Northampton

Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation.
~ Romans 13:2

Rebuke not an elder, but intreat him as a father; and the younger men as brethren;
~ 1 Timothy 5:1

Commencement of Jonathan Edwards’ Difficulties at Northampton, by Sereno Edwards Dwight. The following contain Chapter Nineteen of his work, ‘The Works of President Edwards: With a Memoir of His Life”.

CHAPTER XIX.

Commencement of Difficulties at Northampton.-Case of Discipline.-Conduct of the Church.-Change, as to admission of members, effected by Mr. Stoddard.-Controversy with Dr. Mather.-Lax mode of admission, early introduced into Massuchusetts. Reasons of its extensive adoption. Mr. Edwards makes known his sentiments.-Violent ferment in the town.Causes of it.-Mr. Edwards not allowed to preach on the subject.-Publishes “Qualifications for Communion.”-Town request Mr. Williams and Mr. Clark to answer Mr. Edwards’ Lectures.-Difficulties in the choice of a Council.

In the progress of this work, we are now arrived at one of the most painful and most surprising events, recorded in the Ecclesiastical history of New England-the separation of Mr. Edwards from the Church and Congregation at Northampton. In detailing the various circumstances connected with it, it is proper, instead of uttering reproaches, to present a statement of facts; for which, as the reader will see, we have been able to procure abundant materials and those of the best character.

Mr. Edwards was, for many years, unusually happy in the esteem and love of his people; and there was, during that period, the greatest prospect of his living and dying so. So admirably was he qualified for the discharge of his official duties, and so faithful in the actual discharge of them, that he was probably the last minister in New England, who would have been thought likely to be opposed and rejected by the people of his charge. His uniform kindness, and that of Mrs. Edwards, had won their affection, and the exemplary piety of both had secured their confidence; his very able and original exhibitions of truth on the Sabbath, had enlightened their understandings and their consciences; his published works had gained him a reputation for powerful talents, both in Europe and America, which left him without a competitor, either in the Colonies or the mother country; his professional labours had been blessed in a manner wholly singular; he had been the means of gathering one of the largest churches on earth; and, of such of the members as had any real evidence of their own piety, the great body ascribed their conversion to his instrumentality. But the event teaches us the instability of all earthly things, and proves how incompetent we are to calculate those consequences which depend on a cause so uncertain and changeable, as the Will of man.

In the year 1744, about six years before the final separation, Mr. Edwards was informed, that some young persons in the town, who were members of the church, had licentious books in their possession, which they employed to promote lascivious and obscene conversation, among the young people at home. Upon farther enquiry, a number of persons testified, that they had heard one and another of them, from time to time, talk obscenely; as what they were led to, by reading books of this gross character, which they had circulating among them. On the evidence thus presented to him, Mr. Edwards thought that the brethren of the church ought to look into the matter; and, in order to introduce it to their attention, he preached a Sermon from Heb. xii. 15, 16, “Looking diligently, lest any man fail of the grace of God, lest any root of bitterness springing up trouble you, and thereby many be defiled: lest there be any fornicator, or profane person, as Esau, who for one morsel of meat sold his birthright.” After sermon, he desired the brethren of the church to stop, told them what information he had received, and put the question to them in form, Whether the church, on the evidence before them, thought proper to take any measures to examine into the matter? The members of the church, with one consent and with much zeal, manifested it to be their opinion that it ought to be enquired into; and proceeded to choose a number of individuals as a Committee of Enquiry, to assist their pastor in examining into the affair. After this, Mr. Edwards appointed the time for the Committee of the church to meet at his house; and then read to the church a catalogue of the names of the young persons, whom he desired to come to his house at the same time. Some of those, whose names were thus read, were the persons accused, and some were witnesses; but, through mere forgetfulness or inadvertence on his part, he did not state to the ehurch, in which of these two classes, any particular individual was included; or in what character, he was requested to meet the Committee, whether as one of the accused, or as a witness.

When the names were thus published, it appeared that there were but few of the considerable families in town, to which some of the persons named, either did not belong, or were not nearly related. Many of the church, however, having heard the names read, condemned what they had done, before they got home to their own houses; and whether this disclosure of the names, accompanied with the apprehension, that some of their own connexions were included in the list of offenders, was the occasion of the alteration or not; it is certain that, before the day appointed for the meeting of the Committee arrived, a great number of heads of families altered their minds, and declared they did not think proper to proceed as they had begun, and that their children should not be called to an account in such a way for such conduct; and the town was suddenly all in a blaze. This strengthened the hands of the accused: some refused to appear; others, who did appear, behaved with a great degree of insolence, and contempt of the authority of the church and little or nothing could be done further in the affair.

This was the occasion of weakening Mr. Edwards’ hands in the work of the ministry; especially among the young people, with whom, by this means, he greatly lost his influence. It seemed in a great measure to put an end to his usefulness at Northampton, and doubtless laid a foundation for his removal, and will help to account for the surprizing events which we are about to relate. He certainly had no great visible success after this; the influences of the Holy Spirit were chiefly withheld, and stupidity and worldlymindedness were greatly increased among them. That great and singular degree of good order, sound morals, and visible religion, which had for years prevailed at Northampton, soon began gradually to decay, and the young people obviously became from that time more wanton and dissolute.

ANOTHER difficulty of a far more serious nature, originated from an event, to which I have already alluded. The church of Northampton, like the other early churches of New-England, was formed on the plan of Strict Communion: in other words, none were admitted to the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper, but those who, after due examination, were regarded as regenerate persons. was the uniform practice of the church, from its formation, during the ministry of Mr. Mather,* and for a considerable period after the settlement of Mr. Stoddard, the predecessor of Mr. Edwards. How early Mr. Stoddard changed his sentiments, on this subject, it is perhaps, impossible now to decide. On important subjects, men usually change their sentiments some time before they avow such change; and clergymen often lead their people gradually and imperceptibly to adopt the opinions, or the practice, which they have embraced, before they avow them in set form from the desk. Mr. Stoddard publicly avowed this change of his opinions in 1704, when he had been in the ministry at Northampton thirty-two years; and endeavoured, at that time, to introduce a corresponding change in the practice of the church. He then declared himself, in the language of Dr. Hopkins, to be “of the opinion, that unconverted persons, considered as such, had a right in the sight of God, or by his appointment, to the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper; that therefore it was

* Mr. Mather, the first minister, began to preach at Northampton, in the summer of 1658, was ordained June 18th, 1661, and died July 24th, 1669. Mr. Stoddard began to preach there soon after the death of Mr. M. and was ordained Sept. 11th, 1672.

their duty to come to that ordinance, though they knew they had no true goodness or evangelical holiness. He maintained, that visible christianity does not consist in a profession or appearance of that, wherein true holiness or real christianity consists; that therefore the profession, which persons make, in order to be received as visible members of Christ’s church, ought not to be such as to express or imply a real compliance with, or consent to, the terms of this covenant of grace, or a hearty embracing of the gospel: so that they who really reject Jesus Christ, and dislike the gospel way of salvation in their hearts, and know that this is true of themselves, may make the profession without lying and hypocrisy,” (on the principle, that they regard the sacrament as a converting ordinance, and partake of it with the hope of obtaining conversion.) “He formed a short Profession for persons to make, in order to be admitted into the church, answerable to this principle; and accordingly persons were admitted into the church, and to the sacrament, on these terms. Mr. Stoddard’s principle at first made a great noise in the country; and he was opposed, as introducing something contrary to the principles, and the practice, of almost all the churches in New-England; and the matter was publicly controverted between him and Dr. Increase Mather of Northampton. However, through Mr. Stoddard’s great influence over the people of Northampton, it was introduced there, though not without opposition by degrees it spread very much among ministers and people in that county, and in other parts of New-England.”

The first publication of Mr. Stoddard, on the subject, was entitled, “A Sermon on the Lord’s Supper,” from Exodus xii. 47,48, printed in the year 1707. In this Sermon he attempted to prove, “That Sanctification is not a necessary qualification to partaking in the Lord’s Supper;” and, “That the Lord’s Supper is a Converting Ordinance.” To this Sermon, a Reply was given in 1708, entitled, “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, by Increase Mather, D.D.”* To

* I have not been able to find a copy of Mr. Stoddard’s Sermon. From that of Mr. Mather, I find that he insisted on the following points: 1. That it is not to be imagined, that John Baptist judged all baptized by him to be regenerate: 2. That, if unregenerate persons might not be baptized, the Pharisees would not have been blamed for neglecting baptism: 3. That the children of God’s people should be baptized, who are generally at that time in a natural condition: 4. That a minister, who knows himself unregenerate, may nevertheless lawfully administer baptism and the Lord’s Supper: 5. That as unregenerate persons might lawfully come to the Passover, they may also come to the Lord’s Supper, if they have knowledge to discern the Lord’s Body: 6. That it is lawful for unregenerate men to give a Testimony to the Death of Christ; that they need to learn this Reply Mr. Stoddard published a Rejoinder, in 1709, entitled, “AN APPEAL TO THE LEAR ED; being a Vindication of the right of visible saints to the Lord’s Supper, though they be destitute of a saving work of God’s Spirit on their Hearts; against the exceptions of Mr. Increase Mather.”* Whether any reply was published by Dr. Mather, I have not been able to ascertain.

what God teaches in this ordinance, and to profess what christians profess, viz. their need of Christ and the saving virtue of his blood: 7. That there is no certain knowledge, who has sanctifying grace: 8. That the opposite doctrine hardens men in their unregeneracy: 9. That, if unregenerate persons have no right to the Sacrament, then those who come must have assurance: 10. That no other country does neglect this ordinance as we in New England; and that in our own nation at home, so in Scotland, Holland, Denmark, Sweedland, Germany and France, they do generally celebrate the memorial of Christ’s death.

Dr. Mather, after stating in his Preface that, notwithstanding his errors, he esteems Mr. Stoddard as a pious brother, and an able minister of the New Testament, a serious practical preacher, in his ministry designing the conversion and edification of the souls of men; and that as such, he does and shall love and honour him, and hopes to meet him where LUTHER and ZUINGLIUS differ not in their opinions; and that still he believes, by his Sermon, he has grieved the Holy Spirit of God in the hearts of many of his children, and gratified the spirit of the world; proceeds to allege the following considerations: 1. That Mr. Stoddard’s sentiments are contrary to many express passages of Scripture: 2. That unsanctified men are not fit materials for a Church, and therefore not for admission to the Lord’s Supper; and that in primitive times none, but those thought to be converted, were received into particular churches: 3. That unsanctified persons are not in covenant with God, and therefore have no right to the Seal of the Covenant: 4. That there is no Scriptural Promise of Conversion by the Sacrament: 5. That, if a Converting Ordinance, it is not to be withheld from the most profane: 6. That that opinion, which is contrary to the profession and practice of the churches, in the primitive and purest times of christianity, and to the judgment of the most eminent Reformers, and which agrees with the doctrine of Papists, and the looser sort of Protestants, ought not to be received among the churches of New England: 7. That it is impossible for unregenerate persons, while such, to be worthy partakers of the Lord’s Table.-These were followed by an examination, and attempted refutation, of each of Mr. Stoddard’s arguments, separately considered.

*This Appeal consists of three parts: I. An attempted Refutation of the Arguments of Dr. Mather: II. An attempted Refutation of the Arguments of Mr. Vines, Mr. Baxter, and Mr. Charnock: III. A Series of direct Arguments, eleven in number, to prove his main positions. Of these the first five and the ninth are found in the Sermon. The others are as follows: 6. Unsanctified men may attend all other ordinances, and duties of worship; and therefore the Lord’s Supper: 7. Some unsanctified persons are in external covenant with God,* and therefore may come to the — *By “some unsanctified persons” in this and the following heads, Mr. S. refers to those professors of religion in good standing, who in their own view and in the view of others are obviously not christians.

That Mr. Stoddard sincerely believed the principles, which he maintained, to be taught in the word of God, cannot be doubted. He also declares explicitly, in the commencement of the Appeal, that he does not maintain, that churches ought to admit to their holy communion such as are not, in the judgment of charity, true believers; and that his object was to direct those, that might have scruples of conscience, about participation of the Lord’s Supper, because they had not a work of saving conversion.*

The adoption of these principles by the people of Northampton, is not however to be imputed chiefly to the influence of Mr. Stoddard. It was the lax side of the question, which he had espoused; the side, to which the human heart, in all cases, instinctively inclines -that, to which every church, unless enlightened and watchful, is of course in danger of inclining. Another circumstance, which probably had considerable influence in persuading that church, as well as many others, to adopt the practice in question, may be found in the unhappy Connexion of Things Spiritual, and Secular, in the early history of New-England. So vast a proportion of the first planters of this country were members of the christian church, that not to be a church-member, was a public disgrace; and no man, who had not this qualification, was considered capable of holding any civil office. The children of the first planters, also, with comparatively few exceptions, followed the example of their parents, and enrolled their names in the church calendar; and there is reason to believe, that a large proportion of them were possessed of real piety. Still there can be no doubt, that a considerable number of them, on the whole, were of a different character. In the third and fourth generations, the number of this latter class inereased to such a degree, as to constitute, if not a majority, yet a large minority, of the whole population; but, such is the influence Lord’s Supper: 8. It is lawful for some unsanctified persons to carry themselves as saints, and therefore they may attend on that Sacrament :10. Some unsanctified persons convey to their children a right to the sacra ment of Baptism, and therefore have a right to the Lord’s Supper: 11. The invisible church catholick is not the prime and principal subject of the seal of the covenant, and therefore some unsanctified persons have that right.

It is not improbable, that Dr. Mather published a reply to the “Appeal to the Learned.” If he did not, it could not have been owing to any inherent, nor probably to any supposed, difficulty in answering the arguments which it presents. At this day the only difficulty, which the controversy can occasion, is this:-How such arguments could have satisfied a man of so much acuteness and worth as Mr. Stoddard. But the distinctness, with which objects are seen, depends not merely on the light which shines upon them: the eyes also must be fully open, and films, if they exist, must be removed

*How Mr. Stoddard could reconcile these and various similar declarations with his main principle, probably every one will be at a loss to explain.

of national customs, it was still thought as necessary to a fair reputation, and to full qualification for office, to make a public profession of religion, as before; and the Church, by thus inclosing within its pale the whole rising generation, gathered in a prodigious number of hypocrites; and to make a profession of religion, began to be, on the part of numbers, an act of the same import, as it has long been on the part of the civil, military and naval, officers of England, “to qualify,” by partaking of the Lord’s Supper. In this case, however, there was a real difficulty, that pressed upon the conscience. A profession of religion, while it was viewed as a most solemn transaction, on the part of the individual making it, was also at first universally regarded as a profession of personal piety; and to make it without piety, was looked upon as a sin of most aggravated character. In this crisis, when the only alternative was, loss of reputation and ineligibility to office, or the violation of conscience; any plan, which prevented that loss, and yet offered a salvo to the conscience, must have met, very extensively, a welcome reception. It is however far from being true, as Dr. Hopkins appears to suppose, that Mr. Stoddard was the first, who introduced this practice into the churches of New-England. The General Synod of Massachusetts, which met at Boston in 1679, speak of the prevalence of this practice, even at that early period, (twenty-six years before its introduction into the church at Northampton,) as one cause of the Divine judgments on New-England; and insist on a general reformation in this respect, as one means of averting those judgments.* Yet, so far as I have been able to discover, Mr. Stoddard was the first, who publicly advocated this practice; and there can be no doubt, that the unhesitating support of it, by a man of his excellence, and weight of character, contributed, not a little, in the existing circumstances of the country, to satisfy the scruples of many conscientious minds, and to introduce it into a considerable number of churches.

At the settlement of Mr. Edwards, in 1727, this alteration in the “two questions were presented for the consideration of that Synod: 1. “What are the evils, which have provoked the Lord to bring his judgments upon New England?” 2. “What is to be done, that these evils may be reformed?” In answer to the second question, the Synod observe, 1. “Inasmuch as the present standing generation, both as to leaders and people, is for the greater part another generation than what was in NewEngland forty years ago; for us to declare our adherence to the Faith and Order of the Gospel, according to what is from the Scripture expressed in the Platform of Church discipline, may be a good means to recover those, who have erred from the truth, and to prevent apostacy for the future.” 2. “It is requisite that persons be not admitted unto Communion in the Lord’s Supper, without making a personal and public profession of their Faith and Repentance. either orally or in some other way, so as shall be to the just satisfaction of the church; and that therefore, both elders and churches be duly watchful and circumspect in this matter.”-Mr. Stoddard’s qualifications required for admission into the Church, had been in operation about twenty-two or three years; a period, during which, the great body of the members of any church will be changed. This lax plan of admission has no where been adopted by a church, for any considerable length of time, without introducing a large proportion of members who are destitute of piety; and, although Mr. Stoddard was in other respects so faithful a minister, and so truly desirous of the conversion and salvation of his people, there can be no doubt that such must have been the result during so long a period in the Church at Northampton.

“Mr. Edwards,” observes Dr. Hopkins, “had some hesitation about this matter when he first settled at Northampton, but did not receive such a degree of conviction, as to prevent his adopting it with a good conscience, for some years. But at length his doubts increased; which put him upon examining it thoroughly, by searching the scriptures, and reading such books as were written on the subject. The result was, a full conviction that it was wrong, and that he could not retain the practice with a good conscience. He was fully convinced that to be a visible christian, was to put on the visibility or appearance of a real christian; that a profession of christianity was a profession of that, wherein real christianity consists; and therefore that no person, who rejected Christ in his heart, could make such a profession consistently with truth. And, as the ordinance of the Lord’s Supper was instituted for none but visible professing christians, that none but those who are real christians have a right, in the sight of God, to come to that ordinance; and, consequently, that none ought to be admitted thereto, who do not make a profession of real christianity, and so can be received, in a judgment of charity, as true friends to Jesus Christ.

“When Mr. Edwards’ sentiments were generally known in the spring of 1749,* it gave great offence, and the town…was a member of this convention, and voted for these Propositions. Mr. Mather, at the close of his Treatise, quotes this result of the Synod with some force; yet without directly urging on Mr. Stoddard the charge of inconsistency, or even mentioning that he was a member of that Synod. Mr. Stoddard, in his Appeal, to avoid the imputation of having changed his sentiments, alleges that a part of the Synod proposed to recommend, that persons, previous to their admission to the Church, should make a relation before the church, of the work of the Holy Spirit on their hearts; that he opposed this, and voted with the majority, for the second proposition as a substitute; and that that was still his opinion.-This statement, however, does not relieve the difficulty; for the principle, for which he actually voted, is directly inconsistent with that, which he avows in the Sermon on the Lord’s Supper, and in the Appeal to the Learned.

*Mr. Edwards divulged his sentiments to some of his people, several years before this; and in 1746 unfolded them clearly, in the Treatise on Religious Affections; but they were not officially made known to the church, nor do they appear to have been generally known to the public, until he communicated them freely to the Standing Committee, in February, 1749.

Their duty to come to that ordinance, though they knew they had no true goodness or evangelical holiness. He maintained, that visible christianity does not consist in a profession or appearance of that, wherein true holiness or real christianity consists; that therefore the profession, which persons make, in order to be received as visible members of Christ’s church, ought not to be such as to express or imply a real compliance with, or consent to, the terms of this covenant of grace, or a hearty embracing of the gospel: so that they who really reject Jesus Christ, and dislike the gospel way of salvation in their hearts, and know that this is true of themselves, may make the profession without lying and hypocrisy,” (on the principle, that they regard the sacrament as a converting ordinance, and partake of it with the hope of obtaining conversion.) “He formed a short Profession for persons to make, in order to be admitted into the church, answerable to this principle; and accordingly persons were admitted into the church, and to the sacrament, on these terms. Mr. Stoddard’s principle at first made a great noise in the country; and he was opposed, as introducing something contrary to the principles, and the practice, of almost all the churches in New-England; and the matter was publicly controverted between him and Dr. Increase Mather of Northampton. However, through Mr. Stoddard’s great influence over the people of Northampton, it was introduced there, though not without opposition by degrees it spread very much among ministers and people in that county, and in other parts of New-England.”

*By “some unsanctified persons” in this and the following heads, Mr. S. refers to those professors of religion in good standing, who in their own view and in the view of others are obviously not christians.

Lord’s Supper: 8. It is lawful for some unsanctified persons to carry themselves as saints, and therefore they may attend on that Sacrament :10. Some unsanctified persons convey to their children a right to the sacra ment of Baptism, and therefore have a right to the Lord’s Supper: 11. The invisible church catholick is not the prime and principal subject of the seal of the covenant, and therefore some unsanctified persons have that right.

*How Mr. Stoddard could reconcile these and various similar declarations with his main principle, probably every one will be at a loss to explain.

At the settlement of Mr. Edwards, in 1727, this alteration in — *Two questions were presented for the consideration of that Synod: 1. “What are the evils, which have provoked the Lord to bring his judgments upon New England?” 2. “What is to be done, that these evils may be reformed?” In answer to the second question, the Synod observe, 1. “Inasmuch as the present standing generation, both as to leaders and people, is for the greater part another generation than what was in NewEngland forty years ago; for us to declare our adherence to the Faith and Order of the Gospel, according to what is from the Scripture expressed in the Platform of Church discipline, may be a good means to recover those, who have erred from the truth, and to prevent apostacy for the future.” 2. “It is requisite that persons be not admitted unto Communion in the Lord’s Supper, without making a personal and public profession of their Faith and Repentance. either orally or in some other way, so as shall be to the just satisfaction of the church; and that therefore, both elders and churches be duly watchful and circumspect in this matter.”-Mr. Stoddard. Qualifications required for admission into the Church, had been in operation about twenty-two or three years; a period, during which, the great body of the members of any church will be changed. This lax plan of admission has no where been adopted by a church, for any considerable length of time, without introducing a large proportion of members who are destitute of piety; and, although Mr. Stoddard was in other respects so faithful a minister, and so truly desirous of the conversion and salvation of his people, there can be no doubt that such must have been the result during so long a period in the Church at Northampton.

He was a member of this convention, and voted for these Propositions. Mr. Mather, at the close of his Treatise, quotes this result of the Synod with some force; yet without directly urging on Mr. Stoddard the charge of inconsistency, or even mentioning that he was a member of that Synod. Mr. Stoddard, in his Appeal, to avoid the imputation of having changed his sentiments, alleges that a part of the Synod proposed to recommend, that persons, previous to their admission to the Church, should make a relation before the church, of the work of the Holy Spirit on their hearts; that he opposed this, and voted with the majority, for the second proposition as a substitute; and that that was still his opinion.-This statement, however, does not relieve the difficulty; for the principle, for which he actually voted, is directly inconsistent with that, which he avows in the Sermon on the Lord’s Supper, and in the Appeal to the Learned.

…great ferment; and, before he was heard in his own defence, or it was known by many what his principles were, the general cry was to have him dismissed, as what would alone satisfy them. This was evident from the whole tenor of their conduct; as they neglected and opposed the most proper means of calmly considering, and so of thoroughly understanding, the matter in dispute, and persisted in a refusal to attend to what Mr. Edwards had to say, in defence of his principles. From the beginning to the end, they opposed the measures, which had the best tendency to compromise and heal the difficulty; and with much zeal pursued those, which were calculated to make a separation certain and speedy. He thought of preaching on the subject, that they might know what were his sentiments, and the grounds of them, (of both which he was sensible that most of them were quite ignorant,) before they took any steps for a separation. But, that he might do nothing to increase the tumult, he first proposed the thing to the Standing Committee of the church; supposing, that if he entered on the subject publicly with their consent, it would prevent the ill consequences, which otherwise he feared would follow. But the most of them strenuously opposed it. Upon which he gave it over for the present, as what, in such circumstances, would rather blow up the fire to a greater height, than answer the good ends proposed.’ This unhappy state of feeling in Northampton was owing to various causes; among which may be mentioned the following:

1. The proposal, in 1744, to investigate the conduct of some of the younger professors of religion, who were said to have circulated obscene and licentious books: a proposal, which had been originally approved of, and voted, by the whole church unanimously, and to accomplish which, they had at once appointed a Committee of inquiry; but to which many of them became violently opposed, as soon as they feared, that the discipline of the church might fall on their own children :-had proved, such is the nature of manthe occasion of a settled hostility to Mr. Edwards, on the part of a considerable number of the most influential families in the town. He, who, in injuring another, does violence to his own conscience and dishonour to religion, finds usually but one practical alternative he either repents and acknowledges his sin; or he goes on adding injury to injury, and accumulating a more rancorous hatred against the person whom he has injured.

2. The lax mode of admitting members into the church, had prevailed about forty-five years; and though both Mr. Stoddard and Mr. Edwards had been most desirous of the prevalence of vital religion in the church, yet, a wide door having been thrown open for the admission of unconverted members, as such, it cannot but have been the fact, that, during this long period, many unconverted members should, through that door, have actually obtained admission into the church. In powerful revivals of religion, it is no easy task, even where the examination is most strict, and the danger and guilt of a false profession are most clearly exhibited,to prevent the admission of a considerable number of unconverted members into the church.

3. All the unconverted members of the church, and the great body of the congregation, would of course be friendly to the lax mode of admission. To relinquish it, would have been, on their part, to relinquish the only resting place, which human ingenuity had discovered, in which an unconverted person might-for a time at least-remain unconverted, both securely and lawfully.

4. The lax mode of admission had been introduced by Mr. STODDARD, a man greatly venerated for his wisdom and piety; and a large majority of the more serious members of the church, as well as all of a different character, regarded it as unquestionably scriptural, and verily believed that the mode, recommended by Mr. Edwards, would unlawfully exclude multitudes from the Lord’s Supper, who were fully entitled to partake of that sacrament.

5. All the churches in the county, except two, and all the clergy, except three, approved of the lax mode of admission. Many of the clergy also were, at this time, very favourably inclined to the sentiments usually denominated Arminian; and very hostile to those, of which Mr. Edwards was known to be a champion not easily met, with success, in the field of argument. Several of these gentlemen proved by their conduct, that they were not unwilling to assist the cause of disaffection at Northampton. One of them was connected by marriage with the family of -, already mentioned, (a family of considerable wealth and influence in an adjoining town, which had long discovered a personal hostility to Mr. Edwards;) and had himself entered so warmly into their feelings, that, when the case came to its issue, even the opposers of Mr. Edwards did not, for with decency they could not, propose him as a member of the Council. Another in an adjoining town was a member of that family, and cherished all its feelings.

6. Another individual of the same family, living in a town adjoining, a kinsman of Mr. Edwards, and from his standing, both civil and military, possessed of considerable influence, was, for the six years previous to the final separation, the confidental adviser of the disaffected party in the Church and congregation. In this course, he had the countenance of other members of the family, of a character superior to his own.

“Mr. Edwards,” observes Dr. Hopkins, “was sensible that his principles were not understood, but misrepresented, through the country; and finding that his people were too warm, calmly to attend to the matter in controversy, he proposed to print what he had to say on the point; as this seemed the only way left him to have a fair hearing. Accordingly his people consented to put off calling a Council, till what he should write was published.” With this view he began immediately to prepare a statement and defence of his own sentiments, and in the latter part of April, about two months from the time of its commencement, sent it to the pressan instance of rapidity of composition almost unexampled in an individual, who was at once occupied by the duties of an extensive parish, and involved in the embarrassments of a most perplexing controversy. Notwithstanding the efforts of Mr. Edwards, the printing of the work was not completed until August. It was entitled, “An Humble Enquiry into the Rules of the word of God, concerning the Qualifications requisite to a complete standing and full communion in the Visible Christian Church;” and contains a discussion of the question agitated between himself and his people, “Whether any persons ought to be admitted to full communion in the Christian Church, but such as, in the eye of a reasonable judgment, are truly christians?”-a discussion so thorough and conclusive, that it has been the standard work with evangelical divines from that time to the present.

It was a very painful consideration to Mr. Edwards, that, while the circumstances, in which he was placed, constrained him to declare his sentiments from the press, the “APPEAL TO THE LEARNED,” the production of a man so much loved and venerated at Northampton, and so much respected throughout New-England, his own colleague too, and his own grand-father, was the work, and the only work of any respectability, on the opposite side of the question, which he should be obliged publicly to examine and refute. But his feelings on this subject, he has himself explained. “It is far from a pleasing circumstance of this publication, that it is against what my honoured Grand-father strenuously maintained, both from the pulpit, and the press. I can truly say, on account of this and some other considerations, it is what I engage in with the greatest reluctance, that ever I undertook any public service in my life. But the state of things with me is so ordered, by the sovereign disposal of the great Governor of the world, that my doing this appears to me very necessary, and altogether unavoidable. I am conscious, that not only is the interest of religion concerned in this affair, but my own reputation, future usefulness, and my very subsistence, all seem to depend on my freely opening and defending myself as to my principles, and agreeable conduct in my pastoral charge, and on my doing it from the press: In which way alone, am I able to state and justify my opinion to any purpose, before the country, (which is full of noise, misrepresentations, and many censures concerning this affair,) or even before my own people, as all would be fully sensible, if they knew the exact state of the case. I have been brought to this necessity in Divine Providence, by such a situation of affairs, and coincidence of circumstances and events, as I choose at present to be silent about; and which it is not needful, nor perhaps expedient, for me to publish to the world.”

The people of Northampton manifested great uneasiness in waiting for this publication, before it came out of the press; and when it was published, some of the leading men, afraid of its ultimate effect on the minds of the people, did their utmost to prevent its extensive perusal, and it was read by comparatively a small number. Some of those who read it, of a more cool and dispassionate temper, were led to doubt whether they had not been mistaken. To prevent a result so unpropitious, it was regarded as essentially important, that the publication of Mr. Edwards should, if possible, be answered; and a rumour having been circulated, that the Rev. Mr. Williams, of Lebanon, was preparing a Reply, the Town, at their meeting, Nov. 9, 1749, passed the following vote.

“Voted, That Mr. Ebenezer Hunt be desired to wait on the Rev. Solomon Williams, of Lebanon,* and desire of him a copy of his Notes, that he is preparing for the press, in opposition to the opinion and principles, which Mr. Edwards, in his last book, hath endeavoured to defend and maintain, with respect to the admission of members into complete standing in the Church of Christ; and voted also, that the Precinct will pay Mr. Hunt what is reasonable for his trouble.”

On consulting Mr. Williams, it was found that his Reply would not issue from the press, in sufficient season, to counteract the effect of Mr. Edwards’ Treatise; and a rumour having been circulated, that the Rev. Peter Clark, of Salem Village, (Danvers,) was also preparing a Reply, the Town, at their meeting, Jan. 1, 1750, passed the following vote.

“Voted, That the Committee abovesaid take effectual care to employ some suitable person, that is going to Boston, to make diligent enquiry there, Whether Mr. Peter Clark, of Salem Village, hath undertaken to answer Mr. Edwards’ late book, respecting the Qualifications of communicants; and if, upon enquiry, he can’t obtain good evidence, that Mr. Clark hath undertaken to answer said, *The half brother of this gentleman, the Rev. Elisha Williams of Wethersfield, (Newington parish,) afterwards (from 1726 to 1739) Rector of Yale College, and afterwards Col. Williams of the Connecticut line, in the attempted expedition against Canada in 1748, began a reply to the Treatise of Mr. Edwards, immediately after it issued from the press; but, on going to England in 1749, he placed his papers in the hands of his brother, the Rev. Solomon Williams of Lebanon. This gentleman published his reply to Mr. Edwards, in 1751.

The information thus obtained not proving satisfactory, the subject was again agitated, at a subsequent meeting, March 6, 1750, with the following result:-” After conference, the question was put-Whether the Precinct desired that the Rev. Mr. Clark, of Salem Village, should be applied to, to write an answer to Mr. Edwards’ late book, respecting the Qualifications, necessary in order to complete standing in the Christian Church?-and it passed in the Affirmative; and then Major Ebenezer Pomeroy was chosen to apply to Mr. Clark for the end abovesaid.”

Mr. Clark was a man of sound evangelical sentiments; and Mr. Edwards, feeling the utmost confidence, that his opinions on the subject in controversy could not differ materially from his own, addressed to him a frank and friendly letter, in which he pointed out the misrepresentations, which had been made of his own principles, and then stated them in a clear and explicit manner.* The consequence was that Mr. Clark declined complying with the request of the town.

“Mr. Edwards,” continues Dr. Hopkins, “being sensible that his Treatise had been read but by very few of the people, renewed his proposal to preach upon the subject, and at a meeting of the brethren of the church asked their consent in the following terms: “I desire that the brethren would manifest their consent, that I should declare the reasons of my opinion, relating to full communion in the Church, in lectures appointed for that end: not as an act of authority, or as putting the power of declaring the whole counsel of God out of my hands; but for peace’s sake, and to prevent occasion for strife.” This was answered in the negative.He then proposed that it should be left to a few of the neighbouring ministers, Whether it was not, all things considered, reasonable, that he should be heard in this matter from the pulpit, before the affair should be brought to an issue. But this also passed in the negative.

“However, having had the advice of the ministers and messengers of the neighbouring churches, who met at Northampton to advise them under their difficulties, he proceeded to appoint a Lecture, in order to preach on the subject, proposing to do so weekly, till he had finished what he had to say. On Monday there was a society meeting, in which a vote was passed to choose a committee.

*A long extract from this letter will be found on a subsequent page, in the preface to Mr. Edwards’ Farewell Sermon: it bears date May 7, 1750.

to go to Mr. Edwards, and desire him not to preach lectures on the subject in controversy, according to his declaration and appointment; in consequence of which a committee of three men, chosen for this purpose, waited on him. However, Mr. Edwards thought proper to proceed according to his proposal, and accordingly preached a number of sermons, till he had finished what he had to say on the subject. These lectures were very thinly attended by his own people; but great numbers of strangers from the neighbouring towns attended them, so many as to make above half the congregation. This was in February and March, 1750.

“The calling of a decisive Council, to determine the matter of difference, was now more particularly attended to on both sides. Mr. Edwards had before this insisted, from time to time, that they were by no means ripe for such a procedure: as they had not yet given him a fair hearing, whereby perhaps the need of such a council would be superseded. He observed, “That it was exceedingly unbecoming to manage religious affairs of the greatest importance in a ferment and tumult, which ought to be managed with great solemnity, deep humiliation, submission to the awful frowns of heaven, humble dependence on God, with fervent prayer and supplication to him: That therefore for them to go about such an affair as they did, would be greatly to the dishonour of God and religion; a way in which a people cannot expect a blessing.” Thus having used all means to bring them to a calm and charitable temper without effect, he consented that a decisive council should be called without any further delay.

“But a difficulty attended the choice of a council, which was for some time insuperable. It was agreed, that the council should be mutually chosen, one half by the pastor, and the other half by the church: but the people insisted upon it, that he should be confined to the county in his choice. Mr. Edwards thought this an unreasonable restraint on him, as it was known that the ministers and churches in that county were almost universally against him in the controversy. He indeed did not suppose that the business of the proposed council would be to determine whether his opinion was right or not; but whether any possible way could be devised for an accommodation between pastor and people, and to use their wisdom and endeavour in order to effect it. And if they found this impracticable, they must determine, whether what ought in justice to be done had already actually been attempted, so that there was nothing further to be demanded by either of the parties concerned, before a separation should take place. And if he was dismissed by them, it would be their business to set forth to the world in what manner and for what cause he was dismissed: all which were matters of great importance to him, and required upright and impartial judges. Now considering the great influence a difference in religious opinions has to prejudice men one against another, and the close connection of the point, in which most of ministers and churches in the county differed from him, with the matter to be judged of, he did not think they could be reasonably looked upon so impartial judges, as that the matter ought to be wholly left to them. Besides, he thought that the case, being so new and extraordinary, required the ablest judges in the land. For these, and some other reasons, which he offered, he insisted upon liberty to go out of the county, for those members of the proposed council in which he was to have a choice. In this, the people strenuously and obstinately opposed him. At length they agreed to leave the matter to a council consisting of the ministers and messengers of the five neighbouring churches; who, after they had met twice upon it, and had the case largely debated before them, were equally divided, and therefore left the matter undetermined.

“However, they were all agreed, that Mr. Edwards ought to have liberty to go out of the county for some of the council. And at the next church meeting, which was on the 26th of March, Mr. Edwards offered to join with them in calling a council, if they would consent that he should choose two of the churches out of the county, in case the council consisted of but ten churches. The church however refused to comply with this, at one meeting after another repeatedly; and proceeded to warn a church meeting and choose a moderator, in order to act without their pastor. But, to pass by many particulars, at length, at a meeting of the church, warned by their pastor, May 3d, they voted their consent to his proposal of going out of the county for two of the churches that should be plied to. And they then proceeded to make choice of the ten ministers and churches, of which the council should consist.”

https://takeupcross.com
takeupcross