The Westminster Assembly Debates Credopaedobaptism

The Westminster Assembly Debates Credopaedobaptism

In the seventeenth-century polemics of paedobaptism and credobaptism, one of the common arguments asserted by the English Particular Baptists was that their paedobaptist brothers agreed that a profession of faith was a necessary prerequisite for baptism. To make their point, Particular Baptists like Andrew Ritor, Benjamin Coxe, William Kiffin, Hanserd Knollys, and Thomas Patient appealed to the catechism of the Church of England, which was appended to the Book of Common Prayer. The catechism specifically required a profession of faith and repentance before admission to baptism. Here is the portion to which they referred:Church of England Catechism in Book of Common Prayer

The Particular Baptists viewed this as inconsistent credobaptism, or perhaps we could call it “credopaedobaptism.” If actual repentance and faith were necessary, how could these be promised by parents or godparents? Given their strong Calvinism, the idea of promising actual faith and repentance (which could only be given by God) for another was an absurdity. To the Particular Baptists, this presupposed the election and thus salvation of children, many of which were not saved. If the children were presupposed as elect, then salvation could be lost. If the children were not presupposed as elect, then there could be no presupposition of God-given repentance and faith in them.

When the Westminster Assembly began its work reforming the Church of England  in order to impose national uniformity through a new Confession of Faith, Catechism, and Directory for Public Worship (with a few more documents), they inherited the unlucky task of wrestling with the question of a profession of faith in baptism. George Gillespie’s Notes of Debates and Proceedings of the Westminster Assembly give us a glimpse into how the Assembly handled it. Read below and decide for yourself if their conclusions about credopaedobaptism were satisfactory.

Gillespie, Notes of Debates and Proceedings, 89-90Gillespie, Notes of Debates and Proceedings, 90Gillespie, Notes of Debates and Proceedings, 91Gillespie, Notes of Debates and Proceedings, 91-1

A Few Thoughts for Consideration in the Modern Republication Debate

These thoughts are directed primarily at members in the OPC and PCA.

For those contra republication:

  1. The view that the Mosaic covenant was a covenant of works is a view found among Reformed divines in the 17th and 16th centuries.
  2. The Westminster Confession of Faith is not the exclusive expression or boundary of Reformed orthodoxy.

For those pro republication:

  1. The fact that a given divine at the Westminster Assembly held to a given view does not mean that the Confession itself either reflects, includes, or accounts for their view. They debated many things. The conclusion of the debates was a majority vote in one direction, not a unanimous vote.
  2. A covenant of works and a covenant of grace are as different as wood and stone. They are different “substances.” If the Mosaic covenant is a formal covenant of works (not just containing a remembrance of Adam’s covenant) it cannot be the covenant grace. See John Ball, A Treatise of the Covenant of Grace (London: Printed by G. Miller, 1645), 93-95. Ball is discussing John Cameron’s view that the Mosaic covenant (the old covenant) is neither the covenant of works nor the covenant of grace but a legal covenant for the nation of Israel to live life in the land of Canaan. Ball concludes that this view makes the old covenant differ from the new in substance. See also John Owen, A Continuation of the Exposition of the Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Hebrews (London: Printed for Nathaniel Ponder, 1680), 324-42. Owen considers the majority view as expressed in the WCF and rejects it because he views the Mosaic covenant as a works covenant for life in the land. This is the result of the simple logic of substance as applied to covenant theology.

For both groups:

  1. The Westminster Confession was originally intended to be used as a government-backed, fueled, and promoted public standard of teaching and preaching in England, a standard not to be contradicted. Its limited function means that divines could participate in its making, and even live with its final form, so long as they did not overturn the status quo. In England, the Confession of Faith never got off its feet. The Independent-controlled government edited its proposed form in key ways, and the restoration of Charles II neutered any force the confession would have had. Scotland was another story. See https://pettyfrance.wordpress.com/2013/03/14/confessional-subscription-and-the-westminster-assembly/ and https://pettyfrance.wordpress.com/2013/06/20/the-textual-history-of-the-westminster-confession-of-faith/
  2. How your church uses the Westminster Confession of Faith may be quite different from its original intent and design. Whereas its original function may have permitted the flavors of Reformed theology to coexist, the function that your church is assigning to it may not. You have to deal with that. If you are another “flavor” than the WCF but your view was found among the Westminster divines or Reformed theology in general, that still does not mean that your church’s use of the WCF permits you within its boundaries.
  3. You’re probably not using the term “administration” correctly or accurately.
  4. Vindiciae veritatis preface

 

 

Particular Baptists and the Substance/Administration Distinction (Part 2)

Some time ago, I posted a lengthy piece intending to offer some balance to the strong push with which “1689 Federalism” was being put forward. The point was to make it clear that there were some Particular Baptists who held to a more “Westminster” style of federal theology. As the examples of this other flavor I mentioned Robert Purnell, Robert Steed/Abraham Cheare, and Thomas DeLaune.

I want to reevaluate some of the thoughts in that post for three main reasons:

  1. I missed some vital elements of argumentation in those authors’ writings which yield a somewhat different picture of their federalism.
  2. I want to remind readers to be careful with the language of “administration.”
  3. I want to reaffirm that a more “Westminster” style of federalism was present among PB’s.

I consider these reasons to be “live” issues because of some recent blogs by an internet-friend of mine, Enrique Junior Duran:

I intend this post to be a friendly reply, and a help, to him. A reply because I think we both have not understood Steed/Cheare correctly, and a help because I’m adding another author that I think Junior would find a lot of agreement with.

The first source I want to return to is Robert Steed and Abraham Cheare’s “A Plain Discovery of the Unrighteous Judge and False Accuser” (1658). [The pertinent sections have been transcribed by Junior, in this document.Thanks!]

In Steed and Cheare’s work, it’s very important to keep in mind their twofold definition of the covenant of grace.

First, they define the covenant of grace “singly, and universally” as “That great mystery of the mercy of God in Christ, wherein the Father hath established Jesus Christ his Son, the head of all things, and given unto him a blessed seed of the Sons of Men, to be by him, and with him heires of the glorious inheritance of the grace of God, and the blessed consequences thereof, against all possibilities of miscarriage, according to this eternal purpose.” Still working from this aspect of the definition they go on to say, “This covenant God calls his everlasting Covenant, being still one and the same immutable from everlasting to everlasting.”

Second, they define the covenant of grace with reference to “the manner of its administration, according to divine institution” as “The whole and every part of that instituted worship whereby God doth ordinarily bring about, the purposes of the everlasting Covenant, that is, to set Christ upon his throne, and to gather to him the seed given him by his Father: And the covenant of grace under this acceptation is not one and the same alwayes, but hath passed under many great alterations and changes: the Lord suiting his ordinances and appointments, to the persons, seasons, and workes, which he had to doe, as it seemed good to his heavenly wisdom: and therefore all the force and authority of the Covenant of grace, considered under this head, to wit, according to the administration of it, dependeth intirely upon the law of its institution, and is in force as that law directeth, and not otherwise.”

Basically it boils down to 1. The benefits of the covenant (salvation to the elect), and 2. The ordinances of the covenant.

As they work with the 1st definition, they speak of the covenant “renewed and ratified” “after divers manners under divers signes, figures, and types, by promises and prophecies.” Given that they are operating under the first definition at this point, they are simply stating that the benefits of salvation were made known to and obtained by the elect in many ways at many times. As they stated in their definition of the covenant of grace, considered singly, the covenant of grace is immutable in this sense. It never changes. There is no disagreement on this point among the PB’s or paedos of a confessional sort. We can put that aside, then.

Moving on to their discussion of the administration of the covenant of grace, they speak of two times: prior to Christ’s ascension, and after Christ’s ascension. On page 10, as they discuss the “ministring before Christ” they mention that this ministry “for the nature of it,” was “the same with the law of Moses, and proportioned to it, and afterward fell in with it.” Later they say, “This administration of the Covenant of grace is usually called in Scripture the old Covenant, or…the law.” On the next page, they say, “This covenant while it stood, although it were very glorious, yet the Spirit of God never exalted it in dignity above the degree of an Handmand, appointed for the time being to minister to the everlasting Covenant.” They then use Galatians 4 to contrast the bondage covenant and the free covenant, the law and the gospel.

Steed and Cheare are saying that the Abrahamic covenant and the Mosaic covenant were “one in nature.” How so? Both were legal covenants that gave the fleshly seed a claim to the covenant via circumcision. This covenant was temporal, temporary, and subordinate to the everlasting covenant. I.e., their argument is that the covenant of grace was wrapped up in a covenant of works. It could be argued that this is similar to a view that this is the covenant of grace “legally administered.” However, it’s important to note that they call the two administrations two covenants. Which is to say, the covenant of grace gets wrapped up in another covenant (or covenants).

On page 12, as they come to the time of Christ, they state, “There ended that Covenant; there expired the law, the force and authority upon which that administration stood. And there was the prophesie of casting out the seed according to the flesh (never more to claime a priviledge upon that account) absolutely accomplished and fulfilled.” For a time, the children could make real claims to a real covenant. But that ended. Were they making a real claim to salvation? No. However, were the ordinances/administration through which they made a claim to the legal covenant the same ordinances/administration through which believers participated in the blessings of the covenant of grace? Yes. Because the covenant of grace was wrapped up in a temporal and temporary covenant, it shared the ordinances. Circumcision for a believer and circumcision for an unbeliever would have meant different things because one participated in both the temporal and eternal aspects (believer) while the other participated in only the temporal aspects (unbeliever).

The objection then raised, paraphrasing, is, “Well if the legal covenant gives way to the gospel covenant, how does that change anything?” Or put another way, “This just means that Israel’s children laid claim to the covenant by the legal covenant, and so our children now lay claim to the covenant via the gospel covenant.”

How do Steed and Cheare reply? They state, “The Covenant of the law, and the covenant made with Abraham, in the letter of circumcision, had with them an eminent renovation, and ratification of the everlasting covenant; yet were both of one and the same nature, authority, and use.” They already argued this point on page 10. They are repeating the point that the Abrahamic and Mosaic covenants were legal covenants, “of another nature.” Something that is “of another nature,” marked out as “legal” in contrast to “gospel” is a distinct contrast.

When they arrive at “The ministry of Christ” they say, “The last administration of the covenant of grace, usually called the new covenant…was altogether of another nature to that which went before it. This was not a covenant ministring or serving to any doctrine above or beyond it self, as was the other. But this was the mystery of the grace of God it self plainly administred.” Notice again that this new covenant is “altogether of another nature to that which went before it.” It is no longer wrapped up in another covenant and another covenant’s ordinances, but is fully unveiled in its purity.

Now, when I originally read this work I read it too quickly and assumed that it was basically defending a Westminster-ish position. Upon reevaluation of that conclusion, I was wrong. To the contrary, their federalism is very similar to their other Particular Baptist brothers. It is a standard PB move to argue:

  1. The Abrahamic covenant and the Mosaic covenant were legal covenants involving temporary and temporal promises for fleshly descendants.
  2. Believers under those covenants participated in the benefits of the CoG, not just by believing promises, but also through the very ordinances of the Abrahamic and Mosaic covenants. In that sense the ordinances belong to the CoG also.

This same argumentation gets carried through Edward Hutchinson. His views will be helpful to flesh out the details and confirm our interpretation of Steed and Cheare.

In 1676, Edward Hutchinson wrote, “A Treatise Concerning the Covenant and Baptism Dialogue-wise, between a Baptist & a Poedo-Baptist.”

Hutchinson says on page 22, “Know then that the Covenant of grace is to be considered, either of the promise of eternal life and salvation, made to all the elect in Christ, the which remains one and the same in all ages, though variously adminstred, in the times of the old and new Testament. Or else of the manner of its Adminsitration, in which sence, its now (in respect of the old Testament administration) which was a distinct Covenant in it self (for the time being) called the new Covenant.”

Hutchinson is operating under the same definitions and parameters. The benefits of the covenant of grace never change and have always been available after the fall. However, the covenant of grace existed under an “old administration” which was “a distinct covenant in it self.”

This is where we must be careful about how we use the word “administration.” It is necessary to ask, “is the author referring to the administration of the benefits (the CoG considered in the 1st sense) or the administration of ordinances (the CoG considered in the second sense)?” Hutchinson said that the covenant of grace remains one and the same in all ages, “though variously administered.” He is referring to what Steed and Cheare argued when they said that the covenant of grace considered in the first sense was “renewed and ratified” through promises, types, etc. Once again, there is no disagreement here between confessional baptists and paedobaptists. But, we must be careful not to assume that any Particular Baptist who speaks of the covenant of grace administered differently in the Old and New Testaments is adopting a Westminster federalism. It is possible, and likely, that they are speaking in the sense of the administration of benefits.

Returning to Hutchinson. On page 27, he calls the Abrahamic covenant a “mixt covenant” because it contains gospel promises and temporal blessings. This is a standard Particular Baptist distinction between temporal and eternal blessings present in the covenantal dealings with Abraham.

On page 93, when asked what he thinks about the covenant with Abraham, Hutchinson says, “But surely that Covenant made with Abraham, and his natural seed called the Covenant of Circumcision, or Covenant of the Law was not the Covenant of Eternal life and salvation, which was made with all the elect in Christ upon the condition of faith: but a distinct covenant of it self concerning the worship and service of God, and so may be called a covenant of works, rather than a Covenant of grace; though there was also grace in it, as there was in all the Covenants that God ever made with men–yet we say, it was a distinct covenant, and therefore called the old Covenant, and the Covenant of grace the new Covenant.
And if you say the Covenant of grace was the same in all ages under various administrations, we confess it, and say that the Covenant was made to Adam after the fall, to the Patriarchs, and to Abraham, before the Covenant of Circumcision was mentioned, and is the same to us now.”

Notice once again that Hutchinson says on the one hand that the Abrahamic covenant was a covenant of works (i.e. legal covenant) and was in it self a distinct covenant from the covenant of eternal life and salvation. Nevertheless on the other hand, Hutchinson plainly states that the covenant of grace was the same under various administrations.

Hutchinson helps us to understand Steed and Cheare. When they speak of the Abrahamic and Mosaic covenants as being “legal” and “of a different nature” than the eternal covenant, they are calling them covenants of works, pregnant with the covenant of grace. When Christ came, the covenant of grace was born from the old covenant, quite literally. In all ages, the administration of the benefits of the covenant of grace remained the same, though being obtained through various means. And for a time, in subservience to the covenant of grace, believers were under the administration of the old covenant, participating in the ordinances of the earthly covenants while also participating in the benefits of the heavenly covenant.

The next writer to revisit is Thomas DeLaune. In 1677 he wrote, “Truth Defended” in which he defended Edward Hutchinson from Joseph Whiston. What were Whiston’s arguments against Hutchinson? DeLaune says, he “charges Mr. Hutchinson with some Contradictions and Absurdities, as his calling the Covenant of Grace and its administration two distinct covenants, and his saying that circumcision is a covenant of works, from which (says Mr. Whiston) it will follow, that a Covenant of works may be the administration of the covenant of grace, which is incongruous.”

Whiston saw Hutchinson’s view as self-contradictory. How are two administrations of one covenant actually two covenants with distinct natures? DeLaune’s defense was to copy, word for word, the majority of Steed and Cheare’s work on this point (though not mentioning their names, interestingly). DeLaune says, “To which I reply. It is before demonstrated (I hope undenyably) that the Covenant of Grace is immutable and everlasting — That in respect of its various administrations under Law and Gospel it is called two Covenants, New and Old — That the Covenant of works (so called, under the Law administred to the Covenant of Grace in Types and Figures, of which circumcision, being the head Ordinance, was synechdocally called the Covenant. And that the covenant of Grace is now under the Evangelical Dispensation administred in that purity and spirituality Typed out by the Law. Therefore, what incongruity and absurdity is to be hereon chargeable is to me unknown.”

In a way, DeLaune’s defense merely repeated the very argument that Whiston was critiquing. However, you can see DeLaune’s own interpretation of Steed, Cheare, and Hutchinson. The benefits of the covenant of grace came through an earthly covenant of works in the old testament, and now are unveiled and enjoyed in their fullness in the new covenant (the old temporal covenant having been removed).

So what? Well, if Steed, Cheare, Hutchinson, or DeLaune are to be appealed to as examples of Westminster federalism, they do not fit the mold. In fact, they contradict it because they all asserted that the Abrahamic and Mosaic covenants were earthly covenants of works. They spoke of the administration of benefits and the administration of ordinances. The first never changed. The second did, wrapping the covenant of grace up in an earthly covenant of works for a time. This is most certainly not the view of the Westminster Confession where the Abrahamic and Mosaic covenants are the covenant of grace, without any distinction other than the change in ordinances.

While not having time to revisit Robert Purnell in detail, it would seem that his federalism is much closer to Westminster than the authors I had placed at his side previously. I assert this primarily because when asking whether the covenant of grace is the same under the Old and New Testaments he says that the covenant of grace was “given by Moses and made with the Jews.” It is important to raise the question in which sense Purnell is thinking of the covenant of grace: the administration of benefits or the administration of ordinances. Purnell seems to conflate the two (as do the paedobaptists), which makes the most sense of the way that he makes his arguments. I need to go back and read him more carefully.

So then, our three reasons for talking about this were:

  1. I missed some vital elements of argumentation in certain authors’ writings which yield a somewhat different picture of their federalism.
  2. I want to remind readers to be careful with the language of “administration.”
  3. I want to reaffirm that a more “Westminster” style of federalism was present among PB’s.

As to the first, I have shown that while Steed, Cheare, Hutchinson, and DeLaune speak of the covenant of grace under two administrations, they are not following a “Westminster” style of federalism.

As to the second, I have laid emphasis on the twofold definition of the covenant of grace used by the authors, and thus spoken about the administration of benefits and the administration of ordinances. If a Particular Baptist speaks of either of these, he is not necessarily endorsing a “Westminster” style of federalism. There is universal agreement on the administration of benefits. And many Particular Baptists speak of the Old Testament as an administration of the covenant of grace because they see it wrapped up in and sharing the ordinances of an earthly covenant of works.

As to the third, I have not changed my opinion of Robert Purnell, and I would take this moment to add Thomas Hardcastle to the list of those with a “Westminster” flavor covenant theology. Hardcastle was a university trained man, and an elder at the Broadmead Bristol Church from 1671-1678. In 1676 the Broadmead Bristol church asked William Kiffin, Nehemiah Coxe, and three other London pastors to ordain Hardcastle when they came nearby, but they were unable to oblige due to the pressing nature of their travels (dealing with Thomas Collier).

In a manuscript copy of his exposition of the Westminster Shorter Catechism he asks, “Were those under the old Testament; the Jews under a Covenant of works?” And answers, “No, Adam was under a Covenant of works, but the Jews were under a Covenant of grace, Adam was under a covenant of works, Do this and live, the Jews were under a covenant of grace, which was obscured [i.e. revealed darkly] by types, sacrifices, and figures which did signifie and prefigure Christ, and those sacrifices was the gospel they had, through this they did look to a Christ to come, through the type they could behold the antitype, through the blood of beasts they would see the blood of the lamb, though many of them very obscurely: the Spirit applyeth redemption by uniting us to Christ in our effectual calling.”

Later he asks, “How many covenants did God make?” And he answers, “Two, a covenant of works and a covenant of grace, the covenant of works that was made with man before the fall, pray observe it, the tenor of that was do this and live, oh beloved there would have been no life without doing, and here let me add this: what a sad condition would poor creatures be in now, if God should deal with them by a covenant of works, if you should have no more than you earned would be a poor miserable life if you had no more than you wrought for.”

And he explains further, “There is a covenant of grace, and there is a twofold administration of this covenant of grace. There’s the old administration which is called the old testament. The new administration which is called the new testament; both one the covenant, though called old and new, though called two commonly but one covenant: although the old administration was such, as made it to be looked upon (the outside of it) as a covenant of works, if you look to Mount Sinai, there you find nothing but working: if you look to the sacrifices there you have a glimpse of some relief by a Savior; it is a great dispute whither the law that was given upon Mount Sinai was a covenant of works or of grace, I shall not trouble you with Arguments on either side, only this seems to be clear: those that will have it a covenant of works, yet confess there was the relief of a Savior at the end of it, and those that will have it a covenant of grace, yet confess it was clothed like a covenant of works, so the dispute will not seem to have much difficulty.” (Side note: Hardcastle’s reference to disputes on the issue of the Mosaic law is most likely referring to the state of covenant theology in general, not Particular Baptists. However prominent and politically fueled and armed the Westminster Confession may have been, it in no way commanded a consensus on the issue.)

And there you have it. Particular Baptist covenant theology was not monolithic. There was a clear majority on certain issue, but not on all issues. I would conclude by repeating something from my first post on this issue: While the confession positively supports the notion that the old and new differ in substance and not just in administration, it is probable that it also remains broad enough to accommodate some of the variety within Particular Baptist federal thought.

John Humfrey, Animadversions and Considerations, Titlepage-1 

Persons and Subsistences in the Confessions of Faith

A careful examination and comparison of the Second London Baptist Confession (LCF) and the Westminster Confession (WCF) yields a variety of differences and nuances, some more obvious than others. One such difference is found in the second chapter, “Of God and of the Holy Trinity.” The London Confession is considerably more detailed and technical in its formulation of the doctrine of God (which is not to imply any lack of orthodoxy on the part of the WCF). This technicality is seen in the LCF’s use of “subsistence” instead of “person.” Compare the following:
WCF 2.3
WCF 2.3
LCF 2.3
LCF 2.3

Why the change? Or what’s the difference between Person and Subsistence? The short answer is that while there is no doctrinal difference, the term “subsistence” is more technical and carries less linguistic baggage. John Owen shows the agreement of the two terms:
John Owen, Dr Owens Two Catechisms, 12

Richard Muller provides the following definition for “subsistentia”: An individual instance of a given essence. [Subsistence has other meanings as well, in fact it is used in a different way in paragraph one to describe God’s self-existence. His “subsistence is in and of himself” meaning that he derives his existence from himself. Or in another sense, his existence is not derived at all.]

Think about that for a moment. There is only one divine essence. Thus, three divine subsistences must all share one divine essence. How can one essence be distinguished into three subsistences but not divided? It is infinite. The essence of God is deity. The essence of man is humanity. Human nature is finite, thus no one else can subsist within my essence. I may share a common essence with humanity, but it is a divided, individual, and separated essence. A substance is an essence in existence, thus each human being is a different and separate substance sharing the common essence of humanity. But there is one divine essence and thus one divine substance, in which godhead the three persons of the trinity subsist.

This makes “subsistence” the perfect word for expressing the technical unity and trinity of God because it necessarily connects to a given essence, in this case the singular and unique essence of deity. “Person” carries with it the linguistic baggage of human personhood connected to human essence. Without proper definition, “person” can be easily misused. Trinitarian personhood is not human personhood. That being said, the WCF is in no way heterodox on the trinity. The term “person” is perfectly capable of carrying these theological distinctions. One must simply be careful. Consider the discussion of this anonymous writer. He begins by saying that the doctrine of the Trinity is practical to us because it helps us to know the one God that we love, worship, and serve.
Anon, Catechism Made Practical, 12

Next he warns us of the need for precision because the Socinians (in their Racovian Catechism, see end of post) claimed that God was one person. Their fundamental flaw was to equate human personhood with divine personhood.
Anon, Catechism Made Practical, 13

Persons are distinguished by personal relations and peculiar relative properties, as the LCF above made clear. Notice how in the midst of this he reminds the reader that “the divine nature is unchangeable and indivisible, and not multiplicable; therefore there is no proper action nor passion, as in nature, nor production of new being.” In other words, the eternal generation of the Son never “happened” because God is not bound by time, thus nothing can “happen” to him, i.e. no passion. He is pure being, no becoming. Thus the Son’s generation is eternal in the sense that it is atemporal. Were God bound by time, he would be changeable. Were the Son brought forth from the Father as we conceive of generation, then the nature of God would be both divisible, multiplicable, active, and passive in time (which it is not – he has no parts or passions).
Anon, Catechism Made Practical, 14-15

Next he explains where we get the term “person” from and why we use it, acknowledging that there may be better ways to express the concepts. Once again he reminds the reader to separate ideas of human personhood from divine personhood. God is altogether other than we are.
Anon, Catechism Made Practical, 15-16

The language we use is “improper,” that is, it does not fully describe, though it does truthfully describe, who and what God is.
Anon, Catechism Made Practical, 16-17

In light of all of these careful nuances and important distinctions, we can safely conclude that while there is no doctrinal disagreement or difference between the two confessions, the LCF displays a careful desire for further technicality and precision and thus employs the term “subsistence” rather than person.

***A judicious and impartial reader pointed out to me that 2LCF 8.2 employs “person” while referring to Christ as the “Second Person” of the Holy Trinity. This is corroborative evidence of the fact that “subsistence” is a technical, not a doctrinal choice of language.***

See also:
John Norton on Passivity and Suffering

John Norton on the Divine Names and Perfections of God

Here are relevant portions from the Racovian Catechism:
Racovian Catechism, 18-19

Racovian Catechism, 20-21

Form and Matter in Covenant Theology

To add a little more to the previous post on formal and material republication, let me fill out how the distinction between form and matter works on a larger scale.

When it comes to justification, the material basis of a covenant is either law or promise. Works/law and grace/promise do not intermingle.
If two parties are committed to each other based on a law, a covenant of works has been established. If two parties are committed to each other based on a promise, a covenant of grace has been established. The matter dictates the form.

In light of this distinction, just because the law is present in a given covenant, it does not mean that this covenant is the covenant of works. Conversely, just because the promise (the gospel) is present in a given covenant, it does not mean that this covenant is the covenant of grace.

James Durham demonstrates the difference between a law, and a law used to established a covenant of works.
James Durham, The Law Unsealed, 5-6

In this line of thinking, Obadiah Sedgwick argues that although the law was present in the Mosaic covenant, it was not a formal covenant of works. This is material republication (as was Durham above).
Obadiah Sedgwick, Bowels of Tender Mercy, 10

This also applies to believers. In the Marrow of Modern Divinity, Edward Fisher wanted to protect the idea that although the law came to believers, it did not come as a covenant of works. Legalism is inevitable if we are convinced that the law necessarily entails a covenant of works.
Fisher, Marrow, 1646, 7-8

Now, how did this play out in Particular Baptist theology? John Owen will be our theologian. Nehemiah Coxe considered Owen’s work on Hebrews to be representative of his own views on covenant theology.

First, Owen is operating within the same ideas and makes the same points made above, that we have to distinguish between the law on its own and the law as a covenant.
Owen, Hebrews 8 (6), 218

The same is true for the promise of the gospel. Just because the promise of the gospel is present from Genesis 3:15 onward, it does not follow that the covenants wherein it appears are the covenant of grace. Owen argues that the covenant of grace was only a promise until its formal establishment in the new covenant. The elect were saved by virtue of the covenant of grace (the promise of the gospel) in all the ages, but it was not formally established until Christ’s death.
Owen, Hebrews 8 (6), 227

The same point is made again, showing how the New Covenant could not be new if it had already been formally established.
Owen, Hebrews 8 (9), 256

The law and the gospel (the promise) are present in the Abrahamic, Mosaic, Davidic, and new covenants.

Westminster paedobaptists will argue that all of these covenants were established on the promise of the gospel and thus were covenants of grace, or rather a twofold administration of the covenant of grace. The law played the same role in all of them, namely as a rule of righteousness (more burdensome in the OT). None of those covenants were covenants of works.

Particular Baptists will argue that although the promise of the gospel was present and revealed in all of the OT covenants, they were not the covenant of grace. The old covenant saved no one because it was a covenant of works for life in Canaan. Until the New Covenant was formally established in Christ’s blood, the covenant of grace existed in promise form only. The new covenant is truly new, the fulfillment of everything promised and hoped for in redemptive history. No covenant was formally established on the promise “I will remember your sins no more” until the blood of Christ inaugurated the new covenant.

Formal and Material Republication in the Confessions of Faith

In debates concerning the republication of the covenant of works within the Mosaic covenant, anyone who holds to the Westminster Confession or the London Baptist Confession confesses that the same law that was given to Adam was delivered to Moses. At the very least, then, the confessions teach a republication of the law of the covenant of works. Where things get more complicated is when we discuss how that law functioned. Was the law given to Moses as a covenant of works? That is a much larger statement than simply that the same law given to Adam was given to Moses.

To help understand how this issue works, we need to understand how the distinction between form and matter was applied to covenant theology. The formal nature of a covenant depended on its material basis. Think of matter and form. If you make something from clay (a kind of matter), then you will get a clay object (a form). Likewise for wood or stone. Different materials produce different forms. A union of form and matter is a substance. In covenant theology, if a covenant was established on the basis of law, the covenant was a covenant of works. If a covenant was established on promise, the covenant was a covenant of grace. The covenant partner would respond accordingly, with obedience to the law and reception/belief of the promise. Nehemiah Coxe shows this difference.
Coxe, Discourse of the Covenants, 9

Law and promise are contradistinguished matters that produce contradistinguished forms. Because a union of form and matter is a substance, covenants that differ in substance are covenants that differ in form and matter. This is a complicated way of saying that a covenant of works and a covenant of grace are two different things. A covenant of works is built on law. A covenant of grace is built on promises. They differ in matter, form, and thus substance. Any formal covenant of works cannot be a covenant of grace.

In light of this, some have spoken of material republication and formal republication. Material republication indicates that the matter of the covenant of works, i.e. the law, was delivered to Moses. Both confessions confess this. Formal republication indicates that not only was the matter of the covenant of works delivered to Moses, but it was also the basis upon which Moses’ covenant was established. Thus the law was materially and formally republished, meaning that the Mosaic covenant was a covenant of works.

With all of this in mind, there is a significant difference between the Westminster Confession and its sister documents, the Savoy Declaration and the London Baptist Confession.

Here is WCF 19.1-2
WCF 19.1-2

Notice the red text above: “as such.” This limits the nature of the function of the law as it was given to Moses. It was given to Moses “as a rule of righteousness“. Formal republication is of course built on material republication. But material republication, i.e. the presence of the law in the Mosaic covenant, does not necessarily entail formal republication. Just because the law is there, it doesn’t mean that the law is functioning as a covenant of works. The Westminster Confession does not go beyond material republication to formal republication. In fact, this clause “as such” specifically limits the role of the law delivered to Moses to a “rule of righteousness.” This is very consistent with the view that the Mosaic covenant is a covenant of grace (as WCF confesses). God redeemed Israel and gave them the law as the path for their grateful obedience.

The Savoy Divines and the Particular Baptists did not agree. Both confessions delete the phrase “as such.”

Savoy Declaration 19.1-2
Savoy 19.1-2

LBCF 19.1-2
LBCF 19.1-2

Why would they make such a deletion? Well, speaking only for the Particular Baptists, there are two fundamental reasons:

1. They believed that the old and new covenants differed in substance, not just administration. In other words, the old covenant is something other than the covenant of grace. Why did they believe that? They believed that the old covenant differed in substance because it was a covenant of works, contradistinguished from the covenant of grace. The covenant of works and the covenant of grace were materially and formally distinct, and thus substantially distinct. Andrew Ritor makes this point:
Andrew Ritor Covenant Substance

2. We already mentioned the second reason for the change in the confession, namely that the Particular Baptists believed that the law was delivered to Moses, not just as a material republication of the universal moral law of righteousness to which all men are obligated, but also as a the basis for a formal covenant of works. Clarification needs to be added here that different Particular Baptists took this in somewhat different directions. Some confined the Mosaic covenant of works to temporal life in Canaan, meaning that the Mosaic Covenant did not offer eternal life. Others, however, spoke of the Mosaic covenant as being the original covenant of works itself delivered to Israel.

Coxe is another helpful example of the former direction:
Coxe Republication

In conclusion, I want to make a few brief points.
1. Regarding the London Baptist Confession, the deletion of the phrase “as such” is not so much a positive affirmation of formal republication as it is an opening of the door wide open for it. Chapter 19 is not about the Mosaic covenant; it’s about the law. So the London Baptist Confession’s removal of the phrase “as such” is simply a refusal to restrict the giving of the law to Moses to a rule of righteousness.

2. Conversely, the WCF does not allow for formal republication. Why did so many Westminster Divines hold views beyond material republication, then? We have to remember the context of the Westminster Confession. It was a government-ordered project. It was designed to be a public standard of preaching and teaching, not to be contradicted. It was not designed for some of the subscriptional standards used by Presbyterian denominations today. To argue that since certain divines held to formal republication (or other variants thereof), the confession must allow for those views, is anachronistic. They held contradictory views, but were not to publicly contradict the confession. In an age of ever-shifting government and an ever-shifting state church, one must be careful to take the context into account. In England, the WCF as we know it did not have the impact that it had in Scotland because its final approved form had to please an Independent-controlled Parliament. The answer to the diversity of the views of the divines is not necessarily that “they must all fit within the confession because it was a consensus document.” This is especially true when many Westminster divines would gladly use the magistrate to punish those whom they deemed heretics (as they did). The London Baptist confession assigns the promotion of peace and justice as well as lawful war-waging to the civil magistrate. But the Westminster Confession assigned further powers of suppressing blasphemies, heresies, and reforming the worship of the church. Keep that in mind.

See also:
https://pettyfrance.wordpress.com/2013/03/14/confessional-subscription-and-the-westminster-assembly/
https://pettyfrance.wordpress.com/2013/06/20/the-textual-history-of-the-westminster-confession-of-faith/

3. Behind all of this is the Subservient Covenant, from John Cameron to Samuel Bolton to John Owen to the Particular Baptists. But that’s another story (and perhaps a dissertation…).

More on this here: http://contrast2.wordpress.com/2010/09/05/wcfsdflbc-19-12-and-republication/

Covenantal Merit in The Confession of Faith

Recently I have been reading this excellent work by Andrew Woolsey. In one section on the primary sources behind the Westminster Confession of Faith, Woolsey shows the strong influence of John Ball on the confession in general and chapter seven in particular. What I want to point out is the concept of covenantal merit at play in paragraph one of the Westminster Confession and the London Baptist Confession. The two confessions are very similar here.

WCF 7.1
WCF 7.1

LBCF 7.1
LBCF 7.1

The Westminster Confession speaks broadly by saying that God’s creatures, though they be obligated to obey God as creatures unto their Creator, could expect no reward whatsoever for their obedience. Yet because God voluntarily condescended to make promises to men, he did so by way of covenant. The London Confession follows the Savoy Declaration by narrowing the focus to the reward of life in particular. But the same principle is operative in both, the principle of covenantal merit. In other words, man’s natural obedience due to God according to the law of nature in no way obligated God to give anything to man. Man’s natural obedience was not intrinsically meritorious. The texts cited in support of this are significant.

Luke 17:10 “So you also, when you have done all that you were commanded, say, ‘We are unworthy servants; we have only done what was our duty.'”
Job 35:7 “If you are righteous, what do you give to him? Or what does he receive from your hand?”

You can’t give anything to the Creator that does not already belong to him, thus he has no obligation to give anything back to you. But when he does, it is a condescension, and God’s condescension takes the form of covenants.

Nehemiah Coxe expressed this well.

Coxe, Discourse of the Covenants, 7

Later Coxe discusses man’s restipulation of the covenant. Restipulation refers to man’s response to God’s introduction/imposition of the covenant. If God places man under a covenant of works, man must work. If God places man under a covenant of grace, man must receive and/or believe the promises given to him.

Coxe, Discourse of the Covenants, 9

Now, it would be easy to overlook but Coxe makes a brief mention of covenantal merit with respect to a covenant of works. He stated parenthetically that in a covenant of works when man fulfills the obligation he can expect the reward by debt, but this is a debt of compact, not absolute debt. Debt considered absolutely (i.e., on its own), would be something that automatically or intrinsically deserves or demands something. Coxe is saying that our works are not like that. They are not meritorious in and of themselves. But by way of compact, that is, according to some set of terms, a given obligation becomes worthy of a given reward. This is covenantal merit. God says, “Do this and receive that,” and there it is. Apart from God’s sovereign initiative and condescension, the work would earn nothing (even though it is demanded of us all the same).

Coxe goes on, explaining this further.
Coxe, Discourse of the Covenants, 10

What are some of the takeaways from this?
1. The confessions confess the concept and principle of covenantal merit. God is so beyond man, the Creator so beyond the creature, that nothing could ever be performed by the creature in such a way that it would obligate the Creator to reward him. However, God has condescended to man by way of covenant, and has made promises to him.
2. Narrowing our focus to the London Confession, the confession confesses that God promised the reward of life to man through covenant. There was no other way man could have earned it. In other words, chapter seven confesses the covenant of works. Trace the reward of life in chapters 6, 19, and 20 and you will find this assertion further substantiated.

See also:
https://pettyfrance.wordpress.com/2013/09/19/covenantal-merit-definite-atonement-and-republication/

https://pettyfrance.wordpress.com/2013/06/25/the-covenant-of-works-in-the-1677-london-baptist-confession-2/

For those interested, here are some statements from John Ball that are pertinent to the language seen in the Westminster Confession
John Ball, A Treatise of the Covenant of Grace, 6
John Ball, A Treatise of the Covenant of Grace, 7
John Ball, A Treatise of the Covenant of Grace, 7-8
John Ball, A Treatise of the Covenant of Grace, 9
This one is quite significant, especially in light of the text used as proof.
John Ball, A Treatise of the Covenant of Grace, 10