Saving the Church of England

John Edwards (1637–1716) as Dissenting Conformer

Daniel C. Norman

• Publisher: Wipf and Stock
• Year: 2022
• Print ISBN: 9781666732238, 9781666725674
• eBook ISBN: 9781666725681
• Topic: Theology & Religion
• Subtopic: History of Christianity

On his second Atlantic voyage, George Whitefield read lengthy quotations from a work of a deceased English cleric. Writing in his journal, he exclaimed, "[These words] deserve to be written in Letters of Gold." Whitefield's associate, the American Jonathan Edwards, concurred. That cleric was John Edwards, an anomaly in several respects: a self-proclaimed Calvinist who conformed to the Church of England at a time when most Calvinists left in the Great Ejection of 1662. In leading a public debate against prominent intellectuals of his day, including John Locke and Samuel Clarke, over the definition of orthodox Christianity, he allied himself with the same church leaders who decried his Calvinist theology. Edwards retired in his mid-fifties due to "ill health"--a retirement in which he wrote over forty scholarly books. At the heart of his concern was the unity and doctrinal orthodoxy of the church, themes over which contentious disputes have reverberated throughout church history. Saving the Church of England tells the story of why the church was in trouble and of John Edwards's heroic effort to save it.

1

Introduction

An Unduly Neglected Figure

It is well known that the two most prominent voices of the eighteenth-century Great Awakening in the American colonies were Congregational minister Jonathan Edwards (1703–58) and itinerant English preacher George Whitefield (1714–70). What is not so well known is that both men were profoundly influenced by a nearly forgotten English cleric who neither ever met and who died when both men were children. Whitefield credited John Edwards with his conversion to committed Calvinism from a somewhat confused Arminian theology. He was introduced to Edwards in two books by eighteenth-century Church of England dissenter Jonathan Warne (fl. 1740), who quoted at length from John Edwards in several of his works. Whitefield later thanked Warne for giving him the books, stating, “I think the Quotations out of Dr. Edwards are worth their Weight in Gold; I intend to recommend them in my Journal.”1

Jonathan Edwards scholar Wilson Kimnach identifies four significant influences on young Jonathan during his early years in the pulpit. Two were his father Timothy (1669–1758) and his grandfather Solomon Stoddard (1643–1729), whose pastorate at the Congregational Church in Northampton, Massachusetts Bay Colony he inherited at the young age of twenty-five. The third was Cotton Mather (1663–1728), pastor of Boston’s North Church who, though not a blood relative of Jonathan, was, nevertheless, closely associated with the family.2 Despite the historic conflict between Stoddard and the Mathers, Jonathan found Cotton Mather’s Manuductio Ad Ministerium very helpful in his own ministry and recommended it to others. The fourth notable influence was John Edwards, especially The Preacher, listed on the first page of Jonathan’s “Catalogue,” which included his notes on books that were important to him. Kimnach compared sermon attributes such as delivery characteristics (persuasive, intense, and personal), the recognized seriousness and sacredness of being God’s convicting messenger, and the critical importance of a clear application to change lives, as advocated in The Preacher, to what is known about Jonathan Edwards’s preaching. He concludes, “as for The Preacher, there are too many echoes of its individualistic expressions throughout Edwards’s notebooks to have doubts about its importance to him.”3

Not only did John Edwards have a remarkable influence through his published works on later generations of clergymen on both sides of the Atlantic, but he also influenced the course of public debate during his own lifetime. Late seventeenth- and early eighteenth-century England was a time of unprecedented scientific discovery and profound transformations in government, church, and society—unprecedented and profound not only for the small islands of Britain, but for the world. Its two most famous intellectuals of that time, Isaac Newton (1642–1727) and John Locke (1632–1704), were both personally challenged by the religiously unaccommodating culture in which they lived. Troubled by the divisive conflict over theology, both became engrossed in private Bible study, searching for solutions to this conflict which appeared to be caused by irrational hermeneutics.

At a time when nonconformity to the Church of England was most often associated with those who viewed the church as departing in various ways from the Protestant Reformation, neither man fit that mold, but neither did they conform. Newton was fairly successful in his independent divergence, being private about his beliefs. But Locke saw intolerance, especially of a religious nature, as the primary cause of tension and hostility in the world. He launched what he perceived to be a very reasonable campaign to end it, soon discovering that few key members of the church shared his theological convictions or his view of tolerance.

The first person to challenge both his and Newton’s biblical exegesis in print was this same John Edwards. Edwards accused Locke of Socinianism, a common slur in late seventeenth-century England, but rarely used by Edwards, Locke being the only one to whom Edwards leveled that charge, at least in print. Locke responded along with a number of other correspondents, some defending and others attacking Locke’s orthodoxy. Although the debate over Locke’s theology continues today, most observers agree with Edwards’s assessment of Locke’s heterodoxy.4 A second round of debate over whether or not trinitarianism was a central and essential element of orthodoxy ensued in the early eighteenth century, with philosopher Samuel Clarke (1675–1729) serving as the primary lightning rod. Again Edwards was at the forefront of the debate, this time linking Clarke’s antitrinitarian language found in his defense of his Scripture-Doctrine of the Trinity to Newton’s “Scholium Generale” essay, appended to his Principia Mathematica in its second edition.5

In addition to the Great Awakening and the late Stuart trinitarian debate, there is a third pursuit of Edwards which has virtually been ignored. Had he been successful, it would have been his most significant contribution to the church and to posterity. I am speaking of his campaign for church unity and theological toleration within the church. The unity of the church has of course been a continuous concern throughout its history. The problem has been how the conditions or terms for that unity are defined.

The Church of England leadership demanded conformity to their institution, especially to the Book of Common Prayer (BCP) and its rubric, but were lax on how the XXXIX Articles were to be understood. Many nonconformists followed a narrower interpretation of the XXXIX Articles, but desired reasonable freedom in complying with the BCP. Unlike most nonconformists, Edwards accepted the Church of England as legitimate on the basis of its official adherence to central doctrines deemed essential by orthodox Christians historically. Beyond this, he was willing to grant latitude to those with whom he had sharp disagreements over historically divisive understandings of soteriology, ecclesiology, etc.

Edwards was actually quite tolerant in his ecclesiology—to a point. That point was the boundary of traditional Christian orthodoxy as expressed in the Nicene Creed and historically recognized by Protestant, Catholic, and Orthodox bodies. From his own study of the New Testament Locke, by contrast, determined that the essence of the gospel was the belief that Jesus is the Messiah. It seemed to him that, as there was so much confusion and divisive acrimony over doctrines such as the Trinity and deity of Christ, making those doctrines optional would lead to peace and unity. His solution: eliminate theological disagreement and rancor by reducing required beliefs for Christian conversion to an absolute minimum.

Edwards found this completely unacceptable because in his view these doctrines were clearly expressed in Scripture, fundamental to the definition of the Christian faith, and had been used to distinguish orthodoxy from heresy since the early fourth century. Edwards also had a very high view of the unity of the church. But without agreement on historically essential doctrines, on what basis would the identity and therefore unity of the church be based? In Edwards’s view, orthodox doctrine as understood and accepted historically expressed immutable truth revealed by God in holy Scripture.

Edwards was certainly not the only one committed to both trinitarian orthodoxy and the unity of the church, at least in principle. Among those who shared Edwards’s orthodox convictions (both within the Church of England and nonconformists bodies) however, Edwards was unique. He was unique in that he willingly subordinated many doctrines and practices which he held dear to the unity of the church, while remaining in the church and continuing to defend his Reformed understanding. This was not true for prominent spokesmen among the nonconformists, nor for the Churc...

Table of contents

• Title Page
• Foreword
• Acknowledgments
• Abbreviations
• Chapter 1: Introduction
• Chapter 2: Edwards in His Historical Context
• Chapter 3: The Life and Legacy of John Edwards
• Chapter 4: Edwards and Anti-Trinitarians
• Chapter 5: Edwards and Church Parties
• Chapter 6: Ecclesiology, Conformity and Nonconformity
• Chapter 7: On Church Unity and Schism
• Chapter 8: Conclusion
• Appendix A: The Works of John Edwards
• Appendix B: Scholarship Focused on Edwards
• Appendix C: Edwards and His Critics
• Appendix D: Was Edwards a Lonely Reformed Voice in the Church of England in 1700?
• Bibliography