More on Edwards

While researching Edwards and reading through some of his Miscellanies, a few of his statements stood out (all from volume 13 of his Works):
Edwards is more than willing to state that “heathen philosophers” can be “inspired” by the Holy Spirit. Then he offers this backhanded caveat: the biblical evidence is clear that even Balaam’s ass was inspired, so why not Plato? That said, the very fact that he’s willing to extend inspiration to the unregenerate seems to follow quite well from his overall philosophy of history and creational theology, even as it appears to problematize his theology of religious experience. He’s even open to the idea that the unregenerate philosopher may have received spiritual “benefit” from the inspiration.
Edwards falls very much within the Puritan federal tradition, that is, the idea of a special, divine covenant made with the New England colonies. This covenant is temporal, not extending beyond earthly prosperity or judgment. Harry Stout believes that this belief is a default position for Edwards, and perhaps not fully consistent with his more original theological and philosophical writings. I’m not entirely convinced by this last suggestion, but it definitely presents an interesting tension.
At the same time that he fell back on the national covenant, Edwards also maintained a stance concerning civil authority, in se, which made distinctions typical of the early Reformed tradition. He wrote that civil authorities “have nothing to do with matters ecclesiastical, with those things which relate to conscience and eternal salvation, or with any matters religious as religious” (emphasis original). But he clarifies that there are some civil matters which do “concern religion.” For “by reason of the profession of religion and the difference that matters religious make in the state and circumstances of a people, many things become civil which otherwise would not.” Civil interest is distinguished from matters of conscience, the “favor of God,” and the world to come. Rather, civil interest is public interest, and may therefore intersect with religious affairs precisely because “many things by reason of religion become their civil advantage.” That is, the civil authorities may choose to defend religion because religion itself is of public interest, even as it justifies and fulfills its task in a non-ecclesial context.