TheDoctrineoftheCovenantinReformedTheology

byGeerhardusVos

AtpresentthereisgeneralagreementthatthedoctrineofthecovenantsisapeculiarlyReformeddoctrine.ItemergedinReformedtheologywhereitwasassuredofapermanentplaceandinawaythathasalsoremainedconfined within these bounds. It is true that towards the end of theseventeenth century this doctrine was taken over by several Lutherantheologians,2 but this apparently took place by way of imitation, thedoctrine being unknownwithin the genuineLutheran framework.WiththeReformedtheologians,ontheotherhand,itsemergenceoccursintheperiodof richestdevelopment.With full force it laysholdof theologicalthinking,whichinmanycasesitbendsinadistinctivedirection.

The last-mentionedphenomenonhas caused some tobe of the opinionthat thedoctrineof the covenantwas somethingnewwhichdid indeedgrowup inReformed soil, butwhichnevertheless first came to light inCocceiusandhisschool.Cocceianismandcovenanttheologywouldthenamounttothesamething.IfthatistakentomeanthatCocceiuswasthefirsttomakethecovenantideathedominantconceptofhissystem,thenthereissometruthtothisopinion.Yeteventhenitcannotbefullyagreedwith. Cloppenburg and Gellius Snecanus3 had already come up with acovenant theology in the Netherlands, and the same can be said ofOlevianus inGermany.WhatwasnewinCocceiuswasnothiscovenanttheologyassuch,butratherthehistoricalconclusionsfortheeconomyofredemption which he drew from the covenant concept. When theseconclusionsbecameapparent,thestruggleagainstCocceianismwason.

Ifwe are lookingonly for the covenant concept itself, rather than for acovenant theology, we can go back a lot further. Many Reformedtheologians had in their systems a locus on the covenant or on thetestaments. Trelcatius, father and son, Junius, Gomarus, and others

taughtthecovenantinthissense.Withthemtheconceptremainedrathersubordinate,sothattheycannotbecalledfederalistsinthelatersenseoftheterm.

However,itwasespeciallyinGermanythatthedoctrineofthecovenantfoundfruitfulsoilfordevelopment.NotonlytheHeidelbergtheologiansbut others aswell had a special liking for it. This has given rise to theopinion that we are here dealing with an indigenous Germanphenomenon.Thecovenantideaisregardedasoneofthefeaturesofanentirely original trend which some would like to call the GermanReformed school. It, in turn, is taken as not having originated inconnection with the Swiss Reformation and Calvinism, but rather asbeing the heir of genuine old German Protestantism as expressed byMelanchthon in the Augustana. It was not Melanchthon who laterchangedhispositionordepartedfromhisfirstprinciples.ItisratherthelaterLutheransystemthatoughttobedepictedasanapostasyfromtheoriginalpurity.TheGermanReformedtraditionsavedtheoldProtestanttruthfromthehandsofdeterioratedLutheranism.Thus,thedoctrineofthe covenant is supposed to be German-Protestant, not Reformed. Orrather, we should not be looking for the genuineReformed position inGeneva, butwith theGermans.Melanchthon, not Calvin,would be theonewhotookthelead.

Heppewastheonewhoproposedthisremarkablehistoricalconstruction,and has defended it vigorously. If it were true, the covenant conceptwould have to be regarded with suspicion as a strange intrusion intoReformed territory.Whateverhas grown in synergistic soil cannotbearanyhealthyReformedfruits.Yet, itneedhardlybesaidhowcompletelyuntenable this representation is.Heppehimselfpartlyretracted it later.In his Geschichte des Pietismus und der Mystik in der ReformirtenKirche (1879) he admits that the theology of the covenant did notoriginatewithMelanchthon,butratherinSwitzerland.ItdidnotariseinGermany but penetrated from the south. It was not the case that theCalvinist stream only later swallowed up the remains of the so-calledGermanReformedschool.Rather,itformeditsownbedinGermanyveryearlyonandwatereditsownareawithitsownfreshness.

In Switzerland the Reformers had come into direct conflict with the

Anabaptists.Thisexternalcircumstancemayhavealreadycausedthemtoappreciatethecovenantconcept.Intheirdefenseof infantbaptismtheyreachedfortheOldTestamentandappliedthefederalunderstandingofthesacramentstothenewdispensation.Zwinglididthis in1525.InthevariouscatechismsthatwerepublishedbyLeoJudaefrom1534on,thematerial is strongly penetrated by the covenant idea. The Decades, aseries of sermons by Bullinger, saw the light of day between 1549 and1551, and in 1558 they appeared in German translation under themodified title, TheHousebook. This work is structured entirely by thecovenant idea. In Calvin, too, mention is frequently made of thecovenants.However, his theologywas built on the basis of the Trinity,and therefore the covenant concept could not arise as a dominantprincipleinhiscase.HeistheforerunnerofsuchReformedtheologianswho allocate to it a subordinate place as a separate locus. Even hisGeneva Catechism, where one would most expect this idea to beelaborated,bypassesit.ThetheologiansofZürich,ontheotherhand,areto be regarded as the forerunners of federal theology in the narrowersenseinsofarasthecovenantforthembecomesthedominantideaforthepracticeoftheChristianlife.

Both Olevianus and Ursinus, the well-known Heidelberg theologians,stoodintheclosestconnectiontotheZürichtheologians.Olevianushadspent time in Zürich, and Ursinus had even been there twice. It is,therefore,obviousthattheinfluencewhichthecovenantconcepthadonthem is to be attributed to this connection. Ursinus applied it in hisLarger Catechism.4 We have two works by Olevianus in which thecovenantisdealtwith,namely,theInterpretationoftheApostolicSymbolandTheSubstanceoftheCovenantofGracebetweenGodandtheElect,whichsawthelightofdayin1576and1585,respectively.

FromthattimeonfederalismdidnotrecedefromtheReformedsystem.It appears in Switzerland with Musculus (1599, Loci Communes),Polanus (Syntagma, 1609), and Wollebius (Compendium, 1625); inHungarywithSzegedin(1585);inGermanywithPierius(1595),Sohnius(MethodusTheologiae),Eglin(1609),andMartinius.IntheNetherlandsweagain find themain ideasof federalismwithJunius,Gomarus,boththe Trelcatiuses and Nerdenus, until finally with Cloppenburg a

workedout system emerges in which the covenant idea is wedded to astrictCalvinism.HeisfollowedbyCocceius.Thenamesofthecovenanttheologianswhichfollowthemarewell-known.

Thisoverview is sufficient to showhow theolderwritings canmanifestthecovenantdoctrineinReformedtheology.But,onemightperhapssay,that only applies to the covenant of grace. Thesehistorical data cannotprove that the covenantofworksbelonged to theoldReformed school.Thiscontentionhasbeenexpressedrepeatedly.Inthesecondhalfoftheseventeenth century Vlak and Bekker declared themselves against thecovenant of works on the grounds that it was an invention of thetheologians of that period and was not encountered in the olderReformedtheologians.ItwassupposedthatLubbertus,Makkowski,andCloppenburg were the first to have introduced it. Just as Cocceius hasoccasionallybeenlookeduponasthediscovererofthecovenantconceptin general, so also some wanted to maintain that the doctrine of thecovenant of works had been thought up in the period immediatelyprecedingCocceius.Ifthisistakentomeanthatpreviouslythisdoctrinehad not been worked out in every detail and was not presented in allclarityaswasthecase later, thenthere issometruth to it.Butwhoeverhasthehistoricalsensetobeabletoseparatethematuredevelopmentofathoughtfromitsoriginalsproutinganddoesnot insist thatadoctrinebematureatbirth,willhavenodifficultyinrecognizingthecovenantofworksasanoldReformeddoctrine.AlreadywithUrsinus in theLargerCatechism the question: "What does the divine law teach you?" isanswered:"What kind of a covenantGod entered intowithman at thecreation and howman behaved in the keeping of that covenant,"5 etc.Likewise, Olevianus speaks of the covenant of law, the covenant ofnature, the covenant of creation in contradistinction to the covenant ofgrace. Sometimes, it is true, he means by it the promulgation of theMosaiclaw,butinotherplacesitisnolessclearthattheactualcovenantofworkshastobesoughtbeforethefall.Onlyintwopointswasthisolderdoctrineof the covenant ofworks superseded by its later development.Thefirstconcernedtherepresentationprinciple.Theoldroot-ideaofallthe descendants of Adam being naturally in their forefather as theultimategrounds for inheritedguiltwas stillheld to.The covenantwasenteredintowithAdam,andbecauseallmenwereinhimitwasentered

intowithall.The latertheorydidnot inthefinalanalysis,andthusnotexclusively,appealtoanaturallawoflife,buttoajudicialidea.Secondly,whatdidnotalwayscometoclearexpressionintheolddoctrinewastheway in which the covenant of works was to be distinguished from thenatural relationship in whichman as creature stands to God. Later onthesecouldbekeptapartmoredistinctly.Sowheneversomeonecontendsfor thenewness of the covenant ofworks and therebymeans that latertherewasmorelightonthesetwopoints,thenonecanagreewithhiminthis.But thatdoesnotexhaust the contentof thedogma. Itskernel laydeeper. This kernelwas already there earlier. Presentlywe hope to seehow intimately this kernel is related to the Reformed principle.Furthermore, we have to make an important restriction which derivesfromthis.ThereisaphenomenonintheoldestReformedtheologywhichdemonstrateshow from the beginning it was based on the recognition of therepresentationprincipleandthenmovedalongthatline,sotospeak.Wemean its creationism. The idea of allmen being in Adam did not leadReformed theology astray into swapping this creationism fortraducianism. However, if Reformed theology had been completelyseriousthatthefactofallmenbeingnaturallyinAdamwastheultimateground for inherited guilt, then it would naturally have come to thatposition.Naturalrelationshipastheexclusivebasisforinheritedguiltisinseparable from traducianism.The fact that theReformed theologiansheldtothesoul'screationbyGodinspiteofallthedifficulties,indicateshow they here suspected a deeper reason, and instinctivelymoved in adirection which fits in with the later development of the doctrine oforiginalsin.

The development of the doctrine of the covenant in English theologydeservesspecialattention.Itindicatesthatfederalismisatrulyuniversalphenomenon,emergingeverywherewheretheologyisdoneonthebasisof the Reformed principle. It used to be thought rather generally thatBritishtheologianshadfollowedtheDutchonthisscore.Closerresearchhasspeedilyshownthatitisnotamatterofimitationbutofindependentdevelopment. Mitchell, in his work, TheWestminster Assembly (BairdLecture, 1882), says on page 377: "With respect to the doctrine of theCovenants,whichsomeasserttohavebeenderivedfromHolland,Ithink

myselfnow,aftercarefulinvestigation,entitledtomaintainthatthereisnothing taught in the Confession which had not been long before insubstance been taught by Rollock and Howie in Scotland, and byCartwright, Preston, Perkins, Ames and Ball in his two catechisms inEngland."Thisisindeedthecase.TheWestminsterConfessionisthefirstReformedconfessioninwhichthedoctrineofthecovenantisnotmerelybrought in from the side, but isplaced in the foregroundandhasbeenabletopermeateatalmosteverypoint.Nowtheassemblysatfrom1643on.TheSummadoctrinaede foedere et testamentoofCocceiusdidnotappeartill1648,andinthatyeartheWestminsterConfessionhadalreadybeen completed and seen the light of day. Apparently theWestminstertheologianswere, therefore,notunderanyforeigninfluence,butsimplysummedupwhatintheirowncountryhadripenedasthefruitofaslowdevelopment. In tracing back this development one will have toundoubtedly proceed once again from Bullinger. During the reign ofQueenMarymanypreachers and scholarshad fled toZürich.Bullingermaintaineda livelycorrespondencewith them.TheDecadesmentionedabove were translated into English in 1577 and were afterwardsrepublished several times. In their Latin form they, of course, had aneffect much earlier. An English translation of Olevianus' ExpositioSymboli Apostolici, as far as we can tell, came from the hand of JohnFieldeonly in1681.6However, theconjecture is justified that thisbooktooandtheotherworksofOlevianuswerebeingreadinLatin.Here,aselsewhere,theymadetheircontributiontodrawingtheattentionofmanytothecovenantconcept.

Robert Rollock was the principal of the University of Edinburgh from1583to1599.Histheologicallectureswerepublishedinpartin1597withthe title, Treatise on Effectual Calling. Appended to this was a ShortCatechism concerning the Way in Which God from the BeginningRevealed Both Covenants to the Human Race. An English translationappeared inLondon in 1603.Rollockproceeds fromthe idea thatall ofGod'swordbelongstoacovenant."Godsaysnothingtomanapartfromthecovenant"The doctrine of the covenant ofworks is alreadynotablyclearer thanwithOlevianus. "AfterGodhad createdman inHis image,pure and holy, and had written His law in man's heart, He made acovenant with him in which He promised him eternal life on the

condition of holy and goodworkswhich should answer to the holinessand goodness of the creation, and conform to the law ofGod."7 In thecovenantofworksthereisatwofoldrighteousness—oneonwhichitrestsandanotherwhichithadtoproduce.Thelawhasremainedasitexistedapart from the covenant of works; it has been done away with as acovenant rule. Good works in the first covenant were not strictlymeritorious,butwere richly rewarded by free favor.One can easily seehowthemainfeatureshavealreadybeendrawnhereveryclearly.WewillreturntoRollockbelow.

WewereunabletoperuseCartwright'streatise,ChristianWorship,8butfromotherplacesweknowthat it tookup the threadof thedoctrineofthecovenantandspunitfurther.ItwaspublishedinLondonin1616.Nottospeakofthemanywhoonoccasionmadementionofthecovenants,anunbroken series of treatises followed since that time which wereexclusively concernedwith the covenant.Themost important up to thetimeoftheWestminsterAssemblyarethefollowing:TheNewCovenantor the Inheritance of the Saints, a Treatise about the All-Sufficiency ofGod,andtheRighteousnessofManintheCovenantofGrace,Presentedin Fourteen Sermons on Genesis 17:1-2, by John Preston. The firstpublicationofthisworkappearedin1629.Accordingtothetitle,Prestonwastheking'schaplainandmasterofEmmanuelCollegeatCambridge.Hisworkisofamorepracticalnature.HedoesnotequalRollock'sgiftformakingfinetheologicaldistinctions.

ThisneednotbesaidofThomasBlake.Hewroteadetailedtreatisewiththetitle:VindiciaeFoederis,aTreatiseaboutGod'sCovenantMadewithMan, in itsVariousTypesandDegrees.Thefirstpublicationdatesfrom1633,9thesecond,notablymodifiedandamplified,from1658.Blakewasa clear thinker. He deals with all the thorny questions to which thedoctrineofthecovenanthadgivenriseanddiscussestheminamanifoldfashion.Hedevelopshisownopinionwitha consistencywhicharousesadmiration,evenwhereitcannotalwaysbeacceptedpreciselybecauseofthis consistency. Because he clearly carries through the doctrine of anexternalcovenant,heoccupiesauniqueposition.

The famous John Ball made his contribution to the doctrine of thecovenant inmore than one document.Hewrote two catechismswhich

were much used before those of Westminster replaced all others. Inaddition hewrote a separate book: Treatise on the Covenant of Grace.Thisappearedin1645,fiveyearsafterhisdeath.Thistreatiseisfullestinits discussion of the successive dispensations of the covenant of grace.The economies stand in the foreground. The covenant of promise, thecovenant with Abraham, the covenant with Israel under Moses, thecovenantwithDavid, thepostexiliccovenant,andthenewcovenantarediscussedinorder.InsomepointsonefindsthingsinBallthatremindofCocceius,e.g.,intheinfluencewhichheattributestotherealsatisfactionof the Mediator on the state of those already in heaven. Because histreatiseappearedduringthesittingoftheWestminsterAssembly,justatthe time when it set itself to framing the confession, and because itmoreover borrowed fromBall in the standards, one naturally supposesthathisinfluencecanbedetectedinitsformulationofthedoctrineofthecovenant.

Although he did not attend the Assembly, another person whoneverthelesshadagreatinfluenceontheformulationoftheWestminsterStandardswasJamesUssher,thearchbishopofArmagh,Ireland.In1615hewrote the famous IrishArticles, inwhich thecovenantofworksandthatofgracebothappear, the latterbeingcalled"thesecondcovenant."The most important sections of these Irish Articles were sometimesincorporated literally into theWestminsterConfession.The sequence isalsothesame.Ussher'sBodyofDivinity,whichhecollatedfromseveralsources during his youth, made various contributions to the LargerCatechism.ThisworkappearedinLondonin1645.InitstreatmentofthedoctrineofthecovenantitagreeswiththeIrishArticles.

As to works that appeared on the covenants after the WestminsterAssembly, we note Francis Roberts, The Mystery and Marrow of theBible, i.e.God'sCovenantswithMan in theFirstAdamBefore theFall,andintheLastAdam,JesusChrist,AftertheFall(London,1657).Thisisa work in small folio of no less than 1721 pages. In Roberts, too, thetendency to stress the development of the economies emerges clearlyenough.Whathehastosayaboutthecovenantsingeneral(althoughstillalways detailed enough) takes up much less space than his diffusedoctrine of the various stages. The sequence is the same as with Ball,

namely: 1. in Paradise; 2. with Abraham; 3. at Sinai; 4. withDavid; 5.withIsraelinexile;6.theNewCovenant.

*****

Towhat, then, does one attribute the fact that from the beginning thisconceptofthecovenantappearssomuchintheforegroundofReformedtheology?Theremustbesomethinginitsstartingpointbywhichitfeelsitself drawn to this idea. One might perhaps say: the question issuperfluous.ThedoctrineofthecovenantistakenfromtheScriptures.Itcame with the Reformation's return to the Scriptures, and there is noneed foranybut thisnaturalexplanation.However, sucha replywouldnot at all be satisfactory. The Lutherans as well as the Reformed castthemselves on theScriptures.Even thoughwe now fully recognize thatthelatterbetterthantheformersucceededinmasteringtherichcontentof Scripture, this fact in turn also calls for an explanation. BecauseReformedtheologytookholdoftheScripturesintheirdeepestrootidea,itwas in a position towork through themmore fully from this centralpointandtoleteachpartoftheircontentcometoitsown.ThisrootideawhichservedasthekeytounlocktherichtreasuriesoftheScriptureswasthepreeminenceofGod'sglory intheconsiderationofall thathasbeencreated. All other explanations of the difference between the LutheranandtheReformedtraditionsintheendagaincomedowntothis,thattheformer begins with man and the latter with God. God does not existbecauseofman,butmanbecauseofGod.This iswhat iswrittenat theentrance of the temple of Reformed theology. When this principle isapplied tomanandhis relationship toGod, it immediatelydivides intothree parts: 1. All ofman's work has to rest on an antecedent work ofGod;2.InallofhisworksmanhastoshowforthGod's imageandbeameansfortherevelationofGod'svirtues;3.Thelattershouldnotoccurunconsciously or passively, but the revelation of God's virtues mustproceedbyway of understanding andwill andbywayof the consciouslife,andactivelycometoexternalexpression.

We hope to show how this threefold demand has been reckoned withpreciselyinthedoctrineofthecovenant.Letusnowinsuccessiontakealookat(1)thecovenantofworks,(2)thecovenantofredemption,and(3)thecovenantofgrace.

*****

(1)Whenwecomparetherepresentationsoftheoriginalstateofmanasthey have been developed by the different theological traditions, thereimmediatelyarisesafundamentaldifferenceofgreatimportanceforthedoctrineof thecovenantofworks.Accordingto theLutheransmanhadalreadyreachedhisdestinationinthatGodhadplacedhiminastateofuprightness. Eternal life was already in his possession. In his situationthe highest idealwas realized.Nothingmore need be added to executeGod's purpose in creatingman.Manwasmutable, that is true, and hecould fall away from the stateof originaluprightness andbliss.But forthe Lutheran conception this is not a stage that points forward tosomething else, but rather thatwhichwas usual and normal and to beexpected.

Fromthisitfollowsthatthesameconditionreturnsinthestateofgraceto which fallenman is brought by Christ. Precisely becausemankind'sdestinationhadalreadybeenreachedbeforethefallinAdam,ChristcandonothingbutrestorewhatwaslostinAdam.Andsincethedestinationalreadyrealizedwasfullycompatiblewithmutabilityandthepossibilityof falling, the sinner who has been brought back to his destination byChristmustnecessarilyhavetoremainatthislevel.Lutherantheologyis,therefore,whollyconsistentwhenitteachesanapostasyofthesaints.Itdoesnotatallobjecttounitingthestateofjustificationandsonshipwiththepossibilityofsuchanapostasy.

ItisanentirelydifferentmatterwiththePelagiansandwithallwhohavePelagian tendencies. According to them, too, man had been given thehighestandmostpreciousatcreation,howevernotintheLutheransenseofabuilt-inholiness.ThePelagianwillhavenothingoftheimageofGodin this sense, whereas on the Lutheran side this is precisely what isstressed as being the image of God to the exclusion of the spiritualcapabilitiesofthesoulitself.Yet,accordingtothePelagian,itispreciselythelackofthisthatgivesmandignity:heisafreebeingwhohastoworkhimselfupoutofhismoralneutralityandhastoattaintoholinessbyasortofethicalcreativepower.He,therefore,alreadywaswhathehastobebecausehis destiny is the sameasundetermined freedomof choice.

Here,too,thesameprinciplecarriesthroughtothesphereofgrace.WhatwasoriginallythemostimportantwillhavetoremainthemostimportantintherestorationinChrist.Hereitcanbeseenhowthereisnoroomforareal satisfaction. What Christ can do is restricted to the removal ofobstacleswhichhindermaninhisexerciseofhisfreewill.Heonceagaingivesthesinnertheopportunitytostartfromscratch.

TheReformedviewoftheoriginalstateofmanleadstoatotallydifferentresult. Itwas a state of perfect uprightness inwhichhe knew the goodanddiditconsciously.AslongasheremainedinthatstatehecouldalsobesureofGod'sfavor.UptothispointtheReformedviewconcurswiththeLutheran.Butwhereasthelattercanbesatisfiedbyperpetuatingsuchastateandextendingitindefinitely,theReformedviewfixesitsgazeonsomethinghigher. It seesmannotasbeingplaced ineternalbliss fromthebeginning,butasbeingplacedinsuchawaythathemightattaintoeternalbliss.Therestillhoversabovehimthepossibilityofsinanddeathwhichisgivenwithhismutablefreedom.Heisfreetodothegoodoutofhisgoodnature,buthehasnot yet attained thehighest freedomwhichcandogoodonly.Thelatterisplacedbeforehimasanideal.Themeansof obtaining it is the covenant of works. Here too the state of grace isagainultimatelydeterminedbythe ideaofman'sdestiny in thestateoforiginal uprightness. What we inherit in the second Adam is notrestricted to what we lost in the first Adam: it is much rather the fullrealization of what the first Adam would have achieved for us had heremained unfallen and been confirmed in his state. Someone placed inthat state can never again fall from it. As truly as Christ is a perfectSaviour,sotrulymusthebestowonustheperseveranceofthesaints.

f we now look back on the Reformed principle in its threefoldramification,it isimmediatelyobviousthatthecovenantofworksalonemeets its requirements. If with the Pelagian we were to do away withman's increated holiness and allow it to be created by the creaturehimself,wewoulddenytherequirementthatallofman'sworkmustrestonapreviousworkofGod.Heretheworkofcreatingthegoodis takenawayfromGod.If,ontheotherhand,weweretosaywiththeLutheranthatinhisbeingcreatedmanisimmediatelyplacedonthehighestlevelofbliss,wewouldoverlookthesecondrequirement,whichurgesthatthe

life-purposeof thecreaturebedominated ineverythingby thehonorofGod as its higher motivation. The Lutheran viewpoint apparentlyproceeds from anthropological motives. It is the fatherly side of God'sbeing which is thus revealed, but one does not arrive at amany-sidedunfoldingofallGod'svirtues.Evenless is therequirementmetthattherevelation of God's virtues has to be actively and outwardly expressedthroughout the conscious life of man. The Reformed representation isdifferent in each of these respects. To begin with we have here thestrongestrecognitionoftheantecedentworkofGod.Mancannotcreatethegoodforhimself,buthehas todevelopthedivinelygivengoodthatlies within him. If his natural goodness is already the creativework ofGod,thesamecanbesaidforthecovenantalrelationship inwhichGodplaceshim.Thistooistheproductofafreedivinedeed,agiftflowingoutof the condescendingmercy of the Lord. Out of the nothingness fromwhichtheAlmightycalledhimintobeingthecreaturebroughtalongnorights, least of all the right to anunlosable, eternal life.Whenaway isopenedbywhichhe canattain this, then thisway is a creationofGod,somethingthat,humanlyspeaking,couldhavebeenomitted.Thispointmust be seen clearly. According to the Reformed view the covenant ofworks is something more than the natural bond which exists betweenGodandman.TheWestminsterConfessionputsthisinsuchapointedlybeautifulway(VII:1):"ThedistancebetweenGodandthecreaturesissogreat,thatalthoughreasonablecreaturesdooweobedienceuntoHimastheir Creator, yet they could never have any fruition of Him as theirblessednessandreward,butbysomevoluntarycondescensiononGod'spart,whichHehathbeenpleasedtoexpressbywayofcovenant."

Ifwearenotmistaken, the instinctiveaversionwhichsomehave to thecovenantofworksspringsfromalackofappreciationforthiswonderfultruth.Tobesure, if therelationship inwhichAdamcame tostandwithGod is entirely natural and if therewasnothing positive in it, then thecovenanttheoryasanexpressionofthatpurelynaturalrelationshipmustindeed appear rather artificial. The truth of the matter is that in thecovenantofworksthenaturalrelationshipwasmadetoserveapositivepurpose.Itisnotsetaside,butincorporatedintosomethinghigher.Fromthis it followsthat,where thehigherbecomespowerlessand fallsaway,the natural relationship nevertheless remains. As a creature man is

subjecttoGod,and,haditnotpleasedGodtorewardthekeepingofthelawwitheternallife,therequirementwouldstillbeeffective."Dothis!"isstillvalid,evenifitisnotfollowedby:"Youshalllive."Thus,itisthatinthecovenantofgrace,too,theparticipantsareexemptfromthedemandof the law as the condition for eternal blessedness, but not from itsdemandasbeingnormativefortheirmorallife.10

Consequently thecovenantofworks inastrikingwaymeets thesecondand third requirements mentioned above. In all this covenantal workmandisplaysGod's image. Just as the blessedness ofGod exists in thefreerelationshipofthethreePersonsoftheadorableBeing,somanshallalsofindhisblessednessinthecovenantalrelationshipwithhisGod.Itisnot his bliss in itself, but his salvation as a reflection of the eternalblessednessofGod,towardwhichheisdisposed.Therefore,hemustnotimmediatelyandprematurelypossessthehighestenjoyment,butbe ledup to it along a rational way. The image of God within him must bebroughtout in the full clarityofhisconsciousness. Inacertainsense itmust be extended, for in that he can still sin anddieman is notGod'simage bearer. In his life it must be formed by keeping the divine law.Withdeepmoralearnestnesshe is immediatelydirectednot tohisownbliss but to the honor of the Creator, and assigned a task so that, bycompletingit,hemightenterthefulljoyofhiscovenantGod.

(2)IfmanalreadystoodinacovenantrelationtoGodbeforethefall,thenitistobeexpectedthatthecovenantideawillalsodominateintheworkofredemption.GodcannotsimplyletgooftheordinancewhichHeonceinstituted, but much rather displays His glory in that He carries itthroughdespiteman'ssinandapostasy. Itwasmerely theothersideofthedoctrineofthecovenantofworksthatwasseenwhenthetaskoftheMediator was also placed in this light. A Pactum Salutis, a Counsel ofPeace,aCovenantofRedemption,couldthenbespokenof.Therearetwoalternatives:onemusteitherdenythecovenantarrangementasageneralruleforobtainingeternallife,or,grantingthelatter,hemustalsoregardthegainingofeternallifebytheMediatorasacovenantarrangementandplace the establishing of a covenant in back of it. Thus it also becomesclearhowadenialofthecovenantofworkssometimesgoeshandinhandwithalackofappreciationforthecounselofpeace.

Thecovenantofredemptionisnothingotherthanproofforthefactthateventheworkofredemption,thoughitspringsfromGod'ssovereignwill,findsitsexecutioninfreedeedsperformedinacovenantalway.IfChristtheMediatoristheobjectofpredestination,Heis,asguarantor,equallythe freely acting person who desires to do God's will and who, as HecomesforthfromtheglorywhichHehadwiththeFather,says:"Behold,Icome!"Insteadofthecovenantideabeingpresentedhereinaforcedway,onemustmuchrathersaythatonlyheredoesitfullycometoitsown.Forit isonly inthetriuneBeingthatthatperfect freedomdominateswhichthecovenantideaappearstodemand.

Herethecovenantiscompletelytwo-sided,whereasbeforetheFallitstillhad to be regarded as onesided to the extent that man, as God'ssubordinate, was in duty bound to act upon the covenant that wasproposed.AlthoughthiscovenantofredemptionmaynowbeincludedinGod'scounselinthatitoperateswithintheTrinity,itshouldstillnotbeconfusedwithpredestination.Theologianswellknewhowtodistinguishthetwo.Theydonottakeitupunderthetopicofforeordination,butgiveit a separate place after that. Theymay also take it up in the sectionsdealingwiththeexecutionofthedecree,sothatitfollowstheteachingonthe breaking of the covenant of works and opens the discussion of thecovenantofgrace,andrightlyso.Inpredestinationthedivinepersonsactcommunally, while economically it is attributed to the Father. In thecovenant of redemption they are related to one another judicially. Inpredestinationthere is theone,undivided,divinewill. Inthecounselofpeace this will appears as having its own mode of existence in eachperson.OnecannotobjecttothisonthebasisoftheunityofGod'sbeing.Topushunitysostronglythatthepersonscannolongerberelatedtooneanother judiciallywould lead toSabellianismandwouldundermine thereality of the entire economy of redemption with its person to personrelationships.OneshouldconsiderwhatOwenbringstobearinremovingthis objection in his work on the epistle to the Hebrews (ExercitationXXVIII,1,13;cf.Brakel,RedelijkeGodsdienst,VII,3).

Let us now further consider how the requirement of God's honor isreckonedwith in thisdoctrineof the covenantof redemption.After thefallmanwill never again be able towork in amanner pleasing toGod

except a completed work of God be performed on his behalf. Earningeternal life has forever been taken out of his hands. Everything thatsubjectivelyhappenswithinhimcanonlybeaprincipleandphenomenonof eternal life itself and in no way a prerequisite for eternal life. Theobtainingof eternal life thus comes to lie inGod, as awork that isHisalone,inwhichHisgloryshinesandofwhichnothing,withoutdetractingfromthatglory,canbeattributedtothecreature.OnthispointtheentireReformation, both Lutheran and Calvinist, took exception to Rome,whichfailedtoappreciatethisfundamentaltruth.Yetthereasonswhichhaddrivenbothsides to thisprotestweredifferent.WithLuther itwasthethirstforpeaceandstabilityforarestlessconsciencewhichcouldfindnotranquilityinRome'ssalvationbyworks.Aslongasthesinnerhimselfhas todo something for his acquittal, hiswork remains unstable. Thusthe sola fide became the shibboleth of the German Reformation,justification, its principle doctrine. One will agree that, despite all thepuritywithwhichthisdoctrinedevelopsandinwhich,indevelopedform,it is given anew to the church, the highest point is still not reached,namely,thatpointfromwhichtheScriptureitselfviewsthematterwhen,in thewordsofPaul, it sees theheart ofAbraham's faith inhis "givingGod the glory" (Rom. 4:20). Even in its doctrine of justificationLutheranismdidnotcatchholdof this idea in its fullness.Notapurelytheological, but a partly anthropological motif ran through it. It wasdifferentwith theReformed.They, too, felt the samenecessity to leavethewaves ofRome's salvation byworks and once again stand on solidground.Butbesideandbehindthisnecessitytherelayadeeperlonging:athirst for the glory of God that did not primarily meditate on its ownpeace.

When the Reformed takes the obtaining of salvation completely out ofman'shands,hedoesthissothattheglorywhichGodgetsfromitmightbe uncurtailed. What is important for him is the realization that Godglorifies Himself in the salvation of sinners, whereas the Lutheran issatisfiedwhenitmerelybecomesevidentthatmanbringsnothingofhisown instability into thepicture.For theReformed the center of gravitydoes not lie in justification as such, but in the principle by which thelatteristobejudgedandwhichtheScriptureeverywhereapplieswhenitteaches us to regard the work of salvation in its totality as being

exclusivelyaworkofGod.

AtthispointtheReformedprincipleandthedoctrineofthecovenantofredemption are interlocked. The fact that redemption isGod'swork bywhichHewillstobeglorifiedcaninnowisebemorestronglyexpressedthanbythusexposingitsemergencefromoutofthedepthsofthedivineBeingHimself.HereitisGodwhoissuestherequirementofredemptionas God the Father. Again, it is God who for the fulfillment of thatrequirementbecomestheguarantorasGodtheSon.Onceagain,itisGodtowhombelongstheapplicationofredemptionasGodtheHolySpirit.Inthe clear light of eternity, where God alone dwells, the economy ofsalvationisdrawnupforuswithpureoutlinesandnotdarkenedbytheassistance of any human hand. It is a creation of the triune One fromwhom,throughwhom,andtowhomareallthings.

Inthedogmaofthecounselofpeace,then,thedoctrineofthecovenanthasfounditsgenuinelytheologicalrestpoint.Onlywhenitbecomesplainhowitisrooted,notinsomethingthatdidnotcomeintoexistenceuntilcreation, but in God's being itself, only then has this rest point beenreachedandonlythencanthecovenantideabethoughtoftheologically.This was also partly apparent in the covenant of works, but it is mostdistinctherewheretheorderofexistenceissobeautifullyreflectedintheorder of works, and the persons themselves are involved in a purelydivinecovenant.Whenitfirstemerged,thedoctrineofthecovenantstillbetrayed the tendency to proceed from man and to survey itssurroundings.Bytheoutworkingofthedoctrineofthecounselofpeacethis danger was averted and the center placed in God. Here, too, therequirementwasmetthatthecreatureinallhisrelationshipsshouldbeameanstotherevelationofthevirtuesofGod.

But thecovenantof redemptionalsohasmeaning for theapplicationofsalvation. It provides the guarantee that the glory of God's works ofredemptionshallbeimpressedupontheconsciousnessoftheelectandbeactively expressed through their lives. This can happen only when theapplicationofChrist in itsentiretyoccursbecauseofand inunionwithChrist.OnlywhenthebelieverunderstandshowhehastoreceiveandhasreceivedeverythingfromtheMediatorandhowGodinnowaywhateverdeals with him except through Christ, only then does a picture of the

glorious work that God wrought through Christ emerge in hisconsciousnessandthemagnificentideaofgracebegintodominateandtoform in his life. For the Reformed, therefore, the entire ordo salutis,beginning with regeneration as its first stage, is bound to themysticalunion with Christ. There is no gift that has not been earned by Him.NeitheristhereagiftthatisnotbestowedbyHimthatdoesnotelevateGod's glory through His bestowal. Now the basis for this order lies innoneotherthaninthecovenantofsalvationwithChrist.Inthiscovenantthose chosen by the Father are given to Christ. In it He became theguarantorsothattheywouldbeplantedintoHisbodyinordertoliveinthethought-worldofgracethroughfaith.Astheapplicationofsalvationby Christ and by Christ's initiative is a fundamental principle ofReformedtheology,thistheologyhascorrectlyviewedthisapplicationasacovenantalrequirementwhichfelltotheMediatorandforthefulfillingofwhichHebecametheguarantor.InthiswayReformedtheologysimplyshowed that here too it would be content with nothing but its one all-embracingslogan:theworkofgraceinthesinnerasamirrorforthegloryofGod.

Letusnowtakeanotherglanceatthehistoryofthisdogma.GassheldtheopinionthattheapplicationofthecovenantconcepttothepersonsoftheTrinitywastheonlypeculiarlynewideathatCocceiusintroducedintothesystem.Yet,asinotherpoints,somethingwashereattributedtoCocceiusthat in reality is much older. In tracing back the development of adoctrine,oneshouldsimplytakecarenottoattachtoomuchimportanceto the name, and because of the lack of later current formulae, toconclude prematurely that it was absent. Stock phrases usually do notappearatthebeginning,butonlyattheendofadevelopment.Ifwetakethisintoconsideration,wewillhavetoagreewithHeppewhenhe,overagainst Gass's own opinion, points to Olevianus (Geschichte desPietismus und derMystik, p. 211). In Olevianus the concept of eternalsponsorshiponthepartoftheSonhasalreadybeenbroughttofullandclearexpression.InDeSubstantiaFoederis,page23,hewrites:"TheSonof God, having been appointed by God as Mediator of the covenant,becomestheguarantorontwocounts:1)Heshallsatisfyforthesinsofallthosewhom theFatherhasgivenhim, 2)He shall also bring it to passthatthey,beingplantedinhim,shallenjoyfreedomintheirconsciences

andfromdaytodayberenewedinthe imageofGod."Oneshouldtakenote that the guaranty of the Son is not merely presented as theprerequisite of the covenant, but as the root of the application andoperationofthecovenant.WithOlevianusthisisnotanabstractidea,butitdominateshisentirepresentation.Thepromiseandoath-swearing,bywhichGodgaveHimselftousasourGod,andtheadoptionaschildrenofGod and heirs of eternal life, weremade to Christ, who is the Seed ofAbraham,andtoallthosewhoareimplantedintothisSeed(DeSubst.,p.2).

Asa result ofHis guaranty, theMediator formsan idealunitywith theelectand,whenHebecamefleshandsuffered,thissufferingcouldcountasaransomforHisbody.TheresurrectionoftheLordisarealacquittal(actualisabsolutio)ofallthosewhobelongtoHim.Oneshouldcomparethe various quotations in Heppe's Dogmatik des deutschenProtestantismus,II,pages215-20.Heppedrawsthefollowingconclusionfromhisoverview:"FromthisitappearsthatthedoctrineofredemptioninOlevianushasitsactualcenterofgravityinthedoctrineofthepactumand consilium salutis (treaty and counsel of salvation) between FatherandSon,andinthedoctrinewhichrestsuponit,namely,theplantingoftheelectinChrist,orinthemysticalbodyofChrist....Thisrelationshipis one already established in eternity, and of such a nature that frometernitytheFatherlooksupontheSoninnootherwaythanastheWordtobemadeflesh,andtheninunionwiththeelect,believers,whoformhismysticalbody"(pp.218f.).

This train of thought probably also accounts for the distinction whichOlevianus makes between the substance and the testimonies of thecovenantofgrace.Thesubstance,theessenceofthecovenant,liesintheworkoftheMediator,whereasthetestimoniesarebroughttouswhentheMediator enters into a living union with us through the word and theSpirit. The ideas, thus expressed, continued, and without too muchdifficulty they can be followed along the way of the doctrine's furtherdevelopment. Rollock already demonstrates how the work of theMediatorwithrespecttothecovenantofgracewasnothingbutacarryingthrough in him of the covenant of works broken in Adam. "Christ,therefore, ourMediator, subjected himself unto the covenant ofworks,

andunto the law for our sake, anddid both fulfill the condition of thecovenantofworksinhisholyandgoodlife...andalsodidundergothatcursewithwhichmanwas threatened in thatcovenantofworks, if thatconditionofgoodandholyworkswerenotkept. . . .Whereforewe seeChrist in two respects, to wit, in doing and suffering, subject to thecovenantofworks,andinbothrespectshehasmostperfectlyfulfilledit,andthatforoursakewhoseMediatorheisbecome"(Rollock,Works,I,52f.).11

InAmes, lectureratFraneker (after1622),aPuritan fromEngland, thecovenantofredemptionisaweapondirectedagainsttheRemonstrants.The distinction between the accomplishment and the application ofredemption,intheArminiansense,isrejectedbyAmesonthefollowingtwogrounds,amongothers:1)thatitconceivesofGod'sdecisioninsuchawaythatitcouldbefrustratedorrobbedofitsefficacy,2)thatitmakespowerlessthecovenantmadewithChrist("Heshallseehisseed,andthegoodpleasureoftheLordshallprosperbyhishand."Anti-Synodalia.DeMorteChristi,I,5).Thusthecovenantofredemptionhereappearsasthehigher unity between the accomplishment and application of salvation,alongside the decree. It is especially the English theologians whoapproach the doctrine from this angle. Preston divides the promises ofthe covenant of grace into two, and regards the one part as promisesmadetoChrist,theotheraspromisestobelievers:Itissaid,"thepromiseismade to the Seed," yet the promise ismade to us, and yet again thecovenant is made with Abraham: How can all these stand together?Answer:ThepromisesthataremadetotheSeed,thatistoChristhimself,arethese:Thoushaltbeapriestforever;andIwillgivetheethekingdomofDavid; thou shalt sit on that throne; thou shaltbeaprinceofpeace,andthegovernmentshallbeuponthyshoulders;likewise,thoushaltbeaprophet tomypeople. . . .Theseare thepromises thataremade to theSeed. The promises that are made to us, though they be of the samecovenant,neverthelessdifferinthisrespect:theactivepartiscommittedtotheMessiah, to theSeedhimself,but thepassivepartconsistsof thepromisesmade tous:Youshallbe taught; youshallbemadeprophets;youshallhaveyoursinsforgiven....Sothepromiseismadetous.HowisthepromisemadetoAbraham?Itreads,"Intheeallthenationsoftheearthshallbeblessed."Themeaningisthattheyarederivativepromises.

TheprimaryandoriginalpromisesweremadetoJesusChrist (Preston,TheNewCovenant[ed.1639],pp.374-5).

Thesamethought isexpressedbymanyothers.Themotive is thesameagain and again, namely, to concentrate the application of salvation inChrist, whereby one should naturally always keep in mind that Christworks through the Spirit. Reynolds puts it very beautifully: "Everypromise seized upon in faith leads a man to Christ and to theconsiderationofourunionwithhim. It isonlybyvirtueof thisthatwepartakeofthepromises,justaslinescanbedrawntomeetinonecenterfromvariouspoints on the circumference of a circle nomatter how farapart thesebe."EvenBlake, in spite of his strongly sustaineddenial ofany internal covenant, does not deny the existence of the covenant ofredemption.Headmits that federal transactionstookplacebetweentheFatherandtheSon.Headmitstoothatthishappenedforoursakes,andfinally that the economyof the covenantof graceandourbeing in it isfoundedonthecovenantofredemption(VindiciaeFoederis,pp.14f.).

The doctrine of the covenant of redemption is worked out in a mostprecisewaybyCloppenburg. InOverhetVerbondGods (Disputationes,III, 4; Opera Omnia, I, 503) he says: "Here there arises before us thetwofolddiathekeordispensationofthenewcovenant(covenantofgrace)of which Christ speaks in Luke 22:29. 1) The one which the Fathercovenantallyordainstotheguarantor,2)TheoneinwhichtheSonastheFather'sguarantorordainsthepromiseoflifeandheavenlygloryforoursake.As for the firstarrangement, thecovenant is said tobepreviouslyratified by God in Him, Gal. 3: 17. Here the full covenant conceptremains, namely a two-sided agreement of mutual trust. As for thesecondarrangement,thecovenantiscalledatestamentestablishedforusbythedyingTestator,Heb.9:14-17."Cloppenburgthencontinuesbyfirstspeaking about the covenant arrangement betweenGod theFather andtheSonasguarantorinwhichweareconsideredonewiththelatter.

The peculiar thing with him is that he chooses the doctrine of thecovenant as a point of departure for his polemic against theRemonstrants.12Fromthisrapidoverviewitisapparentthatthedogmaofthecovenantofredemptionissomethingotherthanareworkingofthedoctrineof election. Itowes its existencenot toa tendency todraw the

covenantbackand take itup in thedecree,but to concentrate it in theMediatorandtodemonstratetheunitybetweentheaccomplishmentandapplicationofsalvationinHim,ontheoneside,andthevariousstagesofthecovenant,ontheother.Fromthisitfollowsthatmuchlessemphasisthan one generally attributes to the theologians is placed on itstranscendent eternity and that, despite the fact that it is called eternal,thiseternitystillhasadifferentcharacter than thatof thedecrees. It iseternal insofaras it fallswithintheTrinity,withinthedivinebeingthatexistsineternity,butnoteternalinthesensethat itwaselevatedabovethe reality of history. "Just asman had committed a double evil," saysOlevianus, "so the Son of God, having been made Mediator of thecovenantbyGod,becomestheguarantorontwocounts:1)thatheshallsatisfy,etc."AndFrancisRobertsgivesthisdefinition:"Thecovenantoffaith isGod'sgraciouscompactoragreementwithJesusChrist, the lastAdam, and in him with all his seed, after the fall, concerning theirrecoveryoutofthestateofsinanddeathintoastateofrighteousnessandeternal life,byChrist; that inhim theLordmaybe theirGod,and theyHispeople;thattheyshouldacceptChristandthesecovenantedmerciesbytruefaithandwalkworthyofthemaccordingtotheGospel"(p.69).

That the covenant of redemption is an innovation is a position alreadyrefutedbyWitsius in theHuishoudingderVerbonden (I, 2, 16) andbyRoberts before him (God's Covenants, II, 2, 3). It should never beforgottenthatthisdoctrinealsohadahistory.ItwasnottakenfromtheScriptures ready and completed, but grew out of them. The federaltheologiansafterCocceiussometimespaintedtoohumanapicture.Ithasnotalwaysbeendefendedtoohappilyexegeticallyeither.But,asfarasitscoreisconcerned,itliessofirmlyintheprinciplesofReformedtheologythat ithasenduredeveryattackand,despite its transcendentcharacter,hasassureditselfofapermanentplaceinthemindsofbelievers.

(3) If theworkof salvationhas a covenantal format its roots, then therest of its unfolding is bound to correspond to it and proceed in acovenantalway.Thecovenantofredemptiondoesnotstandbyitself,butisthebasisoftheeconomyofsalvation.It isthegreatpreludewhichintheScripturesresoundsfrometernityonintoourowntimeandinwhichwecanalreadylistentothepuretonesofthepsalmofgrace.BecauseGod

hasfromthebeginningsetHimselftogiveloveandfaithfulnessasamanto his friend, and because by the Son of His good pleasure He hascommitted Himself covenantally to the restoration of the violatedfaithfulness, so the application of this covenantal salvationwill have toproceedalongthesamelines.Thecovenantofredemptionisthepatternfor the covenant of grace. However, it ismore than that. It is also theeffective cause for carrying through the latter. As far as its offer andapplication are concerned, the covenant of grace lies enclosed in thecounselofpeace,sothatwithrespecttothelatter itappearscompletelyas a gift, as a covenantal benefit. By virtue ofHis official appointment,HisbeinganointedasMediator in thecovenantof redemption, theSonrules throughout theages in thehouseofgrace,gathersuntoHimselfachurchthroughWordandSpirit,andlaysclaimonallthosewhodesiretolive according to His ordinances. However narrowly or widely theboundary of the covenant of grace be drawn, in any case it involves arelationshipwithChrist,whetherexternalorinternal,bywhichitistiedtothecovenantofredemption.NormayitbethoughtthattheappearanceoftheMediatorinthiscovenant,astheguarantorforHisown,preventsthemfromstanding incovenantalrelationshiptoGod.TheSonbecameguarantor precisely so that they might be presented as parties in thecovenantandbehaveassuch,sothattherewillbenoimputationtothemof His merits without re-creation in God's image and glorification ofGod's grace in themirror of theirmind and in the activity of their life.Leastofalldoesitbypassthem.EvenasthesubstitutionaryroleofAdamdoes not prevent any individual from reacting personally in his ownconsciencetothebreakingofthecovenantofworks,evensotheguarantyofChristdoesnotpreventanybelieverfromfeelingthecovenantofgraceworking out in his own relationship to God. Precisely because it wasneverintendedtoplacethecovenantofgracelooselybesidethecounselofpeace,one'smannerofpresentationcould largelyremainamatterofpreference. Although some chose to distribute the data over twocovenants and others to include them in one covenant, they alwaysremainedawareofthefactthathereitwasnotaquestionofadifferenceinprinciple,butmerelyofadifferenceinmethod.AconclusiveexampleofthisisofferedbytheWestminsterStandards.WhereastheConfessionspeaksofacovenantofgracebetweenGodandthebelieverinChrist,theLarger Catechism presents it as a covenant made with Christ as the

secondAdam.

(a)OnthebasisoftheaccomplishedworkofGodthecovenantalrelationunfoldsastheessenceoftherichesof theordosalutis.HereonceagaintheworkingoutofthegloryofGodintheconsciousnessandlifeoffaithappearsateverypoint tobe the leading thoughtbywhich thecovenantconcept is explained. In response to the question how the salvationobtainedbytheMediatorisappropriatedbytheindividual,theReformedbelieveranswers:InsuchawaythatitbestrevealsthegreatnessandthegloryofthetriuneGodintheworkofsalvation.Itisnotthecasethatmanimmediately and at once comes into possession of full blessedness, forthen there would not be an opportunity to see the unfolding of thewonderful plan of grace. Neither is it the case that grace as materiamedicaispouredintothesinner;forthenhewouldfailtoappreciateitsdivine beauty. The reality of his situation must be revealed in theconsciousness of the sinner towhomGod showsHis grace.Hence, theReformed Christian loves to express the work of grace in terms ofconscious life.Heoftenspeaksaboutapowerful calling,occasionally inthesenseof regeneration.Hedoesnotdeny thereby thatan immediateactofGod is required tocreatespiritual life in thedeadsoul; ratherheintendstoexpressasstronglyaspossiblethatlifefirstcomestoitsgreatestfruition,its destiny, in the conscious recognition of God's grace. Hence, if theWordasthefoodforGod'sconsciousworkingisnotpresent,theworkisnotGod's.

It is not difficult to summarize these thoughts in the concept ofcovenantalrelationship.ThewayinwhichGoddealswithman,fromtheexternal call on, reveals traces of this concept. It is, as it were, madetransparent by the light of moral responsibility. Even the presentationandpreachingofsalvationisdirectedtowardstakingholdofmanintheconsciousness of his relation to God and towards stimulating hisconsciousness and making him react freely to the condescendinggoodnessofGod, coming to him in theway of covenant. This becomespossiblebymeansoftheReformeddistinctionbetweenthebroaderandthenarrowersenseoftheimageofGodinman.TheLutheranconceivesof the imageofGodasbeing foundmainly in themoralqualitiesof the

soul. According to the Reformed understanding, these two cannot beidentified. Man has understanding and will, he is spirit, he can knowGod; inthisregardtoo,he is the imageofGod.Intheextentthatthesecapacitiesarepresentafterthefall,heremainsintheimageofGod.Thepurpose here is not to ascribe any good to fallen man, but rather topresenthiminthedeepestrecessesofhisbeingandinhistruedestinyassomebody who has to take in the glory of God and allow it to shinethroughhim.

He who keeps this in mind will also be able to understand why thepreaching of the law in relation to the concept of the covenant has asomewhat different significance for Reformed theologians than forLutherans.Thelatterscarcelyallowaplacetothelawbeforethefall.Bothbefore and after regeneration the law has only a negative character,serving togenerate repentanceandmortificationof the oldmanof sin.For the Reformed it also serves this purpose, but that is not all. Eventhose among the theologians who strictly separate law and gospel andmakethe lattertoconsistwhollyofpromises—asamatterof fact, thosetheologiansmorethanothers—putemphasisonthefactthatthelaw,asthe comprehensive norm for the life of man, also determines man'srelation to the gospel. At this point we observe the intensely moralseriousnessof theReformedpoint of view.Nothing canoccur inman'slife where God's law does not immediately apply and is not impressedstrongly on his conscience. As soon as the gospel enters into theconsciousnessofman,heisconfrontedwiththedemandoffaith.Thereisnotasinglesinnerwhoforonemomentcanwithdrawhimselffromthatresponsibilitytowardthegospel,towhichheisboundbyhisconscience.Just asman before the fallwas obligated to enter into the covenant ofworks, even so fallenman is obligated to receive gracewith a believingheart. Of course, the difference remains that while acceptance was amatterofcourseinthestateofrectitude,itcannottakeplaceinthefallenstateexceptforsupernaturalgrace.

There is still another area in which the Reformed view of the law isinfluencedbytheideaofthecovenant.Evenafterthefall,thelawretainssomethingofitscovenantalform.Thelawwasnotincludedinthefederalrelationshipwithouthavingbeenaffectedbyit.Eventodaythecallofthe

law sounds in our ears: such a life I would give you, if only you couldfulfillme!Godcouldhavewhollyeradicatedthatrelationandhavetakenawaythelasttracesofitfromourminds,afterthecovenantofworkswasbroken.However,Hekept itsmemoryalive inus.Hehasrepeatedthatpromisehypotheticallyandconsequentlyhasheldupbeforeusconstantlythe ideal of eternal life to be obtained by keeping the law, a lost idealthough it be.Thus the essential content of the conceptof covenant hasbeenkeptinourconsciousness.WhentheworkoftheSpiritbymeansofthe law and the gospel leads to true conversion, in this conversion thelonging for this lost ideal of the covenant appears as an essential part.From the abovewe can also explainwhy the older theologians did notalwaysclearlydistinguishbetweenthecovenantofworksandtheSinaiticcovenant. At Sinai it was not the "bare" law that was given, but areflectionofthecovenantofworksrevived,asitwere,intheinterestsofthe covenant of grace continued at Sinai.13 (b) It would be amistake,however, to say that the above is the essence of the covenant. ThatnaturalrelationinwhichmanstandstoGodandthisjustclaimmadebytheCreator,remainvalid,alsoateachlaterstageandarepresupposedineachact, including the covenantof grace.Only letnoone suppose thatthe covenant of grace can ever be exhausted by these factors and caninvolvenothingmorethanthem.Itsessence,thatbywhichitbecomesapowerforeverydaylife,liesinanadditionalfactorwhichwenowneedtobringintoview.

Fortheproperappreciationofitscharacterwefirstrefertothefollowingfeature.Covenanttheologywasaccustomedtosurveythetruthfromtheperspective of the Christian life. That does not mean that it remainedwithintheboundariesofalimitedsoteriology,foritwastooReformedtodo that; its purpose truly was the glory of God. While at times thepersonal interest in the teaching of truth was pushed aside forobjectivity's sake, the unity of Christian and theologian comes toexpression in the federalist. This comes out, as is well known, in theHeidelberg Catechism, in which the believing I continually expresseshimself.FromthisitisclearthattheconceptofcovenantwasconsideredashavingbeenrealizedonlyinthebelievingChristian.Onlyrarelyistheproblemtakenupastohowtoconsiderthosewholackfaithandyetliveunder the ministry of the covenant. Covenant theology develops its

contentsnotbyplacingitselfbeforeandthusoutsideit,butinthemiddleofthecovenant.

The covenant is neither a hypothetical relationship, nor a conditionalposition; rather it is the fresh, living fellowship in which the power ofgraceisoperative.Onlybytheexerciseoffaithdoesitbecomeareality.ItisalwaysbelieverswhoactastruecovenantpartnerswithGod.Theywhoare partners also have the promises in their entirety sealed to them asbelievers. The covenant is a totality from which no benefit can beexcluded.

From theabove considerationweare ledback to the thoughtwhichwehavereferredtoastheleadingprincipleofthedoctrineofthecovenant.Ifthisisthecase,itisnothingbuttheopeneyeandtheclearvisionoftheReformed believer for the glorious plan of the grace of God, whicharouses inhim a consciousness of the covenant and keeps it alive, andwhich causeshim to be so familiarwith this scriptural idea andmakesthis train of thought so natural to him.How else could he receive andreflect thegloryofhisGod, ifhewerenotable to stand in thecircleoflight,wherethebeamspenetratetohimfromallsides?Tostandinthatcirclemeanstobeapartyinthecovenant,toliveoutofaconsciousnessof the covenant and to drink out of the fullness of the covenant. TheChristianknowsthatheisapartyinGod'scovenantandassuchhehasallthingsandspansatanyonemomentthewholeorbitofgrace,bothintimeandforeternity.Byfaithheisamemberofthecovenant,andthatfaith has a wide outlook, a comprehensive character, which not onlypointstojustificationbutalsotoallthebenefitswhicharehisinChrist.Whereas the Lutheran tends to view faith onesidedly— only in itsconnection with justification—for the Reformed Christian it is savingfaith in all themagnitude of the word. According to the Lutheran, theHoly Spirit first generates faith in the sinner who temporarily stillremainsoutsideofunionwithChrist;thenjustificationfollowsfaithandonlythen,inturn,doesthemysticalunionwiththeMediatortakeplace.Everything depends on this justification, which is losable, so that thebelieveronlygetstoseealittleofthegloryofgraceandlivesfortheday,sotospeak.Thecovenantaloutlookisthereverse.OneisfirstunitedtoChrist,theMediatorofthecovenant,byamysticalunion,whichfindsits

conscious recognition in faith. By this union with Christ all that is inChrist is simultaneously given. Faith embraces all this too; it not onlygraspstheinstantaneousjustification,butlaysholdofChristasProphet,Priest,andKing,ashisrichandfullMessiah.ThedeepestreasonforthisdifferenceinviewisnoneotherthanthefactthatthereceptionofthefullgloryoftheworkofGod'sgraceintheconsciousnessoffaithisthemostimportant thing to the Reformed believer. Therefore faith may not beconfinedwithin the limited circle of onepiece of the truth and its gazefixed on that all the time; itmust have in view, freely andbroadly, thewhole plan of salvation. The Lutheran lives as a child who enjoys hisfather'ssmile forthemoment; theReformedbeliever livesasaman, inwhoseconsciousnesstheeternalgloryofGodthrowsitsradiance.14

Ifthisisindeedanessentialfeatureofthecovenantaloutlook,itfollowsthat this outlook cannot function apart from the idea of election. Theorigin of the grace of God, the full benefits of which the Reformedbeliever enjoys by the covenant, always lies for him in election. Ifconsciousness of the covenant is the right expression for theconsciousnessoffaithinitsReformedform,thentheremustnotonlybeaplaceinitfortheideaofelection,butitmustbepermeatedbythatidea.Otherwise its deepest, most beautiful and precious fragrance would belacking. We find, then, that the bloodstream of electing grace runsthroughout the Christian life, even as the doctrine of the covenantpicturesthat life in its truefreshness.Atthemost,onecouldsaythat itless sharply delineates the darker side of this doctrine, reprobation,becauseofitspracticaltreatmentofelection.Yet,Reformedtheologyhasnot doubted or denied it. As for the other side, we may say that theconsciousness of the covenant and consciousness of election are notdivorced,andthattheformeristhebasisofthelatter.Thefollowingprovidessufficientproof:Itisahistoricalfactthattheconceptof the covenant lives in the consciousness of believers to express thecertaintyofthestateofgrace.Itwasusedasaformulaforthedoctrineoftheperseveranceofthesaints,adoctrineundoubtedlyrootedinelection.Thetrainof thoughtwasas follows:The fixityof thecovenantofworksdependedonbothGodandman.

Therefore, itwasatemporal,uncertaincovenant.Thecovenantofgrace

has its fixity in God alone, who answers for both parties, and effectsman'swillingandworkingbytheHolySpirit.Itsfixitydoesnotlieattheend as an ideal to be reached, but in the beginning, in thework of theMediator, which in turn is already grounded in His eternal guaranty.Hence,itisanunalterablecovenant,whichextendsintoeternity.Itisanannouncementof intendedmarriagebywhichthebeliever isassuredofhisfuture.Nowonecouldsay:thatisonlymeantfromGod'sperspectiveandmustbeunderstoodinsuchaway thatHekeepsandwillkeepHisconditionalpromiseforever.Butthisisimpossiblesimplybecauseofthefactthattherewouldbenofoundationfortheperseveranceofthesaints,andbecausesuchafixitycanneverbeascribedtothecovenantofgraceindistinctiontothecovenantofworks.

We should not forget that the reaction of the Calvinistic Reformationagainst theLutherandoctrinehad to favor thisusageof the ideaof thecovenant.Ifsalvationislocalizedformeexternallyinthemeansofgrace,thenalso thecontinuationanddevelopmentofgrace inmewilldependontheuseoftheexternalmeans.ThereforetheLutheranisunacquaintedwith the perseverance of the saints, and is satisfied with the continualpresence of the means of grace. He believes in a perseverance of themeans of grace, as has been very strikingly observed. But when theconceptof thecovenant isplaced inbackof themeansofgrace,so thatgrace lies inGod'shandandnot insomethingcreated, thengracemustimmediatelyassumeanirresistibleandimperishablecharacter.

(c)Asfarasadultsareconcerned—sincewearediscussingthemforthepresent—the covenant presupposes acceptance and personalappropriationofitscontentsbyfaithonthebasisoftheelectinggraceofGod, and the administration of the covenant starts from thispresumption.Thisisthethirdandnewaspect,whichisaddedtotheofferofthecovenantandtherequirementtoenterintothecovenant.Hereitsrealization takes place. It is perhaps not superfluous to cite somewell-knowntheologiansintheirownwordsinregardtothissubject.First,theactualization of the covenant through saving faith. Bullinger says(Decades,III,6):"InGenesiswearetaughtexpresslywhothepartiesinthecovenantare,viz.,theliving,eternal,almightyGod...andAbrahamwith all his seed, that is with all believers. . . . For the apostle Paul

explainstheseedofAbrahaminthisway,particularlyinhisepistletotheGalatians,wherehewrites,'IfyouareofChrist,thenyouareAbraham'sseedandheirsaccordingtothepromise.'"Olevianusextensivelyarguesthatthesealingofthecovenantisnotgeneral,butalwaysstartsfromthepresupposition of the presence of faith. "Therefore one has in thepreachingoftheWordanofferofthepromiseofgraceandasummonstoembrace it; both are directed in this way to the elect as well as to thereprobate.Butonly in the electdoesGodworkwhatHe commands. Inorderthatoutofthatentiremultitudeachurchmightappear,unitedbyGod Himself in Christ, God begins that solemn negotiation, as in amarriage compact, not with a sealing of grace offered, in general (formanyreject itopenlysothat itcannotbesealedtothem;andmoreovertheLorddoesnotdesiretoenterintocovenantwiththehypocrites,whosecretlyhardenthemselves,aswouldbethecaseifHeHimselfwerefirsttoaffixtheseal).Ratherinthefoundationbyvisiblesigns,Hebeginswithwhat was last in the offer of grace, namely, so that we may subjectourselveswithourseedandnothardenourheartstothedivinecommandbywhichHesummonsus toreceive theofferedgrace.ThenfollowsthesealingofthegracefirstofferedinthegospelandalsothespecialbondofGod"(SubstantiaFoederis,II,54).PeterMartyrtakesthesameposition.We read: "Faith alwayshas toprecede theuse of the sacraments, ifwewant touse themcorrectly andnot reverse theorder.Evenasoneeatsand drinks without faith in an unworthy manner, so baptism withoutfaith is also received in an unworthy manner. I want this to beunderstoodwithreferencetoadults,fortheprecisesituationofchildren,we deal with elsewhere" (Loci Communes, II, 16, 10). MusculusdistinguishesthegeneralcovenantmadebyGodwiththewholeearthandits inhabitants, animals as well as men, from "the special and eternalcovenant,whichHedeigned tomakewith the elect and believers. Thiscovenant is called 'special' because it is not relevant to all, but only tothose who are elect and believers, viz., to Abraham as the father ofbelieversandhisseed"(LociCommunes,p.142).Polanusteaches:"Thecovenant common to all believers is made with every believer inparticular in baptism" (Syntagma, VI, 33). Preston writes: "The nextquestionishowcananyoneknowwhetherheisinthecovenantornot?...Ifyoubelieve,itiscertainthatyouareinthecovenant....Andthereisstillanotherwaytoknowthis,viz.,'Inyourseedallthegenerationsofthe

earth will be blessed.' When one is planted in this Seed, he will beblessed" (The New Covenant, pp. 378, 380). Only Blake makes anexception to this. He considers the essence of the covenant to lie inhistoricalfaithandexplainsthatthisentitlesonetobaptism—inthecaseof an adult, and that only the promise of future saving faith has to beincluded, without presupposing the presence of the latter (VindicaeFoederis,p.289).

It is equally easy to demonstrate that the theologians did not placeelectionandcovenantsidebysideinadualisticfashion,butrelatedthemorganically. It isawell-knownfact that formanyelectioncircumscribestheextentofthecovenantevenintheirdefinitionofthecovenant.Thisisthe case with Witsius, Braun, Lampe, Maestricht, á Marck, Brakel,Francken and others. One finds this description not only in the latertheologians;itisfoundjustaswellintheveryearliest.Olevianus'workisentitled: "Concerning the Substance of the Covenant of Grace BetweenGodand theelect."Szegedin speaks of a "special and eternal covenant,whichGodHimselfdeignedtomakewiththebelieversandelect"(citedbyHeppe,GeschichtedesPietismusundderMystik inderReformirtenKirche,p. 208).Musculus expressedhimself identically, as one can seeabove.Polanusisnodifferent:"Godmadebothcovenants(oldandnew)only with the elect" (Syntagma, VI, 33). Again, in 1603 Martinius,professor in Bremen, who later advocated a more liberal outlook atDordrecht, wrote about "the covenant of grace with certain individual-elect,towhosenumberIbelong."Onehardlyneedstoberemindedhowall this in no sensemeans that covenant administration proceeds fromelection, nor that all nonelect stand outside any relation to theadministration of the covenant. Rather it means: 1) that any certaintyaboutone'selectionmustdevelopoutofastrongcovenantawareness;2)that throughout the entire administration of the covenant the all-embracingpromisesofGod,astheyresultfromelection,mustbekeptinmind, both in word and sacrament; 3) that finally the essence of thecovenant, its full realization, is found only in the true children ofGod,and therefore is nomore extensive than election.Especially the secondpoint is important. Besides the fact that everywhere God's covenant isadministered,thereisasealingofitscontent:thepresenceoffaithisthepresuppositionoftheassurancethatoneisentitledtotheblessingsofthe

covenant—besidesthisfact,wesay,thereisalwaysasolemnwitnessandsealingofthefactthatGodwishestorealizeinalltheelectthetotalscopeof the covenant.These twoaspects are very clearlydistinguished in thedefinitionoftheWestminsterConfessiononthecovenantofgrace:". . .theCovenantofGrace;whereinHe freelyofferethunto sinners lifeandsalvationbyJesusChrist;requiringofthemfaithinHim,thattheymaybe saved, and promising to give unto all those that are ordained untoeternal lifeHisHoly Spirit, tomake themwilling, and able to believe"(VII,3).

HavingseenhowthedoctrineofthecovenantofgracedoesfulljusticetothedemandoftheglorificationofGodintheconscienceofbelievers,wemaygoontopointouttheinfluenceofthissamedoctrineontheactivelifeofthebeliever.Faith,consideredfromtheaspectofthecovenant, isnot only wider in outlook and more comprehensive, it is also morepowerful and healthy than elsewhere, for it carries with it the basis ofgoodworks. There is a covenantal obligation in the state of grace. Thenew lifeobtainedbyChristmustbebrought toactionanddevelopmentby having the stimulus of gratitude work on the renewed moralconsciousness.Thisistheoppositeofwhatwasexpectedfromthestrongemphasis on predestination. No passivity is preached, rather a strictdiscipline is required, which sometimes goes so far as to make theLutherans fear a return to the Roman doctrine of salvation by works.That fear is unfounded. It is Christ, the Mediator, working in Hismembers, who brings these sacrifices of gratitude. In thewords of ourCatechism, it is impossible that someone,havingbeenunited toChrist,wouldnotproducefruitsofgratitude.ChristmustrulegloriouslyinHispeople, for that is the reward of His labor. He cannot be quiet andinactive in us. His kingdom is only fully manifest when we are sogoverned by His Word and Spirit that we are wholly subject to Him.Christ is the anointedKing, not only overHis church, but alsoHe hasbeen given to her as Head over all things. Hence, in the activity ofbelievers,bywhichHisruleisrealized,liesalsotheurgencytoworkinallspheres of life. For the Reformed believer Christianity, by virtue of itscovenantal character, is a restless, recreating principle which neverwithdrawsitselffromtheworld,butseekstoconquerit forChrist.Onlyoutofthisconsciousnessofthecovenantcomesatruezealformissions,

forinmissionsthebodyofChristisstrivingtowarditsowncompletion,whichit cannot reach as long as all itsmembers have not been added.Wherever this thought is lacking, zeal formissions is exclusively fedbyphilanthropicmotiveswhich,bythenatureofthecase,arelessenduringandpowerful.

Finally,wewanttodisclosethecloseconnectionbetweentheReformedprinciple and the doctrine of the covenant from one other importantangle. This concerns the historical progress of the church. TheReformation was united in seeking the essence of the church in theinvisible, in unionwithChrist, and not in an external, visible bond, asRome does. This invisible character is at the same time what isindividual, non-transferable. Thus, arises the danger that continuity islost. In order to check this danger Luther moved a long way back toRome.Inacertainsenseheagainimprisonedthesupernatural,invisiblegracewhichmaintainsthechurchwithinsomethingexternal.ThepowerofgraceisintheWordandinthesacraments.WherethechurchisfoundwiththeministryoftheWordandsacraments,itisself-sustaining.God,asitwere,hasletgoofthegracewhichsustainsthechurchandplaceditinthemeansofgrace.TheReformedbelievercannotbesatisfiedwiththispresentation.Certainlyhebelievesinthecontinuityofthechurch,buthebelievesinitandthereforedoesnotneedtosupportitbyinstrumentsofsalvation,intowhichgraceispoured.ForhimthatcontinuityisassuredbythefaithfulpromiseofGod.Hence,inbackofWordandsacramentheplaces the covenant as the strongest expression of how the unbrokenwork of grace from generation to generation rests, as all grace, on thesovereignpleasureofGod.Thechurchdoesnotabidebecausewebaptizeor work regeneration by baptism; rather because God establishes Hiscovenant from generation to generation, therefore the church remainsandwebaptize.SinceitisGod'sCovenantandnotman's,itisappropriatefortheChristiantorecognizethisgoodnessofGodinquietgratitudeandinfaithandtobestrengthenedbyitssealing.Hereagaintheconceptofthe covenant requires that faith will react freely and actively to thispronouncementofGod.Thesamethingholdstrueforthecovenantasitbindsgenerationstogether,asholdstrueforthecovenantasitbindstheindividualtoGod.Theothersideofthepromiseisanappreciativefaith.Thatfaithmustalsoliveinthechurchinregardtoitscontinuationinthe

generations to follow. It must not be like the desert, which does notrespond when blessings come upon it; rather, it must be as a wateredgarden,whoseflowersseekthefaceofthesunandwhoseleavesunfoldtocatchthedropsofGod'srainofgrace.Itisevidenthowstronglytheideaofthecovenantmakesitselffelthere,andhowitelevatesitselfaboveallidolatrousworshipofthesacraments.

Inthisconnectionitmayalsobenotedthattheideaofthecovenanthasprevented too narrow a view of the sacraments. Viewed as seals of thecovenant, the sacraments possess just as universal and comprehensivesignificanceasthecovenantitself.Theyceasebeingsignsofaparticulargrace and become what they should be: particular signs of an all-comprehensivegrace.TheysealChristtous,therichandfullChrist,withallthatwehaveinHim.Wecannotlimitthatsealingpowertoanysinglestageofthewayofsalvation.Notregeneration,norjustification,northecommunionofthesaints,eachinitself,butallofthese,astheytogetherconstitute theblessingsof thecovenant,are theobjectof sealing. If theconsciousnessofthecovenantreflectslikeamirrorthegloryofGod,thenalltheseparaterayscometogetherinthesacraments,asafocalpoint,tooneglory.

(d)With respect to childrenno less than foradults, it is clear from theabovethatbesidesthetwoelementsoftheofferofthecovenantandtheobligation of the covenant, there is still a third element present. Thisconsists of the expectation that covenant children will enter into thefellowshipof thecovenant.This expectation is basedon thepromise ofGodtobelieversthatHedesirestobetheirGodandtheGodoftheirseedand thatHe also desires to continueHis covenant in their seed and tomakeitalivingreality.Thisdoesnotmerelyholdtrueforsomepromisesundercertain restrictions,but also for thepromisesof the covenant, astheyspanalloflifeandincludeeverygiftofgrace.Itis,wethink,strikinghow strongly just in this respect the comprehensive character of thecovenantisappliedbyReformedchurches.Allofthemassumeittobeatotalityanddonothesitatetounfolditinallitsfullnessintheirliturgicalwritings. As a promissory covenant its total content is brought intocontactwith the individual alreadyas an infant.When that infant laterentersintocovenantalconsciousnessbyactivefaith,thisfaithsumsupall

that is included in the covenant, so that the wide, rich world of God'sworksofgraceisopeneduptohissight,aperspectivelookingbackwardsandforward. It is just thisbeautifuloutlookwhich leadsone tocall theideaofthecovenantofgracea"mother-idea."Thecovenantisamotherbecause it spiritually bears sons and daughters by the power of divinegrace and the promises, a mother because its children have receivedeverything from it, because it has given birth to them, sustains them,feeds, and blesses them. Reformed theology has certainly realized thatthechurchhastwosides,andthatbesidesbeingtheassemblyofbelieversandtherevelationof thebodyofChrist,shemustalsobethemeansbywhichnewbelieversareadded.Butithasnotseparatedthesetwosides;ratherithaskepttheminorganicconnection.Justbecausethepromisesof God have been given to the assembly of believers, in its entirety,includingtheirseed, thisassembly isalsoamotherwhoconceives sonsand daughters and ismade to rejoice in her children by the Lord. Thename"mother"signifiesthistrulyReformedpointofviewindistinctionfromothertermssuchas"institutionofsalvation."

As faraswecandiscover, the leadingspokesmenofReformedtheologyare completely agreed on this. They all recognize that the church hasreceivedsuchpromisesforheroffspring.Theyequallyrecognizethattheconsiderationofthesepromisesistheheartofthefruitofcomfortwhichherviewofthecovenantoffers.Andtheyinsistthatremembranceofthepromisemust function as an urgent reason for rousing the seed of thechurch to embrace the covenant in faith. On both sides, parents andchildren,thisconvictionprovidesstrength.Strengthwasprovidedinthedaysofold,inthegoldenageofthechurches,agloriouscomfort,findingitsmostbeautifulfruitioninthedoctrineofthesalvationofthechildrenofcovenantwhodieininfancy.

Onlyintheworkingoutoftheseprinciplesdidthetheologiansdivergetoa greater or lesser degree. One could not but expect that a consciousappropriation,anenteringintotherelationofthecovenantbyfaithandconversion, would be revealed in each member of the covenant whocomestotheageofresponsibility.Thewholetendencyofthedoctrineofthe covenant, as we have tried to present it, led to that demand. Onecould hardly be satisfied with the thought that a non-rejection of the

covenant,where all expression of lifewasmissing,would be sufficient.Here they collided with the discovery, as they also knew from theScriptures, thatnotallbelong to theseedof thepromise. Incomparingthe statements of theologians at this point, it is clear that the oldertheologiansgenerallyproceededmorefearlesslythanthelateronesintheindividualization and general application of the promises. Beza writes:"Thesituationofchildrenwhoarebornofbelievingparents isaspecialone.

Theydonothaveinthemselvesthatqualityoffaithwhichisintheadultbeliever.Yetitcannotbethecasethatthosewhohavebeensanctifiedbybirthandhavebeen separated from the childrenofunbelievers, do nothavetheseedandgermoffaith.Thepromise,acceptedbytheparentsinfaith,also includes their children toa thousandgenerations. . . . If it isobjectedthatnotallofthemwhoarebornofbelievingparentsareelect,seeingthatGoddidnotchooseallthechildrenofAbrahamandIsaac,wedonotlackananswer.Thoughwedonotdenythatthisisthecase,stillwesaythatthishiddenjudgmentmustbelefttoGodandthatnormally,byvirtueofthepromise,allwhohavebeenbornofbelievingparents,orifone of the parents believes, are sanctified (Confessio Christianae Fidei,IV,48).IngeneralMartyragreeswithhim:"Wedonotascribethis(theenjoyment of the benefits of the covenant) to birth in the flesh as theprinciple and true cause, for our children's salvation is only by theelection andmercy ofGod,whichoften accompaniesnatural birth. . . .Thisisnotoutofnecessity,forthepromiseisnotgenerallyapplicabletothewholeseedbutonlytothatseedinwhichelectionconverges....Butbecause we must not curiously investigate the hidden providence andelectionofGod,weassumethatthechildrenofbelieversareholy,aslongas in growing up they do not demonstrate themselves to be estrangedfromChrist.Wedonotexcludethemfromthechurch,butacceptthemasmembers,withthehopethattheyarepartakersofthedivineelectionandhavethegraceandSpiritofChrist,evenastheyaretheseedofsaints.Onthatbasiswebaptizethem.

We do not need to respond to those who object and ask whether theministerisdeceived,whetherperhapstheinfantisintruthnochildofthepromise,ofdivineelectionandmercy.Similardiatribescouldbeadduced

withregardtoadults,forwedonotknowwhethertheycomedeceptively,whether they truly believe, whether they are children of election orperdition,etc."(LociCommunes,IV,8,7).

The children of believers must be baptized, according to Polanus,"because they have been purchased by the blood of Christ, have beenwashed from their sins, and possess therefore by thework of theHolySpiritthethingsignified....BecausetheHolySpiritispromisedtothem,theypossesstheHolySpirit"(Syntagma,VI,55).

Others, especially the later theologians as we have already noted,expressed themselves less fearlesslyandpreferred rather tobe satisfiedwith the general judgment that there is a seed for the Lord among theseed of believers, for whom the covenantal promises hold withoutlimitation.Heidegger serves as an example: "Not to all the children ofbelieversparticularly,butonlytotheelectbaptismsealsregenerationandthetotalcontentsofspiritualgrace.Thoughitisgoodandpropertohopeforthebestforeachoneinparticularaccordingtothejudgmentoflove,itis not permitted in regard to all collectively" (Heppe, Dogmatik derevangelisch-reformiertenKirche,p.496).

Anotherpointofdifferenceconcernsthetimewhenthepromisesof thecovenant are usually realized by regeneration in the children of thecovenant. Three schools of thought can be identified: the first school(includingUrsinus,Polanus,Junius,Walaeus,Cloppenburg,Voetius,andWitsius) not only assumes that the children of the covenant who diebeforetheyreachtheageofdiscretion,possesstheHolySpiritfromtheirearliest childhood and so are born again andunited toChrist, but alsomaintains this thesis as generally valid for the seed of the promisewithout distinction. They use it as an argument in defense of infantbaptism in their polemics with the Anabaptists. Ursinus says: "This issureandcertain, thatGod institutedhissacramentsandcovenantsealsonlyforthosewhorecognizeandmaintainthechurchasalreadymadeupofpartiesofthecovenant,andthatitisnotHisintentiontomakethemChristians by the sacraments first, but rather to make those who arealready Christians to be Christiansmore andmore and to confirm thework begun in them. . . . Hence, if anyone considers the children ofChristianstobepagansandnon-Christians,anddamnsallthoseinfants

who cannot come to be baptized, let him take care onwhat ground hedoes so, because Paul calls them holy (1 Cor. 7), and God says to allbelieversinthepersonofAbrahamthatHewillbetheirGodandtheGodof their seed. . . .Next lethimconsiderhowhewill permit them to bebaptizedwith a good conscience, for knowingly to baptize a pagan andunbelieverisanopenabuseanddesecrationofbaptism.

OurcontinualanswertotheAnabaptists,whentheyappealtothelackoffaith in infants against infant baptism, is that the Holy Spirit worksregenerationandtheinclinationtofaithandobediencetoGodinthemina manner appropriate to their age, always with it understood that weleave the freemercyandheavenly electionunboundandunpenetrated"(quotedinSüdhoff,OlevianusundUrsinus,pp.633f.).AndintheLargerCatechism, thequestion"Are infants, since theyhaveno faith,properlybaptized?" is answered: "Yes, faith and the confession of faith arerequired of adults, since they can in no otherway be included into thecovenant.For infants it suffices that they are sanctifiedby theSpirit ofChristinamannerappropriatetotheirage"(Q.291).Comparetheabovequotation of Polanus, which also relates to this issue. Junius arguesagainst the Anabaptists: "We call it false to argue that infants arecompletely incapable of faith; if they have faith in the principle of thehabitus,theyhavetheSpiritoffaith....Regenerationisviewedfromtwoaspects,asitisinitsfoundation,inChrist,inprinciple,andasitisactiveinus.Theformer(whichcanalsobecalledtransplantingfromthefirsttothesecondAdam)istheroot,fromwhichthelatterarisesasitsfruit.Bytheformerelectinfantsarebornagain,whentheyareincorporatedintoChrist, and its sealing occurs in baptism" (Theses Theologicae, LI, 7).Walaeuswritesinhisdisputationonbaptism:"Wereject theopinionoftheLutheranswho tie the regenerating power of theHoly Spirit to theexternalwaterofbaptism in suchaway that, either it ispresent in thewateritselforatleasttheprincipleofregenerationwillonlyworkintheadministrationofbaptism.This,however,isopposedtoalltheplacesinScripture,wherefaithandrepentanceandhencethebeginningandseedofregenerationareantecedentlyrequiredintheonewhoisbaptized....Therefore,wedonotbindtheefficacyofbaptismtothemomentinwhichthe body is sprinkled with external water; but we require with theScripturesantecedentfaithandrepentanceintheonewhoisbaptized,at

least according to the judgment of love, both in the infant children ofcovenantmembers,andinadults.Forwemaintainthatininfantstoothepresence of the seed and the Spirit of faith and conversion is to beascertainedonthebasisofdivineblessingandtheevangelicalcovenant"(Synopsis Purioris Theologiae, XLIV, 27, 29). Similarly Cloppenburgarguesagainst theAnabaptists: "Weposit that the childrenof believersare incorporated into Christ by the immediate secret work of theHolySpirit,until,whetherinthislifeoratthemomentofdeath,theperiodofinfancy is completed, so that, whether in the flesh or not, they mayconfess by faith or sight what God has given them and us together bygrace"(Exercitationes,I,1097).Voetiusexpresseshisagreementwiththedistinction Burges made between regeneration in principle and activeregeneration. He ascribes the former to the elect children of covenantparents, but rejects Burges' position, in which this regeneration inprinciplefollowsfrombaptismasanoutworkingofthelatter."Thisisnotproven by the Reformed theologians cited by him. It is known that intheir opinion the effect of baptism does not lie in the causation ofregeneration,but in the sealingof regenerationwhichhasalreadybeenbroughtabout."

Alittleearlierhewrites,"TheseventhopinionisthegeneralpointofviewofReformedteachers,inwhichregenerationisacknowledgedineachofthe children of the covenant in particular, namely those who are elect,whethertheydieininfancyorarebroughttofaithwhengrowingup,etc."(Selectarum Disputationum, II, 410-412). Finally, Witsius writes: "Iacknowledge that thus far I agree with this opinion" (MiscellaneorumSacrorum,II,634).HealsothinksthatthisviewhasbeenacceptedinthebaptismalformulaoftheDutchchurches.

Besidesthisschoolthere isstillanother.Those inthisgrouphesitatetomakeanystipulationastothetimeofregenerationinthechildrenofthepromise.Zanchius,Ames,andFr.Spanheimtheelderappeartotakethisapproach.Zanchius,however,thinksofregenerationasgivenatthetimeof baptism, rather than occurring long after baptism. He says: "Someinfants,aswellassomeadults,aregiventheSpiritoffaith,bywhichtheyareunitedtoChrist,receivetheforgivenessofsinsandareregenerated,beforebaptism;this isnotthecasewithothers,towhomthesegiftsare

given inbaptism" (DeBaptismo, III,31, inCommentariusadEphesios,CaputV).Amesstates:"WedonotdenythatGodinfusesthehabitusorprinciple of grace in some at the time of their baptism; but God cancommunicate this same grace both before and after baptism"(BellarminusEnervatus [ed. 1628], III,68).Spanheim: "Baptismservesregeneration,whichprecedesinadultsandwhichfollowsininfants.

It takes effect, at times in thepresent and at other times in the future,accordingtoGod'spleasure"(DubiaEvangelica,III,27,6).Finally, thereis a third school. It held that the preaching of the Word is the usualmeansbywhichregeneration takesplaceasanaccompaniment. Itheldthat God does not depart from this rule without necessity, and that inthose children who are destined to live to the age of discretion,regeneration bides its time until they can be brought to a consciouspossession of the sealed blessings of the covenant. Beza, who was notalways consistent on this point, says: "As for the children born in thechurch, elected by God . . . and who die before coming to the age ofdiscretion, I caneasilyassumeon thebasisof thepromiseofGod, thatthey are united to Christ at birth.However, apart from plain audacity,whatcanweascertainconcerning therestother thanthat theyareonlyregenerated when by hearing they receive the true faith?" (Ad ActaColloquiiMompelgartensis,p.106).AnotherrepresentativeofthisschoolwasUssher,who asks as follows: "Whatmustwe think of the effect ofbaptism in those elect infants whomGod allows tomature to years ofdiscretion?"Heanswers:"Thereisnoreasonordinarilytopromisetheman extraordinary work of God, if God purposes to give them ordinarymeans.ThoughGodcanattimessanctifyfromthewomb,asinthecaseof Jeremiah and John the Baptist, and at other times in baptism, it isdifficult to determine, as some are accustomed to do, that each electinfant ordinarily before or in baptism receives the principle ofregenerationandtheseedoffaithandgrace.If,however,suchaprincipleofgraceisinfused,itcannotbelostorhiddeninsuchawaythatitwouldnotdemonstrateitself"(BodyofDivinity,p.417).

But apart from these two points just discussed, all these schools areagreed in relating infant baptism to the promise of God, given to thechurch,thatfromherseedHeintendstoraiseupaseedforHimself.

(Footnotes)1 De verbondsleer in de Gereformeerde theologie (Grand Rapids:"Democrat"Drukpers,1891,68pp.),rectoraladdress at theTheological School of theChristianReformedChurch inGrandRapids,Michigan.Arevisionby the editor of the translation of S. Voorwinde andW.VanGemeren,publishedprivatelybyK.M.Campbell(Philadelphia,1971).2 Diestel (Jahrbücher für Deutsche Theologie, 10, 266) lists thoseLutherantheologianswhogaveaplacetothecovenant in their system, viz., Calixtus, Wolfgang Jäger of Tübingen,Caspar,Exner,Reuter,andothers.CocceiusenjoyedagoodreputationinGermany,especiallyasanexegete,evenamongtheLutherans.Thecovenantofworkswasemphasized.ThisisstrangesincethereisnoplaceforitinaconsistentLutheransystem. Federal and natural unity were placed side by side in thecovenantofworks,withoutsubordinatingthe one to the other. With respect to the covenant of grace, thedistinctivelyLutheranviewcomesoutinthe fact that nothing but faith was recognized as the condition of thecovenant(stipulatiofoederis).Reformedtheologiansalsoaddtothis,withouthesitation,newobedience,andsaythatjustificationisbyfaithalonebutthat the covenant is much broader. The Lutheran brings the sole fidefromjustificationtotheideaofcovenantwhenhetakesupthelatter.3ForGelliusSnecanus(JelleHotzesfromSneek)cf.YpeyandDermount(GeschiedenisderNederlandscheHervormdeKerk,II,51,178)andTrigland(KerckelyckeGeschiedenissen,IV,929-930).HotzeswasnotagoodCalvinist; he was suspected of heterodoxy in regard to predestination.Towardtheendofhislifehecarriedon correspondencewithArminius.Later theArminians appealed tohiswritingstoprovethattheirdoctrineswere old and had a right to exist in the Reformed church, while strict

Calvinismhadbeenintroducedatalatertime. Hotzes' work on the doctrine of the covenant bore the title,MethodicadescriptioetfundamentumtriumlocorumcommuniumS.S.degratuitoDeifoedere.4 Ursinus wrote two catechisms, one large and one small. Both werepublishedbyQuirinusReuterusinUrsiniOperaTheologica,1612.ThesmallcatechismhadthegreaterinfluenceonthecompositionoftheHeidelbergCatechism.5 Already the first question of the Larger Catechism introduces thecovenant:"Whatisyourfirmcomfortinlifeanddeath?That...Godhasplacedmebyhisinfiniteandunmeritedmercyinhiscovenantofgrace...andhassealedthishiscovenantinmyheartbyhisSpirit...andbyhisWordandthevisiblesignsofthiscovenant."Q.2:"HowdoyouknowthatGodmadesuchacovenantwithyou?BecauseIamatrueChristian."Q.3:"WhoiscalledatrueChristian?HewhoisunitedtoChristbytruefaithandisbaptizedintoHim."Thedoctrine of the covenant of works is found in the ninth question. Thecontrastoflawandgospelisbroughttobearonthecontrastbetweenthecovenantofworksandthecovenantofgrace.TheApostle'sCreedisviewedas"aresuméofthatwhichtheGospelcommandsustobelieve—thatwemaybepartakersofthecovenantofgrace"(QQ.19,20).AlsothelawisconsideredasaruleoflifeforthosewhostandinacovenantalrelationtoGod, those who are already in the covenant (Q. 147). The necessity ofprayerisbasedonthefactthatprayerbelongstothemostimportantelementsoftheworshipofGoddemandedbythecovenantofgrace(Q.223).Thedoctrinesofworship,thesacraments,anddisciplineareplacedundertheaspectofcovenant.SoalsothesacrificialdeathoftheMediator:"Itistheonlysacrifice,bywhichChristhasmeritedourinclusioninthecovenantofgracewithGod, i.e., forgivenessofsins, thegiftof theHolySpirit,righteousness,andeternallife"

(Q.86).Soalsothedoctrineofjustification(Q.131).Thecovenantenterslessfrequentlyintothediscussionof the smaller catechism of Ursinus, hence it does not take up a largeplaceintheHeidelbergCatechism.Thereferences to these quotations are taken over from the work of M.A.Gooszen(DeHeidelbergscheCatechismus,Leiden,1890).6 JohnFielde'swork inEnglishwas issued 1581 not 1681. (courtesy ofRowlandWard)7 A part of Rollock's works has been published in Edinburgh by theWoodrowSociety(since1849).TheTractate referred to extends to 288 pages in the first volume. Thequotationonthecovenantofworksisfoundonpage34.8Cartwright'streatisewasissuedinanunauthorizededitionin1611;1616wasthefirstauthorizededition.ThetitlewasChristianReligion(1611)orATreatiseofChristianReligion(1616)notChristianWorship.(courtesyofRowlandWard)9 Thomas Blake's work was published in 1653 not 1633. (courtesy ofRowlandWard)10 This is clearly expressed by Cloppenburg (De Foedere Dei, I, 8):"ThoughmanwasfittostandinacovenantwithGod,Godcouldhaveruledhimwithoutanycovenantalcommunion,onlybyauthorityoftheLaw.Thereforewe should not think thatman's obligation to obey the law isderivedfromtheadministrativeprovisionofHiswillbywhichhemadethecovenant.Rather itaroseatthemomenttherationalcreaturereceived his existence, was impressed in his nature with the image ofGod,andthusitprecededthemakingofthecovenant.Godmakesacovenantwithman,whomHehasalreadyboundandobligatedtoHimselfbycreatinghiminHisimage,astheLordandFatherofspirits."11 The lack of further development of this idea in Rollock may beexplainedbythefactthathetookthesamepositionasPiscatoronthe imputationof theactiveobedienceofChrist.

ThisatleastistheviewofMitchell(TheWestminster Assembly, p. 149). This agrees with Rollock's thesisthataccordingtoHishumannaturetheMediatorstoodunderthecovenantofworksforHimself,becauseHewasinAdam'sloinsatthetimeofitsinstitution.Nevertheless,heimmediatelyaddstothisthesis:"Wemustbecarefulwhenwespeakaboutthestate of the man Christ, as far as that state concerns Christ Himself,whetherhishumannatureconsideredbyitselfwasunderthecovenantofworks,whetherthisnaturehasgainedeternallifeforitselfbykeepingthecovenantofworks"(Works,I,p.52).Also,whatIhavequotedaboveinthetextseemstodemandtheimputationoftheactiveobedience,ratherthanitsdenial.12Cloppenburg'ssignificanceforthedevelopmentofthedoctrineofthecovenantispointedoutbyHeppe(Het Godgeleerd Onderwijs, II, 271-276). Cloppenburg's works werepublishedintwovolumesbyJoh.MarckinAmsterdamin1684.Thedisputationsconcerningthecovenantaretobefoundinvol.I,pp.487-570.OnthedoctrineofparesisCloppenburgwasthepredecessorofCocceius,atleastifonegoesbythepublicationoftheSummaDoctrinae(1648).13ThelawholdsanessentiallydifferentplacefortheLutheransthanfortheReformed.Theoreticallybothagree in the threefold use of the law: usus politicus, usus elenchticus,ususnormativus(i.e.,(1)thelawastheruleofcivilrighteousness;(2)thelawaspedagogueleadingtoChrist;(3)thelawasruleoflifefortheregenerate).ThedifferenceliesinthefactthattheLutheransonlyrelatethisthirduseofthelawtotheremnantsoftheoldnatureofthebeliever,whiletheReformedrelateittothenewman,whofindsinthelawapositiveruleoflife.This difference comes to light especially in practice. In the ReformedchurchesthelawisreadeverySunday,ausagewithwhichtheLutheransapparentlyarenotfamiliar.ItistreatedextensivelyintheHeidelberg

Catechism and in Calvin's Genevan Catechism under the heading ofgratitude.Lutherancatechismsdealwith the commandments at the beginning; that is to say, the law isconsideredchieflyasthemeanstoarouserepentance,aspedagogueleadingtoChrist.TheReformeduseitforthesamepurpose,butitshighestandabiding purpose lies elsewhere for them. With reference to man'sknowledgeofhismisery,theHeidelbergCatechismreferstothelawofGodonlytosummarizeitsmainteaching(Q.4)andnottotreattheseparatecommandments. Only under the teaching on gratitude is eachcommandmentdealtwithseparately.14 Schneckenburger (Vergleichende Darstellung des lutherischen undreformirtenLehrbegriffs,I,203):"[FortheLutherans] faith is certainly the subjectivemeans of unionwithChrist,butisnotitselfalreadytherealizationof thisunion.That it is aworkof theHolySpiritdoesnotyetmake itssubjectivelayingholdofChristthatpossessing ofChrist bywhichmystical union takesplace. . . . This realunion,however,occursbythedivineactofjustification,. . .bywhichChristhimself,thepersonal,divine-humanRedeemer,isimplantedinmeasareal life-principle. This union with Christ, which takes place byjustificationandwhichincludesregenerationuntoadoptionasachildofGod, issomethingmuchmoresublimethanthatother,purelysubjectivemoralunionoffaith."P.204:"ItmustalsobekeptinviewthattheworkoftheHolySpiritbywhichjustifyingfaithisworkedinthecontriteheart, isnotatthesametimeaworkofChristhimself,that,onthecontrary,Christis poised purely as an object before this faith produced by the HolySpirit."

Copyright©Monergism.com

TheDoctrineoftheCovenantinReformedTheologybyGeerhardusVos,

Copyright©2018

All rights reserved under International and Pan-American CopyrightConventions.Bypaymentoftherequiredfees,youhavebeengrantedthenon-exclusive,non-transferablerighttoaccessandreadthetextofthise-book on-screen. No part of this text may be reproduced, transmitted,downloaded,decompiled,reverseengineered,orstoredinorintroducedintoanyinformationstorageandretrievalsystem,inanyformorbyanymeans, whether electronic or mechanical, now known or hereinafterinvented,withouttheexpresswrittenpermissionofMonergismBooks.

ePuband.mobiEditionsAugust2018Requestsforinformationshouldbeaddressedto:Monergism,P.OBox491,WestLinnOr,97068