pilgrim people

For those who have been reading my series the Mosaic covenant in Reformed Orthodoxy and/or taking interest in the covenant theology of this obscure Puritan named Samuel Petto, you may be interested to know that a journal article on Petto's view of the Mosaic covenant will be published in the 2009 volume of Mid-America Journal of Theology, put out by Mid-America Reformed Seminary. The article is basically a truncated version of two chapters from my MAHT thesis at WSC.

I am also pleased to see that my former WSC classmate and fellow '04 alum, Aaron Denlinger, also has an article in the same volume. Aaron is a PhD student at Aberdeen, Scotland, I believe.

Subscriptions are only $12. The contents run as follows:

"Calvin's Doctrine of the Imputation of Christ's Righteousness: Another Example of 'Calvin against the Calvinists'? - Cornelis P. Venema

"Calvin and the Dual Aspect of Covenant Membership: Galatians 3:15-22 - The Meaning of 'the Seed is Christ' - and Other Key Texts" - J. Mark Beach

"A Third-Way Reformed Approach to Christ and Culture: Approaching Kuyperian Neo-Calvinism and the Two Kingdoms Perspective" - Ryan McIlhenny

"Orthodoxy and Piety in the Nadere Reformatie: The Theology of Simon Oomius" - Gregory D. Schuringa

"Robert Rollock's Catechism on God's Covenants" - trans. and introduced by Aaron C. Denlinger

"Christ and the Condition: Samuel Petto (c.1624-1711) on the Mosaic Covenant" - Michael G. Brown

"On Being a Church Planter" - Daniel Hyde

For the two or three people in the universe who may have read the brief survey I offered of the views of the Mosaic covenant by sixteenth- and seventeenth-century Reformed writers, I want to make a few concluding observations:  

First, it is important for us to understand that any interaction with the covenant theology of the Reformed orthodox must take into serious consideration the wide variety of their views regarding Sinai and its place in the historia salutis, as well as their variegated interpretive nuances. As with other doctrines, there was not a monolithic unity among the Reformed orthodox on this point. There were, instead, an assortment of formulations on how the Mosaic covenant related to the covenant of works, covenant of grace, and new covenant.

Click to read more ...

In order to make his case that the Mosaic covenant was a covenant of works for Christ to fulfill as the condition for the covenant of grace, Petto drew heavily upon the books of Romans and Galatians, with particular emphasis upon Paul’s use of Leviticus 18:5 and the command “Do this and live:” 

The Sinai Covenant obliged unto such doing as maketh up a righteousness unto Life, Rom. 10. vers. 5. For Moses describeth the righteousness which is of the Law, that the man which doth these things shall live by them. He speaketh, undeniably of the Sinai Law, for the Text here alledged [sic], is Levit. 18.5. and the doing injoyned the Apostle saith, is a description of a righteousness unto Justification and Life. (Difference, 121-22)

Petto interpreted Paul to mean Leviticus 18:5 was a command unto justification and eternal life, and that this was a command which Christ fulfilled. “That such a perfect obedience is indispensably required in the Sinai Covenant as a condition of Life is evident, Levit. 18. vers. 5., compared with Gal.3. vers.10, 12., it is as stands upon opposite terms to Faith, and is impossible for any man to perform.” (Difference, 128)

Petto did not believe, however, that this command was a mere hypothetical offer for salvation. For him, Romans 10:4-5 proved

that the Law hath an end to be attained, and that is righteousness; and that Jesus Christ performeth it, he becometh that end of it to believers; not only accidentally and indirectly, as the Law discovers duty impossible for any man to perform, and a necessity of looking to another for relief; but, directly, Jesus Christ has wrought out and fulfilled that righteousness which the Law exacted, and so is the end of the Law; for it is here opposed unto that righteousness which is of a man’s own working out. (Difference, 129)

In other words, the purpose of the command “do this and live” was not strictly pedagogical; it had a greater purpose than merely showing Israel their inability to keep it and, consequently, driving them to Christ for relief (i.e. “accidentally and indirectly”). Instead, argued Petto, it was an actual command that Christ had to fulfill by his personal and active obedience as the True Israel. He acknowledged that Sinai indeed had a pedagogical function and that Paul makes that point clear in Galatians 3:24, but he contended that the apostle’s argument in Romans 10 and Galatians 3 shows that Sinai had more than a pedagogical function; it was the means whereby Christ became the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes. It was not a hypothetical offer of salvation, but a real offer in which “a perfect doing was aimed at” and Christ, “the only doer for Life,” fulfilled in his active obedience. (Difference, 142)

Most writers in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries who held to the doctrine of republication did not make this particular nuance, at least not explicitly. More common was the view that Sinai’s republication of the covenant of works in the command “do this and live” hypothetically offered salvation to sinners with the pedagogical purpose of driving them to Christ, who, through his active and passive obedience fulfilled all righteousness.

Of the writers surveyed in on this blog, Olevianus, Rollock, Perkins, Polanus, Wollebius, and Gillespie all seemed to hold to this more common view of republication. While all of these writers strongly affirmed the prelapsarian covenant of works and the necessity of Christ’s active obedience imputed to sinners for their salvation, they typically made the connection between Sinai’s command “do this and live” and Christ’s active obedience by inference. They did not interpret “do this and live” in the same strict way Petto did by calling it a covenant for Christ.

This view that Petto embraced, however, was not unique. Samuel Bolton was aware of it as early as 1645. He listed it last among six interpretations different from his. “There is another interpretation, and that is, that Doe this and live, though it was spoken to them immediately, yet not terminatively, but through them to Jesus Christ, who hath fulfilled all righteousnesse for us, and purchased life by his own obedience” (True Bounds, 156).  Bolton distinguished this view of republication from the more commonly held hypothetical/pedagogical view of republication, which he listed fourth:

Some thinke that God after he had given the promise of life, and tendered life upon beleeving, he repeated the covenant of works in the law, to put man to his choice, whether he would now be saved by working or beleeving. And this the rather to empty them of themselves, and answer them in these thoughts, which perhaps they might think that they were able to come to life by obedience, and therefore God puts them to the triall: and lest they should thinke that any wrong was done to them, he gives them a repetition of the former covenant; and as it were, puts them to their choice whether they would be saved by working or beleeving; that when they were convinced of their owne impotencie, they might better see, admire, adore, advance the mercy of God who hath given a Promise, sent a Christ, to save those that were not able to doe anything toward their own salvation. (True Bounds, 155-6)

In other words, this view saw Sinai as a republication (i.e. “repeated” and “repetition”) of the covenant of works after “the promise of life” (which seems to be a reference to the proto-evangelium and the Abrahamic covenant) in order to distinguish between law (i.e. “life by obedience”) and gospel (i.e. “saved by…beleeving”) and cause sinners to flee to Christ. Yet, for Bolton, this interpretation had a noticeably different nuance than the interpretation he listed last, namely, the interpretation that directly applied the command “do this and live” to Christ as a covenant of works.

William Strong seemed to embrace a view similar to Petto’s, as did John Owen and Herman Witsius. Yet, none of them formulated Sinai as a covenant of works for Christ as directly and explicitly as did Petto.

The next Reformed thinker in our survey is Samuel Petto (c.1624-1711). Like Owen, Petto was an English Independent minister during the seventeenth century, which means that his ecclesiology was more Congregationalist than Presbyterian, but that he was Reformed and confessional in his doctrine in all other areas. Trained at St. Catherine’s at Cambridge, the school of notable Puritan professors such as Richard Sibbes, Ralph Brownrigg (1592–1659), and William Spurstowe (c.1606–66), Petto was both pastor and scholar and published a significant amount of theological works in his time. Most outstanding was his work on covenant theology The Difference Between the Old and New Covenant Stated and Explained: With an Exposition of the Covenant of Grace in the Principal Concernments of It (1674).

This work demonstrated Petto’s firm grasp of the complex of how the Mosaic covenant relates to the covenant of grace, as well as the hot debates surrounding it in his day. His ability to explain this covenantal relationship and its vital connection to the doctrine of justification with clarity and precision caused John Owen to write the forward to the book and heartily recommend to readers.

A sketch of Petto’s covenant theology goes something like this: 

1. A federal transaction between the Father and the Son for the redemption of the elect.
2. The covenant of works between God and Adam (and those represented by Adam).
3. The covenant of grace between God and Christ (and those represented by Christ).
4. The Abrahamic covenant, which was the covenant of grace historically administered.
5. The Mosaic covenant, which was a republication of the covenant of works for Christ to fulfill as the condition of the covenant of grace.
6. The new covenant, which is the fulfillment of the Abrahamic covenant and made possible because Christ fulfilled the condition of the covenant of grace by keeping and satisfying the demands of the Mosaic covenant.

For Petto, there were two possible ways of viewing the Mosaic covenant, either as “a Covenant of Works, as to be fulfilled by Jesus Christ” or “the Covenant of Grace as to its legal condition to be performed by Jesus Christ, represented under a conditional administration of it to Israel” (Difference Between, 102). Viewed either way, Sinai was a covenant of works for Christ. What the original covenant of works was to the first Adam, the Mosaic covenant was to the second Adam; it provided the temporal setting for the Federal Head to obtain eternal life for those whom he represented:

The Covenant of Works being broken by us in the first Adam, it was of great concernment to us, that satisfaction should be given to it, for unless its righteousness were performed for us, the Promised Life was unattainable; and unless its penalty were undergone for us, the threatened Death (Gen. 2.17.) was unavoidable (Difference, 125).

Sinai gave the Son the opportunity to perform, through his active and passive obedience as a true human being, the righteousness which the original covenant of works required. This made the Mosaic covenant a necessary and vital part of God’s plan of redemption:

If he had not been born under the very Law, as a Covenant of Works, he should not have satisfied it, by answering the penalty or fulfilling the righteousness of it, but had only done and suffered something in lieu and stead thereof, it would not have been the idem for us; and this sheweth how exceedingly necessary the Sinai Covenant was (Difference, 135-6).

Born under the Mosaic Law, Christ was able to fulfill what he promised in his pre-temporal covenant with the Father. “It is true, there was an agreement between the Father and the Son from Eternity about it, the Covenant of Grace was then struck and had a being; but the Sinai Covenant was a necessary medium or means for the execution thereof” (Difference, 136). This, for Petto, was the chief purpose of the Mosaic covenant. It was “a Platform of the legal righteousness, which was indispensably necessary unto Life” (Difference, 130).

More on Petto to come…

We now turn to the Dutch theologian Herman Witsius (1636–1708). Witsius had (and continues to have) a significant influence on Reformed theology. He served as professor of divinity at the Universities of Franeker (1675–80), Utrecht (1680–98), and Leiden (1698–1708). He was also a mediating theologian during the infamous debates in his day between the Cocceians and Voetians. He also wrote an important work on covenant theology that integrated systematic and biblical theology, namely, The Economy of the Covenants between God & Man (1693).

Witsius’s Economy gave some of the most extensive treatment of the covenant of redemption (pactum salutis) in the high orthodox period. Like others of his era, he began with attention to the nature of covenants in general, treating the biblical terms and complex nature of covenants.

For Witsius, the prelapsarian covenant of works was between God and Adam, and “promised eternal life and happiness to him, if he yielded obedience to all his commands” (Economy, 1:50). Adam stood in this covenant as the federal head of humankind, and had the eschatological goal for himself and those he represented of being “translated to the joys of heaven” (Economy, 1:59). The obedience required in the covenant of works involved the natural law inscribed on the conscience from creation. Disobeying God and failing to meet the conditions of his probationary status in the covenant of works, Adam plunged himself and those whom he represented into the penal sanctions of the covenant (Economy, 1:82-104).

The covenant of grace, on the other hand, promises the fulfillment of the covenant of works by Christ, the Surety and second Adam, and thus its benefits are received through faith alone. (Economy, 1:192-291). Aware of the dangers of antinomianism and of neonomianism, especially as they challenged his orthodox colleagues across the Channel, Witsius identified the covenant of works with the law and the covenant of grace with the gospel.

But what about Sinai? Witsius commented that the question whether Sinai was nothing but the form of the covenant of grace “was very much agitated” in his day (Economy, 2:186). Like his countryman Petrus van Mastricht (1630–1706), Witsius clearly equated the prelapsarian covenant of works with the Mosaic covenant: “This law of nature is the same in substance with the Decalogue…that is, that law by the performance of which life was formerly obtainable…those precepts are undoubtedly the law proposed to Adam, upon which the covenants of works was built” (Economy, 1:62).

Van Mastricht taught the same doctrine of republication: “If you say the apostle is speaking of a covenant not in Paradise, but the covenant at Sinai, the answer is easy, that the Apostle is speaking of the covenant in Paradise so far as it is re-enacted and renewed with Israel at Sinai in the Decalogue, which contained the proof of the covenant of works” (Reformed Dogmatics, 290).

Witsius was somewhat unique, however, in that he described Sinai as a national covenant of sincere piety. Witsius recognized that Israel took on oath at Sinai and was, in many ways, like Adam in the Garden. The Mosaic covenant was “a national covenant between God and Israel, whereby Israel promised to God a sincere obedience to all his precepts, especially to the ten words” (Economy, 2:186). The promise of God in the Mosaic covenant, however, “supposed a covenant of grace.”

For, without the assistance of the covenant of grace, man cannot sincerely promise that observance; and yet that an imperfect observance should be acceptable to God is wholly owing to the covenant of grace. It also supposed the doctrine of the covenant of works, the terror of which being increased by those tremendous signs that attended it, they ought to have been excited to embrace that covenant of God.

This led Witsius to affirm a view slightly similar to Bolton’s; he saw the Mosaic covenant as a third type of covenant. “If any should ask me, of what kind, whether of works or of grace? I shall answer, it is formally neither: but a covenant of sincere piety, which supposes both.”  Sinai is subservient to the covenant of grace, “as an instrument of the covenant” pointing “the way to eternal salvation.”