During his final days in December 1807, John Newton said, “What a thing it is to live under the shadow of the wings of the Almighty! I am going the way of all flesh.” A friend replied, “The Lord is gracious.” Newton responded, “If it were not so, how could I dare to stand before him?” Newton’s indebtedness to the amazing grace of God in saving and preserving rebels flooded his consciousness from new birth till death. His Hymn has reminded generations of God’s pervasive grace for two and one-half centuries.

Learning the bare facts of a person’s biography can orient us to his life. Here are some for John Newton. John Newton was born in London, July 24, 1725. His mother died in 1832 and with her perished all instruction in Christian truth. His formal education began at a boarding school when he was eight and ended when he was ten years old. He sailed on a merchant ship with his father from 1836 through 1842. Eventually, Newton served as the master of a slave ship. After years of unrestrained blasphemy, wild and carless living, in which he “bore every mark of final impenitence and rejection”[1] a gracious work of God patiently and by degrees brought him to serious searching around 1748 and saving faith sometime the next year. Eventually, Newton served as a parish minister in the Church of England at Olney from 1764-1780. Along with William Cowper he authored Olney Hymns, published in 1779.

Newton moved from Olney to St. Mary Woolnoth in London in 1780. He was active as a supporter of William Wilberforce in the abolition of the slave trade in England. He maintained his ministry at St. Mary Woolnoth until his death December 21, 1807.

John Newton never forgot the rescue from sin and devastation that God wrought on him. Early in his life he picked up and set down a form of legalistic, self-righteous religion. By 18, he had been convinced by a clever sceptic of the fantastic character of all religion and Newton “plunged into infidelity with all his spirit.”[2] The few years subsequent to this saw him careless in all eternal and temporal things. He was a deserter from a ship, whipped and scorned, tormented by a slave-holding woman, sick almost unto death, and in great dangers in storms at sea. Newton narrowly escaped death on several occasions. In retrospect, he viewed these escapes as special arrangements of divine providence to secure him for salvation and for ministry.

He reached a high position on a slave ship and was given responsibility to manage a long-boat in Sierra Leone in order to sail from place to place to purchase slaves. He had rejected his former infidelity by 1748 and had several times of serious thought about his need of forgiveness. Later as he addressed skepticism and infidelity among parishioners in London, Newton described his escapade with this intellectual difficulty in a letter to his parish, St. Mary Woolnoth, in London.

I know how to pity persons of this unhappy turn, for it was too long my own. It is not only a hazardous, but an uncomfortable state; for, notwithstanding their utmost address and endeavours, they cannot wholly avoid painful apprehensions, lest the Bible, which they wish to be false, should prove to be the truth. It was thus with me, and it must, in the nature of things, be thus with every infidel. To doubt or deny the truth of Christianity is too common; but to demonstrate that it is false, is an utter impossibility. I laboured in the attempt, but when I least expected it, I met with evidence that overpowered my resistance; and the Bible which I had despised removed my scepticism. He against whom I had hardened my self, was pleased to spare me; and I now live to tell you, that there is forgiveness with him.[3]

He made progress in abandoning some of the evil practices of former years but still lacked any consistent grasp of the nature of gospel faith and true holiness. Similar to a line in verse three of “Amazing Grace,” Newton stated, “I was no longer an infidel: I heartily renounced my former profaneness, and had taken up some right notions; was seriously disposed, and sincerely touched with a sense of the undeserved mercy I had received, in being brought safe through so many dangers.”[4]  He seems to have come to genuine faith around 1749; he married February 1, 1750, to a girl he had loved since 1742 when she was 14 years of age. He became master of a ship and was gone for fourteen months, but used the time for reading, discipline, and solitary contemplation. In all he made three voyages to purchase slaves that had been collected by slave traders on shore.

Newton’s reflections on his nine years in the business of buying and transporting slaves caused him deep shame. In writing “Thoughts Upon the African Slave Trade,” Newton stated, “I am bound in conscience to take shame to myself by a public confession, which, however sincere, comes too late to prevent or repair the misery and mischief to which I have, formerly, been accessory.”[5] Having begun in 1745 on the coast of Guinea, mastering a ship by 1750, ready for a fourth voyage in 1754 on his ship, God visited him with a sudden illness and he resigned his ship to another captain. His nine-year involvement in the slave trade came to an end. He had found it disagreeable but did not consider it unlawful and wrong. At a distance of thirty-three years, Newton described the effects of the slave trade, the slave ships, the slave auctions, the life on plantations on captor and captive alike. The slave men endured—if they finally endured at all—difficulties designed for them; the women have to submit to outrages they have no power to resist, “abandoned, without restraint, to the lawless will of the first comer.”[6] He gave himself to join forces with those who argued in Parliament to abolish the African slave trade. He knew of nothing “so iniquitous, so cruel, so oppressive, so destructive” as that.[7]

Through a series of clearly providentially arranged circumstances, Newton was able to find by 1757 a business that allowed him much time for study. He formerly had taught himself Latin, had read many of the Latin classics when on ships, and now determined that he would give himself to learn Greek. This was done to a degree that he could consult and use certain helps in the language in order to draw his personal conclusions as to the meaning of texts. He also read much of “the best writers in divinity” in English, Latin, and French. Soon he began to engage in writing and confined his reading mostly to the Scriptures. He summarized, “I have been obliged to strike out my own path by the light I could acquire from books; as I have not had a teacher or assistant since I was ten years of age.”[8] Having had some opportunities to preach and engaged in an encouraging discussion with a seasoned minister, Newton wrote his wife, “I fear it must be wrong, after having so solemnly devoted myself to the Lord for his service, to wear away my time, and bury my talents in silence, … after all the great things he has done for me.”[9]

Newton grew in his deep conviction that God was preparing him for some work of gospel ministry. For a while he considered joining the Dissenters until his mind was relieved of some of his “scruples” concerning conformity. After receiving approval for parish ministry, several attempts for a parish failed until 1764 when the Bishop of Lincoln approved him and promised to ordain him. He carried through on this, though as Newton reported, “I was constrained to differ from his lordship on some points.”[10]  After being ordained deacon in April 1764, he was ordained as priest in June of 1765 and was appointed to the parish of Olney.

In 1768 he published “An Address to the Inhabitants of Olney.” He began with a pledge of genuine concern for these people in the parish: “Every person in the parish has a place in my heart and prayers, but I cannot speak to each of you singly.” After giving a summary of gospel truth, Newton addressed six groups of parishioners. One, he addressed those who had faith or were convinced of its necessity. He encouraged them to pursue true faith and not to allow distractions to interrupt their quest. Two, those who felt the gospel to be a burden and would not give it a patient hearing he challenged them to examine his preaching and consider the sure approach of death. On what would they lean in that hour? Could they prove his doctrine was out of accord with the New Testament or the doctrinal standards of the Church? Third, he addressed those who abstained from public worship and their profanation of the Sabbath. He feared that they might be given over to a reprobate mind. Others who found time for only one public service a week should not be surprised that God withholds his blessing from them even in that service. Fourth, he lamented how generally the word of God was ignored among the people of the parish. In particular he pointed to sexual sin of multiple varieties. Such person are especially susceptible to divine judgment for God “will not hold you guiltless in the day of his wrath.” He urged these parishioners to humble themselves, repent, and “flee to the refuge provided for helpless sinners in the gospel.”[11] Fifth, Newton addressed the spirit of open impiety and infidelity. He held up his own case as one in which a blasphemer, persecutor, and injurious man “to a degree I cannot express” obtained mercy. “The exceeding abundant grace of our Lord Jesus Christ brought me out of that dreadful state” He urged this sort of unbeliever to seek the Lord while he may be found; if not, do not increase wrath by making jest of the Scriptures, the gospel, and those who love them. Sixth, there was a considerable number that were not believers, but were not openly profane, were regular in their attendance, but probably rested in their outward privilege and thought their freedom from open abominations made them safe. To them he urged, “May the Lord awaken you to a diligent search into your own hearts, and into his holy word, and not suffer you to take up with any thing short of a real and saving change.”[12]

In both parish ministries, at Olney and in London, Newton experienced spiritual success and ministerial distress. At Olney, his influence on William Cowper induced in Cowper “the only sunshine he ever enjoyed, through the cloudy day of his afflicted life.”[13] Cowper’s intense state of mental and spiritual distress had led him to serious plans and attempts at suicide. A mental confrontation with Romans 3:25 and the reality of the propitiatory sacrifice of Christ led Cowper to an experiential appropriation of gospel comforts. He moved to Olney in 1767 for the purpose of receiving the preaching and pastoral care of Newton. Cowper devoted himself to consistent and helpful ministry among the parishioners at Olney. Newton and Cowper often discussed evangelical doctrine and spiritual life, sharing common passion for the rescue of their lives by divine grace including their collaboration on Olney Hymns. The publication of Olney Hymns by Newton was Cowper’s first literary appearance. Among these were “There is a Fountain Filled with Blood,” based on Zechariah 13:1, “Oh, For a Closer Walk With God,” based on Genesis 5:24, and “God Moves in a Mysterious Way,” containing the line “Behind a frowning providence, he hides a smiling face.” Subsequent to writing this hymn Cowper relapsed into a severe depression for almost a year. Newton gave him consistent pastoral care during this time.

J. M. Ross, the memoirist of Cowper in Cowper’s Poetical Works [14] nursed an intense dislike for Newton and his piety as well as his theology. He called him an “intensely evangelical and energetic divine.” He blamed him for Cowper’s’ relapse into severe depression by characterizing his influence as driving him to “pharisaic minuteness” prompted by religious feelings … unusually gloomy and atrabiliar.”[15] He called Cowper’s happy labors beside Newton in ministry as “the unhealthy nature of the work in which he was now engaged.” Ross possessed the uncanny talent for passing around his insulting evaluations by saying of Cowper, “His thoughts were neither mystical nor profound; they were not even subtle or warmly poetical. Seldom indeed has so genuine a poet possessed so poor an imagination.”[16] Ross did recognize, however, the consistent and even powerful influence Cowper had on the middle classes of Englishmen. The religious received him as a notable ally. He did not “veil in doubtful haze the truths of Christianity,” but with him “all is as orthodox as a sermon.” Englishmen could understand him as “easily as they did their clergymen on Sundays.”[17] The clarity and resonant relevance of Cowper’s poetry was largely due to his years of hearing the sermons of Newton, even if later years and Cowper’s unstable mental condition and wide variety friendships and pastimes cooled their relationships.

Also, at the time that Cowper had lapsed into a period of deep mental and emotional instability, Newton began an extended correspondence with Thomas Scott, writing at least eight letters from June to December, 1775.[18] Scott, verging toward Socinianism and resistant to creedal subscription, looked on Newton as shackled by “enthusiastic delusions” and “rank fanaticism.” Newton dealt tenderly with him. Without insulting him or treating him condescendingly, he discussed both orthodoxy and Christian experience with friendly firmness. Giving only mild defense of the necessity of subscribing a creed and practicing a liturgy, Newton was firm on the specific doctrinal issues that he suspected were at the bottom of Scott’s challenges. “I am far from thinking the Socinians all hypocrites,” Newton assured him, “but I think they are all in a most dangerous error; nor do their principles exhibit to my view a whit more of the genuine fruits of Christianity than deism itself.” In the matter of God’s acceptance of sincerity in place of accurate understand or mental commitment, Newton responded, “It is not through defect of understanding, but a want of simplicity and humility, that so many stumble like the blind at noon-day, and see nothing of those great truths which are written in the Gospel as with a sun-beam.”[19] Newton wrote of total depravity, the necessity of regeneration and its insuperable power, the Trinity, justification and other doctrines as clearly taught in Scripture and verified in experience. “Since my mind has been enlightened, “Newton testified to Scott, “everything in me and everything around me, confirms and explains to me what I read in Scripture; and though I have reason enough to distrust my own judgment every hour, yet I have no reason to question the great essentials, which the Lord himself hath taught me.”[20] Scott’s final reception of these truth and experience of this faith in Jesus was yet several years away. Eventually, however, he was brought to see the truth of Newton’s doctrine and experience and to become the “humble recipient of the kingdom of heaven as a little child.”[21]

Despite his consistent, loving, and biblically faithful labors at Olney, the group of faithful hearers which afforded him joy and support passed away but were not replaced by other persons of similar spiritual experience. Finally the unconverted so dominated the social life of the parish, that on one occasion Newton had to ransom his house from their intent to do violence on a particularly rowdy and riotous evening. Within a year he left Olney for a new appointment in London. Newton told Richard Cecil that “he should never have left the place while he lived, had not so incorrigible a spirit prevailed, in a parish which he had long laboured to reform.”[22]

The move to London did not eliminate the difficulties of an evangelical, experientially-alive Anglican priest in an Anglican parish. Criticism mounted during his first year of parish ministry there, and he felt that an explanatory letter concerning his doctrine and his preaching was necessary. On November 1, 1781, he published “A Token of Affection and Respect to the Parishioners of St. Mary Woolnoth.”[23] Part of the difficulty of a parish ministry in an ecclesiastical establishment is that confidence in the regenerate character of the congregation must be very low. The minister does not minister to a church. His is a task to herd goats  and seek to justify his ministry and his message to those who are naturally and principially opposed to his purpose. The appeal Newton makes to the parish is admirable for its courage, its spirit of legitimate deference, and its undercurrent of evangelism, but as an implied comments on the condition of the parish, it is lamentable.

He admonishes those who are in the parish and have received the baptism of the established Church of England whom he never sees on the Lord’s Day. The auditory is numerous but Newton observed, “I see so few of my own parishioners among them.”[24]  Many to whom the “word of salvation is sent, refuse to hear it.” Also, Newton observed the progress of “infidelity” among them, a general disregard for the Christian religion in particular. He reminded them clearly that the facts, provisions, and conditions of the gospel message were matters of divine revelation and they “cannot wholly avoid painful apprehensions, lest the Bible, which they wish to be false, should prove to be true.”[25] Many others perhaps believe in a formal sense that the Bible is true but give little energy to either knowing or obeying it. They are offended when “a faithful preacher forces upon your conscience” the consequences of careless regard to the dictates of the final judge and, therefore, find sufficient excuse for not hearing him again. Some still attend worship, but do it in other parishes to avoid the intensely Bible-centered preaching of Newton. They should be careful that their contempt is not really against him, though they may delude themselves to think so, but is against “the doctrine of the prophets and apostles, and of Christ himself.”[26]  Newton professed never to have purposely given offense, but also he knew “that if I would be faithful to my conscience, some of my hearers must be displeased.”[27]  How to sort out the meaning of terms of opprobrium used against him, Newton was unsure; he was sure, however, that any term used, such as “Methodist,” even if void of any clear meaning would be “sufficient proof that it cannot be worth their while to hear me.”[28]  Others complained that he preached too long at forty-five minutes when they were quite eager to use a much longer portion of their day to hear useless entertainment or political speech. “It is not so much the length,” Newton warned, “as the subject matter that wearies you.”[29] Other complained that he preached extempore and did not read his sermons. His complaint evoked the most extensive response from Newton. He explained the historical situation which led to reading sermons as a safety measure for the preacher and how that developed into a mark of scholarly preparedness. Newton objected to the impression and showed how extempore reasoning and admonition showed expertise and knowledge in a way that a manuscript did not. Scripture topics, moreover, are fit “to awaken the strongest emotions, and to draw forth the highest exertions of which the human mind is capable.”[30] Since his subject matter is of infinitely “more concern to his hearers” than any other subject upon which men can place their thoughts or employ their tongues, “shall a minister of the gospel … be thought the only man who has chosen a subject incapable of justifying his earnestness.” Given that his office requires him to “unfold the wonders of redemption, or to enlarge on the solemn themes of judgment, heaven and hell” can it be conceived that he should not indulge “such thoughts and expressions upon the spot, as the most judicious part of his auditory need not disdain to hear?”[31] He urged them to consider with penetrating earnestness that eternity was at stake and that they could not be accepted by him in the great day of his appearing if they were not “born from above, delivered from the love and spirit of the world, and made partakers of the love and spirit of the Lord Jesus.”[32] He declared himself without guilt of their blood in that day. To those who believed the gospel, had not deserted their place under his preaching, and maintained a viable experiential fellowship with Christ in his saving work, he gave a serious call. They could assist him to stop the mouths of gainsayers with conduct consistent with gospel faith and spiritual virtue. Such consistent heavenly-mindedness would “constrain them to acknowledge, that the doctrines of grace, which I preach, when rightly understood and cordially embraced, are productive of peace, contentment, integrity, benevolence, and humility.” Many would look for their halting and miscarriages, but the Lord has “engaged to support, to guide, and to guard you, and at length to make you more than conquerors, and to bestow upon you a crown of everlasting life.”[33]

Very few days of his life subsequent to his appointment to Olney were free of his astonished admiration of such a transaction of grace and eternal security. His letter to London parishioners stated, “No person in the congregation can be more averse from the doctrines which I now preach than I myself once was.”[34] In a letter to John Ryland, Jr., Newton pointed to the providence of God in the death of useful ministers and in the calling of the most unlikely persons to gospel ministry. Samuel Pearce was taken very early in life (33 years of age), “not half my age,” wrote Newton, “but undoubtedly he lived to finish what the Lord had appointed him to do. So shall you and I.” Newton considered himself old at 74 but expressed his confidence in divine purpose, “Old as I am, I shall not die before my set time.” He wanted to “improve the present” and be prepared for the future. “Indeed,” he wrote, “I see little in this world worth living for on its own account; though I think no one has less reason to be weary of life. But I am not my own, and desire to have no choice for myself. May we live to His praise and die in His peace.” Further meditation on these phenomena brought Newton to observe, “The usefulness of some is protracted, while others like Mr. Pearce, are taken away early. … He who has the fulness of the spirit will never want instruments to carry on his work. He can raise them up as it were from the very stones.”[35]

Newton regularly called to mind the testimony of Paul as an encouragement. After Paul’s description of the deep rebelliousness and injurious intent of his life, he said of himself that of sinners “I am the chief” (1 Timothy 1:15). For Newton, this meant that even chief sinners could be saved and would thereby magnify the grace of God. He frequently drew attention to Paul’s testimony for he knew that its broad parameters enveloped him in its embrace. In a hymn entitled “Encouragement” Newton wrote

Of sinners the chief,

And viler than all,

The jailer or thief,

Manasseh or Saul;

Since they were forgiv’n,

Why should I despair,

While Christ is in Heav’n

And still answers prayer.[36]

Not only was Paul’s salvation designed for the encouragement of others, but his vibrant apostolic ministry given him by grace stirred Newton with God’s sovereign and surprising intentions. Paul received the grace of God for salvation and further to be an apostle, a preacher, and a teacher (2 Timothy 1:11). In fact, the glorious gospel of the blessed God was committed to his charge (1 Timothy 1:11). The grace to Newton imitated that to Paul even in that. In reflecting on his appointment to the parish of St. Mary Woolnoth in London, Newton wrote, “that one of the most ignorant, the most miserable, and the most abandoned of slaves, should be plucked from his forlorn state of exile on the coast of Africa, and at length be appointed minister of the parish of the first magistrate of the first city in the world—that he should be there, not only testify of such grace, but stand up as a singular instance and monument of it—that he should be enabled to record it in his history, preaching, and writings, to the world at large—is a fact I can contemplate with admiration, but never fully estimate.” [37]

In 1799 Newton wrote John Ryland, Jr. with further expressions of amazement at God’s choice and qualifying of unlikely instruments. “He can call the most unworthy persons, and bring them from the most unlikely places, to labour in his vineyard. Had it not been so, you would have never heard of me. From what a dung hill of sin and misery did he raise me to place me among the princes of his people! Consider what I was and where I was (in Africa) and you must acknowledge I am a singular instance of sovereignty and the riches of His mercy!”[38] When friends thought at eighty years of age that he had gone beyond the competence required to maintain a pulpit ministry encouraged him to step down, he replied, “What! Shall the old African blasphemer stop while he can speak?”[39]

Newton’s epitaph inscribed on a memorial tablet at St. Mary Woolnoth celebrated the truly surprising grace of God in his conversion as well as in his long and effective ministry.

JOHN NEWTON,

CLERK

ONCE AN INFIDEL AND LIBERTINE,

A SERVANT OF SLAVES IN AFRICA,

WAS,

BY THE RICH MERCY

OF OUR LORD AND SAVIOUR

JESUS CHRIST,

PRESERVED, RESTORED, PARDONED,

AND APPOINTED TO PREACH THE FAITH

HE HAD LONG LABOURED TO DESTROY.

[1] John Newton, The Works of John Newton, 6 vols (Edinburgh: The Banner of Truth Trust, 1985) 1:24. Hereinafter designated as Works.

[2] Works, 1:10

[3] Works, 6:569.

[4] Works, 1:32.

[5] Works, 6:522.

[6] Works, 6:535.

[7] Works, 6:548.

[8] Works, 1:50.

[9] Works, 1:54.

[10] Works, 1:55.

[11] Works, 6:559.

[12] Works, 6:562.

[13] Works, 1:61.

[14] William Cowper, Cowper’s Poetical Works. Edinburgh: William P. Nimmo, nd. Hereinafter designated as Cowper’s. An introductory “Life of William Cowper” was written by J. M Ross.

[15] Cowper’s, v.

[16] Cowper’s, xiv.

[17] Cowper’s, xvi.

[18] These letters are contained in Newton’s Works, 6:556-618. Thomas Scott gave an account of his skepticism and his rescue from it in the Force of Truth, London: Printed for G. Keith, 1779. Scott’s “authentic narrative” was published the same year that Olney Hymns was published.

[19] Works, 1:568.

[20] Works, 1:570.

[21] Works, 1:68.

[22] Works, 1:69.

[23] Works, 6: 567-583.

[24] Works, 6: 568.

[25] Works, 6: 569.

[26] Works, 6: 371.

[27] Works, 6: 572.

[28] Works, 6: 574.

[29] Works, 6: 574, 575.

[30] Works, 6: 577.

[31] Works, 6: 578..

[32] Works, 6: 580, 581.

[33] Works, 6:583.

[34] Works, 6: 582.

[35] Grant Gordon, Ed. Wise Counsel, (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth Trust, 2009) 369, 370.

[36] Works, 3:581.

[37] Works, 1:73. Quote included in the biographical introduction by Richard Cecil.

[38] Wise Counsel, 370, 371.

[39] Works, 1:88

This article is Part 1 in a series.

Each local church plays a vital role in the great commission. Sadly, according to C. H. Spurgeon, the great commission has become the great omission. Spurgeon writes:

The gospel command is so little obeyed that one would imagine that it ran thus, ‘Go into your own place of worship and preach the gospel to the few creatures who will come inside.’ ‘Go ye into the highways and hedges and compel them to come in’ … we ought actually to go into the streets and lanes and highways, for there are lurkers in the hedges, tramps on the highway, street-walkers, and lane-haunters, whom we shall never reach unless we pursue them into their own domains.[1]

The aim of this article is to set before you a minister of the gospel, namely Charles Haddon Spurgeon, who sought to wield the sword of the Word in the public Sphere. Spurgeon made it his every effort to win the lost wherever he went. Speaking of this, he writes: “not only must something be done to evangelize the millions, but everything must be done … This must urge us onward to go forth into the highways and hedges and compel them to come in.”[2] As we begin, let’s think of the “what” and the “how” of Spurgeon’s evangelism.

First, what is an “Effective” Public Witness? As we begin, we must think of that common argument you often hear regarding public evangelism. Is it an “effective” witness in our day? One may attempt to argue that this “public” witness was effective and acceptable in Spurgeon’s day, but times have changed! Many would argue that a “public” wielding of the Word is offensive to the sinner. However, it is critical to understand that society has never been accepting of such evangelistic labours. Consider the following statement from an interview done with Paul Washer:

Spurgeon was constantly attacked in his culture for the openness of his faith and the openness of his preaching. If you go back to the time of Whitefield and just look at the political cartoons written against Whitefield, I mean, he was considered an absolute fanatic, a crazy man. Why? Because he preached in the open-air … It has never been with the culture to do open-air evangelism … It has been against the culture since the moment the apostle Paul stood up in that great coliseum and spoke the Word of God.[3]

In his public witness into the community, Spurgeon was not trying to “re-invent” the wheel of public evangelism, but instead was seeking to go back to the “ancient paths” and follow the pattern of his Lord. Spurgeon argued that “open-air preaching is as old as preaching itself … Indeed, we find examples of open-air preaching everywhere around us in the records of the Old Testament.”[4] Similarly, through open-air preaching, Spurgeon followed the pattern of the Lord Jesus Christ, and his apostles, who actively sought the lost outside of a building. Spurgeon writes: “Our Lord himself, who is yet more our pattern, delivered the larger proportion of his sermons on the mountain’s side, or by the seashore, or in the streets. Our Lord was to all intents and purposes an open-air preacher.”[5]

Second, what did Spurgeon to do bring the Gospel to the public square? Over the next three articles, we will seek to look at Spurgeon’s public witness in terms of open-air preaching, personal evangelism, and tract and literature distribution. For this article, I want to look at Spurgeon’s use of open-air preaching in his early years of ministry.

The prince of preachers, Charles Spurgeon, avidly supported open-air preaching, arguing that it is “very easy to prove that revivals of religion have usually been accompanied, if not caused, by a considerable amount of preaching out of doors, or in unusual places.”[6] The great benefit of open-air preaching is “that we get so many new-comers to hear the gospel who otherwise would never hear it.”[7] Recalling his former days of ministry at Waterbeach Baptist Chapel, Spurgeon wrote the following:

There went into that village, a lad, who had no great scholarship, but who was earnest in seeking the souls of men. He began to preach there, and it pleased God to turn the whole place upside down.[8]

Throughout his journals, Spurgeon would fondly recall his days of open-air preaching: “I preached at Bristol, many years ago, in the open-air … I had a crowd of sailors and collier to listen to me, and when I began to talk to them about Christ’s redeeming work, I saw the tears streaming down their cheeks.”[9]

As the Lord richly blessed and multiplied Spurgeon’s pulpit ministry, he still made it his effort to preach in the open-air from time to time, and he greatly encouraged others to do so:

I have preached twice, on a Sabbath day, at Blairmore not far from Benmore, on a little height by the side of the sea … I have been compelled to abstain from these exercises in London, but not from any lessened sense of their importance. With the Tabernacle always full, I have as large a congregation as I desire at home, and therefore do not preach outside except in the country; but for those ministers whose area under cover is but small, and whose congregations are thin, the open air is the remedy, whether in London or in the provinces.[10]

The street evangelist has the great privilege of picking up those who would never enter a church building: “The open-air evangelist frequently picks up these members of the no church party, and in so doing he often finds some of the richest gems that will, at last, adorn the Redeemer’s crown.”[11] Therefore, if we are to see multitudes of sinners won to the Lord Jesus Christ, the church must actively seek them. The doctrine of the total depravity of man showed Spurgeon that man is not seeking after God. Instead, the evangelist must seek after the lost.

However, Spurgeon believed that open-air preaching must only be done by some men, men who are called by God, sent out by the blessing & support of the local church, and compelled with love for sinners. Far too often, open-air preachers are controlled by their pet peeves, and not the gospel of Jesus Christ. For this reason, Spurgeon gave certain criteria for open-air preachers:

He must have (1) a good voice; (2) naturalness of manner; (3) self-possession; (4) a good knowledge of Scripture; (5) ability to adapt himself to any congregation; (6) good illustrative powers; (7) zeal, prudence, and common sense; (8) a large, loving heart; (9) sincere belief in all he says; (10) entire dependence on the Holy Spirit for success; (11) a close walk with God by prayer; (12) a consistent walk before men by a holy life.[12]

From this list of criteria, we can learn two lessons. First, open-air preachers must have large and loving hearts: “We win hearts for Jesus by love by pleading with God for them with all our hearts that they would not be left to die unsaved, by pleading with them for God.”[13] We must proclaim “a great Saviour to great masses, a great Saviour to great sinners” showing that “Jesus, by his death, has become immensely rich in pardoning grace”[14] If properly done, open-air preaching can be greatly used by God:

I am persuaded that the more of open-air preaching there is in London the better. If it should become a nuisance to some it will be a blessing to others, if properly conducted. If it be the gospel which is spoken, and if the spirit of the preacher be one of love and truth, the results cannot be doubted … The gospel must, however, be preached in a manner worth the hearing.[15]

On another note, the open-air preacher must be resolved to fix his eyes upon the gospel of Jesus Christ. When preaching in the open-air, Spurgeon rightfully argues that “our object is not to conquer them in logical encounters, but to save their souls … Christ is to be preached whether men will believe in him or no.”[16] Similarly, the preacher must “keep to [his] subject, and never be drawn into side issues. Preach Christ or nothing: don’t dispute or discuss except with your eye on the cross. If driven off for a moment always be on the watch to get back to your sole topic. Tell them the old, old story.”[17]

Second, Spurgeon argued that the open-air preacher must be done in a manner worth hearing. This means that the style of preaching must be simple, clear, and compelling. The open-air preacher must acquire a style fully adapted to a street audience. Spurgeon suggests that “the less formality the better, and if you begin by merely talking to the two or three around you and make no pretence of sermonizing you will do well.”[18] Additionally, the preacher must use illustrations and interact with the audience: “In the street, a man must keep himself alive, and use many illustration and anecdotes.”[19] The preacher must “have something to say, look them in the face, say what you mean, put it plainly, boldly, earnestly, courteously, and they will hear you.”[20] Therefore, when open-air preaching, Spurgeon would recommend a quiet, loving, penetrating, conversational style of preaching.[21]

Concluding Remarks:

So what? How do we go forward as the people of God in 2024? As pastors, if our congregation is to function as a public witness for  Jesus Christ in the twenty-first century, we must prepare our people for it. Our people must know the message of the gospel that we are to proclaim. They must be firmly committed to the means that God has given us to share the gospel, namely, the proclamation of his Word. And as pastors, we must seek to train and disciple leaders who will then go out and proclaim the gospel on the streets. To encourage public witness in the church, Spurgeon would do two things. First, he would make public evangelism regular pray in the life of the church. Second, he would actively encourage and development evangelists in his local church. We can do the same as we seek to be salt and light in this dark generation.

 In terms of prayer, you can see Spurgeon’s evangelistic heart in the following exhortation to his congregation:

Preaching the gospel is the means which He is pleased to bless. much that he may work by the means of our Evangelists and bring thousands to the Lord Jesus. They are men full of faith and of the Holy Ghost, and God is with them.[22]

In terms of encouraging the development of evangelists in the local church, Spurgeon his pastoral students to be active in open-air preaching. Spurgeon writes: “One of the earliest things that a minister should do when he leaves College and settles in a country town or village is to begin open-air speaking.”[23] One of Spurgeon’s students, Thomas Medhurst, followed Spurgeon’s advice and began his ministry preaching in the open-air. This open-air ministry later led to his call as pastor at the Baptist Church at Kingston-upon-Thames.[24] Pastor, what are you doing to equip and send out evangelists into the public square? Who knows what God would do if His people unleashed His Word in the streets of our Nation! May God bless your efforts for the glory of His great name and the advancement of His gospel.

                  [1] Ibid.                  [2] C. H. Spurgeon, Lectures to My Students (1894; repr., Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1954), 253.             [3] Cameron Buettel, “Cameron Buettel Interviews Paul Washer” (Grace Community Church. San Antonio, July 23, 20.                  [4] Spurgeon, Lectures to My Students, 234.                  [5] Ibid.                  [6] C. H. Spurgeon, Autobiography: The Full Harvest, ed. Susannah Spurgeon and Joseph Harrald (1900; repr., Carlisle, PA: Banner of Truth, 2014), 2: 91.                  [7] Spurgeon, Lectures to My Students, 255.             [8] C. H. Spurgeon, Autobiography: The Early Years, ed. Susannah Spurgeon and Joseph Harrald (1900; repr., Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 1976), 1: 193.                  [9] Spurgeon, Autobiography: The Full Harvest, 92.                  [10] Ibid., 87-89.                  [11] Spurgeon, Lectures to My Students, 257.                  [12] Ibid., 269.             [13] Iain H. Murray, Spurgeon V. Hyper-Calvinism: The Battle for Gospel Preaching (1995; repr., Carlisle, PA: Banner of Truth, 2010), 82.             [14] Ibid.                  [15] Spurgeon, Lectures to My Students, 265.                  [16] Ibid., 270.                  [17] Ibid., 269.                  [18] Ibid., 263.                  [19] Ibid., 265.                  [20] Ibid., 266-267.             [21] Ibid., 268.             [22] Ibid., 31.                  [23] Spurgeon, Lectures to My Students, 262.             [24] Ibid., 27.

The Crucial Question
“Who is God?”—Ask such a question of any group, and you will likely receive a range of responses. A few respondents might reject the validity of the question and simply deny the existence of God. Most, though, will likely offer religiously-tinged answers. “God is all-knowing,” they might say. He is “all-powerful, all-loving.” A few more “all” expressions might then give way to the use of “omni,” like “omnipresent” or even the somewhat cumbersome “omnibenevolent.” Finally, the “alls” and the “omnis” may crescendo into an assertion of God’s perfection. What often gets lost in the course of the ensuing conversation is that stacking up thesephilosophical adjectives misses the point of the question.
Consider possible responses to “Who is the President of the United States?” Should someone answer with the words “important” and “well-dressed,” it is doubtful that the respondent actually knows much about the American presidency. In addition, despite the fact that these words accurately characterize whomever may hold that office in a general sense, it is safe to assume that the person who speaks this way and the sitting President are not mutually acquainted. Similarly, philosophical answers to the question “Who is God?” not only initially cast doubt upon whether the respondent knows of God, but also in the end upon whether the respondent actually knows God at all.
So, back to the question: “Who is God?”—or, as the psalmist puts it: “Who is this King of glory?”
The Creator-King
1 The earth is the Lord’s and the fullness thereof, the world and those who dwell therein, 2 for he has founded it upon the seas and established it upon the rivers.
Creation theology includes a number of “givens” that many in atheistically- and scientifically-minded Western cultures find nearly impossible to accept. Among these “givens” is the unmediated, direct action of God in the creation of the world. Contrastingly, in Scripture God’s direct agency in creation is never in any doubt. God created on a grand scale; his “let there be lights in the expanse of the heavens . . .” speech act (Gen 1:14–16) ignited untold trillions of fusion reactions so that stars would blaze their heat and light throughout the universe. God also created on an intensely intimate scale; he fashioned the first man from dust and the first woman from that man (Gen 2:7 and 22). These acts are “givens” behind poetic allusion to the creation of land and sea in verse 2.
All the above having been said, it is important not to miss that the “givenness” of God’s creation appears after the “for” at the beginning of verse 2. This “for” means that the logic of Ps 24:1–2 is: because verse 2 is true, verse 1 is the necessary result. In other words, the fact that God is Creator (verse 2) entails that God rules over all (verse 1—His title as “King” appears later); the Creator is creation’s rightful ruler.
Even so, English word order might lead the reader to think that “the earth” is the focal point of the verse, and therefore that “the earth” is the psalmist’s major concern. Not so. Instead, the original language places the Lord in focus. The beginning half of verse 1 is an assertion that it is the Lord who owns the earth “and the fullness thereof.” The latter half then explains what this “fullness” (“that which fills it”) is: “those who dwell therein.” Therefore, since it is the Lord who rules the earth and those who dwell therein, whatever powers those “dwellers” may exercise, they are not the rulers of the earth. If any doubt on this point were to remain, verse 2 then falls like a hammer blow. Not only does verse 2 employ the “for” logic mentioned above, but it also emphasizes “he” in the original language beyond the capacity of an English translation to reflect. The cumulative effect is something like “It is the Lord who rules the earth, not those who dwell therein, because he created it!” Sandwiching humanity between two successive focused mentions of the Lord, the psalmist puts “those who dwell” in the world firmly in their place.
The One Who Seeks God
3 Who shall ascend the hill of the Lord? And who shall stand in his holy place?
In light of the absolute sovereignty of the Lord laid out in verses 1 and 2, verse 3 asks two questions for which the reader already knows the likely answers. That is to say, no one would dare to do these things! No one would climb the hill upon which the Lord’s Temple would stand, and then brazenly enter into its sacred precincts uninvited. How could a mere creature of dust stand before the Lord in his holy place? Yet verse 4 jolts the unsuspecting reader by claiming that there is, in fact, such a person:
4 He who has clean hands and a pure heart, who does not lift up his soul to what is false and does not swear deceitfully.
“Clean hands” refers to righteous behavior (see Job 17:9) and is surely opposite to the idea of having blood on one’s hands (see Isa 59:3, Ezek 23:37): a biblical metaphor that has fittingly come over into English to expose obvious guilt. “Pure heart” then alludes to righteous motives (see Prov 20:9). Jesus’s pointed assertion of adultery taking place within one’s heart (Matt 5:27–28) underscores that a person can technically have “clean hands” and yet lack a “pure heart.” Indeed, these hand and heart standards in this first half of verse 4 are rather difficult to attain.
The second half of verse 4 drills deeper into the soil of what constitutes “clean hands” and a “pure heart.” The amplifying illustration of one with “clean hands” appears second; this person “does not swear deceitfully.” Entering into agreements (the purpose of swearing) with no intention of keeping one’s promises displays a character completely opposite that of the Lord, who never breaks his covenants with his people (see Judg 2:1). Such a “dirty-handed” person could never ascend the Lord’s hill and stand in his presence. After all, even before starting the ascent, this promise breaker has no intention to follow through on any vows made to the Lord.
Next, verse 4 describes what the opposite of a “pure heart” looks like; it is a person who “lifts up his soul to what is false.” Every other time the Psalms mention the lifting of the soul, the action has to do with worship of the Lord (see Ps 25:1, 86:4, 143:8). Accordingly, as in Jer 18:15, committing “false” worship acts can entail a false object of worship: any or all of the world’s imposter false gods. That said, humans can also try to worship the Lord in a false manner. The prohibition against taking the name of the Lord “in vain” in the Ten Commandments uses the same term for “what is false” as in Ps 24:4.
We see that in just a few words, Ps 24:4 lauds a person of righteous behavior and righteous motives. Breaking promises and either worshiping other gods or presuming to worship the Lord wrongly would conflict so much with this person’s character that these displays of contempt toward God would be unthinkable. So, of course, such a righteous person would be welcome in the presence of the Creator-King.
The Problem
There’s just one problem. Such a person does not exist. As the weary words of Eccl 7:20 intone, “Surely there is not a righteous man on earth who does good and never sins.” Anyone who would read Ps 24:4 and glibly think, “Clean hands: check! Pure heart: that’s me! I never break my promises. I worship all the time, and I worship in ways that please the Lord alone. OK, time to climb the Lord’s hill and enter his presence!”—such a person would not survive that journey. As the Lord told Moses, “You cannot see my face, for man shall not see me and live.” (Exod 33:20).
So is the psalmist a sadistic dasher of hopes, setting standards that sound reasonable but that no one can actually meet? Not really. There is in fact a kind of person who may stand in the holy place of almighty God, as the psalmist claims. However, this is not someone who can by his own efforts claim cleanliness of hands, purity of heart, or any other degree of worthiness in order to be there. Verses 5 and 6 explain.
The One Who Can Enter God’s Presence
5 He will receive blessing from the Lord and righteousness from the God of his salvation.
6 This is the generation of those who seek him, seeking your face: Jacob. Selah. (translation of verse 6 adjusted to reflect the original Hebrew; see the kjv)
As verse 5 reveals, righteousness of deed (hands) and intention (heart) in verse 4 does not originally derive from within the person, but from “the God of his salvation.” That is to say, the person’s “salvation” must take place first. Hence the Lord becomes for him “the God of his salvation.” The Lord then provides blessing and the righteousness that characterizes those he delivers. This granted righteousness cleans the hands and purifies the heart. When the delivered worshiper enters the Lord’s presence after ascending the Lord’s hill, it is the Lord’s own righteousness that allows entry.
Who is this “saved” person? In its original Hebrew, verse 6 speaks clearly, despite lack of clarity among many Bible translations. Many modern English Bible versions depart from the original language text with a rendering like the esv: “Such is the generation of those who seek him, who seek the face of the God of Jacob.” This is probably because the first half of the verse describes those who “seek him,” while the second half refers to those who literally “seek your face”: a sudden pronoun shift from third to second person, with both expressions seemingly referring to God. Inserting “God” before Jacob, as does the ancient Greek translation of Psalm 24, closes verse 6 by referring to the “God of Jacob” rather than Jacob himself.
This third-to-second person pronoun change should not drive interpreters to abandon the original Hebrew text as it stands, however. The Psalms are filled with artful word manipulation techniques such as pronoun shifts because the psalms are poetry. Indeed, most readers hardly notice the pronoun switch within the previous psalm, the “Good Shepherd” psalm, at Ps 23:3b–4a:
3b He leads me in paths of righteousness
      for his name’s sake.
4a Even though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil,
      for you are with me;
Over the course of Psalm 23, references to God begin in the third person, shift to second, and return to third: the same pattern evident in Psalm 24. So returning to Ps 24:6, retaining the Hebrew text leads to Jacob himself as the focal point, as in the translation above: “This is the generation of those who seek him, seeking your face: Jacob.”
Jacob—the trickster who manipulated Esau to surrender his firstborn rights. Jacob—the liar who deceived his father to usurp Esau’s place for a patriarchal blessing. Verse 6 highlights his name here? Jacob seeks God’s face? Even considering the sweep of Jacob’s story in Genesis, surely he has a checkered record under the heading of “seeking God’s face.” Furthermore, he presumed to wrestle with God, and in a manner of speaking wrestled with God all his life. So how can Jacob end up as the paradigmatic name for one with “clean hands and a pure heart?” How can Jacob be the model for one who enters God’s presence on his holy hill?
The apostle Paul explains. He reminds the Roman Christians of what the Lord had said to Jacob and Esau’s mother before they were born: “The older shall serve the younger.” (Gen 25:23) According to Paul, “though they were not yet born and had done nothing either good or bad,” this was so that “God’s purpose of election might continue.” (Rom 9:11)
The story of election indeed continued inexorably through Jacob to his descendants. The Lord had previously entered into covenant relationship with Jacob’s grandfather Abraham, whom the Lord declared to be righteous because of his faith (Gen 15:6). Jacob’s father Isaac was next in line to receive God’s covenant promises (Gen 17:19, 21). Then Exod 2:23–24 records that when Jacob’s descendants were groaning under the yoke of Egyptian slavery four centuries after his death, “God remembered his covenant with Abraham, with Isaac, and with Jacob.”
To underline this point about Jacob’s election, we should remember that reference to Jacob in Ps 24:6 encompasses Israel, the entire covenant people. Yet Israel’s story throughout the Old Testament contains few episodes that reflect “clean hands” and a “pure heart.” After all, quite soon after experiencing dramatic deliverance from slavery in Egypt, they engaged in rank idolatry at the foot of Mt. Sinai. Prayers recorded in the late books of the Old Testament, such as in Daniel 9 and Nehemiah 9, confess that disobedience and rebellion were the norm in Israel’s history, and turning to God in repentance and faith was the exception. As was the case with Jacob/Israel himself, the only hope of the people of Israel was to fall upon the mercy and faithfulness of God, receiving forgiveness and experiencing restoration in covenant relationship.
As a final step before leaving this investigation of who has the “clean hands” and “pure heart” to approach God, we should remember the human author of Psalm 24. According to the superscription, it is David. David—the man after God’s own heart, and yes, David—the adulterer and murderer. There is no way of knowing at what point in his life David composed Psalm 24, whether it was before or after his great sin with Bathsheba. Yet in a sense it matters little. Before the end of his life, David well understood that no one does good or seeks after God (Ps 14:2–3 and 53:2–3), and it goes without saying that “no one” includes himself. Yet in Ps 24:6 he could write that God’s chosen people, also presumably including himself, seek God’s face.
Jacob, the people of Israel, David—these thoroughly compromised people of God seek his face. How? God draws his people to himself: electing them, saving them, imputing his righteousness to them, blessing them, and allowing them to come into his presence. Once God’s people are in his presence, what then?
The Lord of Hosts, the King of Glory
7 Lift up your heads, O gates! And be lifted up, O ancient doors, that the King of glory may come in.
8 Who is this King of glory? The Lord, strong and mighty, the Lord, mighty in battle!
9 Lift up your heads, O gates! And lift them up, O ancient doors, that the King of glory may come in.
10 Who is this King of glory? The Lord of hosts, he is the King of glory! Selah.
Whereas verses 1 through 6 envision a journey of God’s people into God’s presence, the remainder of the psalm is about the response of God’s people when he comes to them. Anyone who has witnessed a performance of Handel’s Messiah cannot help but hear its musical setting of verses 7 through 10 as they read. Though Handel repurposes this passage to refer to the Messiah’s victorious return to heaven following his resurrection, the spirit of these verses in the context of Psalm 24 is similarly ebullient. We readers notice that God’s forgiven, covenant people are utterly joyful at the prospect of the Lord entering their city gates. Here theLord is definitely a warrior, but he is not coming to conquer; he is coming home. One can easily imagine the loud voice in Rev 21:3 calling out at this moment, “Behold, the dwelling place of God is with man. He will dwell with them, and they will be his people, and God himself will be with them as their God.” The King of glory shall indeed come in.
The Response of God’s People
“Who is this King of glory?” Psalm 24 both poses and answers this question. It cedes no ground to the human impulse to define God and our relationship with him as we please. Psalm 24 demands a response.
The King of glory is the Lord; he is Yahweh. That is to say, the Creator and ruler of the world and all of its people is none other than Yahweh, the God of Israel. Ascribing rule of the world to any other god—a philosophical construct of a god-being, a polytheistic “one god among many,” or even some other allegedly “Abrahamic” monotheistic god—is to honor a mere pretender and to defame creation’s rightful king.
Yahweh the Creator-King is sovereign, and he requires clean hands and pure hearts. On one hand he does not coddle rebels against his reign, accepting them “just as they are” with dirty hands and impure hearts. On the other hand, he also doesn’t cajole them to try harder to be holy, as if endlessly attempting to clean one’s own hands and to purify one’s own heart could result in inching just a bit further up his holy hill.
No. For his own glory, the Creator-King chooses to redeem his creation by creating a new people for himself. He elects them, saves them, imputes his own righteousness to them, blesses them, and lets them come to him.
That’s not all. Mirroring the final act in the grand narrative of all of Scripture, Psalm 24 then shifts scenes. When the Creator-King has accomplished his purposes in redemption, he comes to dwell with his redeemed people, who receive him as their King of glory.
There are many important implications and applications of the concept of the absolute sovereignty of God. Yet there is an implication and an application that stand prior to them all. This implication is that like all creation you, the reader, stand under God’s sovereignty. The concomitant application is that you must turn to God from the futility of your self-directed rogue life, filled with false worship that soils your hands and poisons your heart. Psalm 24 poses its crucial question to you, and your response is a matter of life and death: “Who is this King of glory?”

Tweet Share