Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadJonathan Edwards Collection: Edwards, Jonathan - Rational Biblical Theology: Chapt 35 cont 2
TOPIC: Edwards, Jonathan - Rational Biblical Theology (Other Topics in this Collection)
SUBJECT: Chapt 35 cont 2
Other Subjects in this Topic:
2. Lord’s Supper
As we have seen, for Jonathan Edwards admission to the Lord’s Supper was a confirmation of baptism. It was the evidence that the faith of the parents, expressed at the time of infant baptism, had been confirmed in the child and expressed in his profession of faith. So in its basic nature the Eucharist was for the family of the faithful. It was for those who had been admitted by a profession of faith and then for their children on their profession, or confirmation, of faith. In Edwards’ thinking it seems never to have been a table for anyone other than the children of the Lord. Incidentally it is not known exactly when and how Edwards himself came to be admitted to the Lord’s Supper.
The Nature of the Lord’s Supper
Edwards has only one Miscellany on the Lord’s Supper and that concerns 1 Corinthians 11:29. *19* He calls it “an ordinance eminently and peculiarly sacred.” When he preached on this text, his theme was: “The sacrament of the Lord’s Supper is a very sacred ordinance.” *20* Here, in this early sermon, Edwards gives his doctrine and rationale of the Lord’s Supper. In a sermon on 1Co_10:17, preached near the end of his tenure at Northampton, the theme is quite similar: “The Lord’s Supper is a feast appointed to signify and seal Christians’ union with Christ and one to another.” *21* So it seems that at the beginning and at the end of his ministry, at least following Stoddard’s death, his doctrine of the Lord’s Supper was the same, though it was only at the latter end of his ministry that it caused him great trouble.
Another sermon not specifically sacramental, but obviously applied to the Lord’s Supper, was entitled “That Christ was represented by the Lamb that was sacrificed at the Passover.” *22* Still another Corinthian sermon dealt with the sense in which the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper is a communion. *23*
Edwards refers to and explains the Lord’s Supper in terms of a meat and meal offering. He takes these to signify essentially the same thing, having particular reference to the Lord’s Supper as a feast. In this context he appealed to his people to come to the feast and feed on Jesus Christ. *24* That is the theme of a sermon on Joh_6:51, also preached shortly before the termination of his ministry at Northampton, entitled “All divine blessings are as much in and through Christ as if they were a feast provided of his flesh that was given for us.” All blessings, he explains, are through Christ and in Christ by virtue of union with Him and through the giving of His flesh. The believers, as it were, feed on His flesh which is life. Consequently any who approach it any other way are to be reproved, while all others are to be exhorted to feast on Him. *25*
One of Edwards’ most tender and affecting sermons of a sacramental character was entitled “Those that spiritually partake of Christ they eat angel’s food.” In this sermon he accuses his people of neglecting the Lord’s Supper, pointing out how sad that is since the Supper represents the manna that came down from heaven. It was called angels food. He goes on to explain of what angel’s food actually was and why Christ is called the food of angels as well as of saints. *26* It surely is ironic that this pastor would charge his people with neglecting the Lord’s Supper when he was ultimately dismissed for objecting to their coming.
Administration of the Lord’s Supper
Nowhere is Edwards’ simple Puritanism more plainly evident than in his administration of the Lord’s Supper. He felt that the Church of England encumbered the sacrament with many unnecessary, if not improper, outward attendant features. The kissing, the crossing of oneself, the holy days observed in that mother denomination distressed Edwards. His general stricture was “They take Martha’s way.” *27* He meant that instead of having a simple ceremony in which Christ’s death is plainly and meaningfully set forth to the waiting people, they had a very ostentatious ceremony in which the officiating clergy were the center of attention. Christ, Edwards surmised, would have expected to be treated not in Martha’s but in Mary’s way.
On the other hand, Edwards believed in a very serious, regular observance of the Lord’s Supper. Like John Calvin, he believed that the Eucharist should be observed publicly each week. He was distinctly disappointed that the Awakening had not returned the church to what he considered its ancient practice of observing the Lord’s Supper weekly. *28* He complained against the established practice, before and after the Great Awakening, of rather infrequent ministrations of the Supper. He felt, as Allen has noted, that “God’s people should more frequently commemorate the dying love of their redeemer than they have been accustomed to do.” *29*
Perhaps Edwards’ most extensive treatment of the overall meaning and ceremony of the Lord’s Supper is found in the sermon on Luke 22:19. *30* The theme of the message was “The Lord’s Supper ought to be kept up and attended in remembrance of Christ.” Edwards labors the fact that this is a continuing command to all Christians to observe the Lord’s Supper. He takes sharp exception to the Quakers who thought that it was limited to the early church. There is no such limitation, Edwards argues, according to 1Co_11:26. It was appointed by Christ as He was about to leave, and it is to be maintained until He returns again. The observance is held in remembrance of Christ, by which means we keep constantly before ourselves the memory of Christ and all that is represented in the Lord’s Supper of His great redemptive activity. *31* The Supper also serves to keep us meditating on Christ and His glorious work. *32* This in turn serves to revive our affections and affections are a central part of religion. Merely knowing and understanding and remembering these things without being affected would be of no value whatever. Another incidental benefit of the observance in faithfulness to Christ is the showing of our respect for Him in this very touching manner. In the application of the sermon the minister reproves those who do not attend the service regularly and who therein are charged with serious disobedience to the will of God.
In the appeal of a sermon on Luk_22:19, Edwards says some behave in a “horribly profane” manner. They observe the Supper, but they neglect to continue seeking for their salvation, and in so doing they are eating and drinking damnation to themselves. Edwards directs his people, therefore, to do this in remembrance of Christ in such a way as to live to Him and unite their hearts with Him. *33*
Participants in the Communion Services
We have not found a single record of Jonathan Edwards ever inviting anyone to the Lord’s Supper who was not a “visible Christian.” That is, everything he said from the earliest record of his preaching, through the controversy on Qualifications, to the end of his ministry, seems to assume that no one may presume to take the Lord’s Supper unless he is a professed believer in the Lord Jesus Christ. The very early sermon (1732) on 1Co_11:29 is a general treatment of the sacramental doctrine, but in the application Edwards makes clear who is invited to receive it. He faces an inquiry of an imaginary parishioner saying, I think I am unconverted. What am I to do? The answer the minister gives is: Christ would not have you come as the Corinthians did, not discerning the Lord’s body. Edwards urges the questioner to seek God and salvation in all the ways of His appointment, to take great care to examine himself and then come with serious desire after the good of his soul.
This somewhat ambiguous statement may be an initial compromise with what later are clearly Edwards’ ultimate convictions. He does not unambiguously say that persons who are still merely seeking salvation and are unsure of having found it must not come to the Lord’s Table. On the other hand, he insists strenuously on the necessity of seeking salvation, the necessity of examining oneself, the necessity of a serious desire after the good of one’s soul in coming. This statement does not unambiguously require saving faith, but that may be as far as Edwards was prepared to go in the early thirties. *34*
There is a similar lack of clarity in a sermon of the next year on Isa_53:7. Yet on the very last page of the sermon, which had been reflecting on the meekness of Jesus Christ in offering Himself, Edwards calls for a similar meekness on the part of those who received him together with the absence of all malice. We know that in the thinking of Jonathan Edwards any true meekness and any genuine absence of malice was a fruit of the Holy Spirit in the regenerate heart. This statement, even though briefer, implies that the participant in the Lord’s Supper should be a person who thinks himself to be converted. *35*
Another early sermon seems more clearly to require Christian faith of the participants of the Lord’s Supper. The sacramental sermon on Luk_22:19 stresses the duty of “all Christians” to remember Christ by this sacrifice. For pages Edwards seems deliberately specifying Christians as he invites the people to come to the Table. To be sure, he nowhere says that non-Christians, or mere seekers, should not come to the table. Edwards is usually so explicit that if he wanted people most certainly to understand that non-Christians were as clearly barred as Christians were clearly required to attend, he would presumably have said so. However, we must remember that this is an early sermon and he is still strongly under the influence of the recently deceased Stoddard, and may not have become fully convinced that Stoddard was wrong and that he, Edwards, was right and therefore obliged to proceed to a change. The least that can be said about this sermon is that there is stress on the fact that it is Christians who should participate in the Lord’s Supper. The stress is so strong as seemingly to exclude non-Christians, and though one can hardly insist that it is an intended implication - to me this seems probable. *36*
In the sermon on Eze_44:9 (1749) the doctrine reads, “’Tis the mind and will of God that none should be admitted to full communion in the Church of Christ but such as in profession and in the eye of a reasonable judgment are truly saints or godly persons.” *37* In the development Edwards mentions that Stoddard himself allows that they should be “visibly circumcised in heart” and if any should say this has no particular reference to the Lord’s Supper he would answer that if it has no particular reference to the Lord’s Supper, yet it plainly has a reference to being admitted into the Christian Church, and by implication has a reference to a being admitted to the ordinance of the church.
A 1752 deliverance reads, “Christ loved the church and gave Himself for it that He might present it to Himself in perfect purity, beauty and glory.” *38* In this sermon we find a definition of the visible church. “They are called the church not because they are really the church but because as to what is visible to the eye of the world they are so.” What is in the heart is not visible, nor is it the business of the people to pry into it, but they are to look upon those as of the church and to treat them accordingly. This is not because the visible church and the real church are properly two churches, but because the visible is called the “church” only in that the true church is visible to the eye of the public.
In other words, these people are the ones who profess to be those for whom Christ shed His blood. This is to be remembered, said Edwards, especially as we come to the Lord’s Supper. Only those should receive this sacrificial meal for whom it was actually prepared - namely, those who are indeed true believers in the sacrifice of Christ. On the basis of so professing visibly and audibly before the world the church regards such persons as proper participants in the Lord’s Supper. In a sermon preached a couple of years before his death, Edwards particularly points out that this fitness for communion must be present - this fitness of faith and practice - or otherwise the practice is “damning.” *39*
What we see in these sermons is not so much a gradual development of a doctrine as a gradual precisionizing of the statement of a doctrine which was apparently latent in Edwards’ mind from the very beginning. That is, there seems to be no time when Edwards did not consider the Lord’s Supper as a feast for God’s children only. He was perplexed by the Half-way Covenant and by his grandfather’s doctrine of Converting Ordinances but never convinced by them. Being unsure of himself as a young man, he studied the subject carefully and only when he was absolutely certain did he spell out his doctrine with clarity.
Before we leave this subject and take up the qualifications controversy, we note a very important related matter. While Edwards insisted on professed faith as essential to participating in the Lord’s Supper, he was extremely careful about ascertaining the presence of such faith. Edwards himself had had a drastic change in his own thinking on this subject as he confessed in Distinguishing Marks:
I once did not imagine that the heart of man had been so unsearchable as I find it is. I am less charitable, and less uncharitable than once I was. I find more things in wicked men that may counterfeit, and make a fair show of piety, and more ways that the remaining corruption of the godly may make them appear like carnal men, formalists and dead hypocrites, than once I knew of. The longer I live, the less I wonder that God challenges it as his prerogative to try the hearts of the children of men, and has directed that this business should be let alone till harvest. I find that God is wiser than men. I desire to adore the wisdom of God, and his goodness to me and my fellow creatures, that he has not committed this great business into the hands of such poor, weak, dim-sighted a creature as I am; of so much blindness, pride, partiality, prejudice, and deceitfulness of heart; but has committed it into the hands of One infinitely fitter for it, and has made it his prerogative. **
As a minister of Christ, Edwards did accept the necessity of making a judgment based on the person’s own profession and outward behavior. He notes that the state of men’s souls is a secret thing in this world. We see the outward behavior - some of it - but we see not the heart. The principles and spiritual condition and state of the soul is out of sight. Yet concerning some men we may have reason from our observation of their lives, of their presumption, of their wicked course of life, to conclude that they are wicked men.
Not only may we recognize indubitable wickedness in some cases, but it is also possible, Edwards suggests, to recognize almost indubitable grace in other cases. As a minister of Christ Edwards may know certainly (at least in some cases) whom to bar from the membership of the church and participation in the sacraments and also may be reasonably sure whom to admit. At the same time he had acknowledged that he cannot with absolute certainty conclude the state of a man’s soul, either with respect to regeneracy or unregeneracy. A minister may, therefore, mistakenly bar some who ought to be admitted and admit some who ought to be barred. Edwards cannot deny that possibility. He would proceed with consummate care in such matters and made decisions only where they were absolutely necessary.
In the sermon on Rom_2:16 Edwards censures some Awakening ministers (as he had warned George Whitefield) for judging the heart too early by superficial tests, such as the recitation of certain experiences. There are ministers, notes Edwards, from the fact that some persons “don’t tell of such particular experiences as some others do . . . imagine they don’t talk like saints,” but rather children of the devil. *41*
These considerations notwithstanding, Edwards gradually came to a clear articulation of a position which he had apparently held from the beginning - that only visible saints should be admitted to the Lord’s Supper. Yet he is insistent on reminding us that such judgment concerning the heart should be very carefully made, on sufficient grounds, and with a constant remembrance that no minister is able to search the hearts of men. With that in mind we now come to the crucial Qualifications controversy that led to the dissolution of Edwards’ pastorate at Northampton.
The Qualifications Controversy
(1) The Historical Background
Reviewing the historical context of Edwards’ ministry, it is clear that he was on a collision course with the church of his day regarding qualifications for communion. The 18th century church in Scotland “hoped” that non-scandalous persons were regenerate, presuming the converted state of such persons though warning that it may not be so. In general, the custom in European among the Reformed churches was to admit all who knew the creed and catechisms and were not scandalous in their behavior. *42* Even the Westminster Standards did not clearly demand a professed state of grace for admission to the Table.
In this country the Presbyterian Old Side took essentially the European position. Regeneration was taken to be necessary for participation in the Lord’s Supper acceptable to God, but as regeneration could not be certainly ascertained by man, it could not be absolutely necessary to admission to the Table. Persons were to be charitably regarded as regenerate if they were not heretical or immoral. *43* The New Side took exception, supposing that regeneration evidenced itself in a change that could be discovered by careful examination, and those who were lacking such positive evidence should be excluded from the Table. The conflict finally resulted in a wrenching division of the denomination, but both parties were united in understanding that regeneration was necessary to an acceptable standing before God when one came to the Table of His Son.
(2) The Half-Way Covenant
In Old England Puritan churches were careful in the evaluation of those whom came for admission to the Lord’s Supper. Among the Puritans in New England admission to communicant membership had come to be permitted on the basis of a rather nominal faith. Yet this faith was assumed to be genuine and an indication of the person’s regeneration. The Reformed churches never maintained that persons should be admitted to the Lord’s Supper who were not truly Christians.
Nevertheless a tendency in the opposite direction appeared in New England. The developing practice was for persons show their regeneracy by means of a certain public recitation of experiences and in time a profession of a genuine experience of grace plus a particular way of relating it became the norm. This type of “testing of the spirits” had begun in Salem under Roger Williams. When John Cotton came to New England in 1630 he was quite shocked to hear about this type of testing for membership and admission to the Lord’s Supper. However, when he observed it first hand at Salem he became convinced of the soundness of the procedure. Over all, it became fairly standard New England practice.
Thus, if the European churches were too casual, the New England churches were becoming too demanding. If the historic churches assumed regeneration too easily, the New England churches now appeared to some to be demanding more than was necessary, and it finally provoked a crisis. A number of persons of acceptable outward faith and practice were unable to affirm their own spiritual conversion because unable to “recite” proper experiences. They may have believed themselves to be Christians, but they could not persuade the church. Perhaps they could not even persuade themselves, having come to expect the experiences they were expected to have. Thus they held back, not being assured of their own regeneracy, and fearful of the warnings related to the Table. They continued to worship and were accepted in the community, but could not be admitted to the Lord’s Supper. In all it was very perplexing and embarrassing, but nevertheless apparently inevitable.
In this context a new problem arose concerning the offspring of such persons. According to covenant theology, if parents were not members of the church, their children could not be admitted to baptism. The children were totally cut off from the church. Yet many parents who were willing to be deprived of the Lord’s Supper themselves, would not allow their children to be deprived of baptism. Consequently the New England churches at the Massachusetts Synod of 1662 took an historic step: they adopted the “Half-way Covenant.” Herein they admitted to baptism the children of members who themselves had never been admitted to the Lord’s Supper. As a half-way measure, these parents were not entitled to the full benefits of the church, but were permitted half of them. In taking this position the New Englanders became more lax than the Old Englanders who never did admit children of non-believers to baptism. Thus the greater requirements laid on the adults for admission to the Table by the New England Churches led to lesser requirements made upon the infant for admission to Baptism.
Historians generally represent the Half-way development as an indication of the lessening of Christian zeal on the part of the second generation New Englanders. They suppose that the original enthusiasms of the settlers had diminished somewhat and that the next generation of church leaders was willing to accept persons for baptism on less rigorous grounds. The true significance of this development is quite the opposite, as Edmund Morgan has recognized. *44* While the admission of children to baptism whose parents were not communicant members presented, indeed, a considerable decline, what led to that decline was a continuance of severe requirements for adult communicant membership. It is precisely because New England was requiring more of adult members, and continued to do so, that the embarrassing development of children not being admitted to baptism resulted. This, in turn, led to the Half-way covenant. Thus it cannot be said that increased laxity produced the Half-way covenant. On the contrary, pressure developing under the severity of the requirements for communicant membership led to a letting off of theological steam in the Half-way covenant. The severity was so great that it could not be borne without breaking down a barrier at some other point. Had the New Englanders actually become more lax and accepted people as the churches of the old world had done, they would never have had the problem.
It has been said that Jonathan Edwards nowhere committed himself against the Half-way covenant. It may well be true that he nowhere expressly did so, but we have already seen that the pattern of his thought was implicitly against it. His view of children who had been baptized suggests that their parents had had faith when their children were admitted to the rite. The children were later called upon to exhibit the same faith and to confirm their parents’ faith by their own. Thus, and only thus, would they too be admitted to the Lord’s Supper.
One can almost anticipate the next stage in the development of sacramental doctrine in New England. The half-way covenant was impossible. Churchmen would have to go one way or the other - to stay in this middle position, this half-way position, was simply untenable. Either these children are entitled to baptism, and their parents cannot be barred from the Lord’s Supper. Or, if these parents cannot be admitted to the Lord’s Supper, their children cannot be baptized. Solomon Stoddard took the first alternative; Jonathan Edwards took the second. Each man was consistent. One was consistently wrong, the other consistently right. The consistently wrong position of Solomon Stoddard was that those adults who professed historic faith but could not claim a converting experience were nevertheless entitled to be communicant members of the church. That, of course, obviated any problem about the baptism of their children which now could follow on perfectly legitimate grounds. If such parents could commune, such infants could be baptized.
Solomon Stoddard insisted that it was asking more of persons than the Bible did to require them to be demonstrably regenerate before admitting them to the Table. This was buttressed in his thinking by the fact that it was virtually impossible for human ministers to know indeed whether a person was regenerate. Edwards felt this difficulty as keenly as Stoddard did. But Stoddard drew a conclusion which Edwards found increasingly abhorrent - the minister must admit to the Table anyone on the profession of merely historical faith.
We need not detail the various writings and deliverances in which Stoddard made his position clear and how he arrived at it. It is sufficient here just to indicate the substance of his position that rocked New England. *45*
As we have seen, the Half-way covenant, precisely because it was a half-way covenant, was simply not a permanent solution. The tendency to consistency in opposite directions was inevitable. Stoddard’s “consistency” was found in a position known as the “converting ordinance” doctrine. It admitted persons presumably or possibly devoid of saving faith to the Lord’s Supper with the hope that they would thereby be converted. Stoddard argued that the Bible did permit persons who had merely historical faith and made no claim to being true believers to receive the sacrament of the Passover and its counterpart in the New Testament, the Lord’s Supper. He rested his case on Biblical exegesis - this was no mere practical solution to an embarrassing problem.
Stoddard claimed biblical support for his position, but one of the Colony’s greatest patriarches, Increase Mather, did not agree. His response was a dissertation
Wherein the Strange Doctrine Lately Published in a Sermon, the Tendency of Which, is, to Encourage Unsanctified Persons (While Such) to Approach the Holy Table of the Lord, is Examined and Confuted. With an Appendix Showing What Scripture Ground there is to Hope, that within a few years there will be a Glorious Reformation of the Church Throughout the World. *46*
That these two fathers of New England theology were able to overcome such a seemingly irreconcilable difference fairly quickly confirms the fact that the essential differences were not so great because the difficulty of surmising the state of such a soul is so great (in almost everyone’s opinion). *47*
Joseph Tracy, however, sees Stoddardeanism as leading to Arminianism, an obviously much more significant and permanent departure from New England Orthodoxy. Why is Stoddard, the arch Calvinist, thought to have given an impetus to Arminianism? The answer given is because he made way for the view that “the unconverted might, without supernatural aid, commence and carry on a series of works preparatory to conversion, and that those who were doing it, were doing very well, and were in little danger.” *48* People quite naturally, thinks Tracy, came to view conversion as within their power, a notion that spelled in no uncertain terms the Arminian defection. Yet no one could ever have gotten that idea from listening to or reading Solomon Stoddard. He taught that God was absolutely sovereign in the matter of conversion. Whatever steps anybody took, the actual step which brought a person into the Kingdom of God was immediately produced by the power of God. Stoddard made it relatively easy to become a communicant in the Christian Church, but he left it entirely in the hands of God for a person to become a true member of the body of Jesus Christ. Stoddardeanism remains a rather strange Calvinistic aberration but it cannot be charged with incipient Arminianism.
In opposition to Stoddard’s aberration, Edwards insisted that the Scripture required that the individual himself must believe in his own regeneration and profess to have saving faith. With such a credible profession, not belied by immoral behavior, the minister and the church in a judgment of charity must receive such persons to the Table as visible saints. But unless they made such profession, they could not be so judged. They could not be admitted to the Table which was only for professing Christians.
When Edwards teaching became clear to the people of his congregation, a controversy finally fatal to his ministry among them was provoked. Consider Allen’s description of the scene at Northampton:
Edwards was inclined to attribute the difficulty to the custom of admitting to the inner shrine of the Christian worship those who had made no profession of a Christian purpose. He now proposed to discuss the subject in a series of sermons, and asked permission of the church to that effect. Permission was not only refused, but a storm of human rage and furor now broke forth against him and nothing would allay the angry passions of the people but his final and immediate dismissal from his post. . . . *49*
Though to suggest that Stoddard would admit to the Lord’s Supper people who did not avow a “Christian purpose” is an odd way of phrasing the problem (for Stoddard in his requirements for admission to the Table, though they fell short of regeneration, were very demanding, much more demanding than is commonly found today), the point with Edwards was that no matter how demanding they might have been, if they fell short of requiring a profession of regeneration, they thus fell short of the commandment of God in Holy Scripture. And with this the people were furious with him indeed.
It was in this context that Edwards produced his well-known Qualifications for Communion. Though this treatise, and the controversy, is directed toward the Lord’s Supper and who should be admitted to it, the whole matter amounts to the question, Who should be considered a Christian? Or, at least who should be considered a visible saint? We must be very careful here in our phrasing because Stoddard was as meticulous as Edwards was in insisting that regeneration was necessary to genuine Christianity. His only difference with Edwards, or Edwards’ only difference with him, was that a profession of regeneration must be required of people, not for membership in the Kingdom of God, but for membership in the visible church and admission to the Lord’s Supper. We have seen in our review of his sermons on the subject that long before Edwards published this treatise he had been persuaded, and was gradually trying to persuade his people, that the converting ordinances doctrine was wrong. But it is not until we come to this treatise that we have Edwards’ full doctrine spelled out in polemical detail. His doctrine, however, was essentially unchanged: he maintained that the New Testament clearly taught that only true believers belong to Jesus Christ and therefore belong at His Table. Though the Old Testament may not be as clear (the strongest source of Stoddard’s case, and in Edwards’ view clear enough), its ambiguity could not nullify the New Testament’s clarity.
(3) After Stoddard
To Edwards’ Qualifications Solomon Williams attempted a reply, but it only demonstrated the paucity of his argument. The work’s chief value was in eliciting a sequel to Edwards’ Qualifications which elaborated his own thinking more adequately. It was entitled Misrepresentations Corrected, and Truth Vindicated in a Reply to the Rev. Mr. Solomon William’s Book. *50*
For a while New England was somewhat divided in its allegiance to the Stoddardean or Anti-Stoddardean position. For example, New Milford Connecticut favored Stoddardeanism but was opposed by the Litchfield Connecticut association which was under Joseph Bellamy’s influence. Something of a mini-literary debate followed. *51* In time, the Edwardsian position (which was indeed simply the classical position) prevailed. Allen, for example, quite correctly observed that all that he, Edwards, had insisted upon as a requisite confession for admission to the Lord’s Supper was a simple moderate formula of self-consecration, hardly going beyond the confirmation vow of the Church of England. *52* It did not go beyond the Church of Scotland, or beyond the Old Side Presbyterians in this country, or even the general New England tradition. It was no wonder that the view very naturally prevailed - it is essentially the historic Christian position. Consequently the Puritan churches rather readily accepted its principle.
What Is A Credible Profession?
What for Edwards constituted a credible profession of faith, or makes one a “visible” Christian? In Qualifications he stated his view succinctly:
’Tis the mind and will of God that none should be admitted to full communion in the Church of Christ but such as in profession and in the eye of a reasonable judgment are truly saints or godly persons. *53*
This means, in the first place, one must profess the faith. Shortly before his death Edwards warned his Stockbridge congregation that for those who lacked “fitness” in faith and practice, receiving the Lord’s Supper was “damning.” *54*
We may ask, what minimum had to be believed to count one as having “fitness” in “faith”? As we have seen, according to Edwards, “God doubtless knew what was needful to be revealed.” *55* He maintained in general that views contrary to what God had revealed found their source in “the lusts of men.” *56* But it is “Concerning the Mysteries of Scripture” that provides perhaps the fullest positive statement of the essentials of the faith necessary on entering the visible church. There Edwards, following Stapferus, *57* argues:
[T]hose articles which constitute religion, and so are fundamental, are to be distinguished into primary and secondary. The primary are those of which a man cannot be ignorant, consistently with true religion and his own salvation; and they are necessary with a necessity of means. The secondary are those of which a man may be ignorant, consistently with his resting upon the foundation of true religion, and with his own salvation; and those are necessary with a necessity of command. Therefore, to the same man, certain doctrines may be now fundamental, which were not fundamental to him before he knew them. . . . Whereas, he who now does not acknowledge the necessity of Christ’s death, is by all means to be considered as in fundamental error. Therefore, as a man hath received of God greater or less natural abilities, so let the number of articles to which he shall give his assent be greater or smaller; and as revelation hath been made, or information hath been given, to a man, more clearly or obscurely, in the same proportion is more or less required of him. Therefore, in our own case, we ought to be cautious of even the smallest errors, and to aim at the highest degree of knowledge in divine truths. In the case of others, we ought to judge concerning them with the greatest prudence, mildness, and benevolence. Hence we see, that a certain precise number of articles, which shall be necessary and fundamental to every man, cannot be determined. *58*
As important as these necessary articles are, Edwards felt that more than a profession of the faith was necessary - one must have a profession of faith as well. Along with the confession of objective saving truth, professed subjective faith was an indispensable requirement for a credible profession - both to be confirmed by godly behavior. According to Edwards there must be evidence of a change of heart, and this must be clear “in the eye of a reasonable judgment. . . .” *59*
And I suppose it will not be doubted, but that by circumcision of heart is meant the spiritual renewing of the heart; not any common virtues, which do not in the least change the nature, and mortify the corruption of the heart; as is held by all orthodox divines, and as Mr. Stoddard in particular abundantly insisted. *60*
We can see here how short the distance between Edwards and Stoddard really was. Stoddard’s “visibly circumcised in heart” seems almost more demanding than Edwards was inclined to be. He required people to profess themselves “circumcised in heart” and within reason was willing to accept their affirmation of saving faith. Stoddard’s “visibly circumcised in heart” seems to require not merely a profession of faith, but one convincing to others, which is quite similar to the traditional “recitation of experiences” deviation of the New England churches from which Stoddard was thought to be furthest removed. Of course Edwards’ question as posed in Qualifications was “Whether any should be admitted . . . but such as are in the eyes of the church godly?” Here “eyes of the church” may seem the rough equivalent of “visibly circumcised in heart,” but Edwards thought that the church should accept the person’s word.
To sum up our discussion, in the theology of Jonathan Edwards for a person properly to be judged a member of the church he must profess sound doctrine, live an outwardly moral life and claim a saving faith. More than this (the New England way) was too much, and less (the Stoddardean way) was too little. Though his view prevailed in New England, it was not before he was to be caught between the upper and nether millstone.
Sacraments and Church Discipline
The discussion of qualifications for communion is really a study in church discipline; or, rather, the reverse of discipline, or better, the beginning of discipline. Persons had been admitted by the Half-way covenant to baptism and admitted by the “converting ordinances” doctrine to the Table who, in Edwards’ opinion, should not have been. They ought, therefore, in the case of the one, to have had their baptism declared invalid, and in the case of the other, to have been dismissed from the Table. The controversy never reached that stage, however, because the whistle-blower was silenced.
Other discipline did occur regularly, including excommunication. The Elisha Hawley-Martha Root fornication case saw discipline occur to the extent of public exposure, but Edwards was frustrated in that the legitimizing marriage he sought was not required. In a 1738 adultery case Mrs. John Bridgeman was excommunicated precipitating a definitive statement on that doctrine by her pastor. *61*
In the Bad Book case discipline went totally astray. *62* In what seems the case of some boys reading a nursing or obstetrics manual (material their modern counterparts wouldn’t find interesting much less titillating), the preacher of the sermon on Eph_4:29 entitled, “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 other’s souls,” *63* believed that it called for immediate action. Here is Patricia Tracy’s account:
And then came, in the spring of 1744, the incident of the “bad books,” now part of local folklore. According to testimony preserved in Edwards’s notes, in early 1744 some girls reported that a group of boys had been reading a midwifery book, and about two dozen young people had been known to laugh and joke over the explicit descriptions and diagrams of female anatomy. The book may have been filched from a local doctor or obtained from a peddler, although one witness heard it described as belonging to a man whose wife had just borne her first child. The reading and laughter were bad enough, but the boys’ sin was compounded by their using the information to taunt the girls about what “nasty creatures” they were. The worst miscreant of all, Oliver Warner, not only offered to show the book to other boys for “10 shillings money” (an apprentice to Deacon Hunt, a hatmaker, Oliver was already learning to strike a good bargain) but ran up to girls in the street and teased them, “when will the moon change, girls, come I’ll look on you and see whether there be a blue circle round your eyes.” *64*
This case, more than the qualifications for communion controversy, may explain the ultimate dismissal of the pastor. Relatively trifling in itself in comparison with the membership question, it so utterly alienated the youth, and their parents drawn in with them, that when a real issue came up the congregation wouldn’t read or even listen to Edwards’ defense. Bad book, bad case, bad dismissal - and yet in the providence of God, all these circumstances, though of an “apparently malignant aspect . . . did much towards reforming the churches of New England.” *65*
Several of Jonathan Edwards’ sermons on church discipline were quite as rigorous in exposition as he was in his practice. On Eph_5:5-7 he preached a doctrine applying to the Bad Book case: “Lasciviousness is a kind of wickedness that has a special tendency to eternal damnation.” *66* In the sermon on Psa_139:23 Edwards urged the congregation to express charity toward their neighbors by fulfilling the duty of private rebuke for one “in a way of sin” (Lev_19:17). Such loving discipline would “prevent abundance of sin and wickedness, and would deliver many a soul from the ways of death.” *67* For Edwards scriptural discipline, including excommunication, when accomplished justly, was confirmed in heaven. Thus a relatively early miscellany reads:
485 EXCOMMUNICATION. They that are regularly and justly excommunicated they are bound in heaven, the wrath of God abides upon them. While they justly stand excommunicated they ordinarily stand bound to damnation. I say ordinarily because it is possible that the case may be so that they may desire to do what is proper to be restored and may not have opportunity. For we may take that Math 16:19. Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven &c - as an implicit declaration of X that he never will suffer a truly godly man by his obstinacy justly to bring such a censure upon him & that he will never will give an excommunicate person repentance except it be in that way of his using proper means to be restored. So that excommunication does as much mark out men as being in a damnable condition as if it made them Song of Solomon *68*
For a complete statement of Edwards’ view of church discipline, the sermon on 1Co_5:11 is so comprehensive, and yet so brief (for a Puritan pastor), that I include it here in full.