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）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）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）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.
I am,
Dear Brethren,
He who was once (as I hope through grace)
J. E. 116
愛德華滋失去了北安普敦，但他最終贏得了新英格蘭。他奠定了基礎，正如托馬斯·福克斯克羅夫特（Thomas Foxcroft）所展示的，這不過是回歸歷史性的改革宗傳統。117 尤其是約瑟夫·貝拉米（Joseph Bellamy）、史蒂芬·韋斯特（Stephen West）、錢德勒·羅賓斯（Chandler Robbins）、小喬納森（Jonathan Junior）和納撒尼爾·埃蒙斯（Nathaneal Emmons）發起了隨後的戰役，並在強大的反對聲中贏得了這場戰爭。正如高斯塔德（Gaustad）所說：
儘管遭到強烈反對，但在「新英格蘭神學」的持續影響和一系列廣泛復興的推動下，舊光教會（Old Light churches）到世紀之交時，普遍已不再接納未歸信者為正式會友。然而，不能說半途之約（Half-Way covenant）的基本前提，即將宗教等同於道德改進，已被放棄。它在新英格蘭一神論（New England Unitarianism）中得到了清晰的保留，後來又透過H.布什內爾（H. Bushnell）的努力恢復到公理會（Congregationalism）中。118
正如喬治·利昂·沃克（George Leon Walker）所寫：「儘管在他之後長期存在，但在某種真實意義上，喬納森·愛德華滋可以說是半途之約的偉大而成功的對手。」119
有趣的是，直到十九世紀末，普林斯頓神學院（Princeton Theological Seminary）喬納森·愛德華滋的偉大朋友們，並沒有為愛德華滋的死後勝利而歡欣鼓舞。查爾斯·霍奇（Charles Hodge）這位不亞於愛德華滋的追隨者，竟然在為半途之約辯護，並認為愛德華滋不過是個搞混了整個問題的糊塗蟲。由於這對於那些熟悉普林斯頓普遍聲稱自己是加爾文主義（Calvinism）捍衛者的人來說，是很難理解的（他們如此敬佩愛德華滋），讀者或許會想閱讀霍奇在歷史背景下對此主題的完整討論。120 讓我在此總結一下。
根據霍奇的說法，愛德華滋在《聖餐資格》（Qualifications for Communion）中提出要證明，只有教會認為蒙恩的人才能領受主的晚餐（Lord's Supper）。然而，愛德華滋所證明的一切，不過是那些自稱是基督徒的人可以領受。我回應說，在辯論中，這兩者是同一回事。霍奇區分了「自稱」和「教會相信其自稱」。但除了向教會，這自稱是向誰發出的呢？如果教會判斷這是一個可信的自稱，那個人就會被接納領聖餐。但在斯托達德（Stoddardean）的爭議中，那個人不必自稱有得救的信心（saving faith），教會也不敢要求。不是愛德華滋瞄準一個目標卻擊中另一個，而是霍奇完全錯失了目標。
因此，因為愛德華滋要求一個教會認為可信的得救信心的告白，霍奇指責他有再洗禮派（Anabaptistic）的「純潔教會」（pure church）思想，這並非真實的指控。同時，霍奇自己卻為那些不認為自己是歸信基督徒的人領受主的晚餐辯護，並聲稱有各種聖經證明。
根據霍奇的說法，愛德華滋的錯誤是透過威廉·艾姆斯（William Ames）的教導傳入新英格蘭的。它被半途之約糾正了，而半途之約又被喬納森·愛德華滋推翻了。最終，它甚至改變了中部各州正統長老會（Presbyterian）的思想。
長老會所教導的原則有四點。121 首先，聖禮（sacraments）是恩典之約（Covenant of Grace）的記號和印證。其次，所有領受聖禮的人都「自稱接受主耶穌基督」。請注意霍奇在此不尋常的不精確陳述。如果申請者有意義地（當然，在霍奇和愛德華滋看來，這由教會決定）自稱他（理解他所說的）「接受了主耶穌基督」，喬納森·愛德華滋會完全滿意。第三，準領聖餐者可能懷疑自己的配得性，但「渴望在基督裡被尋見」。在這裡，霍奇再次不精確。如果那個人能證明他真正「渴望」（愛）基督，愛德華滋會相當滿意。但如果他只聲稱一種單純的渴望得救，連魔鬼也渴望逃離地獄。第四，教會不得排斥無知和行為不檢者。愛德華滋會同意，教會在排斥那些因無知和行為不檢而受洗但未領聖餐的會友之前，應當謹慎行事。然而，如果他們在受教後仍堅持無知的非信（unbelief）和明顯不檢的行為，他們就必須被排斥。霍奇自己也絕不會明知故犯地允許一個慣犯的殺人犯、姦淫犯、竊賊或無神論者，例如，進入或留在教會中。
霍奇以一個極其模糊的陳述結束了整個討論。成為合格的領聖餐者，只需要他們「自稱對真宗教有真正的信心」。然而，一個人可以相信基督教是真宗教，甚至是唯一的真宗教，並像魔鬼一樣戰兢（雅 2:19），卻像魔鬼一樣完全缺乏得救的信心（saving faith）。查爾斯·霍奇絕不會明知故犯地允許魔鬼或魔鬼般的人進入他的長老會教會，就像愛德華滋不會允許他們進入他的公理會教會一樣。另一方面，這兩位偉大的改革宗神學家都會樂意接納那些在教會看來，可信地自稱對主耶穌基督有得救信心的人。
最後，我們轉向愛德華滋關於國家之約（national or state covenant）的觀點。有許多講道涉及這個主題，儘管愛德華滋在這方面的思想有些被忽視。122 上述哈里·斯托特（Harry Stout）的論文，以狹窄但精闢的方式探討了國家之約的問題。123 他特別且專門引用感恩節和禁食日的講道，表明愛德華滋與所有其他「福音派」（evangelical）和「理性主義」（rationalist）牧師一樣，都持守新英格蘭與上帝立有國家之約的觀念。
愛德華滋思想中這一元素的清晰例子，可見於他關於歷代志下 23:16 的禁食日講道。斯托特指出愛德華滋對何謂立約之民的解釋：
[S]有些人被上帝分別為立約之民。經文中所說的人民就是如此。上帝與亞伯拉罕、以撒和雅各立約，將他們帶出埃及，並在曠野中以莊嚴的方式與他們立約，將他們從地上的其他國家中分別出來，成為立約之民，成為耶和華的特殊子民。124
他接著展示了愛德華滋將這種模式應用於新英格蘭人民：
我們作為立約之民，蒙上帝極大的分別。上帝藉著向我們顯明祂的約來分別我們。我們曾以非常清晰的方式成為一片光明之地……我們祖先的土地曾是這樣一片光明之地……你們是蒙上帝分別為立約之民已久的人民，並在上帝對你們所使用的手段上蒙受分別。125
在這次講道中，愛德華滋的觀點是普遍的。無論神學家們在恩典之約（Covenant of Grace）上彼此有何爭議，他們在關於新英格蘭以色列的國家之約上卻是立場一致的。斯托特認為他們不敢不這樣做，並強調這是「新英格蘭文化的主要組織原則」。126 他總結道：「只要他們繼續贏得[戰爭]，這約就被驗證，而[新英格蘭作為救贖國度]的神話就得以延續。」127 然而，對愛德華滋來說，這並非「神話」。
正如我們所見，愛德華滋嚴格定義並執行了救贖之約（Covenant of Redemption）、行為之約（Covenant of Works）和恩典之約。他會認為失職的新英格蘭仍然與其祖先的上帝立約，這可能令人驚訝。然而，這是一個相當名義上的問題，只要國家沒有明確拒絕上帝和基督教信仰，它在某種意義上仍然是上帝的子民。因此，愛德華滋主張：「上帝的慣例不是因為祂立約之民的背道而毀滅他們，直到他們如此抵擋上帝……以至於似乎沒有任何補救的希望。」128 對愛德華滋來說，國家的狀況大致平行於那些尚未「堅信」也未「被逐出教會」的立約之子的狀況。
然而，愛德華滋和其他人不斷的哀歌表明，儘管國家之約可能是名義上的，但人類參與者被期望履行他們的信仰告白，否則神聖的審判將隨之而來。箴言 14:34 的講道可能比任何其他講道都更清楚地解釋了愛德華滋的觀點。129 公義使邦國高舉，罪惡卻是任何民族的羞辱。
儘管愛德華滋最強調個人信心（personal faith）和道德，但不能準確地說他對既定教會和國家忠誠失去了興趣。有趣的是，他在猶大書 19 節的講道中，將個人道德和既定基督教信仰不可分割地融合在一起。130
教會之約對愛德華滋也很重要，但我不會特別考慮它們，因為它們本質上與國家之約相似。在愛德華滋看來，禁食日和其他儀式性的公義，往往更多地展現了人們的偽善，而非他們的悔改（penitence）。以西結書 23:37-39 的講道，是許多其他講道的典型，是牧師在人們為自己的虔誠而自滿時發出的宏大哀嘆。131