Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadJonathan Edwards Collection: Edwards, Jonathan - Rational Biblical Theology: Chapt 16 cont 3
TOPIC: Edwards, Jonathan - Rational Biblical Theology (Other Topics in this Collection)
SUBJECT: Chapt 16 cont 3
Other Subjects in this Topic:
7. The Half-way Covenant
It is clear that Edwards was a covenant theologian. Was he a Half-way Covenant theologian? He seems to have been such for some years after coming to Northampton. This was not because of - rather in spite of - his covenant theology. Stoddard’s thinking about the Lord’s Supper as a converting ordinance” (allowing and requiring nominal but unconverted persons to partake) seems to have temporarily befuddled Edwards.
Many have interpreted the Half-way Covenant as a breakdown of strict Puritanism as New England business began to give birth to prosperity and with it greater secularism. By keeping the children in the church by baptism, when they would have been removed in the stricter past, the new generation was trying to keep its sheep and lambs from straying from the fold.
No doubt some of this pragmatism was in the minds of those attending the 1662 Synod Conference. However, other historians rightly suggest an apposite opposite interpretation. Those Congregationalists were as strict or stricter than ever in not allowing the parents’ confession of historical faith to pass muster. C. C. Goen notes that the accessions to the church before and even during the Great Awakening were from the Half-way Covenant people. The Awakening did not destroy this covenant, but its adherents did come to see it as destroying the difference between the church and the world. *111*
Whatever was the original intention, the practice led to a more lax discipline. As Dexter put it:
Originally its provisions applied only to church members who were admitted in minority, but before many years churches which adopted it construed it as admitting those non-church members by baptism and even men of lax personal morality who might desire baptism for their children. *112*
When Edwards became convinced that the converting ordinances doctrine was in error, his opposition to Half-way thinking was inevitable. As part of his attack on “Stoddardeanism” in Qualifications for Communion, the Half-way Covenant was in the line of fire. Dealing with Objection XIX Edwards argues:
If it be necessary that adult persons should make a profession of godliness, in order to their own admission to baptism, then undoubtedly it is necessary in order to their children being baptized on their account. For parents cannot convey to their children a right to this sacrament by virtue of any qualifications lower than those requisite in order to their own right: children being admitted to baptism only as being, as it were, parts and members of their parents. *113* And besides, the act of parents in offering up their children in a sacrament, which is a seal of the covenant of grace, is in them a solemn attending that sacrament as persons interested in the covenant, and a public manifestation of their approving and consenting to it, as truly as if they then offered up themselves to God in that ordinance. Indeed it implies a renewed offering up themselves with their children, and devoting both jointly to God in covenant; themselves, with their children, as parts of themselves. But now what fearful work will such doctrine make amongst us! We shall have multitudes unbaptized, who will be without the external badge of Christianity, and so in that respect will be like heathens. And this is the way to have the land full of persons who are destitute of that which is spoken of in Scripture as ordinarily requisite to men’s salvation; and it will bring a reproach on vast multitudes, with the families they belong to. And not only so, but it will tend to make them profane and heathenish; for by thus treating our children, as though “they had no part in the Lord, we shall cause them to cease from fearing the Lord;” Jos_22:24-25.
ANSW. 1. As to children being destitute of that which is spoken of in Scripture as one thing ordinarily requisite to salvation; I would observe, that baptism can do their souls no good any otherwise than through God’s blessing attending it: but we have no reason to expect his blessing with baptism, if administered to those that it does not belong to by his institution.
ANSW. 2. As to the reproach, which will be brought on parents and children, by children going without baptism, through the parents neglecting a profession of godliness, and so visibly remaining among the unconverted; if any insist on this objection, I think it will savour of much unreasonableness and even stupidity.
It will savour of an unreasonable spirit. Is it not enough, if God freely offers men to own their children and to give them the honour of baptism, in and relinquish their enmity against him, heartily give up themselves and their children to him, and take upon them the profession of godliness? - If men are truly excusable, in not turning to God through Christ, in not believing with the heart, and in not confessing with the mouth, why do not we openly plead that they are so? And why do we not teach sinners, that they are not to blame for continuing among the enemies of Christ, and neglecting and despising his great salvation? If they are not at all excusable in this, and it be wholly owing to their own indulged lusts, that they refuse sincerely to give up themselves and their children to God, then how unreasonable is it for them to complain that their children are denied the honour of having God’s mark set upon them as some of his? If parents are angry at this, such a temper shows them to be very insensible of their own vile treatment of the blessed God. Suppose a prince send to a traitor in prison, and upon opening the prison doors make him the offer, that if he would come forth and submit himself to him, he should not only be pardoned himself, but both he and his children should have such and such badges of honour conferred upon them; and yet the rebel’s enmity and stoutness of spirit against his prince is such, that he cannot find in his heart to comply with the gracious offer, will he have any cause to be angry, that his children have not those badges of honour given them? Besides, it is very much owing to parents, that there are so many young people who can make no profession of godliness. They have themselves therefore to blame, if proceeding on the principles which have been maintained, there is like to rise a generation of unbaptized persons. If ancestors had thoroughly done their duty to their posterity in instructing, praying for, and governing their children, and setti, there is reason to think, the case would have been far otherwise.
Insisting on this objection would savour of much stupidity. For the objection seems to suppose the country to be full of those that are unconverted, and so exposed every moment to eternal damnation; yet it seems we do not hear such great and general complaints and lamentable outcries concerning this. Now why is it looked upon so dreadful, to have great numbers going without the name and honourable badge of Christianity, when at the same time it is no more resented and laid to heart, that such multitudes go without the thing, which is infinitely more dreadful? Why are we so silent about this? What is the name good for, without the thing? Can parents bear to have their children go about the world in the most odious and dangerous state of soul, in reality the children of the devil, and condemned to eternal burnings; when at the same time they cannot bear to have them disgraced by going without the honour of being baptized? A high honour and privilege this is; yet how can parents be contented with the sign, exclusive of the thing signified? Why should they covet the external honour for their children, while they are so careless about the spiritual blessing? Does not this argue a senselessness of their own misery, as well as of their children’s, in being in a Christless state? If a man and his child were both together bitten by a viper, dreadfully swollen, and like to die, would it not argue stupidity in the parent, to be anxiously concerned only about his child’s having on a dirty garment in such circumstances, and angry at others for not putting some outward ornament upon it? But the difference in this present case is infinitely greater, and more important. Let parents pity their poor children because they are without baptism; and pity themselves who are in danger of everlasting misery, while they have no interest in the covenant of grace, and so have no right to covenant favours and honours, for themselves nor children. No religious honours, to be obtained in any other way than by real religion, are much worth contending for. And in truth, it is no honour at all to a man, to have merely the outward badges of a Christian, without being a Christian indeed; any more than it would be an honour to a man that has no learning, but is a mere dunce, to have a degree at college; or than it is for a man who has no valour, but is a grand coward, to have an honourable commission in an army; which only serves, by lifting him up, to expose him to deeper reproach, and sets him forth as the more notable object of contempt.
ANSW. 3. Concerning the tendency of this way of confining baptism to professors of godliness and their children, to promote irreligion and profaneness; I would observe, first, That Christ is best able to judge of the tendency of his own institutions. Secondly, I am bold to say, that supposing this principle and practice to have such a tendency, is a great mistake, contrary to Scripture and plain reason and experience. Indeed such a tendency it would have, to shut men out from having any part in the Lord, (in the sense of the two tribes and half, Jos_22:25) or to fence them out by such a partition-wall as formerly was between Jews and Gentiles; and so to shut them out as to tell them, if they were never so much disposed to serve God, he was not ready to accept them; according to the notion the Jews seem to have had of the uncircumcised Gentiles. - But to forbear giving men honours to which they have no title, and not to compliment them with the name and badge of God’s people and children, while they pretend to nothing but what is consistent with their being his enemies, this has no such tendency. But the contrary has very much this tendency. For is it not found by constant experience through all ages, that blind, corrupt mankind, in matters of religion, are strongly disposed to rest in a name instead of the thing; in the shadow, instead of the substance; and to make themselves easy with the former, in the neglect of the latter? This over-valuing of common grace, and moral sincerity, as it is called; this building so much upon them, making them the conditions of enjoying the seals of God’s covenant, and the appointed privileges, and honourable and sacred badges, of God’s children; this, I cannot but think, naturally tends to sooth and flatter the pride of vain man, while it tends to aggrandize those things in men’s eyes, which they of themselves are strongly disposed to magnify and trust in, without such encouragements to prompt them to it, yea, against all discouragements and dissuasives that can possibly be used with them.
This way of proceeding greatly tends to establish the negligence of parents, and to confirm the stupidity and security of wicked children. - If baptism were denied to all children, whose parents did not profess godliness, and in a judgment of rational charity appear real saints, it would tend to excite pious heads of families to more thorough care and pains in the religious education of their children, and to more fervent prayer for them, that they might be converted in youth, before they enter into a married state; and so if they have children, the entail of the covenant be secured. - And it would tend to awaken young people themselves, as yet unconverted, especially when about to settle in the world. Their having no right to christian privileges for their children, in case they should become parents, would tend to lead them at such a time seriously to reflect on their own awful state; which, if they do not get out of it, must lay a foundation for so much calamity and reproach to their families. And if after their becoming parents, they still remain unconverted, the melancholy thought of their children going without so much as the external mark of Christians, would have a continual tendency to affect them with their own sin and folly in neglecting to turn to God, by which they bring such visible calamity and disgrace on themselves and families. They would have this additional motive continually to stir them up to seek grace for themselves and their children. Whereas, the contrary practice has a natural tendency to quiet the minds of persons, both in their own and their children’s unregeneracy. Yea, may it not be suspected, that the way of baptizing the children of such as never make any proper profession of godliness, is an expedient originally invented for that very end, to give ease to ancestors with respect to their posterity, in times of general declension and degeneracy?
This way of proceeding greatly tends to establish the stupidity and irreligion of children, as well as the negligence of parents. It is certain, that unconverted parents do never truly give up their children to God; since they do not truly give up themselves to him. And if neither of the parents appear truly pious, in the judgment of rational charity, there is not in this case any ground to expect that the children will be brought up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord, or that they will have any thing worthy the name of a christian education, how solemnly soever the parents may promise it. The faithfulness of Abraham was such as might be trusted in this matter. See Gen_18:19. But men that are not so much as visibly godly, upon what grounds are they to be trusted? How can it be reasonably expected, that they should faithfully bring up their children for GOD, who were never sincerely willing that their children or themselves should be his? And it will be but presumption, to expect that those children who are never given up to God, nor brought up for him, should prove religious, and be God’s children. There is no manner of reason to expect any other than that such children ordinarily will grow up in irreligion, whether they are baptized or not. And for persons to go about with the name and visible seal of God, and the sacred badge of Christianity upon them, having had their bodies, by a holy ordinance, consecrated to God as his temples, yet living in irreligion and ways of wickedness; this serves to tend exceedingly to harden them, and establish in them an habitual contempt of sacred things. Such persons, above all men, are like to be the most hardened and abandoned, and reclaimed with most difficulty: as it was with the wicked Jews, who were much more confirmed in their wickedness, than those heathen cities of Tyre and Sidon. To give that which is holy to those who are profane, or whom we have no reason, from the circumstances of parentage and education, to expect will be otherwise, is not the way to make them better, but worse. It is the way to have them habitually trample holy things under their feet, and increase in contempt of them, yea, even to turn again and rend us, and be more mischievous and hurtful enemies of that which is good, than otherwise they would be. *114*
This was the type of reasoning that made the Northampton congregation see themselves and their children as unchurched. The parents were not fit to commune, and their children were unbaptized heathen. Edwards proved their objections “stupid.” Nevertheless, Solomon Williams rose to the defense of Northamptons stupidity in his The True State of the Question Concerning the Qualifications Necessary to Lawful Communion in the Christian Sacraments.
To this defense Edwards answered in a work so thoroughly refuting Williams that Williams’ friends advised him not to respond. *115* Edwards pursues the argument with a careful distinction between that pastor’s bad reasoning and his probable good intentions. He concludes with an impassioned appeal to his former parish in Northampton not to be alienated by Williams principles from the doctrines of grace once taught them by none other than Solomon Stoddard!
By the way, I would have it observed, that when I take notice of these things in his book, my aim is not to beget in you an ill opinion of Mr. W. as though he were as corrupt in his settled persuasion, as one would be ready to think, if he were to judge only by things delivered in some parts of this book; and especially if it should be supposed, that he embraced all the consequences of what he here maintains. Men often do not see or allow the plain consequences of their own doctrines. And therefore, though I charge very pernicious consequences on some things he says, yet I do not charge him with embracing these consequences: nor will I undertake to explain how it could come to pass, that he should maintain things now in this book, in opposition to me, which are so contrary to the good and sound doctrines he has formerly delivered in other books. Let that be as it will, and however orthodox the principles may be, which he more ordinarily maintains; yet the ill and unsound things he delivers here, may do nevertheless hurt to you and your children, who may read this book without having in view the more wholesome doctrines of his other writings.
For instance, you have ever been taught, that unconverted men do not really believe the gospel, are never truly convinced of its truth; and that it is of great importance that sinners should be sensible of the unbelief and atheism of their hearts. But contrary to this, Mr. W.’s book abundantly teaches you and your children this notion, That unsanctified men may really be convinced of the divine truth of the gospel, and believe it with all their hearts.
You have been ever taught, that Christless sinners, especially when under some more slight awakenings, are very ready to flatter themselves that they are willing to accept of Christ as their Saviour; but that they must be brought off from their vain imagination, and be brought to see that the fault is in their own wills, and that their not being interested in Christ is owing to their obstinacy and perverseness, and willful wicked refusal of God’s terms; on which account they are wholly inexcusable, and may justly be cast off by God. But contrary to these things, this book of Mr. W. abundantly teaches you, that men in an unconverted state, may indeed cordially consent to the terms of the covenant of grace, may comply with the call of the gospel, may submit to its proposals, may have satisfaction in the offer God makes of himself as our God in Christ, may fall in with the terms of salvation propounded in the gospel, and renounce all other ways, and may sincerely and earnestly desire salvation in this way: and that some unconverted men are not willful obstinate sinners. (p. 21.b.) Which doctrines, if embraced and retained by your children as true, will tend forever to hinder that conviction of the opposition and obstinacy of the heart, which Mr. S. ever taught you to be of such importance in order to the souls humiliation, and thorough conviction of the justice of God in its damnation.
You have ever been taught, that the hearts of natural men are wholly corrupt, entirely destitute of any thing spiritually good, not having the least spark of love to God, and as much without all things of this nature, as a dead corpse is without life: nevertheless, that it is hard for sinners to be convinced of this; that they are exceeding prone to imagine, there is some goodness in them, some respect to God in what they do; yet that they must be brought off from such a vain conceit of themselves, and come to see themselves utterly depraved and quite dead in sin. - But now this book of Mr. W. leads you to quite other notions; it leads you to suppose, that some natural men are above lukewarmness in religion, that they may truly profess to be the real friends of Christ, and to love God, more than his enemies, and above the world.
It was a doctrine greatly inculcated on you by Mr. S. as supposing it of great importance for all to be convinced of it, that natural men are not subject to the law of God, nor indeed can be; that they never do truly serve God, but are wholly under the dominion of sin and Satan. - But if sinners believe Mr. W.’s book, they will not be convinced of these things; nay, they will believe quite contrary things, viz. That sinners, while in a state of nature, may have a cordial subjection to Jesus Christ, and may be subject to him with all their hearts, and may be so devoted to the service of Christ as to be above those that serve two masters, may give up themselves to be taught, ruled, and led by him in a gospel-way of salvation, and may give up all their hearts and lives to him. - And is it likely, while sinners believe these doctrines of Mr. W. that they will ever be brought to a thorough humiliation, in a conviction of their being wholly under the power of enmity against God, which Mr. S. taught you to be of such great importance?
You know it was always a doctrine greatly insisted on by Mr. S. as a thing of the utmost consequence, that sinners who are seeking converting grace, should be thoroughly sensible of God’s being under no manner of obligation, from any desires, labours, or endeavours of theirs, to bestow his grace upon them; either in justice, or truth, or any other way; but that when they have done all, God is perfectly at liberty, whether to show them mercy, or not; that they are wholly in the hands of God’s sovereignty. (See Guide to Christ, p. 75. c. d. and Benef. of the Gosp. p. 64. and p. 75, 76.) - Whereas, if a sinner seeking salvation believes Mr. W.’s book, it will naturally lead him to think quite otherwise. He (in p. 28.) speaking of such sincerity and earnestness of endeavours as may be in natural men, to qualify them to come to the sacrament, and of the great encouragement God has given, that he will bestow his saving grace on such as use such endeavours, adds these words, (near the bottom of the page,) “God never will be worse than his encouragement, nor do less than he has encouraged; and he has said, to him that hath shall be given.” Naturally leading the awakened sinner, who is supposed to have moral sincerity enough to come to the sacrament, to suppose, that God is not wholly at liberty; but that he has given so much encouragement, that it may be depended upon he will give his grace; and that it would not be reasonable or becoming of God to do otherwise; because if God should do so, he would be worse than his encouragement, and would not fulfil that word of his, to him who hath shall be given. And how will this tend effectually to prevent the sinner looking on God as absolutely at liberty, and prevent his resigning himself wholly into the hands of God, and to his sovereign pleasure!
It is a doctrine which has ever been taught you, and used for the warning, awakening, and humbling of gospel sinners, that they have greater guilt, and are exposed to a more terrible punishment, than the heathen. - But this is spoken of by Mr. W. as an unsufferable treatment of visible saints; naturally tending to alleviate and smooth the matter in the consciences of those that are not scandalous persons, though they live in unbelief and the rejection of Christ under gospel light and mercy.
If you will believe what Mr. W. says, (p. 56.) those blessed epithets and characters in the epistles of the apostles, which you always, from the first foundation of the town, have been taught to be peculiar and glorious expressions and descriptions of the blessed qualifications and state of true saints, and heirs of eternal happiness; such as “being elected, chosen before the foundation of the world, predestinated to the adoption of children through Jesus Christ; quickened, and made alive to God, though once dead in trespasses and sins; washed, sanctified, justified; - made to sit together in heavenly places in Christ; begotten again, to an inheritance incorruptible, undefiled;” - with innumerable others the like: - I say if you believe Mr. W. you have been quite mistaken all your days, and misled by all your ministers; these things are no more than were said of the whole nation of the Jews, even in their worst times! Which is (as I have observed) exactly agreeable to the strange opinion of Mr. Taylor, of Norwich, in England, that author who has so corrupted multitudes in New England. Thus you are at once deprived of all the chief texts in the Bible, that hitherto have been made use of among you, as teaching the discriminating qualifications and privileges of the truly pious, and the nature and benefits of a real conversion; too much paving the way for the rest of Taylors scheme of religion, which utterly explodes the doctrines you have been formerly taught concerning eternal election, conversion, justification; and so, of a natural state of death in sin; and the whole doctrine of original sin, and of the mighty change made in the soul by the redemption of Christ applied to it.
And this, taken with those other things which I have observed, in conjunction with some other things which have lately appeared in Northampton, tend to lead the young people among you apace into a liking to the new, fashionable, lax schemes of divinity, which have so greatly prevailed in New England of late; as wide as the East is from the West, from those great principles of religion, which have always been taught, and have been embraced, and esteemed most precious, and have justly been accounted very much your glory by others.
If this book of Mr. W. with all these things, is made much of by you, and recommended to your children, as of great importance to defend the principles of the town, how far has your zeal for that one tenet, respecting natural men’s right to the Lord’s supper, transported you, and made you forget your value and concern for the most precious and important doctrines of Jesus Christ, taught you by Mr. Stoddard, which do most nearly concern the very vitals of religion!
I beseech you, brethren, seasonably to consider how dark the cloud is that hangs over you, and how melancholy the prospect (especially with regard to the rising generation) in many respects. I have long been intimately acquainted with your religious circumstances, your notions and principles, your advantages and dangers; having had perhaps greater opportunity for it than any other person on earth. - Before I left you, it was very evident, that Arminianism, and other loose notions in religion, and Mr. Taylors in particular, began to get some footing among you; and there were some things special in your circumstances, that threatened a great prevailing of such like notions: which if they should by degrees generally prevail, will doubtless by degrees put an end to what used to be called saving religion.
Therefore let me entreat you to take the friendly warning I now give you, and stand on your guard against the encroaching evil. If you are not inclined to hearken to me, from any remaining affection to one whose voice and counsels you once heard with joy, and yielded to with great alacrity; yet let me desire you not to refuse, as you would act the part of friends to yourselves and your dear children.
Dear Brethren,
He who was once (as I hope through grace)
Your faithful pastor,
And devoted servant for Jesus’ sake,
J. E. *116*
Edwards lost Northampton but he won New England - after a while. He laid the foundation which, as Thomas Foxcroft showed, was only a return to the historic reformed tradition. *117* It was especially Joseph Bellamy, Stephen West, Chandler Robbins, Jonathan Junior and Nathaneal Emmons who fought the subsequent battle and won the war against formidable opposition. As Gaustad put it:
Despite an angry opposition, Old Light churches, under the continuing influence of ‘The New England Theology’ and of a new series of widespread revivals, had generally ceased by the turn of the century to admit any but the converted to full membership. It cannot be said, however, that the basic premise of the Half-Way covenant, the identification of religion with moral improvement, was abandoned. It was clearly preserved in New England Unitarianism, and was later through the labors of H. Bushnell restored to Congregationalism. *118*
As George Leon Walker writes, “Though surviving long after him there is a real sense in which Jonathan Edwards may be said to have been the great and successful antagonist of the half-way covenant.” *119*
It is interesting that to the very end of the nineteenth century the great friends of Jonathan Edwards at Princeton Theological Seminary were not rejoicing in Edwards posthumous triumph. No less an Edwardsian than Charles Hodge was defending the Half-way Covenant and seeing Edwards as nothing less than a blunderer confusing the whole issue. Since this is hard for those initiated in the general claim of Princeton to be defenders of the Calvinism for which they so greatly admired Edwards, the reader may wish to read Hodges full discussion of the subject in its historical context. *120* Let me summarize it here.
Edwards, according to Hodge, proposed to prove in Qualifications for Communion that only persons believed by the church to be gracious could come to the Lord’s Supper. All Edwards proved, however, was that persons who professed to be Christians could come. I reply that these were the same thing in the debate. Hodge distinguishes between professing and that profession being believed by the church. But to whom was the profession made except to the church? And if it was in the church’s judgment a credible profession, the person was admitted to communion. But in the Stoddardean controversy the person did not have to profess saving faith nor dare the church require it. It was not Edwards who aimed at one target and hit another, but Hodge who missed the target altogether.
So because Edwards required a confession of saving faith found credible to the church, Hodge charged him with Anabaptistic “pure church” thinking which was not a true charge. Meanwhile, Hodge himself defended admitting persons to the Lord’s Supper who did not believe themselves to be converted Christians and claimed various biblical proofs.
The Edwards’ error, according to Hodge, came into New England through the teaching of William Ames. It was corrected by the Half-way Covenant which, in turn, was reversed by Jonathan Edwards. Ultimately it changed even the Middle States orthodox Presbyterian thinking.
The principles that Presbyterianism taught were four. *121* First, sacraments are signs and seals of the covenant of grace. Second, all who receive them profess “to receive the Lord Jesus Christ.” Note Hodges uncharacteristic imprecise statement here. Jonathan Edwards would have been completely satisfied if the applicant professed meaningfully (as determined by the church, of course, in Hodge’s view as well as Edwards’) that he (understanding what he was saying), “received the Lord Jesus Christ.” Third, the would-be communicant may doubt his worthiness but “desire to be found in Christ.” Here, again, Hodge is imprecise. Edwards would be quite satisfied if the person gave evidence that he truly “desired” (loved) Christ. But if he claimed only a mere desire that he would be saved, even devils desire to escape hell. Fourth, the church may not exclude the ignorant and scandalous. Edwards would agree that the church should move carefully before excluding baptized non-communicant members for their ignorance and their scandalous behavior. However, if after instruction they hold to ignorant unbelief and clearly scandalous behavior, they must be excluded. Hodge himself would never knowingly allow a practicing murderer, adulterer, thief, or atheist, for example, to enter or remain in the church.
Hodge ends the whole discussion with a statement of the purest ambiguity. Being satisfactory communicants requires only their professing true faith in the true religion.” Yet one can believe that Christianity is true religion, even the only true religion, and tremble as the devils do (Jam_2:19), totally lacking, as the devils do, saving faith. Charles Hodge would never knowingly admit devils or devilish men into his Presbyterian Church any more than Edwards into his Congregational Church. On the other hand, each of these great Reformed theologians would gladly admit those who, in the opinion of the church, credibly professed saving faith in the Lord Jesus Christ.
8. The State Covenant
Finally we turn to Edwards’ views concerning the national or state covenant. There are a number of sermons dealing with this theme, though Edwards’ thought in this regard has been somewhat neglected. *122* Harry Stout’s essay, noted above, takes up the question of the state covenant in a narrowly focused but fine fashion. *123* He shows, specifically and exclusively citing the thanksgiving and fast day sermons, that Edwards along with all other “evangelical” and “rationalist” pastors held to the notion of New Englands national covenant with God.
A clear example of this element in Edwards’ thought may be seen in his fast sermon on 2Ch_23:16. Stout notes Edwards’ explanation of what constitutes a covenant people:
[S]ome are distinguished of God as a Covenant People. So were the people that were spoken of in the Text. God entered into Covenant with Abraham and Isaac and Jacob and brought them out of Egypt and in a Solemn manner entered into Covenant with them in the [desert] and separated them from the [other] nations on the earth to be a Covenant people a peculiar People to the Lord. *124*
He then shows Edwards’ application of this pattern to the people of New England:
We have been greatly distinguished by God as a covenant people. God has distinguished us by making known his covenant to us. We have been in a very [clear] manner a land of light . . . The land of our forefathers has been a land of such light . . . You are a people that have been distinguished of God as a covenant people for a long time and have been distinguished in the means that God has used with you. *125*
In this preaching Edwards was commonplace. Whatever controversies theologians may have had among themselves about the covenant of grace, they closed ranks on the national covenant of the New England Israel. Stout argues they would not have dared do otherwise, urging that this was the “master organizing principle of New England culture.” *126* He concludes: “As long as they continued to win [wars], the covenant was validated and the myth [of New England as a redeemer nation”] lived on.” *127* For Edwards, however, this was no “myth”.
As we have seen, Edwards strictly defined and enforced the covenants of redemption, works, and grace. It may seem surprising that he would consider delinquent New England still in covenant with the God of its fathers. However, this was a rather nominal matter, and so long as the nation did not specifically reject God and the Christian religion, it remained in a sense God’s people. Thus Edwards argued that “’Tis not God’s manner to destroy a covenant people for their backslidings till they have so resisted God . . . that there seems to be no prospect of any remedy.” *128* For Edwards the state of the nation was roughly parallel to the state of covenant children who had not been “confirmed” nor “excommunicated.”
However, the steady flow of jeremiads by Edwards and others showed that nominal as the state covenant may be, the human participants were expected to live up to their profession or divine judgments would follow. Probably the sermon on Pro_14:34 explains as clearly as any Edwards’ view. *129* Righteousness exalted a nation but sin was a reproach to any people.
Though Edwards put greatest emphasis on personal faith and morality, it cannot accurately be said that he lost interest in the established church and national fidelity. It is interesting to see him blend personal morality and established Christianity together inseparably in his sermon on Jude 19. *130*
Church covenants were also important to Edwards, but I will not especially consider them because they are essentially like the national covenant. Fast days and other ceremonial righteousness tended, in Edwards’ opinion, to exhibit the peoples’ hypocrisy more than their penitence. The sermon on Eze_23:37-39, which is typical of many others, is a grand lament of the pastor while his people were congratulating themselves on their piety. *131*