Basic HTML Version
199
to the Netherlands and to the British Isles, especially Scotland. Its earliest representatives in the
Netherlands were Gomarus, Trelcatius, Ravensperger, and especially Cloppenburg. The latter is
regarded as the forerunner of Coccejus, who is often mistakenly called “the father of federal
theology.” The real distinction of Coccejus lies, at least partly, in the fact that he sought to
substitute for the usual scholastic method of studying theology, which was rather common in
his day, what he considered a more Scriptural method. He was followed in that respect by
Burmannus and Witsius. Coccejus and his followers were not the only ones to embrace the
doctrine of the covenant of works. This was done by others as well, such as Voetius, Mastricht,
à Marck, and De Moor. Ypeij and Dermout point out that in those days a denial of the covenant
of works was regarded as a heresy.[Geschiedenis der Ned. Herv. Kerk, Aanteekeningen I-11, p.
315.] The Socinians rejected this doctrine altogether, since they did not believe in the
imputation of Adam’s sin to his descendants; and some of the Arminians, such as Episcopius,
Limborgh, Venema, and J. Alting, who called it a human doctrine, followed suit. About the
middle of the eighteenth century, when the doctrine of the covenant in the Netherlands had all
but passed into oblivion, Comrie and Holtius in their Examen van het Ontwerp van Tolerantie
once more brought it to the attention of the Church. In Scotland several important works were
written on the covenants, including the covenant of works, such as those of Fisher (Marrow of
Modern Divinity), Ball, Blake, Gib, and Boston. Says Walker: “The old theology of Scotland might
be emphatically described as covenant theology.”[Scottish Theology and Theologians, p.
73.] The doctrine found official recognition in the Westminster Confession, and in the Formula
Consensus Helvetica. It is significant that the doctrine of works met with very little response in
Roman Catholic and Lutheran theology. This finds its explanation in their attitude to the
doctrine of the immediate imputation of the sin of Adam to his descendants. Under the
influence of Rationalism and of Placæus’ theory of mediate imputation, which also found
acceptance in New England theology, the doctrine of the covenant gradually suffered eclipse.
Even such conservative scholars as Doedes and Van Oosterzee in the Netherlands rejected it;
and in New England theology it was short-lived. In Scotland the situation is not much better.
Hugh Martin already wrote in his work on The Atonement (published in 1887): “It has come to
pass, we fear, that the federal theology is at present suffering a measure of neglect which does
not bode well for the immediate future of the Church amongst us.”[P. 25.] And while in our
own country such Presbyterian scholars as the Hodges, Thornwell, Breckenridge, and Dabney,
take due account of the doctrine in their theological works, in the Churches which they
represent it has all but lost its vitality. In the Netherlands there has been a revival of federal
theology under the influence of Kuyper and Bavinck, and through the grace of God it still
continues to be a living reality in the hearts and minds of the people.