Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadJonathan Edwards Collection: Edwards, Jonathan - Rational Biblical Theology: Chapt 34 cont 3
TOPIC: Edwards, Jonathan - Rational Biblical Theology (Other Topics in this Collection)
SUBJECT: Chapt 34 cont 3
Other Subjects in this Topic:
10. Church Courts
We have already noted that Edwards was inclined to a kind of Presbyterianism, as was Stoddard before him. If it was unreasonable for Edwards to suppose that the rank and file would not need the leadership of their appointed guides, it would seem equally unreasonable for him to suppose “that there is no cause that can arise in the church too hard for a particular minister or particular congregation, and that there should be no need in no case of any resort, or appeal, or referring of the cause to a higher judgment.” *160*
If Edwards’ conception of an “elder” is quite different from that of American Presbyterianism, it is difficult to see any ecclesiastical resemblance between his “synod” and a Presbyterian “presbytery.” Let me cite the brief Miscellany 928 in full to show the extremely general likeness Edwards discovers between what he finds in reason and revelation and actual “Presbyterian discipline.” (The reader must remember that a Presbyterian higher court consisted only of Presbyterian officers who met to settle only Presbyterian matters):
928. PRESBYTERIAN DISCIPLINE. The law of nature & the law of divine revelation teach us to be united with those that we dwell with in the same country to have a special affection for them & makes us in many respects one body with them even the Jews that were carried captive into Babylon were directed to seek the peace of the city whether they were carried tho’ it was a city of the enemies that had injuriously ruin’d them & were told as an argument to induce ’em to it that in the peace of that city they should have peace as they were no inhabitants as their interest was united. So the same law taught Abraham to shew great kindness & respect even to the people of Sodom & the other cities of the plain tho’ he was not one of the people was not subject to their government nor of their common wealth nor related to them nor had ever any thing to do with them as we know of but only he dwelt in the same country tho he was a stranger there was lately come from far & had no settled habitation in the land but moved two [sic] & fro with tents & tho’ they were a very wicked people yet how much does he interest himself in their quarrel a& what great kindness does he shew em in restoring all their goods that he had obtained from their enemies by jeopardizing his life. & tho’ he shewed this kindness partly for Lot’s sake yet that also shews how those that dwell with a people tho’ very wicked & undeserving yet do as it were of course become one body with them Abraham looked upon them as of the same body & in the same interest with his brother [sic] & therefore dealt with them for his sake as he dealt with him. So how does X seem to approve of the centurions kindness to the Jews among whom he dwelt Luk_7:5 [finis]
This was from the light of reason, but Edwards saw Scripture also clearly teaching the principle of higher courts. In fact
elders of Christian churches answered much to the elders of the particular cities of Israel. As the whole Jewish nation represented the whole church of God and were a type of the Christian church so the particular cities and towns seem to represent particular churches in some respects. The elders of the cities seem to have been like the select men of our towns here in New England. They were the principal men of the city for age and discretion that were chosen by the inhabitants to manage the affairs of the city. The priests were superior to them in judgment. *161*
In spite of this very general description of “Presbyterian discipline,” Edwards was much more specific in a much earlier Miscellany. Under the term “synods” he writes: “who can deny but that ministers may take each others advice or may meet together for that purpose, may be congregated together for the advancement of the kingdom of X. Whoever holds more than this does holds that men have power to make laws for the the conscience.” *162* Still, this is only ecclesiastical “advice,” far short of Presbyterian authority, which, however, does not claim to “bind the conscience.” *163*
As Edwards favored the “synod” idea, accordingly he served as a member of the Hampshire Association of ministers, but he seems not to have gone beyond Cotton Mather and is not as explicit. Mather’s Magnalia Christi Americana argues for presbytery and for synods, regarded as apostolic, whose decisions are “decisive.” *164* His concept of this as a “national” church may have helped to form the famous Dedham decision of 1820: “When the majority of a Congregational Church shall separate from the majority of the parish, the members who remain, although a minority, constitute the church in such a parish and retain the rights and property belonging thereto.” As a result, a one third minority of that congregation retained name and title.
11. Church and State
Evidence shows that Edwards favored a National Church, notwithstanding the many efforts to interpret him as indifferent to theocracy and conceiving of congregations composed only of converted persons. *165* His reasoning was straightforward: those persons near each other should worship together.
69. National church. This is evident by naked and natural reason, that those that live together do, if they have not overbalancing reasons on the other side, worship God together. By the word ‘together’ I don’t mean as to place, for those that live within 100 rods may be further distant from me than he that lives five hundred. But I mean those who are joined together in the same interest, have dependence one on another, and whose welfare more especially depends on a communication with each other, and whom the providence of God have cast into such circumstances as that they subsist by communication, whatever those circumstances are, whether because they are under the same government, or live in the same place, or speak the same language, or whatever their families, positions, provinces, governments, kingdoms, nations, Christendom, world - and their obligation to worship together is in proportion to their nearness together. ’Tis evidently the duty of such to worship together because they are united in one common interest which they depend upon the object of their worship for, and because it is abundantly most convenient so to do. *166*
Though Edwards believed in a state church, he also believed that civil authorities should have “nothing to do with matters ecclesiastical, with those things which relate to conscience and eternal salvation or with any matter religious as religious.” This limitation, however, did not exclude the state from any relation to the church whatsoever. He discussed the matter in some detail in M 14 where he wrote:
14. Civil authority. The civil authorities having nothing to do with matters ecclesiastical, with those things which relate to conscience and eternal salvation or with any matter religious as religious, is reconcilable still with their having to do with some matters that, in some sense, concern religion. For although they have to do with nothing but civil affairs, and although their business extends no further than the civil interests of the people, yet by reason of the profession of religion and the difference that matters religious make in the state and circumstances of a people, many things become civil which otherwise would not. Now by the civil interests or advantages of a people (distinguished [from] those things which relate to conscience, the favor of God, and happiness in the other world) I think is commonly meant their general interest or their interest as they are a people in this world, whether it [be] their general profit or pleasure or peace or honor. . . . Now I say this interest of a people may be all that civil authority has to do with, and yet it may have to do with things in some sense religious for the before-mentioned reason - because many things, by reason of religion, become their civil advantage, that is, their advantage in this world which otherwise would not be so. Also many things become their civil disadvantage. Thus it is for the civil interest of a people not to be disturbed in their public assembling for divine worship, that is, it is for the general peace, profit, and pleasure of ’em in this world. *167*
12. Church Covenanting
Edwards was a great believer in church covenanting. His doctrine in the sermon on Jos_24:15-27 evidenced this commitment: “Prop. I. A visible people of God on some occasions are called plainly and publicly to renew their covenant with God.” *168* In the lecture on Jos_24:21-22 Edwards reminds his people of their own “solemn public Renovation of the covenant” in 1741-42. *169* In the application he warns Northampton that it is more likely to be condemned than other people not so covenanting.
“A visible people of God on some occasions are called solemnly and publicly to renew their covenant with God,” says Edwards, citing Deu_29:1; 2Ki_1:17; 2Ch_15:12; 2Ki_23:2 and 2 Chronicles 34:31. *170* Since no specific times are set for such covenanting, it must depend on leaders of church and state, and Edwards sees no excuse for not promoting revivals by this means in two sermons on Neh_2:20. In these sermons he complains of some men of wealth tending to pull down the church. *171*
13. A Holy Nation
It may be that the sermon on 1Pe_2:9 is Jonathan Edwards’ most comprehensive sermon on the church. *172* To conclude this chapter I quote the concluding part of this most comprehensive sermon, a section which speaks of the Church as God’s peculiar people and then reflects on the wonder of what this means both now, and in eternity.
III. True Christians are a holy nation. And here I shall briefly show,
First, how they are a distinct nation.
Second, how they are holy. (Start in this section)