Thomas Boston: CoG, CoR?

[RamistThomist]

Did Thomas Boston differ from classical Reformed on Covenant Theology?

“the covenant of redemption and the covenant of grace, are not two distinct covenants, but one and the same covenant.” (The Complete Works of Thomas Boston, by Thomas Boston, ed. Samuel M’Millan (reprint, Wheaton, IL: Richard Owen Roberts, Publishers, 1980), 8:396).

Which makes me wonder per the following:

1. By conflating the two, would this simply make Christ another member in the CoG?
2. If this is true, how can Bostonians avoid the charge that Christ becomes the Son of God by adoption? I've seen a number of EO and RCC apologists argue this point.

By contrast, does Rutherford teach a different view?

1. The CoG is distinct from the CoR, as the promises are different.
2. To Christ it was promised, pace the CoR, to be rewarded, upon fulfilling the conditions, to be seated at the right hand and rule the world, etc. To believers in the CoG it was promised forgiveness of sins (which obviously doesn't apply to Christ).

Rutherford stated,

“Whosoever receives in his body the Seals of the Covenant of Grace, Circumcision, and Baptism, and yet needs no putting off the body of the sins of the flesh, by Circumcision, and needs no forgiveness of sin, no regeneration, no burying with Christ in Baptism, as Colossians 2:11 , 12; Romans 6:3-5, and eats the Passover, and needs not that the Lamb of God take away his sins, as John 1:29 since he is holy, and without sin, he must be under the Covenant, and God must be his God, in some other Covenant than sinners are…Christ must have received Seals for other uses and ends, then sinners received them” (Covenant of Life Opened, pg. 418)

 

[NaphtaliPress]

Walker notes the difference without a lot of discussion.
The Theology and Theologians of Scotland: Chiefly of the Seventeenth and ... - James Walker - Google Books

 

[Afterthought]

Robert Shaw's Exposition on the seventh chapter of the WCF has some discussion on this, arguing in favor of the one Covenant in two parts, though I don't know if it's exactly what you're looking for or if you've read it already. I know Turretin also views the CoG as one covenant in two parts.

 

[Contra_Mundum]

The answer or solution to this question is found in a discussion of the relationship between these two aspects (CoR & CoG) of a single grand design. It is also helpful to remember that Boston always wishes to conform his theological statements to prior ecclesiastical statements, most especially those of his Confession. Boston begins to make his mark about 70 years after Rutherford began and about 35 years after his death (about 50 years after the Assembly).

WLC 31: With whom was the covenant of grace made?
Answer: The covenant of grace was made with Christ as the second Adam, and in him with all the elect as his seed.

I believe it is "the Sum of Saving Knowledge" (often published with the Standards, but not officially part of them) that distinctly refers to the CoR, the aspect which does not have explicit or by-name description in the Standards.

Rutherford, beside being a Westminster commissioner, is writing immediately in the decade that followed the composition of the Standards. And it is highly unlikely that he writes anything that is self-consciously different from the Confession he commended to the Scottish kirk. I think it highly unlikely that either of the men would have viewed themselves as departing from their Confession, or substantively different from one another.


How do the two--CoR & CoG--relate? In what sense do we confess that the CoG is made with Christ? The CoG is our interest in the divine compact. That is to say, our view of the CoR is mediated through the lens of the CoG.

We are down below, and we look up into the heavens, and we see the great Trinitarian discussion pertaining to our redemption. (For an exhibition, read the first 7vv of Is.49). But all that ineffable conversation comes to us exclusively through our union and communion with the Son. And that relation is exclusively in the CoG.

And therefore, it may be said that the covenant made with us is first made with the Son, and through him (ourselves being his seed, Is.53:10) made unto us.

Thus, if we wish to apprehend the CoR by itself (as it were), we will agree with Rutherford that the CoR is unique for all the reasons he cites; that being of a higher order and character, it pertains to the inter-Trinitarian relation, and may be treated as a separate thing, with its own concerns--of which, the CoG is a peculiarly vital element.

But as soon as we ask any question as to what interest we might have in this glorious covenant of redemption, when we ask: "What is the architecture that brings us into a blessed fellowship with the God of our salvation?" we find ourselves looking up through the one and only covenant of grace. In fact, we only learn about the CoR in a post-hoc manner, AFTER the CoG has been initiated with fallen humanity.

So as far as we are concerned, chronologically the CoG is prior to our introduction to the CoR. Election works in exactly the same way. We are not assured of our election until AFTER we have come to faith in Jesus Christ as the provision for our salvation. This is because election has ultimately more to do with eternity and the CoR, than historically with the CoG. Election stands precisely at the "interface" between the CoG and the CoR, hence the answer to WLC 31.

Paul treats election in the very same way in his Romans salvation-treatise. His first interest is in the CoG as the means of man's salvation. And once that has been established, by Rom.9, he turns to the CoR in order to show the eternal purposes of God have not, never were, and never can be disturbed; but he will accomplish all his saving design. I've used the analogy of showing a house. You go in the front door, you see all the appointments; and then, when you have admired all that which shows above the ground, the guide invites you into the basement so that you might see the rock on which the superstructure is founded. This house will not fall.


In any case, I do think that the key to understanding the apparent discrepancy between these two famous divines is in how each man would seek to explain the relationship between these two covenants. Boston stresses their unity; Rutherford their distinction.

We might think of comparable relations to help us. Consider marriage. There is one unique relationship between husband and wife, forming this family. But is it true to say that their children are in a different covenant entirely? No, they have an interest in the marriage of father and mother. But it is not true that their relation is quite the same covenant either, for reasons that parallel Rutherford's aim at distinction.

Hope this is helpful.

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

That is wonderful Rev. Buchanan. Thank You so much. Maybe I missed it but can you give us the Reference for Rutherford? Dickson is put close to the Standards but I would love to see your references to Rutherford.

BTW, I don't see Chapter VII. 1 in anyway negating a Covenant of Redemption. Just my humble opinion.

 

[py3ak]

John Brown discusses this (he is a Bostonian) and concludes that while there are only two covenants, those who speak of 3 in this way do not really err. They are speaking of the making and of the administration of the covenant of grace as though they were distinct covenants. It's a division it would be easy to make too much of; but it can be quite helpful to realize that the covenant of grace is made with Christ, as in WLC 31.

 

[MW]

Did Thomas Boston differ from classical Reformed on Covenant Theology?

No, Boston reflects the classic teaching as it is formulated in the Westminster Standards.

“the covenant of redemption and the covenant of grace, are not two distinct covenants, but one and the same covenant.” (The Complete Works of Thomas Boston, by Thomas Boston, ed. Samuel M’Millan (reprint, Wheaton, IL: Richard Owen Roberts, Publishers, 1980), 8:396).

His reasoning was, Scripture explicitly speaks of "two covenants" -- works and grace. Theologically, redemption accomplished and applied should not be separated in design. Historically, those who advocated the covenant of redemption as a distinct covenant still called the covenant of grace the applicatory part of the covenant of redemption and thereby nullified their own contention that they were two different covenants. Practically, the idea that the believer has two different covenant interests is confusing.

1. By conflating the two, would this simply make Christ another member in the CoG?

No, it makes Him the Head of the Covenant of grace and the Mediator to the elect. See Larger Catechism 31 and 36.

If this is true, how can Bostonians avoid the charge that Christ becomes the Son of God by adoption? I've seen a number of EO and RCC apologists argue this point.

The charge is made with respect to all covenant transaction between the persons of the Trinity (so the covenant of redemption is included in it), and it is answered by the intra/extra distinction that is necessary to a proper understanding of the work of redemption as a whole in which the Son subordinates Himself to the Father.

By contrast, does Rutherford teach a different view?

In words, yes; in sense, no. Dickson, Rutherford, Gillespie, Durham, all make the covenant of grace the applicatory part of the covenant of grace. Head 2 of the Sum of Saving Knowledge interchanges the terms covenant of redemption and covenant of grace, and Durham makes a specific point of saying that they are not really two different covenants.

1. The CoG is distinct from the CoR, as the promises are different.
2. To Christ it was promised, pace the CoR, to be rewarded, upon fulfilling the conditions, to be seated at the right hand and rule the world, etc. To believers in the CoG it was promised forgiveness of sins (which obviously doesn't apply to Christ).

These truths are not compromised by regarding them as one and the same covenant because one and the same covenant makes different provisions for the Head and body respectively. Rutherford's arguments are aimed at a denial of the eternal covenant with the Son. They are not pertinent to Boston's position per se.

Christ must have received Seals for other uses and ends, then sinners received them” (Covenant of Life Opened, pg. 418)

Other "uses and ends" are not other "signs and seals." As they are the same signs and seals they must apply to the same covenant. Christ is the Proto-believer in this respect, and sanctifies them by His own action and institution to our use.

 

[RamistThomist]

Thanks, I'll try to work through this.