6. § 40. The Covenant of Grace.

6. § 40. The Covenant of Grace.

§ 40. The Covenant of Grace.

. Sin and misery are, to a certain extent, acknowledged by all men.

And from this acknowledgment there is born in all a weaker or stronger desire for deliverance; the need of deliverance too is universal.

Indeed all men are, in greater or lesser degree, conscious that deliverance must come from above. Παντες δε θεων χατεους' ἀνθρωποι. But the Heathens nevertheless did not know the grace which alone can deliver man from sin and misery; they had only surmises and wishes. Humana ad deos transferebat Homerus; divina mallem ad nos (Cicero). Only in Holy

Scripture does the grace of God in all its richness and glory come to meet us. Immediately after the fall it already makes a beginning. The punishment threatened in Gen. 2:17 has evidently not been carried out in full. Adam and Eve did not die on the day of their transgression. If the righteous punishment for sin had been executed immediately and in full, then in the first human pair the whole human race would have been destroyed, the earth laid waste, the cosmos into a chaos, indeed returned again to nothing.

But then Satan too would have triumphed and God would have lost it.

Therefore, immediately after the fall another principle comes into operation, which restrains, combats, and conquers sin. Not only is the punishment not applied in full; but also that punishment which is applied is at the same time also still a blessing. Everything that takes place immediately after the fall is revelation and proof of God's wrath and of God's grace at the same time.

[188] The consciousness of guilt that awakens in Adam and Eve, the conscience that rises up accusingly, the shame over their nakedness, the fear and the hiding from God, Gen. 3:7v. are all a proof that they have transgressed God's law and are worthy of his wrath and punishment; but they nevertheless also show that man is not obdurate or hardened, that he has not become a devil but has remained man. With the angels it is so, that they, falling, also at once fall toward hell, Jud. 6, they are immediately obdurate in evil and irredeemable. But man is so created, that he, falling, can nevertheless be raised up again; he remains susceptible to deliverance.

God holds back the full working-through of the principle and the power of sin in man. More still, God does not withdraw after the fall and even then does not let man go for a moment. When immediately after the transgression feelings of guilt, shame, fear awaken in man, then all this is already an operation of God's Spirit in man, a revelation of his wrath but also of his grace, a revelation that is the foundation of all religious and ethical life that is still in man after the fall. But God also reveals himself in another way. When man hides himself from Him, He seeks him out and calls him. It is true, God comes to him from afar and man out of fear wants to hide himself and make the distance between himself and God still greater. There is no longer any communion between God and man but estrangement and separation; the covenant is broken. And yet, God comes to man and seeks him out; He no longer leaves him over to his own folly

and fear, which makes him seek salvation in hiding from God. But He himself, of his own initiative, calls man back to himself. And in doing so He does not overtake and frighten man. He comes, as it were, from afar; He does not come to him in storm or thunderstorm but in the ‎‏‏רּוַח ַהּיֹום‎, that is, in the evening coolness, amid the solemn rustling of the trees in the evening.

And by that they knew the voice of God and perceived that He was drawing near. That drawing near was grace. God gives man time, to come to himself and to consider what he shall answer. Still more clearly, in the examination and in the punishment this revelation of God's grace comes out, Gen. 3:913. The Lord calls Adam specifically, for this one is the head and the responsible person. God does not come at once with his verdict but institutes an inquiry, proceeds to questioning, and gives man every opportunity to give account. When man makes use of that, and indeed does not deny all guilt but yet also does not fall down humbly and penitently before God, but seeks to excuse himself, then God does not kindle in wrath, then He lets that excuse count to a certain extent. And then He pronounces judgment, while He in the examination began with Adam, now in the pronouncing of the punishment first turns to the serpent, then to Eve, thereafter to Adam.

And in that punishment mercy boasts against judgment. The punishment, Gen. 3:14, 15, first of all has reference to the serpent as an ordinary animal.

God humiliates the serpent, and sets enmity between it and man; from now on, instead of the former subjection of the animals to man, a struggle between the two will prevail, in which man will indeed conquer but will nevertheless have much to suffer from the animals, particularly from the serpent. But further, this punishment, through the serpent, goes back to the evil power, whose instrument it was. With it man had concluded a covenant

and for that had broken the covenant with God; God graciously annuls this covenant of man, sets enmity between the seed of the serpent and the seed of the woman, brings the seed of the woman, i.e. humanity, back over to his side, thus declares that from Eve there will yet proceed a humanity, and that that humanity in the struggle against the evil power will indeed suffer much but will nevertheless in the end triumph. The way for the human race will from now on go through suffering to glory, through struggle to victory, through the cross to the crown, through the state of humiliation to that of exaltation. This is the fundamental law, which God here proclaims for the entrance into the kingdom of heaven. The punishment over the woman,

Gen. 3:16, strikes her both as mother and as woman; she will, precisely as woman, have much pain to bear; the highest, what she desires, namely to be a mother, she will not be able to obtain otherwise than in the way of manifold suffering, desire for, subjection to the man, bearing with pain; but thus she will nevertheless obtain her highest desire, and reach her destination; she will be a mother of the living, although by her transgression and exaltation above the man she had deserved death, and she will be saved in bearing children, 1 Tim. 2:15. [190] The punishment over the man, Gen.

3:17-19, consists in this, that the earth is cursed for his sake, that he will eat bread in the sweat of his face and after a life of labor and trouble will return again to dust. In connection with that he is then driven out of paradise and sent into the wide world, Gen. 3:22-24. But this punishment too is a blessing. Labor ennobles; it preserves man from moral and physical ruin, stimulates his energy and increases his activity. Even if it is the case that man is banished from paradise, he is nevertheless not consigned to hell; he is sent into the world, in order that he may subdue and rule it by toilsome and strenuous labor. Herein lies the beginning and the principle of all

culture; the dominion of man is not wholly lost but is extended by labor, Ps.

8; also in fallen man the image of God, after which he was created, is still recognizable. Yes, even temporal death is not only a punishment but also a benefaction; God has instituted death, in order that sin might not be immortal, Iren., adv. haer. III 23. 6. After the fall, therefore, twofold principle at once comes into operation: wrath and grace, justice and mercy.

From that alone is also a world to be explained, such as we know it. This is a world full of humor, δακρυοεν γελασασα, standing in the sign of the cross, and immediately after the fall given to Christ, the man of sorrows, in order that He might preserve and subdue it.

After God has thus pronounced the punishment, Adam and Eve humbly bow the head; they bring in nothing more, lay the hand upon the mouth, and accept the word of God without any objection. That word indeed sounds unbelievable, its truth can first become apparent in the distant future, but nevertheless they believe it, blind as to the future and seeing as to the commandment. Relying on God's promise Adam calls his wife Eve, life, source of life, mother of the living. Before the fall he saw in her especially the woman who was given to him for help, and therefore called her woman.

But now he beholds in her first of all the mother and calls her Eve. Death and ruin are indeed deserved, but God's blessing nevertheless makes the woman fruitful, and brings forth from her a humanity, which in her greatest son, the Son of man, shall overcome all evil power of sin. Adam [191] sees in the promise of God the propagation, the existence, the development, the preservation of the human race guaranteed and accepts it as such with a truly childlike faith. And this faith was reckoned to him for righteousness.

In principle Genesis 3 contains the whole history of humanity, all the ways of God to the salvation of what is lost and to the overcoming of sin. In

substance the whole gospel, the entire covenant of grace, is present here. All that follows is the development of what has now already been planted as a seed.

2. Yet in Gen. 3 the word covenant is not yet mentioned; only with Noah, Abraham, and Israel at Sinai is there mention of it. The new criticism thinks that it has also here been antedated, and that Israel's religion originally did not differ from that of other peoples. The relationship of Ihvh to Israel was like that of Chemosh to Moab. The idea of a covenant existing between Ihvh and his people was wholly foreign to ancient Israel. It knew nothing of this, that God as the God of heaven and earth had chosen Israel out of all peoples, made it his possession, and placed it with himself in a covenant.

All these thoughts arose only much later. Even with Amos the covenant relationship does not yet occur; Hosea only says that one can compare

Israel's unfaithfulness with a breach of covenant, 6:7. Only Deuteronomy is in truth a covenant book; it was introduced and accepted in covenant-wise fashion, 2 K. 23:3, cf. Jer. 34:8v. Ezr. 10:3, Neh. 10:1. But now that covenant, when it arose, was again understood very differently than later.

One then understood by it especially the obligation of Israel toward Ihvh, to be a holy people and to keep his laws. If, therefore, Israel did not keep the covenant, then it was broken and Israel burdened with the curse, Deut. 27 and 28. But although Israel formally accepted the covenant in Josiah's reformation, it did not adhere to it, was punished, and sent into exile. And then gradually the thought arose that God's covenant consisted in a law that he had given, that God had obligated himself to remain faithful to Israel and also, if it fell away, not to abandon it; God could indeed punish Israel, but not destroy the covenant. The Israel that returned from the exile clung fast to this covenant idea and projected it back into the past, into the [192]

history of the patriarchs, cf. Wellhausen, Gesch. Israels I 434 f. Smend, Altt.

Theol. 116 f., and especially R. Kraetzschmar, Die Bundesvorstellung im A.

T. in ihrer gesch. Entw. Marburg Elwert 1896. But this result has been obtained by means of a violent criticism, which strikes the facts in the face and in the end is nothing but arbitrariness. Thus, e.g., in Gen. 18:21 the words: so shall the Lord be to me a God, which really make one think of a covenant, are certainly a later addition. Ex. 21-23 indeed bears the name of the book of the covenant and Ex. 34 indeed contains the words of the covenant, but these pieces are not from Moses' time, and even if they are pre-deuteronomic, they nevertheless contain no formal covenant such as is spoken of in the days of Josiah; perhaps they are also post-deuteronomic.

Hos. 8:1 is interpolated. In Gen. 15:18 the word covenant is only the solemn name for the oath by which God obligates himself to give the land of Canaan to Abraham's seed; of mutual obligations there is no mention etc.

A criticism that reasons in this way obtains no certainty except that which it itself wishes to have. First it constructs, on the basis of the alleged spuriousness of the writings, the history of the religious conceptions, and later it uses this same reconstructed history to demonstrate the spuriousness of the writings directed against it. Cf. G. Vos, Recent Criticism of the early prophets, Presb. and Ref. Rev. April 1898 p. 214-238, also Strack in a review of Kraetzschmar's book, Theol. Lit. Blatt 1898 n. 5. Furthermore, the main question in the investigation into the covenant idea in Holy

Scripture is absolutely not this, whether the word ‎‏‏ברית‎ originally meant covenant or rather ordinance. Some, such as Delitzsch, Gesenius, Dillmann,

Schultz, Oehler, Wellhausen, Guthe, Bredenkamp, König, Cremer say the former, assume as a second meaning covenant condition, and thus let the sense pass over into ordinance, law, because a law obtains legal validity in

the way of the covenant. Others, such as Hofmann, Buhl, Friedrich Delitzsch, Orelli, Strack, Siegfried, Stade, Nowack think that determination, ordinance is the oldest meaning, and that this passed over into that of covenant, because a law regulates a reciprocal relationship. These explanations do not look plausible; it is also impossible, in Scripture, to demonstrate historically the transition from the one to the other meaning; now this meaning predominates, then that, without one being able thereby to distinguish older or younger sources. The concept of ‎‏‏ברית‎ is therefore to be determined differently. The derivation sheds little light on this.

According to most, it comes from ‎‏‏ברה‎, to cut, and thus points back to the ancient Eastern custom, at the conclusion of a covenant, of walking between the pieces of slaughtered animals laid opposite one another, to indicate that the same fate as these animals might befall the breaker of the covenant, hence ‎‏‏כרת ברית‎, ὁρκια τεμνειν, foedus ferire, cf. Gen. 15:8v., Jer.

34:19; according to others it comes from an Assyrian stem that means to bind, Kraetzschmar 245. However this may be, from Gen. 21:22v., 26:26v.,

31:44v., it is clearly evident that three things belonged to a ‎‏‏ברית‎, an oath or promise that contained the agreed determinations, a curse that invoked the divine punishment upon the breaker, and a cultic ceremony that symbolically represented the curse. The conclusion of a ‎‏‏ברית‎ was thus always a religious act. The word was indeed first customary in the profane sphere of determinations and treaties between men. Long before God establishes his covenant with Noah and Abraham, covenants had already been established between men. And this also had to be so, if Noah,

Abraham, Israel were to understand and appreciate religion as a covenant.

Therefore the word also does not yet occur in Gen. 3:15. Only when, in sinful, deceitful human society, covenants were repeatedly needed for the

defense or acquisition of some good, could the meaning and the value of a covenant be perceived and religion be conceived under this point of view.

But even if ‎‏‏ברית‎ is first used of human covenants, it nevertheless always denotes a religious act. The main thing in ‎‏‏ברית‎ is not whether it denotes a covenant or an ordinance. But it indicates in general such a promise, agreement, treaty, covenant, determination, disposition, etc., which is placed under God's guardianship by a solemn ceremony and thus acquires a character of unbreakableness, Kraetschmar t. a. p. 29. 30. 39-41. Whether

‎‏‏ברית‎ denotes more a bilateral covenant or a unilateral disposition depends not on the word nor also on the historical development of the concept, but simply on the parties who are involved in it. In proportion as one of the two parties is more subordinate and has less to say, the ‎‏‏ברית‎ involuntarily acquires the character of a disposition that is imposed by the one party upon the other; ‎‏‏ברית‎ then becomes synonymous with ‎‏‏ ֹחק‎, Ex. 34:10, Jes. 59:21,

Jer. 33:20, 31:36, 34:13, and ‎‏‏כרת ברית‎ is construed not only with ‎‏‏עם‎ and ‎‏‏בין‎ but also with ‎‏‏ל‎, Jos. 9:6, Jes. 55:3, 61:8, Jer. 32:40. When the victor concludes a ‎‏‏ברית‎ with a vanquished one, or a king with his subjects, all the emphasis falls on the duties that the latter have to fulfill thereby, Jos. 9, 1

Sam. 11, 2 S. 5:3, 1 Kon. 20:34, Ez. 17:13. Still stronger does the meaning of disposition and ordinance become, when there is figuratively mention of a ‎‏‏ברית‎ with the eyes, Job 31:1, with the stones and the animals, Job 5:22,

40:28, with death, Jes. 28:15, of God with nature, Gen. 8:22, Jer. 33:20, 25, or with the animals, Gen. 9:12, Hos. 2:17-22, Jes. 11:6 etc. But also when

God and man conclude a covenant, the monopleuric character repeatedly comes strongly to the foreground of itself; they are after all not equal parties, but God is the Sovereign, who imposes his ordinances upon the creatures. When God in Gen. 15:8v. concludes a covenant with Abram, that

is no proper pactio but a sponsio; God gives his promise, he binds himself to its fulfillment and passes between the pieces of the sacrificial animal.

And elsewhere he swears by himself, Gen. 22:16, by his life, Deut. 32:40, by his soul, Am. 6:8, Jer. 51:14, in order to prove to man the unchangeableness of his counsel, Hebr. 6:17. And this monopleuric character of the covenant had to come to light ever more clearly in history.

For indeed God's covenant also imposed obligations upon those with whom it was concluded; obligations namely, not as conditions for entering into the covenant, for the covenant was concluded and rests only in God's mercy, but as the way which those taken up into the covenant by grace now henceforth had to walk, Gen. 17:1, 2, Ex. 19:5, 6, 8, 24:3, 7, Lev. 26:14v.,

Deut. 5:29, 27:10v, 28:1v., 30:1v. etc. But although Israel repeatedly accepted God's covenant anew, Ex. 19:8, 24:3, 7, Deut. 29:10-13, Jos.

24:16, 2 Kon. 23:3, 2 Chr. 15:12, 23:16, 29:10, 34:31, Neh. 8 etc., it did not walk in the way of the covenant and profaned and broke it at every moment.

Thus the question arose whether this covenant of grace was then as unstable as the covenant of works before the [195] fall. And to that revelation gave answer, and ever more powerfully and loudly, as apostasy increased: no, this covenant does not totter; men may become unfaithful, but God does not forget his promise, the covenant is fixed solely and only in his mercy, Lev.

26:40-44, Deut. 4:31, 30:1v., 32:36v., Richt. 2:1, 2 Kon. 13:23, Ps. 81:9, 12, 89:1-5, 105:8-10, 106:45, 111:5, Jes. 1:3, 5:13, 54:10, Jer. 18:5-10, Ezech.

33:10-16, Hos. 6:1-3, 11:7-9, 14:2-9, Joel 2:12-14. God cannot and may not break his covenant; he has bound himself to it voluntarily, of himself, with a costly oath; his name, his honor, his very being depends on it, Ex. 32, 33,

Num. 14:16, Deut. 32:26, 1 Sam. 12:22, Jes. 48:8-11, Jer. 14:7, 20, 21, Ezech. 20:9, 14, 22, 43, 44, Joel 2:17-19 etc. And herein shines the glory of

religion, which we as Christians confess. Earlier, part II 551v. it has been shown why true religion must bear the form of a covenant. In it God descends to man, and takes him up into his communion. But if God thus gives himself to man, then man is also bound to give himself wholly to God. The covenant, which proceeds from God and takes us up, admonishes and obligates us to a new obedience. But if we then sometimes fall into sins out of weakness, we nevertheless must not therefore despair of God's grace nor remain lying in sins, for the covenant of grace is fixed in the unchangeable good pleasure of God. This unbreakableness, which is enclosed in the word ‎‏‏ברית‎, is probably also the reason why in the LXX it has been rendered not by συνθηκη but by διαθηκη. The N. T. adopted this and applied it both to the O. and to the N. T. dispensation of the covenant of grace. It deserves remark that our Statenvertaling, as also the English translation, translates the word διαθηκη in the first case by covenant Luk.

1:72, Hd. 3:25, 7:8, Rom. 9:4, 11:27, Gal. 3:15, 17, 4:24, Ef. 2:12, Hebr.

9:4, and in the second by testament, Mt. 26:28, Mk. 14:14, Luk. 22:20, 1 Cor. 11:25, 2 Cor. 3:6, Hebr. 9:15, 12:24, 13:20. Underlying that is the thought that the concept foedus fits better the dispensation of the O. T. and the concept testamentum more that of the N. T., cf. Bengel on Mt. 26:28.

After the covenant with the fleshly Israel has been broken, in its place has come [196] the spiritual Israel, which according to God's election is gathered out of all peoples, which receives the goods of salvation as by testamentary disposition of the Son, stands in a relationship of sonship to God and expects the heavenly blessedness as an inheritance, Luk. 22:29,

Rom. 8:16, Gal. 3:15-17, Hebr. 9:15-17, 1 Joh. 3:1, 2, 1 Petr. 1:4. Literature on the doctrine of the covenant in Scripture in Kraetzschmar t. a. p. 1v.

3. From Scripture this covenant-idea of itself passed over into Christian theology. With the church fathers it occurs repeatedly, especially in their commentaries. But the doctrine of the covenant acquired dogmatic significance because the Christian religion had to be understood in its connection with and at the same time in its distinction from the Israelite.

Two directions stood here, already from the days of the apostles onward, over against each other. Judaism, which in almost all congregations opposed Paul's person and doctrine, demanded observance of the Mosaic law, specifically of circumcision, also by the Christians from the Gentiles,

Hd. 15, Rom. 16:17v., 1 Cor. 7:18, Gal. 5:4, 6:13, Phil. 1:15v., 3:2v., Col.

2:16, 21, Tit. 1:10, 14, 2:9, 1 Tim. 1:7v., and, after the breach between Jews and Christians had been effected, Jerusalem destroyed, the Christian congregation fled to Pella, a Gentile-Christian congregation in Jerusalem had been founded in 135 etc., became more and more a sect (Nazarenes,

Ebionites), which became Jewish in its doctrine about God and denied the divinity of Christ. On the other side stood Gnosticism, which also already in the time of the apostles had its origins (Simon Magus, Cerinthus), but especially in the 2nd and 3rd century spread from the East over the West and in the person of Marcion directed its sharp attacks upon the O. Test.

Proceeding from an eternal dualism between God and matter, he thought the transition between both mediated by all manner of aeons, and ascribed the creation of the world to a lower god, the demiurge or the Jewish god. This one was not the highest, true God, but a God of lower rank, the God of the law, of righteousness and of vengeance. The O. T. stood much lower than the N. T., for the God of the O. T. is jealous, vindictive, creator of evil; He hardens and makes obdurate, commands all manner of sins such as the robbing of the Egyptians, the killing of the [197] Canaanites; He gave laws

that were not good, and entered into covenant with men such as Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, David etc., who made themselves guilty of all manner of sins of deceit, lying etc. It is that Jewish god, the demiurge, who even had Christ nailed to the cross, but was by Christ himself consigned to hell. In Christ a wholly different God has revealed himself, the God of grace and of love.

The whole legalistic standpoint is therefore past. The Christian is free from the law and from the whole O. Test. The only one who has at once seen this well is Paul; he is the only, true apostle.

Over against these two parties the Christian church and theology saw itself called to a twofold task. It had, over against Gnosticism, to maintain the unity, and over against Judaism the distinction, of the two testaments, cf. especially Irenaeus, adv. haer. IV. Tertull., adv. Marc. II and III. For that purpose it made use of Paul's doctrine concerning the παλαια and καινη διαθηκη, 2 Cor. 3, lat. testamentum or instrumentum, which was then first applied to the oeconomies, thereafter to the Scriptures. Both are one in origin and content; God or the Logos is the author of both, and in both one faith, one covenant, one way to salvation is set forth. Distinction exists only in the form, and this also had to be so. For God is indeed one, but men differ and must therefore also be educated differently; God reveals his grace successively ever more richly and fully. In the days of the O. T. there was servitude, but now freedom, then image, now truth; then twilight, now light; then grace for one people, now for all; then the Messiah promised, now come, etc. This distinction, however, does not detract from the essential unity, for the law was given specially to Israel and given only on account of its stubbornness, Am. 5:17, Jer. 7:21, Ezech. 20:19, pointed typically to Christ, educated Israel for the Christ, and has in Christ reached its goal and end. And therefore: N. T. in Vetere latet, V. T. in Novo patet. Vetus Novum

praeoccupat et Vetus interpretatum est Novum, Vetus T. est occultatio Novi, et Novum est revelatio Veteris. Ἡ διαφορα οὐκ ἐστιν κατα την οὐσιαν ἀλλα κατα την των χρονων ἐυαλλαγην. Even the O. T. in the hierarchy, priesthood and idea of sacrifice, in the legalistic conception of the gospel, in cultus, painting, etc. obtained a great power over [198] the church, which in many respects wanted to be an O. T. theocracy, cf. art. διαθηκη in Suicerus.

Diestel, Gesch. des A. T. in der Chr. Kirche Jena 1869. Harnack, D. G. I2 531 f. But nevertheless the church in the new dispensation was thereby placed high above the old. In scholastic and Roman theology the distinction of the two testaments was indicated in such a way that the promissa in the O. T. were temporalia and now are coelestia; that the praecepta then were exterius regulantia, but now are pleniora, non solum manum sed et mentem regulantia; that the sacramenta then were only figuralia, now gratiam conferentia, Lombardus, Sent. III dist. 40 and other comm. Thomas, S. Th.

III qu. 60 art. 6 ad 3. qu. 61 art. 4 ad 2. In connection therewith the believers of the O. T. also did not at once come into heaven, but into the limbus patrum, from which they were first transferred by Christ to heaven,

Thomas, Suppl. S. Theol. qu. 69 art. 4-6. Bellarminus, de Christo IV 10. 11.

Catech. Rom. I 3, 4, I 6, 6.

4. The Reformation saw over against and alongside itself all manner of directions, over against which it also had to determine its relation on this point. Judaistic and gnostic ideas had propagated themselves in the Middle

Ages and even now made their influence felt. Anabaptism was radical, wanted not only religious-ethical but also social and political reform, and, with appeal to Scripture, demanded abolition of interest, polygamy, community of goods, etc. The same antithesis of nature and grace, from which it at first wished the introduction of all manner of O. and N. T.

ordinances, gradually caused the whole of Scripture to be set aside in favor of the inward word. Scripture was a dead letter; especially the O. T. lacked all evangelical content; Israel, as a herd of swine, was fed only with temporal goods; the law has lost all value and power for us, M. Vitringa IV 238. Diestel 307 f. Socinianism, by its rationalistic principle, arrived at the same result. The O. T. stands much lower than the New; it teaches polygamy, restricts love of neighbor, prescribes many virtues not at all, determines far too severe punishments for small sins; it knows only servile fear and earthly promise; it knows of no full righteousness and forgiveness; it is therefore completely abolished, [199] and Christ has appeared as novus legislator, Fock, Der Socin. 325. Diestel 535. Arminianism did not speak so boldly but nevertheless conceived the O. T. as a covenant that promised only temporal goods, Episcopius, Disp. II disp. 18-20. IV disp. 12-14.

Limborch, Theol. Chr. III c. 9. M. Vitringa IV 242. Even Luther often set O.

T. and N. over against each other as law and gospel, but later became more cautious and taught that there were also in the O. T. rich, evangelical promises, Köstlin, Luthers Theol. I. 84 f. II 258. Yet this conception continued to have an effect in Lutheran theology. To be sure, it assumes that in O. and N. T. there is only one Messiah, one faith, one way of salvation, but it nevertheless refuses to say that there is only one testament. The word testament with it denotes that legalistic covenant which was established on Sinai with Israel; and in this sense it differs essentially from, is opposed to, and is abolished by the N. Test. There are indeed in the O. T. many promises given to Israel that still apply to us as well, but the O. Testament as a legalistic covenant of God with Israel was no foedus gratiae. The promises of the gospel, given to Adam, Abraham, etc., may indeed be summarized under the name of foedus gratiae, but even this foedus gratiae

in the O. T. then differs not only in accidentia but also in substantia from the N. Test., just as the promise differs from the fulfillment, the shadow from the body, Gerhard, Loci XIV 119 sq. Quenstedt, Theol. IV p. 255-280.

Hollaz, Examen 1043-1053. Heppe, Dogm. d. d. Pr. II 258.

The richest development is that of the doctrine of the covenant in Reformed theology. Federal theology does not originate with Cocceius, as Ypey thought, Beknopte letterk. Gesch. der syst. Godg. II 70v., and it is also not a peculiarity of that German-Reformed theology which would have its father in Melanchthon, as Heppe proposed it in his Geschichte and in his

Dogmatik des deutschen Protestantismus. The incorrectness of these opinions is now acknowledged by all, Sepp, Godg. Ond. II 220. Schweizer,

Gl. der ref. K. I 103. Gass, Gesch. d. prot. Dogm. II 265. Schneckenburger, Vergl. Darst. des luth. u. ref. Lehrbegriffs II 146. Diestel, Studien zur

Foederaltheol., in Jahrb. f. d. Theol. X 209. Van den Bergh, Calvijn over het Genadeverbond bl. 7 v. Heppe, Gesch. d. Pietismus u. d. Mystik in der ref.

Kirche [200] 1879 etc. These all go back to Olevianus, Calvin, or Bullinger.

The covenant-idea, however, was already taken up by Zwingli, who in his Elenchus contra Anabaptistas 1527, Opera III 412 sq. 418 sq. 421 sq. V 45 maintained the essential unity of Old and New Testament. From Zwingli it was then taken over into Swiss theology, Bullinger, de testamento seu foedere Dei unico et aeterno 1534, Comp. relig. Christ 1556, Decades

1549v., Calvin, Inst. II c. 10. 11, cf. van den Bergh, Calvijn over het genadeverbond and the assessment of this dissertation by Dr. van Dijk,

Studien VII 1880 1e stuk; in German Reformed theology by Olevianus, Ursinus, Sohnius, Eglin, Boquinus, Hyperius etc.; in English theology by Rollock, Howie, Cartwright, Preston, Thomas Blake, Perkins, Amesius,

John Ball, James Usher, the Westm. conf. c. 7, Francis Roberts, Thomas

Boston etc. cf. Vos, De verbondsleer in de Geref. Theol. 1891; in the Netherlands by Snecanus, Junius, Gomarus, Trelcatius father and son,

Nerdenus, Ravensperger etc. Long before Cloppenburg and Cocceius, therefore, the doctrine of the covenants was indigenous in Reformed theology. But these two made the covenant-idea the point of departure and governing principle of the whole dogmatics, Cloppenburg, Disp. de fordere

Dei, Op. I 487-570, Cocceius, Summa doctrinae de foedere et test. explicata 1648, and so also Burman, Synopsis 1671, Braun, Doctrina foederum 1688,

Witsius, de oec. foed. 1677. The struggle against Cocceius did not directly at all concern the doctrine of the covenant, which was acknowledged by all, but concerned the sabbath with Essenius and Hoornbeek 1655-1659, the condition of the church in the twofold economy with Maresius 1662, the παρεσις in the O. T. with Voetius 1665. What was contested in Cocceius was not his concept of foedus, but his biblical theology and his historical method. Just as Cartesius in philosophy, so Cocceius in theology rose up against scholasticism and traditionalism; he pressed for study of Scripture and wanted a summa theologiae ex Scripturis repetita, as the title of his dogmatics ran. In order to obtain that, he did not proceed from God and from his eternal counsel, but he took his standpoint in history and the covenant of God with human beings. His dogmatics thus became salvationhistory, a biblical theology in historical form, of which Scripture was not principium and norma but object and content. [201] That covenant, i.e. the true religion, he traced historically from its first beginnings down to the present time; and everywhere he pointed out the development and the progress of that covenant, of the true religion. There was thus not only difference, as the Reformed said, in clarity of revelation, i.e. in brightness of insight and clearness of consciousness. No, there was difference in the

objective benefits themselves under the different administrations of the covenant of grace. Salvation was in the O. T. objectively less than in the N.

T. In the O. T. the sabbath consisted in cessatio operis, Israel did not yet have vera et permanentia bona, but it was a people of hope, longing for a long earthly life, and still seized by fear of death. It did not have full ἀφεσις but only παρεσις; justification was imperfect; the animal sacrifice could bring about no reconciliation; the comfort of believers was still weak, their conscience not yet at rest, the circumcision of the heart was indeed promised but first became a good of the N. T., the law was administered by angels, i.e. in the O. T. everything was indeed present, but only in type and shadow; the reality of the thing itself was lacking or at least much less. Not subjectively but also objectively, not only in accidentia but also in substantia, the O. T. was another than the new. Yes, Cocceius even undermined the whole doctrine of the covenant, when he conceived the covenant of grace exclusively negatively, as a slow, historically and successively completing abolition of the covenant of works. In the end nothing remained of the covenant; it was only a temporary, human, everchanging form of religion. Cf. Gass, Gesch. der prot. Dogm. II 266 f. Art.

Coccejus by Ebrard in Herzog2. Heppe, Gesch. des Pietismus 217 f.

Diestel, Jahrb. f. d. Th. 1865. Van der Flier, De Johanne Coccejo 1859, also part I 121 and Dr. Geesink, De Ethiek in de Geref. theol. 1897 bl. 49v.

Cocceius thereby without doubt left the point of departure and the line of Reformed theology. This was immediately felt by many, and therefore also more or less opposed. But it was more an attack on subordinate points than a principled opposition. Cocceianism, soon in alliance with Cartesianism, gained ever more entrance and led not only to opposition against various dogmas but also contributed to the degradation of the O. T. Everywhere,

unconsciously, the opinion [202] pressed through that the O. T. had only historical value and was of no dogmatic importance any longer. From this changed dogmatic view, in due time the historical criticism of the O. T. was of itself born, since Spinoza and R. Simon. Rationalism and supranaturalism had not the least awareness of the significance and value of the O. T. According to Kant, Judaism was only ein Inbegriff bloss statutarischer Gesetze, auf welchen eine Staatsverfassung gegründet war; the moralischen Zusätze were only an appendage and not essentially its own; Judaism did not at all want to be a church but only a state and therefore demanded only outward observance of the commandments, no inward disposition. Christianity did not arise out of Judaism, but is its full abolition, Religion ed. Rosenkranz S. 150 f. With Schleiermacher Judaism, because of its particularism, is still akin to fetishism, Chr. Gl. § 8. 4 and in its relation to Christianity it stands on a par with paganism, § 12, cf. § 132.

Hegel placed Judaism as the Religion der Erhabenheit still below the Greek religion of beauty and the Roman religion of purposiveness, Werke XII 39 f. Vatke and Bruno Bauer, both pupils of Hegel, sought to confirm this philosophical view of the O. Test. by the historical criticism of the biblical books. The scriptural criticism of the last century has not changed the worldview, but the altered worldview demanded an often very negative judgment about the great facts of Holy Scripture, v. d. Bergh van Eysinga,

Levensbeschouwing, Zutphen Thieme bl. 25. In O. T. scriptural criticism, then, today all views have returned that were formerly advanced about the O. T. by the Gnostics, Anabaptists, Socinians, Rationalists. Jahveh is not the one, true God, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, but a national god of Israel, originally a sun-god. The people of Israel is not chosen by God, but in ancient times was a wild horde of various tribes, which were given over

to all kinds of polytheism. The narratives of creation, fall, flood, patriarchs, judges etc. are myths and legends, in part borrowed from other peoples. The law stands much lower than the prophets and often bears an outward, sensuous, eudaemonistic character. The saints of the O. T., such as Abraham, Isaac, [203] Jacob, and especially David, are not worthy of that name and have not existed at all or have been idealized by posterity. The distinction between true and false prophets is wholly subjective.

Christianity was prepared at least as much by paganism as by Judaism.

5. The doctrine of the covenant is of the greatest significance for dogmatics and at the same time for the practice of the Christian life. More than the Roman and Lutheran, the Reformed church and theology has understood this. On the basis of Holy Scripture it always conceived the true religion of the O. and N. T. as a covenant between God and man, whether this was established with the unfallen man (foedus operum), or with creation in general in the case of Noah (foedus naturale), or with the people of election (foedus gratiae). And even here it did not stop, but for these covenants in time it sought a firm, eternal foundation in the counsel of God, and again conceived this counsel, as intending the salvation of the human race, as a covenant of the three persons in the Divine being itself (pactum salutis, counsel of peace, covenant of redemption). This latter covenant occurs briefly and succinctly already in Olevianus, Wezen des

Genadeverbonds, 2e art. § 1. Junius, Theses Theol. c. 25 th. 21. Arminius, de sacerdotio Christi 1603. Gomarus on Mt. 3:13, Luk. 2:21. Theses Theol.

XIX 1. Amesius, de morte Christi I 5. Voetius, Disp. II 266. Essenius, de subjectione Christi ad legem X 2; is then further developed at length by Cloppenburg, de foedere Dei III 4-28 and Coccejus, Summa de foedere c. 5; thereafter receives a definite place in dogmatics with Burman, Braun,

Witsius, Vitringa, Turretinus, Leydecker, Mastricht, Marck, Moor, Brakel, and then is opposed by Deurhof. Over natuurkundige en schriftuurlijke samenstelling van de H. Godg. I 12, Wesselius in the preface to Pictet's

Godgeleerdheid and others, and gradually disappears entirely from dogmatics again. The development of the doctrine of the pactum salutis among the Reformed was also not free from scholastic subtlety. The locus classicus Zach. 6:13, which was cited for this doctrine, proves nothing and says only that the Messiah, uniting in himself the kingship and the priesthood, will deliberate and promote the peace of his people (Keil). [204]

From Job 17:3, Isa. 38:14, Ps. 119:122, which however none of them look to the Messiah, and Heb. 7:22, where it only says that Christ, because He lives forever, is surety that the new covenant will remain in existence forever, it was derived that Christ from eternity had become surety in the pactum salutis; and indeed not of God with us, as Crell on Hebr. 7:22,

Limborch, Theol. Christ. III 21, 7, asserted, for God as the Truthful has no need of a surety, but of us with God, Coccejus, de foedere V § 150-162,

Owen on Hebr. 7:22, Witsius, Oec. foed. II c. 5, Heidegger, Corp. Theol. XI 23, van den Honert, Het Hoogepr. van Christus 1712 bl. 403, Boston. Eene beschouwing van het Verbond der genade, 2e dr. 1868 bl. 68 etc. Further, from the jurists the distinction was borrowed between fidejussor and expromissor and the question was treated whether Christ in the pactum salutis had taken upon himself the sins of the O. T. elect conditionally, or rather absolutely; the former was said by Coccejus, de foed. § 150-162,

Wittichius, Theol. pacif. § 290, Allinga, van Til, d'Outrein, Perizonius and others cf. Heppe, Dogm. 270; the latter was said by Leydecker, Fax Verit. V 7, Vis Verit. II 1, Filius Dei sponsor 1674, Turretinus, Th. El. XII 9,

Mastricht V 1, 34, Voetius, Disp. V 346, Moor IV 569-580, M. Vitringa III

12 etc. And finally the point of dispute was also discussed whether this pactum salutis bore more the character of a testament with appeal to Luk.

22:19, Joh. 17:24, Hebr. 6:17, 8:6, 9:15, 13:20, as Coccejus, Burman, Heidegger, Schiere, Doctrina test. et foed. I c. 10 asserted, or rather of a covenant, as Leydecker, Fax Verit. V 6, Wesselius and others maintained.

Yet this doctrine of the pactum salutis, despite its defective form, rests on a Scriptural thought. For as Mediator the Son is subordinate to the Father; calls Him his God, Ps. 22:3, Joh. 20:17, He is his servant, Isa. 49v., to whom a work has been assigned to do, Isa. 53:10, Joh. 6:38-40, 10:18,

12:49, 14:31, 17:4, and who for the accomplished obedience Mt. 26:42, Joh.

4:34, 15:10, 17:4, 5, 19:30, receives reward, Ps. 2:8, Isa. 53:10, Joh. 17:4, 11, 17, 24, Eph. 1:20v. Phil. 2:9v. This relation between Father and Son, although coming out most clearly during the walk of Christ on earth, nevertheless did not first begin at the moment of the incarnation, for this incarnation already belongs to the execution of the work assigned to the Son; but it falls in eternity and thus also already existed during the time of the O. T. Scripture also teaches this clearly, when it ascribes the guidance of Israel to the Malak Ihvh, Ex. 3:2v., 13:21, 14:19, 23:20-23, 32:34, 33:2,

Num. 20:16, Isa. 63:8, 9, and also already lets Christ be officially active in the days of the O. T., Joh. 8:56, 1 Cor. 10:4, 9, 1 Petr. 1:11, 3:19. For there is indeed only one Mediator of God and of men, Joh. 14:6, Hd. 4:12, 1 Tim.

2:5, who is yesterday and today and forever the same, Hebr. 13:8, who from eternity has been chosen as Mediator, Isa. 42:1, 43:10, Mt. 12:18, Luk.

24:26, Hd. 2:23, 4:28, 1 Petr. 1:20, Op. 13:8, and as Logos also existed eternally, Joh. 1:1, 3, 8:58, Rom. 8:3, 2 Cor. 8:9, Gal. 4:4, Phil. 2:6 etc.

Scripture gives us through all this a rich and glorious representation of the work of redemption. The pactum salutis makes known to us the relation and

the life of the three persons in the Divine being as a covenant life, as a life of the highest self-consciousness and of the highest freedom. Here, within the Divine being, the covenant has its full reality; while the covenant of God and man, because of their infinite distance, always bears more or less the character of a sovereign disposition, διαθηκη, here between the three persons it is a συνθηκη in the full sense. The highest freedom and the most complete agreement coincide here. The work of salvation is a work of the three persons, to which all cooperate and in which each performs his particular task. In the decrees, also in those of predestination, the one will of God came to the foreground and the trinitarian character did not yet come out so clearly. But here in the pactum salutis the work of redemption comes out in its full Divine beauty. It is the Divine work par excellence.

Just as in the creation of man God beforehand deliberately takes counsel with himself, Gen. 1:26, so in the re-creation each of the three persons comes forward still more clearly in his distinct character. The re-creation, like the creation, is a work of God alone; from, through, to Him are all things; no man has been his counselor or has first given to Him, that it should be repaid to him. It is God triune alone, Father, Son and Spirit, who together devise, determine, [206] execute, and bring to completion the whole work of salvation. But further, this pactum salutis also connects the eternal work of God unto salvation with that which He does thereto in time.

The covenant of grace, which is revealed in time, does not hang in the air, but rests on an eternal, unchangeable foundation. It is fixed in the counsel and in the covenant of God triune, and is the application and execution infallibly following from that. Yes, in the covenant of grace, which in time is established by God with men, man is not the acting one and the one appearing actively. But it is again God triune, who, after having designed

the work of re-creation, also brings it to pass. It is not so that God first establishes his covenant with Adam and Noah, with Abraham and Israel, and finally only with Christ. But the covenant of grace lies ready from eternity in the pactum salutis of the three persons and is realized by them from the moment after the fall. Christ does not first begin to work with and after his incarnation, and the Holy Spirit does not first begin his labor with his outpouring on the day of Pentecost. But just as creation is a trinitarian work, so also re-creation from the first moment has been a work of the three persons. All grace that after the fall flows to creation accrues to it from the Father through the Son in the Holy Spirit. The Son immediately after the fall appeared as the Mediator, as the second and last Adam, who takes the place of the first and restores and accomplishes what he ruined and left undone. And the Holy Spirit immediately appeared as the Comforter, as the applier of salvation, to be acquired by the Christ. All change, development, progress in insight and knowledge thus falls on the side of the creature. In God there is no change nor shadow of turning. The Father is eternally

Father, and the Son eternally Mediator, and the Holy Spirit eternally Comforter. Therefore the O. T. is also to be understood as one in essence and substance with the N. T. For, although God communicates his revelation successively and historically and makes it richer and fuller, and humanity thus advances in knowledge, in possession and enjoyment of the revelation, God is the same and remains so. The sun illuminates the earthly realm gradually, but it itself is the same, in the morning and in the evening, in the day and in the night. Although Christ first accomplished his work on earth in the midst of history and although the Holy Spirit [207] was first poured out on the day of Pentecost, God could nevertheless also distribute in full the benefits to be acquired and applied by them in the days of the O.

T. The believers of the O. T. have not been saved in any other way than we.

There is one faith, one Mediator, one way of salvation, one covenant of grace. Cf. Schneckenburger, Verlg. Darst. II 135 f. Dr. Vos, De Verbondsleer in de Geref. Theol. Grandrapids 1891.

6. In the execution of the pactum salutis in time, however, a distinction is indeed to be made between the foedus gratiae in a broader and in a narrower sense. It is not good, in the discussion of the covenant of grace in time, immediately to pass over to Israel and to the church of the N. T. For Scripture itself does not at once pass from Adam to Abraham; it does not let go of humanity, but describes in main outlines its development up to the time of Abraham. When from humanity Abraham and Israel are chosen, the bond with that humanity is not cut through; Israel does not float like an oildrop upon the peoples, but remains in all manner of connection with those peoples, and holds fast to the end the expectation also for those peoples. In the fullness of time Jew and Gentile are reconciled in the one man; humanity gathers itself around the cross; and the church, chosen out of that humanity, stands with that humanity in the closest connection. Nature and grace, creation and re-creation are to be set in that mutual relation in which Scripture places them. And then it deserves remark, that the first promises of grace, which after the fall go forth from God's mouth to Adam and Eve, are wholly universal and concern the whole of humanity. Above it has been pointed out, that all punishment, pronounced in Gen. 3 over sin, is at the same time to be recognized as a revelation of God's grace. And that grace there extends without any limitation to the whole of humanity. General and special grace still flow in one bed. In the punishment, which God after the transgression pronounces over the serpent, the woman and the man, it is mercy even more than wrath that speaks; it is punishment and promise at

the same time, it is eine gnädige fröhliche Strafe (Luther). Therefore in it lies the origin and the guarantee of the continuance, the expansion and development, the struggle and the triumph of humanity. Religion and morality, cultus and [208] culture there take their beginning. In the long period from Adam to Noah these all develop under the influence of God's general and special grace. The original powers, laid by God at the creation in the different creatures, are indeed broken but also after the fall still continue to work for a long time. Especially this comes out in the strength and the much greater life-span of men before the flood, Gen. 5:5v., and in the much more powerful operation of the elements of nature, which are only after the flood put under restraint, Gen. 8:22. This history of Scripture is confirmed by the tradition of the peoples, which in its golden, silver, copper and iron age speaks of a slow decline of humanity, and also by geology, according to which to this our period another preceded, in which over the whole earth a higher temperature prevailed, the seasons were not yet bounded and fire and water played a much greater role than at present; at the transition from the mesozoic to the kainozoic period there nevertheless took place all manner of weighty changes, a great expansion of the mainland, by the uplifting of extensive parts of the sea-bottom above the water; the formation of the mountains such as the Alps, Pyrenees,

Carpathians, Himalaya, Cordilleros etc.; a strong change in the climate; the extinction of the great, prehistoric animals and plants etc., Pfaff,

Schöpfungsgeschichte, kap. 11-15. Haeckel, Nat. Schöpfungsgesch.5 320 f.

Wossidlo, Leitfaden der Mineralogie und Geologie, Berlin Weidmann 1889 S. 196 f. In connection with all this, the greater strength and the longer lifespan of men in the period from Adam to Noah is absolutely not improbable; the simpler manner of life, the less strenuous labor, the smaller number of

malignant diseases, the afterworking of the condition before the fall explain this fact sufficiently; even now by way of exceptions ages of 120 to 150 years still occur; and there is no physical necessity to be conceived why human vital force after 70 or 80 years must be exhausted. Cf. Fürer, Das

Lebensalter des Menschen usw., Beweis des Glaubens 1868 S. 97 f. 184 f.

Zöckler, Die Lehre vom Urstand des Menschen 1879 S. 244-288. Schanz, Das Alter des Menschengeschlechts, Freiburg 1896. Büchner, 's Menschen

Levensduur, holl. door Schwencke, Amst. 1892. Religion [209] also remains after the fall and receives a fixed form in offering, Gen. 3:3, prayer and preaching, Gen. 4:26; culture takes a beginning with agriculture, cattlebreeding, city-building etc., Gen. 4:2, 17; arts and sciences come to development, Gen. 4:20v. But this first period in the history of humanity was also already soon characterized by the most dreadful godlessness; corruptio optimi pessima; the extraordinary powers and gifts were misused in the service of sin. With fratricide this period was introduced; the Cainites separated themselves from the Sethites, applied themselves to the mastery of the earth, Gen. 4:20v, and sought their strength in the sword, Gen. 4:24.

But only when Sethites and Cainites mingled, did godlessness rise to the top; wickedness was manifold on the earth; the imagination of the thoughts of man's heart was every day only evil, Gen. 6:5; it was a period so full of unrighteousness, as there later has never been one and only in the future of the Son of man will return, Mt. 24:37. In the mighty flood this whole generation perishes, except Noah's family, which then becomes the origin of a second humanity. The period after the flood differs essentially from the preceding. From Adam to Noah nature, the plantand animal-world, humanity bore an entirely different character than after Noah. Strong and richly provided with gifts, the world was in a certain sense left to itself; but

it soon appeared, that, if God did not powerfully intervene, the world would perish in its own godlessness. Therefore with Noah another period begins.

The grace, which immediately after the fall revealed itself, now steps forth more powerfully in the restraining of evil. God formally makes a covenant with all his creatures. This covenant with Noah, Gen. 8:21, 22, 9:1-17, indeed has its origin in God's grace; it also stands in the closest connection with the proper foedus gratiae, because it bears and prepares this; but it is not identical with it. It is rather a foedus longanimitatis, made by God with all men and even with all creatures. The curse over the earth is thereby limited; nature is put under restraint; its destructive power is curbed; the water is subdued in its dreadful violence; a regulated alternation of seasons

[210] is introduced; the whole irrational nature is bound to fixed ordinances, which are fixed in God's covenant; and as sign and pledge the rainbow is set in the clouds, Gen. 8:21, 22, 9:9-17. There appears a humanity which, in comparison with the former, is much gentler in nature, much smaller in strength, much shorter in duration. The blessing of multiplication is expressly pronounced again, Gen. 9:1, the fear and dread of man laid upon all animals, v. 2, the green herb and the flesh is given to man for food, v. 3. The life of man is guaranteed by the institution of the death penalty for murder of man, and therewith in principle of government, v. 5, 6; and when later humanity at Babel's tower-building forms the plan to continue dwelling together and to found a world-empire, then God frustrates that plan, causes humanity to disperse into peoples and languages, and in that way also opposes the development and the outbreak of godlessness. The grace of God thus after the flood steps forth much more powerfully than before that time. To it is due the existence and the life of humanity, the expansion and development of the peoples, the states and

societies, which have gradually formed, the religion and morality, which even among the most savage peoples have not wholly perished, the arts and sciences, which have risen high; everything, which after the fall also in sinful man still is good in every domain, the whole justitia civilis, is fruit of God's general grace. God indeed let the Gentiles walk in their own ways,

Hd. 14:16, but He did not withdraw himself from them; He did not leave himself without witness to them, determined their dwelling, was not far from each one of them, revealed himself to them in the works of his hands,

Hd. 14:16, 17, 17:27, 28, Rom. 1:19, Jak. 1:17. The Logos enlightens every man, coming into the world, Joh. 1:9. The H. Spirit is author of all life, power and virtue also among the Gentiles, Gen. 6:17, 7:15, Ps. 33:6,

104:30, 139:2, Job 32:8, Pred. 3:19. Through this grace, and under the dispensation of this foedus naturae, humanity has been led before Christ and prepared for his coming. There indeed falls in a good sense to speak of an education of mankind by God. The capacity for redemption has been maintained, the need for redemption has been awakened. Compare [211] concerning the Noachic covenant the older litt. in M. Vitringa IV 286; concerning the virtues of the Gentiles the litt., earlier part I 239 indicated and in M. Vitringa III 333; concerning the late time of Christ's coming,

Bonaventura, Brevil. IV 4. Petavius, de incarn. II c. 17. Jansen, Prael.

Theol. II 561; concerning the Divine education of humanity the works of Lessing, Herder, van Heusde, Hofstede de Groot, Lotze, Mikrok. III 20 f.

Ritschl, Rechtf. u Vers. III2 282 f.; concerning general grace, the significance of Heathendom, the preparation of Christ's coming and the fullness of the times my Rede over de Algem. Genade, Kampen 1894.

Kuyper's art. in de Heraut 923v. D. Zahn, Die natürliche Moral, Gotha 1881. Schelling, Werke II 4 S. 74-118. A. Wuttke, Gesch. des Heid. Breslau

1852-53. Tholuck, Der sittl. Character des Heid. Werke VIII 1-91. Uhlhorn, Der Kampf des Christ. mit dem Heid. c. 1-2. Rocholl, Die Fülle der Zeit,

Hann. 1872. Id. Philosophie der Gesch. Gött. I 1878 II 1893. Kahnis, die Erfüllung der Zeiten, Leipzig 1877. Dorner, Gl. I 672 f. Thomasius, Christi

Person u. Werk I3 306. Frank, Chr. Wahrheit II2 35. Talbot, The preparation in history for Christ, 4th essay in Lux Mundi ed. by Charles Gore 1892 p.

93-131. H. M. van Nes, De adventstijd, Rott. 1893.

7. Of an essentially different character was the preparation of salvation in Israel. Yet the connection of the foedus gratiae and the foedus naturae, of Israel and the nations, must not be lost from sight. Israel was taken from the nations; it was not different and not better than other nations, surpassed them even in stubbornness and rebelliousness, and was chosen only by grace, Deut. 7:7, 9:13, 32:5v. Jer. 5:23, Ezech. 16:3v. Am. 9:7, Mt. 11:21v.

Nor does the distinctive character of Israel's religion lie in this, that all sorts of elements occur in it which are not encountered in other religions; on the contrary, there is nothing in Israel of which the analogy is not also to be found elsewhere; circumcision, sabbath, feasts, sacrifice, prayer, priesthood, temple, altar, ceremonies, morals, customs, political and social laws etc., occur also among other nations, and conversely institutions which first arose after the fall, such as polygamy, slavery etc. are also found in Israel.

Even theophany, prophecy and miracle have in Heathendom [212] their analogy and caricature, cf. Schelling, Werke II 4 S. 119-151. It is not only the right but also the duty of Old Test. scholarship, to bring all this to light.

But yet, on account of the affinity and connection, let the essential difference not be overlooked. And that lies in grace, the gratia specialis, which was unknown to the Heathens. All the religions of the Heathens are self-willed and legalistic. They are all after-effects and degenerations of the

broken covenant of works. Man here always attempts himself to bring about his salvation, by purification, asceticism, penance, sacrifice, observance of law, ceremony etc. But all this is different under Israel. 1o First of all,

Jahveh is for Israel from the beginning also Elohim, the Creator of heaven and earth. Even the oldest pieces according to the newer criticism express this faith clearly, Gen. 2:4, Ex. 20:11. Never has the relation of God and world in Israel been conceived otherwise than as that of Creator and creature, Schultz, Altt. Theol.4 565. With this one dogma all paganism is in principle banished; it is the foundation of true, pure religion. 2o This

Creator of heaven and earth is also the one who sustains and governs it, and who in particular has voluntarily and graciously entered into a special relationship with Israel. Israel is taken from the nations; Abraham was from Shem, in whose generations the knowledge and service of God was preserved the longest and the purest. The covenant with Abraham is prepared in history from the days of Adam onward. Israel's religion is built upon the broad foundation of the original religion of humanity. But yet the covenant with Abraham is a new and higher revelation, which again proceeds wholly and solely from God. He takes the initiative in this covenant. He establishes it, He chooses Abraham. By the wondrous birth of Isaac He shows Himself to be both Israel's Creator and Re-Creator. In Israel's religion it is not man who seeks God, but God who seeks man. 3o

This covenant with the fathers remains, even when it later at Sinai assumes another form with Israel; it is the foundation and core also of the Sinaitic covenant, Ex. 2:24, Deut. 7:8. The promise has not been nullified by the law, which came later, Gal. 3:17. The covenant with Israel was essentially no other than that with Abraham. Just as God first voluntarily and graciously gives Himself to Abraham, without any [213] of his merits, as a

shield and reward, as a God for him and his seed, and now on that basis also calls Abraham to an upright walk before His face, so it is also God who chooses the people of Israel, delivers them from Egypt, and gives Himself to that people and now on that basis also obligates Israel as a people to be holy and to be His people. The covenant at Sinai is and remains in essence a covenant of grace. I am the Lord your God, who have led you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage, Ex. 20:2, that is the preface and the foundation of the law, that is the essence of the covenant of grace. The Lord is Israel's God prior to and apart from all worthiness of Israel and He remains that eternally. It is an eternal covenant, which cannot be destroyed even by any sins and iniquities on Israel's side, Deut. 4:31, 32:26v., Richt.

2:1, Ps. 89:1-5, 105:8, 111:5, Jes. 54:10, Rom. 11:1, 2, 2 Cor. 1:20. 4o The benefits bestowed by God upon Israel in His covenant are the same as those to Abraham but further elaborated and specialized. Already Gen. 3:15 contains in germ the whole covenant and all the benefits of grace. God breaks the covenant concluded by man with Satan, sets enmity between the two, brings man over to His side and promises him the triumph over the hostile power. The one great promise to Abraham is: I will be your God, and you and your seed shall be my people, Gen. 17:8. And this is the principal content also of God's covenant with Israel. God is Israel's God and Israel is

His people, Ex. 19:6, 29:46 etc.; and therefore Israel receives all kinds of blessings, not only temporal, such as the land Canaan, fruitfulness of marriage, a long life, prosperity and welfare, victory over the enemies, but also spiritual and eternal, such as God's dwelling among them, Ex. 29:45,

Lev. 26:12; the forgiveness of sins, Ex. 20:6, 34:7, Num. 14:18, Deut. 4:31, Ps. 32, 103 etc.; the sonship, Ex. 4:22, 19:5, 6, 20:2, Deut. 14:1, Jes. 63:16,

Am. 3:1, 2 etc.; the sanctification, Ex. 19:6, Lev. 11:44, 19:2, etc. 5o All

these benefits, however, are not set before the eyes in the O. Test. clearly and distinctly as in the N. Test. They would then not be understood and comprehended in their spiritual nature. The natural is first, afterward the spiritual. All spiritual and eternal benefits are therefore under Israel clothed in sensible forms. The forgiveness of sins is bound to [214] sacrifices of animals. The dwelling of God among Israel is symbolized in the temple on Zion. The sonship of Israel has in the first place a theocratic, and the expression people of God not only a religious but also a national meaning.

Sanctification in the ethical sense is symbolized in the Levitical, ceremonial purity. Eternal life hides itself for the Israelite consciousness in the forms of a long life on earth. Foolish it would be to suppose that therefore those benefits of forgiveness and sanctification, of regeneration and eternal life also objectively did not exist in the days of the O. T. They were indeed also then bestowed by Christ, who is eternally the same. But the consciousness and the enjoyment of those benefits was in the O. T. far from as rich as in the days of the N. T. And in order that this consciousness of the pious might gradually in the course of time be opened up to the richness of God's benefits, to that end the covenant of grace under Israel assumed such a peculiar, symbolic form. Religion under Israel attaches itself to the religious forms occurring among all nations of sacrifice, altar, temple, priesthood, ceremonies etc.; the spiritual and eternal wraps itself in the garment of the natural and temporal; God Himself, who is Elohim, Creator of heaven and earth, descends as Jahveh, as God of the covenant, to the creature, enters into history, assumes human language and affections and forms, in order thus to communicate Himself with all His spiritual blessings to man and to prepare His incarnation, His enduring and eternal dwelling in humanity.

Indeed we would not even have had words to name the spiritual, if that

spiritual had not first revealed itself in the form of the natural. The spiritual we, sensible creatures, can after all never express otherwise than analogically. If therefore the eternal had not been brought within our reach in the temporal, if God had not become man, then His thoughts also could not have been communicated to us in our language in Holy Scripture. God would then have remained eternally unknowable to us, and we would always have had to be silent about Him. 6o Just as Abraham, when God binds Himself to him, is obligated to a walk before His face, so Israel as a people is also by God's covenant admonished to a [215] new obedience.

The whole law, which the covenant of grace at Sinai takes into its service, intends to cause Israel to walk in the way of the covenant. It is only an explication of the one word to Abraham: walk before my face and be upright, and therefore just as little an overthrow of the covenant of grace and an establishment of the covenant of works, as this word spoken to Abraham. The law of Moses is therefore not opposed to grace but subservient to it and is thus by Israel's pious also time and again understood and praised. But considered apart and detached from the covenant of grace, then it was indeed a letter that killed, a ministry of condemnation. Now the covenant of grace in the days of the O. T. also took the law into its service for this purpose, that it might awaken the consciousness of sin, increase the need for deliverance, strengthen the expectation of a still richer revelation of God's grace. From that side Paul especially views the O. T. dispensation of the covenant of grace. And then he says that Israel, as an underage child placed under the care of the law, had to be led to Christ, Rom. 10:4, Gal.

2:23v., 4:1v., and that in connection therewith sin would be increased, the unworthiness of works for justification and the necessity of faith would be seen, Rom. 4:15, 5:20, 7:7v., 8:3, Gal. 3:19. The law thus on the one hand

stood in the service of the covenant of grace, it was not a disguised covenant of works, it did not intend that man by his own works would obtain his justification. But on the other hand it nevertheless intended to prepare a higher, better dispensation of that same covenant of grace, in whose service it stood, in the fullness of time. The impossibility of keeping the Sinaitic covenant and of satisfying the demands of the law made another, better dispensation of the covenant of grace necessary. The eternal covenant of grace is by the imperfection of the temporal form which it assumed under Israel provoked to a higher revelation. Sin has become greater, in order that grace might be all the more abundant. Christ could not immediately become man after the fall and grace could not immediately reveal itself in all its richness. Preparation and education were necessary.

Non decuit a principio humani generis ante peccatum Deum incarnari, cum non detur medicina nisi infirmis; nec [216] statim post peccatum, ut homo per peccatum humiliatus recognosceret se liberatore indigere: sed in plenitudine temporis quod ab aeterno disposuit, Thomas, S. Th. III qu. 1 art.

5. The necessity of this education and preparation does not lie objectively in God, as if He were changeable; not in Christ, as if He were not yesterday and today and eternally the same; not in the spiritual benefits, as if they did not exist and could not formerly be communicated by God. But it lies subjectively in the condition of the human race, which precisely as a race had to be saved, and therefore had to be prepared and educated gradually for salvation in Christ, Calv. Inst. II 11, 13. 14. Therefore Christ is truly the turning point of the ages, the cross the center of world history. First everything is led toward the cross, thereafter everything is derived from the cross. 7o When then also the fullness of time has come and Christ has accomplished His work on earth, the covenant of grace passes over into a

higher dispensation. The believers in Israel knew indeed that the Sinaitic dispensation was only temporary, and therefore looked longingly toward the day of the N. Covenant. And Jesus and the apostles, who thus read the O.

T., saw therein the same covenant of grace with the same benefits, which now came fully to light. Old and New Testament are in essence one covenant, Luk. 1:68-79, Hd. 2:39, 3:25; they have one gospel, Rom. 1:2,

Gal. 3:8, Hebr. 4:2, 6, 2 Tim. 3:15; one Mediator, namely Christ, who also existed in the days of the O. T., Joh. 1:1, 14, 8:58, Rom. 8:3, 2 Cor. 8:9,

Gal. 4:4, Phil. 2:6 etc., exercised His mediatorial office, Joh. 8:56, 1 Cor.

10:4, 1 Petr. 1:11, 3:19, Hebr. 13:8 and is the only Mediator for all men and in all times, Joh. 14:6, Hd. 4:12, 1 Tim. 2:5; one faith as the way to salvation, Mt. 13:17, Hd. 10:43, 15:11, Rom. 4:11, Gal. 3:6, 7, Hebr. 11; the same promises and benefits of God's communion, 2 Cor. 6:16, Op. 21:3, forgiveness and justification, Hd. 10:43, Rom. 4:22, eternal life, Mt. 22:32,

Gal. 3:18, Hebr. 9:15, 11:10 etc. The way was the same on which the believers in O. and N. T. walked, but the light differed by which they walked, Calvin on Gal. 3:23. Therefore with the unity there is also distinction. Old and New Testament stand as different dispensations of the same covenant of grace over against each other as promise [217] and fulfillment, Hd. 13:32, Rom. 1:2, as shadow and body, Col. 2:17, as letter that kills and as Spirit that makes alive, 2 Cor. 3:6v., as bondage and freedom, Rom. 8:15, Gal. 4:1v., 22v., Col. 2:20, Hebr. 12:18v., as particular and universal, Joh. 4:21, Hd. 10:35, 14:16, Gal. 4:4, 5, 6:15, Ef. 2:14, 3:6.

8o The new in the New Testament is thus the falling away of the notarbitrary, but nevertheless temporary, sensible, national forms, under which the one and the same grace in the old day was revealed. The new dispensation in a certain sense already begins when with the birth of John

the Baptist and of Jesus the Old Test. promises begin to be fulfilled. Yet the old dispensation remained in force until the death of Christ. Jesus Himself was an Israelite, fulfilled all righteousness and still turned only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. But at His death the veil is torn, Mt. 27:51, the testator dies, Hebr. 9:15-17, the New Testament is founded in His blood,

Mt. 26:28, the handwriting of the law that was against us is blotted out, Col.

2:14, the middle wall of partition is broken down, Ef. 2:14 etc. In fact the old dispensation may long continue to have effects, in law it is abolished.

Or better still, nothing is abolished, but the fruit is ripe and breaks through the husk; the church, which as a little child was carried in Israel's mother's womb, is born to an own independent life and receives in the Holy Spirit an own, immanent principle of life; the sun of righteousness has risen to the zenith of heaven and shines over all nations; law and prophets are fulfilled and have in Christ as their end and goal reached their destination. The law was given through Moses, but grace and truth has come through Jesus

Christ, Joh. 1:14; He is the truth, Joh. 14:6, the body, Col. 2:17, in whom all promises and shadows are realized. In Him everything is fulfilled. He is the true prophet, priest and king; the genuine servant of the Lord, the true ἱλαστηριον, Rom. 3:25, the true sacrifice, Ef. 5:2, the true circumcision,

Col. 2:11, the true passover, 1 Cor. 5:7, and therefore His congregation is the true seed of Abraham, the true Israel, the true people of God, Mt. 1:21,

Luk. 1:17, Rom. 9:25, 26, 2 Cor. 6:16-18, Gal. 3:29, Tit. 2:14, Hebr. 8:8-10, 1 Petr. 2:9, Op. 21:3, the true temple of God, 1 Cor. 3:16, 2 Cor. 6:16, [218]

Ef. 2:22, 2 Thess. 2:4, Hebr. 8:2, 9, the true Zion and Jerusalem, Gal. 4:26, Hebr. 12:22, her spiritual sacrifice the true religion, Joh. 4:24, Rom. 12:1,

Phil. 3:3, 4:18 etc. Nothing of the Old is lost in the New Testament, but everything is fulfilled, is completed, reaches its maturity and now brings

forth from the temporal envelope the eternal kernel into view. It is not so that under Israel there were a real temple and sacrifice and priesthood etc., and that all these have now disappeared. No, rather the reverse, under Israel there was of all that only the shadow, now however there is the body itself.

The things that are seen are temporal, but the things that are not seen are eternal.

8. This foedus gratiae, which through various dispensations has now been fully realized in the N. T., from the first moment of its revelation onward was and is still always on all sides surrounded and borne by the foedus naturae, which God has established with all creatures. The gratia specialis is indeed essentially distinct from the gratia communis, but nevertheless stands in the closest connection with it. For, although the covenant with Noah, by way of distinction, is called foedus naturae, for that reason it has nevertheless not flowed forth from God's nature or been given with the nature of things; it also rests on grace, has proceeded from God's longsuffering, and bestows all natural benefits and blessings out of God's general goodness; it is a covenant of grace in a broader sense. Further, it is the Father, who not apart from the Son but specifically through the Logos and the Spirit works all powers and gifts in nature and unregenerate humanity, Joh. 1:4, 5, 9, 10, Col. 1:17, Ps. 104:30, 139:7. And this Logos and this Spirit, who dwell and work in all creatures and men, are the same, who as Christ and as Spirit of Christ are the acquirer and applier of all benefits in the covenant of grace. Father, Son, and Spirit thus in the foedus naturae prepare the foedus gratiae and, as it were, repeatedly reach back from the foedus gratiae into the foedus naturae.

The essential nature of the covenant of grace therefore consists in this, that it flows forth from God's special grace and has as its content nothing

but grace, unmerited and forfeited blessings. In so far [219] it is distinct in its essence from the foedus operum established before the fall but broken by the fall. Certainly God was also not obliged to establish the covenant of works; it is condescending goodness, and thus also grace in a general sense, which caused Him to bestow this covenant upon man; He then also established it and determined all its parts; it is His ordinance and institution.

But in that covenant of works God nevertheless came to man with the demand of obedience and promised him, first in that way and after that accomplished obedience, to grant him the salvation of heaven, eternal life, the enjoyment of His beholding. The covenant of works thus reckoned with the free will of man, it rested in part in man, and therefore it was shaky and unstable. In fact it has then also been broken, not by God but by man. God adheres to the rule that whoever keeps the law shall receive eternal life. He says that in His law, He testifies it in everyone's conscience, He makes this word good in Christ. But man has broken the covenant of works; on his part he can now no longer acquire life by keeping the law; by the works of the law no flesh can be justified. Therefore God, in distinction from and in opposition to the covenant of works, has established another, better covenant, not a legalistic, but an evangelical covenant. But He has established this not with one who was merely man, but with the man Christ

Jesus, who was His own, only-begotten, much-beloved Son. And in this one, who partakes of the Divine nature and of the Divine attributes, it lies fixed unshakably. It can no longer be broken, it is an eternal covenant. It does not rest in any work of man, but only in the good pleasure of God, in the work of the Mediator, in the H. Spirit, who remains eternally. It is dependent on no condition of man, it bestows no gift on any merit, it does not wait for any fulfillment of the law on man's side. It is from and through

and unto grace. God Himself is the only and eternal, the faithful and true, in whom it rests; who establishes it, maintains it, carries it out, completes it; the covenant of grace is the Divine work par excellence, His work alone,

His work entirely. All boasting is here excluded for man, but all glory belongs to Father, Son and H. Spirit. [220]

Yet by this the full content of the covenant of grace has not yet been brought to light. To that end the covenant of grace must be brought to light not only in its distinctness from but also in its kinship with the covenant of works. After the breach of the covenant of works God did not immediately devise a wholly different covenant, which has nothing to do with the former and bears an entirely different character. That cannot be the case, because

God is unchangeable, because the demand set for man in the covenant of works is no whim and no arbitrariness, because the image of God, the law, religion in their essence can be only one, because grace cannot or may not nullify nature, faith the law. And it is not so either. The covenant of grace is not, as Coccejus taught, the successive abolition; it is rather the fulfilment and restoration of the covenant of works. Gratia reparat et perficit naturam.

God holds to the demand that only in the way of obedience eternal life is to be obtained; and if man transgresses his law, then that demand is increased with another, namely, that the transgression must be expiated by punishment. After the fall God thus has a double demand upon man, that of the claim for punishment for the evil committed and that of perfect obedience to his law, satisfactio and obedientia. Arminius thought in a letter to Uytenbogaerdt that man before the fall was indeed obligated to obedience but now after the fall was obligated only to punishment, because the contract was broken and thus the party was released from his obligation.

But obedience to God's law is indeed cast in the covenant of works in a

particular form and applied to a particular end, namely, to the obtaining of eternal life, yet it is in itself grounded in the nature of man and therefore an obligation from which man can never be released. Otherwise by one transgression he could thereafter release himself from keeping all God's commandments, and thus from all sins and punishments. Scripture therefore also pronounces God's judgment over the sinner not only, Deut. 27:26, Gal.

3:10, Rom. 6:23, Hebr. 10:27, but also maintains for man after the fall the demand for perfect obedience as the way to eternal life, Lev. 18:5, Mt.

19:17, Luk. 10:28.

The difference between the covenant of works and the covenant of grace therefore consists herein [221], that God in the latter appears not with a single but with a double demand, and that with that double demand He comes not to humanity in Adam but to humanity in Christ. The foedus operum and the foedus gratiae differ chiefly in this, that Adam is exchanged for and replaced by Christ. Paul says in Gal. 3:16-18, that the covenant with Abraham has not been annulled by the law that came in later, but in fact had reference to and essentially rested in Christ, who has fulfilled every promise and bestowed the inheritance. Still further he goes back in Rom. 5:12-21 and 1 Cor. 15:22, 45-49; from Adam sin and death flow to humanity, from Christ righteousness and life flow to it. Christ is the second and last Adam, who restores and takes over what the first has corrupted and left behind, the mediator of the covenant of grace, the head of the new humanity. Reformed theology has brought this thought of Scripture to its due in its doctrine of the covenant better than any other. The course of development was in brief this, that first, for the maintenance of the essential unity of Old and New

Testament, the doctrine of the covenant of grace arose; that accordingly also the relation of God and man before the fall was presented as a covenant,

and indeed as a covenant of works; that reflection on the agreement and the difference between the covenant of works and the covenant of grace led to the insight that the covenant of grace, insofar as it was established with Christ, was essentially a covenant of works; that therefore in the covenant of grace again a distinction had to be made between the covenant, as it was established with Christ from eternity (pactum salutis, counsel of peace) and the covenant, as it is established in time with the elect or believers as the execution of that counsel of peace; and that finally this distinction in turn was abolished, counsel of peace and covenant of grace were conceived as essentially one, and the covenant of grace itself was transferred into eternity, as being established there with Christ and in Him with all His own.

The last point, the identification of counsel of peace and covenant of grace, first came to development in England, with Rollock, Preston, Blake, Westm.

Catech.major, cf. Vos, De verbondsleer in de Geref. theol. 1891 bl. 27v., further Th. Boston, A consideration of the covenant of grace, from [222] the eng. by Al. Comrie 1741 and then taken over from the English by Comrie,

Brahe, Explanation of Ps. 89, preface bl. V-XXXVI e. a., cf. also Shedd, Dogm. Theol. II 360. Many, however, continued to cherish objections against this identification, such as Turretinus, Theol. El. XII 2, 12. Witsius,

Oec. foed. II 2, 1. Misc. Sacra II 820-824. R. Schutte, Two treatises on God's testament and covenant 1785 bl. 143v. Hodge, Syst. Theol. II 358.

There is also indeed a distinction between pactum salutis and foedus gratiae; in the former Christ is surety and head, in the latter mediator; the former remains limited to Christ and requires of Him the bearing of the punishment and the fulfilling of the law in the place of the elect, the latter extends over and through Christ to human beings and requires of them faith and repentance, which Christ has not fulfilled in our place or been able to

fulfill; the former concerns the acquisition of salvation, is eternal and knows no history, the latter deals with the application of salvation, takes a beginning in time and has distinct dispensations. But yet, with this distinction, the connection and the unity must not be overlooked. There are in Scripture only two covenants, two ways for man to heaven, namely the covenant of works and the covenant of grace. The covenant of works is the way to heaven for the unfallen, the covenant of grace that for fallen man.

The covenant of works was concluded with humanity in Adam, the covenant of grace in Christ; He and He alone is the Head substituting for and representing humanity. If then it is said in Scripture that the covenant of grace has been established with Adam, Noah, Abraham, Israel etc., then this must not be understood in such a way as if they were the actual parties and heads in this covenant. No, Christ was then and now, in O. and N.

Testament the head, the party in the covenant of grace, and through his administration it came to the patriarchs and to Israel. He who existed from eternity and had set himself as surety, also immediately after the fall actually appeared as prophet, priest and king, as second Adam, as head and representative of fallen humanity. In the covenants with Adam, Noah,

Abraham, David etc. He is the mediator, the surety, who stands surety for the realization of the covenant, who realizes it by his Spirit in the hearts, who [223] administers it to sinners, who bestows its benefits, who receives his own into the covenant. The whole covenant is entrusted to Him from the beginning to the end; only in Him does it lie fixed; just as the Father has ordained the kingdom for Him, so He ordains it for those who have been given to Him; He distributes the benefits acquired by Him as an inheritance.

The covenant is firm as a testament, it is a foedus testamentarium and a testamentum foederale. It is relatively indifferent and touches no principle,

whether one places the duality or the unity of pactum salutis and foedus gratiae in the foreground; provided only it stands firm that in the pactum salutis Christ can never for one moment be thought of apart from his own, nor also in the foedus gratiae can the believers for a single moment be considered outside Christ. It is in both the Christus mysticus, Zanchius, Op.

II 400 sq. Mastricht, Theol. V 1, 4, Christ as the second Adam, who appears as the acting party. Adam and Abraham and David etc. may be types, but the antitype is Christ. And since Adam already before the fall was a type of Christ, so the covenant of grace was not first prepared by Noah and Abraham, and not first by the covenant of grace with Adam but already in and through the covenant of works. God, who knows and determines all things and also included the breach of the covenant of works in his counsel, has already at the creation of Adam and at the institution of the covenant of works reckoned with the Christ and with his covenant of grace, part II 546.

9. Thus the doctrine of the covenant maintains, in a wonderfully beautiful way, God's sovereignty in the whole work of salvation. It far surpasses the covenant of works, as far as Christ surpasses Adam. Much more clearly than in creation, God's threefold being comes to revelation in re-creation. It is the Father who purposes and wills redemption; it is the Son who stands surety for it and actually acquires it; it is the Spirit who works it out and applies it. And in that whole work of salvation, from beginning to end, nothing of man enters in. It is God's work wholly and alone; it is pure grace and unmerited salvation. But all the more it is important to note that this doctrine of the covenant, notwithstanding that it, or rather precisely because it, in the work of salvation so [224] purely and fully maintains God's sovereignty, at the same time causes the rational and moral nature of man to come into its own in so beautiful a way. With the covenant of works this has

already been set forth at length, part II 553. But in the covenant of grace this comes out even more strikingly. In this respect it is greatly distinct from election. Indeed, the two are not so distinct that election is particular and the covenant of grace universal, that the former denies free will and the latter teaches or presupposes it, that the latter retracts what the former confesses.

But they do differ in such a way that in election man is absolutely passive, but in the covenant of grace he also appears as active. Election says simply and without more who are elect and will infallibly obtain salvation; the covenant of grace describes the way along which these elect will reach their destination; it is the channel in which the stream of election moves onward toward eternity. Christ indeed appears in the covenant of grace as head and representative of his own, but he does not efface and destroy them. He stands surety for them, but in such a way that they also themselves, taught and enabled by his Spirit, consciously and voluntarily consent in the covenant. The covenant of grace is indeed concluded with Christ, but it extends over and through him also to his own and takes these wholly and entirely, body and soul, into itself. The pactum salutis extends to a foedus gratiae; the head of the covenant of grace is at the same time its mediator.

And therefore, immediately at its promulgation, it also comes forward with the demand of faith and repentance, Mk. 1:15. In the first period the Reformed spoke freely of conditions of the covenant. Calvin, Inst. IV 15,

17, on Gen. 15:6, 17:4, Mt. 3:7, 9, Gomarus, de foedere, Maresius, Syst.

Theol. VIII 5, Trigland, Antopologia c. 18, Preface of the Statenvert. to the N. Test., Voetius, Disp. V 272. 273 etc. But when the nature of the covenant of grace was thought through more deeply and had to be defended against Roman Catholics, Lutherans, and Remonstrants, many felt objections to that, Olevianus, Wezen des genadeverbonds I 13. 14. Junius, Disp. Theol.

XXV 12. 13. 19. Coccejus, de foedere § 87, Id. Summa Theol. 41, 5. 12. 13.

Cloppenburg, de foedere § 29. Witsius, Oec. foed. III 1, 8-16. Franken, Kern c. 23. Brakel, Red. Godsd. XVI 17. Comrie, [225] Heid. Catech. I 352 etc., cf. M. Vitringa IV 224, in England especially also the Antinomians,

Tobias Crisp and others, against whom R. Baxter, Dan. Williams and others came forward.

Properly speaking, in the foedus gratiae, i.e. in the gospel, which is the proclamation of the covenant of grace, there are no demands and no conditions. For God gives what He demands; Christ has accomplished everything and has also, regeneration, faith, and conversion, although He did not accomplish them in our place, nevertheless acquired them for us; and the H. Spirit applies them. But nevertheless the covenant of grace, in its administration through Christ, assumes this demanding, conditional form, in order to acknowledge man in his rational and moral nature, in order also, as fallen, still to treat him as created after God's image, in order also on this highest terrain, where it concerns eternal salvation and eternal perdition, to set him responsible and inexcusable, in order to cause him with consciousness and freedom to enter into this covenant and to break with sin.

The covenant of grace is therefore indeed monopleuric, it proceeds from God; He has designed and established it. He maintains and realizes it; it is a work of God triune and completely finished within the three persons mutually. But it is destined to become dupleuric, to be, in the power of God, consciously and voluntarily accepted and preserved by man. This is the will of God, which in the covenant comes to light so clearly and so beautifully, that the work of grace may be clearly reflected in human consciousness, and may arouse man's will to vigorous energy. The covenant of grace does not kill man, and does not treat him as a stick and block; but it takes up man

wholly and entirely with all his faculties and powers, as to soul and body, for time and eternity; it encompasses him wholly, does not destroy his power but removes his impotence; does not kill his will but makes it free from sin; does not benumb his consciousness but delivers it from darkness; it recreates the whole man and then causes him, renewed by grace, free and independent, with his whole soul and spirit and body, to love God and to devote himself to Him. The covenant of grace expresses that God's honor and glory are obtained not at the expense but for the benefit of man and in the recreation of the whole man, in his illumined [226] consciousness and in his restored freedom celebrates its triumphs.

At the same time, thereby yet another thought is given, which in the covenant of grace, in distinction from election, comes to light. In election the elect appear as so many persons known to God by name; indeed they are chosen in Christ and form an organism with Him as their Head. But yet this does not in election come clearly and strongly to the foreground. Quite otherwise is this in the covenant of grace. Here Christ appears as the substitute of Adam, as the second Head of the human race. Here Christ stands with His church in connection with humanity under Adam. Election chiefly regards the individuals, and in itself it left open the possibility that the elect, each by himself, individualistically, by leaps, would be taken out of the human race, regenerated, and transferred to heaven. But the covenant of grace says that that election is realized in a wholly different way. It expresses the deep, beautiful truth, that Adam has been replaced by Christ; that humanity, which fell in the first, is restored in the second; that not some loose individuals are saved but that in the elect under Christ the organism of humanity and of the world itself is saved; that not only the persons of the elect but also, so to speak, the structure of the organism, which they form in

Christ, is derived from the original creation in Adam. Therefore the covenant of grace also does not leap from individual to individual, but it continues itself organically and historically. It runs through a history, and has various dispensations. It adapts itself to the times and occasions, determined by the Father as Creator and Preserver. It is never concluded with a single person alone but then always also therein with his seed; it is a covenant from generations to generations. It never comprises the person of the believer alone, in the abstract, but that person concretely, as he historically exists and lives, thus not him alone, but also everything that is his; him not for his person alone but him also as father or mother, as parent or child, with all that is his, with his family, with his money and his goods, with his influence and power, with his office and position, with his understanding and his heart, with his science and [227] art, with his life in society and state. The covenant of grace is the organization of the new humanity under Christ as its Head, which connects itself to the order of creation, reaches back into it, and takes up into itself the whole of that creation qualitatively and intensively. It therefore speaks for itself, that the covenant of grace temporally, in this earthly administration and dispensation, also takes up into itself such as inwardly remain unbelieving and are not partakers of the spiritual benefits. The Reformed, with a view to this, made a distinction between an inward and an outward covenant,

Kantteekening op 1 Cor. 7:14, 1 Petr. 2:9, Witsius, Oec. foed. III 1, 5, Mastricht V 1, 28; or between covenant and covenant-dispensation,

Olevianus, Wezen des Genadeverbonds I 2, Alting, Theol. catech. p. 33, Turretinus, Theol. El. XII 6, 5; or between an absolute and a conditional covenant, Maresius, Theol. syst. VIII 7, Koelman, Historie der Labadisten bl. 566; indeed some, such as Blake with Dr. Vos, De Verbondsleer bl. 12,

45, Stoddard at Northampton with Edwards, Works I 34, J. Schuts, Het verbond der genade verduisterd 1713 and Verhandeling over het H.

Avondm. 1722, M. Swarte 1740, R. Schutte, Tweetal verhandelingen 1785 e. a. went so far, that they assumed two covenants, the one with the elect and true believers, the other with the not sincerely believing, outward members of the church, and thereby sought to justify the membership of the latter and their access to the Lord's Supper. But others, such as Edwards,

Works 185-295, Koelman, Historie der Labadisten bl. 95v., Appelius, De Herv. Leer 1769, Vitringa, Obs. Sacr. II c. 6, Brakel, Red. Godsd. c. 16,

Moor V 470, also Ds. de Herder, cf. Heraut 937 e. a. rightly protested against this. The covenant of grace is one; and its outward and inward side, although here on earth never coinciding, cannot and may not be detached from one another and placed alongside each other. There are very certainly evil branches on the vine, there is chaff among the wheat, there are in a great house golden and earthen vessels, Mt. 3:12, 13:29, Joh. 15:2, 2 Tim.

2:20. But we lack the right and the power, to make a separation between the two; God himself will do that in the day of harvest. So long as they, according to the judgment of love, walk in the way of the covenant, they are to be regarded and treated as covenant-partners. Although not de foedere,

[228] they are nevertheless in foedere and will once be judged as such.

They are here on earth in all manner of ways connected with the elect; and the elect, because they are members of the Adamic humanity, as an organism cannot otherwise be gathered under Christ as their Head into one, than in the way of the covenant.

↑ Back to top