This may not interest many of my Christian readers, but the Westminster Confession and Catechisms (two, Larger and Shorter) from the mid 1600s are the doctrinal statement adopted by my denomination. I was thinking about them because I recently remarked (offweb now) that it was OK to resort to Romans 2 and the internal/external division to explain the difference between sincere Christians who persevere in their faith and inherit eternal life and members of the Church who do not to so in “the covenant of grace.”

I stand by that, but something has been bothering me.  I may be wrong but I don’t think that such a distinction is obvious from the Westminster Confession.  In my post I talked about what happens when someone never truly comes to Christ.  But what would we think of the covenant specifically?

Well, let me start with the chapter on the Church:

1. The catholic or universal church, which is invisible, consists of the whole number of the elect, that have been, are, or shall be gathered into one, under Christ the Head thereof; and is the spouse, the body, the fullness of him that filleth all in all.

2. The visible church, which is also catholic or universal under the gospel (not confined to one nation, as before under the law), consists of all those throughout the world that profess the true religion; and of their children: and is the kingdom of the Lord Jesus Christ, the house and family of God, out of which there is no ordinary possibility of salvation.

3. Unto this catholic visible church Christ hath given the ministry, oracles, and ordinances of God, for the gathering and perfecting of the saints, in this life, to the end of the world: and doth, by his own presence and Spirit, according to his promise, make them effectual thereunto.

Would it be natural to refer to someone as “only externally” a member of the visible church?  I don’t see how.

It wouldn’t make much more sense to say that members of the “invisible church” are so “internally” because the members include people who do not exist and who have not been regenerated yet.  If they have not been effectually called, then there is no “internal” about it.

So compare the visible church to what the Confession says about the Covenant (chapter 7):

3. Man, by his fall, having made himself incapable of life by that covenant, the Lord was pleased to make a second, commonly called the covenant of grace; wherein he freely offereth unto sinners life and salvation by Jesus Christ; requiring of them faith in him, that they may be saved, and promising to give unto all those that are ordained unto eternal life his Holy Spirit, to make them willing, and able to believe.

5. This covenant was differently administered in the time of the law, and in the time of the gospel: under the law, it was administered by promises, prophecies, sacrifices, circumcision, the paschal lamb, and other types and ordinances delivered to the people of the Jews, all foresignifying Christ to come; which were, for that time, sufficient and efficacious, through the operation of the Spirit, to instruct and build up the elect in faith in the promised Messiah, by whom they had full remission of sins, and eternal salvation; and is called the old testament.

6. Under the gospel, when Christ, the substance, was exhibited, the ordinances in which this covenant is dispensed are the preaching of the Word, and the administration of the sacraments of baptism and the Lord’s Supper: which, though fewer in number, and administered with more simplicity, and less outward glory, yet, in them, it is held forth in more fullness, evidence and spiritual efficacy, to all nations, both Jews and Gentiles; and is called the new testament. There are not therefore two covenants of grace, differing in substance, but one and the same, under various dispensations.

If there was a time to introduce the allegedly essential and universal internal/external distinction, this would be it.  But I don’t see it.  It looks to me me like the members of the covenant of grace are the members of the visible church.  The Westminster divines made the distinction between elect and reprobate by other means–for example, the terms “elect,” and “reprobate.”

So while distinctions like “internal” and “external” can be used by Protestants, they also seem to be able to deal with the data without them.