Sect. 5. — The Covenant of Grace, under the Mosaic Dispensation.
Sect. 5. — The Covenant of Grace, under the Mosaic Dispensation.
Ant. But, sir, was this in every way the same covenant that was made with Abraham?
Evan. Surely I believe that reverend Bullinger spoke very truly when he said that God gave these people no other religion in nature, substance, and matter itself, differing from the laws of their fathers; though in some respects, he added to it many ceremonies and certain ordinances.
He did this to keep their minds in expectation of the coming of Christ whom he had promised to them; and to confirm them in looking for him, lest they grow faint. And just as the Lord by these ceremonies, as it were led them by the hand to Christ, so he made them a promise of the land of Canaan, and outward prosperity in it, as a type of heaven and eternal happiness. So that the Lord dealt with them as with children in their infancy and under-age, leading them to heavenly and spiritual things by the help of earthly things, because they were but young and tender, and did not have that measure and abundance of the Spirit which he has bestowed on his people now under the gospel.
Ant. And, sir, do you think that these Israelites at this time saw Christ and salvation by him in these types and shadows?
Evan. Yes; there is no doubt that Moses and the rest of the believers among the Jews saw Christ in them, “For,” says Tyndale, “though all the sacrifices and ceremonies had a star-light of Christ, some of them had the light of broad day, a little before the sun-rising;” and they expressed him, along with the circumstances and virtue of his death, as plainly as if his passion had been acted on a scaffold — “so much so,” he says, “that I am fully persuaded, and cannot help but believe, that God had shown Moses the secrets of Christ, and the very manner of his death, beforehand.” And therefore, I have no doubt that they offered their sacrifices by faith in the Messiah, as the apostle testifies of Abel in Heb. 11.4. I say, there is no question that every spiritual believing Jew, when he brought his sacrifice to be offered, and according to the Lord’s command, laid his hands on it while it was still alive (Lev. 1.4), and acknowledged from his heart that he himself had deserved to die — but by the mercy of God he was saved, and his desert was laid upon the beast. And just as that beast was to die and be offered in sacrifice for him, so he believed that the Messiah would come and die for him, on whom he put his hands — that is, on whom he laid all his iniquities by the hand of faith.
So that as Beza says on Job 1, “The sacrifices were holy mysteries to them, in which, as if in a mirror, they saw themselves to their own condemnation before God, and also beheld the mercy of God in the promised Messiah, who was to be exhibited in time.” “And therefore,” says Calvin in his Institutes, p. 239, “the sacrifices and satisfactory offerings were called Ashemoth, which properly signifies sin itself, to show that Jesus Christ was to come and perform a perfect expiation by giving his own soul to be an asham, that is, a satisfactory oblation.’’
Therefore, you may assure yourself that just as Christ was always set before the fathers in the Old Testament, to whom they might direct their faith; and just as God never put them in hope of any grace or mercy, nor ever showed himself good to them without Christ; even so, the godly in the Old Testament knew Christ by whom they enjoyed these promises of God, and they were joined to him. Indeed, the promise of salvation never stood firm till it came to Christ. And there was their comfort in all their troubles and distresses, as it is said of Moses in Heb. 11.26, 27, “He endured as seeing him who is invisible, esteeming the reproach of Christ greater riches than the treasures of Egypt; for he looked to the recompense of reward.”
And so, as Ignatius says, the prophets were Christ’s servants who, foreseeing him in spirit, both waited for him as their master, and looked for him as their Lord and Saviour, saying, “He shall come and save us.”
And so says Calvin, Institut. p. 207, “As often as the prophets speak of the blessedness of the faithful, the perfect image that they painted of it was such that it might force men's minds out of the earth, and of necessity raise them up to consider the felicity of the life to come.” So we may assuredly conclude with Luther, that all the fathers, prophets, and holy kings were righteous, and saved by faith in Christ to come. So indeed, as Calvin says in his Institutes, p. 198, they “were all partakers of one salvation with us.”
Ant. But, sir, the Scriptures seem to speak as though they were saved one way, and we another; for you know the prophet Jeremiah makes mention of a twofold covenant. Therefore it is somewhat strange to me that they would partake of the same way of salvation as us.
Evan. Indeed, it is true. The Lord bequeathed to the fathers righteousness, life, and eternal salvation, in and through Christ the Mediator, not yet having come in the flesh, but promised. And to us in the New Testament, he gives and bequeaths these to us in and through Christ, having come already, and having actually purchased them for us. The Covenant of Grace was sealed by his blood in types and figures before the coming of Christ — but at his death in his flesh, it was sealed and ratified by his blood, actually and indeed shed for our sins. The old covenant was temporary and changeable in respect to the outward form and manner of sealing; and therefore the types ceased, and only the substance remains firm. But the seals of the new covenant are unchangeable, being commemorative: they show the Lord’s death until he comes again. Their covenant first and chiefly promises earthly blessings. In and under these, it signified and promised all spiritual blessings and salvation; but our covenant promises Christ and his blessings in the first place, and after them, earthly blessings.
There were these and some other circumstantial differences in regard to administration between their way of salvation, or Covenant of Grace, and ours. This moved the author of the Hebrews, Heb. 8.7, 8, to call theirs “old,” and ours “new;” but in regard to their substance, they were one and the same.
For in all covenants this is a certain rule: “If the subject matter, the fruit, and the conditions, are the same, then the covenant is the same.” And in these covenants, Jesus Christ is the subject matter of both; salvation is the fruit of both; and faith is the condition of both. Therefore I say, though they are called two, yet they are but one. This is confirmed by two faithful witnesses: the one is the apostle Peter who says in Acts 15.11, “We believe that through the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, we shall be saved even as they were;” meaning the fathers in the Old Testament; this is evident in the preceding verse. The other is the apostle Paul who says in Gal. 3.6-7, “Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness; know therefore, that those who are of faith, are the children of Abraham.” By this testimony, says Luther on the Galatians, p. 116, “we may see that the faith of our fathers in the Old Testament, and our faith in the New, is all one in substance.
Ant. But could those who lived so long before Christ, apprehend his righteousness by faith for their justification and salvation?
Evan. Yes, indeed. For as Mr. Forbes, on Justification, p. 90, truly says, it is as easy for faith to apprehend the righteousness to come, as it is to apprehend the righteousness that is past. Therefore, as Christ’s birth, obedience, and death, were as effectual to save sinners in the Old Testament as they are now, so all the faithful forefathers from the beginning, partook of the same grace with us, by believing in the same Jesus Christ. And so they were justified by his righteousness, and were saved eternally by faith in him.
It was by virtue of the death of Christ that Enoch was translated, so that he should not see death; and Elias was taken up into heaven by virtue of Christ’s resurrection and ascension. So that from the world’s beginning to the end of it, the salvation of sinners is only by Jesus Christ. As it is written, “Jesus Christ, the same yesterday, and today, and forever,” Heb. 13.8.
Ant. Why then, sir, it seems that those who were saved among the Jews, were not saved by the works of the law?
Evan. No indeed. They were neither justified nor saved either by the works of the Moral Law, or by the Ceremonial Law. For, as you heard before, the Moral Law being delivered to them with great terror, and under the most dreadful penalties, they found it impossible in themselves to keep it; and so they were driven to seek the help of a Mediator, even Jesus Christ, of whom Moses was a typical mediator. So that the Moral Law drove them to the Ceremonial Law, which was their gospel and their Christ in a figure. For it is acknowledged and confessed by all men that the ceremonies prefigured Christ, directed us to him, and required faith in him.
Nom. But, sir, I suppose that, although believers among the Jews were not justified and saved by the works of the law, yet was it not a rule of their obedience?
Evan. It is very true, indeed; that the law of the Ten Commandments was a rule for their obedience; yet not as it came from Mount Sinai; but rather as it came from Mount Zion; not as it was the law or Covenant of Works, but as it was the Law of Christ. This will be apparent if you consider that, after the Lord had renewed the Covenant of Grace with them, as you heard before (Exo. 24 at the beginning), the Lord said to Moses, verse 12, “Come up to me into the mount, and there I will give you tablets of stone, and a law that you may teach them.” And after the Lord had thus written them the second time with his own finger, he delivered them to Moses, commanding him to provide an ark to put them into. This was not only for their safe keeping, Deu. 9.10, 10.5, but also to cover the form of the Covenant of Works they were formerly under, so that believers might not perceive it. For the ark was a notable type of Christ; and therefore putting them in the ark showed that they were perfectly fulfilled in him, Christ being “the end of the law for righteousness to everyone that believes,” Rom. 10.4. This was still more clearly manifest in that the book of the law was placed between the cherubim, and on the mercy-seat, to assure believers that the law now came to them from the mercy-seat. For there the Lord promised to meet Moses, and to commune with him about all things which he would give him in commandment to Israel, Exo. 25.22.
Ant. But, sir, was the form completely taken away, so that the Ten Commandments were no longer the Covenant of Works?
Evan. Oh no! You are not to understand it that way. For the form of the Covenant of Works, as well as the matter of it (on God’s part), came immediately from God himself. And consequently it is eternal, like himself; which is why our Saviour says in Mat. 5.18, “Till heaven and earth pass away, not one jot or one tittle shall in any way pass from the law, till all is fulfilled.” So either man himself, or someone else for him, must perform or fulfil the condition of the law, as it is the Covenant of Works — otherwise he still remains under it in a damnable condition. But now Christ has fulfilled it for all believers; and therefore, as I said, the form of the Covenant of Works was covered or taken away as touching the believing Jews; but it was not taken away in itself, nor as touching the unbelieving Jews.
Nom. Was the law then still of use to them, as it was the Covenant of Works?
Evan. Yes, indeed.
Ant. I implore you, sir, show what use it was to them.
Evan. I remember Luther says (on the Galatians, p. 171), “There are two sorts of unrighteous persons or unbelievers: the one is to be justified, and the other is not to be justified: it was even so there among the Jews.” Now, to those who were to be justified, as you heard, the law was still of use to bring them to Christ: as the apostle says in Gal. 3.24, “The law was our schoolmaster until Christ, that we might be made righteous by faith.” That is to say, the Moral Law taught and showed them what they should do, and thereby what they did not do. This made them go to the Ceremonial Law; and by that law they were taught that Christ had done it for them; and by believing it, they were made righteous by faith in him. It was of use to the unjustified Jews, to show them what was good, and what was evil; and to act as a bridle for them, to restrain them from evil, and as a motive to move them to good, either for fear of punishment, or hope of reward in this life. Though it was a forced and constrained obedience, yet was it necessary for the public commonwealth, its quietness being better maintained by it. And though they could neither escape death, nor obtain eternal life by it, for lack of perfect obedience, yet the more obedience they yielded to it, the more they were freed from temporal calamities, and the more they possessed temporal blessings, according to what the Lord promised and threatened in Deuteronomy. 28.
Ant. But, sir, in that passage the Lord seems to speak to his own people, and yet to speak according to the tenor of the Covenant of Works. This has made me think that believers in the Old Testament were partly under the Covenant of Works.
Evan. Do you remember how I told you before, that the Lord manifested so much love to the body of that nation, that the whole posterity of Abraham was brought under a state-covenant or national church? So for believers’ sakes, he enfolded unbelievers in the compact too. Whereupon the Lord was pleased to call them all by the name of his people, and to be called their God, unbelievers as well as believers. Though the Lord spoke there according to the tenor of the Covenant of Works, I see no reason why he might not direct and intend his speech for believers also; yet they remain only under the Covenant of Grace.
Ant. Why, sir, you said that the Lord spoke to them out of the tabernacle, and from the mercy-seat; and doubtless, that was according to the tenor of the Covenant of Grace, and not according to the tenor of the Covenant of Works.
Evan. I ask you to note that after the Lord had pronounced all those blessings and curses, Deu. 28 and in the beginning of the 29th chapter, it is said, “These are the words of the covenant, which the Lord commanded Moses to make with the children of Israel in the land of Moab, besides the covenant which he made with them in Horeb.” By this it appears to me that this was not the Covenant of Works which was delivered to them on Mount Sinai. For the form of that covenant was eternal blessings and curses; but the form of this covenant was temporal blessings and curses. So that this seems to be the pedagogy of the law, rather than the Covenant of Works; for at that time these people seemed to be carried by temporal promises into the way of obedience, and they were deterred from the ways of disobedience, by temporal threatenings. God dealt with them as if in their infancy and being under-age. And so he leads them on, and allures them, and frightens them by respects such as these, because they had but a small measure of the Spirit.
Nom. But sir, was not the matter of that covenant and this one, all the same?
Evan. Yes indeed; the Ten Commandments were the matter of both covenants, they differed only in their forms.
Ant. Then, sir, it seems that the promises and threatenings contained in the Old Testament were but temporary and terrestrial, and only concerned the good and evil things of this life.
Evan. This we are to know: that just as the Lord, by his prophets, gave the people in the Old Testament many exhortations to be obedient to his commandments, and many dehortations from disobedience to it, even so he backed them with many promises and threatenings concerning temporal things — as these and similar Scriptures witness: Isa. 1.10, “Hear the word of the Lord, you rulers of Sodom; give ear to the law of our God, you people of Gomorrah:” ver. 19, 20, ‘‘If you are willing and obedient, you shall eat the good things of the land; but if you refuse and rebel, you shall be devoured with the sword, for the mouth of the Lord has spoken it.” And Jer. 7.3, 9, 20, “Amend your ways and your doings, and I will cause you to dwell in this place. Will you steal, murder, and commit adultery, and swear falsely by my name? Therefore, thus says the Lord God, behold my anger and my fury shall be poured out upon this place.”
And surely there are two reasons why the Lord did so: first, because, as all men are born under the Covenant of Works, they are naturally prone to conceive that the favour of God, and all good things, depend and follow upon their obedience to the law; and that the wrath of God, and all evil things, depend upon and follow their disobedience to it; and they were prone to conceive that man’s chief happiness is to be had and found in terrestrial paradise, even in the good things of this life. So the people of the Old Testament being nearest to Adam’s covenant and paradise, were most prone to such ideas. And secondly, because the Covenant of Grace and celestial paradise were but little mentioned in the Old Testament; for the most part, they had but a glimmering knowledge of them, and so they could not yield obedience freely as sons. Therefore the Lord saw fit to move them to yield obedience to his laws by their own motives, and as servants or under age children.
Ant. And were both believers and unbelievers — that is, those who were under the Covenant of Grace, and those who were under the Covenant of Works — equally and alike subject to have the calamities of this life inflicted on them for their disobedience, as well as to have the blessings of this life conferred on them for their obedience?
Evan. Surely the words of the preacher apply here, when he says in Eccl. 9.2, “All things come alike to all; one event happens to the righteous and to the wicked.” For their disobedience, were not Moses and Aaron hindered from entering the land of Canaan, as well as others? Num 20.12. And was not Josiah, for his disobedience to God’s command, slain in the valley of Megiddo? 2Chron. 35.21, 22. Therefore be assured that when believers in the Old Testament transgressed God’s commandments, God’s temporal wrath went out against them, and it was manifest in temporal calamities that befell them, as well as others, Numb. 16.46. Only here was the difference: believers’ temporal calamities had no eternal calamities included in them, nor following them; and unbelievers’ temporal blessings had no eternal blessings included in them, and their temporal calamities had eternal calamities included in them, and following them.
Ant. Then sir, it seems that all obedience that any of the Jews yielded to God’s commandments, was for fear of temporal punishment, and in hope of temporal reward?
Evan. Surely the Scriptures seem to say that there were three separate sorts of people among the Jews who endeavoured to keep the law of God, and all of them differed in their ends.
The first of them were true believers who, according to the measure of their faith, believed in the resurrection of their bodies after death, and eternal life in glory — and it was to be obtained, not by the works of the law, but by faith in the Messiah or promised seed. And because they believed this, they accordingly yielded obedience to the law freely, without fear of punishment or hope of reward, But, alas! The spirit of faith was very weak in most of them, and the spirit of bondage was very strong. Therefore they stood in need of being induced and constrained to obedience by fear of punishment and hope of reward.
The second sort were the Sadducees and their sect; and these did not believe that there was any resurrection, Mat. 22.23, nor any life but the life of this world.
Yet they endeavoured to keep the law, that God might bless them here, and that it might go well with them in this present life.
The third sort — indeed the great number of them in the future ages after Moses — were the Scribes and Pharisees, and their sects. They held and maintained that there was a resurrection to be looked for, and an eternal life after death. Therefore they endeavoured to keep the law, not only to obtain temporal happiness, but also eternal. For it had pleased the Lord to make known to his people by the ministry of Moses, that the law was not given to retain men in the confidence of their own works, but to drive them out of themselves, and to lead them to Christ the promised seed. Yet after that time, the priests and the Levites — who were the expounders of the law, and whom the Scribes and Pharisees succeeded — so conceived and taught of God’s intention in giving the law, as though it had been by their obedience to it, that they would obtain righteousness and eternal life. This opinion was so confidently maintained, and so generally embraced among them, that in their book Mechilta, they say and affirm that there is no other covenant than the law. And so, indeed, they conceived that there was no other way to eternal life than by the Covenant of Works.
Ant. Surely, then, it seems they did not understand and consider that the law, as it is the Covenant of Works, not only binds the outward man, but also the inward man, even the soul and spirit; and that it requires all holy thoughts, motions, and dispositions of the heart and soul?
Evan. Oh, no. They neither taught it nor understood it that way spiritually; nor could they be persuaded that the law requires so much at man’s hands. For they first laid this down as a certain truth: that God gave the law for man to be justified and saved by his obedience to it; and therefore there must be a power in man to do all that it requires, or else God would never have required it. Whereas they should have first considered what a straight rule the law of God is, and then have brought and laid man’s heart against it, they first considered, contrariwise, what a crooked rule man’s heart is, and then they sought to make the law like it. So indeed they expounded the law literally, teaching and holding that the righteousness which the law required was but an external righteousness, consisting in the outward observation of the law — as you may see by the testimony of our Saviour in Mat. 5.20.
So according to their exposition, it was possible for a man to fulfil the law perfectly, and thus be justified and saved by his obedience to it.
Ant. But, sir, do you think the Scribes and Pharisees, and their sect, yielded perfect obedience to the law according to their own exposition?
Evan. No, indeed; I think very few of them did so, if any at all.
Ant. Why, what hopes could they then have to be justified and saved, when they transgressed any of the commandments?
Evan. Peter Martyr tells us that when they transgressed any of the Ten Commandments, they had their sacrifices to make satisfaction for it (as they conceived). For they looked at their sacrifices without their significations, and so they had a false faith in them, thinking that the bare work was a sacrifice acceptable to God. In a word, they conceived that the blood of bulls and goats would take away sin; and so what they lacked in fulfilling the Moral Law, they thought to make up in the Ceremonial Law. Thus they separated Christ from their sacrifices, thinking they had discharged their duty very well, when they had sacrificed and offered their offerings — not considering that the imperfection of the typical law which, as the apostle says, “made nothing perfect,” should have led them to find perfection in Christ, Heb. 7.19. But they generally rested in the work done in the Ceremonial Law, as they had done in the Moral Law, even though they themselves were unable to do the one, and the other was insufficient to help them. Thus “Israel, which followed the law of righteousness, did not attain to the law of righteousness, because they did not seek it by faith,” but as it were, by the works of the law. For being ignorant of the righteousness of God, and seeking to establish their own righteousness, they did not submit themselves to the righteousness of God, Rom. 9.31, and 10.3.
Ant. Then, sir, it seems there were but very few of them that had a clear sight and knowledge of Christ?
Evan. It is very true indeed; for generally there was such a veil of ignorance over their hearts, or such a veil of blindness over their minds, that it made their spiritual eye-sight so weak and dim, that they were no more able to see Christ — the Sun of righteousness, to the end of the law, Mal. 4.2 — than the weak eye of man is able to behold the bright sun when it shines in its full strength. Therefore we read in Exo. 34.30, that Moses’ face shined by reason of the Lord’s talking with him, and telling him of the glorious riches of his free grace in Jesus Christ, and giving him the Ten Commandments written in tablets of stone, as the Covenant of Works; and these were to drive the people out of confidence in themselves, and their own legal righteousness, to Jesus Christ and his righteousness. But the people were not able to behold his face then. That is to say, by reason of the weakness and dimness of their spiritual eye-sight, they were not able to see and understand the spiritual sense of the law: namely, that the Lord’s end or intent in giving them the law as a Covenant of Works, and as the apostle calls it, “the ministration of condemnation and death,” 2Cor. 3.7, 9, was to drive them out of themselves to Christ; and that then it was to be abolished for them, as it was the Covenant of Works, verse 13. Therefore Moses put the cloudy veil of shadowing ceremonies over his face, Exodus 34.35, that they might be better able to behold it: that is to say, that they might be better able to see through them, and understand that “Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone that believes,” Romans 10.4. For Moses’ face, says godly Tyndale, is the law rightly understood. And yet, alas! by reason that the priests and Levites in former times, and the Scribes and Pharisees in later times, “were the blind leaders of the blind,” Mat. 15.14, they were generally so addicted to the letter of the law (both moral and ceremonial) that they did not use it as a pedagogy to Christ, but they terminated their eye in the letter and shadow, and did not see through them to the spiritual substance, which is Jesus Christ, 2Cor. 3.13, especially in the future ages, after Moses.
For at the time of Christ’s coming in the flesh, I remember only two — namely, Simeon and Anna — that desired him, or looked for him as a spiritual Saviour to save them from sin and wrath. For though all of them had in their mouths the Messiah, says Calvin, and the blessed state of the kingdom of David, yet they dreamed that this Messiah would be some great monarch that would come in outward pomp and power, and save and deliver them from that bondage which they were in, under the Romans, a bondage of which they were sensible and weary. But they were not at all sensible of their spiritual bondage under the law, sin, and wrath — all because their blind guides had turned the whole law into a Covenant of Works, to be done for justification and salvation — indeed, into such a covenant that they would be able to keep and fulfil it, if not by doing the Moral Law, then by offering sacrifices in the Ceremonial Law. And because of this, our Saviour in his sermon on the mount, took occasion to expound the Moral Law truly and spiritually, removing that false literal gloss which the Scribes and Pharisees had put on it, so men might see how impossible it is for any mere man to fulfil it, and consequently to have justification and salvation by it. At the death of Christ, the veil of the temple was torn in two from top to bottom to show, says Tyndale, “that the shadows of Moses’ law would now vanish away at the flourishing light of the gospel” (on Matt, 27.51). And after the death of Christ, his apostles, both by their preaching and writing, laboured to make men understand that all the sacrifices and ceremonies were but types of Christ; and therefore Christ having now come, these types were of no further use — witness that divine and spiritual epistle written to the Hebrews. Yet, notwithstanding, we may say of the Jews today, as the apostle said in his time, “even to this day, the same veil remains unremoved in the reading of Moses.” May the Lord in mercy remove it in his due time.