The following paper was read at a Theological Conference some years ago. The Authors consulted were numerous and varied. Most of what is written here was drawn from the works of Martin, Smeaton, Hodge, Berkhof, Dabney, Thornwell, Dick and Boston.
There are said to be passing references to this approach to theology in the writings of earlier theologians but it is Cocceius, a 17th Century Dutch theologian who is usually credited with having first systematised it. It would seem, however, according to Principal MacLeod, that our own David Dickson was before Cocceius in the field and that this is evident from the fact that Dickson delivered an exposition of the Covenant Scheme to the famous Glasgow Assembly of 1638. With James Durham he seems also to have been responsible for the composition of The Sum of Saving Knowledge, subtitled, “A brief sum of Christian doctrine together with the practical use thereof — a compendium which never received the formal sanction of the Church of Scotland Assembly but which, nevertheless, became a well-nigh constant accompaniment of the Westminster documents in Scottish editions from 1650 to the present day. In it, the Covenant Scheme is prominently set forth. Scottish Covenant Theology, it is said, could never therefore be spoken of as Cocceianism. That it was the method adopted by the leading theologians of the Scottish Church and presented by them in its most developed form is evident from their writings and published sermons. Dr Kennedy, reviewing in 1879 the drift of the religious thought and feeling of his day, declares that in the preaching which the Lord had signally blessed in times past in Scotland there was this element, among others, “A full-orbed declaration of the doctrines of grace according to the Federal System of Theology.” In the professing Church the tendency to fall away from this was beginning to show itself and Dr Hugh Martin, Dr Kennedy’s friend and contemporary, feared that this approach to theology was suffering a measure of neglect which did not bode well for the immediate future of the Church. How well grounded were such fears were is sadly only too evident in our day. Hugh Martin was convinced that Covenant Theology was “no product of mere human ingenuity — no merely artificial structure — but a scriptural theme, the terminology of which is directly furnished by Scripture itself.”
Scripture thus furnishing the principal terms in common use on the subject, it may be advantageous to try and define them. In doing this, it is proper to note, as one writer has done, that the division Covenant of Grace and Covenant of Works, with which this paper largely deals, need not necessarily be looked to for light on the distinctive uses of the term Covenant in Scripture. Rather it ought to be regarded as bringing out doctrinally the great features of the plan of God, and the specific bearing of individual parts of the Divine administration in regard to it. The word berith in Hebrew is translated for the most part covenant, and although etymologists have, to some extent, disagreed, it seems to be generally accepted that it is derived from the word barah, to sever, and it is supposed that the name was derived from the practice of ratifying such agreements by a religious act. The contracting parties united together in the presentation of an animal sacrifice and passing between the parts of the victim. (We have examples of this in Scripture — Genesis 15: 10 and Jeremiah 34: 18, 19). Berith was translated diatheke in the Septuagint version of the Old Testament Scriptures, a word which in turn is not the common Greek word used for covenant (which is suntheke) but signifies primarily a disposition of property by will or otherwise. The English word covenant signifies a mutual undertaking between two parties or more, each binding himself to fulfil obligations. Diatheke, in contradistinction, does not, in itself, contain the idea of joint obligation; it mostly signifies an obligation undertaken by a single person. It is thought by some that the Septuagint translators used this word in preference to the usual word for covenant because in the Greek word the covenant idea expressed by suntheke was based to such an extent on the legal equality of the parties that it could not without considerable modifications be incorporated in the Scriptural system of thought. The idea that the priority belongs to God in the establishment of the covenant and that He sovereignly imposes His covenant on men was absent from the Greek word. It is true that both the Covenant of Works and the Covenant of Grace are monopleuric in origin; that is, they are of the nature of arrangements ordained and instituted by God and that God has the priority in both; nevertheless, they are covenants in the sense of pacts or agreements between two or more parties wherein each one of the parties binds himself to the fulfilment of certain promises on the basis of stipulated conditions. God graciously condescends to come down to the level of man, and honours him by dealing with him, more or less, on the footing of equality. This fundamental aspect of the matter is admirably summed up for us by the Westminster Divines: “The distance between God and the creature is so great, that although reasonable creatures do owe obedience unto Him as their Creator, yet they could never have any fruition of Him as their blessedness and reward, but by some voluntary condescension on God’s part, which He hath been pleased to express by way of covenant.”
We may try and look first at some aspects of the Covenant of Works and the federal headship of Adam, the first man. “The first covenant made with man”, says the Confession, “was a covenant of works, wherein life was promised to Adam and in him to his posterity, upon condition of perfect and personal obedience.” Here the federal relation — Adam representative of his posterity — is clearly asserted. It is also clearly asserted in the Larger Catechism: “The Covenant being made with Adam as a public person, not for himself only, but for his posterity, all mankind, descending from him by ordinary generation, sinned in him, and fell with him, in his first transgression.” It has been objected that there is no express mention of a covenant in the Genesis account of the creation and fall of man. This must be conceded, but it does not invalidate the argument for the covenant because all the essential elements of a proper covenant are found there. Genesis 2, verses 16 and 17 read: “And the Lord God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.” In this transaction there are clearly two parties; the Lord God on the one hand and man on the other. There is a condition expressly stated in the positive precept respecting the knowledge of good and evil, which God was pleased to make the test of man’s obedience. There is a penalty subjoined, “In the day thou eatest thereof, thou shalt surely die.” There is also a promise not distinctly expressed but implied in the threatening; for if death was to be the consequence of disobedience, it clearly follows that life was to be the reward of obedience, this life embracing confirmation in holiness and happiness or eternal life in communion with God. It has still further been objected that we do not read of the two parties as coming to an agreement, nor of Adam as accepting the terms laid down, but this objection has no force if we bear in mind that God is absolutely sovereign in His dealings with man and that it is He, in virtue of the fact that He is infinitely greater than man, who lays down the terms which must be met if the latter is to enjoy His favour. These terms were of themselves very gracious, and in the case under consideration God had but to announce the covenant, and the perfect state in which Adam lived was sufficient guarantee of its acceptance. The obligation to render obedience to God even independently of any covenant was written into the very constitution of his soul and when Adam received the early command with regard to the tree of the knowledge of good and evil we may suppose him as ready to execute the command, feeling himself bound to God as his Creator and Benefactor.
“It was always God’s purpose,” Thornwell wrote, “to turn the servant into a son.” He goes to speak of Adam celebrating the Divine goodness as he walked forth upon the new creation “in all its loveliness and beauty, and was regaled on every hand with the tokens of Divine regard! How must his heart have overflowed as he sounded the mysterious depths of his own being, and felt the grand and glorious capacities with which he was endowed! His first utterance must have been praise, his first impulse to throw himself upon the ground and bless that God who made him what he was. It was amazing goodness to have furnished him with all the blessings that crowned his lot, considered merely as a servant. But what shall we say of the goodness that could not stop here — that as it recognised in man the capacity of closer ties with itself, yearned to take him to its bosom and pour upon him a richer tide of glory and joy than the cold relations of law and justice could demand? Surely, our God is love; creation shows it as well as the cross! Surely, our God is grace; the first covenant proves it is truly as the second! Adoption was to be a reward of grace, but still it was to be reward. It was not a favour to be conferred in defiance of the relations that naturally subsisted betwixt God and His creature. Man was not to be arbitrarily promoted. His dignity was to come as the fruit of his obedience. It was much more than he deserved, much more than he could deserve. But in the plenitude of His own bounty, God proposed to add this boon of adoption over and above all that man was entitled to receive for his service if he should prove faithful to his trust.”
This then is the covenant which we believe we are warranted to regard as a transaction between God and our first parent by, which Adam was constituted the federal head of the race, and which, we are told expressly, Adam transgressed. In Hosea 6, verse 7, we read: “But they like men have transgressed the covenant; there have they dealt treacherously against me.” That is how it reads in the AV text, but in the margin it is, “they like Adam have transgressed the covenant,” and this rendering is that favoured by Hodge, Berkhof, Dick and others whom we consulted. Adam transgressed the covenant in his personal act — but “we sinned in him and fell with him in his first transgression.” This statement from the Shorter Catechism is one supported by many scriptures which would not make sense apart from there being a federal relationship between Adam and his posterity. For example: “By one man’s disobedience many were made sinners.” “By the offence of one, judgment came upon all men to condemnation.” “By one man sin entered into the world and death by sin and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned.” “In Adam all died.” Adam sinned as the natural head of the human race and passed on to his posterity a depraved human nature. He “begat a son, in his own likeness, after his image”, this likeness is clearly opposed to the likeness of God in which he himself was created. If, however, Adam sinned only as the natural head, the scriptures above quoted are rendered meaningless. It is obvious that Adam sinned as our federal head as well as our natural head. It follows, therefore, that the guilt of Adam’s sin is placed to the account of his descendants and that they are all thereby made liable to the punishment of death.
It is not sin considered merely as pollution, but sin as guilt that carries punishment with it. That Adam’s posterity were very evidently comprehended in the threatening — “In the day thou eatest thereof thou shalt die” — and not limited to him is clear from its actual execution upon his children. Thus it is not a valid objection against the representative character of Adam that he was addressed as an individual, and that no direct notice was taken of his descendants. The extension of the effects of his fall to those who have sprung from him in the long succession of almost six thousand years is a proof which cannot be fairly resisted and shows that he did not fall alone.
When mention is made of the first and of second Adam, the one is called the figure or type of the other. Between the two persons are very many points of dissimilarity, “The first man was of the earth, earthy: the second man is the Lord from heaven.” From the one came guilt, condemnation and death; and from the other righteousness, justification and life. Where then, the question may be asked, is the similarity? “They are alike,” says one divine, “in this, that each of them shares what He has with His. Both are covenant Heads, and communicate their respective influences to those whom they represent. Here then is the one outstanding point of similarity, nor is it possible in any other view to preserve the parallel. The resemblance would fail if there were no covenant with our first parent, and the words of Scripture would convey a false idea. Jesus Christ, who was the surety of sinners, might with propriety be called the Second Adam, if the first Adam were the representative of his seed; but if there were no legal relation between him and them, the appellation is not founded on truth. It was ordained by God that Adam should not stand for himself only, but as the representative of all his descendants. Consequently, he was the head of the race, not only in a parental, but also in a federal sense. Apart from this covenant, Adam and his descendants would have been in a continual state of trial, with a constant danger of sinning. The covenant, however, guaranteed that persistent perseverance for a fixed period of time would be rewarded with the establishment of man in a permanent state of holiness and bliss. According to the terms of the covenant, Adam would obtain a rightful claim to eternal life, if he fulfilled the conditions of the covenant. With every conceivable advantage he was required to stand a graciously limited period of probation and, had he stood the trial, he, and all his descendants would have shared in the resultant blessing.”
We many now turn to look at some aspects of the Covenant of Grace and the federal Headship of the Second Adam — the Lord from heaven. “Man by his fall”, says the confession, “having made himself incapable of life by that covenant, the Lord was pleased to make a second, commonly called the Covenant of Grace.” And it is called the Covenant of Grace because it is an unparalleled revelation of the grace of God, and man receives all its blessings as gifts of Divine Grace.
In the Covenant of Works Adam stood as the representative of the race and the covenant, as already pointed out, was made with him as their representative and with them as represented in him. In this he was a figure or type of Christ, the Second Adam, above alluded to, with whom the Covenant of Grace was made and His spiritual seed in Him. The analogy would not hold if, as some divines have held, there were two covenants — the Covenant of Redemption and the Covenant of Grace, the former made with Christ from Everlasting, the latter made with sinners in time. The Westminster Divines, while they viewed the Covenant of Grace under a two-fold consideration, as made with the Surety from everlasting and as made with sinners in time, certainly regarded it as one and the same covenant. “The Covenant of Grace,” they said, “was made with Christ as the Second Adam, and in Him with all the elect as His seed.” The parties coming into view here are Jehovah, the Father, and His co-eternal Son, the covenant having regard to the revelation of God’s glory and the salvation of sinners of mankind and established from eternity.
The Covenant of Grace in the Confession is called the second as distinguished from the Covenant of Works made with Adam. This obtained in respect of manifestation and execution, yet with respect either to the period or the order in which it was made, it was the first Covenant. The Head of this Covenant is introduced as saying, “I was set up from everlasting, from the beginning or ever the earth was.” That is, he was set apart to His mediatorial office and work — in other words — to be the Head of His Spiritual seed in the Covenant of Grace from everlasting. The promise of eternal life is said to have been given in Christ “before the world began”, and the Covenant is frequently in scripture styled an “everlasting covenant”. The reality of this federal transaction appears from Psalm 89: 3: “I have made a covenant with my chosen, I have sworn unto David my servant. Thy seed I will establish forever, and build up thy throne to all generations.” It cannot reasonably be questioned from the sublime language employed in the Psalm, and the great events foretold in it, that the words above quoted have their ultimate and principal fulfilment in Jesus Christ, and assert a covenant made with Him, of which the covenant of royalty made with David, King of Israel, was typical. The transaction is clearly expressed in the well-known passage in Isaiah 53, verse 10, where the two great parts of the Covenant — the conditionary and the promissary are set forth, and our attention is drawn to the two glorious contracting parties, the one undertaking for the performance of its arduous condition — the other engaging for the fulfilment of its precious promises. There we read: “When thou shalt make His soul an offering for sin”, or rather, as it has been translated, “If His soul shall make a propitiatory sacrifice, He shall see His seed, He shall prolong His days, and the pleasure of the Lord shall prosper in His hand.” This is the Divine plan formed from eternity with the design of reconciling opposite interests, the interests of heaven and of earth. On each side there was a party; the Father acting for the honour of the Godhead and the Son for the salvation of men. No other creature however dignified and richly endowed with moral excellencies was qualified to enter into a federal transaction with God in behalf of the guilty, because the terms were too high to be fulfilled even by the ability of an archangel. Had not a Divine Person been set apart and appointed to be the Covenant and federal Head of His elect people, the condition of men would be as hopeless as that of apostate angels. He had to undertake the arduous task of fulfilling its terms, bearing almighty wrath and magnifying the law by perfect obedience. The eternal Son readily accepted the office assigned Him. A new relation was formed between Him and the guilty, in virtue of which he was made answerable for their guilt, and came under an obligation to render the obedience which they owed to the law, so that His righteousness might be imputed to them as if they had obeyed and suffered in their own persons. Basically, the Covenant of Grace is simply the execution of the original agreement by Christ as the surety of His people. He undertook freely to carry out the will of God. He placed Himself under the law, that He might redeem them that were under the law and were no more in a position to obtain life by their own fulfilment of it. He came to do what the first Adam failed to do and did it in virtue of a covenant agreement. That there is such an agreement between the Father who gave a commission involving duty, promises, rewards, and the Son considered as a public person, who appeared as a representative acting in the name of His people, is put beyond all doubt for it is referred to in various testimonies by Christ Himself. Without the elucidation supplied by the idea of a covenant there are many passages where the meaning could scarcely be otherwise apprehended. Smeaton in his work on the Atonement puts it this way: “The Covenant rested on this basis, that as God at first had created man under a representative constitution or under a system which was that of one for many, so the surety must come on a footing precisely similar, nay, enter into the very provisions of that first arrangement. Thus Christ and His people stand in the eye of the law as one single person. There were, properly speaking, but two persons in the world — Adam and Christ — in whom the whole seed, belonging severally to these two, must be considered as contained. On the principle first laid down, that Christ and His seed are viewed as one person, it is plain that the salvation of His people was virtually to be wrought out in the obedience and death of the Son of God. The Covenant rested on this basis, that the Son of God, condescending to be the Son of Man should enter into our Covenant of Works, and that all who were given to Him should enter into the federal reward. Thus it was necessary, according to the eternal paction that the Son should take a body as an indispensable preliminary to His subsequent work of obedience, a humanity that should be sinless to stand for the sinful, holy to stand for the unholy, and which could thus hide the stain of original sin, as well as lay a foundation for all the work on which he was to enter. And the Father, who in every part of this great transaction must be viewed as at once the lawgiver and the fountain of the Covenant, prepared for Him a body. Psalm 40: verses 6-8.” Thus God sent forth His Son — His righteous Servant — made of a woman — under the law to render a true obedience to it and a vicarious substitution for others — He must stand under the Covenant which the first Adam transgressed, come under its obligations both as to percept and penalty, the Father promising all necessary assistance in the work and a reward when the work was completed for Himself and for all whom the Father gave Him. “Bearing this Covenant one-ness with His people in view, the death of Christ, ‘the second man’ — the last Adam”, says Hugh Martin, “is then seen to be the real infliction of the originally threatened curse. No one considered as innocent suffers, and no one continuing guilty escapes. Righteousness and peace are seen to kiss each other and justice goes before Him to set us in the way of His steps.” The Covenant of Grace is then admirably adapted to the situation of those who are ruined by the violation of the first Covenant. Its condition being fulfilled by the glorious Surety, a full salvation is freely offered to the chief of sinners with no possibility of ever again coming under condemnation.
Covenant theology being thus — again reverting to Hugh Martin — “no product of mere human ingenuity but a scriptural theme,” it is not surprising that there have been many attempts to controvert it. Long before the advent of 19th Century liberalism and the rationalistic approach to theology and the Word of God in general, Pelagius in the early part of the 5th Century was denying the federal headship of Adam. He thought that Adam was by nature mortal and therefore would have died whether he sinned or not; and that the consequences of Adam’s sin were confined to his own person, new-born infants being in the same condition in which Adam was before he fell. These heretical tenets of Pelagius and his adherents were strenuously opposed by Augustine and condemned by the Church; but the leaven of them continued in the church working secretly but persistently to issue in their widespread and open adoption in this present age. The Arminian doctrines so prevalent now were first formulated in the beginning of the 17th Century. According to this system doctrine of original sin, as taught by the Reformers, was rejected, and while it was believed that Adam’s transgressions had an evil effect on the spiritual condition of all his descendants, it was maintained that the guilt of Adam’s sin is not imputed to his descendants though its pollution is passed on from father to son. This pollution was not regarded as sin in the proper sense of the word but only as a disease or weakness. There is no sentence of condemnation; human nature is not totally depraved but man still has the natural power or ability to perform that which is spiritually good, so that he can also, in some measure, prepare himself for turning to God and doing His will. It is very evident that this view underlies much of modern moral thinking — that sin is really only a manifestation of human frailty and weakness, that there is good in all, and is reflected in the so-called permissiveness of the age.
However popular and widespread Arminianism is today, this teaching represents a system of theology which changes the nature of the Covenant of Grace making it a virtual Covenant of Works. Thus Christ is robbed of His glory as the alone, almighty Saviour of sinners. Covenant Theology, founded on the Scriptures, safeguards the glory of Christ and provides the only comfort and security for our souls. A return by the professing Church to these fundamental doctrines is the crying need of our day and until such a return is seen there is little hope that the downward trend current in religious and moral thinking will be reversed. We leave our subject quoting Hugh Martin’s estimate of it: “We can compare it in a strategic point of view, to nothing more aptly than the lines of Torres Vedras in the old peninsular campaign, — affording both a base of operation for forward movement, and an impregnable protection against hostile assault. Nor is it only or chiefly in a controversial point of view that we value the federal theology. The exposition of it adapts with the greatest ease, and with uniform acceptability, to the instruction of those who have believed the Gospel. It is always welcome to the children of God. And we should not like to see the day in Scotland when the least acceptable of candidates for the office of the ministry should be he who expounds most explicitly and richly the doctrine of the Covenant of Grace.