In Comparison: Jonathan Edwards vs. Cotton Mather

In both the Christian Philosopher and “A Divine and Supernatural Light,” Mather and Edwards preach about the spiritual light of God versus natural light. However, where as Mather seems tries to integrate these two ideas, Edwards paints a clear distinction between the two. In Mather’s first essay “Of the Light,” he uses metaphorical speech to transition from a literal discussion of light to a spiritual discussion of light. Mather claims that religion and science compliment one another and go together hand in hand. Throughout his essay he attempts to integrate these two elements. Although he does not fully achieve this he does make the distinction between the two unclear. He does not illustrate a clear-cut, individual description of the two forms of light. Conversely, Jonathan Edwards draws a definite distinction between the spiritual light of God and the natural light by repeatedly emphasizing the supremacy of the divine light. At the beginning of his sermon, Edwards lays out the outline for his doctrine, and the second point of this outline is “How it (divine light) is given immediately by God, not obtained by natural means.” Clearly, Edwards does not share Mather’s opinion that religion and science belong in the same category and he is in no way planning on integrating the two.

In part of his definition of divine light Edwards states “Natural men may have lively impressions on their imaginations; and we cannot determine but the devil, who transforms himself into an angel of light, may cause imaginations of an outward beauty, or visible glory, and of sounds and speeches, and other such things; but these are things of a vastly inferior nature to spiritual light.” In this passage, Edwards expresses the immense inferiority of the impressions and images caused by natural light to those caused by spiritual light. Throughout the sermon Edwards continually reiterates the superiority of the divine light referring to it as “an Excellency that is of a vastly higher kind” and “a glory greatly distinguishing them from all that is earthly and temporal.” Later in his sermon, Edwards makes a statement that I think best distinguishes the two forms of light in a way that Mather may have attempted to do but never fully accomplished. He says: “As the use that we make of our eyes in beholding various objects, when the sun arises, is not the cause of the light that discovers those objects to us.” The natural light of the sun allows us to see various objects, but the sun no match for the light of God that allowed those objects to exist in the first place. Without the light of God, natural light would have no purpose because there would be no natural world for it to illuminate. Clearly, Cotton Mather’s approach to science and religion greatly differs from that of Jonathan Edwards. Where as Mather feels that science and religion relate to one another, Edwards finds a clear distinction between the two.