Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadJonathan Edwards Collection: Edwards, Jonathan - Rational Biblical Theology: Chapt 34 The Church
TOPIC: Edwards, Jonathan - Rational Biblical Theology (Other Topics in this Collection)
SUBJECT: Chapt 34 The Church
Other Subjects in this Topic:
We are taking up the subject of the church in the theology of Jonathan Edwards after all other basic themes have been addressed and just before the last things - eschatology. In one sense, to do so is profoundly misleading, misleading in the sense that Edwards, as a covenant theologian, saw the covenant people as central to redemptive history. Believing in infant baptism, and that conversions were most likely to be among covenant children, he had a developed theology of covenant evangelism. Edwards saw the wisdom of the ancient formula that one would not have God as Father without first having the church as mother.
At the outset consider Jonathan Edwards’ version of the City of God in the midst of the City of Fallen Man:
III. Happiness is no where else to be had, but in their God, and with their people. There are that are called gods many, and lords many. Some make gods of their pleasures; some choose Mammon for their god; some make gods of their supposed excellences, or the outward advantages they have above their neighbours: some choose one thing for their god, and others another. But men can be happy in no other but the God of Israel: he is the only fountain of happiness. Other gods cannot help in calamity; nor can any of them afford what the poor empty soul stands in need of. Let men adore those other gods never so much, and call upon them never so earnestly, and serve them never so diligently, they will nevertheless remain poor, wretched, unsatisfied, undone creatures. All other people are miserable, but that people whose God is the Lord. - The world is divided into two societies: the people of God, the little flock of Jesus Christ, that company that we read of, Rev_14:4. “These are they which were not defiled with women; for they are virgins: these are they which follow the Lamb whithersoever he goeth: these were redeemed from among men, being the first-fruits unto God, and to the Lamb:” and, those that belong to the kingdom of darkness, that are without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, strangers from the covenant of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world. All that are of this latter company are wretched and undone; they are the enemies of God, and under his wrath and condemnation. They are the devils slaves, that serve him blindfold, and are befooled and ensnared by him, and hurried along in the broad way to eternal perdition. *1*
And yet the people of God in Edwards’ experience appeared constantly on the brink of returning to the company of the wretched. As early as 1734 Edwards was contrasting the New England situation with Old England where the mother church was “swarming with deists.” Most of the ministers were Arminian and very few preached “experimental” religion. New England was relatively fortunate in not being persecuted. Nevertheless, Edwards’ own people were not much better in seeking salvation, and he complains of those who “lay down your heads while the word of God is preached.” *2*
Complaining of what the church of his day was in danger of becoming, Jonathan Edwards seems to be describing the American church at the end of the twentieth century:
And thus our churches will be likely to be such congregations as the psalmist said he hated, and would not sit with. Psa_26:4-5. “I have not sat with vain persons, nor will I go with dissemblers; I have hated the congregation of evil-doers, nor will I sit with the wicked.” - This will be the way to have the Lord’s table ordinarily furnished with such guests as allow themselves to live in known sin, meeting together only to crucify Christ afresh, instead of commemorating his crucifixion with the repentance, faith, gratitude, and love of friends. And this is the way to have the governing part of the church such as are not even conscientious men, and are careless about the honour and interest of religion. And the direct tendency of that is, in process of time, to introduce a prevailing negligence in discipline, and carelessness in seeking ministers of a pious and worthy character. And the next step will be, the church being filled with persons openly vicious in manners, or else scandalously erroneous in opinions. It is well if this be not already the case in fact with some churches that have long professed and practised on the principles I oppose. And if these principles should be professed and proceeded on by christian churches every where, the natural tendency of it would be, to have the greater part of what is called the church of Christ, through the world, made up of vicious and erroneous persons. And how greatly would this be to the reproach of the christian church, and of the holy name and religion of Jesus Christ in the sight of all nations! *3*
And now is it not better, to have a few real living Christians kept back through darkness and scruples, than to open a door for letting in such universal ruin as this? To illustrate it by a familiar comparison; Is it not better, when England is at war with France, to keep out of the British realm a few loyal Englishmen, than to give leave for as many treacherous Frenchmen to come in as please?
2. This way tends to the eternal ruin of the parties admitted; for it lets in such, yea, it persuades such to come in, as know themselves to be impenitent and unbelieving, in a dreadful manner to take God’s name in vain; in vain to worship him, and abuse sacred things, by performing those external acts and rites in the name of God, which are instituted for declarative signs and professions of repentance toward God, faith in Christ, and love to him, at the same time that they know themselves destitute of those things which they profess to have. And is it not better, that some true saints, through their own weakness and misunderstanding, should be kept away from the Lord’s table, which will not keep such out of heaven, than voluntarily to bring in multitudes of false professors to partake unworthily, and in effect to seal their own condemnation. *4*
In fact, ecclesiastical things were declining so rapidly in his own back yard that Edwards had to write to his Scottish friend in Edinburgh:
It now appears to be a remarkable time in the christian world; perhaps such an one, as never has been before: things are going down-hill so fast, and truth and religion, both of heart and practice, are departing by such swift steps, that I think it must needs be, that a crisis is not very far off; and what will then appear, I will not pretend to determine. *5*
What is this institution, so bright with hope, and yet so near to crisis? What is its calling and what are its true prospects in the world? To answer these questions we turn to a discussion of the nature and calling of the Church in the theology of Jonathan Edwards.
1. Definition of the Church (and Kingdom)
To define the Church one must grasp its essential character. For Edwards the essence of Christianity is salvation and the essence of salvation is mystery. Therefore, mystery is the fundamental of the Christian faith: “the knowledge of the greatest mystery belongs to the very essence of the religion of a sinner.” *6* The Church, therefore, is that body to whom the revelation of the essential mystery of salvation is given. But what for Edwards makes up the essence of the mystery revealed?
In the sermon on Heb_5:12 Edwards first mentions the work of the Father, then of the Son and then of the Spirit, virtually insisting that all of these are utterly essential. *7* “There is no doctrine of divinity whatever, which doth not some way or other concern the eternal interest of every Christian. . . . There is enough in this divine science to employ the understandings of saints and angels to all eternity.” *8* The “light of nature” does not teach us “Christian divinity,” for that light lacks knowledge of a Mediator. *9* For such knowledge we can only turn to the Bible.
Some say the belief that God sent Christ is alone essential, while others require the whole way of salvation. Edwards concludes “that the difference is, that one expresses all in one comprehensive article, and others divide it, to give us the meaning and full understanding of it.” He himself would “own almost all the articles to be necessary which good Protestants all along have said to be necessary.” *10* Being specific about the trinity and decrees, he remarks, “God doubtless knew what was needful to be revealed.” *11* More generally he maintains that all things necessary for worship and practice (along with the Bible) are needful. *12*
There are some, however, “that make outward show of friendship to Jesus Christ that at the same time act the parts of enemy and betrayer.” In this sermon on Luk_22:48 these betrayers are identified by their profession and their behavior. Sectarians and Papists betray by their very doctrine, as do those Protestants who merely profess true religion and those who claim special experiences of Christ. Doing what is not commanded is a Roman way of betrayal, as is bowing at the name of Christ, crossing oneself, kneeling at sacrament, etc., in the Church of England. This betrayal is generally true of all heretics (Arminians not here mentioned) who as hypocrites do more harm than the heathen. *13* In 2Ti_4:3 Edwards does not overlook Arminianism. “’Tis the lusts of men that is the source of Arminianism, Quakerism and popery, Mohammedism and heathenism.” *14* All heresies are lies framed to justify the pleasure of wickedness (2Th_2:11-12).
Based on those essentials, Edwards defines the church as that body of sinners whom Christ loved eternally and for whom He gave Himself temporally, redeeming and purifying her from her sins thus making her fit for His indwelling as head of the body.
In one sense the church exists before she exists. The elect are chosen in Christ, before the foundation of the world (Eph_1:4). They are on the heart of Christ as long as Christ eternally is. So he purposed to die for her and in time He did. His “immediate aim” was to make her “pure” so as to present her to himself a bride without “spot or wrinkle.”
It is rarely that the church is thought of in her unwashed state before she is born again and grafted into Christ’s body. Edwards occasionally uses the term “body of Christ” to define the church, but that would refer to her later state and would not be essential to the definition. It is interesting that the Westminster Confession of Faith, of which Edwards generally approved, defined the church in the redeemed condition, and not merely as the elect. *15* In one instance, at least, Edwards uses that term: “That the church or elect men are chosen as the peculiar objects of God’s love beyond the whole creation is confirmed by Deu_10:14-15.” *16* The Col_1:24 sermon, which is Edwards’ fullest discussion of our theme, carries this doctrine: “I would 1. show in general what the church of Christ Isa_2:1-22. show more particular[ly] consider [sic] those things that appertain to it wherein [whereby] the nature of it may be more fully understood.” *17*
The sermon on 1Pe_2:9 is a rather full description of the church of Jesus Christ.
The apostle in the preceding verses speaks of the great difference between Christians and unbelievers, on account of their diverse and opposite relations to Jesus Christ. The former have Christ for their foundation, they come to him as a living stone, a stone chosen of God, and precious; and they also as living stones are built up a spiritual house. The christian church is the temple of God, and particular believers are the stones of which that temple is built. The stones of Solomon’s temple, which were so curiously polished and well fitted for their places in that building, were a type of believers. And Christ is the foundation of this building, or the chief corner stone. On the contrary, to the latter, to unbelievers, Christ, instead of being a foundation on which they rest and depend, is a stone of stumbling, and rock of offence; instead of being a foundation to support them and keep them from falling, he is an occasion of their stumbling and falling.
And again, to believers Christ is a precious stone: “Unto you therefore which believe, he is precious.” But to unbelievers he is a stone that is disallowed, and rejected, and set at nought. They set light by him, as by the stones of the street; they make no account of him, they disallow him; when they come to build, they cast this stone away as being of no use, not fit for a foundation, nor fit for a place in their building. In the eighth verse the apostle tells the Christians to whom he writes, that those unbelievers who thus reject Christ, and to whom he is a stone of stumbling, and rock of offence, were appointed to this. “And a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offence, even to them which stumble at the word, being disobedient, whereunto also they were appointed.” It was appointed that they should stumble at the word that Christ should be an occasion not of their salvation, but of their deeper damnation. And then in our text, he puts the Christians in mind how far otherwise God had dealt with them, than with those reprobates. They were a chosen generation. God had rejected the others in his eternal counsels; but themselves he had chosen from eternity. They were a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a peculiar people. *18*
Our text shows not only the fundamental similarity between the legal dispensation and the gospel dispensation of the church, but the differences as well:
As God distinguished the people of Israel of old from all other nations, so he distinguishes true Christians. It is probable, the apostle had in his mind some expressions that are used in the Old Testament, concerning the people of Israel. Christians are said here to be a chosen generation, according to what was said of Israel of old. Deu_10:15. “Only the Lord thy God had a delight in thy fathers to love them, and he chose their seed after them, even you above all people, as it is this day.” Christians are here said to be a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a peculiar people, agreeable to what was said of old of Israel. Exo_19:5-6. “Now, therefore, if ye will obey my voice indeed, and keep my covenant, then ye shall be a peculiar treasure unto me above all people: for all the earth is mine. And ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests, and an holy nation. These are the words which thou shalt speak unto the children of Israel.”
But there is something further said here of Christians than there of Israel. There, it is promised to Israel that, if they obey, they shall be a kingdom of priests; but here, Christians are said to be a priesthood of kings, or a royal priesthood. They are a priesthood, and they are also kings. *19*
The sermon on Psa_106:5 is on an Old Testament text that shows the church in the Old Testament shining forward, *20* as in the 1 Peter commentary she is shown shining backward, and, in another sense, as in “reversion” light from heaven.
The apostle says, “ye are a royal priesthood;” that is, ye have those honours in reversion. Christians are kings here, as a king who is in his minority; who, though the crown is his right, has not yet come actually to reign. They are indeed in an exalted state while here, but not as they will be hereafter. Christians while here are indeed priests, but not as they will be. Christians are called kings and priests here, in this world. Rev_1:6. “And hath made us kings and priests unto God and his Father.” But in Rev_5:1-14 the saints in heaven speak of this as the consequence of their glory and exaltation. Rev_5:9-10. “And they sung a new song, saying, Thou art worthy to take the book, and to open the seals thereof; for thou wast slain, and hast redeemed to God by thy blood out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation; and hast made us unto our God kings and priests; that we should reign on the earth.” *21*
Mat_6:33 speaks of the centrality of the kingdom: “But seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you.” Edwards explains the significance of this teaching in his sermons on the text urging that, “By the Kingdom of God in Scripture is meant . . . the great honor and happiness that is promised to the saints. . . . This should be sought first before other things,” *22* and that “religion should be the main business of our lives.” *23*
For Edwards, the kingdom of God is a virtual synonym for the church. If there is a difference, it may be that when Edwards describes the church’s historical vicissitudes and developments he calls it the “kingdom of God.” Thus he marks out four epochs of the church usually called kingdom of God.
In the History of Redemption it is the kingdom’s history which is traced after the Spirit’s outpouring and launching of the world-wide stage of the church. *24* In Edwards’ view it is the kingdom that is set up on the earth. Rev_15:1-8 reads
And from Jesus Christ who is the faithful witness, and the first begotten of the dead, and the prince of the kings of the earth. Unto him that loves us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood.
The doctrine of Edwards’ fourth sermon on this text teaches, “He is one that has a kingdom set up in the earth amongst the kings of it.” *25*
Though in Edwards’ view the kingdom of God could not be fully established before the fall of the Anti-Christ in 1866, he saw it possibly drawing near during his own ministry. “Doubtless now at this time when God is doing such great things and when probably the kingdom of heaven is at hand.” According to Edwards’ understanding of Luk_10:11 (“Even the very dust of your city, which cleaveth on us, we do wipe off against you: notwithstanding be ye sure of this, that the kingdom of God is come nigh unto you.”) the kingdom had been nigh in Northampton, and he warned his hearers that those who “have rejected it would do well to remember and thoroughly consider that the kingdom of God has been nigh to them.” *26*
Ecc_11:2 reveals the kingdom at its last appearance in this world (following the fall of the Anti-Christ) before the Day of Judgment. *27* Rev_17:6 describes this grim scene: “And I saw the woman drunken with the blood of the saints and with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus: and when I saw her, I wondered with great admiration.” According to Edwards, it is then that Christ will deliver up His kingdom to the Father:
And as Christ when he first entered upon the Work of Redemption, after the fall of man, had the kingdom committed to him of the Father, and took on himself the administration of the affairs of the universe, to manage all so as to subserve to the purposes of this affair; so now that work being finished, he will deliver up the kingdom to the Father, 1Co_15:24. . . . Not that Christ shall cease to reign or have a kingdom after this, for ’tis said, Luk_13:3, “He shall reign over the house of Jacob forever; and of his kingdom there shall be no end.” So in the seventh [chapter] of Daniel (Dan_7:1-28). . . . But the meaning is that Christ shall deliver up that kingdom or dominion that he has over the world as the Fathers delegate or vicegerent which the Father committed to him to be managed in subservience to this great design of redemption. The end of this commission or delegation he had from the Father was to subserve to this particular design of redemption; and therefore when that design is fully accomplished the commission will cease, and Christ will deliver it up to the Father from whom he received it. *28*
Yet Christ never delivers up His “Mediatorial kingdom but “will continue a middle person between the Father and the saints to all eternity.” *29* It is, therefore, the “representative kingdom which Christ delivers up.
The place of everlasting knowledge of Christ is heaven and not earth. *30* The throne of God is heaven. Other places, such as the temple and Mt. Sinai, were only temporary, as Gen_19:24, Exo_3:8 and many Bible texts show. Heaven will retain this status as long as creation lasts and Edwards argues that if God were to change this, the first kingdom would have to be destroyed; but it cannot - it is forever (Psa_45:6). Edwards sees it fit that an immutable being and He who has an everlasting dominion should not move the place of this throne. *31*
Edwards finds a description of the church after the resurrection in the vision of John, who sees the church in the New Jerusalem descending from God out of heaven. According to 2Co_5:1 the dwelling place of the saints is eternal in the heavens. It is there that Christ ascended for His glorious abode and also the dwelling place of the church (Eph_1:20). *32*
Christ still reigns after delivering up his kingdom but in a manner different than now. *33* Now it is by delegated authority; then it is by virtue of His union with God. The Father now reigns through His Son; but then it will be with Him. Christ reigns by natural divine right and by reward for what He has done for His saints, and the saints will reign with Him on His throne forever. *34*
The kingdom of heaven will be exalted to new glory after the end of the world. At creation God made two worlds, the upper and lower one for the Son and one for man: incorruptible and corruptible, unshakable and shakable. Edwards sums it all up in M 867. *35* The revolutions of the lower world cannot be to no purpose. It must have a journey’s end. *36* These many revolutions are for man, so man must remain. This is the basic apologetic of the creation. It is for man and he must therefore be here to see it, understand it and appreciate it.
2. The Unity of the Church
Unity, for Edwards, was in general the way of wisdom for mankind. “Wisdom disposes to peace and union, or in other words: they that are wise are inclined to unite with their fellow creatures.” *37* But, according to Luk_6:35, a tendency for unity is even found among people who are not good, especially if they live near, citing Jeremiah 29:7. *38* If this is so with such, it is more so with those who are good. There follows a careful study of society in general with special reference to ecclesiastical unity.
If it is natural and proper for the natural man to form together for the various benefits of society, so
’tis the glory of the church of Christ, that she, in all her members, however dispersed, is thus one, one holy society, one city, one family, one body; so it is very desirable, that this union should be manifested, and become visible. . . . *39*
Nevertheless desirable as visible unity is, “a profession or visibility of religion profiteth if we live according to our profession. Otherwise it only aggravates our condemnation.” **
And so it was with the Christian family. In a thanksgiving sermon Edwards said that “by the church triumphant, is meant the triumphant part of the church; and by the church militant, the militant part of it: for there is but one universal or Catholic.” From Son_6:9 he cites “my dove, my undefiled, is but one.” Again: “Some of a family may be at home, and some sojourning abroad; and yet be but one family.” *41* The sermon on 1Co_12:26 stresses this same unity theme, *42* and this is in sharp contrast to the condemnations of the separatists in Jude 19. *43*
For Jonathan Edwards there is but one church of Jesus Christ: the union that all regenerate persons have with one another in the body of Jesus Christ who is its Head. This is true for the people of God of both testaments.
The prophecies of the Old Testament concerning the glorious times of the gospel show plainly that the way of acceptance with God and the CONDITIONS OF SALVATION are the same under the gospel as they were under the Old Testament. *44*
In the Psalms, and before the law as well, salvation was the same for Old Testament and New:
By the book of Psalms, which is applied & made use of in the New Testament as the language of X & the Christian church, and was made use of in the publick worship in Christian assemblies, from the beginning of the Christian church, it is evident, that the qualifications of the godly & the way of their acceptance with God, and admission to his favour, & the fruits of it, are the same now under the Christian dispensation, as of old in David’s time: otherwise but little of the language of that book can [xo c?] now be made our language to God, or is applicable to our state.
The way of acceptance with God and salvation was also the same before the giving of the law by Moses; as appears by what the apostle [c] Paul says of Abraham, Rom_4:1-25, & Gal_3:1-29, & James (Jam_2:1-26) [¶? c 1 line-sp. left betw; for refs?] And not only those who had Abraham’s covenant entail’d to them; as appears by the beginning of Heb_11:1-40 & Jam_2:25, & Job_22:21; Job_22:23, &c - & 5:27. & Job_11:13-15 &c. chap. 33:23, & chap 19:25, &c. & 4:6. *45*
Further, that the Old Testament saints went to heaven proves the same way of gospel acceptance to the same place. *46*
Reading such strong assertions and powerful arguments one is somewhat surprised to find that Edwards, preaching on Num_11:10-15, can call the Old Testament church the body of Moses. The Scripture text he preached from reads:
10. Then Moses heard the people weep throughout their families, every man in the door of his tent; and the anger of the Lord was kindled greatly; Moses also was displeased.
11. And Moses said unto the Lord, Wherefore hast thou afflicted thy servant? and wherefore have I not found favour in thy sight, that thou layest the burden of all this people upon me?
12. Have I conceived all this people? have I begotten them, that thou shouldest say unto me, Carry them in thy bosom, as a nursing father beareth the sucking child, unto the land which thou swarest unto their fathers?
13. Whence should I have flesh to give unto all this people? for they weep unto me, saying, Give us flesh, that we may eat.
14. I am not able to bear all this people alone, because it is too heavy for me.
15. And if thou deal thus with me, kill me, I pray thee, out of hand, if I have found favour in thy sight; and let me not see my wretchedness. (AV)
Edwards concludes that the “the mystical universal church is his [Christ’s] body as the Israelitish church is the body of Moses.” *47*
Speaking of the relation between the “body of Moses” and the body of Christ, Edwards notes that
There is perhaps no part of divinity attended with so much intricacy, and wherein orthodox divines do so much differ, as the stating of the precise agreement and difference between the two dispensations of Moses and of Christ. *48*
In a footnote on this comment of Edwards, editor Williams alludes to the fine work of John Owen on this subject in his Epistle to the Hebrews of which Edwards was aware. Edwards also knew the penetrating work of Francis Turretin (whom he regarded as the best of polemical theologians) on this theme. He may not have known much of the Amyrauldian controversy in which the debate about the two dispensations was important and central. And, of course, the subject was conspicuous in the Westminster Confession of Faith, whose Assembly was meeting at the very time that Cocceius, a central figure in the whole controversy, was writing his famous work on that subject. From the beginning covenant theology was intimately linked to the argument concerning the relation of the dispensations. It is no surprise that today the two developed and differing schools of Christian thought on this question are usually designated as the covenantal and dispensational theologies. *49*
Edwards’ interest in, participation in, and contributions to the discussion about the relation of the dispensations came to something of a head in the Qualifications controversy. Perhaps the main biblical reason for the Stoddard position that Edwards opposed was certain interpretations of the status of the Jews in the legal dispensation, especially their relation to the passover, the old form of the Lord’s Supper. Of course, the theological issue whether the person himself or others could know certainly of his converted state was vital also, and may have been what drove Stoddard to his admission of the possibly unconverted to the Lord’s table.
Almost a decade before the full development of his thinking on qualifications for communion Edwards had outlined his ideas in his History of Redemption. After showing the essential agreement of the two dispensations, he goes on to note the great differences as well.
The evangelical dispensation was so much more glorious, that the legal dispensation had no glory in comparison with it. The ancient dispensation, even as it was in Solomon’s time, was but an inferior glory, compared with the spiritual glory of the dispensation introduced by Christ. The church, under the Old Testament, was a child under tutors and governors, and God dealt with it accordingly. Those pompous externals are called by the apostle, weak and beggarly elements. *50*
Then he describes how God reduced the greater external glory to make way for and accentuate Christ’s spiritual glory the more. The greater weakness and corruption of the old dispensation made Christ’s conquest all the more conspicuous.
3. This prepared the way for Christ’s coming, as it made the salvation of those Jews who were saved by Christ to be more sensible and visible. Though the greater part of the Jewish nation was rejected, and the Gentiles called in their room; yet a great many thousands of the Jews were saved by Christ after his resurrection, Act_21:20. They being taken from so low a state under temporal calamity in their bondage to the Romans, and from a state of so great superstition and wickedness, it made their redemption the more sensibly and visibly glorious. *51*
In spite of the essential agreement of the two dispensations in Jonathan Edwards’ thought, he clearly recognized many non-crucial but not unimportant differences. One was the great glory of the old eclipsed by the unspeakably greater spiritual glory of the new. Secondly, there was in Edwards’ teaching what was observed by William Cooper in his preface to Distinguishing Marks: “But few were renewed and sanctified under the former dispensations, compared with the instances of the grace of God in Gospel times.” *52* Third, in spite of all the greater glory of the new dispensation of the predominantly gentile church over the older dispensation of the predominantly Jewish church, and the rejection of the Jewish nation, as well as almost all of the Jewish people, God never will let the Jews go altogether. Nothing is more certainly foretold, for Edwards, than this [future] national conversion of the Jews.
Perhaps the first identification-distinction Edwards ever drew is among the most important. In his brief comment on Jer_31:33 he wrote:
[179] Jer_31:33. “But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; after those days, saith the Lord, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts, and will be their God, and they shall be my people.” I think the difference here pointed out between these two covenants, lies plainly here, that in the old covenant God promised to be their God upon condition of hearty obedience; obedience was stipulated as a condition, but not promised. But in the new covenant, this hearty obedience is promised if a man be but of the house of Israel, as by faith he becomes so. God promises expressly in this new dispensation that he shall perform a hearty obedience, and so have God for his God. That old covenant they broke, as it is said in the foregoing verse. The house of Israel, these were called so under the Old Testament, could break that; but the new covenant is such as cannot be broken by the spiritual house of Israel, because obedience is one thing that God engages and promises; and therefore this is called an everlasting covenant upon this account, as is plain from Jer_32:40 It is true the true saints, in the Old Testament, could not fall away any more than they can now, but they were not the Old-Testament Israel; and, though God had engaged in his covenant with Christ that they should not fall away, yet he had not expressly revealed that to them. God had not in those days so plainly revealed the primary and fundamental condition of the covenant of grace, viz. faith; but insisted more upon the secondary condition, universal and persevering obedience, the genuine and certain fruit of faith. *53*
The Nation of Israel was called chosen, redeemed, etc., but not Jewish individuals. He compares the Psalms speaking of national deliverance as being near to God. The Jews as elect, being delivered from Egypt, was a national thing and descended to the individual, but election and regeneration are personal in the New Testament, which begins with individuals and ascends to society. New Testament believers are with one spirit baptized into one body. *54*
Whatever differences between Israel and the church they were nonetheless one church, predominantly Jewish in the Old Testament, and predominantly gentile in the New. This unity of this church was a constant theme of Jonathan Edwards. “Lo the people shall dwell alone. The saints . . . are a small number . . . united among themselves . . . they are . . . greatly distinguished from the rest of the world.” *55* Again, “When a spirit of strife has been prevailing amongst a visible people of God, and they have been divided into parties, ’tis that which a person may well rejoice in, if he can say he is one, who has been peaceable and faithful among them.” *56*
Twenty years before the Humble Attempt Edwards preached this doctrine: “It is what may well make us willing and desirous to go with God’s people, that God is with them.” *57* Shortly before the controversy was begun which would break the unity between pastor and people Edwards taught, “In a company of Christians among whom Christianity has its genuine effect, love is the middle and love is the end of all their affairs.” *58* Previously he had instructed his people that “Professing Christians when they meet together should avoid all corrupt discourse one with another and should practice that whereby they may promote the good of each others’ souls.” *59* But Edwards never forgets that a common profession of orthodox doctrine must always be the ground of unity. “Belief makes the church,” he argued. *60* And yet, all sorts are to be united: “It is an indispensable duty incumbent upon us to endeavour to the utmost of our power to live peaceably with all men.” *61*
Edwards seems never to tire of this subject. Both sermons on 1Co_10:17 center on unity in Christ. In 1Pe_2:5 believers “make but one church.” *62* Zec_8:23 stresses going together to church. *63* According to Edwards’ interpretation of Psa_89:15 they that know the joyful sound (gospel) are one people like the ancient Israelites but spiritual. *64* 1Pe_2:5 says Christians are alike in being subjects of the same king. They have one nature. *65*
Beauty in a society is its unity, *66* and we cannot have society without it. This harmony is the glory of the Church (Psa_122:3, Eph_4:16, Joh_17:1-26). Num_23:9 shows saints united among themselves: “The saints . . . are a small number . . . united among themselves . . . they are . . . greatly distinguished from the rest of the world.” *67* In the sermon on Eph_5:25-27 the unity is described but also the presence of merely visible members in the midst of the unified body. *68* Heb_9:13-14 shows that God has always had the church in the world redeemed by the blood of Jesus Christ. *69* Exo_34:6-7 sees the same truth from a different angle. *70*
Certainly Edwards’ An Humble Attempt To Promote Explicit Agreement and Visible Union of God’s People in Extraordinary Prayer For the Revival of Religion and the Advancement of Christ’s Kingdom on Earth, Pursuant to Scripture-promises and Prophecies Concerning the Last Times is his greatest plea for a universal expression of the unity of the church:
8. How condecent, *71* how beautiful, and of good tendency would it be, for multitudes of Christians, in various parts of the world, by explicit agreement, to unite in such prayer as is proposed to us.
Union is one of the most amiable things, that pertains to human society; yea, ’tis one of the most beautiful and happy things on earth, which indeed makes earth most like heaven. God has “made of one blood all nations of men, to dwell on all the face of the earth” [Act_17:26]; hereby teaching us this moral lesson, that it becomes mankind all to be united as one family. And this is agreeable to the nature that God has given men, disposing them to society; and the circumstances God has placed them in, so many ways obliging and necessitating them to it. A civil union, or an harmonious agreement among men in the management of their secular concerns, is amiable; but much more a pious union, and sweet agreement in the great business for which man was created, and had powers given him beyond the brutes; even the business of religion; the life and soul of which is love. Union is spoken of in Scripture as the peculiar beauty of the church of Christ (Son_6:9). “My dove, my undefiled is but one, she is the only one of her mother, she is the choice one of her that bare her; the daughters saw her and blessed her, yea the queens and the concubines, and they praised her.” Psa_122:3, “Jerusalem is builded as a city that is compact together.” Eph_4:3-6, “Endeavoring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. There is one body, and one Spirit; even as ye are called in one hope of your calling; one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.” Eph_4:16, “The whole body fitly framed together and compacted, by that which every joint supplieth, according to the effectual working in the measure of every part, maketh increase of the body, unto the edifying itself in love.”
As ’tis the glory of the church of Christ, that she, in all her members, however dispersed, is thus one, one holy society, one city, one family, one body; so it is very desirable, that this union should be manifested, and become visible; and so, that her distant members should act as one, in those things that concern the common interest of the whole body, and in those duties and exercises wherein they have to do with their common Lord and Head, as seeking of him the common prosperity. It becomes all the members of a particular family, who are so strictly united, and have in so many respects one common interest, to unite in prayer to God for the things they need: it becomes a nation, in days of prayer, appointed by national authority, at certain seasons, visibly to unite in prayer for those public mercies that concern the interest of the whole nation: so it becomes the church of Christ, which is one holy nation, a peculiar people, one heavenly family, more strictly united, in many respects, and having infinitely greater interests that are common to the whole, than any other society; I say, it especially becomes this society, visibly to unite, and expressly to agree together in prayer to God for the common prosperity; and above all, that common prosperity and advancement that is so unspeakably great and glorious, which God hath so abundantly promised to fulfill in the latter days.
It is becoming of Christians, with whose character a narrow selfish spirit, above all others, disagrees, to be much in prayer for that public mercy, wherein consists the welfare and happiness of the whole body of Christ, of which they are members, and the greatest good of mankind. And union or agreement in prayer is especially becoming, when Christians pray for that mercy, which above all other things concerns them unitedly, and tends to the relief, prosperity and glory of the whole body, as well as of each individual member.
Such an union in prayer for the general outpouring of the Spirit of God, would not only be beautiful, but profitable too. It would tend very much to promote union and charity between distant members of the church of Christ, and a public spirit, and love to the church of God, and concern for the interest of Zion; as well as be an amiable exercise and manifestation of such a spirit. Union in religious duties, especially in the duty of prayer, in praying one with and for another, and jointly for their common welfare, above almost all other things, tends to promote mutual affection and endearment. And if ministers and people should, by particular agreement and joint resolution, set themselves, in a solemn and extraordinary manner, from time to time, to pray for the revival of religion in the world, it would naturally tend more to awaken in them a concern about things of this nature, and more of a desire after such a mercy; it would engage ’em to more attention to such an affair, make ’em more inquisitive about it, more ready to use endeavors to promote that which they, with so many others, spend so much time in praying for, and more ready to rejoice and praise God when they see or hear of anything of that nature or tendency: and in a particular manner, would it naturally tend to engage ministers (the business of whose lives it is, to seek the welfare of the church of Christ, and the advancement of his kingdom) to greater diligence and earnestness in their work: and it would have a tendency to the spiritual profit and advantage of each particular person. For persons to be thus engaged in extraordinarily praying for the reviving and flourishing of religion in the world, will naturally lead each one to reflect on himself, and consider how religion flourishes in his own heart, and how far his example contributes to the thing that he is praying for.
9. There is great and particular encouragement given in the Word of God, to express union and agreement in prayer. Daniel, when he had a great thing to request of God, viz., that God by his Holy Spirit would miraculously reveal to him a great secret, which none of the wise men, astrologers, magicians or soothsayers of Babylon could find out, he goes to Hananiah, Mishael and Azariah, his companions, and they agree together, that they will unitedly desire mercies of the God of heaven, concerning this secret; and their joint request was soon granted [Dan_2:16-19]; and God put great honor upon them, above all the wise men of Babylon, to the filling their mouths with praise, and to the admiration and astonishment of Nebuchadnezzar; insomuch that the great and haughty monarch, as we are told, fell upon his face and worshiped Daniel, and owned that “his God was of a truth a God of Gods,” and greatly promoted Daniel and his praying companions in the province of Babylon [Dan_2:46-49]. Esther, when she had a yet more important request to make, for the saving of the church of God, and whole nation of the Jews, dispersed throughout the empire of Persia, when on the brink of ruin, sends to all the Jews in the city Shushan to pray and fast with her and her maidens [Est_4:16]; and their united prayers prevail; so that the event was wonderful: instead of the intended destruction of the Jews, the Jews’ enemies are destroyed everywhere, and they are defended, honored and promoted, and their sorrow and distress is turned into great gladness, feasting, triumph and mutual joyful congratulations.
The encouragement to explicit agreement in prayer is great from such instances as these; but it is yet greater from those wonderful words of our blessed Redeemer (Mat_18:19), “I say unto you, that if any two of you shall agree on earth touching anything that they shall ask, it shall be done for them of my Father which is in heaven.” Christ is pleased to give this great encouragement to the union of his followers in this excellent and holy exercise of seeking and serving God; an holy union and communion of his people being that which he greatly desires and delights in, that which he came into the world to bring to pass, that which he especially prayed for with his dying breath (Joh_1:7), that which he died for, and which was one chief end of the whole affair of our redemption by him (Eph_1:7-10). “In whom we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of his grace, wherein he hath abounded towards us in all wisdom and prudence; having made known to us the mystery of his will, according to his good pleasure, which he hath purposed in himself: that in the dispensation of the fullness of times, he might gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven, and which are on earth, even in him.” *72*
Probably Schafer’s best section in his fine article *73* on Jonathan Edwards’ doctrine of the church concerns its unity:
This unity of the Church’s life is manifested in its fellowship on earth, its destiny in heaven, and its triumph in history. Edwards’ doctrines of excellence and virtue provide a foundation for the fellowship of the saints, both here and hereafter. The harmony of bodies with one another is but a shadow of excellence; “the highest excellence therefore must be the consent of Spirits one to another. But the consent of spirits consists half in their mutual love one to another.” *74* The other half is consent to God as the supreme Being, from which flows love to those who also love (“consent to”) God. *75* This love of the brethren, observe, is motivated only in part by the divine agape (“benevolence”); it is also a love of complacence directed toward the excellence of the saints. It follows from this that if we really knew who are not of the elect, it would not be our duty to love them, but rather, to “dissent” from them. *76*
The destiny of the saints is a perfect, yet increasing, mutuality and communion with one another in love. *77* Only in heaven do benevolence and complacence coalesce, for “there are none but lovely objects in heaven.” *78* This dual character of their love, and the fact that each saint’s capacity for happiness will be filled, prevents the degrees of glory, the seating arrangements of heaven from “damping” the happiness of the least of the elect. *79* This will be true also of the angels, over whom the Church shall be exalted. *80* It is the saints’ destiny also to be increasingly united and conformed to the glorified God-man, through whom they are to be admitted “into one society, one family, that his people should be in a sense admitted into the society of the Three Persons in the Godhead.” *81* For God aims at nothing less than an “infinitely strict” and perfect union of the Church with himself, one which becomes ever closer but is never finally achieved in fact. *82* The visio Dei which the saints in heaven have, even so, is not immediate and intuitive; it is mediated through the exalted Christ, who as Son can immediately behold the Father and as Man and Head of the body can communicate the vision to his members. *83* Again the unity of the Church in Christ appears.
A less immediate method by which the exalted saints may think God’s thoughts and thereby augment their happiness is by witnessing the progress of the Church on earth. At the final consummation, when Christ shall marry his bride, the Church shall receive its proper reward and Christ the completion of his glory. *84* Until then, their happiness is “proleptical, or by way of anticipation.” *85* Meanwhile, they sit as spectators of terrestrial affairs. *86*
God’s end in creation is realized inwardly in true virtue but outwardly in the “progress of the work of redemption.” The Church, heavenly and earthly, is the kingdom of God. And though the remanation of the divine glory and the union of the elect in Christ have a static, timeless quality about them, the accomplishment of the end of creation in actual deed is a historical process taking place on earth and in terms of the visible Church. Following the general covenant scheme of church history, *87* Edwards organized his own History of the Work of Redemption *88* in the categories first of biblical history and then of world history periodized and clocked by the cycles of the book of Revelation. The “advancement of the kingdom was always dear to Edwards heart; and he saw this advance, in his own day, in such political events as England’s defeat of the powers of Antichrist (the Papacy) and even more in the progress of religious revival in Europe and America. *89* Edwards’ millenarian expectations were linked with this idea of progress; he thought the Great Awakening in America was ushering in the millennial reign, which he expected to be a time of mass conversion of the heathen. *90*
The course of the Church in history, he believed, has been on the whole an upward one. In fact, the worst is past, Antichrist is soon to fall, and the sixth of the vials of tribulation has been poured. *91* Much of the happiness of departed saints comes from contemplating the progress of the work of redemption as part of the manifestative glory of God. Indeed, they seem to be automatically advanced to a new stage of glory and happiness simultaneously with each great new era of the Church on earth. *92* This, says Edwards,
in one sense, wherein the saints of old, the Church in heaven, are not made perfect without the accomplishment of the glorious period of the Church’s prosperity on earth: that the Church in heaven and the Church on earth are so united that the glory of the one is not advanced and perfected without the perfecting of the glory of the other; as is meet in those that are one body. *93*
In application of the doctrine of unity, Edwards draws a comparison of the church of the ages and the church in New England. Preaching on 2Ch_23:16 he notes that there are perhaps no people now on the face of the earth whose case has been “so paralleled with that of the Israelites as ours” has been. *94*