deceived as to their own spiritual state.

Edwards begins Part 1 with the text which is the basis for his whole argument, 1 Peter 1:8. The Apostle Peter was writing to suffering Christians, who manifested the genuineness of their faith by two things: love to Christ and joy in Christ. Both these qualities clearly belonged to the affections, hence Edwards could state the doctrine: “True religion, in great part, consists in holy affections.”^[49]

He goes on to define his understanding of the affections, as we have noted, as heightened inclinations of the will. Being heightened, they are those inclinations which are “lively”, “vigorous”, and “sensible”.^[50] Being heightened inclinations, they are either strongly inclined towards an object, or are equally repulsed by it; they are greatly pleased or greatly displeased with something:

As all the exercises of the inclination and will, are either in approving and liking, or disapproving and rejecting; so the affections are of two sorts; they are those by which the soul is carried out to what is in view, cleaving to it, or seeking it; or those by which it is averse from it, and opposes it.^[51]

Being inclinations of the will, the affections cannot be described as mere feelings; being movements themselves, they propel the person towards or away from an object and are the ground of motivation for all holy action: “the affections are very much the spring of men’s actions… he that has doctrinal knowledge and speculation only, without affection, never is engaged in the business of religion.”^[52] Whilst there are many affections that are not the result of saving grace, one thing is sure: unaffectionate religion is clearly dead:

That religion which God requires, and will accept, does not consist in weak, dull and lifeless wouldings^[53], raising us but a little above a state of indifference: God, in his Word, greatly insists upon it, that we be in good earnest, fervent in spirit, and our hearts vigorously engaged in religion.^[54]

The Shema of Deuteronomy 6:4-5 and the promise of circumcision of the heart in 30:6 clearly situate real religion in “vigorous engagedness of the heart.”^[55]

The things of religion are so great, that there can be no suitableness in the exercises of our hearts, to their nature and importance, unless they be lively and powerful. In nothing, is vigour in the actings of our inclinations so requisite, as in religion; and in nothing is lukewarmness so odious.^[56]

The Scriptures plainly demonstrate that genuine faith manifests itself in various holy affections in the Bible, such as godly fear; hope in God; love for God and Christ; hatred of sin and evil; holy desire; holy joy; religious sorrow; gratitude; and compassion. Love itself takes the central place among these, as “the Scriptures do represent true religion, as being summarily comprehended in love, the chief of the affections and fountain of all other affections.”^[57] Love is the fountainhead of all other affections: “From a vigorous, affectionate and fervent love to God will necessarily arise other religious affections.”^[58]

Edwards illustrates his point with the ultimate example of Christ himself to demonstrate the truth that true religion consists in holy affections:

The Lord Jesus Christ was a person who was remarkably of a tender and affectionate heart; and his virtue was expressed very much in holy affections. He was the greatest instance of ardency, vigour and strength of love, to both God and man, that ever was.^[59]

Edwards describes the religion of heaven as one which “consists very much in affections” of “holy and mighty love and joy, and the expression of these in most fervent and exalted praises.”^[60] It is hard to argue with Edwards’ thesis here, given the abundance of clear scriptural examples laid out in support of the doctrine that the heart of true Christian experience lies chiefly in holy affections.

Part Two takes an interesting turn, in that Edwards’ now seeks to demonstrate that many manifestations of the affections in religion are not conclusive proof of a person being genuinely converted. It is worth us taking note of these “no certain signs” and reflecting on how we may have taken them to be more reliable than, according to Edwards, Scripture itself would allow.

X. The twelve “No Certain Signs”^[61]

1. Very great affections

Edwards is at pains to say that genuinely holy affections should be very great and raised very high. High affections should therefore not be denounced as “enthusiasm” by rationalists who claim such displays are proof of delusion. However, they are no surer of genuine conversion either, because “there are religious affections which are very high that are not spiritual and saving.”^[62] The children of Israel, after their deliverance at the Red Sea, were greatly affected by God’s mercy and sang to his praise, but very soon forgot his works. The greatest example of such non-saving affections was the adulation that greeted Christ at the triumphal entry to Jerusalem, with the same crowd who shouted “Hosanna!” shouting “Crucify!” only a few days later.^[63]

2. Effects on the body

Physical manifestations were a frequent spectacle during the times of the Great Awakening and again attracted derision from the rationalists. Although he does not mention this in Religious Affections, Edwards’ own wife, a woman he esteemed as deeply spiritual and mature, had undergone several physical religious experiences.^[64] He was very much convinced that these were indeed the manifestation of holy affections to a very high degree. However, Edwards could see no rule from scripture or experience which could separate natural affections, which could also have a great effect on the body, from truly religious ones. In human persons, all vigorous affections, not just holy ones, influence the body by virtue of the union between the soul and the body. Therefore, affections manifesting themselves in the body were no proof that they were holy.^[65]

3. Speaking much about religion

A person’s being “full of talk” was grounds for some to brand them a Pharisee, but grounds for others to be persuaded that they were genuinely converted because “their mouth is now opened”. Again, as far as Edwards is concerned, the jury is out, because “that persons are disposed to be abundant in talking of the things of religion may be from a good cause and it may be from a bad one”.^[66] On the whole, Edwards is more negative in his assessment of an overly talkative person who is ready to speak of his experience in every company and on every occasion: “it is rather a dark sign than a good one”.^[67]

4. The person is not the author of their affections

As we have mentioned before, Edwards was very alert to the fact that a person can be acted upon supernaturally and yet not savingly. Just because a person discovers an affection that seems to have come upon them from the outside, does not mean it was the saving work of the Holy Spirit. A person can also be acted upon by the Holy Spirit in a non-saving way, and he can also be acted upon by the devil, or evil spirits. Thus, having affections that appear not to have been aroused by the person experiencing them is no proof of them being genuinely gracious.^[68]

5. Texts of Scripture coming into the mind

Another commonly reported phenomenon of religious experience in Edwards’ day was of verses of Scripture coming suddenly to the mind of individuals, and for them to claim this as a basis for God’s saving and gracious dealings with them. Edwards would allow that if an affection was aroused by a text coming into the mind in this way, it could indeed by from God – but only if the truth of the Scripture was the ground of the affection, and not the fact that it came suddenly and unexpectedly.^[69] And, of course, the devil could suggest texts of Scriptures to the mind – just as he had in fact to Jesus himself during his testing in the wilderness.^[70]

6. An appearance of love in the affections

“The more excellent a thing is, the more will be the counterfeits of it.”^[71] Love is the most excellent of all Christian virtues and graces, but this does not mean it cannot be faked. Indeed, it will be the area of the Christian life where the most subtlety and ingenuity of Satan and human self-deception will be employed to peddle the most convincing of false wares. There is a love which will in the end “wax cold” and thus show itself not to be genuine.^[72] So, the mere appearance of love does not prove finally that truly gracious affections are present.

7. Having many affections

Sometimes it is the presence of several affections that persuade a person of their “good estate” but, once more this is “no sure sign”. Edwards was a great advocate of the fruit of the Spirit being displayed in “entireness and symmetry of parts”, whereas false religion “wont to be maimed and monstrous”, lacking such completeness and proportionality.^[73] And once again there are numerous examples in Scripture of the unconverted displaying a great variety of false affections (such as Saul in the OT and the pre-conversion Paul in the NT). As in the case of true love, from which all other gracious affections flow, “so from counterfeit love in like manner flow other false affections”. ^[74]

8. Affections occurring in a certain order

Edwards is actually at pains here to defend the step-by-step morphology of conversion his tradition insisted upon: “first, such awakenings, fears and awful apprehensions followed with such legal humblings, in a sense of total sinfulness and helplessness, and then, such and such light and comfort”.^[75] Some are prejudiced “if great affections of joy follow great distress and terror” and make that a reason to distrust the conversion. Edwards responds, “Surely it can’t be unreasonable to suppose, that before God delivers persons from a state of sin and exposedness to eternal destruction, he should give them some considerable sense of the evil he delivers from”.^[76] On the other hand, stressing the correct order of steps over the effect such steps have wrought in the person is also misguided. Just as the devil can counterfeit saving graces, “so he can counterfeit those operations that are preparatory to grace.”^[77]

9. Zealous engagement in religious duties

Edwards argues from Scripture that the truly godly clearly should be zealous in religion. However, the Israelites were frequently found to be engaged in the external duties of worship and yet their “services were abominable to God”.^[78] So it was also with the Pharisees who “made long prayers and fasted twice a week” yet were devoid of grace. Edwards even refers to a Jewish neighbour (during his time in New York) who was very devout in all his religious activities. Edwards goes no further, but clearly implies that this neighbour, in not knowing Christ, had no saving grace, despite all his outward zeal.^[79]

10. The person praises and glorifies God with their mouth

“Many seem to look upon it a bright evidence of gracious affection, when persons appear greatly disposed to praise and magnify God” says Edwards, and whilst no Christian would take such affections as evidence against their conversion, neither can it be taken as sure evidence for it.^[80] Multitudes were so greatly affected by the works of Christ in his earthly ministry that they glorified God in response, and yet how few of them proved to be true believers.^[81]

11. That a person believes their affections are of divine origin and are confident they are converted

A person’s own confidence in having been genuinely converted is not a certain sign either way. Many genuinely converted people have this confidence, but many hypocrites have a false confidence. Some are censorious towards people who possess a full assurance of salvation, and regard it as presumption, but Edwards stresses that in Scripture it was “common for the saints… to be assured.”^[82] But confidence does not prove that a person is converted either. Hypocrites can possess an even greater confidence than saints, and this can come across as an “overbearing, high-handed and violent sort of confidence… affecting to declare itself with a most glaring show in the sight of men”.^[83]

12. A person’s display of affection is pleasing to the godly

When there are “many probable appearances of piety in others, it is the duty of the saints to receive them cordially into their charity, and to love them and rejoice in them as their brethren in Christ Jesus.”^[84] However, the godly can be deceived; appearances of piety may be only that. This is because “The true saints have not such a spirit of discerning, that they can certainly determine who are godly, and who are not. For though they know experimentally what true religion is, in the internal exercises of it; yet these are what they can neither feel, nor see, in the heart of another.”^[85] It is better to err on the side of charity than of censoriousness, and the propensity to judge others is itself a dangerous sign of being unconverted oneself. Edwards states that those who “have been most highly conceited of their faculty of discerning, and have appeared most forward, peremptorily and suddenly to determine the state of men’s souls, have [themselves] been hypocrites, who have known nothing of true religion.”^[86]

According to Edwards, we could be the subject of all twelve of the affections and experiences described above, and yet be a stranger to saving grace:

There may be all these things, and yet there be nothing more than the common influences of the Spirit of God, joined with the delusions of Satan, and the wicked and deceitful heart.^[87]

Here we might pause and consider whether our contemporary evangelical church culture takes the same view as Edwards on conversion and, if not, reflect on why that is so. Would we look to such signs as those above to assure ourselves of our own or another’s spiritual condition? Are we quick to pronounce in absolute terms that a person is “saved” based on such signs? Would we now think twice about doing so?

XI. The twelve “Distinguishing Signs of Truly Holy and Gracious Affections”^[88]

1. Truly holy affections have the saving work of the Holy Spirit as their source

The first sign stresses the divine origin of the religious affections in a genuine convert. It is here we see one of the main points of contact between A Divine and Supernatural Light and Religious Affections, with Edwards once again prioritising the Holy Spirit instilling a new and vital principle in the soul, through his uniting himself to and indwelling that person. Edwards cites 1 Corinthians 2:14-15 to show the great contrast between the “spiritual” and the “natural” person, going on to stress that “spiritual” does not mean immaterial or that which is opposed to the physical, but rather refers to the gracious work of the Holy Spirit in a person.^[89]

A natural or carnal person may be acted upon by the Holy Spirit, but not savingly.^[90] What distinguishes true converts, and what makes them spiritual is that the Holy Spirit himself has communicated his own nature to them.^[91] There is thus no true “spirituality” apart from union with the third person of the Trinity.

The Spirit of God so dwells in the hearts of the saints, that he there, as a seed or spring of life, exerts and communicates himself, in this his sweet and divine nature, making the soul a partaker of God’s beauty and Christ’s joy, so that the saint has truly fellowship with the Father, and with his Son Jesus Christ, in thus having the communion or participation of the Holy Ghost.^[92]

True Christians experience something that is entirely different in nature and kind from the unregenerate due to uniquely being “partakers of the divine nature” (2 Peter 1:4).^[93]

It is therefore very important to think about such non-spiritual experiences that a natural person can have, which could lead them into thinking they are “spiritual” when they are not. Balaam is an example of one such natural person whom the Spirit of God operated upon, but not savingly. The Holy Spirit acted upon him according to a natural principle – the sense of seeing – but did not grant any new sense to him.^[94] Imagining that one sees or hears things of a spiritual nature is therefore no proof of these experiences being gracious, indeed: “These imaginations do oftentimes raise the carnal affections of men to an exceeding great height.”^[95]

This new spiritual sense shows itself not just at conversion, but also in progressive sanctification, an individual’s growth in genuine holiness.

2. Attracted to divine things for their own sake

A true convert’s love for God and the ways of God arises from their supreme excellency and glory, not in the first instance because he stands to benefit personally from any goods that God may confer.

The divine excellency and glory of God, and Jesus Christ, the Word of God, the works of God, and the ways of God, etc., is the primary reason, why a true saint loves these things; and not any supposed interest that he has in them, or any conceived benefit that he has received from them, or shall receive from them.^[96]

Self-love is not the proper motive of love for God, but rather the loveliness of God himself:

What chiefly makes a man, or any creature lovely, is his excellency; and so what chiefly renders God lovely, and must undoubtedly be the chief ground of true love, is his excellency. God’s nature, or the divinity, is infinitely excellent; yea ’tis infinite beauty, brightness, and glory itself.^[97]

That is not to say that a desire for their own happiness in God is unbecoming in a saint; rather the reason that a believer came to desire their own happiness in God was the result of a prior love for God for his own loveliness. Seeking one’s happiness in God is the fruit, not the root of love for God.^[98]

This distinguishes true and false converts, because false converts may have a great interest in God with regard to the benefits they might derive from him, but they lack a love for God whose foundation is the loveliness of God himself. Affection and gratitude from self-love exist in natural persons towards their neighbour, and they can be exercised towards God as well.

Having an inaccurate view of who God really is, or of the heinousness of their own sin in his eyes, may also move a person to love “God”. But this is a false ground, prompting a false love, resulting in a false hope:

And so having formed in their minds such a God as suits them, and thinking God to be such an one as themselves, who favours and agrees with them, they may like him very well, and feel a sort of love to him, when they are far from loving the true God.^[99]

Who God is in himself, is the ground of truly gracious love, gratitude, and delight in God. The ground of the hypocrite’s love, gratitude and delight is self, and what he can get from God. The hypocrite’s great joy is joy in himself; all the gospel does is fuel his pride and inflate his sense of self-importance.^[100]

3. The beauty of holiness is the spring of all Holy Affections

The third sign builds on the second, and “zooms in”, as it were, on what particularly it is about God that the true saint finds lovely and excellent. In a word, it is his holiness:

The first objective ground of all holy affections, is their moral excellency, or their holiness. Holy persons, in the exercise of holy affections, do love divine things primarily for their holiness: they love God, in the first place, for the beauty of his holiness or moral perfection, as being supremely amiable in itself.^[101]

It is not only God’s holiness which true saints are attracted to, “but their love to God for his holiness is what is most fundamental and essential in their love,” and this in turn “causes a delight in God for all his attributes.”^[102]

The “new spiritual sense” conferred in regeneration has the beauty of holiness as the object of its delight. It loves holiness, finds sweetness in holiness, rejoices in holiness and hates that which is opposed to holiness. Whilst he may be greatly affected by the “awful majesty” of God, the hypocrite has “no sense or relish of that kind of beauty” which is meant by the beauty of holiness, or the excellency of God in his moral perfections.^[103]

4. Gracious affections spring from divine illumination

Here we see that the illumination of A Divine and Supernatural Light is the epistemological foundation of the heightened inclinations of Religious Affections:

Holy affections are not heat without light; but evermore arise from some information of the understanding, some spiritual instruction that the mind receives, some light or actual knowledge. The child of God is graciously affected, because he sees and understands something more of divine things than he did before.^[104]

There is a zeal for God, but not according to knowledge (Rom 10:2), whilst the true believer not only receives divine knowledge at conversion but grows in it (Phil 1:9).

There are many allegedly “spiritual” experiences which cannot be said to be a result of divine illumination because they leave the person none the wiser about God, Christ and the gospel. Seeing shapes, colours, bright lights or hearing sounds or voices are of a very different order to true spiritual enlightenment, such that Edwards can categorically state: “affections which arise from such impression on the imagination, are not gracious affections”. Gracious affections arise from instruction, not from ignorance.

Edwards’ position is neither the pure rationalism of Chauncy nor the sensationalism of the extreme New Lights, but rather marries divine knowledge and holy affection, with the former the basis for the latter.^[105]

5. Conviction concerning the reality and certainty of divine things

“All those who are truly gracious persons have a solid, full, thorough and effectual conviction of the truth of the great things of the gospel.”^[106] These convictions, which Edwards appears to equate with saving faith, go beyond mere assent. For example:

With respect to Christ’s being the Son of God, and Saviour of the world, and the great things he has revealed concerning himself, and his Father, and another world, they have not only a predominating opinion that these things are true, and so yield their assent… but they see that it is really so: their eyes are opened, so that they see that really Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the living God.^[107]

The effect of such deep-seated conviction regarding God, Christ and the gospel upon the heart is an abiding alteration in a person’s conduct. The New Testament shows that the Apostles were given a sure and abiding confidence in the truth, and this in great measure motivated their actions. Conversely, there are hypocrites who boast of a knowledge of divine things, yet their conduct shows no alteration from the time when they claimed to be ignorant of such knowledge. Affections that are not accompanied by convictions regarding divine truth are not to be relied upon.^[108]

6. Gracious affections are attended with evangelical humiliation

“Evangelical humiliation is a sense that a Christian has of his own utter insufficiency, despicableness, and odiousness, with an answerable frame of heart.”^[109]

Edwards makes a distinction between legal and evangelical humiliation. Legal humiliation can be experienced by a natural person, with the Holy Spirit working in a common way and exciting natural principles, such as that person’s conscience. It can make a person see that they are sinful, guilty, and deserving of wrath, without saving them. Evangelical humiliation is unique to the genuinely converted, in that they see the odious and hateful nature of their sin. This can only come from a spiritual apprehension of the beauty of holiness, which makes such a contrast possible.^[110]

Only evangelical humiliation truly makes a person bow down within. Many may be legally humbled yet have no humility, whereas the stamp of true religion is that a person be truly contrite. The prodigal son, the woman of Canaan, the tax collector in the temple, and Job after his rebuke from the Lord, all display this latter quality.

Edwards quotes Calvin, quoting Augustine: “if you should ask me concerning the precepts of the Christian religion, I would answer, firstly, secondly, and thirdly, and forever, humility.”^[111] Evangelical humiliation is the basis for the core Christian duty of self-denial, which consists in a person denying both his worldly inclinations and in denying his natural propensity to self-exaltation.

There is a false humility which has manifested itself down through the ages of the church and Edwards’ own day which feigns self-abasement and yet is abominably puffed-up: “It seems to be the nature of spiritual pride to make men conceited and ostentatious of their humility.”^[112]

Whilst false humility may be hard to detect, it distinguishes itself in two ways. Firstly, the falsely humble are often disposed to compare themselves favourably with others. Secondly, they will think highly of their humility. The truly poor in spirit and broken in heart have an entirely different temper. They esteem others as better than themselves (Phil 2:3) and consider their own humility to be very small.

7. Gracious affections are attended with a great change of nature

“All spiritual discoveries are transforming” asserts Edwards: “they make an alteration in the very nature of the soul”, citing 2 Corinthians 3:18. The soul is so deeply affected by what it beholds of God through being granted spiritual sight, that it is changed in the process. This happens at conversion, but as the text Edwards cites makes clear, it is also progressively changed ever after.^[113]

The change of nature manifests itself with regards to holiness and sin:

Conversion (if we may give any credit to the Scripture) is a great and universal change of the man, turning him from sin to God. A man may be restrained from sin, before he is converted; but when he is converted, he is not only restrained from sin, his very heart and nature is turned from it, unto holiness: so that thenceforward he becomes a holy person, and an enemy to sin.^[114]

The mark of true grace is that this change of nature is abiding, and should indeed grow and deepen in its effects as, for example, Paul exhorts in Romans 12:1-2 and Ephesians 4:22-24.

8. Truly gracious affections tend to and are attended with the lamblike, dovelike spirit and temper of Jesus Christ

This is where the behaviour of the enthusiasts during revivals – marked as it was by censoriousness, schism and show – is contrasted with the “spirit of love, meekness, quietness, forgiveness and mercy, as appeared in Christ”. ^[115] Edwards calls this “the Christian spirit” and is “the distinguishing disposition of the hearts of Christians, as Christians”. ^[116] The beatitudes of Matthew 5:5, 7 and 9, the virtues of Colossians 3:12-13; the qualities of charity stressed in 1 Corinthians 13:4-5; and the fruit of the Spirit in Galatians 5:22-23 all testify to the fact that “humility, meekness, love, forgiveness, and mercy… especially belong to the character of Christians”.^[117]

Christ’s depiction in Scripture as a lamb, and the Holy Spirit’s as a dove, illustrate in a particular way these characteristics. As a Christian is renewed in the whole person, so he comes more and more to resemble Jesus, who is full of grace.^[118]

But surely Christians are to be bold as well as meek? Edwards agrees but argues that Christian boldness is very different “from a brutal fierceness, or the boldness of beasts of prey”. ^[119]

A forgiving, loving and merciful spirit, after the image of the perfect original in Jesus, is what characterises true Christians, and “nothing can be invented that is a greater absurdity, than a morose, hard, close, high-spirited, spiteful true Christian”.^[120]

9. A softened heart and a tenderness of spirit

One of the characteristics of false affections, however “melting” they may initially appear to be, is that they tend to leave the heart hardened towards God in the long run, making a person less sensible of their sin, and less prone to genuine conviction. Gracious affections, however, “are of a quite contrary tendency; they turn a heart of stone more and more into a heart of flesh”.^[121]

This tender-heartedness, which Edwards compares to the sensitivity of a little child, allows Christians to experience genuine conviction for sin, and to possess a healthy (not servile) fear of God: “It becomes such sinful creatures as we, to approach a holy God (although with faith, and without terror, yet) with contrition, and penitent shame and confusion of face”.^[122]

The true saint becomes more and more sensitive to sin after conversion, such that they continue to be convicted throughout their lives, but hypocrites experience the reverse: “A false conversion puts an end to convictions of conscience.”^[123]

Tender-heartedness grants not only sensitivity to sin and a right fear of God (which the hypocrites do not possess) but also “a gracious joy” (Psalm 2:11) and “a gracious hope” (Psalm 33:18; 147:11).^[124] The true Christian is, therefore, a person of gracious contrasts:

He has the firmest comfort, but the softest heart: richer than others, but poorest of all in spirit: the tallest and strongest saint, but the least and tenderest child amongst them.^[125]

10. “Another thing wherein those affections that are truly gracious and holy, differ from those that are false, is beautiful symmetry and proportion.”^[126]

Edwards is quick to stress here that true saints are far from perfect. They are in many ways defective “through the imperfection of grace, for want of proper instructions, through errors in judgment, or some particular unhappiness of natural temper, or defects in education, and many other disadvantages that might be mentioned”.^[127] However, they lack the “monstrous disproportion” in affections that is present in “the counterfeit graces of hypocrites”.^[128] Sanctification is a universal work which affects every part of the person, conforming them to the image of Christ, so that “there is no grace in Christ, but there is its image in believers to answer it… feature for feature, and member for member. There is symmetry and beauty in God’s workmanship.”^[129] Irregularities may, and do, appear in true saints, but they are not of the same magnitude as those which manifest themselves in hypocrites:

The body of one that was born a perfect child, may fail of exact proportion through distemper, and the weakness and wounds of some of its members; yet the disproportion is in no measure like that of those that are born monsters.^[130]

11. Gracious affections create a desire for more of God; hypocritical affections are self-satisfied

Edwards perhaps reveals some of his own spiritual character in his description of this sign, which takes on elevated language as he expresses the true Christian’s hunger for God:

The more a true saint loves God with a gracious love, the more he desires to love him, and the more uneasy is he at his want of love to him: the more he hates sin, the more he desires to hate it, and laments that he has so much remaining love to it: the more he mourns for sin, the more he longs to mourn for sin: the more his heart is broke, the more he desires it should be broke: the more he thirsts and longs after God and holiness, the more he longs to long, and breathe out his very soul in longings after God.^[131]

By contrast, a hypocrite’s longings cease upon his supposed “conversion”:

It may be before, while the man was under legal convictions, and much afraid of hell, he earnestly longed that he might obtain spiritual light in his understanding, and faith in Christ, and love to God: but now, when these false affections are risen, that deceive him, and make him confident that he is converted, and his state good, there are no more earnest longings after light and grace: for his end is answered; he is confident that his sins are forgiven him, and that he shall go to heaven; and so he is satisfied.^[132]

Edwards quotes his Puritan predecessor Thomas Shepard’s work on the Parable of the Ten Virgins (which he quotes in Religious Affections more than all other works combined): “An hypocrite’s last end is to satisfy himself: hence he has enough. A saint’s is to satisfy Christ: hence he never has enough.”^[133] Lifelong holy longings are the preserve only of the true saint.

12. Gracious and holy affections have their exercise and fruit in Christian practice

Although it comes last, the twelfth sign is the greatest and most important of all:

Christian practice is the most proper evidence of the gracious sincerity of professors, to themselves and others; and the chief of all the marks of grace, the sign of signs, and evidence of evidences, that which seals and crowns all other signs.^[134]

Once again, Edwards insists on “universal obedience” as the clearest indication of genuine conversion. Truly gracious affections in a person “cause that a practice, which is universally conformed to, and directed by Christian rules, should be the practice and business of his life.”^[135] Practice shows what affections are really in a man: “a man’s actions are the proper trial what a man’s heart prefers”.^[136]

A true Christian’s behaviour is universally conformed to Christian rules; he does not pick and choose which areas of his life and conduct will be placed under the commands of God and which will not. Rather, every department of his life will be directed by them: Jesus says, “ye are my friends, if ye do whatsoever I command you” (John 15:14).^[137] This will also be the highest priority of his life; Christian practice will be what he is chiefly engaged in. It can thus be described as his “his work and business”, regardless of his calling or employment. Christians “not only do good works, but are zealous for good works” (Titus 2:14).^[138] Thirdly this universal obedience will be lifelong; its persevering character is what distinguishes it from the obedience of hypocrites: it is “that business which he perseveres in through all changes, and under all trials, as long as he lives”.^[139]

Universal obedience means parting with “our dearest lusts” as well as applying ourselves to those Christian duties which we find most difficult.^[140] Edwards readily admits that true Christians may be subject to sin and backsliding, but not to such a degree as that he is put out of the way of universal obedience forever.^[141] This obedience is not merely outward (though it manifests itself outwardly) but is “obedience of the soul”.^[142]

Edwards insists on his point here (in what is the most substantial treatment of any sign) with an involved scriptural argument, before going on to state that it is Christian practice which is the proper proof of the following: saving knowledge of God; genuine repentance; saving faith; belief of the truth; coming to Christ; trusting in Christ for salvation; gracious love; humility; fear of God; thankfulness; gracious desires and longings; a gracious hope; a truly holy joy; and Christian fortitude.^[143]

XII. Conclusion

Edwards brings a formidable amount of logical argumentation and scriptural support in asserting what conversion is and what distinguishes genuine conversion from false. He argues for the divine and supernatural illumination of the soul in conversion, a mighty work of God without which a person remains in darkness, blind to the glory of God in Christ. Whatever religious affections an unenlightened person may experience or display, these are but counterfeits of the genuine article, which can only be manifested in those to whom the Holy Spirit has communicated a new and vital principle. It is this supernatural light which is the foundation of holy love, or genuine religious affections. However much a true saint may enjoy the subjective experience of all the religious affections, his best measure of whether he truly possesses them is in looking not to his feelings but his practice. An all-encompassing, highly prioritised, lifelong perseverance in Christian conduct is what distinguishes true saints from hypocrites.

Of all the reflections we might have at the close of this survey, perhaps the most obvious is: “Does Edwards set the bar too high?” For example, are there not many genuine converts who are, for one reason or another, strikingly less than symmetrical in their manifestation of Christian graces? Edwards’ own extremely self-disciplined, intense and exacting spiritual life certainly seems to be revealed in the pages of his work on conversion, the subject of which, it is said, “consumed him”.^[144] His burden for the salvation of souls, the peace of the church and the advance of God’s kingdom – all of which false conversions and their deleterious effects threatened to undermine – meant that his remarkable intellect left no stone, or Scripture, unturned in his quest for the heart of genuine conversion. But in the process, was the “dove-like spirit” he wrote of so eloquently, less evident in his forceful insistence on a degree of spiritual grace and duty amongst believers that might cause the bruised reeds among them to break? These, and other questions, are worthy of discussion. But for whatever shortcomings there may be in Edwards’ doctrine of genuine conversion, he offers the contemporary church a deeply searching, if equally discomforting, insight into its nature.

---

FOOTNOTES:

[1] John Piper, Desiring God: Meditations of a Christian Hedonist, Revised, Expanded edition (Multnomah, 2011), 47.

[2] Jonathan Edwards, ‘The Reality of Conversion (1740)’, in The Sermons of Jonathan Edwards: A Reader, ed. Wilson H. Kimnach, Kenneth P. Minkema, and Douglas A. Sweeney (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2008), 90.

[3] David W. Kling, ‘Jonathan Edwards, the Bible, and Conversion’, in Jonathan Edwards and Scripture (New York: Oxford University Press, 2018), 213.

[4] Edwards, ‘The Reality of Conversion (1740)’, 92.

[5] Jonathan Edwards, 859. Sermon on I Cor. 6:11 (Jan. 1747), in The Works of Jonathan Edwards Online, Volume 65, Sermons, Series II, 1747, ed. Jonathan Edwards Center, L.31r., accessed online 30.12.22.

[6] Michael J. McClymond and Gerald R. McDermott, ‘Conversion: A Divine and Supernatural Light’, in The Theology of Jonathan Edwards (Oxford University Press, 2011), 375–76.

[7] Edmund S. Morgan, Visible Saints (New York: New York University Press, 1963), 66–70.

[8] Wilson H. Kimnach, Kenneth P. Minkema, and Douglas A. Sweeney, eds., ‘Editors’ Introduction’, in The Sermons of Jonathan Edwards: A Reader (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1999), xix.

[9] Kling, ‘Jonathan Edwards, the Bible, and Conversion’, 213.

[10] Jonathan Edwards, 394. Conversion [1722] in Harry S. Stout (Ed.) The “Miscellanies”: (Entry Nos. a-z, aa-zz, 1-500), Works of Jonathan Edwards Online (WJEO) Vol. 13.

[11] George M. Marsden, Jonathan Edwards: A Life (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2004), 285.

[12] Jonathan Edwards, The Works of Jonathan Edwards: Volume 2: Religious Affections, ed. John E. Smith (New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 2009), 86.

[13] George M. Marsden, Jonathan Edwards: A Life (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2004), 157.

[14] Marsden, Jonathan Edwards, 285.

[15] Marsden, 211.

[16] Jonathan Edwards, Sermons by Jonathan Edwards on the Matthean Parables. Volume 1, True and False Christians (on the Parable of the Wise and Foolish Virgins), ed. Kenneth P. Minkema, Adriaan Cornelis Neele, and Bryan McCarthy (Eugene, Oregon: Cascade Books : The Jonathan Edwards Center at Yale University, 2012), 71–72.

[17] Bryan McCarthy, ‘Introduction: Historical Context’, in Sermons by Jonathan Edwards on the Matthean Parables. Volume 1, 20.

[18] For example, he states “The doctrine of conversion, or of the new birth, is one of the great and fundamental doctrines of the Christian religion” in “The Reality of Conversion”, 81.

[19] Jonathan Edwards, The Works of Jonathan Edwards, Volume 8, Ethical Writings, Ed. Paul Ramsey (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1989), 182.

[20] Edwards, ‘The Reality of Conversion (1740)’, 83.

[21] Ibid., 84-85.

[22] Ibid., 89.

[23] Ibid., 85.

[24] Ibid., 104. Here Edwards cites Proverbs 2:1-5 in support and argues that his directions “are agreeable to God’s word”.

[25] John M. Brentnall (ed.), ‘Just a Talker’: The Sayings of Dr John Duncan (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth Trust, 1997), 176.

[26] Edwards, ‘The Reality of Conversion (1740)’, 92.

[27] McClymond and McDermott, ‘Conversion’, 377.

[28] Marsden, Jonathan Edwards, 55.

[29] Ibid., 124–25.

[30] The quotation above is used by K. P. Minkema to describe the thrust of an earlier work by Edwards, namely Spiritual Understanding of Divine Things Denied to the Unregenerate, which states negatively what Edwards would later set out positively in A Divine and Supernatural Light. Works of Jonathan Edwards Online, Volume 14, Sermons and Discourses 1723-1729, ed. Kenneth P. Minkema (New Haven: Yale University Press) 68.

[31] Jonathan Edwards, ‘A Divine and Supernatural Light’, 126.

[32] Ibid., 140.

[33] Ibid., 127-28.

[34] Ibid., 137.

[35] Ibid., 129-30.

[36] Ibid., 132.

[37] Ibid., 139.

[38] Ibid., 139.

[39] Ibid., 140.

[40] I am greatly indebted to George Marsden’s chapter “A House Divided” from his Life for an understanding of the convulsions of the Great Awakening and their impact on Edwards.

[41] For example, Timothy Keller is a proponent of the “Religion verses The Gospel” dichotomy. See, for example, Timothy Keller, Center Church: Doing Balanced, Gospel-Centred Ministry in Your City (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2012), 65, which features a table pitting “Religion” verses “Gospel” in nine different ways.

[42] Edwards, Religious Affections, 107.

[43] Charles Chauncy, Seasonable Thoughts on the State of Religion in New England (Boston, 1734), 327, cited in Marsden, Jonathan Edwards, 281.

[44] Edwards, Religious Affections, 95.

[45] Ibid., 96.

[46] Ryan J. Martin, Understanding Affections in the Theology of Jonathan Edwards (T&T Clark Studies in Systematic Theology): “The High Exercises of Divine Love”: 33 (London: T&T Clark, 2020), 235.

[47] For a comprehensive and persuasive argument against equating “affections” with “emotions” see Ryan J. Martin, Understanding Affections in the Theology of Jonathan Edwards (T&T Clark Studies in Systematic Theology): “The High Exercises of Divine Love”: 33 (London: T&T Clark, 2020), esp. 17–23.

[48] Edwards, Religious Affections, 88.

[49] Ibid., 95.

[50] Ibid., 96-97.

[51] Ibid., 98

[52] Ibid., 101.

[53] A word coined by Edwards to mean weak inclinations; “it is as if a man were always to say that he ‘would’ believe or perform but never actually does”.

[54] Religious Affections, 99.

[55] Ibid., 99.

[56] Ibid., 99-100.

[57] Ibid., 106.

[58] Ibid., 108.

[59] Ibid., 111.

[60] Ibid., 113.

[61] For a full list of the headings in JE’s own words, see Appendix I.

[62] Religious Affections, 130.

[63] Ibid., 131.

[64] Marsden, Jonathan Edwards, 240–49.

[65] Edwards, Religious Affections, 132.

[66] Ibid., 136.

[67] Ibid., 137.

[68] Ibid., 141-142.

[69] Ibid., 142.

[70] Ibid., 144.

[71] Ibid., 146.

[72] Ibid., 147.

[73] Ibid., 146.

[74] Ibid., 150.

[75] Ibid., 151.

[76] Ibid., 151-152.

[77] Ibid., 158.

[78] Ibid., 164.

[79] Ibid., 165.

[80] Ibid., 165.

[81] Ibid., 166.

[82] Ibid., 167.

[83] Ibid., 171.

[84] Ibid., 182.

[85] Ibid., 181.

[86] Ibid., 185.

[87] Ibid., 185.

[88] See Appendix II for the signs in Edwards’ own words.

[89] Edwards, Religious Affections, 198.

[90] Ibid., 206-207.

[91] Ibid., 201.

[92] Ibid., 201.

[93] Ibid., 204.

[94] Ibid., 206.

[95] Ibid., 217.

[96] Ibid., 240.

[97] Ibid., 241.

[98] Ibid., 243.

[99] Ibid., 244-245.

[100] Ibid., 251.

[101] Ibid., 256.

[102] Ibid., 256.

[103] Ibid., 263.

[104] Ibid., 266.

[105] Cf. n. 55.

[106] Religious Affections, 291.

[107] Ibid., 292.

[108] Ibid., 294.

[109] Ibid., 311.

[110] Ibid., 312.

[111] Ibid., 314; cf. John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion 2:2:11.

[112] Ibid., 319.

[113] Ibid., 340.

[114] Ibid., 341-342.

[115] Ibid., 345.

[116] Ibid., 345.

[117] Ibid., 346.

[118] Ibid., 346-350.

[119] Ibid., 350.

[120] Ibid., 356-357.

[121] Ibid., 360.

[122] Ibid., 362-363.

[123] Ibid., 364.

[124] Ibid., 364.

[125] Ibid., 364.

[126] Ibid., 365.

[127] Ibid., 365.

[128] Ibid., 365.

[129] Ibid., 365.

[130] Ibid., 365.

[131] Ibid., 377.

[132] Ibid., 378-379.

[133] Ibid., see Thomas Shephard, The Parable of the Ten Virgins Opened and Applied (1660). Part 1, 157.

[134] Ibid., 443.

[135] Ibid., 383.

[136] Ibid., 427.

[137] Ibid., 385.

[138] Ibid., 387.

[139] Ibid., 384.

[140] Ibid., 387.

[141] Ibid., 390.

[142] Ibid., 422.

[143] Ibid., 444-449.

[144] Kling, ‘Jonathan Edwards, the Bible, and Conversion’, 214.