For my last four posts (here, here, here, and here), I have been trying to wrap my head around and explain what has been called 1689 Federalism. I know I have made some progress in understanding it better for myself, and I hope others have been helped also. However, I am compelled to correct a mistake that I have been making in my terminology (ironic considering I have been trying to be extra careful in using terms).
I came to realize my error when the 1689 Federalism subject matter expert himself (Brandon Adams, his blog, which is a wealth of information on 1689 Federalism, is here) graciously corrected me. It turns out that what I had defined Covenantal Dichotomism/1689 Federalism as was really just the minority tradition in historical covenant theology known as the subservient covenant tradition. However, there is a very close relationship between them, which, I’ve been told, is covered in great detail in the book From Shadow to Substance by Sam Renihan. I hope to read it soon.
From the sounds of it, the subservient covenant tradition paved the way for 1689 Federalism, and may be seen as a proto-1689 Federalism of sorts. 1689 Federalism affirms the two propositions that I stipulated (here), (which apparently only capture the essence of the subservient covenant tradition), but goes one step further. The subservient covenant tradition understood the law-gospel distinction in the Mosaic law, but 1689 Federalism also recognized that distinction in the covenant of circumcision as well (see Genesis 17). (You may read Brandon’s comment in context here).
I was aware of the baptist view on the covenant of circumcision, but I did not include it in my propositions for a couple reasons. One, I had a desire to define the position broadly enough to include certain authors, for example, Samuel Petto, who may not have gone all the way, but still offered great insight into what I thought most essential to the position. What I did not realize was that there was such a well defined idea (the subservient covenant tradition) that deserved to be distinguished from 1689 Federalism even though it is very similar to it. Two, I believed the further step of 1689 Federalism is logically included in my proposition two – Law and Gospel are both revealed and active throughout the Old Testament (even in the Old Covenant) but remain distinct. That is, a corollary of proposition two is that the law-gospel distinction may be seen in the covenant of circumcision (read Galatians 3 in conjunction with Genesis 15, 16, and 17).
As is evident from this post, I am still a beginner in this subject and have much study to do. If you would like to learn more about the subservient covenant tradition, I’ve been told that Renihan’s book is the place to start. Briefly, this tradition understood the old covenant not to be identical in substance with the covenant of grace, but, as the name implies, was subservient to it. This tradition has a long and variegated history in the reformed tradition from its very beginning up to the present day. The first to promote this view was John Cameron in 1608 In his book De triplici Dei cum homine foedere theses (Muller). A more contemporary proponent includes the late Meredith Kline (Irons).
I look forward to sharing more as I learn, but for now, I will put a pause on my series until I have read Sam Renihan’s book. This is something of a relief for me, since I had wanted to write on another related topic that I have discovered in my studies. If the Lord permits, I hope to post soon on the doctrine of absolute promises, relying heavily on the writings of John Bunyan and Samuel Petto.
Works Cited
Muller, Richard A. “Divine Covenants, Absolute and Conditional: John Cameron and the Early Development of Orthodox Reformed Covenant Theology.” Mid-America Journal of Theology, vol. 17, 2006, pp. 11–56., doi:https://www.midamerica.edu/uploads/files/pdf/journal/17-muller.pdf.
Irons, Lee. “The Subservient Covenant: A 17th Century Precursor of Meredith Kline’s View of the Mosaic Covenant.” Upper-Register, 2007, http://www.upper-register.com/papers/subservient_cov.pdf.
Thorough Reformer 