Reformed Interpretation of the Mosaic Covenant
by Mark W. Karlberg

Throughout the history of Christian doctrine, the problem of the relation between the Old and New Testaments has been central to the interpretive task of the Church. Indeed, this basic issue is one of the leading concerns of the New Testament writings themselves. The fundamental, biblical idea in both the Old Testament and the New is the covenant of God. The Old Testament writings explicate the Mosaic administration of the covenant of grace. The Gospels and Acts are concerned with the inauguration and establishment of the New Covenant through the coming of the Messiah, the Servant of the Lord, and the outpouring of the Spirit of Christ upon the Church at Pentecost. The Epistles and Revelation develop more fully the theology of the covenant and its implications for New Covenant ministry in life and worship.

The doctrine of the covenant of God, including the relation between Old and New Testaments, finds its first articulate spokesman after the apostles in Irenaeus, who defended Christian theology against the false teachings of Marcion, specifically the latter’s denial of the unity of the two Testaments. ¹ The chapters on the covenant of God in the history of doctrine, beginning with Irenaeus’ contribution, cover the entire history of the Christian Church. But it is not until the time of the Reformation, considered in its widest range from the second decade of the sixteenth century to the writing of the Westminster Standards (1648), that the doctrine of the covenant comes fully into

its own. Consequently, when we speak of federalism, the synonym for covenant theology, we are thinking of that variety of theology in the period of the Reformation which is characteristic of the Reformed tradition.

In fact, the genius of the Reformed theological tradition is evident most explicitly (and implicitly) in its development of federalism. The concept of the covenant is determinative for both its exegetical and theological reflection. And the distinctiveness of federalism is its biblical-theological method, what Ludwig Diestel calls the “organic-historical method.” ² This remains true of Reformed theology today. Adherence to the traditional interpretation of the covenant doctrine serves to distinguish orthodox Reformed theology from neo-orthodox theology. One of the most important aspects of the traditional Calvinist teaching on the covenant is the use of the law-gospel distinction. The antithesis between law and gospel denotes two opposing principles of inheritance, appropriate to the Pauline teaching on the two Adams in Romans 5 . The forensic contrast between the order of law (creation) and the order of grace (redemption) is one of opposition. Regrettably, much of recent Reformed theology has openly denied the importance of the law-gospel distinction, substituting in its place the Barthian notion of “law in grace.” The neoorthodox school of interpretation maintains only one order or covenant, the covenant of grace, comprehending both creation and redemption. Otherwise, contend these neo-orthodox critics, the speculative and dualistic notion of law and grace (comparable to the scholastic nature-grace dichotomy) results in a faulty conception of God as Creator and as Redeemer. ³ Others within

the Reformed tradition have been less open in their rejection of the law-gospel contrast, but nevertheless are sympathetic to Barth’s viewpoint. Repudiation of the law-gospel antithesis, however, immediately registers itself in other critical and related areas of Reformed exposition, particularly that of justification by faith and the atonement of Christ. The result is a radical reinterpretation of Reformation theology.

The central issue in this present debate in Reformed theology, both within and without confessional orthodoxy, as it turns out, is the interpretation of the Mosaic Covenant. It is our contention that within the historic Reformed tradition the hermeneutical key to this issue is the proper biblical assessment of the symbolic-typical aspect of Old Testament revelation, and the recognition of the dual principles of law and grace operative in the Mosaic Covenant administration. The Mosaic Covenant is to be viewed in some sense as a covenant of works. This has been the conviction of the vast majority of Reformed theologians in the early history of federalism (up to 1648). ⁴

Before we begin our historical survey of Reformed interpretation of the Mosaic Covenant, it is essential that we acquaint ourselves with certain aspects and particulars of the leading

critical assessments of federalism, especially of covenant theology’s employment of the traditional contrast between law and grace, works and faith.

Critics of continental Reformed theology generally distinguish two types or varieties of federalism, one speculative and one biblical. ⁵ The former is associated invariably with the rise of scholasticism in the period of Reformed orthodoxy. The latter is more compatible with the method of salvation history (the heilsgeschichtliche method). According to these critics, the speculative variety of federalism employs such terminology as the “covenant of nature,” the “law of nature” (otherwise called “natural law”), and the “covenant of works.” The covenant of nature and the law of nature conceptualizations, so the critics argue, rest upon the medieval, scholastic dualism between nature and grace.

Thomas Aquinas was the foremost expounder of the dichotomy between a state of nature and a state of grace. This dualism was applicable to both the period of creation and the period of redemption. ⁶ The majority of medieval theologians taught as Thomas had that man by nature (at the time of creation) was endowed with certain inalienable rights. By nature man possessed intrinsic worth and dignity. As long as man exercised his gifts with wisdom and charity and was obedient to the law of God, he was worthy of blessing from God. Thus, in strict justice God was indebted to man. However, man by nature was in an unstable position. Although man by nature had the desire to do good (he was so constituted that his good inclinations might overrule his evil inclinations, which are not sinful per se ),

nevertheless his spirit warred against his flesh. God was pleased to bestow upon man the additional supernatural gift of grace in order for man to attain unto the final state of glorification, the beatific vision of God. The fall of Adam into sin made supernatural grace all the more necessary. ⁷

The “covenant of nature” and “natural law” terminology simply perpetuated the speculative dichotomy between nature and grace. The covenant of nature suggested the idea that man possessed an intrinsic worth to which God was indebted to reward in the way of the covenant. Similarly, the “covenant of works” concept was perceived by these critics to be speculative in origin. The forensic distinction between law and grace had no basis in the Scriptures. According to H. E. Weber, by the use of this legal contrast, the covenant idea became couched in juridical-rational terms. The covenant was viewed as a mercantile contract between God and man. ⁸ Because of the widespread adoption of the covenant of works conception, federalism thus served primarily as a conveyer of rationalism. ⁹ Gradually, the notion of the covenant of works (law) was associated with the Mosaic Covenant. Federalism continued to distort the biblical concept of the divine covenant of sovereign grace, especially with regard to the relation between the Old and the New Testaments. ¹⁰

On the other hand, in sharp distinction from the scholastic, speculative type of continental federalism (which is by far the dominant variety in the period of Reformed orthodoxy) there is the biblical variety as discerned by the critics. Heinrich Heppe, one of the leading advocates in the nineteenth century for this supposition, identifies the German Reformed school as the chief center for biblical federalism. Whereas the scholastic method treats scriptural truth objectively as an object of speculation, biblical federalism places its theological reflection in the context of faith, and thereby is marked by its acutely practical and personal concerns for the life of the church. That is to say, biblical federalism gives expression to a practical, versus a theoretical, “science of faith.” Above all, biblical federalism avoids concentration upon the doctrine of double predestination. ¹¹

Critics of English federalism likewise discern two varieties of theology. Leonard Trinterud argues that the one is represented by the followers of Calvin, emphasizing the sovereignty and grace of God. ¹² The other view is the Rhineland-Puritan conception with its accent upon the mutual character of the covenant relationship and its stress upon ethical requirements (the conditionality of the covenant of grace). With marked enthusiasm and a sense of relief, Holmes Rolston affirms the opinion that the Confession of 1967 of the United Presbyterian Church in the United State of America signals the end of Reformed theology’s long tie to federalism. He writes, “Indeed, it has seldom been realised by those reared in the Reformed tradition that the two-covenant concept which dominates the organizational substructure of all later Reformed dogmatics is totally absent from

Calvin. More seriously, its fundamental incompatibility with Calvin’s thought has gone all but unnoticed.” ¹³

To what extent are the critics of English and continental federalism conveying an accurate picture of the theology of the early reformers? How valid is the distinction between two types of federalism, one speculative and moralistic and one biblical and genuinely Calvinistic? To answer these questions we turn our attention now to the writings of some of the leading federalists in the sixteenth and early seventeenth centuries. ¹⁴

I. Sixteenth-Century Covenant Theology

The sixteenth-century federalists were responsible for establishing the redemptive-historical structure of biblical revelation, and the covenant structure was the distinguishing mark of Reformed theological interpretation. Beginning as a term descriptive of the era of redemption, the covenant concept was broadened, in the interests of further systematic and historical reflection, to include the pre-redemptive period of biblical history. The entire development of the covenant idea was controlled and elicited by the Reformers’ understanding of justification by faith, in its fundamentally forensic sense, and the coordinate law-gospel distinction.

Huldreich Zwingli and Heinrich Bullinger

Huldreich Zwingli (1484–1531), the father of the Reformed church, was a man of remarkable talent and ability for both teaching and preaching. Unlike Luther, Zwingli had a keen, perceptive and constructive mind suited for the task of systematizing theology. One of the underlying motifs of his theology was the Pauline doctrine of the representative headship of Adam based upon the teaching of Romans 5 . This was highly

significant, for it was indicative of a basic organic, historical point of view.

Zwingli teaches that in Adam all stand guilty. But what is lost in the first Adam by his transgression is restored in the second Adam, Jesus Christ, by way of his full and perfect obedience to the law of God. It is this obedience, viz ., the righteousness of Christ, which is imputed to the believer as the ground of his justification. ¹⁵

This same organic-historical viewpoint governed Zwingli’s defense of infant baptism. The burning issue in the growing controversy between Zwingli and the Anabaptists had been the question of the relationship of the Old Testament to the New. Generally, the Anabaptists made use of the Old occasionally to illustrate the message of the New Testament, what they spoke of as the “simple gospel.” Like Irenaeus, Zwingli insisted upon the crucial unity of the two Testaments. Since the infant Israelites were heirs of the covenant promises, even more so were the infants of New Testament believers. ¹⁶ The promises of the New Covenant were just as valid and trustworthy as in the days of Abraham. Zwingli perceived the unity of the Testaments precisely in terms of the unity of the covenant of grace.

While there is an element of truth to the suggestion that Zwingli begins his defense of infant baptism by simply referring to the practice of circumcision as the analogue of baptism, this is not to be interpreted finally as arguing from something less than the covenant itself. Understandably, he would begin by considering the sign of the covenant before proceeding to reflect more deeply, as he does, upon the nature and design of the establishment of the covenant of grace. ¹⁷ Zwingli’s major contribution in federal theology is his emphasis upon the unity of the two Testaments, perceived explicitly in terms of the single covenant of grace.

In Heinrich Bullinger (1504–1575) we find a much fuller

exposition of the theology of the covenant. Bullinger exercised an extremely influential role in the subsequent development of Reformed federalism. ¹⁸ With an even greater ability to systematize the truths of biblical religion, he was an ideal successor to Zwingli. Bullinger’s theology was much more than an expansion and popularizing of Zwingli’s. His originality was especially evident in the further development of the federal idea. C. S. McCoy maintains:

The roots of the covenant theology in the Reformed churches are to be found especially in Zürich with Ulrich Zwingli and to a limited extent in Geneva with John Calvin, and use of the covenant notion is widespread in the Reformed tradition from the earliest years of the Reformation. The real beginning of federalism, however, is found in Heinrich Bullinger, successor to Zwingli at Zürich. ¹⁹

Bullinger teaches that man as created in the image of God was perfect and good. God inscribed his holy law upon man’s heart, and man had the power and knowledge to perform that which was good and righteous. Bullinger gives expression here to the common Protestant interpretation of natural law. The function of the law of nature is to teach men what they are obligated to render to their Creator, as the apostle Paul affirms in Romans 2:14–16 . ²⁰ The law of nature reveals, among other things, that fellowship between the Creator and the creature requires perfect compliance with the law of God on the part of the creature. At this point, the term “works” appropriately describes this legal demand which, by sovereign disposition, qualifies the relationship between God and man. ²¹ Furthermore, Bullinger teaches that there is a fundamental continuity between the law of nature

in creation and the law of nature as expressed in the Mosaic law. We need only mention here that this continuity resides in man’s natural obligation—his duty—to render obedience to his Creator. The fact that after the fall man as sinner is unable to please God does not eliminate his creaturely obligation. ²² (From this teaching comes the idea of the hypothetical law principle which states that if man as sinner can render perfect obedience to God, thus satisfying the ethical and legal demand of creation in the image of God, then he is justified before God.)

Bullinger’s explicit use of the law-gospel distinction is usually associated with expositions of the doctrine of justification by faith and the doctrine of the Mosaic Covenant. Our primary concern is with the latter. Bullinger indicates quite clearly that the principle of law or works (antithetical to grace) functions in a characteristic and determinative way in the Mosaic administration of the covenant of grace. The law of Moses is in some sense a repetition of the life-principle in the order of creation, sometimes spoken of as the law of nature, originally given by God to Adam prior to the fall. Consequently, the exposition of the law feature of the Mosaic Covenant provides Bullinger with the opportunity to describe the similarities and differences between the Old and New Testaments.

Following the traditional pattern, Bullinger begins by emphasizing vigorously the essential unity of the Testaments. The substance of the covenant of grace pertains to the realization of the salvation of God’s people through the person and work of Jesus Christ. Bullinger affirms, “In the very substance, truly, you can find no diversity: the difference which is between them consists in the manner of administration, in a few accidents, and certain circumstances.” ²³ This common formulation of the essential nature of the covenant of grace is imbedded within the Reformed tradition. The employment of scholastic terminology

is clearly evident, viz ., the terms “substance” and “accidents.” In substance there is unity; in accidents (the historical administrations of the single covenant of grace) there is diversity.

In his treatise, De Testamento seu Foedere Dei Unico et Aeterno , the first extended exposition of the doctrine of the covenant of grace, Bullinger proceeds to a discussion of Genesis 17 , the covenant made with the seed of Abraham. ²⁴ Like the covenant made previously with Adam after the fall and with Noah, the spiritual blessings are bestowed solely on the basis of God’s saving grace, not on the basis of man’s obedience to the law of God (“merit”). ²⁵ The spiritual seed of Abraham is restricted to the elect; they are the beneficiaries of the one and eternal covenant of grace. The elect of God comprises believing Jews and Gentiles, and this singular seed pertains to the “substance” of the covenant of grace. The salvation of the elect is the proper purpose of the covenant of grace.

While recognizing the proper purpose of the Mosaic Covenant as a distinct, historical administration of the one and eternal covenant of grace, Bullinger makes use of the traditional threefold use of the law (the civil, the pedagogical and the regulative) to define the characteristic feature of the Mosaic Covenant. Of the three uses, explains Bullinger, “the chief and proper office of the law is to convince all men to be guilty of sin, and by their own fault to be the children of death.” In this manner, he observes, “the law of God sets forth to us the holy will of God; and, in setting forth thereof, requires of us a most perfect and

absolute kind of righteousness.” ²⁶ He concludes: “Therefore the proper office of Moses, and the principal use and effect of the law, is to show to man his sin and imperfection.” ²⁷ This is the pedagogical use of the law. The normative or regulative use of the law applies to those who have been justified and reconciled to God through Christ. The knowledge of Christ’s fulfillment and the abrogation of the law for justification is essential for understanding the nature of God’s saving grace. The ultimate purpose of the Mosaic Covenant is to stimulate and encourage faith and obedience to Christ; the administrative works-principle is subordinate. Based on the interpretation of Galatians 4:24 , Bullinger concludes: “Therefore the law did gender the holy fathers and the prophets unto bondage, not that they should abide bond-slaves for ever, but that it might keep them under discipline; yea, that it might lead them unto Christ, the full perfection of the law.” ²⁸ The Mosaic Covenant is not established exclusively on the principle of works. More importantly, there is the operation of sovereign grace and election. In preaching law and gospel, Moses leads God’s people to salvation in Christ. Whereas the Old Covenant is characteristically one of bondage and servitude in which the believer is restricted under the tutelage of the law, the newness of the New Covenant includes an exceedingly greater and fuller experience by believers of the saving benefits of union with Christ, a greater freedom and liberty as sons of God and covenant heirs.

John Calvin

The most popular and influential theological treatise to come out of the Reformation is the Institutes of the Christian Religion of John Calvin (1509–1564). But as important as the Institutes are, they require the supplemental investigation and research of his other numerous writings, particularly his commentaries, in order to attain a fuller knowledge of and appreciation for his theological and exegetical ability. He is especially gifted in Systematizing biblical theology. And the notable feature of Calvin’s theology is its pervasively biblical-theological orientation.

While upholding the goodness, integrity and perfection of man’s creation in the image of God, Calvin realizes that the original state is not the highest stage of man’s blessedness. Calvin discerns more clearly than Bullinger the importance of biblical eschatology for the doctrine of creation. There is a specific goal and purpose for God’s creative work, especially the creation of man in his own image. That goal is the glorification of the name and works of God. Although Calvin does not apply the term “covenant” to the original creation arrangement, nevertheless his doctrine is fully compatible with the later development of the covenant of works conception.

Unhesitatingly, Calvin perceives that the principle of works informs the order of creation. In commenting on Genesis 2:16 , Calvin cites 1 Timothy 1:9 (“the law was not made for the righteous”), but indicates that this statement is not applicable to the pre-fall state of Adam in innocence and uprightness. According to Calvin, the principle of works-inheritance governs the original state of integrity. The reward for faithfulness, based upon man’s obedience, is eternal life. ²⁹ In his interpretation of Hosea 6:7 , Calvin dismisses without further comment the suggestion that אדם be translated “Adam.” In his own conceptualization, Calvin restricts the term “covenant” to redemptive provisions. It appears that in this Hosea citation Calvin simply construes “covenant” as a reference to the Mosaic administration, thus explaining his rapid dismissal of the earlier suggestion that Adam was in view. ³⁰ Undoubtedly, his interpretation of Hosea does not imply that he would oppose speaking of the creation order in covenantal terms.

There is also a close correlation in Calvin’s thought between the place of law in the first state of man and the idea of natural law. ³¹ The manifold revelation and experience of the

graciousness of God in creation heightens man’s culpability. “So much the greater, then, is the wickedness of man, whom neither that kind commemoration of the gifts of God, nor the dread of punishment, was able to retain in his duty.” ³²

The ministration of law under the Mosaic Covenant serves to increase transgression in the economy of God’s dealings with his Old Covenant people. The law is Israel’s pedagogue until the coming of Christ. Like Bullinger, Calvin views the Mosaic administration in its characteristically pedagogical function. He is eager to maintain, at the same time, the substantial unity of the covenant of grace against the erroneous teachings of Servetus and the Anabaptists. The law is given by God through Moses

…in order to humble men, having convinced them of their own condemnation. But because this is the true and only preparation for seeking Christ, all his variously expressed teachings [referring to the apostle Paul] well agree. He was disputing with perverse teachers who pretended that we merit righteousness by the works of the law. Consequently, to refute their error he was sometimes compelled to take the bare law in a narrow sense, even though it was otherwise graced with the covenant of free adoption. ³³

Calvin speaks of the abrogation of the law in the sense that it no longer condemns those who are united with Christ by grace through faith. Yet the proper and necessary distinction between law and grace under Moses does not obscure the more important operation of saving grace in the Old Covenant. Calvin closely weaves together the pedagogical use of the law with the typological system of the Old Testament, so that “the gospel points out with the finger what the law foreshadowed under types.” ³⁴ Calvin reasons: “From this we infer that, where the whole law is concerned, the gospel differs from it only in clarity of manifestation.” ³⁵ As a result, Calvin distinguishes the whole law from the narrow law, Moses in his universal office from Moses in his particular office. In his exegesis of Romans 10:5–10 , Calvin expounds:

Paul now compares the righteousness of faith and the righteousness of works in order to make it clear how greatly they

are at variance. The difference which exists between opposites is seen more clearly by a comparison between them. He is not referring to the writings of the prophets, but to the testimony of Moses, and for this reason alone, that the Jews might understand that the law had not been given by Moses in order to maintain their confidence in their works, but rather to lead them to Christ.

…The universal office which Moses had was the instruction of the people in the true rule of godliness. If this is true, it was his duty to preach repentance and faith. But faith is not taught without offering the promises, the free promises, of the divine mercy….

The promises of the Gospel, however, are found only here and there in the writings of Moses, and these are somewhat obscure, while the precepts and rewards, appointed for those who observe the law, frequently occur. The function, therefore, of teaching the character of true righteousness of works is, with justification, properly and peculiarly attributed to Moses, as is also that function of showing the nature of the remuneration which awaits those who observe it, and what punishment awaits those who transgress it. For this reason Moses himself is contrasted with Christ by John, when he says, “The law was given by Moses; grace and truth came by Jesus Christ” ( John 1:17 ). Whenever the word law is used in this restricted sense, Moses is implicitly contrasted with Christ. We are then to see what the law contains in itself when separated from the Gospel. I must, therefore, refer what I say here of the righteousness of the law not to the whole office of Moses, but to that part of it which was peculiarly entrusted to him. ³⁶

The principles of law and grace operated in various and distinct ways in the Old Covenant administration. The peculiarity of the Mosaic Covenant was seen in the emphasis on earthly and temporal benefits which served to direct the Israelites to the heavenly and eternal realities. This accounted for the status of childhood for the Old Covenant Church. The people of God were restricted under the tutelage of the law of Moses. ³⁷ Physical blessings and punishments were related to the principle of works-inheritance, appropriate to the typical sphere of the Mosaic administration. The typical punishments were “proofs of his

[the Lord’s] coming judgment against the wicked.” ³⁸ The Old Testament types and figures pertained only to the “accidental properties of the covenant.” ³⁹ That is to say, the symbolic-typical system of the Old Covenant, coordinate with the principle of works-inheritance, was not to be construed to teach justification, i.e ., salvation, by the works of the law. If that were the case, the difference between the Old and New Covenants would be substantial, not merely accidental. The legal aspect of the Mosaic law itself was spoken of as a “covenant,” because it was the characteristic means of Old Covenant administration. Although this conception was not fully worked out in Calvin’s thought, the Mosaic covenant of law ( foedus legale ) was not equivalent to the idea of the covenant of works as that applied to the pre-fall creation arrangement. The classic formulation of the unity of the covenant of grace, although not original with Calvin, is found in the Institutes . “The covenant made with all the patriarchs is so much like ours in substance and reality that the two are actually one and the same. Yet they differ in mode of administration.” ⁴⁰ The unifying substance of the covenant of grace was a way of speaking of the exclusive way of salvation through grace, of justification by faith, not human works. Our redemption was secured by the meritorious work of Christ, whose obedience and righteousness is imputed to us as the ground of justification. ⁴¹

The biblical doctrine of sin depends upon the validity and integrity of the original covenant of works. According to Calvin, who on this point is representative of all the Reformed theologians, sin is, in the first place, transgression of the law of God. ⁴² The reason for the primary definition of sin in terms of law is to be seen in light of the importance of the forensic aspect of justification. There can be no fellowship and enjoyment of communion and life with God when there is the transgression of God’s holy and righteous law. Only under the provisions of redemption, i.e ., the order of grace, is there forgiveness and reconciliation.

Zachary Ursinus and Casper Olevianus

These two German Reformed theologians are widely recognized as the most prominent of the sixteenth-century federalists, noted particularly for their writing of the popular and widely received Heidelberg Catechism. They were both students of Calvin at Geneva and Peter Martyr Vermigli at Zurich.

In his Commentary on the Heidelberg Catechism, Zachary Ursinus (1534–1583) sets forth his views on the covenant of God, which like Calvin he restricts in application to the period of redemption. He conceives of the divine covenant with its two-party arrangement as an anthropological concept. It is not uncommon to speak of covenant as a mutual agreement between God and man comparable to those made between men. However, this mutuality is never construed in terms of equality of persons, as might be the case in certain human covenants.

Within the single covenant of grace, Ursinus perceives two aspects, depending upon the general or principle conditions of the covenant on the one hand, and the less general conditions on the other. ⁴³ The accidental aspect of the covenant of grace pertains to the less general conditions, “in order that the faithful, by their help, may obtain those which are general.” That is to say, the mode of administration is temporary and changeable according to God’s saving design, and is thus subordinate to his eternal and unchanging purpose for the redemption of his people. The general conditions refer to the essence of the covenant, which is its proper purpose. The less general conditions of the covenant determine its particular bistorical-covenantal administration. Ursinus provides us here with a vital contribution in the development of the biblical interpretation of the covenant. With respect to the definition of covenant, Ursinus insists upon the importance of recognizing the substantial unity of the covenant of grace, but attempts at the same time to do fuller justice to the varying administrations of the divine covenant. He does so by speaking of the twofold conditions , one general and the other less general. He is pointing to the valid and crucial hermeneutical distinction between the two spheres

of “conditionality” within the Mosaic covenant arrangement. The law of God has multiple applications within the covenant of grace.

The promise of the law is conditioned on perfect obedience. Hence after the fall, the law works wrath, being a ministration of death and condemnation. ⁴⁴ Ursinus clarifies more precisely the sense in which the law of God is abrogated, and the sense in which it continues to be binding upon the people of God. The moral law has a distinct application appropriate to man’s fourfold state: (1) nature uncorrupted by sin (man’s state in creation); (2) nature corrupted (the civil and pedagogical uses of the law); (3) nature restored in Christ (the regulative use of the law), and (4) nature glorified (the eternal state). ⁴⁵

In his Summa Theologiae (1584), Ursinus makes his first application of the covenant idea to the original creation order. ⁴⁶ After the fall, God entered into the covenant with man a second time. The covenant of grace was made with the elect. In this catechism, Ursinus brings together the concept of the dual covenants and the traditional law-gospel distinction. The law pertains to the covenant of nature, i.e ., the covenant of creation with its dual sanctions of blessing for obedience and curse for disobedience, based upon man’s conformity to the law of God. ⁴⁷ Earlier in his Catechesis minor (1562), which preceded the writing of the Heidelberg Catechism, Ursinus made no use of the covenant terminology, except with respect to the subject of infant baptism and the Lord’s Supper.

In An Exposition of the Symbole of the Apostles , Casper Olevianus (1536–1587) expounds at length upon the theme of the kingdom of Christ with explicit application of the covenant idea. He weaves together the concepts of covenant and kingdom derived in large measure from Calvin’s thought. ⁴⁸ The

foundation of the covenant of grace is the meritorious work of Christ, who satisfied the righteous demands of his Father as the second Adam, and thus delivered us from the curse of the law. In Christ there is forgiveness of sin and renewal in sanctification. In the opening pages of his extensive treatment of the kingdom of God, Olevianus emphasizes man’s culpability and guiltiness before the all-holy and righteous God. Christ, in his office of priest and king, reconciles man and God and establishes his kingdom with those whom the Father has given him. This kingdom is manifested in the way of the covenant, the sum of which is contained in the articles of faith. The covenant of grace and reconciliation is unlike the covenant made with our fathers when God brought them out of the land of Egypt. This latter covenant was made void by their disobedience, whereas the covenant of grace cannot be made void. God’s saving purposes for man’s redemption in Christ are certain and efficacious. The covenant of grace rests exclusively upon the merits of Christ imputed to the elect through faith, such that “this whole covenant consists in faith alone.” ⁴⁹

Perhaps the most important and influential treatise on the covenant to appear in the sixteenth century is Olevianus’ De Substantia Foederis Gratuiti inter Deum et Electos . At the very beginning, Olevianus contrasts the New Covenant with the Old, i.e ., the Mosaic Covenant. Once again he stresses that the New Covenant is unlike the Old which was voided by the disobedient Israelites. The covenant of grace, the proper purpose being election in Christ, includes both remission of sins and renewal in the image of God. Olevianus tries to clarify further the distinctions needed to explain the twofold aspect of the one and eternal covenant with the elect. First, there is the substance of the covenant pertaining to the elect alone, and second, the administration of the visible church. While Olevianus does not want to separate or abstract these two aspects of the one covenant, yet he desires to take full account of all the biblical material. Genesis 17 does not restrict the administration of the covenant to the elect. Yet the administration of the visible church is not to be interpreted so as to be a means of accommodating the non-elect within the covenant. There are simply the two inseparable,

though distinct, aspects of the one covenant of grace, the substance and the outward administration. ⁵⁰

In addition to the contrast between the Old and New Covenants, Olevianus speaks of that “first covenant” between God and man made in the image of God. ⁵¹ There is a fundamental similarity between the works-feature of the Mosaic Covenant and the works-arrangement in the order of creation. The covenant made with Israel rested “in part in their own strength.” ⁵² Olevianus proceeds to speak of this legal aspect as a “covenant of law” ( foedus legale ), in which man is obligated to perform perfect obedience in his own strength. The law of God is the eternal norm for justification and approbation, reflecting the dual sanctions of blessing for obedience and curse for disobedience, the promise of eternal life and the threat of malediction. All reasonable creatures are required to be conformed to divine law by virtue of their natural debt to the Creator. The Mosaic foedus legale employs similarly the dual sanctions of the divine law covenant. The more usual manner in which Olevianus expresses this idea of the works-principle is in terms of the “law of creation,” rather than in explicitly covenantal phraseology. In the Mosaic Covenant, the law of creation is reestablished under Moses by way of the covenant ( ex pacto ). ⁵³

William Tyndale and Robert Rollock

M. M. Knappen contends that English Puritanism begins with William Tyndal (1484–1536). Tudor Puritanism “was not an indigenous English movement, but the Anglo-Saxon branch of a Continental one, dependent on foreign theologians both for its

theory and for its direction in practical matters.” ⁵⁴ The covenant idea finds its earliest English expression in the writings of Tyndale. It may well be the case that Tyndale appropriated the concept when he was on the Continent. But that he applied it with some originality in his interpretation of the Scriptures is undeniable. In many respects, his formulation is closer to that of Ursinus than any other Continental federalist, although Tyndale and Ursinus developed their ideas independently from one another.

Tyndale was desirous not only to provide the Scriptures in the vernacular, but also to aid Christians in their own study of the Bible. Along with his translations, he provided various prologues to the books of the Bible. The most prominent feature of these introductions was the attention given to the matter of the relation between the Old and New Testaments. The Old Testament stressed the temporal promises which were offered to the Israelites on the basis of their keeping of the law of Moses. Leviticus 18:5 stated the governing principle of inheritance by works, which principle was characteristic of the Old Covenant. The purpose of the law was to drive the Israelites to Christ and his redemptive benefits. ⁵⁵

From the outset, however, there was the tendency in Tyndale, symptomatic of the later English divines, to emphasize unduly the law-function of the Mosaic Covenant in terms of the individual’s personal experience of conversion, rather than to discern the more basic redemptive-historical nature of Old Covenant administration. Perhaps the early beginnings of the later English federalist interpretation of the Mosaic Covenant (to be discussed below) can be traced back here to Tyndale. The principle of law under the Mosaic Covenant was defined in terms of the Jewish misapplication of the legal demand as the means of justification. Tyndale and the later English federalists taught that the Mosaic Covenant became a ministration of death and condemnation for the individual who misconstrued the place of the law of God in justification. (The predisposition to detail the

conversion experience was exploited in the subsequent rise of casuistry in William Perkins and William Ames.)

What dominates Tyndale’s exposition of the difference between the two Testaments is the law-gospel antithesis. ⁵⁶ The period of the Old Testament (law) is the time of infancy and childhood of all believers who were before Christ. Tyndale’s interpretation of the uniqueness of the Old Testament includes an appreciation for the rich typological significance of its ceremonies and institutions. In this context, Tyndale warns against false allegorical interpretation of the Scriptures. ⁵⁷ The right use of types, insists Tyndale, must always reveal a legitimate Christological focus.

German Reformed federalism was conveyed to Scotland through Robert Howie, a close friend of Robert Rollock (1555?-1599) and student of Olevianus at Herborn. ⁵⁸ The leading Scottish federalist, however, in the sixteenth century was Rollock. In his Treatise of our Effectual Calling Rollock taught that the Word of God was to be understood explicitly in terms of the divine covenant. He made extensive use of the idea of the twofold covenant of God, the covenant of works and the covenant of grace. The former of these he identified as the legal or natural covenant, whose principle was summed up in Leviticus 18:5 . ⁵⁹ The promise of the covenant of works was not righteousness, for this Adam possessed by virtue of his creation in the image of God, but eternal life.

The works of man required in the covenant of works proceed from his own nature, and are not grounded upon the works of another. This is the heart, the forensic fulcrum, of life in the covenant. In the covenant of works, life is grounded upon the obedience and righteousness of man (human righteousness), whereas in the covenant of grace life is grounded upon the righteousness of Christ imputed to the believer through the

instrumentality of faith (God-righteousness). Christ is the meritorious cause of justification; faith is the instrumental cause. ⁶⁰

The repetition of the covenant of works in the subsequent period of redemptive history serves a peculiarly pedagogical purpose. The giving of the law of Moses is preparatory in nature. ⁶¹ In fact, argues Rollock, “the greatest part of the Old Testament is spent propounding, repeating, and expounding the covenant of works.” ⁶² But in all of this, the law administration does not alter the substance of the Mosaic Covenant, whose proper purpose is consistent with the one and unchanging covenant of grace, of which the Mosaic Covenant is a particular, historical manifestation.

Early Seventeenth-Century English Federalism

By the seventeenth century the doctrine of the two covenants, the covenant of works and the covenant of grace, was unanimously adopted by the Reformed dogmaticians. The law-gospel distinction was vital to their theological interpretation of the history of creation and redemption. As a corollary to their fundamental biblical-theological conception of the history of revelation, the majority of Reformed theologians maintained that the characteristic feature of the Mosaic Covenant, with respect to

its accidents, not substance, was to be understood in terms of a covenant of works arrangement consistent with the progressive manifestation and realization of the covenant of grace made with Adam after the fall. The Reformed tradition emphasized the substantial unity and continuity of the one, eternal and unchanging covenant of grace in the era of redemption. The sixteenth-century federalists were unable to arrive, however, at a precise and detailed understanding of the way in which the Mosaic Covenant could be viewed as a covenant of works and a covenant of grace at the same time. All the essential and necessary ingredients for such an exposition, it should be noted, were already present in their thought. It required a further period of systematic and biblical-theological reflection before a more satisfying formulation of a complex issue would be reached. By and large, the Reformed theologians of the early part of the seventeenth century failed to progress beyond those formulations of the previous century. There were a few, notably among the English federalists, who contributed to a more consistent presentation of the Mosaic Covenant utilizing the traditional law-gospel contrast. ⁶³

During the period of the seventeenth century in England, the traditional Reformed interpretation of the Mosaic Covenant was applied to the political, socio-religious situation in new and startling ways. It is our contention that one must distinguish carefully between the theological conception of the Mosaic Covenant and biblical law on the one hand, and the application of the law of Moses, expressive of natural law, to the national institution on the other. The fact that the historical theologian must make such a sharp distinction between theological interpretation and application is indicative of a faulty and inconsistent perception of the essentially spiritual and ecclesiastical nature of the covenant of grace as the ministration of life, righteousness and blessing ( 2 Corinthians 3 ).

The English federalists taught that the Mosaic Covenant was one in substance with the New Covenant of grace, but that the peculiar law-principle operated in a restricted sense within the

Mosaic administration. The primary purpose of the law was to reveal sin and to lead Israel to salvation in Christ. This law aspect terminated with the New Covenant. On the contemporary political level, the Puritans applied the civil laws of the Israelite nation to their own situation on the basis of natural law. From the perspective of the divine establishment of natural law, they discerned a basic continuity between Israel and England, the “New Israel.” The apparent confusion was bound to present problems for church-state relations. Greater theological consistency would come about in the long, protracted and agonizing period of tension and conflict during the seventeenth, eighteenth, and well into the nineteenth and twentieth centuries.

Among the leading English federalists in the beginning of the seventeenth century were James Ussher (1581–1656), William Perkins (1558–1602) and his most illustrious student, William Ames (1576–1633). The growing importance of the doctrine of the two covenants became evident by its inclusion in the Irish Articles of 1615, drawn up by Ussher. This confession of faith was the first to use explicitly the covenant of works terminology. In preparing the way for the writing of the Westminster Confession of Faith, the Irish Articles gave notable place not only to the federal idea, but also provided the basic order and structure for that of the Westminster Confession. ⁶⁴

It was in the context of the three major theological controversies in the early seventeenth century onwards, viz ., Amyraldianism, Arminianism and Antinomianism, that further reflection was given to the law of Moses. Central to the debates of Arminianism and Antinomianism was the place of law in the Christian life. One’s understanding of the law of God in turn determined his conception of the doctrine of the covenants and of justification. ⁶⁵ It was within this theological context that one

must appreciate the Puritan emphasis upon the ethical requirements in the covenant of grace and upon the inseparability of justification and sanctification. Those who held Arminian tenets stood outside the Puritan (Calvinistic) tradition, while many of those who were labelled erroneously “Antinomian” by their opponents were nevertheless genuinely committed to the Puritan theology.

It is particularly this mislabeled group of Puritan “Antinomians” that we need to reevaluate in the interests of the Reformed hermeneutics of the Mosaic Covenant. The controversy between these two groups of Puritans, the majority of English divines and the so-called “Antinomians,” is analogous to the Lutheran controversy between those who stressed Luther’s second use of the law exclusively and those who maintained a third use of the law consistent with Luther’s theology. In part, then, these debates were semantic.

E. F. Kevan reduces the entire controversy between the Puritans and the mislabeled “Antinomians” to the failure of the latter to perceive the gracious character of the Mosaic Covenant. He contends that these Antinomians made a “wide separation” between the two Testaments. ⁶⁶ Nothing is further from the actual case of the matter. Although Kevan is correct in concluding that there was no substantial difference nor fundamental incompatibility between both groups, the precise nature of the debate did not involve any denial of the Mosaic Covenant as a covenant of grace. It is certainly true that many of the opponents of the Antinomians did accuse them of this very thing. But in the

heated debates the opponents failed to acknowledge and recognize their full teaching. The most important of those mistakenly labeled “Antinomian” was Tobias Crisp. We begin our survey of early seventeenth-century English federalism with a consideration of his thought.

Tobias Crisp

Tobias Crisp (1600–1643), more than most in his time, strove to develop in greater fullness and clarity the precise sense in which the Mosaic Covenant had to be considered as a covenant of works. He began by relating the obedience of Christ to the first covenant of works in creation by reference to the “covenant of Christ.” But the two chief types of covenant in Scripture are the covenant of works and the covenant of grace. The foundation of the latter was the “delight of Christ with the sons of men.” ⁶⁷

Without jeopardizing the substantial unity of the single covenant of grace, Crisp urged us to take sufficient account of the difference between the two Testaments. “Though Christ is the subject matter, in general, of both, and remission of sins the fruit of both yet, such a vast difference is between them, that he makes them two several covenants.” ⁶⁸ The Decalogue was a summary of the covenant of works in terms of the characteristic feature of the Mosaic Covenant. According to Crisp, Hebrews 7–10 contrasted the two covenants of grace, the Mosaic and the New. He interpreted this contrast to mean that “though Christ is the subject-matter of the covenant of grace, whether old or new, and though there is remission of sins in both…yet, I say, there is such a difference between these two, that they are two distinct covenants one from the other.” ⁶⁹

What is outstanding in the Mosaic Covenant, Crisp contends, is the typical-sacrificial aspect of its law administration to which Christ is the proper subject. Although Crisp’s editor, John Gill, defends him against the false charge of antinomianism, Gill does not fully grasp the point that Crisp makes in distinguishing the

two covenants of grace. The two covenants are not, as Gill indicates, two essentially different covenants. Rather, Crisp correctly desires to do justice to the principle of works in the symbolic-typical sphere of the Mosaic Covenant administration. ⁷⁰ In view of this consideration one must speak of a distinct Mosaic covenant of grace in relation to the New. As the writer to the Hebrews declares ( 7:11–12 ), the sacrifices of the Old Covenant, which were performed according to the principle of works operating in the symbolic-typical sphere, could not make atonement for sin. Atonement is accomplished only through the shed blood of Jesus Christ, whose blood was typified in the Old Covenant sacrifices. ⁷¹ From the standpoint of the spiritual reality, i.e ., the core meaning (the substance or essence of the Mosaic Covenant), of the Old Covenant sacrifices, types and figures, these sacrifices are efficacious for the elect through the working of the Holy Spirit.

Similar to the Continental theologian Johannes Cloppenburg (1592–1652), although no doubt independently conceived, Crisp distinguishes between the experience of forgiveness of sins in the Old and in the New Covenants. ⁷² The strictness of the peculiar covenant of works under Moses is made appropriate to the fallen situation by sovereign, divine disposition. In this regard the Mosaic covenant of works is most unlike the original covenant of works at creation. The Old Covenant sacrificial system is not thorough with respect to each and every sin. Those sins left behind, notes Crisp, are removed (typically) by the yearly sacrifice on the day of atonement. The very establishment of the Mosaic Covenant is rooted in and nourished by the unbounded mercy and grace of God in Christ. The distinctive “covenant of works” aspect of the Mosaic Covenant is thus identical with the original covenant of works with Adam in terms of the principle of inheritance . In the former under Moses the reward of the covenant is earthly and temporal, whereas in the latter the reward is spiritual and eternal. The way of blessing and reward, the confirmation of life and communion with God and the consummation of man’s creation in the image of God as the

eschatological goal of creation, is that of works. It is of law, not grace (soterically defined).

The chastening of God’s people in the Old Covenant (typical punishment) is measured out in terms of the curse sanction of the Mosaic law. This is a crucial aspect of the operation of the law as a schoolmaster to Christ. With the coming of Christ at his incarnation, the full manifestation of God’s redeeming grace to sinners terminates the need for the pedagogical use of the law in the history of redemption. There is no longer any need, according to divine wisdom, for temporal, physical blessings and punishments meted out by way of law administration under the Mosaic economy.

Federal theology makes significant strides in light of Crisp’s theological formulation of the covenant of works conception and its application to the Mosaic Covenant. Crisp’s insistence upon the two distinct covenants of grace, unfortunately, was all too easily misconstrued even by the majority of divines who shared his belief that the Mosaic Covenant was in some limited sense a covenant of works. Although Crisp has made definite progress in theological formulation, he still falls prey to ambiguity and confusion at important points in his exposition. In the argument he presents, Crisp maintains that the old covenant of grace must be annulled before the new can be established. But is not the one and eternal covenant of grace that which cannot be made void? Elsewhere Crisp has answered this question in the affirmative. Federal theology yet awaits further development before it can attain to a mature and consistent position regarding the nature of the Mosaic Covenant.

David Dickson and Samuel Bolton

David Dickson (1583?-1663) is among the first, if not the first, of the English federalists to give full expression to the so-called misinterpretation view of the Mosaic Covenant. Once the covenant of works established at creation is broken by disobedience, it is no longer possible for man as sinner to obtain justification by the works of the law. It is impossible to reestablish the same covenant of works in a fallen situation.

Regarding the Mosaic Covenant, Dickson argues in favor of the Jewish misinterpretation of the law of Moses to explain the

law-gospel antithesis in the Pauline epistles. According to Dickson, the carnal Israelites perverted the law by turning it into a means of works-salvation. The reason for the repetition of the covenant of works under Moses is the disobedience and unbelief of the Israelites who continued to misinterpret the divine purpose for the law of God. As a punishment, God promulgated the law on Mount Sinai as a repetition of the original covenant of works, though hypothetical in nature ( if you can do this, you shall live). For the same reason, Jesus repeated the legal demand of the covenant of works in his discourse with the rich young ruler. ⁷³

According to the traditional Reformed viewpoint, the giving of the Mosaic law is consistent with God’s ultimate purpose of redemption. The works-principle is subordinate to that of redemptive grace, and consequently, is never covenantally instituted as a means of justification, not even hypothetically as a punishment for unbelief. ⁷⁴ Dickson fails to realize that the judaistic error is the misapplication of the works-principle of inheritance in the typical, pedagogical sphere (where it does apply as an aspect of a divinely instituted administration) to the antitypical, spiritual sphere. Although it is evident that Dickson desires to recognize the works-feature of the Mosaic Covenant without obscuring the provisions of grace, he is left speaking of some vague formal works characteristic. Dickson’s interpretation of the Mosaic Covenant shows something of the great variety of expression within the Reformed tradition. The extent of his influence upon the subsequent theologians is difficult to ascertain.

Samuel Bolton (1606–1654) was numbered among the conveners of the Westminster Assembly. His treatise, The True Bounds of Christian Freedom , was directed primarily against the antinomians. Concerning the nature and extent of Christian freedom, Bolton maintained that the believer was freed from the moral law as a covenant “as that from which life might be

expected on the condition that due obedience was rendered.” ⁷⁵

Through the vicarious, sacrificial work of Christ’s reconciliation and atonement, in which Christ as covenant head and representative rendered full and perfect obedience to the righteous law of God, he terminated the law as a curse, so that man is no longer under a covenant of works. In his exegesis of Col 2:14 Bolton maintained that the whole law, including the moral law, was abolished with respect to the curse (justification). The law no longer condemned one who was united to Christ in his death and resurrection. According to Gal 3:17 , the Mosaic law was given to Israel not as a covenant of works, but as a rule 430 years after the promise to Abraham. The law was not given as a means of justification, otherwise the law would make void the promise of God and prove God unfaithful to his word. “Our proposition is that there was no end or use for which the law was given which was incompatible with grace and which was not serviceable to the advancement of the covenant of grace.” ⁷⁶

Bolton presents the various interpretations of the Mosaic Covenant and then offers his own analysis of the biblical material. The main interpretations of the Mosaic Covenant are three in number: (1) as a covenant of works, (2) as a subservient covenant preparing for the advancement of the covenant of grace with the coming of Christ, and (3) as a covenant of grace more legally dispensed. ⁷⁷ Bolton contends, however, that there are only two distinct covenants in Scripture, not three. He expresses dissatisfaction with the idea of a third, subservient covenant ( foedus subserviens ), despite the appearance of the Mosaic Covenant as a repetition of the covenant of works. There are numerous reasons why it cannot be a legal covenant. On the basis of Jeremiah 31–33 , we learn that God is Israel’s husband, and that the covenant is established for the manifestation and realization of God’s purpose of salvation. There is no mercy in a covenant of works, and such a covenant would void God’s promise to Abraham. A covenant of works under Moses would indicate mutability in the will of God, or else contradiction in his acts. God does not offer life and justification by means of

the law, otherwise the Israelites would have been saved under different circumstances and conditions than in the New Covenant ( Gal 3:18ff .). Thus, even the suggestion of a hypothetical covenant of works is wholly unacceptable ( Gal 3:21 ). Because of the sinner’s depravity, it would be contrary to the nature of a covenant to enter into such a solemn vow whereby one of the parties could not fulfill his part of the engagement. ⁷⁸ The true nature of a covenant is that it is between friends. Finally, the covenant of works is not capable of renewal once it is broken, whereas the covenant between God and Israel is renewed time and again. The idea of the subservient covenant of works separate from the ongoing revelation of the single covenant of grace does not satisfy these objections.

Positively, Bolton distinguishes from the covenant of grace the typical , subservient covenant under Moses. That is to say, the law-feature of the Mosaic Covenant has relevance only to the unique typical covenant which is of temporary duration. Bolton’s conception of the subservient, typical covenant is unlike the idea of a subservient covenant of works (hypothetical), which fails to understand the proper manner in which the administrative principle of works-inheritance operates in the Mosaic economy. The law principle, according to Bolton, has respect to Canaan and other physical and temporal blessings which are granted when and as Israel is faithful and obedient to the law of Moses (the principle of works). Bolton recognizes that his viewpoint is in the minority. He concedes that the majority of divines adopt the view of the two covenants, the original covenant of works and the subsequent covenant of grace, with the Mosaic Covenant considered to be more legally dispensed. The law-feature, in the majority view, is a bare principle , rather than an actual covenant administration. Bolton regards the subservient, typical covenant as an integral aspect of the Mosaic administration of the covenant of grace. (There is no inner connection in his thought, however, between the subservient aspect as typical and the grace aspect as antitypical.)

Bolton interprets the (normative) role of the law in the Mosaic Covenant as consistent with the covenant of grace, not the subservient covenant (works). Therefore, Lev 18:5 does

not mean that we “shall live by them,” but rather we “shall live in them.” Bolton remarks: “We live in obedience, but we do not live by obedience. There is much difference between the two statements.” ⁷⁹ Primarily, Bolton refutes the opinion that Lev 18:5 as interpreted by Paul teaches a conditional works-salvation, hypothetical or not, under the Mosaic Covenant. As a result, Bolton’s exposition combines elements of both the traditional view and the so-called misinterpretation view of the Mosaic Covenant, though his overall position lies closer to the former.

Edward Fisher and John Ball

Edward Fisher (1627–1655) and John Ball (1585–1640) authored two separate, but highly important treatises published in London in the same year, 1645, two years prior to the convening of the Westminster Assembly. Neither were members, however, of that august body. (Ball died several years previous.) Most interestingly, they were representative of two distinct Reformed interpretations of the Mosaic Covenant.

Although Fisher’s The Marrow of Modern Divinity did not attract much attention when it first appeared, it was particularly important in the Marrow controversy in Scotland in the latter half of the seventeenth century. The heart of this controversy was not the nature of the Mosaic law per se , but rather the place and use of the law in preaching, i.e ., the second or elenctic use of the law in convicting the sinner of his guiltiness before God and his need for the grace of Christ. The immediate context for this controversy was the understanding of the doctrine of justification by faith alone. John Macleod describes here the rise of a reactionary Catholicizing movement which

…sought to make the faith that justifies a kind of fides formata , a thing so elastic as to find within its ambit room for repentance and the good works of the penitent. Then this extended faith was made out to be not the mere instrument of effecting union with Christ, but a strict condition, the fulfilment of which is called for that one may win acceptance before God by obedience to the law of faith set forth in the Gospel as a new law. Thus the righteousness of God which

is by faith in Christ was set aside as the ground of our acceptance; and our new life as believers and penitents was looked upon as so much of the ground on which our acceptance is built. ⁸⁰

Although the members of this movement often guarded themselves against the charge of making good works meritorious or the ground of justification by pointing to the righteousness of Christ, they denied or obscured the distinctive role of faith in the article of justification. Fisher’s treatise served as an eloquent defense of the Reformed orthodox position.

The concept of works is critical to a biblical understanding of justification by faith and of the function of the Mosaic law instructing God’s people in the way of justification by faith. The first part of the work is a thorough and comprehensive treatment of the two covenants, works and grace, and the second part is an exposition of the ten commandments. Included among the extended list of names of theologians to whom Fisher is indebted are Ball, Bolton, Bullinger, Calvin, Luther, Perkins, Rollock, Tyndale and Ursinus.

Fisher carefully distinguishes between the principle of works in the Mosaic law and the nature of the covenant more broadly conceived. The law can be considered in its normative use or in its formal, covenantal establishment. ⁸¹ Though the covenant of works once broken cannot be renewed, it is still binding upon all men, and for this reason all men are under the curse of the law.

The ten commandments delivered to Israel through Moses summarizes the covenant of works. Yet, as Fisher stresses, the giving of the law did not consist in a repetition of the original covenant of works. ⁸² The law is not a substitute for the way of grace, although according to Gal 3:19 , it was added because of transgressions. “It was not set up as a solid rule of righteousness, as it was given to Adam in paradise, but was added or put

to; it was not set up as a thing in gross by itself.” ⁸³ The covenant of works under Moses is not added by way of “ingrediency” as part of the covenant of grace “for then the same covenant should have consisted of contradictory materials,” but rather “by way of subserviency and attendance , the better to advance and make effectual the covenant of grace.” ⁸⁴

From this perspective of the subserviency of the Mosaic Covenant, believers and unbelievers are under the covenant of works, under the dual sanctions of blessing and curse which are brought to bear on the basis of their obedience to the law of God, rather than on the basis of the substitutionary work of Christ (grace). So it is, for example, that Moses and Aaron are not permitted entrance into the land of Canaan, the promised inheritance, because of their unbelief and disobedience. Both the blessings of this life and the calamities are inflicted upon God’s people on the grounds of their obedience or disobedience respectively. ⁸⁵

The Pharisees sought to attain the spiritual, antitypical blessings by means of their own works, and reduced the internal, heart aspect of obedience to mere external, mechanical observance of the law. With respect to the former, the Pharisees did not consider “the imperfection of the typical law, which, as the apostle says, made nothing perfect, would have led them to find perfection in Christ, Heb 7:19 .” According to Rom 9:31 , 10:3 , Exod 34:30 and 2 Cor 3:7ff ., the Judaizers did not use the law “as a pedagogy to Christ, but terminated their eye in the letter and shadow, and did not see through them to the spiritual substance, which is Jesus Christ.” ⁸⁶

The fullest treatment of English covenant theology appears in John Ball’s A Treatise of the Covenant of Grace , which Holmes Rolston speaks of as a “variant form” of covenant theology. The reason for and the accuracy of this description will become clear in the course of our discussion. The law of God serves as the same rule for life in both the covenant of works (creation) and the covenant of grace (redemption), although

it differs inthe manner or way of inheritance (law or grace). While both divine covenants are freely established by God in his goodness and grace (non-soteric), yet the supreme manifestation of his (soteric) grace and mercy toward sinners is unique to the redemptive arrangement, the so-called covenant of grace. When Ball addresses himself to the way of entrance into the covenant of grace, he reaffirms the traditional teaching on “justification by faith alone,” a metonymy for justification by the sole merit of Jesus Christ. The righteousness of Christ, the meritorious ground of justification, is apprehended by faith, and thus in this respect, faith is the alone instrumental cause of justification. The efficacy of the covenant of grace is restricted to the elect, whereas the administration of the covenant is of wider scope. ⁸⁷

The difference between the Old and the New Covenants is primarily one of promise and fulfillment. The substance of the covenant of grace, pertaining to the elect, remains the same. There is one Church throughout both Testaments. The meaning of Israel under tutors and governors is to be understood in the sense of preparation, rather than bondage under a law administration as such. According to Ball, the difference is more one of degree or intensity. His view stands in opposition to the interpretation of the Mosaic Covenant entertained by the majority of Reformed federalists in which the pedagogical, tutelary function of the law as a principle of works-inheritance is related in some way to the symbolic-typical sphere of Old Covenant administration. ⁸⁸ Rather, in Ball’s view, the temporal blessings which accompanied the spiritual benefits under the covenant of grace are merely greater in proportion to the spiritual, whereas the reverse is the case in the New Covenant. ⁸⁹

The purpose of the covenant with Moses is to manifest the superabounding grace and mercy of God to his elect people, Israel. By means of the law of Moses, the people of Israel are covenantally instituted as a nation. It marks the inauguration of the “state Covenant,” also called the Old Covenant because it was to pass away. ⁹⁰ In his exegesis of 2 Cor 3 and Gal 3 , Ball restricts the letter-law aspect to the moral law appropriate to the covenant of nature (the law of nature) “as it has necessarily affixed eternal life to the punctual performance, or eternal curse to the disobeyers in the least title.” ⁹¹ The Apostle’s use of “law,” consequently, refers to the law of nature (a bare principle), specifically the principle of works which is separate from a covenant order. In Ball’s understanding, to speak of this bare “law” as a covenant would mean that the Mosaic Covenant taught justification by works. He does insist, however, upon recognizing the law element in the Mosaic Covenant. ⁹² The Old Covenant ministration of death and condemnation is interpreted by Ball not in terms of the typical punishments for Israel’s disobedience, but in terms of the Judaizers’ misapplication of the law.

According to Ball, the words of Lev 18:5 , “Do this and live,” when abstracted from the covenant context denote the biblical idea of law as the principle of works. However, he contends that in its proper covenantal setting, what he believes to be the correct intent of Lev 18 , the law is consistent with grace, not antitbetical. ⁹³ The doers of the law are justified ( Rom 2:13 ), though he explains that faith alone justifies for “good works are opposed to faith in the matter of justification.” ⁹⁴ The Mosaic Covenant is wholly devoid of any administrative element of works-merit. ⁹⁵ Later, however, Ball concedes to the idea of a conditional element in the Old Covenant, e.g ., when God judges the house of David because of disobedience. The conditional element indicates blessing or judgment on the ground of man’s own obedience, contrasting with the surety of grace in

Christ. “Nevertheless, the promise of God was firm and sure to all the seed, in respect of the things absolutely promised, for the infidelity of man cannot make the faith of God of none effect.” ⁹⁶

Quite clearly, Reformed theology is in need of clarification here. With good reason Daniel Fuller has remarked: “It is extremely difficult to grasp covenant theology’s explanations of how a line of thought, which has the structure of the covenant of works, nevertheless functions as part of the covenant of grace.” ⁹⁷

The Westminster Standards

The most definitive creedal statement to come out of the period of the Reformation is the Westminster Confession of

Faith, along with the Larger and Shorter Catechisms. Since this Confession is unsurpassed both in its definition and comprehensiveness, and continues to be the creedal standard for a great many within the Reformed orthodox church today, it serves as an appropriate point of termination for our present historical survey. In light of the diversity of expression with respect to Reformed interpretations of the Mosaic Covenant and the concept of the covenant of works, what consensus were the Westminster divines able to attain? Do the standards attempt to define a narrow position or permit diversity of thought within the limits of the Reformed system of doctrine?

The federal structure of the Confession is by no means idiosyncratic, but rather is reflective of Reformed catholic doctrine in its deepest and most characteristic insight into biblical truth. Indeed, it is the architectonic principle of the Westminster Confession. ⁹⁸

After the chapters on the decrees of God, creation, providence and man’s fall into sin, the Confession defines the concept of covenant:

The distance between God and the creature is so great, that although reasonable creatures do owe obedience unto Him as their Creator, yet they could never have any fruition of Him as their blessedness and reward, but by some voluntary condescension on God’s part, which He hath been pleased to express by way of covenant (VII.1.).

The natural relationship between God and man is one of law: “reasonable cre