An Essay on Covenantal Natural Theology — (Part IV)

An Essay on Covenantal Natural Theology — (Part IV)

Franciscus Junius

Junius on a Twofold State of Man

Franciscus Junius construes the state of man in a twofold manner when he writes that there are “two states of men, namely, the state of integrity when he was created by God and the state of corruption arising from man’s fall by his own choice.”[1] Further, Junius conceives of natural theology as “that which proceeds from principles that are known in relations to itself by the natural light of the human understanding.”[2] And, “The conception of this natural theology in the human understanding deals with things that are common, and it is both veiled and imperfect.” Like both Bullinger and Calvin, Junius maintains a “common knowledge” of God amongst all men. As it existed apart from corruption, Junius conceived of this theology as that which Adam possessed apart from sin. After sin, however, it “was corrupted,” even though it “yet remained in individuals.” Alluding to the corruption of this natural theology in the creature, he says, “they were completely compromised in themselves and quite confused among themselves, as though mere broken fragments of our nature, because of our depravity.” The principles of natural theology, albeit remaining, are perverted by our corrupt sin nature. He goes on:

So from this statement we establish that supernatural theology, which by the sin of man had been, as it were, rejected and most undeservedly spurned, retreated from here to the heavens; and natural theology, as all other things which arise from nature, was corrupted. For how could it have remained uncorrupted in a subject that was corrupted in every part?

Junius, therefore, understands natural theology in a twofold state, in pre-fall and post-fall mankind. Prior to Adam’s fall, natural theology was uninhibited by sin, and though it didn’t constitute all of Adam’s theology, the condescension of God being added to it, i.e. supernatural theology, and though Adam could have added to it, it was yet able to be performed apart from a corrupt nature. After the fall, however, man’s sin nature would corrupt such a theology and “so this theology,” says Junius, “can lead nothing at all to perfection, nor does it ever do so.” That is, natural theology was never intended to lead to perfection. “And it is not even able, in and of itself, to contain the perfection that is added by grace.”

A Nature/Grace Contrast

At this point, Junius contrasts nature with grace which corresponds to a sister distinction, that between the covenant of works and the covenant of grace. By “grace,” Junius of course does not mean any and all kinds of grace without exception. There is, to be sure, common grace associated with common or natural revelation, perceived through natural theology. Junius, rather, means “grace” in the special, uncommon or supernatural sense—that grace which comes through the gospel, or the covenant of grace, alone. Digging a deeper trench between natural and supernatural theology, he writes:

Nature does not draw out a disposition except from a preexisting matter, but the Spirit of God works all things in all. And so with regard to natural theology, nature both applies understanding and takes the seeds of the principles for its disposition. But with regard to supernatural theology, the Spirit of God claims all the parts for itself entirely, so that it is with all justice called supernatural.

The observation that natural theology comes naturally and supernatural theology comes supernaturally is further highlighted when considering the nature of the covenant of grace seen in places like Jeremiah 31:31-34 and Hebrews 8:7-12. Implied in Junius’ view of natural/supernatural theology is the federal connection, at the very least in terms of the covenant of grace where man’s understanding is lifted not only beyond nature but beyond his postlapsarian, inborn corruption, i.e. “I will put My laws in their mind and write them on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people (Heb. 8:10).”

Junius on Grace-Theology

Junius further identifies the terms “inspired theology” and “supernatural theology,” and they become necessary for man’s redemption after the fall, assuming, of course, a natural theology corresponded to the prelapsarian covenant of works in a unique, sin-free way, “Consequently, it was necessary that inspired theology come to man’s aid. We call this theology supernatural because of its origin, and a theology of revelation from its gracious mode of communication.” Natural theology and supernatural theology are therefore roughly distinguished along covenantal lines implicitly in Junius’ work. They are not distinguished in terms of mutual exclusivity, as if natural theology existed under the prolapse covenant of works only. Rather, they are distinguished qualitatively: natural theology existed apart from sin and was useful to man prior to the fall. After the fall, it remains but is subject to corruption, only to be restored under the covenant of grace—wherein God begins restoration to a punctuated Adamic state through Christ by renewing his mind and regenerating his heart (Rom. 5:15; 8:22ff).

Conclusion

Junius, therefore, represents a rather large step in the development of language reflecting the relationship between natural theology and covenant. Not only does he employ a twofold state of man distinguished along covenant lines, corresponding to which is knowledge, but he also relates the ancient nature/grace distinction to the covenants of works and grace, a distinction Francis Turretin will continue to make. Junius also clearly distinguishes between the species of revelation proper to either covenant by making “inspired theology” a distinctive of the covenant of grace.

Resources

[1] Franciscus Junius, “Theses Theologicae” in Opuscula Selecta, ed. by Abraham Kuyper, 183.

[2] Franciscus Junius, A Treatise on True Theology, (Grand Rapids: Reformation Heritage Books, 2014), 145.

An Essay on Covenantal Natural Theology — (Part IV)

An Essay on Covenantal Natural Theology — (Part III)

John Calvin

Calvin on Twofold Knowledge

Calvin speaks of a twofold knowledge: knowledge of God prior to the fall, and knowledge of God after the fall.[1] Prior to the fall, “man possessed freedom of the will, by which, if he chose, he was able to obtain eternal life.” He relates this freedom to the mind of man when he says, “At first every part of the soul was formed to rectitude. There was soundness of mind and freedom of will to choose good.” Speaking of the natural man’s knowledge after the fall, Calvin writes, “Although they are forced to acknowledge that there is some God, they, however, rob him of his glory by denying his power.” Interestingly, Calvin adds the possibility of the natural man pondering the true God against his will, “When they do think of God it is against their will; never approaching him without being dragged into his presence, and when there, instead of the voluntary fear flowing from reverence of the divine majesty, feeling only that forced and servile fear which divine judgment extorts…”

Natural Revelation & Natural Theology

Speaking more clearly to natural revelation in se, he writes:

[God’s] essence, indeed, is incomprehensible, utterly transcending all human thought; but on each of his works his glory is engraved in characters so bright, so distinct, and so illustrious, that none, however dull and illiterate, can plead ignorance as their excuse.

Muller, commenting on words such as these, says, “Calvin must argue in this way because he assumes the existence of natural revelation which in se is a true knowledge of God. If natural theology were impossible, idolatrous man would not be left without excuse.”[2] Calvin offers a stronger, albeit still implicit, affirmation of natural theology:

In attestation of his wondrous wisdom, both the heavens and the earth present us with innumerable proofs, not only in those more recondite proofs which astronomy, medicine, and all natural sciences are designed to illustrate, but proofs which force themselves on the notice of the most illiterate peasant, who cannot open his eyes without beholding them.

Speaking of the means by which this natural theology becomes distorted in natural man, he says, “they cannot but know that these are proofs of his Godhead, and yet they inwardly suppress them.” Calvin also appears to understand a measure of natural theology common to both non-Christians and Christians when he writes, “I only wish to observe… that this method of investigating the divine perfections, by tracing the lineaments of his countenance as shadowed forth in the firmament and on the earth, is common both to those within and to those without the pale of the church.” Speaking to the theistic proofs, he says, “We see there is no need of a long and laborious train of argument in order to obtain proofs which illustrate and assert the divine majesty. The few which we have merely touched, show them to be so immediately within our reach in every quarter, that we can trace them with the eye, or point them with the finger.”

The State of Man’s Knowledge Before & After the Fall

Calvin hardly works out in detail a covenant of works between God and man according to man’s prelapsarian state. However, Calvin does outline the elements of that first covenant. Writing on Genesis 2:16, “Moses now teaches, that man was the governor of the world, with this exception, that he should, nevertheless, be subject to God.”[3] Connecting Adam’s probation with his knowledge or theology, he says, “Therefore, abstinence from the fruit of one tree was a kind of first lesson in obedience, that man might know he had a Director and Lord of his life, on whose will he ought to depend, and in whose commands he ought to acquiesce.” Describing the state of man’s knowledge of God after the fall from Genesis 3:8, he writes, “Moses here relates nothing which does not remain in human nature, and may be clearly discerned at the present day. The difference between good and evil is engraven on the hearts of all, as Paul teaches, (Rom. ii. 15;) but all bury the disgrace of their vices under flimsy leaves, till God, by his voice, strikes inwardly their consciences.”

Conclusion

Calvin, therefore, acknowledges a difference not in natural theology in se between pre- and post-fall man, but in what man does with that theology once he has obtained it. This distinction between man’s behavior prior to the fall and after the fall will serve as a fundamental article in later formulations of the same distinction within a covenantal context. Thus, as with Bullinger, Calvin relates man’s knowledge of God to his pre- and post-fall state, and while Bullinger uses the explicit language of league in direct connection to man’s knowledge of God, Calvin makes the same connection albeit more implicitly than Bullinger does. Yet, it may be said that Calvin has a seminal doctrine of the relationship between natural theology and both the covenant of works and the covenant of grace.

Resources

[1] John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, (Peabody: Hendrickson Publishers, 2008), 104.

[2] Muller, PRRD, vol. 1, 274.

[3]  John Calvin, Commentary Upon the Book of Genesis, (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1998), 125.

An Essay on Covenantal Natural Theology — (Part IV)

An Essay on Covenantal Natural Theology — (Part II)

Henry Bullinger

Let the reader understand that in the language of the earlier Reformers, among whom were men like Henry Bullinger, John Calvin, and John Knox, there does not exist covenantal language as clear as we might find in the post-Reformed puritans such as Herman Witsius and John Owen. However, there was most certainly a theology of covenant in the earliest era of Reformation, albeit more implied than explicit. And the covenants, sometimes referred to as leagues, are mostly understood as contexts for revelation. Willem J. van Asselt, commenting on two pieces in which Franciscus Junius focuses on federal theology, writes, “Although Junius did not develop a full-blown federal system within these pieces, he did mention the divine covenants with Adam, Noah, Abraham, Israel, and the church and further argued that God’s revelation in various times and periods took place in the context of covenant.”[1]

Bullinger on the Context of Natural Theology

Henry Bullinger, an English contemporary of John Calvin and influencer of the English Reformation, connects the significance of natural theology to God’s revelation in Scripture. Muller writes, “Bullinger, like Calvin, appears to have distinguished between the reception of natural revelation by pagans and unbelievers and the reception of natural revelation by way of the testimony of Scripture.”[2] Bullinger himself understands natural theology within the context of God’s Word, which he understands to be in nature and Scripture, “Now since this God doth in his word, by the workmanship of the world, by the holy scriptures, and by his oracles uttered by the mouth of the patriarchs, prophets, and apostles, ye, and the very minds and consciences of men, testify that he is…”[3] Speaking on the first and chiefest way by which man knows God, he begins with the names of God. And he understands these names to be specially revealed within the context of God’s league or covenant.

Bullinger also makes a distinction between two ways in which God’s works may be understood. First, there are those things “laid before us to be beheld in things created for the behoof of men, as in heaven and in earth.” Secondly, the works of God we may “behold in man,” which the present author takes to be a reference to man’s intuitive awareness of the goodness and kindness of God toward him. This twofold understanding of the works of God comes to Bullinger’s readers within the context of how we may know God, a la., natural theology. But, throughout this particular sermon, Bullinger establishes the primal way in which to know God is Jesus Christ, “For the most evident and excellent way and mean to know God is laid forth before us in Jesu Christ, the Son of God incarnate and made man.” And, “But I do humbly beseech the most merciful Lord, that he will vouchsafe of his inestimable goodness and liberality to enlighten in us all the understanding of our minds… through Jesus Christ our Lord and Savior.”

Conclusion

Though not well-developed, there are three things most certainly related either explicitly or implicitly in Bullinger’s work. First, there is a natural theology to one extent or another. Second, the concept of league or covenant most certainly comes into Bullinger’s thought, and is even linked to the quality of knowledge man has about God, i.e. through His covenant name. Third, man’s knowledge of God is connected to revelation through both nature and Scripture, but a regenerated knowledge through Scripture, inasmuch as it bestows the knower with Christ and His gospel, is superior to the former.

Resources

[1] Willem J. van Asselt in introduction to Franciscus Junius’ A Treatise on True Theology, (Grand Rapids: Reformation heritage Books, 2014), xvi.

[2] Richard Muller, Post-Reformed Reformed Dogmatics, vol. 1, (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2003), 272. (PRRD henceforth)

[3] Henry Bullinger, Decades, vol. 2, (Grand Rapids: Reformation Heritage Books, reprint of 1849-1852 edition), 125.

An Essay on Covenantal Natural Theology — (Part IV)

An Essay on Covenantal Natural Theology — (Part I)

The historico-theological situation of natural theology within the Protestant Reformed corpus rightly requires some relationship between the natural knowledge of God, the covenant of works, and the covenant of grace. This relationship differs depending upon the nature of either covenant, and what each one either assumes or promises to do. Sometimes, within the historical body of literature on the subject at hand, this relationship is brought out explicitly, while at others it is more or less implicit, yet nevertheless present. The following essay will attempt to demonstrate a correspondence between natural theology on the one hand, and the prelapsarian (before fall) covenant of works and postlapsarian (after fall) covenant of grace on the other. In addition to an historical demonstration of this relationship, a la historical theology, this essay will provide substantial philosophical and exegetical argumentation in service of the thesis above—that the historical Protestant Reformed corpus rightly makes the connection between natural theological knowledge and God’s covenants.

Definitions

The productivity of debate centered around the aforementioned issues depends on definitions. There are three main terms in question throughout this essay: natural theology, covenant of works, and covenant of grace. I will flesh out a working definition to be assumed throughout the remainder of this essay for each of these terms, and any other term requiring definition will be defined upon its employment.

By natural theology I do not mean natural revelation. In this essay, natural theology refers to the innate and acquired knowledge of God and His will derived from natural revelation. Natural theology (theologia naturalis), as Richard Muller puts it, is “the knowledge of God that is available to reason through the revelation of God in the natural order.”[1] Moreover, this natural theology is both innate and acquired which means the present essay will count references to knowledge of God through conscience, on the heart, etc., as references to innate natural theology in connection with the cognitio Dei insita, or the innate knowledge of God.

By the covenant of works I do not mean either the Abrahamic or Mosaic covenants which may be considered covenants whos’ formal bases are obedience. I only mean the covenant imposed by God upon the first man, Adam. God made Adam such that he might comply with all its stipulations, namely to “tend and keep” the garden as a prototypal priest (Gen. 2:15),[2] to partake of garden fruit, chiefly that which was borne from the tree of life (Gen. 2:16), and to abstain from eating of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil (Gen. 2:17). Associated with this covenant were blessings for obedience and curses for disobedience. The former consisted of continued life and eventual, albeit hypothetical, eschatological consummation; the latter of death (Gen. 2:17; 3:3).

I do not anticipate much disagreement with this definition. The goal of this essay does not require its author to navigate the more controversial aspects of the covenant of works, i.e. the nature of Adam’s hypothetical eschatology or the republication debate with respect to the Mosaic covenant. It also does not demand a defence of the nature of the Abrahamic covenant as a covenant of works—a position I hold, yet one that remains irrelevant to the ensuing discourse. The focus in this essay, with reference to the covenant of works, is the state of man’s knowledge of theology prior to the fall in relationship to the assumptions made in the imposition of such a covenant upon the prelapsarian human race.

By covenant of grace I mean the gracious covenant God revealed in Genesis 3:15 with the promised “Seed.” This covenant was established in the blood of Christ upon the completion of His cruciform work (Matt. 26:28; Jn. 19:30). The focus in this article will be upon the covenant blessings of regeneration and renewal, the effect of which is a repentant frame of mind and an improvement in man’s ability to receive and discern the things of God revealed not only in nature but also in Scripture.

Mapping Out Our Course

The underlying purpose of this essay is to examine various motives which might have led the low to high Reformed orthodox toward a retainment of natural theology in their systematic and dogmatic work. Because of the nature of the current project, the methodological order will not follow traditional systematic or dogmatic arrangement. The reasons for this will hopefully become obvious if they have not already. However, there are a few housekeeping items to consider before we proceed—

First, the present essay will presuppose the truth of the Christian faith. The project at hand is an historical-theological survey of what past theologians of the Reformed orthodox tradition believed about the interplay between natural theology and covenant theology. Moreover, it also contains a philosophical and theological justification for their belief in said relationship. Because of this, we will not set out to prove the validity of natural theology only to proceed in relating the covenants to it. Rather, the extent to which natural theology becomes a necessary article within the Reformed system of theology will be evaluated in terms of how related it is to God’s covenants, especially the covenant of works God made with Adam prior to the fall (cf. Gen. 2). Thus, rather than offering natural reasons for natural theology (there are several we could give), this particular essay will offer explicitly theological reasons for the retainment of natural theology within the body of Reformed confessional orthodoxy. The end-product of this essay will, hopefully, be a persuasive case for retaining natural theology on reason of Reformed theological convictions characteristic of its orthodoxy. Rather than mere historical or rational justifications for natural theology, this essay will venture to ground the conviction of natural theology not only in historical, but also in biblical-theological data.

Second, conventional wisdom tells us to argue natural theology from Romans 1:19, 21; 2:12-16; and other places such as Psalm 19. However, to be evinced in this essay is a deeper, more comprehensive reason for natural theology revealed in Scripture. Romans 1, 2, and Psalm 19 are not to be read in a vacuum, but must be understood within the broader covenantal, or biblical-theological backdrop in front of which they appear. There are more fundamental explanations behind those texts that will confirm the historical exegesis from a biblical-theological standpoint.

Third, an assumption made in this essay is that the covenant of works and the covenant of grace have actual ontic status (the have being, exist, etc) outside the pages of Scripture, yet are not altogether independent of Scripture. In other words, just as the incarnate Christ has a historically real presence on earth distinct from the pages of Scripture, but nevertheless inspirationally and infallibly revealed therein, so too do God’s covenants have real historical existence which have affected—if not determined—history up to the present. The covenants are infallibly revealed in the pages of Scripture, yet they are not limited in their ontology to the pages of Scripture. They are real historical things made known respectively through general and special revelation; the covenant of works through general and special revelation, the covenant of grace through special revelation alone. The mode by which either covenant is revealed will play a large role in the remainder of this essay.

Resources:

[1] Richard Muller, Dictionary of Latin and Greek Theological Terms, (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2017), 362.

[2] Meredith Kline, Kingdom Prologue, (Eugene: Wipf & Stock, 2006), 87ff.

Quick Thoughts on One of the Best Arguments for Reformed Paedobaptism

Quick Thoughts on One of the Best Arguments for Reformed Paedobaptism

This is part 4 of a series on baptism I’ve been writing.

Perhaps one of the most rhetorically effective arguments paedobaptists use against Baptists is as follows—

  1. Under the Old Covenant infants were admitted into the covenant.
  2. Covenant inclusion of infants in principle is never abrogated in the New Covenant.
  3. Therefore, it would have been assumed parents/clergy should continue administering the covenant sign to infants (baptism under the New Covenant).

The Orthodox Presbyterian Church states— 

The living God himself embraced the children of believers as members of his church. Genesis 17:7—”I will establish my covenant as an everlasting covenant between me and you and your descendants after you for the generations to come, to be your God and the God of your descendants after you.”

 

Further, God nowhere rescinded this principle that the children of believers are church members. This is very significant. In order to maintain their position, those who oppose infant baptism have to prove that he did rescind this principle. Where does the Bible teach that? This is a question that demands an answer (emphasis added).

And…

The baptistic view is built on this hidden assumption—the assumption that, in the New Testament, children of believers are no longer members of the church.

 

But when you read the New Testament you find just the opposite! The New Testament lines right up with the Old Testament in continuing to assume that children of believers are included in the church. [1]

I appreciate this argument since its core concern is to preserve the sameness of the gospel under both Old and New Covenants, a concern both Baptists and paedobaptists ought to share. However, it makes some fatal logical errors.

First, there are several texts we could use to prove a rescinding of circumcision. These texts will probably not rescind administration of the covenant sign to infants in the way paedobaptists might expect. But it is often assumed by paedobaptists that infant inclusion is never rescinded under the New Covenant. John the Baptist, for example, clearly points to an obsolescence of the genealogical principle of the Old Covenant in Luke 3:8, “Therefore bear fruits worthy of repentance, and do not begin to say to yourselves, ‘We have Abraham as our father.’ For I say to you that God is able to raise up children to Abraham from these stones.”

Paedobaptists will no doubt quibble with our use of this text, retorting, “That’s always been the case in terms of the gospel if you believe in one way of salvation.” Absolutely. But it has not only been the case, and that is what John is getting at here. Under the Old Covenant, unbelievers and believers could be members thereof. Genesis 17 makes the covenant conditions external, e.g. circumcision of the flesh. But, under the New Covenant no longer will God tolerate those obedient to the letter (externality) of the law, but not the spirit (heart of) the law as He did under the Old Covenant (cf. Heb. 8; Jer. 31:31-34).

Moreover, the New Covenant does explicitly rescind the Old Covenant in places like Hebrews 8:6, 13. The rejoinder may be, “Yes, but by ‘Old Covenant’ Hebrews 8 is obviously only addressing Moses!” But Moses is none other than a development upon the foundation of the Abrahamic covenant, and both have the same formal basis, the fundamental tenet of which is fleshly circumcision. Moses governs the Abrahamic covenant and its members and is the covenant intended to bring Genesis 15:18-21 to fulfillment. This is why the author of Hebrews addresses Moses more explicitly than he does Abraham. Because the Mosaic covenant is the covenant out of which his audience was immediately called. If Moses is gone, so too is the covenant of circumcision.

Second, one major problem with the OPC’s argument is the assumed universalization of the covenant sign under the Old Covenant. However, circumcision was never administered to female infants, only male infants. This seems to remove their very basis for transferring the “infant principle” (for lack of a better term) into the New Covenant. If the goal is continuity between covenants, then this obvious point of serious discontinuity continues to exist. Under the Old Covenant, boys were circumcised, girls were not. Under the New Covenant, both may receive baptism.

Third, in the final analysis, this argument begs the question. It assumes the core Reformed paedobaptistic location of the substance/administration of the covenant of grace. For them, the Old and New Covenants are but outward administrations of the selfsame covenant of grace. Not two distinct covenants. Because the paedobaptist anachronistically imports this particular understanding of God’s everlasting covenant upon the earliest Christians, it is easy for them to allege: “Newly converted Jewish Christians would have been assuming infant inclusion in the New Covenant!” But this would not be the case if those newly converted Jewish Christians assumed the opposite presupposition as the Reformed paedobaptists, namely that the Old Covenant was growing old and becoming obsolete (Heb. 8), and the covenant of grace revealed had become the covenant of grace concluded (New Covenant) being formalized in the blood of Christ (Matt. 26:28; Mk. 14:24; Lk. 22:20; 1 Cor. 11:25).

The burden of proof, therefore, is on the Reformed paedobaptist to demonstrate that the Apostolic church was assuming their model of covenant theology. But if this cannot be demonstrated, then the Scriptural ontology of the covenants stands alone, and the New Covenant really is a new covenant as the plain language seems to suggest.

Resources:

[1] The Orthodox Presbyterian Church, https://opc.org/cce/tracts/WhyInfantBaptism.html

John Lightfoot on Circumcision as a Seal (Romans 4:11)

John Lightfoot on Circumcision as a Seal (Romans 4:11)

This is part 1 of a series on baptism I’ve been writing.

John Lightfoot was a 17th century paedobaptist theologian. He was a member of the Westminster Assembly and vice chancellor of Cambridge. He is especially known for his rabbinic scholarship, the capstone of which was his work Horae Hebrai, or A Commentary on the New Testament from the Talmud and Hebraica.

He played a role in the Particular Baptist’s own defense of credobaptism. He wasn’t the only paedobaptist resource the Baptists would appeal to. John Owen was another. There were several key angles in the disagreements between credobaptists and paedobaptists, but at least one worth mentioning with respect to Lightfoot. The Particular Baptists rejected fleshly circumcision is a sacramental seal of the covenant of grace under the old testament. Conversely, paedobaptists, seeking to preserve the unity or continuity between old and new covenants, saw the old covenant as an administration of the covenant of grace. For them, this meant that circumcision, being a sign of the old covenant, simultaneously served as a sign and seal of membership in the covenant of grace (Rom. 4:11).

However, the Particular Baptists saw a substantive difference between the Abrahamic covenant of circumcision and the covenant of grace. While fleshly circumcision was a condition (Gen. 17:14) and sign of old covenant membership, it was not a sign and seal of membership in the covenant of grace. For the Particular Baptists, those two covenants were/are actually and truly two distinct covenants. In their appendix on baptism, which should be placed at the back of the 1677/89 Confession, they say:

If our brethren do suppose baptism to be the seal of the covenant which God makes with every believer (of which the Scriptures are altogether silent) it is not our concern to contend with them herein; yet we conceive the seal of that covenant is the indwelling of the Spirit of Christ in the particular and individual persons in whom He resides, and nothing else… 

In demonstration of their catholicity on this point, they would often appeal to paedobaptists who believed something similar, a la Owen and Lightfoot. In the above mentioned appendix, they quote Lightfoot at length in response to the paedobaptist argument from Romans 4:11. Below, I have transcribed verbatim what they reproduced from Lightfoot in the Confession’s appendix—

Circumcision is nothing, if we respect the time, for now it was without use, that end of it being especially fulfilled; for which it had been instituted: this end the Apostle declares in these words, Romans 4:11 σφραγῖδα etc. But I fear that by most translations they are not sufficiently suited to the end of circumcision, and the scope of the Apostle whilst something of their own is by them inserted.

… 

Other versions are to the same purpose; as if circumcision was given to Abraham for a Seal of that righteousness which he has being yet uncircumcised, which we will not deny to be in some sense true, but we believe that circumcision had chiefly a far different respect.

 

Give me leave thus to render the words; And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the Righteousness of Faith, which was to be in the uncircumcision, Which was to be (I say) not which had been, not that which Abraham had whilst he was yet uncircumcised; but that which his uncircumcised seed should have, that is the Gentiles, who in time to come should imitate the faith of Abraham.

 

Now consider well on what occasion circumcision was instituted unto Abraham, setting before thine eyes the history thereof, Genesis 17.

 

This promise is first made unto him, Thou shalt be the Father of many nations (in what sense the Apostle explaineth in that chapter) and then there is subjoined a double seal for the confirmation of the thing, to wit, the change of the name Abram into Abraham, and the institution of circumcision. v. 4. Behold as for me, my Covenant is with thee, and thou shalt be the Father of many Nations. Wherefore was his name called Abraham? for the sealing of this promise. Thou shalt be the Father of many Nations. And wherefore was circumcision instituted to him? For the sealing of the same promise. Thou shalt be the Father of many Nations. So that this is the sense of the Apostle; most agreeable to the institution of circumcision; he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the Righteousness of Faith which in time to come the uncircumcision (for the Gentiles) should have and obtain.

 

Abraham had a twofold seed, natural, of the Jews; and faithful, of the believing Gentiles: his natural seed was signed with the sign of circumcision, first indeed for the distinguishing of them from all other Nations whilst they as yet were not the seed of Abraham, but especially for the memorial of the justification of the Gentiles by faith, when at length they should become his seed. Therefore circumcision was of right to cease, when the Gentiles were brought in to the faith, forasmuch as then it had obtained its last and chief end, & thenceforth circumcision is nothing.