In his book The Baptized Body, Peter Leithart makes this statement:

As I see it, the Federal Vision’s central affirmation is this: Without qualification or hedging, the church is the body of Christ. Everything the Federal Vision says about baptism, about soteriology, about apostasy flows from that affirmation. (ix)

Leithart then addresses this “central affirmation” of the Federal Vision in a chapter entitled The “Body of Christ” Is the Body of Christ, a chapter which he identifies as the most important in his book (ix). Early in this chapter, he evaluates and rejects the dual aspect of the covenant:

This confessional ambiguity is founded on and has produced persistent dualities within Reformed theology, which are evident most clearly in various formulas concerning the “dual aspect of the covenant.” As Louis Berkhof summarizes, Reformed theologians have distinguished between an internal and external covenant, the essence of the covenant and its administration, a conditional and absolute covenant, and the covenant as a legal relationship and as a communion of life. (55-56)

I think Leithart is on to something here. I think this rejection of “the dual aspect of the covenant” as an ill-conceived and erroneous “qualification” and “hedging” is foundational to those doctrines most associated with the Federal Vision.

The dual aspect of the covenant is rooted in the apparent antinomy between divine sovereignty and human responsibility found in God’s revelation in the Bible. From the perspective of divine sovereignty, the covenant of grace is God’s unconditional plan to accomplish salvation for the elect through the finished work of Christ and to apply that salvation to the elect through the efficacious work of the Spirit. From the perspective of human responsibility, the covenant of grace is a historical administration which involves means and obligations and which not only decisively impacts the lives of the elect but also affects in varying degrees the lives of many non-elect. Reformed theology at its best accepts all that Scripture teaches about both divine sovereignty and human responsibility, even though tying this all together in a neat logical system transcends human rational ability. This is where we plant the flag of mystery.

What is the significance of rejecting the dual aspect of the covenant? As Leithart says, this means that “without qualification or hedging, the church is the body of Christ.” An old computer term comes to mind: WYSIWYG (pronounced wizzywig). This stands for “what you see is what you get.” Back years ago, when the old DOS operating system reigned supreme, you could format a document on your computer screen, but you didn’t know exactly what the formatting would actually look like until you printed it out. Then along came the Mac computer. With the Mac, what you saw on the screen as you formatted the document was exactly what you would get on paper when you printed out the document. This was the advent of WYSIWYG. If you reject the dual aspect of the covenant, then what you get is a WYSIWYG church. In a DOS church, what we see on the screen is what we call the visible church. The print-out is the church as only God can see it, what we call the invisible church. The two are usually not exactly the same. There are usually some in the church whom we think to be in a personal, saving union with Christ but whom God knows not to be. This is not the case, at least in theory, in a WYSIWYG church. In a WYSIWYG church, the theory is that every time a person is baptized with water, that person is put into a personal, saving union with Christ. Every time with no exceptions. “What you see is what you get.” “Without qualification or hedging, the church is the body of Christ.” In a DOS church, some may not have the personal, saving union with Christ which they profess to have, but those who do have it will never lose it. In a WYSIWYG church, everyone has a personal, saving union with Christ, but some of them may lose it.

Now that we understand the significance of the dual aspect of the covenant, I want to consider what the Westminster Shorter Catechism has to say about it. There is no one statement in the Catechism which addresses this issue. Nevertheless, I believe that the Catechism does affirm the dual aspect of the covenant. It does this through addressing salvation from the two perspectives of the dual aspect. We can better understand this by examining the overall structure of the Westminster Shorter Catechism.

The Catechism begins by identifying the Scriptures as the only rule which God has given to direct us how we may glorify and enjoy Him. Next comes the question and answer which provides the outline for everything that follows:

Q.3. What do the Scriptures principally teach? A. The Scriptures principally teach what man is to believe concerning God and what duty God requires of man.

The Catechism’s general outline is “what man is to believe concerning God” and “what duty God requires of man.” The phrase “what man is to believe concerning God” serves as a good heading for the first major division of the Catechism (Qq. 4-38). This first major division includes within it a discussion of the covenant of grace from the perspective of divine sovereignty. The majority of this first major division addresses how God executes His decrees through the works of providence. The covenant of works, here called the covenant of life, is introduced as that special act of providence which God exercised toward man in the estate wherein he was created (Q. 12). After discussing man’s failure to keep the covenant of works, the Catechism moves on to the covenant of grace and examines it as a work of divine providence. Divine providence implies divine sovereignty. So here we have the covenant of grace from one perspective of the dual aspect: divine sovereignty.

The second major division includes the rest of the Catechism (Qq. 39-107). An appropriate heading for this other major division is the phrase “what duty God requires of man” (Qq. 3, 39). This second major division deals with the covenants of works and grace in concept if not in name. The Catechism here states that the moral law was the rule which God at first revealed to man for his obedience (Q. 40). Without mentioning the name, the phrase “at first” takes us back to the covenant of works in Paradise. The Catechism then identifies the ten commandments as a summary of the moral law (Q. 41) and exposits them (Qq. 43-81). After this exposition, the Catechism states that no mere man since the fall is able in this life perfectly to keep the commandments of God (Q. 82). This makes clear that no mere man can now meet the condition of the covenant of works, which is perfect obedience (Q. 12). The Catechism then begins to discuss gospel obedience as now the only way for us to escape God’s wrath and curse due to us for sin. This new alternative of merciful grace which God offers after the fall is, of course, the covenant of grace. The section which discusses gospel obedience is introduced and summarized in the answer to Q. 85:

Q.85. What doth God require of us, that we may escape His wrath and curse, due to us for sin? A. To escape the wrath and curse of God, due to us for sin, God requireth of us faith in Jesus Christ, repentance unto life, with the diligent use of all the outward means whereby Christ communicateth to us the benefits of redemption.

The remainder of the Catechism is a discussion of the saving graces (faith and repentance) and the means of grace, especially the word, sacraments and prayer. So here we have, in concept if not in name, the covenant of grace from the other perspective of the dual aspect: human responsibility.

We can confirm the presence of the dual aspect of the covenant in these two contrasting sections by summarizing the message of each on salvation and seeing if that message is consistent with the respective perspective. First we will consider the section on the covenant of grace in the first major division of the Catechism and see if it is consistent with the perspective of divine sovereignty.

The covenant of grace is here defined only in terms of the elect:

Q.20. Did God leave all mankind to perish in the estate of sin and misery? A. God having, out of His mere good pleasure, from all eternity, elected some to everlasting life, did enter into a covenant of grace, to deliver them out of the estate of sin and misery, and to bring them into an estate of salvation, by a Redeemer.

Jesus is identified as the only Redeemer of God’s elect (Q. 21). Christ efficaciously accomplishes this salvation for the elect (Qq. 24-26). The Spirit efficaciously applies it to the elect by working faith in them and uniting them to Christ in their effectual calling (Q. 30). The Catechism’s definition of effectual calling emphasizes the efficacious nature of God’s sovereign grace in our conversion:

Q.31. What is effectual calling? A. Effectual calling is the work of God’s Spirit, whereby, convincing us of our sin and misery, enlightening our minds in the knowledge of Christ, and renewing our wills, He doth persuade and enable us to embrace Jesus Christ freely offered to us in the gospel.

The elect partake of specific saving benefits as a result of being effectually called. Justification and adoption are acts of God’s free grace, and sanctification is the work of God’s free grace. The Catechism then states that assurance of God’s love and perseverance in God’s grace accompany or flow from these saving acts and work (Q. 36). Those who receive these saving benefits are also referred to as believers who go to heaven at death (Q. 37), as believers who are openly acknowledged and acquitted in the day of judgment and made perfectly blessed in the full enjoying of God to all eternity (Q. 38).

In this section, the Catechism often uses first person plural pronouns (we, us, our) in contexts where the reference can only be to God’s elect (Qq. 21, 23-26) or to those who are efficaciously saved (Qq. 30-35). Not everyone who recites this Catechism is necessarily an elect, regenerate individual. The Catechism must here be using what is sometimes called the judgment of charity which gives the benefit of the doubt and addresses people in terms of what they profess to be.

This section in this first major division of the Catechism is clearly an explanation of the covenant of grace from the perspective of divine sovereignty. Christ here purchases our redemption as the Redeemer of God’s elect, and then the Holy Spirit effectually applies that redemption by working faith in us and uniting us to Christ in a personal, saving union that can never be lost.

Second we will consider the section on the covenant of grace from the perspective of human responsibility found in the second major division of the Catechism. This section begins with the two saving graces, faith in Jesus Christ (Q. 86) and repentance unto life (Q. 87). Remember that in the earlier divine sovereignty section, saving faith is presented as something the Holy Spirit works in the sinner’s heart to unite him to Christ (Q. 30). Here in the human responsibility section, saving faith is described as something the sinner does in response to the gospel offer (Q. 86). The earlier divine sovereignty section describes Christ’s efficacious work of redemption for the elect and the Spirit’s efficacious application of that work to the elect. In the earlier divine sovereignty section, God works and acts to save sinners through justification, adoption and sanctification. In contrast, this latter human responsibility section describes the saving graces which the sinner exercises at conversion in obedience to the gospel offer. In the saving grace of faith, we receive and rest upon Christ alone for salvation (Q. 86). In the saving grace of repentance, the sinner turns from his sin unto God (Q. 87).

This human responsibility section then discusses the means of grace. Here is where we see indications that the administration of the covenant of grace in history not only substantially and permanently affects the elect but also superficially and temporarily touches some non-elect. Consider the reading and preaching of the word. It goes without saying that not everyone who reads the word or hears it preached responds with saving faith. Whenever the word is made effectual to salvation, this is always due to the gracious working of the Holy Spirit (Q. 89). Yet whether a person’s exposure to the word is effectual to salvation or not, responding to the word in saving faith is his responsibility:

Q.90. How is the word to be read and heard, that it may become effectual to salvation? A. That the word may become effectual to salvation, we must attend thereunto with diligence, preparation, and prayer; receive it with faith and love, lay it up in our hearts, and practice it in our lives.

We find this same pattern with the sacraments as means of grace:

Q.91. How do the sacraments become effectual means of salvation? A. The sacraments become effectual means of salvation, not from any virtue in them, or in him that doth administer them; but only by the blessing of Christ, and the working of His Spirit in them that by faith receive them.

If a sacrament is an effectual means of salvation through confirming and strengthening our faith in Christ, this can be “only by the blessing of Christ, and the working of His Spirit…” Yet a sacrament is also an effectual means of salvation only “in them that by faith receive them.” Whether the Spirit works faith in our hearts or not, receiving the sacrament in faith is our responsibility. The sacraments are not always effectual means to salvation because not everyone who receives them receives them by faith.

The Catechism’s discussion of the administration of baptism is especially relevant to this point:

Q.95. To whom is baptism to be administered? A. Baptism is not to be administered to any that are out of the visible church, till they profess their faith in Christ, and obedience to Him; but the infants of such as are members of the visible church, are to be baptized.

The Catechism here mentions the visible church, which is the church in history as seen through fallible human eyes at any given point in time. The mention of the visible church here reminds us that we do not have an infallible certainty that every single person who is baptized with water will have a personal, saving union with Jesus. In obedience to God’s revealed will, the church baptizes those with a credible profession and their covenant children. Profession of faith and covenant status are significant and hopeful evidences of election, but not infallible signs.

We find this same nuanced and complex reality in the Catechism’s prayer regarding the kingdom of grace: “we pray … that the kingdom of grace may be advanced, ourselves and others brought into it, and kept in it…” (Q. 102). This prayer implies that one can in this life be a member of the church in its visible aspect without necessarily being a member of the church in its invisible aspect.

This section in the second major division of the Catechism is clearly applying the covenant of grace to this life from the perspective of human responsibility. The Catechism here emphasizes the duty which God requires of man. In this context, the covenant of grace can temporarily touch the lives of some non-elect. From this perspective, we need to pray not only that people will be brought into the kingdom of grace but also kept in it.

The qualifications and hedges which Leithart associates with the dual aspect of the covenant are very much part of the warp and woof of the Westminster Shorter Catechism. We cannot remove these without destroying the doctrinal fabric of the document. A system without the dual aspect of the covenant has to be artificially read into the Catechism. It cannot be naturally derived from it. The Westminster Shorter Catechism is simply not compatible with a system in which membership in the visible church guarantees without any qualifications or hedges a personal, saving union with Jesus Christ. The church triumphant, the assembly of the saints in heaven, is a WYSIWYG church, but not the church militant, not the church on earth waiting for Christ’s return. From the Catechism’s perspective, a WYSIWYG ecclesiology is too simplistic and does not faithfully reflect the totality of Scripture’s teaching on the subject.