NEW ENGLAND THEOLOGY Lecture 5 The Covenant View of New England Congregationalist

NEW ENGLAND THEOLOGY

Lecture 5

The Covenant View of New England Congregationalist

It is to be expected that the Puritans who settled in New England brought

with them a theological system they had learned and practiced while still in Old

England. This was also true of the way they viewed the covenant. They were

steeped in federal or covenant theology. In a nutshell, federal theology taught

that God had entered a covenant of works with Adam, whereby if Adam would

obey God’s commandments he would receive eternal life. But Adam violated the

covenant, thus cutting off the possibility of earning eternal life by his works.

Whereupon God made a second covenant, the covenant of grace, initially with

Adam by announcing the coming of the Promised Seed and later formally with

Abraham and his seed. This covenant had its roots in the pre-temporal

intertrinitarian covenant of redemption in which arrangements were made to

save the elect by Christ who would pay the penalty for sin and fulfill the terms of

the broken covenant of works Eternal life or salvation would now be by grace

and through faith in the finished work of Christ the second Adam.

All this was standard Puritan covenant theology. But New England

theologians such as John Cotton, Thomas Hooker, Thomas Shepard and Peter

Bulkeley adapted these common characteristics of federal theology to the

situation in which they found themselves in their new surroundings. As Dr. Peter

Y. De Jong wrote in his book, The Covenant Idea in New England

Theology, “The ambition of these early pioneers was to establish in the

wilderness a holy commonwealth in which [their] theocratic ideals would be

realized as never before in the history of Christ’s church” (Grand Rapids:

Eerdmans, 1945) p.78.

Being practical men “they viewed the covenant not merely from the aspect

of personal religious life but made it as well the foundation of their civil and

ecclesiastical government. Thus in a general way the term ‘covenant’ was

used in three senses, which, though divergent from each other, were closely

interwoven in the minds of the colonists” (Ibid.).

Here we see that the Puritans went beyond the Continental Reformed

Calvinists, for although the latter also recognized the implications of personal

faith in Christ for fellowship with other believers and for the ordering of society

and the State, the Puritans did much more with this concept. John Owen who

was persuaded by John Cotton to change from Presbyterianism to a

Congregational view of the Church “saw a very direct relationship between the

covenant of God with his people, and the analogous church covenants by which

Christians mutually bind themselves to him and one another”(Sinclair B.

Ferguson, John Owen on the Christian Life. (Edinburgh: The Banner of Truth

Trust, 1987), p.154. “Since union with Christ is the heart of the covenant, and

fellowship is based on union,” Owen concluded, “the divine and human

covenants belong together, so that the one is the foundation of the other” (Ibid.).

As for the third implication of the covenant of grace, namely for society

and the civil government, the Puritans in England tried but in the end failed to

reform the State along Biblical lines but their New England brethren were to

achieved this goal to a remarkable extent.

Although many of their political theories can be traced to Calvin’s ideas

implemented in Geneva, the theocratic development in New England bore a

clearly discernable native imprint. Ironically, while they rejected both the

Anglican and Presbyterian conception of an established church, they ended up

with a church that was a state church in all but name. While the intent was to

keep matters of church and state separate it did not work out that way in practice.

The Cambridge Platform did indeed spell out that it was as unlawful for church

officers to meddle with the sword of the Magistrate as it was for the Magistrate

to meddle with the duties of church officers, but as it turned out each influenced

the other to such an extent that the Congregational Church to all intents and

purposes became a State church not only protected by but also supervised by

magistrates who in turn were appointed by the Church. In Williston Walker’s

words: “The Church Covenant gave form to the Covenant of Grace and the Civil

Covenant gave power to the Church Covenant” (Quoted by De Jong, Ibid., 80).

The Church Covenant Concept

In this lecture we will focus on the Church Covenant as practiced in the

New England Congregational churches.

The Church Covenant concept is one of the most important characteristics

of New England Puritanism. In fact it is the mark of a true church. According to

classic Reformed ecclesiology there are three marks whereby we may

distinguish a true from a false church: the pure preaching of the Word of God,

the pure administration of the sacraments and the exercise of church discipline

(Confession of Faith, Art. 29). The New England Puritans added a fourth mark.

They believed that the covenant of grace manifested itself also through the

ecclesiastical construct of the church covenant. This represents a new

development in Reformed covenantal theology and it was this new insight into

covenant theology that Robinson was referring to in his farewell address to the

departing Pilgrims. Lamenting the alleged unwillingness of Lutherans and

Calvinists to go beyond the very words of their early leaders, he said, “The

Lutherans cannot be drawn to go beyond what Luther saw for whatsoever part of

God’s will He has further imparted and revealed to Calvin, they will rather die

than embrace it. As for the Calvinists, “they stick where he left them…though

they were precious shining lights in their times, yet God hath not revealed his

whole will to them and were they now living, they would be as ready and willing

to embrace further light, as that they had received.”

That Robinson was indeed referring to the church covenant is clear from

what Governor Winslow records:

Here he [Robinson] put us in mind of our Church covenant, at least that

part of it w

(David Fountain, The Mayflower, Pilgrims and their Pastor, p. 41).

The Role of Scripture and the Creeds

De Jong comments: “This emphasis on the Bible, almost to the exclusion

of written creeds, came to be a prominent characteristic of the New England

Churches” (Ibid.,p.82). This rather severe criticism is supported by David Weir

when he writes, “the non-separating Puritans of New England were technically

bound by the Thirty-nine articles until 1648, when the Cambridge Synod of 1648

adopted the ‘congregational version of the Westminster Confession of Faith.”

The Westminster Standards, however, articulated the federal version of covenant

theology and a Presbyterian doctrine of the church which the framers

recommended to Parliament as a replacement of the Church of England. The

New England Puritans being Congregationalists were concerned that should

Parliament adopt the Westminster Standards, the colonies would be forced to

become Presbyterians rather than Congregationalists. To prevent this from

happening the General Court of the Massachusetts Bay Colony convened a

Synod which produced the Cambridge Platform. It adopted all the doctrinal

statements of the Westminster Standards with the exception of the sections

dealing with the church and its government as well as the relationship between

Church and State.

But although the Cambridge Platform was officially adopted by the New

England churches, this does not mean it played as important a role in the life of

the church as one might expect. As Weir explains: “

Confessions of faith in the Congregational tradition were meant to bind

only the lo

Uniformity and Diversity in Church Covenants

Fortunately for New England the British Parliament never adopted the

recommendations of the Westminster Assembly and following the death of

Cromwell and the collapse of Puritanism as a political force in England, the

colonies were given a free hand in organizing their churches along

congregational lines without any outside interference.

According to David Weir the records of the many Church Covenants

drawn up in the Congregational churches in Early New England show both

uniformity and diversity. This is to be expected given the lack of denominational

authority structures in these independent minded churches. Weir disagrees with

Perry Miller thesis that the New England Congregational churches were all of

one mind, theologically speaking. The title of Miller’s book, The New England

Mind implies that he was looking at the New England community as a

whole “while in reality his work focuses in on the most powerful and largest of

the New England colonies, the Massachusetts Bay Company” (Early New

England, p.148).

But as Weir points out there were nuanced differences between

Massachusetts and the other colonies on a whole range of views and issues

including the use of the law in conversion and in the life of faith, preparationism,

the sacraments, the role of the state and other themes.

However, when it comes to church covenants, Weir says, the evidence

culled from documents points to a substantial uniformity and standardization His

conclusion is that “each congregation independently wrote up its own covenant,

a practice that led to dozens of slightly different covenant commitments.

Nevertheless, the congregational documents on the whole reflect a unity of

thought that was only beginning to fray in the last two decades of the century”

(Ibid.,p.150).

Some Samples of Covenanting Documents

Weir then proceeds to give a few samples of what church covenanting

looked like in 17th century New England. The first example is taken from a

group of believers in Charlestown, Massachusetts gathered on Friday, November

2, 1632 to organize as a congregational church. The covenant that these founding

members signed is written on the first page of the church record book along with

their names. The document states:

In the Name of our Lord and in obedience to his holy will and divine

ordinances. We whose names are here written being by his most wise and good prov

In comparison to many other church covenants entered into during that

period this one is quite brief. It was signed by thirty-five people, both male and

female, made up of family units, first the husband and then the wife, with three

single males.

Weir points out that compared to many later church covenants the number

of signatories here is quite large. The next example we will look at is a covenant

signed at First Church, Dorchester Massachusetts, on Tuesday, August 23, 1636.

Here there were only seven male signatories, led by Rev. Richard Mather, the

author of An Apology of the Churches in New England for Church-Covenant.

Here follows the full text of the Dorchester covenant:

We whose names are subscribed being called of God to join ourselves

together in Church Communion, from our hearts acknowledging our own

1. the presence of God himself, his holy Angels and all his servants here

2. Promising first and above all to cleave unto him as our chief and only

3. And for the furthering of us to keep this blessed Communion with God

4. And lastly we do hereby covenant and promise to further to our utmost

Of the integrity of our hearts herein we call God the searcher of all hearts

What strikes one, especially about this second example of church

covenanting is the repeated references to the signatories’ felt need for the grace

and mercy of God and the enabling power of Christ as well as the deep

awareness of their unworthiness. Their posture also is one of humility, sincerity

and reverence.

According to David Weir who has examined all the available records, this

second document we have looked at is a classic example of the covenant

formulary that marked the majority of the church covenants in early colonial

New England. (Ibid.).

Critique of P.Y. DeJong

In his book The Covenant Idea in New England Theology, Peter De Jong

argues that the voluntary Church-Covenant doctrine with its emphasis on

subjective or experiential litmus tests for membership, has its roots in the

Anabaptist “pure church” ideal (p.86). While there is some truth to this assertion

as there is evidence that the early separatist Puritans were influenced by Dutch

Mennonites and other Anabaptists, I believe that De Jong overstates his case

when he suggests that the New England Puritans tended to admit as members

only those who had reached a very high standard of spirituality, in other words,

nigh perfection. The two documents we have examined just now do not bear this

out. These applicants for church membership were far from perfect in their own

estimation. They were keenly aware of their sin and unworthiness and they could

only throw themselves upon the mercy of God for Christ’s sake. What is true is

that the membership requirements were high, much higher than in Presbyterian

and Reformed churches in England and on the European continent.

Congregationalists insisted that candidates for membership in their churches

needed to show evidence that a work of grace had taken place in their life. In

other words, they had to be able to give a testimony of their conversion

experience. According to De Jong this led to an overemphasis on the subjective

at the expense of the objective basis of spiritual life. By insisting on a conscious

spiritual experience as requisite to church membership the New England

Puritans “lost sight of the distinctive relation in which children of covenanting

unworthin

present th

good, and

and with h

power, the

to witness

parents stood to the visible church” (Ibid).

I will not go further into this subject in this lecture but I hope to deal with

it when we take up the issue of the Half-Way Covenant. For now let me say a

few word about the debate between the Puritans in New England and their

brethren in Old England on the question whether there was any Scriptural

warrant for and necessity of church covenants.

The idea of a church covenant became very controversial in Puritan

circles. Some vigorously attacked the New England proponents of it challenging

them to prove its Scripturalness. To answer these critics John Cotton wrote his

Questions and Answers upon Church Government. One of the objections was

that the New England churches sealed these covenants with unnecessary oaths.

Another concern was that the American brethren gave the impression that church

covenanting was the only right way to organize true churches of Christ. In 1637

a letter was sent requesting all the New England ministers to explain their stand

on the issue. This time Richard Mather wrote An Apologie of the Churches in

New England for Church-Covenant with which he was able to persuade a

number of English ministers, including John Owen, to adopt the practice. But

these were the exceptions. The practice of church covenants never made heavy

inroads in England at least not in the form in which it was practiced in the

American congregational churches. What did happen in England, however, was

that many churches that were influenced by separatist views on the church

eventually did away with infant baptism and became Baptists.