TheTrinitarianPactumSalutisAccomplishedandApplied

TheFederalCovenantalTheologyofJonathanEdwardsBy

ChristopherL.Mabee

TrinityEvangelicalDivinitySchoolColumbusExtension

ProfessorDouglasA.SweeneyApril2016

2

‘ChristandhisredemptionarethegreatsubjectofthewholeBible…thesumandsubstanceofboththeOldTestamentandNew’

-JonathanEdwards,AHistoryoftheWorkofRedemption,WJE,9:289,443.

3

Introduction:theTrinitarianteleologicalvisionofJonathanEdwards

ForJonathanEdwards,happinessinlifebegins,andends,withtheapprehensionof

true religion. ‘As religion is the great business, forwhichwe are created, andon

which our happiness depends; and as religion consists in an intercourse between

ourselvesandourMaker….thereforea trueknowledgeofbothmustbeneedful in

ordertotruereligion.’1 ToattainasenseofthistruereligionGodtheFathermust

apply, to theChristian, theredemptivehistoricalaccomplishmentsof theGodhead

throughtheilluminationandsuperintendenceoftheHolySpirituntofaithinJesus

and repentance from sin.2 For only through a divine and supernatural light can

sinfulmancometofullycomprehendtheTriuneGodofScriptureandperceiveHis

glory in history, which is the beginning of partaking in His eminence, love and

happiness.ToJonathanEdwards,astomankind,lifeisthepursuitofunderstanding

andhappiness. However,unlikemost,hepursueditwithanenviableanduntiring

vigor in his quest to love and comprehend our God and participate in His true

religion,thatwasquiteremarkable,ifnotunique.

While thisproject’s initial intentwas touncover JonathanEdwards’ soteriological

doctrineof the saints in theOldTestamentdispensation,during the courseofmy

investigation, I foundamuchbroaderquestioningmore intriguing. Whatwas the

basis for JonathanEdwards’unifiedtheologicalviewsofallofredemptivehistory?

HowdidEdwards’exegeticalmethodsimpacthisviewsrelativetothisframework?

1TheWorksofJonathanEdwards,FreedomoftheWill,Volume1,pgs.129-133.FromhereallreferencestotheWorksofJonathanEdwardswillbedenotedbyWJEwithvolumeandpagenumber(s)following(JonathanEdwardsCenteratYaleUniversityPress,NewHaven,CT06511).2‘Hencethosedoctrinesandschemesofdivinitythatareinanyrespectoppositetosuchanabsolute,anduniversaldependenceonGod,doderogatefromGod’sglory,andthwartthedesignofthecontrivanceforourredemption.ThoseschemesthatputthecreatureinGod’sstead,inanyrespect,thatexaltmanintotheplaceofeitherFather,SonorHolyGhost,anddenyanabsolutedependenceuponGodforthegiftandacceptanceoftheRedeemerarerepugnanttothedesignandtenorofthegospel,androbsitofthatwhichGodaccountsitslusterandglory.’FromtheHarvardCommencementmessage,July8,1731,entitled‘GodGlorifiedintheWorkofRedemption,bytheGreatnessofMan’sDependenceuponHim,intheWholeofit’,Text:1Corinthians1:29-31,Use#2,WJESermonsandDiscourses,1730-1733,17:197-214.

4

Who were the major influences of Edwards’ thinking that seemed to inform his

theologicalviews?

Whilethereareperhapsdozensofcharacteristicsonemightconsiderindescribing

Jonathan Edwards’ constitutive make up, as a means of ascertaining how God

created such a productive saint, one characteristic of his life and theological

development,whichseemsunderappreciated,istheFederalcovenantalfoundation

whichundergirdedhisentireChristianethos.3

Indeed although many authors from the immediate post-Reformation period

seemedtofocusmoreonjustificationdoctrinesapartfromtheecclesiasticalmantra

and sacramentalism of Rome, Jonathan Edwards, as a Federalist went further.

Ratherthatfocusingintentlyonprovinghispointandmakingjustificationbyfaith

the main issue of the Bible, Edwards consistently and brilliantly focused on

justificationwithin thebroaderworkofGod’s redemption inChrist Jesus,making

JesushimselfthemainissueoftheBible.’4

Tobesuccinct,thisworkwillshowthatJonathanEdwards’epistemology,exegetical

practices and foundational belief system, as revealed in his voluminous writings,

were centered on the work of Jesus Christ and the Godhead, conceived in the

covenant of redemption (pactum salutis), accomplished and applied in history

through the interpretive lens of Federal covenant theology. For Edwards this

theological systemmattered because it made Jesus Christ the main talking point

throughout theBiblical storyline. It alsoglorifiesGod inHis sovereigngraceas it

unifiesallofredemptivehistoryintheteleologyofHiscovenantwithHimselfandits

3From1729to2005thereareonly16publicationsonEdwards’Covenanttheologyofthe~4000notedinLesserMX,ReadingJonathanEdwards:AnAnnotatedBibliographyinThreeParts,1729-2005,Eerdmans,GrandRapids,MI49505,2008,pg.677.TherearenonelistedunderthesubjectheadingofFederalism.4EdwardsJ,CharityanditsFruits:LivingIntheLightofGod’sLove,Ed.KyleStrobel,Crossway,Wheaton,IL60187,2012,pg.25.

5

realizationinman. Myhopeisthatinansweringthesequestionsmorecompletely

this work will communicate to the reader why the underlying covenantal views,

whichEdwardsheld,matteredtohiminhisdayandtousinours.

Edwards’FederalTheology:ACovenantalBiblicalHermeneutic

JonathanEdwardswasamanofdeepspiritualandtheologicalacumen,producedin

thecontextofalifespentinitsentiretywithintheconfinesofPuritanNewEngland.

His brilliance in thought, and exposition, came through years of walking in

communionwiththeTriuneGodof theBibleasheattemptedto loveHimwithall

hisheart,soulandmind.WhilethespecialrevelationofGodfoundintheBiblewas

hisultimateepistemologicalsource,individualsandtheirwritingsalsoplayedapart

inthedevelopmentofhiswell-conceivedworldview.Itisthepositionofthisauthor

that in order to understand Jonathan Edwards as a saint, and comprehend his

writingsat thehighest level,oneneedstoappreciatethebasis forhisbeliefs⎯the

coreframeworkofhistheology.TothisendwewillnowgotoEdwards’sourcesof

knowledgeinsofaraswecanapprehendthem,asheseemedto.

EdwardsandtheBible

The Bible is a ‘dead letter’ apart from the work of the Holy Spirit. Just as the

spiritualsenseoftheheartcomesdirectlyfromGod,thetruthandlightoftheBible

is impossible to embody apart from the third member of the Godhead.5 For

JonathanEdwards,whileHolyWritwasfoolishnesstothosewhoreaditapartfrom

supernaturalillumination,itwastheChristian’spurposetoreadandstudyitasthe

ultimate priority of life. For one who ‘studied the longest and have made the

5‘AndtherearesuchinfluencesandteachingsoftheSpiritofGodaccompanyingittoexhibitthisWordthusinitsvariouslights,continuallybringingforthsomethingnewsuitedtothepresentstreamofourthoughts,affections,andourcase;thatisjustasifGodheldupacontinualconversationbywordofmouthtothosethatread,understandandbelieve.AndGoddothindeedholdcommunionwith[them];andyetthisisdoneinasecretwayhiddenfromthewickedworld,whoitisnotpropershouldseeandintermeddle,norisitexposedtotheirabuseandmockery—pearlsarenotcastbeforeswine—forthoughtheycanreadtheBible,thereisnothingofthiscommunionwithGodenjoyedbythem,butallistothemasadeadletter.’WJEMiscellanies(a-z;aa-zz;1-500),#204,13:340.

6

greatestattainments’inthestudyoftheBiblearealsotheoneswhorealizethatthey

still ‘know but little of what is to be known.’6 For the depths of Scripture will:

‘employ…thesaintsandangels toalleternity.’ Soweshould for thepresent time

makethestudyoftheBible‘agreatpartofthebusinessofourlives.’HereEdwards

offers a crude, but useful, set of hermeneutical principals for Biblical exegesis:

‘Whenyouread,observewhatyouread.Observehowthingscomein.Takenotice

of the drift of the discourse and compare one Scripture with another… And use

meansto findout themeaningof theScripture…Procure,anddiligentlyuseother

bookswhichmayhelpyoutogrowinthisknowledge.’7

EdwardsgivesusabroaderviewofhisBiblicalexegesisinAHistoryoftheWorkof

Redemption as the whole of Scripture takes epistemological priority over its

individualparts,narrativesanddiscourses. ToproperlyunderstandScripture,one

needs to comprehend the shape of the entire Genesis-to-Revelation narrative, for

beforeonecanunderstandthe individualpartsonesimplemusthavesenseofthe

whole. ‘In order to seehowadesign is carried [to] and end,wemust first know

what the design is’. If the Christian cannot see the forest for the trees then

redemptivehistory‘willlooklikeconfusion,likeanumberofjumbledeventscoming

to pass without any order or method, like the tossing of waves of the sea.’8 To

properlyseeredemptivehistoryasGodhasintendedit,onemustemploy,insome

sense,aspiritualormetaphoricalinterpretation,inadditionto,atthefirst,aliteral

sense,whichallowsputtingthepiecestogetherintoacoherentwhole.ForJonathan

Edwards, Biblical interpretation tendedmore toward fullness and fecundity than

plainness and perspicuity through his exegetical concept of the canonicity of

6SeeEdwardssermonfrom1739,‘TheImportanceandAdvantageofaThoroughKnowledgeofDivineTruth’,WJESermonsandDiscourses,1739-1742,22:80-102.7McClymondMJandMcDermottGR,TheTheologyofJonathanEdwards,OxfordUniversityPress,NewYork,NY10016,2012,pgs.172-180.Quotationstakenfrom‘TheImportanceandAdvantageofaThoroughKnowledgeofDivineTruth,’ibidWJESermonsandDiscourses,1739-1742,reference6.8WJEAHistoryoftheWorkofRedemption9:122,291,519.

7

Scripture.9 This Canonical exegesis, or Biblical theology, yielded the twin

interpretivepillarssupportingmostclassicallyProtestantrenderingsoftheBiblein

histimeandtoday.ForEdwardsthe“analogyofScripture”(analogiaScripturae),in

which individual texts were read in light of other texts in other parts of holy

Scripture; and the “analogy of faith” (analogia fidei), inwhich difficult textswere

read in view of the proclamatory core and doctrinal drift of the Bible, were

foundational.10 ForEdwardsandhistribe,everysingletextofScripturewastobe

readat thefirst,andforemost, inrelationtothecanon,anditsunderlyingFederal

covenantalframework.

ApartfromthishermeneuticalprincipletheeventsoftheOldTestamentappearto

berandom,andhavelittlecorrelationwithJesusandtheGospelaccountoftheNew

Testament.Thisisthedangerofmodernityandthehistorical-criticalmethodology

of Biblical interpretation as one over literalizes the events and narratives of the

Bible confusing the rise of human skill and mastery with revelatory exegesis.11

DespiteEdwards’studyof,andinteractionwith,thepriorRenaissanceandmodern

Enlightenmentthinkersofhisday,healwaysputGod’sWordastheultimatemeans

ofallunderstandingratherthanthegrowinganthropocentricitiesofhisday.‘Christ

and his redemption are the great subject of thewhole Bible,’ Edwards taught his

congregations time and again, ‘the sum and substance of both theOld Testament

and New.’ In fact, “the religion of the church of Israel,’ as Edwards called the

JudaismpracticedbeforeJesus, ‘wasessentiallythesamewiththatoftheChristian

church.’12 So in Edward’s exegesiswe see the seeds of his Federalism and in his

9IbidMcClymondandMcDermott,TheTheologyofJonathanEdwards,reference7,pg.176.10SweeneyDA,EdwardstheExegete:BiblicalInterpretationandAnglo-ProtestantCultureontheEdgeoftheEnlightenment,OxfordUniversityPress,NewYork,NY10016,2016,pgs.55-57.11SeeFreiH,TheEclipseofBiblicalNarrative:AStudyinEighteenthandNineteenthCenturyHermeneutics,YaleUniversityPress,NewHaven,CT,1974andStein-MetzDC,‘TheSuperiorityofPre-CriticalExegesis’TheologyToday,1980,37:27-38foramorerobustdefenseofpre-‘enlightened’exegesis.12IbidSweeney,EdwardstheExegete,reference10,pg.56andchapter5.

8

Federalism we see the growth and output of his exegesis. They are intimately

relatedandmutualinclusive.

While Edwards’ exegetical methodology and beliefs are ego-syntonic with many

Reformed Christians’, they have, at times past and present, been received with

mixedwelcome. Protestants typically pride themselves on literal exegesis as the

historical-grammaticalinterpretivemethodologyisemphasizedattheexpenseand

expediencyofdistancingtheallegoricalandspiritualexcessesofRomeandsomeof

theearlychurchfathers.13 Forexample,OrigenspokeofthreesensesofScripture

often tending toward the allegorical,whileAugustine provedmore cautious, even

though he thought that Biblical passages could yield multiple meanings, as God

manifested himself in multidimensional ways.14 Ultimately Augustine felt that

Scripturemustbeinterpretedbasedontheliteralreadingattheintentionallevelof

theSpiritdrivenauthor.15Lateron,bytheninthcentury,theseviewshadexpanded

towhat became thequadriga, or four-horse chariot, ofmedieval exegesis [literal;

allegorical (άλλεγορέω—to speak figuratively); moral (τροπολογέω—to speak in

tropes or figures of speech) and heavenly (άνάγω—to lead up or the heavenly)

senses], finding its ultimate codification in Thomas Aquinas.16 During the

Reformation, Biblical learning was transformed and exegesis improved as the

seriousnessof Scripture (sola scriptura), theprintingpress, and secondary source

availabilitymarkedagainatimeoftheprimacyoftheBible. However,duringthis

timeandafter,manytendedtodistancethemselvesfromCatholicexcessesofover

spiritualizingorallegorizingpassagestoanalmostwoodenliteralism,whichisstill

13SweeneyDA,JonathanEdwardsandtheMinistryoftheWord,InterVarsityPress,DownersGrove,IL60515,2009,pgs.95-106andibidreference3,pgs.177-180.14Origen,OnFirstPrinciples,c.230,4.2.4,pg.915Augustine,DeDoctrinaChristiana,c.397,Ed.andTrans.GreenRPH,OxfordEarlyChristianTexts,Clarendon,Oxford,1995,pgs.169-171.16IbidSweeney,JonathanEdwardsandtheMinistryoftheWord,reference13,pg.99,alsoseeAquinasT,SummaTheologiae,1485,ChristianClassics:ParacletePress,Brewster,MA02631,1981,Ia.1.10.

9

seeninsomeProtestantChristianitytoday.17Lutheracknowledgedthe‘four-horse’

teamof exegesis despite seeming somewhat ambivalent in suggesting that he did

notthinkthatthisapproachhadsufficientsupportfromtheScripturesthemselves

and thus, ‘spiritual and allegorical interpretations shouldnot beused to establish

doctrines of faith.’18 Despite this fact, Luther himself often interpreted the Bible

allegorically.19 Going further, relative to those influencesEdwardswas certain to

havebeeninformedby,WilliamAmeswrote:‘Hencethereisonlyonemeaningfor

every place in Scripture. Otherwise themeaning of Scripturewould not only be

unclear anduncertain, but therewouldbenomeaning at all⎯for anythingwhich

does not mean one thing surely means nothing.’20 In addition, theWestminster

ConfessionofFaith(1647)stateswhile‘allthingsinScripturearenotalikeplainin

themselves, nor alike clear unto all: yet those things which are necessary to be

known,believed,andobservedforsalvation,aresoclearlypropounded,andopened

insomeplaceofScripture,orother,thatnotonlythelearned,buttheunlearned,ina

dueuseoftheordinaryunderstandingofthem.’21

17JohnNelsonDarby(1800-1882)anAnglo-IrishBibleteacherandinfluentialfigureinthePlymouthBrethrenmovement,consideredbymosttobethefatherofclassicDispensationalismandeschatologicalFuturism,demandedhistorical-grammaticalliteralexegesis,asnotedinhispersonaltranslationoftheHebrewandGreekoftheBiblecalled,TheHolyScriptures:ANewTranslationfromtheOriginalLanguages(1867).WhilemaintainingmanyCalvinisticbeliefs,hisstrictliteralhermeneuticswerelaterchampionedbyCyrusScofield(1843-1921)asChristianfundamentalism,andarestilltaughttodayatplaceslikeDallasTheologicalSeminary,etc.AquotefromErnestSandeenillustratesthepoint,‘Tootraditionaltoadmitthatbiblicalauthorsmighthavecontradictedeachother,andtoorationalisttoadmitthatthepropheticmazedefiedpenetration,DarbyattemptedaresolutionofhisexegeticaldilemmabydistinguishingbetweenScriptureintendedfortheChurchandScriptureintendedforIsrael.TheTaskoftheexpositoroftheBiblewas,inaphrasethatbecamethehallmarkofDispensationalism,‘rightlydividingthewordoftruth’[2Timothy2:15],SandeenER,TheRootsofFundamentalism:BritishandAmericanMillenarianism1800-1930,UniversityofChicagoPress,Chicago,IL,1970,pg.65-67.18LutherM.LecturesonGalatians;Luther’sWorks,Volume27,Eds.PelikanJandHansenHA.,Concordia,St.Louis,MO,1964,pg.311.19IbidSweeney,JonathanEdwardsandtheMinistryoftheWord,reference13,pg.101.20DuringEdwardsundergraduateyearsatYaleCollege(1716-1719)hemostlikelyusedtwotheologytextbooks:1.PuritanWilliamAmes,MedullaTheologiae,1627and2.SwissReformedJohannWolleb,CompendiumTheologiaeChristianae,1626.Seeibid,Sweeney,reference13,pg38.ThequoteofWilliamAmeswastakenfrom:AmesW.TheMarrowofTheology,Trans.JohnD.Eusden,PilgrimPress,Philadelphia,PA,1968,pg.188.21FollowingEdwards’dismissalfromhisparishinNorthamptonJune22,1750,longtimefriendReverendJohnErskineandotherswrotehimtoaskwhetherhewouldcrosstheseaandjointhe

10

StevenSteinhasnoted thatwhileEdwards ‘didnotglory in the literalmeaningof

Scripture…indifferencetoit[forhim]wouldhavebeentantamounttoabdicationof

the Protestant principle.’22 However, the investigation of the grammatical

intricacies can produce only a ‘speculative knowledge’ of God, which would not

necessarilybesalvific.ToEdwards,fortheBibletobecomea‘sweet,excellent,life-

givingword,’theresimplyhadtobeaGod-given,supernaturallightthatoftenwent

beyond the simple literal rendering.23 Thuswhile Edwards never abandoned the

literalsenseprimacyofScripturalexegesis,hetendedtofullness,intheSpirit,over

absoluteperspicuity.

Edwards’ChristocentricCanonicalExegesis:ACovenantTheologicalMatrix

TheadaptationoftheReformationtotheearlymodernacademy,ofwhichJonathan

Edwardswasapart,didnotmean,fortheorthodox,anabandonmentofScripture.

FortheearlyReformedfaithful,orthodoxy,Biblicalexegesis,Biblical theology,and

dogmatic theology were integrally related.24 This shift to a more academic

orientation led to thorough investigation and explanation of the Biblical text. In

responsetoseveralexternalstimuliandintheneedtodevelopamorecoherentand

comprehensive covenant theology, orthodoxy elaborated on the basic themes ofScottishPresbyterianKirk.InalettertoErskine,datedJuly5,1750,Edwardsresponded,‘AstomysubscribingtothesubstanceoftheWestminsterConfession,therewouldbenodifficulty:andastothePresbyteriangovernment,Ihavelongbeenperfectlyoutofconceitwithourunsettled,independent,confusedwayofchurchgovernmentinthisland.’Thus,EdwardsindirectlyacknowledgestheConfession’sdoctrineofperspicuity.WJELettersandPersonalWritings,16:355.AlsoseetheWestminsterConfessionofFaith,1647,TheCommitteeonChristianEducationoftheOrthodoxPresbyterianChurch,WillowGrove,PA19090,2008,1.7,pg.6.22SteinS,TheSpiritandtheWord:JonathanEdwardsandScripturalExegesis,’inJonathanEdwardsandtheAmericanExperience,Eds.NathanO.HatchandHarryS.Stout,OxfordUniversityPress,NewYork,NY,1988,pg.106-108.23‘Tispossiblethatamanmightknownowtointerpretallthetypes,parables,enigmas,andallegoriesintheBibleandnothaveonebeamofspirituallightinhismind;becausehemayn’thavetheleastdegreeofthatspiritualsenseoftheholybeautyofdivinethingswhichhasbeenspokenof,’WJEReligiousAffections,2:278.24MullerRAandThompsonJL,TheSignificanceofPrecriticalExegesis:RetrospectandProspect,inBiblicalInterpretationintheEraoftheReformation,EerdmansPublishing,GrandRapids,MI49505,1996,pg.345.FormoreonthisseeClarkRS,RecoveringtheReformedConfession:OurTheology,Piety,andPractice,PresbyterianandReformedPublishing,Phillipsburg,NJ08865,2008,pgs.197–207.

11

Protestant theology (e.g., justification as sola gratia, sola fide, sola Christa) as it

explained its theology in redemptive-historical terms of three covenants: a pre-

temporal covenant of redemption (pactum salutis) between three persons of the

Godhead,ahistoricalcovenantofworksbetweenGodandAdamasthefederalhead

of humanity (foedus operum), and a covenant of grace with the elect, in Christ,

administeredthroughaseriesoflesserbutintimatelyrelatedcovenantsfromAdam

toChrist.ThiswasparticularlytrueforEdwardsasheattemptedtounifyadivided

church ofwhichmanywere increasingly influencedby the philosophical views of

the Enlightenment, manifested in some circles as Arminianism and Deism. For

JonathanEdwardsepistemologicaloutlookswerefirmlyfixedtoGod’snaturaland

specialrevelationtohumanity,increationandtheBibleviacovenant,andtohuman

reason, but always with the philosophical renderings of man subservient to the

knowledgeobtainedthroughtheBibleanditsFederalcovenantalframework.

WhileJonathanEdwardsneverwroteabouthisBiblicalhermeneuticinasystematic

way, Douglas Sweeney has recently organized and summarized his exegetical

practicesasreflectedinhiscorpus.25AquotefromSweeneysummarizesEdwards

exegeticalmethodswell: ‘Takentogether,thesemethods[Canonical,Christological,

Redemptive-historical and Pedagogical] yielded a robust Biblical theology that

governedEdwards’other,moreoccasional—andfarmorefamous—publications.’26

Thus,whileEdwards’maintainedaChristcentered,redemptivehistoricalapproach

25‘CanonicalexegesisshowedhimhowtheBiblecohered.ChristologicalexegesisshowedhimhowitpointedtoChrist.Redemptive-historicalexegesislimnedaspiritualmetanarrativeandPedagogicalexegesisgavehimrulesforfaithandlife.Hethoughtthatallfourapproachesshouldbeginwiththeliteralsense(whichhetaughtalongsidethem,sometimesstruggledtodiscern,butdidnotoftenfeatureinisolationfromtheothers,asanendinitself).Theydependedoneachother,evenbuiltuponeachother,toprovidepeopleoffaithwithagrandvisionofGod,Hisrelationtotheworld,andthemeaningofHisWord…canonicalexegesisofferedEdwardsinter-textualsupportforhisinterpretationofindividualpassages.ChristologicalexegesishelpedhimspeakaboutChristfromallovertheChristiancanon,convincedashewasthatitsmessageoftheMessiahandHismissionofredemptionhelditscontentstogether.Redemptive-historicalexegesisframedthismessageinrelationtothecanon’sstoryline.Anddoctrinalexegesisofferedpreceptsforlivingandconfessingthismessage,helpingChristiansplaytheirpartsinthestoryofredemption(emphasismine).’IbidSweeney,EdwardstheExegete,reference10,pg.x-xi.26IbidSweeney,EdwardstheExegete,reference10,pg.x-xi.

12

to reading and interpreting the Canon, often using typology and spiritual

interpretations,hecontinuedtomaintainaliteralsenseprimacyasheattemptedto

love,understandandexpositBiblicaltruthinaGodglorifyingway.

NowthatwehavelookedatEdwards’relationshiptoandexegesisoftheProtestant

Bible, his greatest epistemological resource, itwill be helpful to review Edward’s

thinkingrelativetosomeoftheReformedforebearswhoalsoinformedhisviews.

EdwardsandReformedScholasticism

WhileEdwardswas lacktocallanymanfather,hewas influencedbyanumberof

writingsboth fromthe immediateprecedinggenerationandthosewhosowedthe

seeds of Reformed scholastics and Federal covenantal theology during and

immediatelyfollowingtheProtestantReformation.

Forexample,whileinthepublicforumofhismostphilosophicaltreatise,Freedomof

theWill,Edwardsstates,‘However,theterm‘Calvinist’isinthesedays,amongmost,

a termofgreaterreproachthanthe term ‘Arminian’;yet Ishouldnot take itatall

amiss, to be called a Calvinist, for distinction’s sake: though I utterly disclaim a

dependenceonCalvin,orbelievingthedoctrineswhichIhold,becausehebelieved

andtaughtthem;andcannotjustlybechargedwithbelievingeverythingjustashe

taught.’27 Yet privately to Joseph Bellamy in a letter dated January 15, 1747, he

posits,‘ButtakeMastrichtfordivinityingeneral,doctrine,practiceandcontroversy;

orasauniversalsystemofdivinity;anditismuchbetterthanTurretinoranyother

bookintheworld,exceptingtheBible,inmyopinion.’28

27WJEFreedomoftheWill1:131.28QuotefromWJELettersandPersonalWritings,seeletterstoMr.JosephBellamyNo.69and76,16:211,223.Edwardsultimatelysentacopyof‘Mastrict’toMr.BellamyinJune1747.Edwardsinthisquoterefersto:1.PetrusVanMastricht(1630-1706),professoroftheologyattheUniversityofUtrechtfrom1677untilhisdeath,wroteanumberofworks,butEdwardsundoubtedlyrefers,inthisinstance,tohisTheoretico-practicaTheologia,publishedin2volumesin1682and1687and2.FrancisTurretin(1623-1687)inhisInstitutesofElencticTheology,firstpublishedin1679-1685whileteachingattheAcademyofGeneva.ForthetheologicaloutlooksofVanMastrichtsee

13

The similarities between Edwards and Calvin are noteworthy. Both were

industriousstudentswhocensuredtheirschoolmate’spranks,haddifficultrelations

with their fathers, andwere shymen ill suited to small talk. Both also reported

undergoingsuddenconversionsthatreorientedtheirthinkingandtheirentireway

of life.29 Both man suffered continuing conflicts with church and community

leaders,andenduredpublicridicule.Inaddition,boththeologianslovedmusicand

valued its spiritual import.30 While these characteristics likely influenced their

thinkingandfacilitatedtheirprodigiouswritings,themostimportantcharacteristic

inkindisthatbothmenweredeeplydriventoknow,loveandglorifyGodthrough

theinfluenceoftheSpirit.

WhileEdwardsdisclaims,explicitly,arelianceonCalvin, theircovenantalviewsof

redemptivehistory31andtheparticipationofthesaintsinthedivinenaturethrough

theworkoftheSpiritinunionwithChrist,seemmoresimilarthandisparate.32For

Edwards partaking in the divine nature begins and ends with the love of Christ

GoudriaanA.ReformedOrthodoxyandPhilosophy,1625-1750,Brill’sSeriesinChurchHistoryed.W.Janse,volumeXXVI,Brillpublishing,(Leiden,Netherlands)Boston,MA02109,2006,pg.14ffastheworkmentionedremainsoutofpublicationinEnglish.ForTurretinseeInstitutesofElencticTheology,VolumesI-III,translationbyGeorgeMusgraveGiger,EditedbyJamesT.Dennison,Jr.,PresbyterianandReformedPublishing,Phillipsburg,NJ08865,1992.29ForCalvinseeMcNeillJT,TheHistoryandCharacterofCalvinism,OxfordUniversityPress,NewYork,NY,1954,pgs.99,103,107andCalvin:Commentaries,Ed.JosephHaroutunian,WestminsterPress,Philadephia,PA,1958,pg.52;ForEdwardsPersonalNarrativeofconversionseeWJELettersandPersonalWritings,Volume16.30IbidMcNeill,TheHistoryandCharacterofCalvinism,reference29,pg.143.31WhileCalvindidnothavethesamecovenantalcategoriesasEdwardsheappearstohaveacceptedtheReformedunderstandingoftheJewishCovenantandNewCovenantasvariationsofoneanother,sothattheoldcovenantcontainedthegospelunderaveil,andtheJewishandChristianreligionswereessentiallyone.Ibidreference7,McClymondandMcDermott,TheTheologyofJonathanEdwards,pgs.321-338.32‘Bymeansofhim[theSpirit]webecomepartakersofthedivinenature(inDeiparticipationemvenimus),soasinamannertofeelhisquickeningenergywithinus.Ourjustificationishiswork;fromhimispower,sanctification,truth,grace,andeverygoodthought,sinceitisfromtheSpiritalonethatallgoodgiftsproceed.’CalvinJ,InstitutesoftheChristianReligion,Ed.HenryBeveridgeandRobertPitcairn,CalvinTranslationSociety,Edinburgh,1845,1.13.14.WhileCalvinisnottypicallyknownforhisunionemcumChristotheology,J.ToddBillingsrecentlypointsoutthiserrorinBillingsJT,UnionwithChrist:ReframingTheologyandMinistryfortheChurch,BakerAcademic,GrandRapids,MI49516,2011,pgs.26,33,43,64,107,169.

14

shewedintheelectthroughthedivineandsupernaturallightofthethirdpersonof

theGodhead.Thisisnotpartakinginthedivineessence,homoousioswithGod,but

rather, following conversion, progressing ever more in communion with the

eminence of the divine love of the Godhead through the work of the Son

apprehended through the Spirit by faith. For Jonathan Edwards, participation in

truereligionwasexperiencingGodinawaythatreflectsfacetsofthefellowshipof

Father,SonandSpiritintheunityoftheGodhead(pactumsalutis)byincreasingin

theknowledgeofdivinetruth⎯’forman’shappinessconsists inhisunionwithhis

Creator.’33

YetwhileCalvinandEdwards’agreedinconceptonunionwithChristandthebasic

underlying covenantal rendering of redemptive history, John Calvin was quick to

denouncemysticalorallegoricalexegesis. InthewordsofCalvin, ‘allegoriesought

not to go beyond the limits set by the rule of Scripture, let alone suffice as the

foundation for any doctrines.’34 Going further relative to Edwards’ explicit

references, in response to the question of the fourfold sense (quadriga) of

Scriptures, his favorite handbook of Reformed scholastic orthodoxy, Francis

Turretin’sInstitutesofElencticTheology,statedunequivocally,‘Wedenyagainstthe

papists.’35YetwhileTurretinwasofthebeliefthattheBiblehadbutone‘true’sense

intendedbytheSpirit,heacknowledgedthatsometimestherewere‘composites’,as

whenpropheciesandtypescontainedbothnear-termandlong-rangemeaningand

fulfillment.36 The mystical sense to Turretin, especially allegory, ‘when not

proposedthroughthewriters’ofthesacredbooksthemselves,lackedthe‘powerto

prove’doctrine. ‘Itmayberecommended,butcannotpersuade.’ Inregardstothe

33ForexampleseeEdwards’sermons,GodGlorifiedintheWorkofRedemption(1731),ADivineandSupernaturalLight(1734),TheImportanceandAdvantageofaThoroughKnowledgeofDivineTruth(1739)andTheRealityofConversion(1740)⎯’forman’shappinessconsistsinhisunionwithhisCreator.’ForaquickreferencetothesesermonsseeKimnachWH,MinkemaKPandSweeneyDA,TheSermonsofJonathanEdwards:AReader,YaleUniversityPress,NewHaven,CT,1999.34IbidCalvin,Institutes,reference32,2.5.19.35IbidTurretin,Institutes,reference28,1:149-154.36IbidSweeney,EdwardstheExegete,reference10,pg.100.

15

covenantalrelationshipsbetweenGodandman,Turretindeniedit, inthecommon

sense of the term, and yet acknowledges God’s condescension to it with his

creatures.37Thetwo-sided(dipleuron)covenantalrelationshipismutualbecauseit

consists of a mutual obligation of the contracting parties, promise from God and

stipulationfromman.‘ThedoublecovenantisproposedtousinScripture:ofnature

andofgrace;ofworksandoffaith;legalandevangelical.38

Sowhowas‘Mastrict’andhowmighthehaveinfluencedEdwards’thinkingenough

forhimtorefer tohimbyname,sodistinguishingly, in this letter tohis long time

friend and later Edwardsean, Joseph Bellamy? Succinctly, Petrus van Mastricht

(1630-1706) was a Dutch-Reformed theologian who under the influence of

Gisbertus Voetius (1589-1676) and his pastor and later professor Johannes

Hoornbeeck (1617-1666), vigorouslyopposed theCartesianphilosophyofhisday

while simultaneously engaging in the ecumenical treatment of the dissention of

separatists involved in the Federal covenantal theological debates of Voetius and

Cocceius.39 Under the influence of Voetius,Mastricht became enamoredwith the

field of practical theology as he attempted to help pastors become better

preachers.40Essentially,Mastrichtsawtheologyaspractical,butdidnotseetheuse

of scholastic theologicalmethodasantithetical to thepracticaluseof theology for37IbidTurretin,Institutes,reference28,1:574-575.38‘ThefoundationofthisdistinctionrestsbothonthedifferentrelationofGodcontractingandonthediverseconditionofman;alsoonthediversemodeofobtaininglifeandhappiness(eitherbyproperobedienceorbyanother’simputed);finallyonthediversedutiesprescribedtoman(towit,worksorfaith).Forintheformer,GodasCreatordemandsperfectobediencefrominnocentmanwiththepromiseoflifeandeternalhappiness;butinthelatter,GodasFatherpromisessalvationinChristtothefallenmanundertheconditionoffaith.’IbidTurretin,Institutes,reference28,1:574-575.39GisbertusVoetius(1589-1676)unceasinglyopposedJohannesCocceius(1603-1669),theBremen-borntheologianwhoseFederalcovenanttheology,toVoetius,overemphasizedthehistoricalandcontextualcharacterofspecificages.VoetiusbelievedthatCocceius’snewapproachtotheScriptureswouldunderminebothReformeddogmaticsandpractical,experientialChristianity.TheVoetician-CocceiancontroversywrackedtheDutchReformedchurchuntillongafterthedeathofbothmen,splittingtheologicalfacultiesintofactions.SeeWitsiusH,TheEconomyoftheCovenantsBetweenGodandMan,Volume1,(London,1822)ReformationHeritageBooks,GrandRapids,Michigan,49525,2010,pg.8.40ShantzDH,BetweenSardisandPhiladelphia:TheLifeandWorldofPietistCourt,BrillPublishing,Leiden,2008,pg.37.

16

Christianpiety.41Perhaps,inanutshell,thatwasEdwards’attractiontohiswritingsas Edwards first and foremost was a minister of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. In

addition,whileEdwardswascertainlyonetothoughtfullytakesidesforthesakeof

hisReformedbeliefs,heattempted,throughoutthecourseofhislifeandministry,to

build up and bring together Colonial New England and all of Christendom rather

thandivideitthroughrancorandpolemic.42

Inattempting to compareEdward’sFederalismand the influencesof thosewhose

shouldershe stood it is important tomention thatwhileCalvin,Turretin andvan

Mastrichtwroteoftheirtheologicalviewssystematically,Edwardsneverdid.43The

hints that he provides in his writings of how he might have attended to the

challenge, perhaps most formally in his 30 lecture-sermon series from March to

August 1739 on the single text of Isaiah 51:8, later published asA History of the

WorksofRedemption,revealsanapproachtoa‘bodyofdivinity’whichwouldhave

more closely approximated a ‘redemptive-historical’ theology or Biblical theology

thanasystematic.44AccordingtoPerryMiller,whilethegeneralthesisofEdwards’

HistoryofRedemption,wastheunityofhistoryitwasnotfoundationallybasedona41ResterTM,PetrusvanMastricht,TheBestMethodofPreaching,ReformationHeritageBooks,GrandRapids,MI,2013,pgs.8,12.42WhileEdwards’wascommittedtohisbrandofReformedFederalorthodoxy,throughouthislifeheoftenattendedtocontroversyirenicallyinordertounifythechurch.Forexample,seeEdwards’andtheschismofFirstPresbyterianinNewYorkCityfromAugust1722toMarch1723inSweeney,JonathanEdwardsandtheMinistryoftheWord,ibidreference13,pg.42.43WhileEdwardsarticulatedhisintentiontowritemoresystematicallyina‘greatworkwhichIcallAHistoryoftheWorkofRedemption,abodyofdivinityinanentirenewmethod,beingthrownintotheformofanhistory,consideringtheaffairofChristiantheology,asthewholeofit,ineachpart,standsinreferencetothegreatworkofredemptionbyJesusChrist;whichIsupposeistobethegranddesignofallGod’sdesigns,andthesummumandultimumofallthedivineoperationsanddecrees;particularlyconsideringallpartsofthegrandschemeintheirhistoricalorder’(JEtotheTrusteesoftheCollegeofNewJersey,19October1757,inLettersandPersonalWritings,725-730,Volume16,TheWorksofJonathanEdwards)hewasneverabletocompletethisworkpriortohisdeath.Theoutlineofthis‘greatwork’waspublishedposthumously,withthehelpofhissonJonathanEdwards,Jr.,in1772andisreprintedinVolume9ofWJE.AlsoseeibidSweeneyDA,JonathanEdwardsandtheMinistryoftheWord,reference13,pg.87.44HelmP,ADifferentKindofCalvinism?EdwardsianismComparedwithOlderFormsofReformedThought,AfterJonathanEdwards:TheCoursesoftheNewEnglandTheology,Eds.OliverD.CrispandDouglasA.Sweeney,OxfordUniversityPress,NewYork,NY10016,pgs.91-103.AlsoseeWJEAHistoryoftheWorksofRedemption,Volume9.

17

Federal covenantal formula.45 Contra Miller, although Edwards was concerned

about the unity of redemptive history, as he worked out his theology in time

throughspiritualunionwithChristandreason,asnotedinthiswork,hisviewswere

well-conceiveddiscernments,ratherthanmerecompilationsoffacts.Theworkwas

organized so that the reader could trace the stepwise progress of Trinity’s

redemptive plan⎯the covenant of redemption accomplished and applied in

history.46

Edwards’FederalForebears

In addition to these influences from the Reformed scholasticism, Edwards had

others to converse with over the years as he built his Federal theology through

intensedailystudyoftheBibleandboththeologicalandphilosophicalwritingsfrom

theReformation andpost-Reformational era andEnlightenment. Several of these

morecovenantallymindedauthorsandtheirforbearsareworthmentioningaswe

attempttounderstandthefoundationalbasisforEdwards’ethosandmakethecase

fortheimportanceofhisFederaltheology.

The building and synthesizing from Calvin and other sources to the classical

confessionalFederalformoftheology(fromtheLatinfoedusforcovenant)wasfirst

primitively codified in a catechism by Zacharias Ursinus (1534–83) and Caspar

Olevianus (1536-1587) in 1562 and emerged among the Puritans after 1585 into

ReformedFederalCovenantalTheology.47 ThisFederal theologycontrastedapre-

45MillerP,JonathanEdwards,WilliamSloane,NewYork,NY,1949,pg.313.Foryears,PerryMiller’swritingsconfusedscholarsregardingEdwards’FederalTheology,whichhedenied.46EdwardscomparedGod’sprovidenceto‘alargeandlongriver,havinginnumerablebranchesbeginningindifferentregions…atlengthdischargingthemselvesatonemouthintothesameocean.’Yetourlimited,humanperspectivemadeitdifficultforustoperceivetheunityofthewhole,‘Thedifferentstreamsofthisriverarereadytolooklikemerejumbleandconfusiontousbecauseofthelimitednessofoursight.’EdwardsaffirmsthatintheendGod’ssovereignplanwillbeactuatedas,‘notoneofallthestreamsfailofcominghitheratlast.’WJEAHistoryoftheWorkofRedemption9:520.AlsoseeMcClymondMJandMcDermottGR,TheologyofJE,ibidreference7,pg.166.47ForasuccinctreviewofthehistoryofFederalCovenantalTheologyseeClarkRS,ChristandCovenant:FederalTheologyinOrthodoxyinHermanSelderhuis,ed.,CompaniontoReformedOrthodoxy,BrillPublishing,(Leiden,Netherlands)Boston,MA02109,2013.

18

lapsarian covenant of works to a post-lapsarian covenant of grace, as previously

mentioned. Some recently have suggested that Calvinist authors introduced the

covenantofworks toexplainGod’sdecreeswhere reprobationwasapunishment

for its violation, while historically Heinrich Heppe suggested in 1861 that

covenantal theology in general was an attempt to soften the harshness of high

Calvinism. Theodore Beza (1519-1605) was an influential supralapsarian who

taught thatGoddecidedwhowouldbesavedanddamnedbeforeconsiderationof

theFall. Heppeandotherspostulatedthat,forlaterCalvinists,thecovenantswere

waysofviewingGodaslessarbitrary.48Edwardsmayhavebeensensitivetobothof

theseconcernsashisinfralapsarianviewsofpredestinationsuggest.49

This Christocentric schema was a hallmark of the Calvinist tradition. First

formulatedinHeidelbergandcodifiedforPuritansintheWestminsterConfessionof

Faith itwastaughtbyWilliamAmesandalmostallofEdwards’authorities.50 But

while these that planted the seeds of what became Federal covenant theology

certainly influenced Edwards at some level, perhaps his most important

conversation partner relative to Federal theology was the Utrecht professor and

contemporaryofVanMastricht,HermanWits[LatinizedasWitsius](1636-1708).51

48WeirDA,TheOriginsofFederalTheologyinSixteenth-CenturyReformationThought,ClarendonPress,Oxford,1990,pgs1-50andHeppeH,DogmatikdesdeutschenProtestantismusimsechzehntenJahrhundert,I,F.A.Perthes,Gotha,1857,pg.152,citedinWeir,pg.47.49Edwards’taughtaninfralapsarianformofFederalTheology.‘HenceGod’sdecreeoftheeternaldamnationofthereprobateisnottobeconceivedofaspriortothefall,yea,andtotheverybeingofthepersons,asthedecreeoftheeternalgloryoftheelectis…Andthemaxim,thatwhatisfirstinintention,islastinexecution,doesnotintheleastconcernthismatter’.EdwardswiththesestatementswasclearlyagainstthesupralapsarianpositionsofWilliamTwisse,prolocutoroftheWestminsterAssembly,andthedivinesinitsvocalminority.SeeConcerningtheDivineDecreesinMiscellanies#704WJEMiscellanies501-832,18:315-321andEdwards’sermonsonGenesis3:11(February1739),Box1,F.2,andGenesis3:24,Box1,F.3atBeineckeRareBooksandManuscriptLibrary,YaleUniversity,NewHaven,CT.50Sweeney,EdwardstheExegete,reference9,pg.56.51MostoftheReformedauthorsinEdwards’bookworld,aswehaveseen,hailedfromthetransatlanticAnglo-Puritantradition.ThenotableexceptionswereContinentalProtestantscholasticssuchasvanMastrichtandTurretin,alreadymentioned,andtheFederalTheologian,Leidenprofessor,HermannWitsius,listedninetimesinthe“Catalogue”.Forcomparison,theGenevaprofessorFrançoisTurrettini,waslistedthreetimes,andtheUtrechtprofessorPetrusvanMastricht,waslistedonlyfourtimesinthe“AccountBook”WJECataloguesofBooks,26:47.ForEdwards’

19

Thesimilarities intheir theologicalmatricesand irenic,yetresolved,constitutions

arenoteworthy.

Herman Witsius, born February 12, 1636 to God-fearing parents who dedicated

theirchildtotheLordbeforehewasborn,wasanavidlearnerbeginninghisLatin

studies at age five. He tookup theological studies atUtrecht at age15and could

read Greek and Hebrew shortly there after, memorizing numerous Scriptures in

their original language.52 Ultimately, much like his contemporary Petrus van

Mastricht, he studied Reformed scholastics under Gisbertus Voetius (1589-1676),

from whom he learned to wed precise orthodoxy to Spirit driven, experiential

piety.53 He participated in the Dutch Further Reformation in which the church

strovefortheinnerexperienceofReformeddoctrineandpersonalsanctification.54

Thismovementwas heavily influenced by and paralleled English Puritanism. He

beganthepastorateinJuly1657andcontinuedinitthroughdifficultcircumstances

for 18 years until taking the position of professor of theology from Franeker to

Utrecht andultimately to Leidenuntil 1707. LikeEdwards,Witsius, a generation

before,wasamanthatwasknownforhisfaithfulministryinthemidstofcrisis.Ina

moreacademicsense,againlikeEdwards,healsoinsistedthatthetruetheologian

mustknowhissubjectnotonlyscholastically,butalsoexperientially. Inaddition,

andperhapsmostimportantly,Witsius,likevanMastricht,evenhandedlymitigated

the challenges the Dutch Reformed church was facing in the Voetian-Cocceian

Federal theology polemic, previously mentioned.55 Witsius’ concern about this

controversymovedhim topublishhismost importantwork,TheOeconomyof the

interestinHermanWitsiusseeWJECataloguesofBooks,26:227,291-92,307,312-313,316-317,472andSweeney,EdwardstheExegete,ibidreference10,pgs.139-140andfootnotepg.333.52WitsiusH,TheEconomyoftheCovenantsBetweenGodandMan,Volume1,(London,1822)ReformationHeritageBooks,GrandRapids,Michigan,49525,2010,pg.3.53BeekeJR,GisbertusVoetius:TowardaReformedMarriageofKnowledgeandPiety,ReformationHeritageBooks,GrandRapids,MI,1999.54BeekeJR,TheQuestforFullAssurance:TheLegacyofCalvinandHisSuccessors,BannerofTruthTrust,Edinburgh,1999,pgs286-309.55McCoyC,TheCovenantTheologyofJohannesCocceius(PhDdiss.,YaleUniversity,1957)andMcCoyC,JohannesCocceius:FederalTheologian,ScottishJournalofTheology,1963,16:352-370.

20

Covenants between God and Man, Comprehending a Complete Body of Divinity, in

1677(firstprinted inEnglish in1736). In thiswriting,Witsiusgoverned through

the foundation of covenant, using Cocceian methods, while maintaining his old

mentor Voetius’ systematic theological concerns, attempting to promote peace

amongsttheDutchReformed.56ForWitsius,althoughreasonisacriticalfaculty,it

is not an autonomous judge, but a servant of faith. Like Edwards, Witsius

understandingofwhoGodisaffectedhisunderstandingofhowweknowwhatwe

know and that the Scripture is the final standard of truth rather than reason.57

AccordingtoWitsius,FederalcovenantaltheologyisthebestwaytoreadScripture

and understand God and His relationship to us. It is the only successful

hermeneutic, uniting all the law and gospel, precept and grace. The Covenants

between God and man are essentially monopleuric in initiation but dipleuric in

administration. Sowhile the covenant of works and grace are between God and

man, they initiate in the monopleuric pactum salutis—covenant of redemption

between theGodhead. ‘The covenant of grace is not the abolition, but rather the

confirmationofthecovenantofworks,inasmuchastheMediatorhasfulfilledallthe

conditions of that covenant, so that all believers may be justified and saved

according to the covenant of works, to which satisfaction was made by the

Mediator.’58 The agreement between God and the Mediator makes possible the

covenantofgracebetweenGodandHiselect.Thecovenantofgrace‘presupposes’

the covenant of redemption from eternity and ‘is founded upon it.’59 Effectual

callingisthefirstfruitofelection,whichinturnworksregenerationwiththeSpirit.

ForWitsius,regeneration is the infusionofnewlife inthespirituallydeadperson.

The ‘preparations’ to regeneration, such as the breaking of the will, serious

consideration of the law and conviction of sin, fear of hell and despairing of

salvation, all concerns of the Puritanical ordo salutis, are fruits of regeneration

56IbidWitsiusH,TheEconomyoftheCovenants,reference52,Introduction,pg.1-26.57IbidWitsiusH,TheEconomyoftheCovenants,reference52,pg.10.58IbidWitsiusH,TheEconomyoftheCovenants,reference52,1.11.23.59IbidWitsiusH,TheEconomyoftheCovenants,reference52,2.2.1.

21

ratherthanpreparationswhentheSpiritusesthemtoleadsinnerstoChrist.60This

truthwasconstitutivetoman,sincethefall,andwasandistheonlyandpervasive

meansofsalvationofthesaintsthroughoutredemptivehistory.ForWitsiusinthe

covenantof grace,or theworkingout in timeof the covenantof redemption,God

gives everything to His elect—eternal life and all themeans to it including faith,

repentance,sanctificationandperseverancetoit.

OnecouldhaveonlyhopedthatEdwardswouldhavelivedtofinishhispreviously

proposed‘bodyofdivinity’toknowhowpreciselyMastrichtandWitsiusmighthave

morefullyinformedit.

JonathanEdwards:theFederalist

Edwards inherited this classicalFederalism fromhisPuritanandDutchReformed

forebears,somenamelynoted,accepteditinprincipal,anduseditextensively,but

was not satisfied with its original forms.61 For Edwards, the Reformed

understanding of the covenant of redemption, works and grace undergirded his

entiretheologyandyet inhiswritingshewaswillingtobe innovativeandboldas

hisexperientialreligiongrewandhisunderstandingdeveloped.62Butthistheology

appears to have developed over time as he grew in the knowledge of God and in

unionwithChrist.JonathanEdwardsalwaysprovedhimself tobeaFederal theologian,whichbyhis

daymeantthathedividedBiblicalteachingwithrespecttosinandredemptioninto

60IbidWitsiusH,TheEconomyoftheCovenants,reference52,3.6.11-15.ForEdwards’personalearlylifestruggleswithlivinguptohisfather,TimothyEdwards’,Puritanbeliefsofconversion(1.Awakening;2.Humiliation;3.Regeneration)seeMarsdenGM,JonathanEdwards:ALife,YaleUniversityPress,NewHaven,CT,2003,pgs.25-43.61IbidMcClymondandMcDermott,TheTheologyofJonathanEdwards,reference7,pgs.321-338.62ThroughoutAHistoryoftheWorksofRedemptiontheword‘covenant’occurs147times(CovenantofRedemption6times;CovenantofWorks6timesandCovenantofGrace52times),personalwordsearchfromWJEAHistoryoftheWorksofRedemption,Volume9.Edwards’notes,relativetohisproposalofturningthisseriesintoa‘greatbodyofdivinity,’areinthebookfolders1212-1214,box16intheJonathanEdwardsCollection,BeineckeRareBookandManuscriptLibrary,YaleUniversity,NewHaven,CT06511.

22

one eternal covenant made among the divine persons and then two historical

covenantsgivenbyGodtohumanbeingsasthebasisofsalvation.63Hetaughtthat

Father,Son,andSpirithadagreedfromalleternitytoprovideawayofsalvationfor

humanityaftertheFall—thecovenantofredemption.‘Andthecounselofpeaceshall

be between them both…The giving an account of this consultation or agreement

betweenGodandChristnaturally followswhatwasbeforesaid,viz. that thisman

shouldbeartheglory.’64‘AsmyFatherhathappointeduntome…Heshallrulethem

witharodofiron,evenasIreceivedofmyFather,implyingthatthesameprivilege

or benefit bestowed by Christ on His disciples as is bestowed by the Father on

Him.’65 ForEdwardstheordosalutisofpredestinationstartedwiththeGodhead’s

decree toglorifyHimselfadextra by repeatingor communicating thegloryofHis

inner-Trinitarian life by glorifying the elect as considered in general and not yet

createdvis-à-visthecovenantofredemption. HesaidthatAdamwasonprobation

whilehelivedintheGardenofEden:ifhekeptGod’slaw,heandhisprogenywould

havelivedforever,walkingwiththeLord—thecovenantofworks. Butheaffirmed

thateversincetheFall,sinnershadbutonewayofjustificationwithGod:byfaithin

theworkofChrist,the‘secondAdam’whoovercamethepowerofsinanddeathfor

thosetheFathergaveHim—thecovenantofgrace.66Importantly, for Jonathan Edwards the covenant of gracewasmadewith all true

believers throughout redemptive history no matter where in the history of

redemptiontheyresided,orwhattheymayhaveknownaboutthepersonandwork

of Christ. This Federal view of special revelation fueled a hermeneutic in which

many important doctrines couldbe found throughout the canon, even in contexts

63IbidSweeney,EdwardstheExegete,reference10,pg.56.64WJEBlankBible,(Zechariah6:13),24:813.65WJEBlankBible,(Luke22:29),24:918.Edwards,likeWitsiusandCocceiusbefore,foundsupportforthepactumsalutis,inanumberofOldandNewTestamenttexts(Zechariah6:13;Psalm2:8;22:3;40:7-9;45:8;80:17;Isaiah4:2;49:4-6;53:10-12;Ephesians1:3-14;Luke22:29;John17:20-26;Galatians3:17;Hebrews7:22-28;1Peter1:20).FormoreontheBiblicaloriginofthepactumsalutisseeMullerRA,TowardthePactumSalutis:LocatingtheOriginsofaConcept,Mid-AmericaJournalofTheology,2007,18:23-25.66WJEBlankBible,(Romans5:12-21),24:998-1000.

23

whoseinhabitantscouldnothaveunderstoodthem.67Edwardstaughtthisschema

from the onset of his ministry. He believed that the covenant of redemption

(pactumsalutis)isaccomplishedandappliedinhistory,notrelatively,asmanwould

conceive of it, but completely through the work of Christ apprehended by grace

through faith, in all the elect, regardless of temporal dispensation.68 Early in his

servicetothepeopleofNorthampton(1729),hesaid,‘theCovenantofGraceisthat

CovenantwhichG[od]hasRevealedtomansincehefailedoflifebytheCovenantof

works, Promising Justification & Eternal life to all that believe in J[esus Christ].’

Later, in1738,hepreached that ‘Godwas so satisfied’withChrist’s atoningwork

‘thaton theaccountof ithe Justified [and]savedsinnersmanyagesbefore itwas

offered.’Heredeemedthemforesightedly‘fromthebeginningoftheGenerationsof

menupontheEarth[,]whichwasabout4000yearsbeforethissacrificewasoffered.’

ForEdwardsevenbefore the Incarnation,during theOldTestamentdispensation,

the saintswere saved by grace because of the promise of the Saviorwhowas to

come.69 ThereligionofthechurchofIsraelwasessentiallythesamereligionwith

thatoftheChristianchurchasclearlynotedinthebookofHebrews.70Preachingon

67Sweeney,EdwardstheExegete,reference10,pg.56.68Edwardstaughtthatallsaints,fromAdamtothepresent-daybeliever,aresavedinthesameway,throughthecovenantofgrace.HedrawsadistinctionbetweentheNewTestamentversionofthiscovenant,becauseitattained‘superiorexcellency’becauseoftheworkofChrist,foretoldinGenesis3:15andlaterOldTestamentprophecies.Beforetheincarnation,saintssufferedlimitations,forthe‘fullnessoftimewasnotcome;thecanonofScripturewasthensofarfrombeingcomplete,thatthemostclearandgloriousrevelationthatGodintendedwasyetwanting.’ExplainingPentecost,Edwards’preachedthat‘inChrist’stime,theChristianchurchwas….initsinfancy,’remainingimmatureuntiltheLordreturnedtoheaven,pouredoutHisSpirit,ingreaterfullness,andsupervisedtheclosingofthecanon.’ForJonathanEdwardsspiritualhistorywasprogressive;italwayswouldbe.SeeEdwardssermononHebrews12:22-24,L.6r.-v,BeineckeRareBookandManuscriptLibrary,YaleUniversity,NewHaven,CTandibidSweeney,EdwardstheExegete,reference10,pg.61.69‘Myrighteousnessshallbeforever,andmysalvationfromgenerationtogeneration….thesumandsubstanceofboththeOldTestamentandNewisChristandhisredemption’,WJEAHistoryoftheWorkofRedemption,9:443.70ThebookofHebrews,perhapsEdwardsfavoritebookoftheBible,washisgreatestprooftextforintegratingtheOldandNewTestaments.Hereferredtoitfrequently,wrotenumerouspagesinhisnotebooksregardingitandpreachedalargenumberofsermonsfromitfromtheoutsetofhispastoralministryinthe1720stotheendofhislifein1758.ToJonathanEdwards,HebrewswasthefulcrumofthewholeChristiancanon.IbidSweeney,EdwardstheExegete,reference10,pg.78-79.

24

Hebrews 9:15-16 he stated the Old and New Testaments ‘are only the same

CovenantofGraceinitsold[and]newdispensation.’71Edwardsbelievedtherehad

beenprogressintheknowledgeoftheGospelovertime.TheOldTestamentsaints

sawtheirSaviorthroughaveil. ButtheMessiahandHisgospelhadbeentypified,

prophesied, and indicated constantly for centuries before the Incarnation—

Edwards’spiritual,canonicalexegesis.72Inthisway,Edwardsprovedhimselftobe

athoroughgoingChristocentricFederaltheologian,acknowledgingJesusasthesum

andsubstanceofallofredemptivehistory.

In1737,hecomplainedthattherelationofperseverancetothecovenants‘hasnot

beensufficientlysetforth’andoftenexpressedhisconfidencethatGodwouldgive

thechurchmorelightonimportantdoctrinalissuessuchasthecovenants.73Thus,

it is not surprising that Edwards both embraced and embodied the Federal

Reformed ethos but expanded and revised it relative to his personal context in

redemptive history, in Puritan colonial New England, and his own experiential

religion.74 According to McClymond and McDermott, while Edwards embraced

71Whilethereisnotspaceforthisproject’spurposes,togofurtherinthisregard,Edwardsexploredandunpackedhispositionsfurtherinhis‘Controversies’notebookunderthequestions,‘WhereinDotheTwoCovenantsAgreeastotheMethodofJustification,andtheAppointedQualificationforIt?’,WJEWritingsontheTrinity,Grace,andFaith,21:354-368and‘InWhatSenseDidtheSaintsundertheOldTestamentBelieveinChristtoJustification?’,WJE21:372-408.AlsoseeWJEMiscellanies(No.1153-1360),#1354,23:506-543andSweeney,EdwardstheExegete,reference10,pg.209.ForEdwardssermononHebrews9:15-16(June4,1740;January1753),Box11,F.824,L.1r.,BeineckeRareBooksandManuscriptLibraryatYaleUniversity.72WJEAHistoryoftheWorkofRedemption,9:290,366.73WJEMiscellanies(No.501-832)18:353cf.Edward’sexplicitexpectationof‘morelight’fromGodinaprefacetoJosephBellamy’sTrueReligionDelineated,‘WecannotsupposethattheChurchofGodisalreadypossessedofallthatlight…thateverGodintendstogiveit;northatallSatan’slurkingplaceshavealreadybeenfoundout’,WJETheGreatAwakening4:570.74TheReformedtelosorworldviewofEdwards’emphasized:1.God’ssovereigntyanddivineinitiative(cf.‘GodGlorifiedintheWorkofRedemption’,1731);2.ConcernforthegloryofGodaboveallthings(cf.‘TheDissertationConcerningtheEndforWhichGodCreatedtheWorld’,WJEEthicalWritings,8:403-536);3.GodworksoutHiswillinhistory(cf.WJEAHistoryoftheWorkofRedemption,Volume9);4.DevotiontoalifeofholinesswiththeLawasone’sguide(cf.EdwardssermoncorpusandWJEReligiousAffections,Volume2);5.Usingone’smindinservicetoandloveofGod(cf.WJEFreeoftheWill,Volume1,WJEOriginalSin,Volume3,WJEScientificandPhilosophicalWritings,Volume6andWJEEthicalWritings,Volume8,etc.);6.PreachingtheWordofGodplainly(cf.Edwards1200sermonmanuscriptsandWilliamPerkins,TheArtofProphesying,ChapterXinthe

25

Puritan Federal covenant theology and its variety of covenants—those of

redemption,works, grace and even expanded them to include the church and the

national covenant, he revised Federal theory and adjusted its analysis of

perseveranceinordertoresistthegrowingArminianself-confidences.Laterinhis

career, he made further alterations aimed at resisting antinomian laxity, and yet

throughallthoseadjustments,EdwardsremainedfoundationallyaFederalist.

Tothesepoints,Edwards’covenantalbeliefsdevelopedoverthecourseofhiscareer

as noted in several Miscellanies entries beginning in 1723. Edwards became

concerned in his context that when theologians distinguish the covenant of

redemptionfromthecovenantofgrace,itlaysafoundationforArminianism.75For

thecovenantofgrace,inthismodel,accordingtoEdwards,functionsasacovenant

betweenGod and humanity,when in reality ‘God nevermade but one [covenant]

withman,towit,thecovenantofworks’,whereinGodpromisedsalvationtoAdam

as humanities ‘federal’ representative on the condition of his perfect obedience.

WhenGodoffersgracetomankind,itiscustomarytospeakoffaithasacondition.

But this ‘tends tomakeus apt todependonourown righteousness.’ Theproper

alternative,forEdwards’wastorealizethat‘therehaveneverbeentwocovenants,

in strictness of speech, but only twoways constituted of performing of this [one]

covenant[thecovenantofworks).’ Thus, theonlyothertruecovenantenactedby

Godwas the covenant of redemption,whichwas theTrinity’s plan for the Son to

fulfill the condition of the covenant of works for the sake of the elect, Christ’s

mysticalbody.ForJonathanEdwardsanytalkof‘conditions’fulfilledbybelieversis

non-Biblical and encourages Arminian anthropocentricism in presumptions of

moralworthinessandself-determination.Faithfortheelectisnottheconditionfor

WorksofWilliamPerkins,1572;1607);7.Adisciplinedlife(cf.Edwards’Resolutions,1722,WJELettersandPersonalWritings,16:753-758).AlsoseeLeithJH,AnIntroductiontotheReformedTradition:AWayofBeingtheChristianCommunity,WestminsterJohnKnoxPress,Louisville,KY40202,pgs.67-83.75McClymondandMcDermott,TheTheologyofJonathanEdwards,ibidreference7,pg.324-325.

26

receivingtheoffer,‘foritisthereceivingitself’.76

In1733,Edwardsbecomesabit lessconcernedwithArminianself-confidenceand

more concerned with antinomian laxity and the purity of the Church. He now

appearswillingtoacknowledgethecovenantaldistinctionsbetweenthecovenantof

works and ‘the covenant between Christ and us as being one of the parties

contracting’. For the believermust, ‘first closewith Christ and persevere in faith

andholiness.’ClosingwithChristandperseveranceofthesaintinunionwithHim,

whilebothgiftsfromChristthatmanifestinthebelieversparticipationinhim,are

nonethelesshumanconditions.77

Bythe1740s,Edwardshaddistinguishedfourdifferentcovenantshavingtodowith

salvation—the covenant of redemption, the covenant of works, the covenant of

grace and themarriage covenant between Christ and believers. He affirmed the

Biblicality of the covenant of grace suggesting that while it was a somewhat

differentexpressionfromthecovenantofredemptionitwasnotmutuallyexclusive

ofordistinctfromit,sincethepromisesofthelatter‘wereproperlymadetoChrist

mystical…to Christ as a public person, as virtually containing the whole future

church thathehad takenas itwere intohimself,having taken theirnamesonhis

heart,andhavingundertakentostandasrepresentingthemall.’ Edwardsappears

tohavetheunionofthesaintstoChristinmind. Fromhere,henevervariedfrom

his insistence that all the covenants were ‘expressions’ of the pactum salutis, for

Christ‘neverdoesanything,moreorless,thaniscontainedinthateternalcovenant

[ofredemption].’78

76‘GodGlorifiedintheWorkofRedemption,bytheGreatnessofMan’sDependenceuponHim,intheWholeofit’,ibidreference2,WJESermonsandDiscourses,1730-1733,17:197-214.77WJEMiscellanies(No.501-832)18:149-151.78WJEMiscellanies(No.833-1152)20:167,445,475.

27

Federalism:Hopeinapost-ChristianWorld

ForJonathanEdwards,theemanationoftheGodhead’sintra-Trinitariangloryinthe

creation and redemption of sinful mankind are the great subjects of Holy

Scripture.79 Throughout his writings he articulates that God’s glory and man’s

happinessaremutuallyinclusiveratherthanantitheticallyapart.Topartakeinreal

religion, and be supremely happified, man must come to a Spirit illumined

apprehensionofthecovenantalrelationshipsbetweenGodandmanthatpervades

theBibleandteachestheGospelofgraceandtruth—JesusChrist.

While fewwoulddeny that theNewTestamentauthorshad Jesus inmindas they

wrote of His life, death and resurrection and the propositions He supposes to

depravedman,manythroughouttheageshavestruggledtoseetheuniformityand

cohesionofGod’sredemptiverevelationasawhole. YetJesustellsus, ‘Yousearch

theScripturesbecauseyou think that in themyouhaveeternal life; and it is they

thatbearwitnessaboutme,yetyourefusetocometomethatyoumayhavelife.’80

‘OFoolishones,andslowofhearttobelieveallthattheprophetshavespoken.Was

itnotnecessarythattheChristshouldsufferthesethingsandenterintohisglory?

AndbeginningwithMoses and all the Prophets, he interpreted to them in all the

Scriptures the things concerninghimself.’81 He is the sumand substanceof all of

redemptive history. From the promise of Jesus’ sacrificial life to come in the

protoevangeliumtoHispersonaltrothtoreturnsoontoconsummateallthings,the

Spiritfilledreaderisilluminedtotheinter-Trinitarianloveexpressedincovenantin

creationitselfandtherestorationofsinfulman’srightrelationshipwithaHolyand79‘ItappearsthatallthatiseverspokenofintheScriptureasanultimateendofGod’sworksisincludedinthatonephrase,thegloryofGod…Inthecreature’sknowing,esteeming,lovingandrejoicingin,andpraisingGod,thegloryofGodisbothexhibitedandacknowledged;hisfullnessisreceivedandreturned.Hereisbothanemanationandremanation…ThebeamsofglorycomefromGod,aresomethingofGod,andarerefundedbackagaintotheiroriginal.’PiperJ,God’sPassionforHisGlory:LivingtheVisionofJonathanEdwardswiththeCompleteTextofTheEndforWhichGodCreatedtheWorld,Crossway,Wheaton,Il,1998,pg.92.80John5:39-40ESV81Luke24:25-27ESV

28

justGod.82

WhiletheimportanceofapprehendingallofredemptivehistoryinaGodglorifying,

Christocentric way seems self evident and is taught, to some degree, in other

theological systems, Jonathan Edwards’ brand of Calvinism with its foundational

Federal covenantal frameworkmakes the gloryofGodand the exaltationof Jesus

explicit as noted in his writings, both extant and proposed. Federal theology

mattersbecauseitrightlyandcoherentlyrendersallofredemptivehistorythrough

thelensoftheGospel.ItmakestheentireBiblethelocusclassicusfortheexposition

of the loveof theFather,expressed intheSon,poredoutthroughtheSpirit inthe

redemption of mankind. It matters because it correctly affirms the eternal and

unchangeablesystematiccharacteristicsanddivinityofourlovingGodheadandthe

anthropocentric infirmities of sinful man. Succinctly, Federalism correctly

synthesizes and formulates God’s purposes in creation, fall, redemption and

consummation.

As for today, in our current post-modern, even post-Christian context, Federal

covenant theology can and has rendered revival as the presuppositions of the

biblical writers themselves have the power through the Spirit to regrind the

presuppositional lenses of the contemporary student of Scripture.83 For it is an

absolute sort of certainty that the divine authorial intent of revelation as

communicated through human authors be accessible to contemporary readers or

GodisnotGodandweasChristiansarethemosttobepitied.ButGod’swordshall

notreturntoHimempty,itshallaccomplishthatwhichHehaspurposedanditshall

82FollowingtheFallofAdamandEveinthegarden,‘TheLordGodsaidtotheserpent…Iwillputenmitybetweentheeandthewoman,andbetweenthyseedandherseed;heshallbruiseyourhead,andyoushallbruisehisheel’(Genesis3:14-15cf.Galatians3:16inWJEBlankBible24:137-138forEdwards’positionofChristasher[Eve’s—Life’s]seed.AlsoseeJesus’remarksatthecloseoftheCanoninRevelation22:16-21.83BealeGK,ANewTestamentBiblicalTheology:TheUnfoldingoftheOldTestamentintheNew,BakerAcademic,GrandRapids,MI49516,2011,pgs.1-25.

29

succeed in the thing for which it was sent.84 Since the seminal work of John H.

Gerstner in 1959 the resurgence of interest in the Calvinistic theology and

Federalism of Jonathan Edwards has been profound.85 Indeed, there are ‘young,

restless,andReformed’inpost-modernityasGodworksoutinhistorythecovenant

ofredemptionandthelovetheGodheadintheconsummationofHiscreation.

84Isaiah55:11paraphrasedfromESV.85HartDG,BeforetheYoung,Restless,andReformed:Edward’sAppealtoPost-WorldWarIIEvangelicalsinAfterJonathanEdwards:TheCoursesoftheNewEnglandTheology,Eds.OliverD.CrispandDouglasA.Sweeney,OxfordUniversityPress,NewYork,NY10016,pgs.237-253.

30

ReferencesSited:

AmesW,TheMarrowofTheology,Trans.JohnD.Eusden,PilgrimPress,Philadelphia, PA,1968,pg.188.AquinasT,SummaTheologiae,1485,ChristianClassics:ParacletePress,Brewster, MA02631,1981,Ia.1.10.AugustineA,DeDoctrinaChristiana,c.397,Ed.andTrans.GreenRPH,OxfordEarly ChristianTexts,Clarendon,Oxford,1995,pgs.169-171.BealeGK,ANewTestamentBiblicalTheology:TheUnfoldingoftheOldTestamentin theNew,BakerAcademic,GrandRapids,MI49516,2011,pgs.1-25.BeekeJR,GisbertusVoetius:TowardaReformedMarriageofKnowledgeandPiety, ReformationHeritageBooks,GrandRapids,MI,1999.

— TheQuestforFullAssurance:TheLegacyofCalvinandHisSuccessors,Banner ofTruthTrust,Edinburgh,1999,pgs286-309.BillingsJT,UnionwithChrist:ReframingTheologyandMinistryfortheChurch,Baker Academic,GrandRapids,MI49516,2011,pgs.26,33,43,64,107,169.CalvinJ,InstitutesoftheChristianReligion,Ed.HenryBeveridgeandRobertPitcairn, CalvinTranslationSociety,Edinburgh,1845,1.13.14;2.5.19.ClarkRS,RecoveringtheReformedConfession:OurTheology,Piety,andPractice, PresbyterianandReformedPublishing,Phillipsburg,NJ08865,2008,pgs. 197–207.

— ChristandCovenant:FederalTheologyinOrthodoxyinHermanSelderhuis, ed.,CompaniontoReformedOrthodoxy,BrillPublishing,(Leiden, Netherlands),Boston,MA02109,2013.Edwards J, TheWorks of Jonathan Edwards,WJE from here,Freedom of theWill, Jonathan Edwards Center at Yale University Press, New Haven, CT 06511, 1:129-133.

— ‘GodGlorifiedintheWorkofRedemption,bytheGreatnessofMan’s DependenceuponHim,intheWholeofit’,WJESermonsandDiscourses,1730- 1733,17:197-214.

— CharityanditsFruits:LivingIntheLightofGod’sLove,Ed.KyleStrobel, Crossway,Wheaton,IL60187,2012,pg.25,177-180.

— WJEMiscellanies(a-z;aa-zz;1-500),13:340.

31

— ‘TheImportanceandAdvantageofaThoroughKnowledgeofDivineTruth’, WJESermonsandDiscourses,1739-1742,22:80-102.

— WJEAHistoryoftheWorkofRedemption9:122,290-291,366,493,519-520.

— WJELettersandPersonalWritings,16:355,753-758.

— WJEReligiousAffections,2:278.

— WJELettersandPersonalWritings,16:211,223.

— WJEMiscellanies501-832,18:149-151,315-321,353.

— WJECataloguesofBooks,26:47,227,291-92,307,312-313,316-317,472.

— WJEBlank Bible, (Zechariah 6:13), 24:813; (Luke 22:29), 24:918; (Romans 5:12-21),24:998-1000.— WJEWritingsontheTrinity,Grace,andFaith,21:354-368;372-408.— WJEMiscellanies(No.1153-1360),23:506-543.— WJETheGreatAwakening4:570.

— WJEEthicalWritings,8:403-536.— WJEScientificandPhilosophicalWritings,Volume6.

— WJEOriginalSin,Volume3.

— WJEMiscellanies(No.833-1152)20:167,445,467,475.FreiH,TheEclipseofBiblicalNarrative:AStudyinEighteenthandNineteenth CenturyHermeneutics,YaleUniversityPress,NewHaven,CT,1974.GoudriaanA,ReformedOrthodoxyandPhilosophy,1625-1750,Brill’sSeriesin ChurchHistoryed.W.Janse,volumeXXVI,Brillpublishing,(Leiden, Netherlands)Boston,MA02109,2006,pg.14ff.HartDG,BeforetheYoung,Restless,andReformed:Edward’sAppealtoPost-World WarIIEvangelicalsinAfterJonathanEdwards:TheCoursesoftheNew EnglandTheology,Eds.OliverD.CrispandDouglasA.Sweeney,Oxford UniversityPress,NewYork,NY10016,pgs.237-253HelmP,ADifferentKindofCalvinism?EdwardsianismComparedwithOlderForms ofReformedThoughtinAfterJonathanEdwards:TheCoursesoftheNew EnglandTheology,Eds.OliverD.CrispandDouglasA.Sweeney,Oxford UniversityPress,NewYork,NY10016,2012,pgs.91-103.

32

HeppeH,DogmatikdesdeutschenProtestantismusimsechzehntenJahrhundert,I,F.A. Perthes,Gotha,1857,pg.152.KimnachWH,MinkemaKPandSweeneyDA.TheSermonsofJonathanEdwards:A Reader,YaleUniversityPress,NewHaven,CT,1999.LeithJH,AnIntroductiontotheReformedTradition:AWayofBeingtheChristian Community,WestminsterJohnKnoxPress,Louisville,KY40202,pgs.67-83.LesserMX,ReadingJonathanEdwards:AnAnnotatedBibliographyinThreeParts, 1729-2005,Eerdmans,GrandRapids,MI49505,2008,IndexofSubjects,pg. 677.LutherM,LecturesonGalatians;Luther’sWorks,Volume27,Eds.PelikanJand HansenHA.,Concordia,St.Louis,MO,1964,pg.311.MarsdenGM,JonathanEdwards:ALife,YaleUniversityPress,NewHaven,CT06511, 2003, pgs.25-43.McClymond MJ and McDermott GR, The Theology of Jonathan Edwards, Oxford UniversityPress,NewYork,NY10016,2012,pgs.166,172-180,321-338.McCoy C,The Covenant Theology of Johannes Cocceius (PhD diss., Yale University, 1957).

— JohannesCocceius:FederalTheologian,ScottishJournalofTheology,1963,16: 352-370.McNeill JT, The History and Character of Calvinism, Oxford University Press, New York, NY, 1954, pgs. 99,103,107 and Calvin: Commentaries, Ed. Joseph Haroutunian,WestminsterPress,Philadelphia,PA,1958,pg.52,143.MillerP,JonathanEdwards,WilliamSloane,NewYork,NY,1949,pg.313.Muller RA and Thompson JL, ‘The Significance of Precritical Exegesis: Retrospect and Prospect,’ in Biblical Interpretation in the Era of the Reformation, EerdmansPublishing,GrandRapids,MI49505,1996,pg.345.

— TowardthePactumSalutis:LocatingtheOriginsofaConcept,Mid-America JournalofTheology,2007,18:23-25.Origen,OnFirstPrinciples,c.230,4.2.4,pg.9.

33

PiperJ,God’sPassionforHisGlory:LivingtheVisionofJonathanEdwardswiththe CompleteTextofTheEndforWhichGodCreatedtheWorld,Crossway, Wheaton,Il60187,1998,pg.92.ResterTM,PetrusvanMastricht,TheBestMethodofPreaching,Reformation HeritageBooks,GrandRapids,MI,2013,pgs.8,12.SandeenER,TheRootsofFundamentalism:BritishandAmericanMillenarianism 1800-1930,UniversityofChicagoPress,Chicago,IL,1970,pg.65-67.ShantzDH,BetweenSardisandPhiladelphia:TheLifeandWorldofPietistCourt, BrillPublishing,Leiden,2008,pg.37.SteinS,TheSpiritandtheWord:JonathanEdwardsandScripturalExegesis,’in JonathanEdwardsandtheAmericanExperience,Eds.NathanO.Hatchand HarryS.Stout,OxfordUniversityPress,NewYork,NY,1988,pg.106-108.Stein-MetzDC,‘TheSuperiorityofPre-CriticalExegesis,’TheologyToday,1980, 37:27-38.Sweeney DA, Edwards the Exegete: Biblical Interpretation and Anglo-Protestant CultureontheEdgeoftheEnlightenment,OxfordUniversityPress,NewYork, NY10016,2016,pgs.x-xi,55-57,78-79,100,139-140,209,333.

— JonathanEdwardsandtheMinistryoftheWord,InterVarsityPress,Downers Grove,IL60515,2009,pgs.87,95-106.TurretinF,InstitutesofElencticTheology,VolumesI-III(1679-1685),translationby GeorgeMusgraveGiger,EditedbyJamesT.Dennison,Jr.,Presbyterianand ReformedPublishing,Phillipsburg,NJ08865,1992,1:149-153;574-575.WeirDA,TheOriginsofFederalTheologyinSixteenth-CenturyReformationThought, ClarendonPress,Oxford,1990,pgs1-50.WestminsterConfessionofFaith,1647,TheCommitteeonChristianEducationof theOrthodoxPresbyterianChurch,WillowGrove,PA19090,2008,1.7,pg.6.WitsiusH,TheEconomyoftheCovenantsBetweenGodandMan,Volume1,1677, ReformationHeritageBooks,GrandRapids,Michigan,49525,2010,pg.3,8, 10;1.11.23;2.2.1;3.6.11-15.