Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadJonathan Edwards Collection: Edwards, Jonathan - Rational Biblical Theology: Chapt 34 cont 2
TOPIC: Edwards, Jonathan - Rational Biblical Theology (Other Topics in this Collection)
SUBJECT: Chapt 34 cont 2
Other Subjects in this Topic:
3. The Mixed Visible Church
Though the one Church is being built and perfected by Christ on earth, Edwards taught that in its visible form it remained, and would remain until His return, a mixture of wheat and tares. This reality is responsible in part for the constant warfare that marks the experience of the Church in this age, and marked the ministry of Jonathan Edwards.
As a controversial, polemical churchman Jonathan Edwards seemed to be a study in contrasts. Trying to follow his Lord, he tried to be a peacemaker, but found himself at war constantly. His polemics against errors was ongoing, though he felt that there is nothing that more effectively destroyed the interest of religion and pulled down the church of God than contention. *95* Thus anything that claimed to favor the Awakening, but led to separation, was against Edwards’ striving, as the very title of his sermon on Jud_1:19 demonstrates:
There was a sort of persons in the apostles’ days who separated themselves from the steady ministers and churches that pretended to have the Spirit and to be very spiritual, but who really were carnal and had not the spirit of God. *96*
On the other hand, the opponents of the revivals were mostly what one would consider the “steady” ministers, yet Edwards was warning them of the peril of committing the unpardonable sin. He felt no obligation to listen to a minister who steadily preached or prayed against the Awakening. *97* It would seem like separation from the anti-revival old-liners, and no separation, depending upon the case at hand, was the counsel of Jonathan Edwards.
Concerning this subject, one special case in casuistry had been discussed with Colonel John Stoddard.
I am not alone in these sentiments; but I have reason to think that Col. Stoddard, from the conversation I have had with him, is in the like way of thinking. There came hither, the last fall, two young men belonging to the church at New-Haven, who had been members of Mr. Noyes’s church, but had left it and joined the separate church, and entered into covenant with it, when that church was embodied. This was looked upon as a crime, that ought not to be passed over, by Mr. Noyes and the rector. They declared themselves willing to return to Mr. Noyes’s meeting; but a particular confession was required of them in the meeting-house. Accordingly, each of them had offered a confession, but it was not thought sufficient; but it was required that they should add some things, of which they thought hard; and they consulting me about it, I acquainted Col. Stoddard with the affair, and desired his thoughts. He said he looked upon it unreasonable to require any confession at all; and that, considering the general state of confusion that had existed, and the instructions and examples these young men had had, it might well be looked upon enough, that they were now willing to change their practice, and return again to Mr. Noyes’s meeting. Not that you, Rev. Sir, are obliged to think as Col. Stoddard does; yet I think, considering his character and relation, his judgment may well be of so much weight, as to engage you the more to attend to and weigh the reasons he gives. *98*
The mixed visible church had means, of course, to preserve and advance its measure of purity and peace. Edwards was part of the Hampshire Association which found Robert Breck, a “steady” minister, unfit for the ministry (in Edwards’ opinion) for his unorthodoxy. And yet in its “mixed” existence even these means were employed imperfectly. Edwards acknowledged the legitimacy of the Association which later voted to terminate his ministry in Northampton, Robert Beck gladly concurring. Edwards swallowed the hemlock.
Since the Church on earth is a mixture of wheat and tares, one might suppose that a certain complacency would be the order of the day. Yet to this “mixed” church Edwards preached countless warnings. On one occasion he brought “A Warning to Professors” *99* on the text Eze_23:37-39. After commenting on these verses, Edwards formulated his doctrine: “When they that attend ordinances of divine worship allow themselves in known wickedness, they are guilty of dreadfully profaning and polluting those ordinances. *100* He ends the sermon pointing out that sins against the worship of the church and her divine ordinances were especially detestable in God’s sight.
We have in Scripture scarce any such awful instances of the immediate and miraculous vengeance of God, as on the profaners of holy things. How did God consume Nadab and Abihu, for offering strange fire before him! How did he break forth upon Uzza, for handling the ark with too much irreverence! 2Sa_6:6-7. And how did he break forth on the children of Israel at Bethshemesh, for profaning the ark! “He smote of the people fifty thousand threescore and ten men,” as in 1Sa_6:19.
And God hath threatened in the New Testament, that if any man “defile the temple of God, him shall God destroy; for the temple of God is holy,” 1Co_3:17. There is an emphasis in the expression. God will destroy all sinners, let it be what sin it will which they commit, and in which they continue; and yet it is said, “If any man defile the temple of God, him shall God destroy,” as if it had been said, there is something peculiar in the case, and God is especially provoked to destroy such, and consume them in the fire of his wrath; and he will indeed destroy them with a destruction especially dreadful.
So God hath declared, Gal_6:7. “That he will not be mocked;” i.e. if any presume to mock him, they will find him, by experience, to be no contemptible being. God will vindicate his holy majesty from the contempt of those who dare to mock him, and he will do it effectually: they shall fully find how dreadful a being he is, whose name they have daringly profaned and polluted. Defilers and profaners of ordinances, by known and allowed wickedness, provoke God more than the heathen, who have no ordinances. Thus the wickedness of Judah and Jerusalem is said to be far worse than that of Sodom, though the inhabitants of Sodom were, as we have reason to think, some of the worst of the heathens. See Eze_16:46-47, &c. The sin of Sodom is here spoken of as a light thing in comparison with the sins of Judah. And what should be the reason, but that Judah enjoyed holy things which they profaned and polluted, which Sodom had no opportunity to do? for it is not to be supposed, that Judah otherwise arrived to the same pass that Sodom had.
Consider therefore, ye who allow yourselves in known wickedness, and live in it, who yet come to the house of God, and to his ordinances from time to time, without any serious design of forsaking your sins, but, on the contrary, with an intention of continuing in them, and who frequently go from the house of God to your wicked practices; consider how guilty you have made yourselves in the sight of God, and how dreadfully God is provoked by you. It is a wonder of God’s patience, that he doth not break forth upon you, and strike you dead in a moment; for you profane holy things in a more dreadful manner then Uzza did, when yet God struck him dead for his error. And whereas he was struck dead for only one offence, you are guilty of the same sin from week to week, and from day to day.
Edwards concludes with special reference to his own people:
It is a wonder that God suffers you to live upon earth, that he hath not, with a thunderbolt of his wrath, struck you down to the bottomless pit long ago. You that are allowedly and voluntarily living in sin, who have gone on hitherto in sin, are still going on, and do not design any other than to go on yet; it is a wonder that the Almighty’s thunder lies still, and suffers you to sit in his house, or to live upon earth. It is a wonder that the earth will bear you, and that hell doth not swallow you up. It is a wonder that fire doth not come down from heaven, or come up from hell, and devour you; that hell-flames do not enlarge themselves to reach you, and that the bottomless pit hath not swallowed you up.
However, that you are as yet borne with, is no argument that your damnation slumbers. The anger of God is not like the passions of men, that it should be in haste. There is a day of vengeance and recompense appointed for the vessels of wrath; and when the day shall have come, and the iniquity shall be full, none shall deliver out of God’s hand. Then will he recompense, even recompense into your bosoms. *101*
Precious as are Christ’s jewels, “in every congregation there are many whose damnation is sure.” *102* In 1741 Edwards solemnly warned his people:
I don’t want to go about to terrify you needlessly or to represent your case worse than it is. But I do verily think there are a number of people belonging to this congregation in Eminent [sic] danger of being damned to all eternity.” *103*
Nevertheless, with all the pastoral admonitions and warnings, Edwards and other ministers had no power to know what was in the hearts of their parishioners. Two things were necessary to become a church member. First, an orthodox creedal profession was required, and for Edwards and the Reformed tradition this included avowed trust in the Christ who was confessed the orthodox way. The other requirement was an outwardly godly life free of scandal.
In taking this position Edwards was more in line with Old England than New England and with the Old Side Presbyterians than his New Side Presbyterian friends of the Awakening. In Scotland the church merely “hoped” that the non-scandalous baptized were regenerate. Pastors could only warn their parishioners but not assume unregeneracy.
However, it is chapter III of the congregational Cambridge Platform (1648) that clearly pointed to the position Jonathan Edwards defended:
Of the matter of the Visible Church Both in respect of Quality and Quantity.
The matter of a visible church are Saints by calling.
By Saints, wee understand,
Such, as have not only attained the knowledge of the principles of Religion, & are free from gross & open scandals, but also do together with the profession of their faith & Repentance, walk in blameless obedience to the word, so as that in charitable discretion they may be accounted. *104*
As we noted in the first section of this chapter the very definition of the church was a mark of its unity. The church is made up of members but only God can determine who the true ones are and men, who are charged with the task, are not equal to it (Psa_55:12). “Who are truly converted are visible only to God.” Too sanguine in his early estimates of the Great Awakening - a soberer Edwards later felt that only God was up to this Job *105*
Nor could ministers know what was in the hearts of ministers. Said Edwards: “I feel no disposition to treat any minister as if I supposed that he was finally rejected of God. . . .” *106* The Northampton Pastor’s view may be compared to that of Gilbert Tennent in his “Dangers of an Unconverted Ministry” preached in Nottingham, Pa. in 1740, precipitating the New Light Presbyterian schism. Tennent had the same tendency as his friend, George Whitefield, to feel confident about reading “signs” to spiritual status. Edwards had previously warned Whitefield of this:
On Monday, Mr. Edwards, with the Rev. Mr. Hopkins of West Springfield, his brother-in-law, and several other gentlemen, accompanied Mr. Whitefield on the east side of the river as far as East Windsor, to the house of his father, the Rev. Timothy Edwards. While they were thus together, he took an opportunity to converse with Mr. Whitefield alone, at some length, on the subject of impulses, and assigned the reasons which he had to think, that he gave too much heed to such things. Mr. Whitefield received it kindly, but did not seem inclined to have much conversation on the subject, and in the time of it, did not appear convinced by any thing which he heard. He also took occasion in the presence of others, to converse with Mr. Whitefield at some length, about his too customary practice of judging other persons to be unconverted; examined the scriptural warrant for such judgments, and expressed his own decided disapprobation of the practice. Mr. Whitefield, at the same time, mentioned to Mr. Edwards his design of bringing over a number of young men from England, into New Jersey and Pennsylvania, to be ordained by the two Mr. Tennents. Their whole interview was an exceedingly kind and affectionate one; yet Mr. Edwards supposed that Mr. Whitefield regarded him somewhat less as an intimate and confidential friend, than he would have done, had he not opposed him in two favourite points of his own practice, for which no one can be at a loss to perceive that he could find no scriptural justification. *107*
The Old Side, on the other hand, had maintained that regeneration in another person could not certainly be detected. So while Edwards was very strict about conditions for receiving the Lord’s Supper and baptism, he could also accept professions of faith though they may not have followed some of the customary steps to salvation.
We believe that Edwards’ conservatism on this point may have helped to heal the Presbyterian schism. In 1752 he preached his sermon on Jam_2:1-26 to the New Side Synod meeting in New York. Gilbert Tennent was not present according to the Minutes, but those who were no doubt told him how Edwards had indicated the difficulty of distinguishing between a true and merely nominal Christian. His sermon was one the theme: “No such experiences as the devils in hell are the subjects of are any sure sign of grace.” *108*
Nevertheless, Edwards was charged with claiming to read the hearts of men. He denied that with all vigor, giving this as his understanding of the issue at the very outset of Qualifications for Communion:
none ought to be admitted to the communion and privileges of members of the visible church of Christ in complete standing, but such as are in profession, and in the eye of the church’s christian judgment, godly or gracious persons. . . . *109*
Edwards’ estimate of opposing ministers shows this same spirit:
[I]t has been expected by some, that Christ was now about thus to purge his house of unconverted ministers, and this has made it more natural to them to think that they should do Christ service, and act as co-workers with him, to put to their hand, and endeavor by all means to cashier those ministers that they thought to be unconverted. Indeed it appears to me probable that the time is coming, when awful judgments will be executed on unfaithful ministers, and that no sort of men in the world will be so much exposed to divine judgments; but then we should leave that work to Christ, who is the Searcher of hearts, and to whom vengeance belongs; and not, without warrant, take the scourge out of his hand into our own. There has been too much of a disposition in some, as it were to give ministers over as reprobates, that have been looked upon as wolves in sheep’s clothing; which has tended to promote and encourage a spirit of bitterness towards them, and to make it natural to treat them too much as if they knew God hated them. If God’s children knew that others were reprobates, it would not be required of them to love them; we may hate those that we know God hates; as ’tis lawful to hate the Devil, and as the saints at the Day of Judgment will hate the wicked.
Some have been too apt to look for fire from heaven upon particular ministers; and this has naturally excited that disposition to call for it, that Christ rebuked in his disciples at Samaria [Luk_9:51-56]. For my part, though I believe no sort of men on earth are so exposed to spiritual judgments as wicked ministers, yet I feel no disposition to treat any minister as if I supposed that he was finally rejected of God; for I can’t but hope that there is coming a day of such great grace, a time so appointed for the magnifying the riches and sovereignty of divine mercy beyond what ever was, that a great number of unconverted ministers will obtain mercy. *110*
This did not prevent Edwards from warning some ministers of their peril of committing the unpardonable sin by opposing the Great Awakening. *111*
I will close this section with a portion of Edwards’ Qualifications for Communion, his most complete discussion of the doctrine of the church’s terms of admission to baptism and the Lord’s Supper. This treatise was to bring New England back to its original moorings after a century and a half of being tossed about on the ecclesiastical high seas. *112* Sadly, Jonathan Edwards was to drown at Northampton in the process of the attempted rescue. I include first the Table of Contents to show how wide the range of controverted points. Following the Table I offer one important criticism of Edwards’ position in Qualifications and his response, after which I conclude with Thomas Foxcroft’s historical defense of Edwards’ position.
Table of Contents
Part II. Reasons for the Negative of the Question
Sect. I. Church members should be visible saints
Sect. II. Profession of religion
Sect. III. Profession should be of real piety
Sect. IV. Reason requires a hearty profession
Sect. V. Christ requires it
Sect. VI. Primitive admissions
Sect. VII. The epistles prove it
Sect. VIII. Members united by brotherly love
Sect. IX. Qualifications for the Lord’s supper
Part III. Objections answered
Obj. I. The church is the school of Christ
Obj. II. Israel was God’s people
Obj. III. Jews partook of the Passover
Obj. IV. John’s disciples made no profession of piety
Obj. V. Many are called, but few chosen
Obj. VI. Wheat and tares grow together
Obj. VII. Case of Judas
Obj. VIII. No certain rule given
Obj. IX. If grace be required, it must be known
Obj. X. Perplexity occasioned
Obj. XI. All duties of worship holy
Obj. XII. Tendency of the Lord’s supper
Obj. XIII. God does not require impossibilities
Obj. XIV. Unsanctified persons may live as saints
Obj. XV. Better admit hypocrites than exclude saints
Obj. XVI. Hypocrites will be admitted
Obj. XVII. True saints doubt of their state
Obj. XVIII. Men’s opinion of themselves no criterion
Obj. XIX. Infant baptism
Obj. XX. Some have been converted at the sacrament
Appendix. Mr. Foxcroft’s letter *113*
Answ. 1. These things have no reference to introduction into the field, or admission into the visible church, as though no care nor measures should be taken to prevent tares being sown; or as though the servants who had the charge of the field, would have done well to have taken tares, appearing to be such, and planted them in the field amongst the wheat: no, instead of this, the parable plainly implies the contrary. But the words cited have wholly respect to a casting out and purging the field, after the tares had been introduced unawares, and contrary to design, through men’s infirmity and Satan’s procurement. Concerning purging the tares out of the field, or casting men out of the church, there is no difference between me and those whom I oppose in the present controversy: and therefore it is impossible there should be any objection from that which Christ says here concerning this matter against me, but what is as much of an objection against them; for we both hold the same thing. It is agreed on all hands, that adult persons, actually admitted to communion in the visible church, however they may behave themselves so as to bring their spiritual state into suspicion, yet ought not to be cast out, unless they are obstinate in heresy or scandal; lest, while we go about to root out the tares, we should root out the wheat also. And it is also agreed on all hands, that when those represented under the name of tares bring forth such evil fruit, such scandalous and obstinate wickedness, as is plainly and visibly inconsistent with the being of true grace, they ought to be cast out. And therefore it is impossible that this objection should be any thing to the purpose.
Answ. 2. I think this parable, instead of being a just objection against the doctrine I maintain, is on the contrary a clear evidence for it.
For (1.) the parable shows plainly, that if any are introduced into the field of the householder, or church of Christ, who prove to be not wheat, (i.e. not true saints) they are brought in unawares, or contrary to design. If tares are as properly to be sown in the field, as is the wheat, which must be the case if the Lord’s supper be a converting ordinance; then surely no care ought to be taken to introduce wheat only, and no respect ought to be had more to the qualities of wheat in sowing the field, than the qualities of tares; nor is there any more impropriety in the tares having a place there, than the wheat. But this surely is altogether inconsistent with the scope of the parable.
(2.) This parable plainly shows, that those who are in the visible church, have at first a visibility, or appearance to human sight of true grace, or of the nature of true saints. For it is observed, tares have this property, that when they first appear, and till the products of the field arrive to some maturity, they have such a resemblance of wheat, that it is next to impossible to distinguish them. *114*
Quest. V. Whether it be the general opinion, that the same qualifications are required in a parent bringing his child to baptism, as in an adult person for his own admission to this ordinance?
Answ. Here, Sir, I suppose you intend only the same qualifications in kind; or a profession and visibility, in some degree, of the same sort of faith and repentance; meaning that which is truly evangelical and saving. And understanding you in this sense, I am persuaded, by all I can observe, that the generality of protestants are in the affirmative; not assenting to a specific and essential difference, whatever circumstantial and gradual disparity they may allow, between the two cases you mention.
Mr. Baxter, speaking of the judgment and practice of the christian fathers, tells us, that faith (justifying faith, and not another kind of faith) was supposed to be in the parent, for himself and his seed: because the condition or qualification of the infant is but this, that he be the seed of a believer. And he thinks the generality of the reformed are in these sentiments. He declares his own judgment in full concurrence herewith, and backs the same with a variety of arguments, in his Five Disputations, and other writings. He observes, it seems strange to him that any should imagine, a lower belief in the parent will help his child to a title to baptism, than that which is necessary to his own, if he were unbaptized; because mutual consent is necessary to mutual covenant, and the covenant must be mutual. No man hath right to God’s part, that refuseth his own: they that have no right to remission of sins, have no right given them by God to baptism. If God be not at all actually obliged in covenant to any ungodly man, then he is not obliged to give him baptism: but God is not obliged so to him. Most of our divines make the contrary doctrine Pelagianism, that God should be obliged to man in a state of nature in such a covenant. If the parent’s title be questionable, (says he,) the infant’s is so too; because the ground is the same: and it is from the parent that the child must derive it; nor can any man give that which he hath not. We ought not (says he) to baptize those persons, or their children, as theirs, who are visible members of the kingdom of the devil, or that do not so much as profess their forsaking the devil’s kingdom: but such are all that profess not a saving faith. If such are not visibly in the kingdom of the devil, at least they are not visibly out of it. All that are duly baptized, are baptized into Christ; therefore they are supposed to possess that faith by which men are united or ingrafted into Christ: but that is only justifying faith. Tell me (says he) where any man was ever said in Scripture to be united to Christ, without saving faith, or profession of it. In a word, Mr. Baxter takes occasion to declare himself in this manner: If Mr. Blake exacts not a profession of saving faith and repentance, I say he makes foul work in the church. And when such foul work shall be voluntarily maintained, and the word of God abused for the defilement of the church and ordinances of God, it is a greater scandal to the weak, and to the schismatics, and a greater reproach to the church, and a sadder case to considerate men, than the too common pollutions of others, which are merely through negligence, but not justified and defended.
We are told by other impartial inquirers, that all the reformed do in their directories and practices require professions, as well as promises, of parents bringing their children to baptism; even professions of present faith and repentance, as well as promises of future obedience; and these not merely of the moral, but the evangelical kind. The judgment of the church of Scotland may be known by their adopting the Confession, Catechisms, and Directory of the Assembly of Divines; who, when they require a parental profession, (as in their Catechisms, &c.) intend it not of any lower kind, than a true gospel faith and obedience. The mind of the dissenters may be very much judged of by the reformed liturgy, presented in their name upon King Charles’s restoration; where parents’ credible profession of their faith, repentance, and obedience, is required in order to the baptism of their children. I might bring further evidence from the writings of particular divines among them, ancient and modern; but I must for brevity omit this. Only I will give you a specimen in two or three hints. Mr. Charnock, that great divine, observes, “Baptism supposes faith in the adult, and the profession of faith in the parent for his child.” The late eminent Dr. Watts, in his Holiness of Times, Places, and People, thus declares himself, with respect to the infants of true believers: “In my opinion, so far as they are any way members of the visible christian church, it is upon supposition of their being (with their parents) members of the invisible church of God.”
On the whole, as to our fathers here in New England, it is true, they asserted a baptism-right in parents for themselves and children, whom yet they excluded from full communion; the ground of which difference was hinted before: and they denied a parity of reason between the two cases now in view, on some accounts. Their chief ground was, that adult baptism requires a measure of visible moral fitness or inherent holiness in the recipient; whereas, infant baptism requires nothing visible in its subject, but a relative fitness or federal holiness, the formalis ratio of infant membership, accruing from God’s charter of grace to his church, taking in the infant seed with the believing parent. Baptism they supposed to run parallel with regular membership; and the child of such a parent entitled to this covenant-seal in its own right, on the foot of a distinct personal membership, derivative in point of being, but independent for its duration, and for the privileges annexed to it by divine institution. However, they certainly owned parental profession, as belonging to the due order and just manner of administration, both meet and needful. Accordingly they provided, that parents claiming covenant-privileges for their children, should own their covenant-state, have a measure of covenant-qualifications, and do covenant-duties, in some degree, to the satisfaction of a rational charity. And it ought to be remembered, they have left it as their solemn judgment, that even taking baptism-right for a right of fitness in foro ecclesiastico, still the parents whose children they claimed baptism for, were such as must be allowed to have a title to it for themselves, in case they had remained unbaptized; looking upon them, although not duly fitted for the sacrament of communion and confirmation, yet sufficiently so for the sacrament of union and initiation; professors in their infancy parentally, and now personally, in an initial way; appearing Abraham’s children, in some measure of truth, to a judicious charity; justly therefore baptizable, in their persons and offspring, by all the rules of the gospel. I am not here to argue upon the justness of this scheme of thought on the case; but only to represent the fact in a genuine light. *116*
4. The Indestructibility of the Church
While the world is always trying to destroy the church, it is the church alone which saves the world from destruction. Her keeping the Bible, God, and visibly religious people, before the world assists conscience. When the church is removed from the world, the world is destroyed (Rev_14:1-20). If it were not for the church, the world would lose her savor (Deu_32:8-9). The world now only exists for the church for Christ is the head of all things only for the church (2Co_4:15; 1Co_3:21-22; Isa_43:23-24; Jos_10:12). While the world hates the church, it is the church which brings blessing as Jacob for Laban and Joseph for Potiphar.
If the church ever did become extinct the world would too, for the church is all that preserves the world. The world in all ages has been preserved only by the church. Edwards preached, “That the church of God in this depraved and corrupt world is as the salt that preserves it from utter ruin.” *117* Even in a captivity from which she never fully returned Israel was the preserver of her captors. The world followed the beast for centuries after the Christian church was formed. Parts of the church became apostate and then became worse than the world. But there have always been some true churches, though sometimes near the vanishing point.
The visibility of the church is so important that “if public religion once ceased all religion would soon cease.” *118* But God has always had a visible church. It is the only kingdom without end (Daniel 244). Every other plant shall fail (Mat_15:13; Jer_11:11; Heb_12:26-27). It is always little but never eradicated. Some followed the Lamb when virtually the whole world went after the Beast (Rev_14:1-20). Pharaoh, the Roman Empire and the popes have tried to root it out. *119*
This world is such a dunghill” that Edwards thinks a Christian who wants to amount to anything in it ought to be “ashamed.” “It is surely a disgrace to them, who are accounted to God for a generation, much to care whether they are accounted great upon this dunghill.” *120*
We have seen in our discussion of original sin what a snake pit we live in. We will not be surprised when we find Edwards turning this vile world into hell itself, as we will see later. He often reminded unconverted sinners in his congregation that they deserved to be in hell and were far worse than many who were already there.
4. They are now the objects of that very same anger and wrath of God, that is expressed in the torments of hell. And the reason why they do not go down to hell at each moment, is not because God, in whose power they are, is not then very angry with them; as he is with many miserable creatures now tormented in hell, and there feel and bear the fierceness of his wrath. Yea, God is a great deal more angry with great numbers that are now on earth; yea, doubtless with many that are now in this congregation, who it may be are at ease, than he is with many of those who are now in the flames of hell. - So that it is not because God is unmindful of their wickedness, and does not resent it, that he does not let loose his hand and cut them off. God is not altogether such a one as themselves, though they imagine him to be so. The wrath of God burns against them, their damnation does not slumber; the pit is prepared, the fire is made ready, the furnace is now hot, ready to receive them; the flames do now rage and glow. The glittering sword is whet, and held over them, and the pit hath opened its mouth under them. *121*
Yet the church is utterly outnumbered by a hostile world. It is the enemy of God and God’s little ones, always trying to cause them to stumble. Christ warns that it would be better for them to be drowned in the sea than to offend one of His people. So said the Lord of the church: “But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea” (Mat_18:6).
When Joseph Hawley III (the son of Gideon Hawley, the suicide) was begging Edwards’ forgiveness for his criminal activity in leading those who led the Northampton people to dismiss their faithful pastor, it was the above text that frightened him.
Indeed, Sir, I must own, that, by my conduct in consulting and acting against Mr. Edwards, within the time of our most unhappy disputes with him, and especially in and about that abominable ‘remonstrance,’ I have so far symbolized with Balaam, Ahithopel, and Judas, that I am confounded and filled with terror, oftentimes, when I attend to the most painful similitude. And I freely confess, that, on account of my conduct above mentioned, I have the greatest reason to tremble at those most solemn and awful words of our Saviour, Mat_18:6. ‘Whoso shall offend one of these little ones, which believe in me, it were better for him that a mill-stone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea;’ and those in Luk_10:16. ‘He that despiseth you, despiseth me; and he that despiseth me, despiseth him that sent me;’ and I am most sorely sensible that nothing but that infinite grace and mercy, which saved some of the betrayers and murderers of our blessed Lord, and the persecutors of his martyrs, can pardon me; in which alone I hope for pardon, for the sake of Christ, whose blood, blessed be God, cleanseth from all sin. *122*
“God has throughout all the ages of the Old Testament had a church in the world. A church of saints and holy justified ones that are redeemed from all iniquity.” This church, however, has usually been declining, kept alive only by the sheer power of God’s grace and mercy. Nevertheless, God does not easily let even a merely visible people of God perish. *123*
5. The Worship of the Church
Jonathan Edwards was committed to the worship of God - in private, in families, *124* and in the public gatherings of the congregation - as a principle means whereby God is glorified and His people edified. He taught his people concerning the proper biblical elements of worship, and the necessity of heartfelt participation, *125* and he took thoughtful interest in the debates that had divided believers from one another concerning what in worship was proper and acceptable to the Lord. Concerning this disputed question he saw an analogy in the contrast between the conduct of Mary and Martha in the Bible and the contrasting practices of worship among the Dissenters and the members of the Church of England.
[295] Luk_10:38, to the end. Concerning Mary’s and Martha’s different ways of showing their respect to Christ. Martha and Mary seem to be types of different churches, or rather different parts of the christian church: the one showing their respect to the Christ by much external service and ceremony, as Martha was cumbered about much serving; the other that part of the church that is more pure and spiritual in their worship, as Mary sat at his feet, and heard his word. Particularly Martha represents the Jewish christian church in the apostles’ days, made up of Jews and judaizing Christians, who were fond of the ceremonies of the Jewish worship. Mary represents the Gentile church; they were more spiritual in their worship. What is signified in this type is also exemplified in the church of England, that is cumbered about much serving; their worship consisting much in external form and ceremony: and the church of Scotland, and the dissenters in England, are like Mary, who worship Christ according to his own institutions, without the pomp and cumbrance of outward forms. . . . Martha complains of Mary that she did not join with her in her external service, and would have Christ oblige her to help her; so those churches that are ceremonious in their worship, are commonly impatient of others, who dissent from them, and are of an imposing spirit, and are desirous of having others being obliged to conformity. So was it with the Jewish-christian church in the primitive times with respect to the Gentile church, and so it is with the church of England. Christ declares that Mary’s way of showing respect to him was far the most necessary and most acceptable; so is that worship that is pure and spiritual. *126*
Edwards’ came to express his opposition to the Anglican liturgy in the phrase, “They take Martha’s way.” *127* He objected to how the Church of England gloried in kissing, crossing, holy days, etc., their clergy choosing to be treated Martha’s way rather than Mary’s with its greater concern for vital spiritual matters.
The demand that worship be in spirit and in truth grew out of Edwards’ commitment to the exclusive rule of the Word of God in worship, this conception embodied in what is known as the “Regulative Principle,” one of the defining marks of Puritan practical theology. Yet he did not find that the application of this God-honoring rule required the exclusive use of Psalms in public worship. He argued
I am far from thinking that the Book of Psalms should be thrown by in our public worship, but that it should always be used in the Christian church, to the end of the world: but I know of no obligation we are under to confine ourselves to it. I can find no command or rule of God’s Word, that does any more confine us to the words of the Scripture in our singing, than it does in our praying; we speak to God in both: and I can see no reason why we should limit ourselves to such particular forms of words that we find in the Bible, in speaking to him by way of praise, in meter, and with music, than when we speak to him in prose, by way of prayer and supplication. And ’tis really needful that we should have some other songs besides the Psalms of David: ’tis unreasonable to suppose that the Christian church should forever, and even in times of her greatest light in her praises of God and the Lamb, be confined only to the words of the Old Testament, wherein all the greatest and most glorious things of the Gospel, that are infinitely the greatest subjects of her praise, are spoken of under a veil, and not so much as the name of our glorious Redeemer ever mentioned, but in some dark figure, or as hid under the name of some type. And as to our making use of the words of others, and not those that are conceived by ourselves, ’tis no more than we do in all our public prayers; the whole worshipping assembly, excepting one only, makes use of the words that are conceived by him that speaks for the rest. *128*
Concerning the circumstances of public worship, those matters not regulated by the Word and left to the discretion of the church, Edwards counseled that ministers should take the lead in determining what is appropriate. “Ministers are pastors of worshiping societies, and their heads and guides in the affairs of public worship. . . . If it belongs to these shepherds and rulers to direct and guide the flock in anything at all, it belongs to ’em so to do in the circumstantials of their public worship.” *129* With regard to such matters the Northampton pastor wisely emphasized the obligations of charity, union and peace, and warned against the introduction of unsettling novelties. *130*
Finally, Edwards had a concern for proper decorum in public worship, as is made plain in his insightful discussion of the matter in Some Thoughts. There he argued that the experience of those “exceedingly affected” ought not, such “strong and vehement disposition” notwithstanding, be allowed to excuse what is “unbecoming” in the public assembly. *131*
6. The Organization of the Church
When we come to the question of the organization of the church we are immediately confronted with a dilemma. Ministers are necessary to admit and dismiss members, but there have to be members to call ministers. Edwards did not face this problem (though he did accept the traditional view that Christ Himself appointed the original founders of the church by “extraordinary officers, apostles) *132* because his congregational churches had long existed before he came on the scene. However he was, from the beginning, concerned with the respective authority of ministers and congregation.
This question of ecclesiastical organization and interested Edwards from his youth. In a number of early Miscellanies he wrestled with this theme. In one of the very first, written probably before he was twenty, Edwards says: Ministers are not properly “governors” but only “leaders.” They do not make laws. If they made laws they would be dethroning Christ.
This seems to be the point of his analogy to secular government. Speaking of representatives of a worldly prince, he notes that if they could make laws that they say (as final authority in interpretation) are not contrary to the King’s, they would be virtually unlimited in authority. *133* On the other hand, “if men have no power and authority to make ecclesiastical laws, then I am not obliged to obey them because of any power or authority they have. . . .” *134* In this connection he addressed the claim that we should still have to obey them for the sake of peace. This seems as absurd to him as the people of England obeying a law they did not favor in order not to offend the “Grand Turk.” *135*
What then, more precisely, is the authority of ministers? Although ministers are “leaders” and not “governors” they have real power of administration, not only of sacraments, but of determining membership. They do not make laws, but they determine who do and who do not keep Christ’s laws and who therefore are or are not worthy of the name Christian.
Edwards agreed with the New Side Presbyterians that ministers only administer the laws of Christ and cannot bind the conscience itself versus the Old Side claim to make laws which bind the conscience. *136* It is interesting that the Presbyterian Church in the U.S.A. declaring it as necessary to obey church missionary programs as to receive the Lord’s supper caused some of its members to declare that denomination apostate in 1936.
Ecclesiastical authority rests only in Christ, but ministers must judge who are in conformity with Christ and therefore entitled to be members of His church. This must be their private judgment. We shall notice later that Edwards has room for the “private judgment” of higher courts. Here it is sufficient to notice that the minister’s or presbytery’s authority is not principial but ministerial or declarative only. Marsh shows that “decline in the prestige of the minister contributed to the great awakening.” *137* If Jonathan Edwards was right, that was an indication of decline in their respect for the God the minister represented.
But there is something more fundamental to the visible church than ministerial authority of officers: the private judgment of the individual, for it is he who must decide on the competence of the one who is to be his minister. This determines the very activity of a minister. The parishioner selects the minister who may or may not subsequently approve of the parishioner. Of course, the minister approves the people in the first instance. He could not accept a call to a congregation he did not judge to be a true congregation. It, being a true congregation, would judge whether he was a fit minister. If so, he would then judge, as occasion arose, to dismiss old members or admit new ones.
Must all of this be in accord with the congregation’s own judgment? No, for in a sense the minister holds the keys of the kingdom once the congregation “gave” them to him (or, rather, acknowledges his divine right to them). In one sense the people’s part is the crux of and corruption of any renewal.
God would therefore have us do it in those things that are profitable to our neighbours, whom he has constituted his receivers. Our goodness extends not to God, but to our fellow-Christians. The latter sort of duties put greater honour upon God, because there is greater self-denial in them. The external acts of worship, consisting in bodily gestures, words, and sounds, are the cheapest part of religion, and least contrary to our lusts. The difficulty of thorough, external religion, does not lie in them. Let wicked men enjoy their covetousness, their pride, their malice, envy, and revenge, their sensuality and voluptuousness, in their behaviour amongst men, and they will be willing to compound the matter with God, and submit to what forms of worship you please, and as many as you please. This was manifest in the Jews in the days of the prophets, the Pharisees in Christ’s time, and the Papists and Mahometans at this day. *138*
Edwards was himself to be dismissed from Northampton in 1750 for what the congregation judged an erroneous use of the keys. Yet it was not the congregation who dismissed Edwards. Edwards withdrew when a council, ascertaining the wishes of the congregation advised him to leave. In fact, Edwards had offered to leave on his own if his congregation would read his defense and still think him wrong, but they had refused to meet that stipulation.
Here is an inconsistency, or something not worked out to term, in Edwards’ ecclesiology. He admitted that a congregation had the right to choose its minister but not to dismiss him. They had a right to determine that he could feed them well and not poison them.
It is either the peoples’ part to choose with what food they will be fed - Let what will be offered to them, ’tis their business to judge whether it be best for them to receive it as their food - or else, that they in some cases are to receive that as their food, which they at the same time judge to be their poison. *139*
Could they not later decide that he was poisoning them? He seems unconsciously to be reasoning in John Cotton’s way, that once the congregation chose the minister it handed the keys to him to use for their own admission and dismission. Yet Edwards did not believe that a minister possessed the keys if he were scandalous or unsound. In the Breck case the association found acceptable a man Edwards judged a heretic. Did he regard Breck as a legitimate pastor? In M 40 Edwards comes down firmly on the side of ultimate congregational administration of authority.
. Ministers
According to Edwards, after the establishment of the church by extraordinary officers (who had been directly appointed by the Head of the Church, Jesus Christ), a different form of government exists by that same divine authority for the interim until Christ returns. The Corinthians’ extraordinary gifts made the situation of the church at its first founding quite different from what it is in the days that follow the Apostolic Age. Any male who had such gifts was an “extraordinary” officer and had to be heeded as Christ in them spoke and acted. But we cannot argue from this that these gifts marked out “standing” offices. All of them, such as rebuking, admonishing, exhorting, discerning, etc., are parts of what is now the pastoral office.
The Church’s “ordinary” officers were to manage the church in the name of her Head until He Himself visibly reappeared. He appointed no “vicar” except these officers, who operated under a different principle of authority altogether. They were to be well educated and naturally capable of leading the people in a right way along a plain path. Without doubt, ministers are to administer sacraments and teach what they think fit. The congregation is to hear “so far as they are inclined and so far my power extends.” “And this is all the difference of power there is amongst ministers, whether appointed or whatever.” Edwards closes with this caveat: “if it was plain to them that I was under infallible guidance I would have power to teach them and they would be obliged.” He ends with the apparent understanding that he has no such “infallible guidance” and the congregation has no corresponding obligation. The “congregationalism” - indeed independency in this very deliberate statement seems unmistakable. If the congregation is to hear only “so far as they are inclined and so far my power extends” presumably that would be the duration of his authority among them, regardless of his own opinion or that of a ministerial council. *140*
And yet Edwards, by many indications, was not inclined to congregationalism. When the Presbyterians of Scotland and elsewhere were inviting him to their ministry, he could say that Presbyterianism “has ever appeared to me most agreeable to the word of God, and the reason and nature of things. . . .” *141* Certainly such statements as the following would indicate that Edwards was no congregationalist: “’Tis the mind of God that not a mixed multitude but only select persons of distinguished ability and integrity are fit for the business of judging causes.” *142* Consistent with the basic insights of the Presbyterian polity, Edwards saw the biblical terms for elder and bishop as referring to the same office. *143*
The Northhampton church had apparently had elders from its beginning. But under the authoritarian figure of Stoddard they had declined in significance and number, Ebenezer Strong dying the very day his pastor did and no successors elected subsequently. *144* Patricia Tracy, Schafer, and others have noticed that the office of elder was virtually defunct throughout Edwards’ ministry. *145* It seems not so much that the office was defunct as that it was differently interpreted. As we shall see, Edwards conceived of elders (select men) as those who “manage the affairs of the city.” That is, they were civil rather than the ecclesiastical officers they had become in Presbyterianism, especially in American Presbyterianism. Edwards was much in favor of competent select men and lamented greatly the death of his admired friend and advisor John Stoddard.
With regard to pastors, it was Edwards’ view that training should begin early. Following Zechariah’s principle, pastors should have been taught to keep cattle from youth:
It seems to me that that Scripture, Zec_13:5, is a prophecy concerning ministers of the Gospel, in the latter and glorious day of the Christian church, which is evidently spoken of in this and the foregoing chapters. The words are, “I am no prophet; I am an husbandman: for man taught me to keep cattle from my youth.” The words, I apprehend, are to be interpreted in a spiritual sense: “I am an husbandman” - the work of ministers is very often in the New Testament compared to the business of the husbandmen, that take care of God’s husbandry, to whom he lets out his vineyard, and sends ’em forth to labor in his field, where one plants and another waters, one sows and another reaps; so ministers are called labourers in God’s harvest [cf. 1Co_2:5-9]. And as it is added, “Man taught me to keep cattle from my youth,” so the work of a minister is very often in Scripture represented by the business of a shepherd or pastor. And whereas it is said, “I am no prophet, but man taught me from my youth,” ’tis as much to say, I don’t pretend to have received my skill, whereby I am fitted for the business of a pastor or shepherd in the church of God, by immediate inspiration, but by education, by being trained up to the business by human learning, and instructions I have received from my youth or childhood, by ordinary means. *146*
In Edwards view it would be disastrous to have any who had enjoyed great experiences and may have natural abilities to receive orders without training. Edwards did not doubt some of these would be better than some properly ordained. But the general result would “be a greater calamity, than the missing such persons in the work of the ministry.”
Once trained, Edwards affirmed the right of the Church to require of her candidates for ministry a sound confession of faith. In a very early Miscellany he discussed the question at some length:
17. Confession of faith. With respect to declaring one’s faith in Scripture expressions. This is certain, if there ought to be liberty of conscience, that every minister, every Christian, and every man upon earth is at liberty to declare or not to declare his consent to any man’s being a minister, according as he does internally in his mind consent or not consent; that is, every man upon earth, if he may declare either way, may declare whether he thinks such a man is fit or unfit for the ministry, as he does really think him fit or unfit. ’Tis evident he has liberty of conscience to think about it; and if he has liberty of conscience, he has liberty of declaring according to his thoughts. This liberty every minister has, that is required to give his consent [to] a man’s being a minister.
If so, ’tis also certain that if a minister believes that no man can be fit but what believes such and such things to be true, he has liberty of conscience to declare his consent or dissent, according as he thinks the person believes or disbelieves those things. And if so, ’tis absolutely certain that he has power to insist on those things which he shall think sufficient reasons to make him think that he does believe those things which he deems necessary, before he gives his consent to his being a minister; and if he thinks that speaking in the words of the scripture be not sufficient to make him think so, he has power to insist on more. So likewise, every particular man and every congregation of men in the world have the same liberty to judge what man is fit to feed their souls.
Not but that creeds and confessions of faith have been some of the chief engines that Satan has made use of to tear the church of God in pieces; not but that if they were removed, the principal walls of separation would at the same time be removed; not that ’tis right for men to insist upon subscription to any creeds, or confessions of faith, or any other particular ways of making known their faith. All that we plead for is that there be sufficient reasons to satisfy those whose business it is to declare their consent to their being ministers, that the candidate does believe what is thought necessary by them to be believed in order to his fitness; not that they can demand any more than such satisfaction, which way soever they come by it. *147*
Once received into office, the basic task of the minister is to prepare the church for her Lord. In a sermon at the ordination of Samuel Buell, Edwards gave an interesting interpretation of Isa_62:4-5 viewing the minister as marrying the church as proxy for the more glorious union with Christ her husband later. *148*
8. Deacons
The “officers that Christ has appointed in his church do regard either the souls or bodies of men” is Edwards’ exposition of Romans 12:4. *149* We have already considered the ministers (or elders) who have the care of the souls of members. The diaconate Edwards conceived to be a much more neglected office, especially in New England. In a sermon devoted exclusively to the deacons explaining the text that records their founding, *150* he taught that “the main business of a deacon by Christ’s appointment is to take care of the distribution of the church’s charity for outward supply of those who need.” In the late M 1055 he also argues that the establishment of religion should not prevent free-will offerings as a part of public worship. Paul called for these offerings on the Lord’s Day. Edwards had earlier shown that part of the worshiper’s substance was brought as an offering to the Lord by Cain and Abel and we should offer more today. *151* In Some Thoughts he suggests that the rich give as much as a third of their wealth to promote the great revival and its effects. *152* Though he does not allude to deacons here, presumably they are the administrators of these offerings.
In the Rom_12:4 sermon he had declared the supply of the poor to be the deacons’ duty. “As they had the whole stock in their hands so doubtless they disposed of it to all those uses for which the church had need of it. And so we may argue that they supplied the Table of the Lord and their pastors.” *153* Again:
Mercy is a service of the Christian church to be upheld statedly in it as sacrifice was in the church of the Jews. Sacrifice has ceased. That was a very changeable sort of w[orship] in the church of the Jews, but God has appointed mercy in the Christian church in the room of it, that they may bring their offerings to God in another way for what is given to the poor is offered to God as much as the sacrifices were, for he that gives to the poor communicates forget not: for with such sacrifice God is well pleased. *154*
And, of course, an appropriate officer, the deacon, should handle this part of worship.
9. Lay Exhorters
If the deacons were neglected and the offerings absent from public worship was a sin of omission, there was one “office” that had become prominent in Edwards’ time that was mu