Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadJonathan Edwards Collection: Edwards, Jonathan - Rational Biblical Theology: Chapt 16 cont 2
TOPIC: Edwards, Jonathan - Rational Biblical Theology (Other Topics in this Collection)
SUBJECT: Chapt 16 cont 2
Other Subjects in this Topic:
(4) Administration of the Covenant of Grace in Redemptive History
Edwards’ preaching searched out the unfolding of the one covenant of grace in all ages of the world. The covenant “is not essentially different now from [what it was] under the Old Testament, and even before the flood; and it always will remain the same.” *70*
In The History of Redemption Edwards wrote:
2. The Work of Redemption with respect to the grand design in general as it relates to the universal subject and end of it, is carried on . . . by many successive works and dispensations of God, all tending to one great end and effect, all united as the several parts of a scheme, and altogether making up one great work. Like an house or temple that is building, first the workmen are sent forth, then the materials are gathered, then the ground fitted, then the foundation is laid, then the superstructure erected one part after another, till at length the topstone is laid. And all is finished. Now the Work of Redemption in that large sense that has been explained may be compared to such a building that is carrying on from the fall of man to the end of the world. God went about it immediately after the fall of man. . . . and so will go on to the end of the world. And then the time shall come when the top stone shall be brought forth and all will appear complete and consummate. The glorious structure will then stand forth in its proper perfection. *71*
In this same work, Edwards briefly describes the various epochs of the covenant of grace before the Mosaic period: “the first from the fall to the flood, the second from thence to the calling of Abraham, three from thence to Moses. . . .” *72* The first period, from the fall to the flood, included Christ’s beginning His mediatorial work, the first revelation of the gospel (Gen_3:15) the appointment of the custom of sacrificing, actually saving souls (“It is probable, therefore, that Adam and Eve were the first fruits of Christ’s redemption”), the first uncommon out-pouring of the Spirit, the eminently holy life of Enoch, his translation to heaven, and “the upholding the church of God in the family of which Christ was to proceed . . . before the flood.” *73*
When we come to the Mosaic period, we find a continued unfolding of the covenant of grace but the form of its administration raises special problems. In the sermon on Rom_6:14, Edwards speaks of the “legal dispensation of the covenant of grace,” showing that grace was the principle even in the Mosaic dispensation. *74* Like most Puritans, Edwards believed that the dispensation of the law was fundamentally a legal dispensation of the covenant of grace - that is, the covenant of grace administered in the context, or mode, of the legalistic system. As noted above, he also regarded the Mosaic dispensation as a second promulgation of the covenant of works; that is, to the self-righteous it declared the righteousness that would be required of all those who offered their own righteousness as the basis of their salvation. As such it was a ministry of death (though the Pharisees did not realize it), even as the covenant of grace was a ministry of life.
Edwards explained the relation between the Old Testament administration of the covenant of grace and the New in the “Qualifications” controversy:
Far am I from thinking the Old Testament to be like an old almanack out of use; nay, I think it is evident from the New Testament, that some things which h; for instance, the acceptance of the infant-seed of believers as children of the covenant with their parents; and probably some things belonging to the order and discipline of christian churches, had their first beginning in the Jewish synagogue. But yet all allow that the Old-Testament dispensation is out of date, with its ordinances; and I think, in a matter pertaining to the constitution and order of the New-Testament church - a matter of fact, wherein the New Testament itself is express, full, and abundant - to have recourse to Mosaic dispensation for rules or precedents to determine our judgment, is quite needless, and out of reason. There is perhaps no part of divinity attended with so much intricacy, and wherein orthodox divines do so much differ, as the stating of the precise agreement and difference between the two dispensations of Moses and of Christ. And probably the reason why God has left it so intricate, is, because our understanding the ancient dispensation, and God’s design in it, is not of so great importance, nor does it so nearly concern us. Since God uses great plainness of speech in the New Testament, which is as it were the charter and municipal law of the christian church, what need we run back to the ceremonial and typical institutions of an antiquated dispensation, wherein God’s declared design was, to deliver divine things in comparative obscurity, hid under a veil, and involved in clouds?
We have no more occasion for going to search among the types, dark revelations, and carnal ordinances of the Old Testament, to find out whether this matter of fact concerning the constitution and order of the New-Testament church be true, than we have occasion for going there to find out whether any other matter of fact, of which we have an account in the New Testament, be true; as particularly, whether there were such officers in the primitive church as bishops and deacons, whether miraculous gifts of the Spirit were common in the apostles’ days, whether the believing Gentiles were received into the primitive christian church, and the like. *75*
Pursuing this point, Edwards continues:
(6.) It seems to be foretold in the prophecies of the Old-Testament, that there would be a great alteration in this respect, in the days of the gospel; that under the new dispensation there should be far greater purity in the church. Thus, in the forementioned place in Ezekiel it is foretold, that “those who are [visibly] uncircumcised in heart, should NO MORE enter into God’s sanctuary.” Again, Eze_20:37-38. “And I will cause you to pass under the rod, and will bring you into the bond of the covenant; and I will purge out from among you the rebels, and them that transgress against me.” It seems to be a prophecy of the greater purity of those who are visibly in covenant with God. Isa_4:3, “And it shall come to pass that he that is left in Zion, and he that remaineth in Jerusalem, shall be called holy, even every one that is written among the living [i.e. has a name to live, or is enrolled among the saints] in Jerusalem.” Isa_52:1, “Put on thy beautiful garments, O Jerusalem, the holy city; from henceforth there shall NO MORE come to thee the uncircumcised and the unclean.” Zec_14:21, “And in that day, there shall be NO MORE the Canaanite in the house of the Lord.”
(7.) This is just such an alteration as might reasonably be expected from what we are taught of the whole nature of the two dispensations. As the one had carnal ordinances, (so they are called Heb_9:10) the other a spiritual service; (Joh_4:24) the one an earthly Canaan, the other a heavenly; the one an external Jerusalem, the other a spiritual; the one an earthly high priest, the other a heavenly; the one a worldly sanctuary, the other a spiritual; the one a bodily and temporal redemption, (which is all that they generally discerned or understood in the passover), the other a spiritual and eternal. And agreeably to these things, it was so ordered in providence, that Israel, the congregation that should enter this worldly sanctuary, and attend these carnal ordinances, should be much more a worldly, carnal congregation, than the New-Testament congregation. One reason of such a difference seems to be this, viz. That the Messiah might have the honour of introducing a state of greater purity and spiritual glory. Hence God is said to find fault with that ancient dispensation of the covenant, Heb_8:7-8. And the time of introducing the new dispensation is called the time of reformation, Heb_9:10. And one thing, wherein the amendment of what God found fault with in the former dispensation should consist, the apostle intimates, is the greater purity and spirituality of the church, Hebrews 8:7, 8, 11. *76*
Perhaps Edwards’ most profound, analytic (and briefest) statement of the difference between the two dispensations is his comment on Jer_31:33.
[179] Jer_31:33. “But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; after those days, saith the Lord, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts, and will be their God, and they shall be my people.” I think the difference here pointed out between these two covenants, lies plainly here, that in the old covenant God promised to be their God upon condition of hearty obedience; obedience was stipulated as a condition, but not promised. But in the new covenant, this hearty obedience is promised if a man be but of the house of Israel, as by faith he becomes so. God promises expressly in this new dispensation that he shall perform a hearty obedience, and so have God for his God. That old covenant they broke, as it is said in the foregoing verse. The house of Israel, these were called so under the Old Testament, could break that; but the new covenant is such as cannot be broken by the spiritual house of Israel, because obedience is one thing that God engages and promises; and therefore this is called an everlasting covenant upon this account, as is plain from chap. 32: . It is true the true saints, in the Old Testament, could not fall away any more than they can now, but they were not the Old-Testament Israel; and, though God had engaged in his covenant with Christ that they should not fall away, yet he had not expressly revealed that to them. God had not in those days so plainly revealed the primary and fundamental condition of the covenant of grace, viz. faith; but insisted more upon the secondary condition, universal and persevering obedience, the genuine and certain fruit of faith. *77*
Edwards is saying here that salvation is the same under Moses and under Christ. Moses’ period was a legal dispensation of grace, while the present one is an evangelical dispensation of grace. Faith, then as now, was the way of justification. But in the Old dispensation the emphasis was on the works of faith and now on the faith in the works. Faith without works was dead then as now. Works without faith were filthy rags of righteousness” then as now.
Noting that in “degenerate” Old Testament times priests and people were very lax with respect to covenanting with God, and services were “merely matters of form and ceremony, at least by great multitudes,” Edwards argues that
[s]uch was the nature of the Levitical dispensation, that it had in no measure so great a tendency to preclude and prevent hypocritical professions, as the New-Testament dispensation; particularly, on account of the vastly greater darkness of it. For the covenant of grace was not then so fully revealed, and consequently the nature of the conditions of that covenant was not then so well known. There was then a far more obscure revelation of those great duties of repentance towards God and faith in the Mediator, and of those things wherein true holiness consists, and wherein it is distinguished from other things. Persons then had not equal advantage to know their own hearts, while viewing themselves in this comparatively dim light of Moses’s law, as now they have in the clear sun-shine of the gospel. In that state of the minority of the church, the nature of true piety, as consisting in the Spirit of adoption, or ingenuous filial love to God, and as distinguished from a spirit of bondage, servile fear, and self-love, was not so clearly made known. The Israelites were therefore the more ready to mistake for true piety, that moral seriousness and those warm affections and resolutions that resulted from that spirit of bondage, which showed itself in Israel remarkably at mount Sinai; and to which through all the Old-Testament times, they were especially incident. *78*
Edwards concludes:
God was pleased in a great measure to suffer (though he did not properly allow) a laxness among the people, with regard to the visibility of holiness, and the moral qualifications requisite to an attendance on their sacraments. This he also did in many other cases of great irregularity, under that dark, imperfect, and comparatively carnal dispensation; such as polygamy, putting away their wives at pleasure, the revenging of blood, killing the man-slayer, &c. And he winked at their worshipping in high places in Solomon’s time, (1Ki_3:4-5.) the neglect of keeping the feast of tabernacles according to the law, from Joshua’s time till after the captivity, (Neh_8:17) and the neglect of the synagogue-worship, or the public service of God in particular congregations, till after the captivity, though the light of nature, together with the general rules of the law of Moses, did sufficiently teach and require it. *79*
(5) Parties to the Covenant of Grace
Edwards, as we have seen, speaks of “[t]he covenant of redemption, or the eternal covenant that was between the Father and the Son, wherein Christ undertook to stand as Mediator with fallen man, and was appointed thereto of the Father.” *80* Thus this covenant is not with man although it concerns man; it is between the first two persons of the Godhead. In this same sermon on Heb_13:8 Edwards refers to the covenant of grace: “Another covenant that Christ has regard to in the execution of his mediatorial office, is that covenant of grace which God established with man.” *81* This covenant is called an “everlasting covenant, Isa_55:3.” *82* It is the same covenant of grace in all ages of the world. The covenant is not essentially different now from what it was under the Old Testament, and even before the flood; and it always will remain the same. *83* Thus the covenant of redemption among the divine persons alone was, in the primary sense of the word, eternal, while the covenant of grace which was made by God with man is eternal or everlasting only in the secondary or derivative sense of that word.
In a sermon on Isa_53:10, the locus classicus of the covenant of grace, Edwards explained that Christ’s seeing sinners converted and saved was part of the reward that God promised Him for His sufferings. *84* When did God make this promise, asked the preacher. His answer was: in the covenant of redemption from eternity. “God was determined that man should be redeemed and he in infinite wisdom pitched upon his own eternal Son to do the work.” But this had to be negotiated by covenant, not by authority, for the two divine persons were equal in authority. The Son was appointed by command after the covenant had been made, only because that was part of the agreement. *85* In the sermon on 1Co_11:3 it is observed again that “God the Father acts as the head of the Trinity in all things appertaining to the affair of man’s redemption.” *86* But it is to be remembered that this was because it was agreed that the Father should so act, not that the Father possessed any natural right to do so. If He had, the covenant of redemption would not have been necessary.
We learn in the sermon on Rom_8:29 that it is the elect whom the Father gives to the Son in the covenant of redemption:
And this eternal foreknowledge implies three things: i. God the Father’s choosing them and ii. His giving them to the Son to be his as he did in the covenant of redemption. Christ speaks of those that the Father had given him, John 637. iii. It implies the Son’s accepting them and looking on them as his from eternity. *87*
Inasmuch as man is a participant in this covenant of grace, it is not eternal in the absolute sense, as I have observed. Now we must face another question. When was the covenant of grace agreed upon by God? Must not that have been, in the nature of the case, eternal? It seems clear Edwards meant that the Godhead agreed from all eternity that all persons who accepted the offer of the gospel of Christ would be saved when they did so accept. At the same time, it would seem that the covenant of grace cannot be thought to be in effect until the person believes in Christ. The elect are chosen from eternity, to be sure, but they are not admitted to the covenant of grace until the moment they accept Jesus Christ as their redeemer. When God gave Christ to die for the elect, He looked on them as they are in themselves; but in actually bestowing eternal life, he does not look on them as they are in themselves, but as they are in Christ. Explaining that statement in covenantal terms, Edwards would have said that the elect in the covenant of redemption are looked upon as they are in themselves - fallen - and as such given to Christ for redemption. But when these same elect enter into the benefits of the covenant of grace, they enter into Christ, and are viewed by the Father as in Him, and receive the salvation that He obtained as their covenant head. This is what Edwards has in mind in the sermon on Galatians 3:16. *88*
(6) The “Binding of God” in the Covenant of Grace
If God elected to salvation, He therein bound Himself to save. He was arbitrary in electing, to be sure. That is, He did not need to elect at all. But as soon as He did elect to save some, He bound Himself to save, and that by some covenant or no covenant. In either case He would have been bound by nothing but His own veracity; but by that veracity He certainly would have been bound. Having elected, He, if His word be true, must save.
Men may not know what He has done. They may not know that He has bound himself to save them. Men knowing of God’s saving decree does not bind God, but having so decreed, God, in the covenant of grace, reveals that and how He has bound Himself for the good of the elect. So argues Edwards, “The covenant of grace is . . . that covenant of redemption partly revealed to mankind for their encouragement, faith and comfort.” *89* Nevertheless, men’s knowledge is not what binds God. Only God can bind God. This He does, in the very decree of election.
The covenant of grace, then, is nothing other than the means by which God decrees to carry out what he has committed Himself to do. He is already bound by His decree; this covenant can bind Him no tighter. It binds Him more specifically. That is, it binds Him with respect to a particular plan, which He has imposed upon Himself. The covenant in no sense relieves the doctrine of the decrees. The covenant, as Edwards and all Calvinists understood it, was for the elect and for the elect only. It may have been offered to all men indiscriminately, but it was wrought out with the elect in mind. It was applied only to the elect, and none but the elect will ever be saved within its framework. Edwards never labored this point, so far as I have noticed. If he did not, I think that there is a very simple explanation for that fact: he saw no reason to do so. It never seems to have occurred to him that anyone would suppose that there was any inconsistency between his predestinarianism and his covenant doctrine. For Edwards, the covenant of redemption was the covenant wherein it was agreed that the Son would become the mediator of the elect, and the covenant of grace was the way in which He would carry out His mediation for the elect. No reconciliation seemed necessary where no inconsistency existed.
5. The Covenants of Works and Grace: Differences and Similarities
The differences and similarities between the covenant of works and the covenant of grace are spelled out fully by Edwards. It was common among the Puritans to draw a sharp contrast between these two covenants. Here Edwards follows. It was not so common to notice the profound resemblances between them, but these Edwards never ignores. We will consider first the differences between the two covenants, according to Edwards, and then the similarities.
The first difference we note is that the covenant of works was made between God and mere man, the covenant of grace between God and the God-man. The first Adam was a living soul; the Second Adam, a life-giving spirit (1Co_15:45).
Second, the two covenants differed in the effects that they had upon those under them. All who were in the covenant of works perished with the violation of that covenant. All in the covenant of grace were redeemed by the fulfillment of that covenant.
Third, the conditions of the two covenants were very greatly different from each other. One required works - the other, faith. Immediately following the doctrine of the sermon on Rom_4:16 are these explanatory words:
The goodness of God appeared in the first covenant which proposed justification by works. It was an act of God’s goodness and condescension toward man to enter into any covenant at all with him, and that he would become engaged to give eternal life to him upon his perfect obedience. But the second covenant that God has entered into with us since we broke the first may by way of distinction be called the covenant of grace. The free and sovereign and rich grace of God appears in it in a manner very distinguishing. And the grace of God in it appears eminently in this that it proposes justification by faith alone. *90*
In the early sermon on Zec_4:7, Edwards preached that if Adam had stood, he and his posterity would have been saved on account of what he did, in contrast to free grace. *91*
Fourth, the subjects of the two covenants were not exactly the same persons. That is to say, while every mere human being was an heir of the covenant of works and condemned thereby, only some of these were heirs of the covenant of grace. By no means all who were in the covenant of works were in the gracious covenant. As we have seen, Edwards taught repeatedly that only few, relatively speaking, would ever be saved, that is, are heirs of the covenant of grace. Another way of saying this is that all non-elect were in the covenant of works alone, while only the elect were in the covenant of grace as well.
Now consider Edwards’ view of the similarities between the covenant of works and the covenant of grace. First, they were between God and a representative, and not between God and all individuals concerned. In this regard human covenants differed from the covenant with the angels which was individualistic. That is, angels were tried separately, not corporately, and some stood while others fell. Each was treated accordingly. In other respects the angelic covenant was not unlike the covenant of works with man. That is, the outcome was on the basis of works alone and the individual “merit” gained thereby. The reason for human covenants being by representatives rather than by individuals is the nature of the human family. Men are affected both by heredity and environment and therefore are never, after the first pair, the same as they came from God.
The covenant of grace resembled the covenant of works in a second matter. It also had a works principle in it. Actually, each of the covenants was fundamentally a covenant of works; that is, their basic validity rested on a works element. Neither would have had any value unless there had been this foundation. Eternal life or death was offered in the covenant of works on the basis of works. Adam and his posterity were to receive eternal life because of Adam’s works or eternal death because of Adam’s works. Likewise, in the covenant of grace, eternal life came to the Second Adam on the basis of what Christ did. It is received by the elect through their faith alone. Still, the benefits of this covenant of grace came from works - the works of Christ. And these works are accredited to believers in Christ so that, indirectly, they are justified by works too. They receive their works (the works of Christ) by faith and thereby are justified.
The third similarity between the covenant of works and the covenant of grace that we shall mention is that each has a gracious element in it. If it is true that the covenant of grace has a works element in it, as we have seen, it is equally true that the covenant of works has some grace in it. The covenant of grace is, of course, obviously gracious inasmuch as all its benefits come to the recipients, the believers, apart from what they do. It is all of grace. But it is also true, though not so obvious, that the covenant of works had grace in it. If we consider the disproportion between the eternal life promised in the covenant of works and the obedience required of Adam, it becomes apparent that such a reward for such a performance had a very great deal of grace in it. Adam surely could not have earned what he would have received for himself and those he represented, even though it was given to him and them on the basis of what he did. It is not purely of grace, as were the benefits of the covenant of grace, but there is much grace, even in the covenant of works. *92*
A fourth agreement between the covenant of grace and the covenant of works which Edwards observes is that the law to which the Second Adam was subjected, though not identical, was the equivalent (and more than the equivalent) of that to which the first Adam was subjected. “There was wanting the precept about the forbidden fruit, and there was added the ceremonial law. The thing required was perfect obedience. It is no matter whether the positive precepts were the same, if they were equivalent.” *93* And, of course, there was obedience to death required of the Second Adam.
Fifth, each covenant was revealed in stages. Apparently Edwards thought there were but two stages of the revelation of the covenant of works; at least I have been able to find mention of only two (Adam and Moses). In the exposition of Joh_5:45 Edwards says, “The law which natural men trust in to justify ’em will only condemn ’em.” *94* This law is what the Pharisees and other Jews were trusting in, and it was nothing other than the covenant of works which was first revealed to Adam and then more fully and explicitly to Moses. In his History of Redemption, Edwards remarks:
The covenant of works was here exhibited to be as a schoolmaster to lead to Christ. . . .
It was given in an awful manner with a terrible voice . . . the voice being accompanied with thunders and lightnings and the mountain burning with fire to the midst of heaven, and the earth itself shaking and trembling to make all sensible how great that authority, power, and justice was that stood engaged to exact the fulfillment of this law, and to see it fully executed. . . . That men being sensible of these things might have a thorough trial of themselves, and might prove their own hearts and know how impossible it was for them to have salvation by the works of the law, and might see the absolute necessity they stood in of a mediator. *95*
6. The Covenant of Grace and Children of the Covenant
How does Edwards’ teaching on the covenant apply to children of believers? According to De Jong, it was entirely wrong-headed. First, complains De Jong, Edwards’ concept of natural ability lessened the significance of Christian nurture in the covenant way. *96* De Jong believes that “Christian nurture” meant rearing children of Christian parents assuming that they are little saints, until there is evidence to the contrary. Edwards would rear such children assuming that they are little sinners until there is evidence to the contrary.
This difference does make a great difference in nurture. In Edwards’ view the parent and church do everything possible to awaken the child and seek for his salvation while urging him to do the same. Otherwise, one treats the child as a member of a Christian family and prepares him as he grows to receive the Lord’s Supper by discerning the Lord’s death in the sacrament of communion, the child having been baptized in infancy. If the child dies before expressing faith in Christ, the church teaches or infers that his soul has gone to heaven. “All children dying in infancy are elect.” *97* Edwards family and congregational children were taught to expect hell if they were not converted before death.
Generally speaking, there are three different views of covenant children among paedobaptists. First, Calvin saw covenant children as elect and regenerate at birth. However he bars them from communion because they are unable to “discern the Lord’s body.” Calvin does not pursue the matter much further or he would have seen the inconsistency of such teaching with his Reformed doctrines. De Jong, among many, starts with Calvin’s view, but makes the mistake of not dropping the matter. He goes further, and falls into hopeless inconsistency with his Reformed faith, having many regenerate persons later apostatize. He never seems to see it because, I suspect, of the ambiguous language he uses. This same position was developed by Abraham Kuyper, who also failed to see the contradiction.
The second view, much less common among Calvinists, is essentially the same, but is less inconsistent. I call this the “as-if” view. Herman Hoeksema, David Engelsma, the Protestant Reformed Church, and others believe that most covenant children are elect. Though parents and elders do not know who are elect, and who are not, it seems good to these Reformed theologians to treat them all as if they were elect children of God. When the reprobates reveal themselves as “bastards,” they are to be “excommunicated”.
The third view, that of the Westminster Standards, Scottish-American Presbyterians generally, and the early Congregationalists, was held by Jonathan Edwards. Here covenant children are born into the “obligations” of the covenant. They are, when sufficiently mature, to ratify their parents’ vows taken on their behalf at their infant baptism. To that end their parents, their church, and they themselves, are to “seek” for their second birth and admission to the privileges of the covenant, including “Confirmation”: admission to the Lord’s Table.
The only tenable view of the covenant of grace vis-à-vis believers’ infants seems to be the one Jonathan Edwards defended. If such a view caused the fall of the covenant in New England, it caused the fall of a false view of the covenant.
Edwards’ whole argument against Stoddard and his later defender, Solomon Williams, is nowhere in all his writings, to my knowledge, stated more definitively and summarily than in the following response to Williams:
The pretended argument, so far as I can find it out, is this; The children of visible saints are born in covenant; and being already in covenant, they must have a right to the privileges of the covenant, without any more ado: such therefore have a right to come to the Lord’s supper, whether they are truly godly or not.
But the show of argument there is here, depends on the ambiguity of the phrase, being in covenant; which signifies two distinct things: either, (1.) Being under the obligation and bond of the covenant; or, (2.) Being conformed to the covenant, and complying with the terms of it. Being the subject of the obligations and engagements of the covenant, is a thing quite distinct from being conformed to these obligations, and so being the subject of the conditions of the covenant.
Now it is not being in covenant in the former, but the latter sense, that gives a right to the privileges of the covenant. The reason is plain, because compliance and conformity to the terms of a covenant, is the thing which gives right to all the benefits; and not merely being under ties to that compliance and conformity. Privileges are not annexed merely to obligations, but to compliance with obligations.
Many that do not so much as visibly comply with the conditions of the covenant, are some of God’s covenant people in that sense, that they are under the bonds and engagements of the covenant; so were Korah and his company; so were many gross idolaters in Israel, that lived openly in that sin; and so may heretics, deists, and atheists be God’s covenant people. They may still be held under the bonds of their covenant engagements to God; for their great wickedness and apostasy does not free them from the obligation of the solemn promises and engagements they formerly entered into. But yet being in covenant merely in this sense, gives them no right to any privileges of the covenant. In order to that, they must be in covenant in another sense; they must cordially consent to the covenant; which indeed Mr. W. himself owns, when he acknowledges, that in order to come to sacraments, men must profess a cordial consent to, and compliance with the conditions of the covenant of grace. *98* And if Mr. W. inquires, Why those children that were born in the covenant, are not cast out, when in adult age they make no such profession; certainly, it as much concerns him to answer, as me; for it is as much his doctrine as mine, that they must profess such consent. - But I am willing to answer nevertheless. - They are not cast out, because it is a matter held in suspense, whether they do cordially consent to the covenant, or not; or whether their making no such profession do not arise from some other cause. And none are to be excommunicated, without some positive evidence against them. And therefore they are left in the state they were in, in infancy, not admitted actually to partake of the Lord’s supper (which actual participation is a new positive privilege) for want of a profession, or some evidence, beyond what is merely negative, to make it visible that they do consent to the covenant. For it is reasonable to expect some appearance more than what is negative, of a proper qualification, in order to being admitted to a privilege beyond what they may have hitherto actually received. A negative charity may be sufficient for a negative privilege, such as freedom from censure and punishment; but something more than a negative charity, is needful to actual admission to a new positive privilege. *99*
Calvin maintains that the presence of unbelief in the church does not nullify the promise. Yet it surely does, by the principle already shown, that everyone, according to his view, is elect and cannot become apostate. If God elected all children of believers, there can be no unbelievers in the world, not to mention in the church. Calvin, of course, had adults coming into the churches of Geneva by confession of faith. Ignoring the fact that such unbelievers could not even exist on the Calvin view, we find here another point of slippage. These adults were carefully examined but still had to be received by “a judgment of charity” which allows that many, though making a credible profession, could be unbelievers with no promise for their children. But if the children were regenerate from infancy, how could they ever be out of the Church?
Calvin is saying two different and conflicting things. First, God promised all believers that their infants would be elect and regenerate and in time provided sacraments (circumcision and baptism) for an outward indication of that. As shown, all human beings in that case are born elect, certainly regenerate and inheritors of eternal life. Second, somehow infants of believers came to be born non-elect and reprobate. Nevertheless, some of these come into the church by false profession, and some of them and some of their children were born reprobates. Calvin lived sublimely content with the first doctrine, virtually unaware that the second undermined it completely.
Advocates of the first of the three views of the covenant of grace do the same. Today the Reformed church tends simply to say that “all children dying in infancy are elect.” Blandly ignoring that in “Adam all died,” they disregard the fact that his progeny must be born dead and cannot be believed to be elect until there is evidence of it via regeneration (Eph_2:1-10).
Could sinners not have come into the world being born again before their parents were born again? Thus they were born of elect unbelievers, not believers. Since no covenant promises of God are made to unbelievers, the children would also have been strangers to the covenant and without hope in the world. That could not have happened according to Calvin’s and Ursinus’ view that the infants were adopted in the womb. The first view asserts it. But it does say that regeneration is presumed before, during or after infant baptism. So, as with the elect dying thief alongside Christ, he may have had many children as an unbeliever to whom no covenant promises were extended. That would seem to be the one avenue for the decree of reprobation to operate and the church to have unbelievers in her membership.
P. Y. De Jong states the “milder answer” that out of the believers’ children God was pleased to raise up a seed to Himself. *100* However that is not quite enough for vacillating De Jong, who easily slips into thinking of the children as elect or regenerate and possessing grace. Nevertheless, if they don’t show it sooner or later, they are to be “excommunicated.” *101* This implies that some covenantal children are not elect and will never be regenerated. But De Jong will not say that explicitly.
Let me give an Edwardsian critique of this common contemporary view, an approximation to which in Northampton caused Jonathan Edwards’ dismissal from his ministry almost 250 years ago. De Jong argues:
This widely-held Reformed position, that the children of believers were baptized on the basis of God’s covenant promises, did not immediately secure for them all the privileges of church communion. . . . These limitations, however, were not due in any way to a possible deficiency in the grace sealed unto them by baptism. *102*
This is simply and palpably a false statement. The limitation of believers’ infants that bars them from “communion” does rest on a “deficiency in grace” (that is, a lack of grace) as well as a natural inability to discern the meaning of the Lord’s Supper. Unless these infants possess grace they have no right to the Lord’s Supper.
It is agreed by all participants in the covenant debate that recipients of the Supper must both understand its meaning and trust in the Christ whose body was broken and whose blood was shed. Even if the possibility of “infantile faith” or “seminal faith” be granted, De Jong and other advocates of this view never explicitly prove or even assert that all children of believers are regenerate. It is a fixed Reformed principle that saving faith never occurs apart from regeneration. Therefore, though some infants may possess faith there is no way of knowing this apart from a supernatural revelation. The church has no right to assume regeneration, but must assume the opposite, that is, a “deficiency in the grace sealed unto them (the infants) by baptism” bars baptized children from the Lord’s Supper.
That some, if not almost all, of these baptized infants do suffer a “deficiency of grace” is demonstrated by the refusal of some, if not the majority, to believe when they do come of age. All Reformed teachers maintain the perseverance of regenerated saints. Those baptized children who never come to faith were certainly not regenerated. They must have been unregenerate children of nominal or true believers.
Incidentally, that many baptized children do later come to saving faith no way supports De Jong’s contention that they did not suffer “deficiency in grace” at birth and baptism. They may have been converted in the course of their (and their parents and their churches) seeking for their salvation as they grew in years. Incidentally, Edwards considered these baptized children the very best field for evangelism and urged it on his people and practised it in his own home (and ten of his eleven children later gave convincing evidence of saving faith).
De Jong continues:
Rather, here again God was said to honor the laws of natural development. Children were immature, and with this fact the church was bound to reckon. Faith, which was a gift of God in the moment of regeneration, had to become active before the child could appreciate the privileges of full communion. It could not rightly be expected that this faith-principle would be completely developed until a measure of natural maturity was attained. *103*
Here we have a lie by insinuation. No one will deny that De Jong is here insinuating (he does not speak explicitly) that all children of the covenant are regenerate and have the principle of true faith in them at birth and baptism. Assuming that erroneous hypothesis, he then very sensibly reminds us that an infant does not express its potential powers immediately but must first attain “a measure of natural maturity.”
True: “It could not rightly be expected that the faith-principle would be completely developed until a measure of natural maturity was attained.” But if that faith-principle was present in infancy it would - according to Reformed doctrine - certainly go on growing forever and every such child is elect, regenerated, will persevere through this life, and will live in heaven forever. P. Y. De Jong and no other adherent of this covenantal view I have ever read have ever asserted this inevitable implicate.
Since faith in God through Christ implied a sure knowledge of God and His promises as well as a hearty confidence that all personal sins, both original and actual, were forgiven for Christ’s sake, it was necessary that the child learn to examine himself properly. Thus, there was place for the subjective appropriation of the way of salvation also. *104*
“Subjective appropriation” is the weasel expression here. The child already has the “faith-principle” at birth/baptism and that must mean an infantile “subjective appropriation.” The infant is an infant but that does not mean he is not an infantile subject and has infantile experience. By faith - on this view - the infant comes to and appropriates Christ as his Savior. The child will grow in awareness, experience, development of his saved relationship. He will not “appropriate” at “natural maturity” what he has possessed since infancy. If consistent with his own doctrine, De Jong must say that after training, examination and the like, this regenerate person will have a growing “subjective awareness” (or “appropriation” in that sense if one insists). I am not faulting a person for a word. This is not shibboleth versus sibboleth or twiddle-de-dee versus twiddle-de-dum. “Appropriation” means the thing in question was not the person’s before. “Awareness” does not mean that. De Jong’s thinking does not allow for appropriation; Edwards’ does. A little sinner can appropriate a new life and become a little saint. A little saint cannot appropriate a sainthood he already possesses.
De Jong’s using “subjective appropriation” only compounds his felony. This implies that the infant had salvation only objectively (though even that would be fatal to De Jong’s doctrine). But according to this view, the infant had the “faith-principle” which is surely a subjective principle.
In the doctrine of the Covenant of Grace both the objective and the subjective aspects of Christianity could come to their own. Thus before the child could become an active member of the church . . . it was necessary that he make personal profession of his faith in the God of his baptism. This profession was then not to be regarded as a uniting with the church on his part, since this had already taken place before by virtue of the gracious act of God. Rather, it was a personal acknowledgment and recognition of this fact. *105*
This develops the objective/subjective. The infant had already received the “virtue of the gracious act of God.” We have shown above that statement is not true because many baptized infants of believers never were saved by the grace of God (according even to De Jong).
The “personal acknowledgement” is supposed to be a mere audible, visible confirmation of what had happened at infancy/baptism. If that were so then all baptized infants of believers would so acknowledge. De Jong himself admits that is not so:
Thus much less was expected of the children in the way of assuming their responsibility of walking according to the demands of the covenant holiness than of the adults, although both were regarded as in full possession of the principle of saving grace. The reason why children were not allowed to partake of the Lord’s Supper lay in the fact that they could not prove themselves. . . . *106*
This is the plainest statement of this colossal error to be found in the long paragraph. Both adults and children “were regarded as in full possession of the principle of saving grace.” If so “regarded” it was unjustifiably so regarded of baptized children before they gave the same credible evidence their parents gave. *107*
One notes in passing the paedo-communion thinking here. Baptized infants are regenerate children and as such entitled to the Lord’s Table. Only, they cannot “discern” (1Co_11:29). But Paul’s discerning is a spiritual discerning (even unregenerates can rationally “discern”), and if the infant has saving faith, he also has an infantile discerning. Also, the “prove themselves” would be quite unnecessary if God promised that children of believing parents were elect and regenerate and these children do have the gracious principle within themselves. Does one challenge God or ask Him to prove Himself?
Next comes the bomb that explodes and destroys this whole doctrinal pattern of assumed infant regeneration. This utterly inconsistent statement follows:
Where this was not the case, sooner or later excommunication would be applied, since such an individual did not manifest the presence of divine grace. *108*
At the very end of the paragraph our author returns to this fatal theme with these words:
Thus the church was not regarded as the institution in which the child has a place in order that he may be considered a hopeful candidate for receiving God’s grace. Rather, he has a place in the institution because he possesses that grace either by virtue of promise or presence. *109*
This is one of the most amazing instances of inconsistent thinking I have ever read, and yet it is standard for many theologians of this covenantal stripe at this point. Consider a plain statement of the position:
1. All baptized infants of believers are “in full possession of the principle of saving grace.”
2. Reformed theology teaches that all who possess “saving grace” are elect, regenerate, persevering. And then, inconsistently:
3. Nevertheless, some of these children may never show the “presence” of this grace and be saved. Some who once possessed “saving grace” will “sooner or later,” be excommunicated from the church and salvation, thereby showing by their failure to persevere that they never had saving grace!
What in the world can “he possesses that grace either by virtue of promise or presence” mean? De Jong insists that the “promise” of God guarantees the grace of the baptized infant. What could be more certain and infallible? “Presence” may or may not be accurately determined by men, but if there is a promise of God no determination of men is necessary nor could “presence” fail to appear some time, early or late, in life, whether its “presence” is recognized or not.
The Edwardsian view is consistent. It finds no promise of God that all children of believers are elect and regenerate and possessing the “faith-principle” and “divine grace.” Hence covenant children have the obligation to seek for the presence of faith which, if found, would imply election, regeneration, and eternal life in the cases of those baptized infants who did possess the election of God. *110*
Having considered children and the covenant, we now turn to a related development in Covenant Theology, the Half-way Covenant, which, when it reached Stoddardeanism, was to occasion Jonathan Edwards fall from Northampton grace.