This essay examines the seventeenth century New England Congregationalists’ doctrine of the “church covenant” and its relationship with the “half-way covenant.” According to Perry Miller, there is a radical discontinuity between them. Miller points out three major differences. First, the half-way covenant introduced a new internal/external distinction into the early fathers’ church covenant, while the latter had considered their church covenant as a visible form of the internal covenant of grace. Second, accordingly, the defenders of the half-way covenant “drastically separated” the church covenant from the covenant of grace. As a result, the church covenant was “no longer viewed as a direct manifestation of spiritual conversion.” Third, there was a generation gap: While the old generation opposed the principle of the half-way covenant, the young generation tended to defend it. Miller shared the early seventeenth century critics’ view of the church covenant--as shown in Samuel Rutherford's polemical works against New England Congregationalism. Rutherford, for example, tended to identify Thomas Hooker’s concept of the church covenant with the Separatists’ view of it which was deeply rooted in their “pure church” ecclesiology. Both Rutherford’s and Miller’s thesis, however, represent a one-sided view. Hooker and his brethren present enough counter-evidence to show that the principle of the half-way covenant should be compatible with the early doctrine of the church covenant: First, the internal/external distinction does not belong to a later development because it was a basic feature for Hooker’s doctrine of the church covenant. Hooker clearly sees his church covenant as an external--not internal--covenant. Second, Hooker and his brethren make a significant distinction between the invisible/inward covenant of grace and the visible/outward covenant of grace. The latter, Hooker argues, is given for the visible church--either an explicit or an implicit form of church covenant. Third, Hooker’s church covenant does not nullify the traditional distinction of the visible/invisible church. On the contrary, it must preserve it. Finally, unlike Miller’s thought, the majority of the early Congregationalists--even in the 1630s--actually favored the principle of the half-way covenant. The above facts must account for the reason why the defenders of the half-way covenant could claim that they had the fathers of Congregationalism (including Hooker) on their side. In short, the complex reality demands that we should seek a more balanced approach to the issue of continuity/discontinuity between the church covenant and the half-way covenant.