Among proponents of the covenant of redemption, there has not been unity of understanding regarding the Holy Spirit’s relationship to the pactum. David Dickson, often credited with the original formulation of the pactum as a doctrine, understood the Holy Spirit to be a witness to the covenant, rather than a party to it. He was followed in his thinking by John Owen and Jonathan Edwards, but both for different reasons (Owen rooted his answer in the economy, while Edwards turned to the ad intra processions). In Contrast, Patrick Gillespie argued that the Holy Spirit is better understood as a party to the covenant. He has been followed by more recent theologians, such as Michael Horton and JV Fesko. This paper examines the arguments behind each understanding, then advocates for a compromise answer, first developed by the Puritan Samuel Willard—an answer that hinges on the dual nature of the Son in relation to the covenant.
Thesis: The Holy Spirit can be understood to be a party to the covenant of redemption or as a witness to it. Seeing the Son’s dual nature in the covenant (made in light of his economic office as the Savior, or in light of his ad intra Sonship) helps frame the way the Spirit is said to participate in the pactum.
1. Q: is the Holy Spirit a party to the pactum?
2. A: Negative (Dickson, Owen, Edwards)
3. A: Affirmative (Gillespie, Horton, Fesko)
4. A path forward: Willard offers a dual-natured compromise