Jonathan
Edwards’ Sacramental Contradictions:
Tensions
in the Sacramental Thought in Jonathan Edwards’ Writing and Ministry
Ethan
Richards
REL
319: 18th Century Theology
Dr.
Donald J. Westblade
4/26th/2021
The
New England churches of America had several reasons to thank Jonathan
Edwards. His writings on Heaven, Hell,
and the harmony of God are considered by many to be some of the greatest
writings on their respective topics because of their depth and perspective. Some of the things that Edwards wrote about
the least however were the sacraments. During
his time as a pastor, he would need to confront the modern understanding of the
sacraments, making distinctions between “converting” and “sanctifying” events. Despite his eventual closing of the Lord’s
Supper to only the affirmed converted, he would never go on to write a long
treatise on the matter that would firmly establish his thoughts on the
relationship between the sacraments and the believer.[1] While the Puritan congregations of New
England as a whole grappled with the consequences of their ideas on the
sacraments, Jonathan Edwards’ struggle was a bit separate from the whole. His own writings indicate that his thoughts
are different that those of his contemporaries.
If he had gone on to scrupulously study the doctrine of the sacraments, he
likely would have been able to give his answer to some of the inconsistencies which
the New England congregations struggled with; whether the nature of baptism is
converting, or should be, as well as whether all members should be able to
receive the Lord’s Supper and how those two sacraments impacted the Puritan
system of the Means of Grace.
Before a thorough explanation can be given of the tension
in Edwards’ system of the sacraments, there are some things that must be
addressed. When the phrase “means of
grace” is used, it is often in reference to the means spoken of in Edwards’
Sermon “A Divine and Supernatural Light, Immediately Imparted to the Soul by
the Spirit of God, Shown to be Both Scriptural and Rational Doctrine”.[2] The grace that is bestowed by God “positively
helps reason” to distinguish the “excellency of divine objects”, does not come
from the objects or elements themselves.[3] It is simply that the “outward means” are used
to provide a visual aid.[4]
Another idea that should be addressed is church
membership. During this period, Puritan
churches often had multiple types of members.
While there are a variety of factors that lead to this development in
the Puritan church, the biggest issue was how to treat those infants and
children who joined the church by baptism without giving a profession of faith.[5] Puritans first felt that because of the way
that the Old Testament had entire families baptized that New Testaments
families should be baptized as well. The
Puritans believed that the covenant with Jesus through faith was also
structured in a similar format to the covenant with God in the Old
Testament. The Puritans argued that the
faith of the parents would suffice in adding children to the covenant, as there
were promises in the Old Testament that were attributed to children who were
not yet born.[6] However, they would have to join the covenant
again in order to confirm their status once they were considered old enough to possess
the cognitive abilities to be able to make their faith in the covenant their
own.[7] This was done through a profession of faith
that was considered true and genuine. Until they could profess their faith, they
were not allowed to the Lord’s Supper in Jonathan Edwards’ church. This caused debate as to whether these
children were truly a part of the covenant and church, and whether the church
should wait until their adulthood to baptize them.
Edwards
addressed this several times, both in the miscellanies and in his previously
mentioned sermon, that the grace that is immediately given during the “outward
means” being present (the sacraments and word of God) is meant to help in guiding
the reason towards the divine things and communicate his essence. If this is to be taken as true, then it will
follow that infants could be given to seeing the divine things if the Lord so
desires it. However, this is noted by
Edwards as not being representative of how most children behave and grow up as.[8] He laments that there are plenty of children
who grow into non-believers. If most
children do not grow up to be believers or faithful, then what does take place
during the baptism of infants? Is there
supposed to be something taking place during the baptism of infants?
Edwards’ definitions of the means of grace communicates
that the means of grace are not merely actions, but ways in which God acts upon
us. Considering this, the means of grace
should be met with respect as ways in which God acts. Even if they have no power in
themselves. It could be that there is no
light being communicated because there is not a reason present to guide in
children. Edwards argued in his 538th
contribution in the Miscellanies, that Grace typically does three things; supply
the mind with notions, supply the mind with reason, and convict the heart.[9] The issue is that infants do not have the
reason to be able to be guided in the way that the light does, nor can they be
convicted in the heart. That is one of
the roles of the means of grace though, as is indicated by his
Miscellanies. What about a communication
of himself? Well, seeing as baptism is
sometimes connected with salvation, it would make sense that his essence is
being communicated. He gave man these
means just as he gave man the law to better know him and dwell with him. If God can use baptism to communicate different
forms of his grace to infants, should baptisms be given to all infants? How can you tell if an infant is supposed to
be baptized? Edwards seems to say that
baptizing anyone is acceptable, though it is important that infants have
parents of faith.
Edwards defends his position with scripture in his
miscellanies by extrapolating upon the book of Acts when he mentions that
“Phillip baptized Simon Magus” and uses this as an argument for how baptism is
not connected with regeneration.[10] His argument rests upon the fact that there
were other “only visibly Christian” people who were baptized by the disciples.[11] While Simon Magus may not have had the gift
of the Holy Spirit, that did not negate the idea that he did not believe in the
word of the Lord. It was not as if he
was baptized without believing or without wanting to receive the spirit. The issue was that he did not understand what
the baptism was and what the faith was. The
writer of the book of Acts clearly states that “Even Simon himself believed,
and after being baptized he continued with Philip. And seeing signs and great miracles
performed, he was amazed.”[12]
Simon
was not traveling with Philip without having first been baptized, but more
importantly he believed the word of God before he was baptized.[13]
Edwards focuses on the end of the story during verses twenty-two through
twenty-four when the apostle Peter tells Simon to “Repent, therefore, of this
wickedness of yours, and pray to the Lord that, if possible, the intent of your
heart may be forgiven you. For I see
that you are in the gall of bitterness and in the bond of iniquity.” After Peter said this, Simon asks Peter to
pray for him, that what Peter had said to him would not be the case.[14] This is a case that a man with reason and
belief in Jesus was not given rejuvenation.
Remember that it is not baptism in itself that will lead to the
blessings of grace, but God who blesses others with grace. It is not that anyone can be baptized, but
that God will choose out of those who are baptized which ones he will bless and
when. Simon was baptized, but God simply
chose to withhold the gifts of grace. It
was not that Simon doubted, as the scriptures expressly say that he believed,
but he lacked understanding. He was not
given the gifts of the baptism due to his misunderstanding of the message. In the same way, it would stand to reason
that infants would not receive the blessings of baptism without understanding
the faith, and that while God would have the power and authority to bestow
natural ability
The
Bible also provides further evidence for this point, in Acts Chapter two verse thirty-eight
Peter says, “Repent and be Baptized”.[15] Chapter two verse forty-one says that “So
those who received his word were baptized, and there were added that day about
three thousand souls.”. Notice the way
in which the Bible does not say, “there were three thousand people in the
physical church”, or the way in which the Bible does not say, “There were three
thousand believers and another five hundred menial members”.[16] The Bible speaks of souls joining the church
after their repentance and following baptism, not menial members of the church
body who do not have saved souls. The
purpose of baptism is not just as a mark of the covenant, but a way for members
to be considered a part of the Church of the saved and those who have received
God’s grace. To do that, the potential
member must be capable of repentance, capable of understanding of the word (an
understanding of general words at the very least), and capable of thereby being
able to distinguish the body and blood.
Another
aspect of this topic that must be addressed is the role that the parent’s faith
plays in Edwards’ view of the baptism.
Edwards, in his 595th contribution to the miscellanies writes
about the role of the parents’ faith during a child’s baptism when he says that
“But saving grace seems to me by the promises of God's Word to be thus
far connected with baptism in infants: if the parents do sincerely, believingly
and entirely, with a thorough disposition, will and desire, dedicate their
child to God that they bring to baptism…if that child dies in infancy, the
parents have good grounds to hope for its salvation, and have12 also good
grounds to hope that…it13 may be brought to salvation.”[17]
A parent’s faith can
replace the faith of an infant in Edwards’s mind, if the parent has the full
faith and intent to raise their child in faith and knowledge of Jesus Christ
then the child’s salvation should, in most cases, be virtually guaranteed. By this logic however, then infants should be
allowed to take the Lord’s supper, as they have entered the covenant and are
assured of their salvation. Edwards even
says that the promises of God’s word are connected. Shortly before this statement, Edwards also
mentions that “the parent acts for him” in the case of infants. Assuming that the heart of the infant is
circumcised, should the infant be banned from the communion rail?
The argument against Edwards’
defense of Infant Baptism applies here as well.
It is through belief, understanding, and repentance that a baptism is
held valid in the eyes of God, and that these are found lacking in an infant
despite the faith of the parents. The
defense for this claim comes from Romans chapter two. Paul, in his letter to the Romans, does in
fact make a parallel between one’s baptism and their circumcision. Romans 2:25-29 says that
“if a man who is uncircumcised keeps the
precepts of the law, will not his uncircumcision be regarded as
circumcision? Then he who is physically uncircumcised
but keeps the law will condemn you who have the written code and circumcision
but break the law. For no one is a Jew
who is merely one outwardly, nor is circumcision outward and physical…and
circumcision is a matter of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter.”[18]
Paul emphasizes here
that it is the circumcision of a man’s heart that will bring them into the
covenant and not necessarily the physical circumcision. Even if you are physically circumcised but
live in a wicked way you will not be considered a part of the covenant. If the most important part of keeping the
covenant is the circumcision of the heart is the most important part, then the
children should be having their hearts circumcised as well as their being
baptism. Here it is appropriate to point
to Edwards’ own testimony concerning the idea that many children grow into
unregenerate people, whose hearts are not circumcised. If a vast majority of the children that are
being baptized are not repentant, then it would seem as though they are like
Simon; they are not understanding and thus not receiving the gifts of baptism. If this is the case, then the idea that a
parent’s faith can lead to an entry into the covenant of Christ must simply not
be true. Edwards was a firm believer
that sound reasoning and biblical teaching supported one another, and yet the
reality that these children have yet to circumcise their hearts and join the
covenant is evident.
If these baptisms are not considered
to be done under the correct circumstances, should they be done at all, and
should a second baptism occur if the first is not done during the appropriate
faze of the infant’s life? Edwards
viewed the sacraments as unnecessary for salvation, and as such, it is not very
likely that he would have required a second baptism of those who were baptized
as infants. As long as the faith of an
individual was true faith given by God, they need not be baptized a second time.
Now that an argument
against the baptism of children has been established, the separation of the
Lord’s Supper and baptism must be addressed, as it will point out a large
inconsistency within the sacramental issue of Edwards’. The Bible makes it quite clear that
non-believers should not be allowed to the communion rail.[19] Communion has several aspects, but one of
them is that it is a recognition that we are a part of the body of Christ and
in union with one another. If you are
not a part of the union and if you do not recognize the body of Christ and the
church, you would be destroying yourself.
Paul cites this as the reason why many of the Corinthians are sick; they
are not recognizing the body.[20] This being kept in mind; the idea of menial
membership must be brought into the fore front again in relation to the Lord’s
supper.
For
the sake of the argument, Edwards’ ideas of infant baptism will be considered
as true. Can someone be made to be
regenerate as an infant, be graced salvation through faith, and yet not be
allowed to partake of the Lord’s Supper?
If salvation is had through faith, and faith is built upon hearing and
believing, and is a gift from God, then it should stand to reason that the
person would be able to distinguish the body, as they would have been given
understanding of divine objects. If they
can operate under the understanding of their parents’ faith, then there is no
reason to say that the understanding of their parents cannot be used to
distinguish the body of Christ in the bread and wine. If the children do not have the natural
ability to distinguish the body, and are operating under the faith of their
parents, then they should not be held accountable to distinguishing of the body
and should be able to partake of the Lord’s Supper as children.[21] If we are assuming that the responsibility to
distinguish the body is still with the child, that would mean that they have
the natural ability then to distinguish it.
If they have that natural ability to distinguish the body, then they
should also be able to be baptized upon the hearing of the word of God. If these two things are true, then the
children should have moral responsibility to lead lives of repentance, as God
has gifted these infants with the natural ability to distinguish divine objects. Edwards’ baptism of children is assuming one
of two things, that it is not the child’s responsibility to distinguish divine
objects in baptism or in the Lord’s Supper, or that the children are given
reasoning and the natural ability to distinguish divine objects by the grace of
God. Ultimately, neither is being
reflected in the way in which Edwards’ dispenses with the means of grace, as
his practice is inconsistent with both assumptions. He views infants as having no responsibility or
ability in their faith during and after their baptism, but also thinks that
infants do have responsibility in the Lord’s Supper.
Jonathan
Edwards was confronted with a difficult decision when forced to deal with the
sacramental practices of his grandfather.
While he made a consistent decision concerning his distribution of the
Lord’s Supper, his distribution of baptisms was not congruent with the same
assumptions and practices that underlined the former. In trying to avoid the Roman practices of the
sacraments, Edwards was willing to cut theological corners and live with
inconsistency. All that being said, one
must ask what could have been had he lived a full life, and his writings are
still considered to be among the best explanations for some of the longest
theological debates in history.
Bibliography
Edwards,
Jonathan. “Miscellanies.” Miscellanies Pages
537-688. Yale University. Undated. Book
1, entries 537-688 - Yale University Library
Edwards,
Jonathan. “The Freedom of the Will.” New
Haven and London: Yale University Press, 1966.
Jonathan Edwards. “A Divine and Supernatural
Light, Immediately Imparted to the Soul by the Spirit of God, Shown to be Both
Scriptural and Rational Doctrine.” Sermon preached at a Sunday Service in
Northampton, MA, 1734. A
Divine and Supernatural Light... (ccel.org).
Holifield,
E. Brooks. “The Covenant Sealed: The Development of Puritan Sacramental
Theology in Old And New England, 1570-1720.”
New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 1974.
Pope,
Robert G. “The Half-Way Covenant: Church Membership In Puritan New England.” Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press,
1969.
[1] [1]
Jonathan Edwards, “Miscellanies.” (Yale University, Undated), 538. Book 1, entries 537-688 - Yale
University Library,
Miscellanies, 537.
[2] Jonathan Edwards, “A Divine and Supernatural
Light, Immediately Imparted to the Soul by the Spirit of God, Shown to be Both
Scriptural and Rational Doctrine.” (sermon, Northampton, MA, 1734). A Divine and
Supernatural Light... (ccel.org).
[3] Edwards, A Divine and… pg. 6.
[4] Ibid.
[5]E. Brooks
Holifield, “The Covenant Sealed: The Development of Puritan Sacramental
Theology in Old And New England, 1570-1720.”
(New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 1974), 105
[6]Robert G. Pope,
“The Half-Way Covenant: Church Membership In Puritan New England.” (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1969), 60.
[7] Ibid.
[8] Jonathan Edwards,
“Miscellanies.” (Yale University, Undated), 538. Book 1, entries
537-688 - Yale University Library, Miscellanies, 577.
[9] Ibid.
[10] Edwards, Miscellanies, 577.
[11] Miscellanies, 577.
[12] Acts 7:9-13.
[13] Ibid.
[14] Acts 7:24.
[15] Acts 2:38.
[16] Acts 2:41.
[17] Edwards, Miscellanies, 577.
[18]
Rom. 2:25-29.
[19] 1 Cor. 11:27-29.
[20] 1 Cor 11:30-32.
[21] Jonathan Edwards, “The Freedom of
the Will.” (New Haven and London: Yale
University Press, 1966). The idea of
ability and responsibility being correlated comes from Edwards’ writings on the
freedom of man.