Of the Differences Between the Old and the New Covenant, and the Excellency of the Latter Above the Former.

by Samuel Petto

It may be asked, How is the New Covenant, in which the ministration of Jesus Christ lies, a better covenant than the Old, which was made at Mount Sinai?

I would first note that in Hebrews 8 and Jeremiah 31:31–32, the contrast is not between the Covenant of Works made with the first Adam and the New Covenant, but rather between the Old Covenant (established when Israel came out of Egypt at Sinai) and the New Covenant. These two covenants are directly compared, and therefore, the differences between them, whether in matter or form, must demonstrate the superiority and excellence of the New Covenant over the Old.

1. The New Covenant presupposes obedience unto life as already performed by Jesus Christ and is therefore better than the Old, which required an after-performance of it.

The very tenor of the Sinai Covenant was, "Do this and live" (Leviticus 18:5; Deuteronomy 27:26; Romans 10:5). Israel, in a federal manner, was engaged to perform the righteousness required in the unspotted Law. The command was given that obedience must be rendered for eternal life, even perfect obedience (Galatians 3:12). Indeed, Israel engaged to this, yet they were to perform it through their Surety, Jesus Christ.

However, at that time, all remained undone, unfulfilled, and unperformed, for Jesus Christ had not yet been manifested. Therefore, the Law retained its commanding force and could exact that obedience from Israel, who covenanted that it should be rendered in the future.

But the New Covenant assumes that all this doing for life is already accomplished—completed, not to be done—since Jesus Christ has now been manifested. Whereas the Old Covenant was largely composed of precepts and commandments, the New Covenant consists entirely of promises. Hebrews 8:8 and following declare that all is fulfilled, nothing remains to be done, either by the principal party or the Surety, for the obtaining of life. The Lord is fully satisfied, so that in the New Covenant, He grants a general acquittal and acknowledges that He has no further demands. All is transformed into promise: "I will," and "You shall."

Jesus Christ is said to be the Mediator of the New Testament (Hebrews 8:6), meaning He is actually fulfilling that role now. This single title, "Mediator," encompasses the entire fulfillment of the doing required under the Old Covenant and prepares the way for us to receive the promise (Hebrews 9:15). During the seventy weeks, the Messiah came (Daniel 9:24) to make reconciliation and "bring in everlasting righteousness." Before, righteousness was commanded under the Sinai Covenant, but then it was introduced. By one offering, He has perfected forever those who are sanctified (Hebrews 10:14). Nothing remains to be done to procure these eternal blessings.

Therefore, in contrast to the Sinai Law, which was based on "Do and live," under the New Covenant, we continually hear, "Believe and be saved," and, "He who believes has everlasting life" (Mark 16:16; John 3:16, 36). This does not mean that believing now takes the place of doing under the Old Covenant. If that were the case, then faith itself would become our righteousness unto justification (Galatians 3:12; Romans 10:5). But the righteousness that justifies is called "the righteousness of faith" (Romans 10:6; Philippians 3:9), which means faith is distinct from that righteousness itself—it is not even the smallest part of it. It is not our believing, but the obedience of Jesus Christ, that replaces the doing for life required by the Law (Romans 5:19). He is "the Lord our righteousness" (Jeremiah 23:6; 1 Corinthians 1:30).

To emphasize that righteousness is wholly outside of ourselves, that it is not gained by any of our performances but by another—Jesus Christ—it is said to be received "by faith," meaning faith serves as the instrument of application. Believe that the work is already accomplished—Jesus Christ has done all—and He says, "If you do not believe that I am He, you shall die in your sins" (John 8:24).

Thus, the Apostle, speaking not merely of the false opinion of the Jews concerning the merit of their good works or external services as perfect obedience to the Law for life, but of the very righteousness of the Law itself (Romans 10:5), declares in contrast:

"If you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus, and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you shall be saved" (Romans 10:9–10).

It is then a believing in Him as already come, as having all righteousness fulfilled in Him—yes, as dead and risen—that is required. When the Jews relied on works of the Law performed by themselves, the Apostle directed them away from such trust, showing that all legal obedience for life must be found in Christ alone. Thus, he continues:

"For with the heart, man believes unto righteousness" (Romans 10:10), meaning faith is the means by which we obtain righteousness. Our own works cannot be our righteousness, nor can our faith itself—faith is merely the means by which the righteousness in Christ is applied.

The Apostle’s aim is not to divert them from legal obedience by natural power and ability and instead direct them to evangelical believing and doing as the condition of life. Rather, his purpose is to turn them wholly away from themselves, from all their own doings—whether by nature or by grace—and lead them to Jesus Christ alone for righteousness unto life. If a man were to set about any Gospel service upon a legal foundation, he would be guilty of the same error as the Judaizing professors. The kind of doing rejected in the epistles to the Romans and Galatians is that which contributes anything towards life by fulfilling its condition. Evangelical services are required on different grounds—they are to be performed in obedience to God's will and as evidence of life, but not as a means of obtaining it.

Faith itself, though necessary, receives the title from Jesus Christ—it does not bestow it (John 1:12). The statement, "He who believes shall be saved," does not express the precise tenor of the New Covenant. We do not claim salvation on the basis of any act of ours, nor upon the rent of faith (as men hold tenements by the payment of a penny, a rose, or such things). No such arrangement exists here. All has been paid to the last farthing by our Surety, and we claim our standing solely upon the obedience of Jesus Christ (Romans 5:18–19, 21).

2. The New Covenant Represents the Lord as Dealing with His People Universally in a Way of Promise, and Thus Is Better Than the Old, Which Represents Him as Treating Them in a Way of Threatening

The New Covenant consists entirely of promises (Hebrews 8:8 and onward), as if the heart of God were so full of love and overflowing with grace that He could express nothing else but what He will be to, and do for, His people. The Father, having received full satisfaction for all the demands of the Old Covenant through the mediation of His Son, now makes it His purpose to give the fullest assurance—through a constellation of promises in the New Covenant—that He will fulfill every obligation on His part. Believers are completely freed from the curse; there is no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus (Romans 8:1; Hebrews 12:18). They are under a ministration of righteousness (2 Corinthians 3:9).

By contrast, the Old Covenant represented God as a consuming fire, denouncing curses and threats against the children of Israel, His own people—for the Sinai Covenant was made with them, not with unbelievers of the Gentiles. Though some promises were scattered throughout, they were conditional, and Israel failed to meet the conditions. Had they not been privileged with the covenant made with Abraham, to which they could turn for relief, what hope would have remained for them? By divine appointment, some were set to stand upon Mount Ebal to proclaim curses, while others stood on Mount Gerizim to pronounce blessings (Deuteronomy 27:13 and onward). There were about twelve curses to which the people were required to assent with, "Amen." The last was a general one, stating that if they did not continue in all things written in the Law, they were liable to the curse (Deuteronomy 27:26; Galatians 3:10). This shows that while a temporal curse was included, an eternal curse was also, in some way, intended, which is why it is called a "ministration of condemnation" (2 Corinthians 3:7).

Their situation under this curse was different from that of Christians under the New Covenant. By their voluntary act of entering into the Old Covenant, Israel effectively passed sentence upon themselves. Moreover, at that time, the curse of the Law had not yet been satisfied by Jesus Christ, and therefore, it remained upon them as an uncanceled obligation, filling them with great dread. But now, Christ has redeemed us from the curse of the Law (Galatians 3:13). The debt is fully discharged for us, and thus, the New Covenant is the better covenant.

3. The New Covenant Consists of Absolute Promises, and Therefore Is Better Than the Old Sinai Covenant, Which Was Conditional and Dependent on Works

In the Old Testament, the price of our redemption had not yet been paid by Jesus Christ. Because of this, life was offered on the condition of obedience, as the Lord said: "Do and live" (Leviticus 18:5; Romans 10:5; Galatians 3:12). Just as in the New Testament, what may appear conditional in one place is promised absolutely in another, so in the Old Covenant, what seems to be absolute in one passage is found to be conditional in another. For instance, Exodus 29:45–46 states, "I will dwell among the children of Israel, and be their God." Though this may seem unconditional, the preceding verses show that it was based on what Aaron, as a type of Jesus Christ, would do. Moreover, the same promise is explicitly made conditional in Leviticus 26:3, 11–15.

Similarly, the promise to circumcise the hearts of Israel and their children, enabling them to love the Lord (Deuteronomy 30:6), is stated conditionally in verse 9: "If you shall hearken unto the voice of the Lord your God and keep his commandments."

By contrast, the New Covenant consists entirely of absolute promises: "I will... and you shall" (Hebrews 8:10–13).

Once the condition of a covenant has been fulfilled, it becomes as absolute as if no condition had ever been attached. In Hebrews 8, Jesus Christ is presented as our great High Priest and Mediator, having completed the work of satisfaction (verses 1, 2, 6). Since He has fully and perfectly fulfilled the conditions of the Old Covenant, the New Covenant naturally and necessarily must be absolute. Nothing more is required of Him, and all that was promised must now be accomplished for us.

The Apostle in Hebrews 8 is explicitly drawing a distinction between the Old and New Covenants. Since the Old was unquestionably conditional, and the New is described in opposition to it as absolute, this alone proves much of the New Covenant's superiority.

It was prophesied of Jesus Christ in Daniel 9:27: "He shall confirm the covenant with many for one week." One of the great purposes of His coming and His death was to confirm the New Covenant on behalf of those He represented. Now that He has done so, it is called a Testament, as the Greek word διαθήκη (diathēkē) often signifies (Galatians 3:15–17): "Though it be but a man’s testament, yet if it be confirmed, no man disannulleth or addeth thereto." The free promise was confirmed by an oath beforehand, then by testimony afterward, and especially by the death of Christ. His fulfillment of the Old Covenant’s conditions ensures that it can admit no further additions or alterations (Hebrews 9:16–17): "For where a testament is, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator. For a testament is of force after men are dead." It is not merely called a Testament in relation to His death, but in a proper sense, carrying the legal force of an unalterable last will and testament. Though a man may include conditions in his last will, once it is confirmed, it remains fixed. I do not argue that the New Covenant is absolute simply because it is called a Testament, but because it is unchangeable and is expressed in an absolute form: "I will... and you shall."

There is a vast difference between Christ's mediation before and after His incarnation. Since His coming, His work has been far more glorious. Before, He might plead: "Father, Thou hast promised me that upon my obedience, which I will perform, those souls I have undertaken for shall receive these blessings." There was a mutual trust between the Father and the Son, and He could plead this promise in terms of God's faithfulness. But now, having actually performed the covenant’s conditions, Christ pleads in terms of divine justice. Since He has been set forth as a propitiation (Romans 3:25–26), God now declares "at this time" His righteousness in justifying those who believe in Jesus. The contrast here is between the Old and New Testaments—now, under the New, God's righteousness is displayed in forgiving sinners. Those who receive the remission of sins do so by grace, but for Christ Himself, it is a matter of justice. He can now plead: "Father, I have fully satisfied for the sins of these souls; now declare Thy righteousness in pardoning them. I have finished the work Thou gavest me to do (John 17:4). I have paid the full price of their redemption; now let them receive what I have purchased for them." Thus, He appears in heaven in our nature, not merely as an intercessor but as an advocate (1 John 2:1), pleading, not for mercy alone, but for justice in securing our full discharge. This is a great excellency of the New Covenant: it is absolute in itself and absolute to Christ.

Even if certain covenant privileges were outwardly dispensed conditionally—such as justification upon faith or temporal mercies upon obedience—this would not prove that faith or obedience is a condition of the promise itself or of the covenant. Faith itself is a particular blessing of the New Covenant and therefore cannot be its condition. Otherwise, what would be the condition for faith?

Furthermore, under the New Covenant, there is no distinct covenant guaranteeing temporal blessings as there was under the Old. Temporal mercies are now promised generally, and sovereign grace determines when and how they are given to the saints. They are provided as needed, for God’s glory and their good, not by any fixed covenantal contract as in the Old (Matthew 6:32–33).

Thus, nothing performed by us can be the condition of the covenant itself—Jesus Christ has already fulfilled all that was required in that regard.

However, whether anything is the condition upon believers within the covenant remains to be considered.

Objection: Is the New Covenant Absolute or Conditional for Us?

Are there not conditional promises in the New Covenant as there were in the Old for Israel? Can we expect any mercy without performing some condition that it is promised upon?

Answer:

1. If by condition we mean something that is simply a necessary duty, a means of receiving the promised blessings, then I acknowledge that certain promises in the New Covenant are conditional in this sense. Many Scriptures that are often cited in support of conditional promises should be understood in this way.

To avoid a mere dispute over words, I would suggest stating the question differently:

Do evangelical duties and graces, which are worked in us by Jesus Christ, exist in all those who are actually partakers of the New Covenant?

To this, I answer: Yes.

For in the very Covenant itself, God promises to write His laws in the hearts of His people (Hebrews 8:10). This includes faith, repentance, and every other gracious disposition. Those who have God as their God are also His people. If the concern is whether a person has an interest in Jesus Christ, they need not rely on having fulfilled a condition of the Covenant; rather, they should see that the Covenant itself, in some promise distinct from its condition, has been fulfilled in them.

Those who are entirely without these graces remain strangers to the Covenant (Ephesians 2:12) and cannot lay claim to its blessings. We are commanded to seek after what is promised, and one blessing may be sought as a means to another—for instance, the Spirit as a means to faith, and faith as a means to obedience (Galatians 5:6).

Faith is a great duty connected to and a means of salvation:

• "He that believeth shall be saved" (Mark 16:16).
• "He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life" (John 3:36).
• "By grace are ye saved through faith" (Ephesians 2:8).
• "Receiving the end of your faith, even the salvation of your souls" (1 Peter 1:5, 9).

The Connection of Duties, Graces, and Blessings

God has ordained an order for dispensing these blessings, so neglecting to seek them displeases Him. This is our privilege: the promises of God are interwoven like links in a chain, encouraging souls to seek them. If one link is grasped, many more follow. The means and the end cannot be separated.

Because duties, graces, and blessings are so closely connected, Scripture sometimes presents them in a conditional form, using "if":

• "If thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart... thou shalt be saved" (Romans 10:9).

These "ifs" highlight the truth of the connection—that whoever believes shall certainly be saved. Yet, faith itself is not properly the condition of salvation, for even faith is absolutely promised in the New Covenant:

• "He shall see his seed... the pleasure of the Lord shall prosper in his hand" (Isaiah 53:10–11).
• "I will put my laws into their minds and write them in their hearts" (Hebrews 8:10).

Thus, some Scriptures seem to speak of conditions, but they only indicate a necessary connection between covenant blessings. One is given as a means to another, yet the promises remain absolute in their fulfillment.

The Difference Between the Covenant Itself and Its Execution

There is a vast difference between:

1. The New Covenant itself (which is an absolute grant)
2. The way God executes and applies it

The New Covenant is absolutely granted, not only to Jesus Christ but in Him to the house of Israel and Judah (Hebrews 8). However, the Lord may propound these absolute promises conditionally as a means to stir up souls to seek their participation in them.

This distinction is evident in Acts 27, where Paul, speaking to those in the ship, declares:

• An absolute promise: "There shall not be a loss of any man's life" (Acts 27:22).
• A conditional exhortation: "Except these abide in the ship, ye cannot be saved" (Acts 27:31).

Although their survival was absolutely decreed and assured, Paul still used a conditional statement as a means of preservation.

Application to the New Covenant

Likewise, while the salvation of the elect and their coming to faith is absolutely decreed, the Lord uses conditional exhortations to press upon them the urgency of believing:

• "If ye believe, ye shall be saved."

Though it is certain that they shall believe, the conditional exhortation is a means by which God brings them to faith.

Thus, the New Covenant, in its essence, is absolute. The conditions we see in Scripture do not undermine this but rather serve as instruments for accomplishing what God has absolutely promised.

Answer 2. There is no such condition in the New Covenant for us as there was in the Old for Israel. The Apostle, in comparing them together, presents the New Covenant entirely in absolute promises, given to Israel, as seen in Hebrews 8. In showing that the New Covenant is not according to the Old, he highlights the key difference in verse 9: "Because they continued not in my covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord," and again in Jeremiah 31:32, "which covenant they brake," etc.

This implies that the Old Covenant had a condition where its fulfillment gave Israel assurance of the temporal mercies promised. Yet failure to meet that condition left them uncertain as to whether they would receive those mercies, making their enjoyment of them conditional not only in nature but also in outcome: "I regarded them not, saith the Lord."

If their fulfillment of the condition had been as absolutely promised as the blessings of the New Covenant are, then Israel would have continued in it. However, they did not, and they forfeited what was promised multiple times, even to the point of being excluded from Canaan. Jurists define a condition as a stipulation, manner, or law attached to an action, delaying or suspending its effect and making it uncertain whether it will be fulfilled. Cowell, citing West, Part 1. Symb. 2. Sect. 156, describes a condition in contrast to an absolute promise.

That there is no such condition in the New Covenant—nothing to be fulfilled by us that gives us the right to its blessings while also leaving us uncertain or liable to miss them, as there was in the Old Covenant for Israel—is evident from the following considerations:

1. If there were any condition, it must be either an antecedent or a subsequent condition. But it is neither.

   Sir Edward Coke, in his commentary on Littleton, states of a precedent condition: Conditio adimpleri debet priusquam sequatur effectus—"The condition must be fulfilled before the effect follows." But there can be no such antecedent condition in the New Covenant whereby we, by our own actions, gain entrance into it. Until we are in the Covenant, no action of ours can find any acceptance with God, as Hebrews 11:6 declares: "Without faith it is impossible to please God."

   Furthermore, our being in the Covenant is, in the order of nature (though not necessarily in time), before faith, for faith itself is a benefit of the Covenant—a part of the new heart and a fruit of the Spirit. Thus, the Spirit (which works faith and is itself a promised blessing of the Covenant) is first given before faith arises. Jesus Christ is the first saving gift, Romans 8:32, and with him, God freely gives all things. While men ought to use the appointed means, it is God alone who admits them into the Covenant, as Ezekiel 16:8 declares: "I entered into covenant with thee, saith the Lord God, and thou becamest mine." Before this, they were polluted in their own blood (verse 6), utterly incapable of acting in any way that could bring them into the Covenant.

   Nor is there any subsequent condition we must fulfill. The purpose of a subsequent condition is to maintain one's right to a covenant’s benefits, and upon failing it, those benefits would be forfeited—just as was the case with Adam.

   However, in the New Covenant, no act of ours maintains our right to its blessings, such that failure would forfeit them. Our right to the Covenant and the ground of our claim rest on a far higher foundation than any act of our own—it is secured by the purchase of Jesus Christ. These are "the sure mercies of David" (Isaiah 55:3), which are "sure to all the seed" (Romans 4:16). Moreover, for those who have become believers, eternal life is absolutely promised (John 3:16, 36; 1 John 5:10-12), and it is a contradiction to say that something is absolutely promised while at the same time making it conditional.

2. The Lord has assured that there shall never be a complete violation of the New Covenant, which was not the case with the Old. Therefore, the New Covenant cannot have the same kind of condition that was attached to the Old.

   The Lord openly declares that Israel broke the Old Covenant (Jeremiah 11:3-4, 10; 31:32). Littleton, speaking of an estate held upon condition, explains that it is called such because "the estate of the feoffee is defeasible if the condition be not performed" (Ten. lib. 3. cap. 4).

   But the New Covenant is secured against any such failure; it cannot be annulled so that those within it would lose the great blessings promised therein. This is clearly affirmed in Jeremiah 32:40: "I will make an everlasting covenant with them." But could there not still be some condition that might cause them to fall short of all its blessings? No, for the Lord declares: "I will not turn away from them to do them good; but I will put my fear in their hearts, that they shall not depart from me."

   If there were any risk of forfeiting or losing these blessings, it would have to be either on God's part, by his withdrawing from them, or on their part, by their departing from him. Yet here, the Lord undertakes to secure them against both. Thus, the matter is settled: the New Covenant stands firm, unlike the Old.

   Indeed, though what the Lord has absolutely promised will certainly come to pass, he has nevertheless appointed means for its fulfillment. He has established both internal means, such as faith, and external means, such as ordinances. He commands diligent attendance upon these means in the ordinary course of grace. This is necessary as an act of obedience, and failure to seek God in the means he has ordained is itself sinful.

   Thus, God is immutably determined to grant his people a spirit of obedience, as Ezekiel 36:25-30 promises. Yet, obedience is still required of us; we are the agents of it. While we may sin in neglecting the means by which we are to receive the blessings stored up in the absolute promises, faith must be exercised in them—otherwise, what use are they? And we would be at fault if we did not attend to them diligently.

3. If there be any condition of the New Covenant, it would most likely be precious faith. But faith is not a condition in that sense.

A condition, properly speaking, influences one's right to a benefit; if the condition is fulfilled, it grants a right to the promised benefit. If it is not fulfilled, no right is obtained, making it a cause of that right—it gives jus ad rem, which means a person may have a legal right but still need to seek possession afterward. If the condition exists only as a formality or external requirement, then it functions in this way: for example, if a large estate were granted upon presenting a white lily, but someone instead brought a yellow lily, he would have no right to the estate. All would be null and void. Those who place their hope for eternal mercies on such conditional terms stand upon very uncertain ground.

Now, faith does not grant a right. John 1:12 states, "To as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name." Jesus Christ is freely offered in the promise of the gospel; faith, which consents to and receives him, secures a right and title in him to the blessings of the covenant. Yet faith itself does not create that right.

The Father offers righteousness as a gift (Romans 5:17). Faith accepts the offer and receives Jesus Christ as righteousness, thereby leading to justification (Romans 4:3): "Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him for righteousness," meaning that faith was reckoned as a means to righteousness (verse 5). Faith itself was not considered part of the righteousness by which we are justified, but rather the means of applying Christ, who is our righteousness.

The covenant, as it pertains to justification, is not without means, yet it may be absolute without any condition in the strict sense. Just as condemnation results from the law due to disobedience for all under the covenant of works, so justification results from a divine promise based on the obedience of Jesus Christ for all under the New Covenant. The reason unbelievers are not justified is not because they have failed to fulfill a condition, but because they are not yet included in the obedient righteousness of Jesus Christ, which is the true condition of justification (Romans 10:10).

God’s act of justifying is met with the act of faith, which consents to the gospel's offer. Just as the death and satisfaction of Christ fully answer the charge that we are sinners deserving eternal wrath, so when the accusation is that we have no share in Christ’s satisfaction, anything that evidences our interest in Christ—whether faith or other graces—may be used as a plea. These graces may serve as evidence, but they do not constitute a title. They are fruits and effects of an already granted right, but not the cause or condition by which we obtain that right.

It is a great mistake to assume that a plea can only be made by appealing to the fulfillment of a condition. Evidence may arise from effects as well as from causes. Even in civil matters, a witness may confirm that a person was given rightful possession of an estate without requiring additional proof. Moreover, if a charge is brought against those who are not in Christ, many things could be used to make that charge valid. But if it is brought against those in Christ, then who makes the charge? Not God, for "it is God that justifieth" (Romans 8:33). And if God justifies, he will not condemn (verse 34). If the charge comes from Satan or our own hearts, then the gracious effects of faith are sufficient to refute it. Through the direct act of faith, believers ought to resist and withstand Satan, and he will flee from them (1 Peter 5:9; James 4:7). There is no necessity of pleading the fulfillment of a condition to counter this.

4. Our obedience, though evangelical, is not a condition of the New Covenant in the way that conditions were attached to the Old Covenant for Israel. The Lord himself has undertaken to ensure that his people will obey. Ezekiel 36:25-30 declares, "I will put my spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my ways." Hebrews 8:10 likewise promises obedience as absolutely as any other blessing in the New Covenant. Therefore, it cannot be the condition of the covenant itself.

The Apostle, having asserted and extensively proven in Romans 3 that justification is by faith and not by works of the law, further supports this by citing Abraham and David in Romans 4:3: "Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness." He then states in verse 4, "Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt." This implies that the reward must be reckoned of grace and not of debt. The emphasis is placed on this truth, so that if it were otherwise, the Apostle's entire argument would collapse.

Some argue that only meritorious works would render the reward a debt rather than grace. But consider that works can be meritorious only in one of two ways:

1. By their inherent worth and value, making it a matter of justice that such a reward is deserved, even apart from any contract. Yet who dares to say that any work of man, even in a state of innocence, could thus merit before God? Is not all obedience already due to God, so that even when we have done all, we are still "unprofitable servants" (Luke 17:10)? Job 22:3 and 35:7 say, "If thou be righteous, what givest thou him?" And Romans 11:35 asks, "Who hath first given to him, and it shall be recompensed unto him again?" Surely, nothing from man is given to God as something that he did not already have or as something that he could gain from.

2. By agreement or contract (ex pacto), meaning that though the works themselves are insufficient in worth, the Lord has nevertheless promised a reward for them. In this way alone could Adam’s obedience in innocence be considered meritorious. He owed full obedience to God simply by virtue of creation, and God could have required it without promising any reward. Finite human obedience could not, by its intrinsic worth, merit an infinite reward. However, God was pleased to promise life to Adam based on his perfect, unsinning obedience.

Likewise, no one among the Romans or Galatians expected justification or eternal life by works apart from such a promise. They mistakenly assumed that the Lord had made a covenant promising salvation based on their works. But the Apostle clearly refutes this, demonstrating that the righteousness required for salvation comes only through faith in Jesus Christ.

Thus, a reward may be of merit and of debt, and yet still be of grace in some sense (though not of special gospel grace). For all good promised or given by the Lord to his creature is of grace, since God owes nothing to anyone. The very fact that God made a promise to Adam in his state of innocence, to reward his works, was itself an act of grace. Yet, once the promise was made, if Adam had continued in that state, the reward would have been a matter of debt. Therefore, if life were now promised to us upon evangelical obedience, then it would be just as truly meritorious (even if the condition were more favorable) and just as much a matter of debt as it would have been to Adam upon his sinless obedience. For in both cases, it is the promise alone that would make it so.

The text under discussion must refer either to the works of the Law—which cannot properly merit, since they are due even by the Law of Nature—or else to those works performed by Abraham after believing. In either case, the Apostle concludes that if the reward were granted based on these works, it would be reckoned as a matter of debt. However, neither of these could make it so, except by a divine promise assuring such a reward upon the fulfillment of a condition. Therefore, since the Apostle concludes that the reward is not of debt, no obedience of our own can be a condition of the New Covenant.

It is difficult to understand how a reward could be legally due as a debt while not making God a debtor. If a promise alone makes it a debt, then while something may become due to us, it does not necessarily mean that God is bound to us in obligation. However, in the case at hand, where the reward is due only by promise and upon the fulfillment of a supposed condition by us, it would seem that the promiser is indeed a debtor—though, prior to his promise, he was entirely free. Yet, in Romans 4:4, not only is God denied to be a debtor, but the reward itself is denied to be a matter of debt. Therefore, the promise is not made upon any such condition as our works, for that would make the reward one of debt. In contrast, it is declared to be of grace—that is, of gospel grace.

It is true that divine promises are made regarding the reward of Christ’s works, but they are not made to us immediately, either upon our believing or our obedience. Rather, they are made mediately and secondarily, so that our claim does not rest on the performance of any gospel condition by us (for if it did, the reward would be as much a matter of debt as it was for Adam). Instead, all promises are made immediately to Jesus Christ upon his righteousness and meritorious obedience. On this account, the promises are a matter of debt to him. However, God is not a debtor to us, but to himself—to his own goodness and faithfulness, and to his Son, but not to our works. Faith is merely the means by which we are counted righteous in Christ’s righteousness, which alone merited our eternal reward.

Second Corinthians 1:20 affirms this: "All the promises in him are yea, and in him Amen." We cannot claim a single promise in our own name, based on any gospel condition we have fulfilled, even if done by the help of grace—for then, no matter how small the condition, the reward would be of debt to us. Our only claim is in Christ, in the right of our elder brother, Jesus Christ. Thus, the reward is of debt to him but only of grace to us. Augustine states in Psalm 83, Debitorem Dominus ipse fecit se, non accipiendo sed promittendo—"The Lord made himself a debtor, not by receiving, but by promising." We can plead for nothing that has been promised except on the basis of divine faithfulness. However, if any act of ours (no matter how small) were the condition of any promise, then once performed, we could claim what was promised on the basis of justice. Aquinas defines the formal nature of justice as ut sit ad alterum—that is, justice consists in giving to another what is his due, whether by contract, promise, or some other obligation.

If divine promises were to become a matter of debt, they would be so only to God himself. Dr. Arrowsmith states in Tractatus Sacramentorum, "Ipsi etiam Deo competit duplex debitum, condecentiae unum, fidelitatis alterum"—"To God himself belongs a twofold debt: one of propriety, the other of faithfulness." He further cites Augustine: Deus sibi debitor est, ut agat condecenter et prout congruit bonitati suae; ubi seipsum negare non potest, ita non debet aliquid se indignum facere—"God is a debtor to himself, to act in a manner consistent with his own goodness. Just as he cannot deny himself, so he cannot do anything unworthy of himself." Similarly, Davenant states: Cum Deus dat vitam aeternam Petro aut Paulo, divina voluntas non solvit debitum creaturae, sed sibi ipsi—"When God gives eternal life to Peter or Paul, his divine will is not satisfying a debt to the creature, but to himself."

If either faith or obedience were a condition, then God's acts would be suspended upon some act of the creature. Dr. Owen (Of Perseverance, p. 53) states that this "would subject eternity to time, the first cause to the second, the Creator to the creature." Furthermore, if our performance laid God under obligation to grant mercy—indeed, to grant life and salvation—then we could claim them on the basis of our own acts.

Therefore, we may indeed keep the recompense of reward in view as an encouragement to duty (1 Corinthians 15:58; Hebrews 11:26; 12:2). We may exercise faith as a means of attaining life and salvation and engage in evangelical obedience to show forth his praises, honoring him who has called us by the fruits and effects of his grace. These may serve as evidences of our interest in Christ. In the strength of Christ, we may strive to enter in at the strait gate, wrestle against spiritual enemies, and work out our salvation (1 Corinthians 9:24-25; Revelation 2:7, 11, 17, 26; Philippians 2:12). We may pray, read, hear, believe, and repent as means to obtain what has been promised, seeking our right thereto only in Jesus Christ.

However, we may not believe or obey as a condition upon which our right and title to the promised blessings—even eternal salvation—depend. If we did, then by fulfilling the condition, we would have a rightful claim to life. Some act of ours would then be the basis of our title to life, and we could demand it on that ground. But the gospel disclaims and condemns any such doing for life, whatever the act may be (Romans 4:4; Ephesians 2:8-9; 2 Timothy 1:9).

Faith itself only receives a right; it does not give one. It is not upon any act of ours that the Lord is engaged to fulfill his promise, nor that we lay claim to it. If a malefactor had not petitioned the prince, he would have died, though no promise of life had been made to him upon that condition. Thus, his petitioning was merely a means to his being spared. Had it been a condition of his pardon, then the prince would have been unfaithful, and even unjust, if he had not granted it.

Even in the most absolute grants—where no condition exists that would make an estate liable to forfeiture by non-performance—there may still be parties and stipulations involved.

It is the excellence and glory of the New Covenant that it rests entirely upon absolute promises. It does not leave its blessings uncertain, nor is there any liability to forfeiture of its special privileges. This, combined with its remarkable freeness, provides great encouragement and everlasting consolation to all who are under it. See further discussion on this in the last question concerning the use of so-called conditional promises.

The New Covenant brings in a real, complete, and perfect remission of sins, and so it is better than the Old, which fell short of this. Under the Old Covenant, some sins had no sacrifice provided for them and were not forgiven in such a way that the offender could enjoy the temporal blessings promised. Some were to be cut off entirely—for example, those who committed presumptuous sins were to be cut off from among the people (Numbers 15:28, 30). Yet, believers in that day could still be forgiven of those very sins and attain eternal salvation through the free promise in Jesus Christ. Acts 13:38-39 confirms this: “By him (i.e., Jesus Christ), those who believe are justified from all things from which they could not be justified by the Law of Moses.” The typical remission under the Old Covenant did not extend to all sins as Christ’s does, except for the sin against the Holy Spirit (Matthew 12:31; 1 John 1:7).

The great design of the Epistle to the Hebrews is to show the superiority of Jesus Christ and his sacrifice over the Levitical system, and how much better the New Covenant is than the Old, particularly regarding the remission of sins. The legal sacrifices were imperfect; the forgiveness they provided extended only so far as to avert temporal judgments and afford temporal mercies. They could not truly take away sin, nor did they purify the conscience or make those who offered them perfect (Hebrews 9:9; 10:1-4). In contrast, the glory of Jesus Christ is declared in Hebrews 10:12, 14: “By one offering he hath perfected forever those that are sanctified”—that is, the people of God, those in Covenant.

This truth is further confirmed by the New Covenant itself (Hebrews 10:15-19), which declares, “Their sins and iniquities will I remember no more.” Calvin comments on this passage: “From this we gather that sins are now pardoned in another manner than they were in old time, but this diversity consists neither in the word nor in faith but in the ransom of the remission.”

Under the Old Covenant, sacrifices were repeated continually. The typical pardon of new sins was delayed until new sacrifices were offered, and there was a yearly remembrance of old sins (Hebrews 10:3). In contrast, the perfection of the New Covenant is seen in that, just as there will be no more offerings for sin, so there will be no more remembrance of the sins of believers. This means that believers will never again come under the curse or obligation of the Law to eternal punishment for their sins. The declared discharge from this obligation—wherein the pardon of sin properly consists as it is God’s act—is not suspended until new acts of faith or repentance are put forth (though these should follow). Rather, it is granted to the believer at the very moment he sins, whether he is immediately aware of it or not.

I acknowledge that there is difficulty on either side of this matter. For if believers come under the Law’s curse and obligation through new sins, then they are unjustified as often as they sin, which cannot be admitted. However, if they do not come under it, then it might seem as though they are not daily pardoned, since pardon consists in a declared discharge from that obligation. This issue will be addressed in a subsequent objection.

The discussion here concerns actual pardon. It is granted that at the moment of initial justification, all sins—past, present, and future—are virtually pardoned.

The question at hand is whether actual remission, pardon, or forgiveness of sins committed by those who are in Covenant and already justified, occurs at the very moment the sins are committed—so that believers do not remain under the obligation of the Law to eternal punishment for even a single moment. The immediacy of pardon may be established as follows:

1. Believers always have an actual interest in Jesus Christ, his righteousness, and the satisfaction made by him, and therefore they are never, even for a moment, unpardoned after committing new sins. Ephesians 1:7 states, “In whom we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins.” It is a glorious mystery of the Gospel that sin is removed upon a full satisfaction, and yet in a way of forgiveness. It was in a way of redemption to Jesus Christ, and yet in a way of pardon and free grace to us. It cost Christ dearly—his precious blood—yet it costs us nothing.

The elect, while unconverted, have no personal interest in that redemption and are therefore unpardoned. But believers not only shall have it hereafter, but already possess it, and in that redemption is the remission of sins. They cannot be without it for even a moment, for there is an inseparable connection between these: those who have the one also have the other. Christ is theirs, and in him, they have redemption. There will never be an interruption of believers' union with him; and because Christ is theirs, his satisfaction is theirs, which fully answers and discharges the obligation of the Law. Thus, they are always in a state of freedom from that condemnation.

Since Jesus Christ is theirs, they are always interested in his righteousness, and the Law cannot actually obligate or curse any who possess its righteousness—it only curses those who lack it. Righteousness and pardon are so connected that the Apostle argues from one to the other in Romans 4:6-8. He proves the blessedness of imputed righteousness from David’s declaration in verse 7: “Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven.” Therefore, unless believers could be stripped of that righteousness and momentarily lose that blessedness, they cannot be, for even a moment, unpardoned.

If souls were actually under the Law’s guilt for any sin, even for an instant, they would no longer be perfectly righteous. These are incompatible: to be completely righteous and yet to be under the Law’s guilt at the same time (see 2 Corinthians 5:21; Romans 3:23, 25).

Furthermore, Jesus Christ did not suffer a tantundem—something in place of what we should have suffered—but the idem, the very same punishment required by the Law. This ensures that our continued interest in him always renders us disobliged, or pardoned. Genesis 2:17 states, “In the day thou eatest thereof [dying, thou shalt die].” Death was the full penalty exacted; nothing more was required of us by the Law of Works, and nothing less was suffered by Jesus Christ in our stead. Hebrews 2:9 confirms, “That he by the grace of God should taste [death] for every man.”

The very thing that was threatened was undergone by him for us. As for the eternity of death and other circumstances to which we are liable, these arise from the incapacity of our persons, who cannot bear infinite suffering in a short time, as Jesus Christ did for us. As Mr. B. observes, despair and death in sin do not proceed from the threatening itself, but from the condition and disposition of those upon whom the execution of the curse falls. Punishment properly satisfies for the injury done, but sin itself continues that injury (see Christ in Travail, p. 71).

Galatians 3:13 states, “Christ was made a curse for us.” The very thing that the Law threatened—indeed, all that the Law threatened—was the curse, and Jesus Christ did not merely undergo something in its place but bore the very curse of the same Law under which we stood. Therefore, he suffered the idem.

Jesus Christ, having undertaken the office of our great High Priest, was charged with bearing our iniquities, as Isaiah 53:6 declares: “The Lord hath laid on him the iniquity of us all.” However, I cannot understand how iniquity itself could be transferred to the Lord Jesus. Sin is a non ens, a privation of good. If it could pass from one subject to another, it could not rest upon any without polluting the subject it rests upon, for sin is entirely evil. Anything short of this is not truly sin. To deny pollution is to deny sin itself upon any subject. Jesus Christ, being infinitely pure, could not suffer the least taint of defilement. Therefore, by iniquity must be understood the guilt of sin or its obligation to punishment—not merely a tantundem, which would not have been our iniquity. Rather, it was our very guilt.

Whatever the Lord had threatened against us and might justly exact from us on account of our sin, it is expressed by Christ’s being “wounded for our transgressions” (Isaiah 53:5), by his being “made an offering for sin” (verse 10), and by his “bearing iniquity” (verse 11). Whatever burden was to be borne, or whatever man was liable to suffer for his iniquity, this was laid upon Jesus Christ. Moreover, it was laid there by the Father himself: “The Lord hath laid on him the iniquity of us all.” O what grace is here to us! The Lord was the one offended, provoked, and dishonored by sin, and yet he was so desirous that we should be discharged from it that he, with his own hand, laid it upon his beloved Son, Jesus Christ.

And it was the iniquity “of us all.” It was not at an uncertainty; the persons were determined, counted, and numbered by name. He was wounded for our transgressions and bruised for our sins. The chastisement of our peace was upon him (Isaiah 53:5-6; 2 Corinthians 5:21).

Since Jesus Christ suffered the idem, the very same penalty that was threatened by the Law, and since he bore it for the very persons he came to redeem, and since believers are always interested in him, they cannot—even for a moment—be unpardoned.

2. Believers are at all times actually interested in the general acquittance obtained by Jesus Christ, and therefore they are never, even for a moment, without the actual pardon of particular sins after committing them; for that acquittance is their general pardon.

As he was charged with our sin, so he was discharged by the Father from it. Isaiah 50:8 declares, “He is near that justifieth me.” This is spoken of Jesus Christ, as is evident from verse 6. He had justification not for himself (for he needed none) but for us, since our sin and guilt were laid upon him. Because all the demands of divine justice were fully satisfied, he was justified, obtaining a general acquittance for the whole body of his elect. Hence, it is not only said that he was “delivered for our offenses” (Romans 4:25), meaning that he suffered death as the wages due for our sin, but also that he “was raised again for our justification.” If he had not made full satisfaction for us, death would have held him still. The fact that death could not hold him any longer proves that it had no dominion over him, but that he had achieved complete victory over that last enemy. His resurrection was his general acquittance for all the elect, and thus it was for their justification.

Believers, therefore, have reason to say, as in Romans 8:34, “It is Christ that died, yea rather, that is risen again.” They have not only a continual interest in his death but also in his resurrection, and they are called to triumph in faith on this account. Verse 33 asks, “Who shall lay anything to the charge of God's elect? It is God that justifieth.” It is the standing privilege of all who are in a justified state that nothing can be justly laid to their charge. Therefore, none of their sins are ever actually unpardoned as to legal guilt, for otherwise, those sins could be laid to their charge. Colossians 2:12-13 declares that they have been “quickened together with him.” Christ stood as a representative, so that his seed may be said to have died and risen in him as their substitute. However, this passage also refers to an actual sharing in Christ’s resurrection: “You are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God.” This privilege is not enjoyed until they attain a faith that works by divine power, at which point the full benefit of his resurrection becomes theirs. In Jesus Christ, they have a general acquittance and discharge.

Believers are risen with him, and it is accounted to them as if they had died and risen again in their own persons. Neither is this suspended until they put forth daily acts of faith (though such acts must not be neglected), but it takes effect at their first conversion, at the very first exercise of faith when they are delivered from a spiritually dead condition. “You, being dead in your sins, hath he quickened together with him.” That general justification at Christ’s resurrection becomes theirs at their first believing, which secures them from all legal guilt so that it can never seize upon them again. As the passage continues, “Having forgiven you”—not merely some trespasses but all trespasses. They then have, in their resurrection with Christ, a general discharge in hand—not only for past and present sins, but for all sins to come. This general pardon is ever ready, so that as soon as particular sins are committed, they are immediately absolved from them. The actual pardon is as immediate as the actual sin, and thus the apostle speaks as though all were already forgiven.

3. Believers are always under justification unto life, and therefore can never, at any time, be actually under the obligation of the Law unto eternal death. The Law pronounces nothing less than a sentence of death and condemnation, a dreadful curse against sinners, as declared in Genesis 2:17 and Galatians 3:10, “Cursed is everyone that continueth not in all things,” etc. If believers were laid under the obligation of the Law for new acts of sin, even for a single day or moment, then for that time they would be unjustified again. This would require an intermission of their justification, for condemnation is the direct opposite of justification and utterly inconsistent with it (Romans 5:16, 18; Romans 8:33-34).

However, Romans 8:1 expressly states, “There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus.” This is not merely a suspension of the curse; rather, believers are fundamentally different in their state from others who are out of Christ. After union with him, and even after the fullest pardon, every sin still deserves condemnation. Pardon does not remove the desert of sin, but it does remove the legal obligation to condemnation. This obligation is taken away, as seen in Romans 8:33-34 and John 5:24, where Christ declares, “He that believeth hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation.” By daily pardons, a person’s justification is continually affirmed. Though new acts of faith may not always be put forth the very moment a person sins, he is nonetheless secured from condemnation from the moment he first believes and passes from death to life.

The same truth is evident from believers' declared freedom from the Law and its curse, as seen in Romans 6:14 and Galatians 3:10, 13. “As many as are of the works of the Law are under the curse.” This strongly implies that others—believers—are not under the curse, as is further confirmed in verse 13.

Though, materially speaking, the afflictions of the elect before conversion may be similar to those of others under the curse, yet not the smallest part of that curse formally falls upon them. Jesus Christ has endured the entire curse on their behalf. Before believing, they were legally under the sentence of the curse according to the Law, but not under its execution. How much less, then, can they be under it after union with Christ?

4. Believers are continually under the New Covenant, and therefore, the very instant their sins are committed, they are remitted. That is, they are immediately absolved from the Law's curse and actually pardoned. For this, nothing more is required than their interest in the satisfaction of Jesus Christ (which they have by union with him) and the Lord’s declaration of their discharge upon that satisfaction. This is established by the New Testament, which was sealed by his blood for the remission of sins (Matthew 26:28). All pardoning mercy is stored up there, and this is the very act of pardon.

Believers are always within the New Covenant and therefore have an actual right to the pardon of all sins—past, present, and future. They hold this right beforehand in the promise, even if not yet in possession. Thus, they have a ground upon which to claim pardon for future sins and may plead the faithfulness of God in fulfilling his promise. Moreover, the moment they commit sin, the New Testament declares it remitted. It is a standing pardon, always testifying to all who are under it: “Your sins and iniquities will I remember no more” (Jeremiah 31:31, 34; Hebrews 8:12). Because of this, believers can never again be subject to the Law’s obligation to punishment. They are also under the promise of a new heart and the Law being written within them, ensuring that they will continue to repent and believe. However, while such spiritual dispositions may not immediately manifest (as they develop progressively through real transformation), the remission of sin is a relative change, occurring instantaneously by the promise to all under the Covenant when they stand in need of it.

Here, it should be observed that the pardon or forgiveness of sin is a divine grant issued under the Law of Grace—the New Covenant. It is God's act of oblivion (Hebrews 8:12; 10:16-17; Romans 11:27). Thus, we read of “the Law” of works and “the Law” of faith (Romans 3:27), with the latter referring to justification and the remission of sins. Just as condemnation is administered by the Law of works, which pronounces sentence upon sinners—the seed of the first Adam—the very moment they sin, whether they realize it or not, so justification and remission of sins are administered under the Law of Grace. The New Covenant pronounces sentence upon all the seed of the second Adam, Jesus Christ, at the very moment they sin, even when they are not immediately aware of it.

Just as among men, one may have his offenses pardoned by an act of oblivion, even if no formal accusation has yet been brought against him before a judge (which may come later), so it is with God’s forgiveness. It is not granted through a judicial act but through an act of God as Lawgiver. Present justification and pardon are not issued by God as Judge but as the sovereign Author of the New Testament. These are the sentences of his Law, under which believers continually remain. Accusations from Satan or their own consciences may come later, leading to a formal trial before the Judge on the last day.

Failing to grasp this distinction has led to many misunderstandings. Some argue that justification is from eternity, but they fail to recognize that the elect may—and indeed must—remain under the sentence of the Law of works (without yet suffering its execution) until they come under the sentence of another Law, namely, the New Testament, which then discharges them.

Others speak of justification as a response to an accusation, where one pleads their case and is then discharged. However, justification is simply the sentence of one Law declaring a discharge from the sentence of another, based on the individual’s interest in the righteousness of Jesus Christ through union with him. God is not acting as a Judge in this immediate justification but as the Lawgiver. Often, Scripture speaks of judgment as a future event. Paul reasoned of “judgment to come” (Acts 24:25), and Jesus himself declared, “It shall be more tolerable for Tyre and Sidon at the day of judgment” (Matthew 11:22, 24; 12:36). Peter likewise states that God “reserves the unjust unto the day of judgment to be punished” (2 Peter 2:9), and John records Christ’s words: “The word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day” (John 12:47-48).

At present, Christ’s work is not to judge the world but to save it. He comes in a dispensation full of grace, calling sinners to enter the Law of Faith, which is a ministration of righteousness and life, exceedingly glorious (2 Corinthians 3). But when he comes again as Judge, he will come clothed with terror, and all must appear before his judgment seat (2 Corinthians 5:10).

Acts 3:19 states, “When the times of refreshing shall come, then will their sins be blotted out.” This does not mean that believers lack a complete pardon until the Day of Judgment, for they are already as fully and perfectly justified and pardoned as they were previously condemned. Just as they were under condemnation by a Law, they are now justified and have remission by a Law grant—the New Covenant. Some refer to this as a sentential justification, meaning that its sentence will be repeated and publicly affirmed at the Last Judgment when believers will be judicially acquitted before all the world.

In what court or before what judge are any pardoned here on earth? If it is said that the tribunal is one’s own conscience, this presents difficulties, for conscience cannot pass sentence without first discerning that it is within the New Covenant and pleading that truth against Satan’s accusations. However, a soul may be clothed in Christ’s righteousness and possess justifying faith long before it is able to discern and acknowledge this. Consequently, justification and pardon may exist prior to any judicial act of conscience.

Objection. If believers are not actually under the obligation to punishment (which is guilt), then asking for its removal or praying for the daily pardon of sin is unnecessary. Moreover, if they are not obliged, they cannot be disobliged, and therefore, they cannot be pardoned. This suggests that the curse of the Law must be in force against them for some time before a new pardon is granted.

Answer. 1. In their daily pardons, believers are declared to be discharged from the very obligation and curse of the Law itself, but not from a personal obligation to it. The obligation to punishment resides in the Law, yet it does not actually pass upon believers for even a moment.

It must be remembered that present pardon is not a judicial act but a sentence of the Law of Grace, which declares all under it to be discharged from the penalty of another Law.

Consider this: when a violated Law has already passed sentence upon an offender, and an act of pardon subsequently comes into force, it dissolves or removes the obligation to punishment that was already imposed upon the person. This is the case of the elect at their first conversion.

However, when an act or Law of pardon is in force for certain persons and applies even to future offenses, then the obligation to the penalty never actually passes upon them at any point. Yet they receive as full a pardon (even from the entire penalty of the Law) as the former, and with greater grace, for they are spared from having the sentence pronounced upon them.

This is precisely the case of believers. They are always under the New Covenant, which is a divine act of pardon. This Law is in force for them even before they commit new sins and already declares their discharge from the penalty of the Law of Works. Therefore, the very moment their sins are committed, they are immediately remitted by virtue of the New Covenant.

The commanding Law is not repealed (for then their acts would not be offenses), but the curse of it never rests upon their persons for even a moment (1 John 2:2-3). “If anyone sins, we have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous, and he is the propitiation for our sins.”

1. The pardons granted to sinners come from Jesus Christ as the offering Priest, who has made satisfaction for sin. However, if one who already has fellowship with God—one who is a believer—sins, his relief comes from the ongoing advocacy of Jesus Christ. An advocate or attorney pleads an existing Law that secures his client’s discharge. Likewise, Jesus Christ pleads on behalf of believers, who are already under the New Testament, by which they have a right to indemnity. Although the Law of cursing remains in force for unbelievers, this new act of grace grants believers full pardon for all transgressions against it.

2. Nevertheless, it is unquestionably the duty of believers to pray daily for pardoning mercy. Those who are taught to call upon God as “Our Father” (Luke 11:2) are also commanded to pray, “Forgive us our sins” (verse 4). Therefore, even those who have received the Spirit of adoption must still seek daily forgiveness.

There is reatus simplex as well as reatus redundans in personam. Although believers should not confess themselves to be personally under the Law’s obligation or curse (for which they should rather offer the highest thanks for their deliverance by grace), there remains cause for the deepest acknowledgment of their own sin and guiltiness in having deserved it. This alone is sufficient for their humility. Even though they are pardoned persons by grace, the penalty of the Law is still due for their offenses. This reality may be acknowledged even under the clearest assurances of pardon, for pardon does not remove the desert of sin but only frees from the punishment that sin deserves.

Indeed, there is much work for faith in prayer on this account.

Believers are to pray for the continuation of the pardon they already enjoy, as well as for the remission of sins they will yet commit. The New Covenant contains a promise of future pardons, and therefore faith may act upon the Lord in it, even though they are assured of forgiveness. The certainty of a promised mercy does not exempt us from praying for it. Jesus Christ had the assurance that he would be glorified, yet he prayed, Father, glorify thou me (John 17:5). He knew that he would be kept, yet he prayed for it (John 17:11). David had an absolute promise that his house and kingdom would be established forever (2 Sam. 7:14–16), yet he prayed all the more earnestly for it, grounding his prayer upon the promise itself.

Thus, we may ask for future pardons, even though we are certain we shall receive them.

Additionally, we are to ask for clearer manifestations of our interest in pardoning mercy.

Furthermore, believers, in praying for the pardon of sin, are:

1. To seek a fresh application of the blood of Jesus Christ in the promise of pardon. He is declared to be a propitiation through faith in his blood (Rom. 3:25). Not only must they seek a clearer manifestation of pardon, but they must exercise faith in the application of Christ’s blood as the price that has purchased and procured it. His blood is to be regarded as the ransom of redemption, the seal of the New Testament for the remission of sins (Matt. 26:28). It is this blood that cleanses those who have fellowship with God from all sin: He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins (1 John 1:3, 7, 9).

Pardon must come by a word or promise, for it is by his faithfulness that God is engaged to this work. Faith is to acknowledge both the promise and the grace of God displayed therein: Whosoever believeth on him shall receive remission of sins (Acts 10:43). The Lord’s act of giving pardon comes first in order of nature, but it is to be followed by the believer’s reception of it through faith. As soon as believers sin, God’s act of pardon disobliges them from the Law’s curse. Their response must be a renewed act of faith, applying this pardon to themselves, setting their seal to what God has done. Additionally, renewed acts of repentance are to follow. Under the Old Covenant, it was not possible that the blood of bulls and goats should take away sins (Heb. 10:4). But the New Testament is better, for through the blessed Mediator, believers receive real remission (Heb. 9:15).

2. To ask for impunity—that is, immunity and freedom from the execution of the curse and from other tokens of divine displeasure. Even if they know they shall have it, they must still ask for it, as previously shown. Though believers know that God is their Father and that the eternal curse will never seize upon them, they are nonetheless to pray for deliverance from it. Moreover, they should be encouraged and stirred up to do so, for the Lord has promised it.

Although justification is continued under the New Covenant, yet by gross acts of sin, the Lord may be provoked so that many sweet effects of being justified may be suspended. David, who was in a state of grace, when he had notoriously sinned, before renewed acts of faith and repentance, before confessing his sin, found that his bones waxed old through his roaring all the day long (Ps. 32:3–4). Day and night the hand of God was heavy upon him. By this, it is evident that although, at the very instant of sinning, believers are truly disobliged from the eternal curse of the Law, they may not immediately experience a sense of that freedom, nor be delivered from temporal evils until afterward. They are exempted from vindictive justice in terms of making satisfaction for sin, but not from paternal corrective dispensations, which serve to humble them and deter them from sin (Ps. 51:2, 7). Wash me thoroughly from my sin… Purge me with hyssop… He was deeply sensible of his pollution, defilement, and uncleanness by reason of iniquity, confessing his sin and seeking its removal (v. 4). That he might justify God, whom he had greatly dishonored, and give glory to him by acknowledging his righteousness in all his judgments, he cried out (v. 9), Hide thy face from my sins. His sins were not only ever before him, but seemed to be ever before the Lord, as if God were always looking upon them. Though he had not lost his salvation, he lacked much of the joy of it (vv. 11–12). Nathan had told him that God had pardoned his sin (2 Sam. 12:13–14), yet he was also warned that he must expect some tokens of divine displeasure. It seems he penned this penitential psalm afterward, for its title shows that this confession was directed to the chief musician—it was for the use of the Temple. He had confessed privately to Nathan, but now he does so more publicly, after being told of both his pardon and the judgments to follow (v. 4).

Thus, even after souls are truly disobliged from guilt and have received pardon itself, they may still lack the sense of it until there is a fresh application of the blood of Jesus Christ by the Spirit. This may cause them to cry out for it, as David did (v. 9), Blot out all my iniquities. There may be inward clouding and darkness, sin and guilt may lie heavy upon the conscience, producing distress and a dreadful sense of divine displeasure—enough to deter from sin. The Lord will visit transgressions with a rod, though he will not utterly remove his loving-kindness from them (Ps. 89:32–33). And who would willingly see the frowning face of God, a tender Father, and endure such sharp rebukes—not only by outward afflictions but by the withdrawing of the light of his countenance, which is better than life?

The Old Covenant did not purge the conscience, but the New is a better testament. For, having mentioned the remission of sins granted under it (Heb. 10:16–17), the Apostle adds, Let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience (Heb. 10:22). Likewise, in Hebrews 9:15, it is shown that through the New Covenant, they obtain freedom from the accusations of an evil conscience, which the Old could not afford. Thus, through the renewed exercise of faith, believers may find deliverance not only from other fatherly corrections but also from those inward accusations and wounds of conscience that often accompany heinous sins—until renewed acts of faith and repentance restore peace.

5. The New Covenant raises a spirit of filial love and is therefore better than the Old, which left men under a spirit of servile fear. The New, being composed entirely of promises, must necessarily have a tendency to produce the sweetest spirit, as seen in Romans 8:15: For ye have not received the spirit of bondage again to fear, but ye have received the Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father. There is, then, an evident excellency in the evangelical spirit over that of the Old. I understand this passage as referring to the different states of the Church, or the people of God, since in the preceding and following chapters the Apostle clearly speaks of believers’ freedom from the Law through the Lord Jesus. The word again suggests that they were once under this spirit of fear—namely, under the Old Mosaic dispensation—but are now freed from it in the times of the New Testament. Some understand the spirit of bondage as referring to operations of the Spirit in fear and terror leading to conversion. However, I do not find that he is treating of that here. Rather, it is more fitting to understand it as referring to the state under the Old Testament, especially because it is introduced as proof of their sonship, as the word for indicates. This was not, therefore, a desirable frame to seek after but a misery to be under, and it is a mercy to be freed from it.

The Old Covenant carried more of the spirit of a servant, as the phrase implies. Although serving the Lord primarily or solely for reward savors of a legal spirit—and is one difference between the spirit of a servant and that of a son—yet here another distinction is being made, for it is said, Ye have not received it again to fear. The Sinai Covenant compelled duty by dreadful threatenings and presented curses before them (not yet actually borne by Jesus Christ) as arguments or enforcements, which naturally produced terror and filled them with the kind of fear found in servants under the severe threats of their masters. Israel was filled with fear and astonishment at the first proclamation of the Law. Whether this was the proper effect of the Sinai Law—designed to produce servile fear and bondage as a duty then, though not now—or whether it was simply an unavoidable consequence due to the frailty of sinful man, is debated. However, hearing the Law proclaimed by the Almighty God as a consuming fire would necessarily have such an effect. Furthermore, the conditional promises under that covenant were insufficient to free them from this servile fear, leaving them under it. In contrast, the New Covenant contains more evangelical encouragements to duty, through grace and the free promise. The Sinai Covenant, by its very nature, tended to produce the fear of a servant toward his master. As the Apostle states, it gendereth to bondage (Gal. 4:24), rather than producing the fear and love of a son, which is the fruit of gospel revelation.

Christians now are to act upon more evangelical motives, from greater love and faith, having received the Spirit of adoption, by which they cry, Abba, Father. This believing spirit gives souls liberty of access to God, with the freedom that children have in approaching a tender father. The spirit of fear kept them at a distance from the Lord, like a servant who dared not approach an austere master. But by the Spirit of adoption, they may now draw near with holy boldness and firm assurance and cry, Abba, Father.

This is even clearer when compared with the parallel passage in Galatians 4:1–2: The heir, as long as he is a child, differeth nothing from a servant… Even so, we, when we were children, were in bondage under the elements of the world. Here, the state under the Old Sinai Covenant is plainly expressed as bondage. Not that they were absolutely bondslaves, nor fully in the condition of servants, but rather like those under tutors and governors, in a state of subjection, so that they appeared little different from servants. They seemed to have more of the spirit of a servant (being driven by fear) than the spirit of a son. But now, under the dispensation of the New Covenant, they are freed from this servile state, redeemed by Jesus Christ from the rigor of the Law, and possess the full spirit of adoption (vv. 5–6). The change is so great that it is as if their sonship had only now begun (v. 7), at least in comparison to the former state. Therefore, Christians are to act differently from those under the Old Covenant—more in the free spirit of adoption. Thus, bondage and freedom are opposed in verses 24–26, 31. Not that bondage here is absolute slavery, but rather a state of lesser freedom—though within the same family and household—as Hagar and Sarah represent. Hagar represents the Sinai Covenant, while Sarah represents the free promise.

Similarly, in Galatians 3:24, The Law was our schoolmaster until Christ, where the original Greek does not include the phrase to bring us. This passage does not refer to the continuing work of the Law in leading souls to Christ for conversion but describes the rigorous discipline of the Law over Israel, the people of God, compelling them to duty until Christ—that is, until his incarnation and satisfaction. The text speaks of a function of the Law that has now ended in gospel times, as made clear by the contrast in verse 25: But after faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster. This does not mean after faith is exercised in the individual soul, but after the object of faith—Christ—has come in the flesh and has satisfied the Law. He has purchased redemption, so believers are no longer under the menaces and severity of the Law as a schoolmaster. Just as Christ is called our hope, so he is also our faith—meaning the object of faith, the one believed upon. The phrase faith is come in verse 25 corresponds to the coming of the seed in verse 19, which refers to Jesus Christ. Therefore, believers’ present freedom from the Law as a severe schoolmaster demonstrates the superiority of their condition under the New Covenant.

6. The New Covenant is established upon spiritual promises and is therefore better than the Old Sinai Covenant, which primarily offered temporal promises to Israel. Now, I speak of it as an administration to them. All the promises of the New Covenant are of a spiritual nature: it promises to write the Law in the heart, that God will be their God, and that their sins will be pardoned (Heb. 8). These spiritual blessings are promised first, while temporal things are included within them. Godliness has the promise of this life as well, but the emphasis here is on spiritual blessings—grace, peace, communion with God, and the like—so that our hearts may be set primarily upon heavenly enjoyments.

I have often wondered why the New Covenant is framed in such a way that only true believers seem to have an interest in it. However, I now consider that this is not meant to exclude all from a visible interest in it—since elsewhere, it is clear that some have such an interest (Acts 8:12) even when the reality of grace is lacking. Rather, it is expressed in this way to contrast with the Old Covenant and to demonstrate how the promises of the New are superior. The Old Covenant primarily dealt with temporal blessings for Israel—such as long life, the land of Canaan, and material prosperity (Deut. 5; 11; Lev. 26). These were the most evident blessings under that dispensation and were types of greater spiritual realities. In contrast, the New Covenant calls men to duty through spiritual promises and blessings rather than temporal ones, making it a better covenant.

7. The New Covenant itself ushers in spiritual blessings in a more immediate way than the Sinai Covenant, and so it is established upon better promises. The more directly God bestows his mercies, the greater their excellence; the more pure, new, and fresh they are from the fountain of divine love. The immediate visions of God in heaven will make that state supremely excellent. Likewise, in this world, blessings that, while not without all means, are comparatively immediate, are the best mercies—just as the more direct judgments of God are the most dreadful.

The Old Covenant did not, in itself, dispense spiritual and eternal blessings but instead directed men to look to the Abrahamic Covenant for them. They had to take a longer course to obtain these enjoyments than under the New. Under the Old, they had to look beyond its administration for the remission of sins (which was typified in it) and for other such mercies, turning instead to the free promise. But in the New Covenant, mercies are absolutely promised (Heb. 8), and therefore their application is more immediate than under the Old. By the eye of faith, believers may immediately look to Jesus Christ for the enjoyment of them. There is no longer a veil of typical institutions intervening between them and their blessings. This is a better way to obtain those spiritual benefits (John 1:17).

Indeed, the entire administration of the New Covenant is superior. The Apostle states in Hebrews 1:1–2 that God, who at sundry times and in diverse manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son. The superiority of the Gospel over the visions, dreams, and various revelations of the Old Testament lies in this—that now Jesus Christ himself speaks directly to us. We have more immediate manifestations of God’s will. Because of this, there is infinite danger in neglecting what is now spoken (Heb. 12:25).

As the Gospel is more extensive, it now reaches not only the Jews but also the Gentiles, who are made equal partakers of its blessings by faith. The partition wall has been broken down (Eph. 2:12–14; Rom. 3:22).

Likewise, there is now a more open door of access to God (Heb. 9:8). Under the Old Covenant, the way into the holiest was not yet made manifest, implying that under the New Covenant, the way is now open, giving believers greater freedom (Eph. 2:18; Heb. 10:19, 22) and better encouragements. The price of redemption has already been paid, and now Christians ask for mercy as something already purchased for them. Under the Old Covenant, the people were forbidden from drawing near to the holiest place—only the priests could approach. But now, believers themselves are made priests unto God (Rev. 1:6) and may enjoy more immediate communion with him than ever before. All of this testifies to the superiority of the New Covenant.

8. The New Covenant is full of efficacy and is therefore better than the Old. In the New, all is undertaken by an omnipotent God (Heb. 8:10–12), and thus, whatever difficulties or opposition may arise, this word of power is sufficient for its fulfillment. In contrast, the Old Covenant required much of Israel but contained no such absolute promises ensuring its effectual accomplishment. There is a difference between the Old and the New, as between the letter and the Spirit (2 Cor. 3:6). The ministers of the New Testament are not of the letter but of the Spirit, for the letter killeth, but the Spirit giveth life.

The Lord not only spoke the Law with a living voice but also wrote it with his own finger upon enduring monuments—tables of stone. Yet the Jews, grossly misunderstanding, relied too much on the letter, focusing on external obedience. The chief impression they received from the Law was from its threatening aspect: the letter killeth. The divine curse was a sentence of death that struck fear into their hearts. But the New Covenant brings more effectual, life-giving operations (verses 6, 8); the Spirit giveth life, making it a transcendent ministration of glory. It is a powerful means of reviving the heart from the deepest spiritual deadness, overcoming sinful indisposition, and providing consolation. It is full of quickening, life-giving influences, pouring forth abundant gifts and graces of the Spirit. Thus, it is a better covenant.

Lastly, the New Covenant is more enduring and lasting, not subject to the same violations as the Old, and is therefore a better covenant. When the Lord promises to establish a New Covenant, he adds (Jer. 31:32), Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers… which covenant they brake. Likewise, in Jeremiah 11:4, 6, 10, and Hebrews 8:9, it is clear that the Old Covenant was broken by the people. Indeed, the Old Covenant itself is said to be vanishing (Heb. 8:13), signifying that one of the grand differences between the two is that the New shall not be broken as the Old was.

Though those who are only externally and by visible profession within the New Covenant may fall away entirely, and even those who are internally and truly in it may fail partially, they cannot altogether cast themselves out of it as was the case under the Old. The vital principles and deep impressions of divine love in the Gospel age shall be so strong, and the divine Law so firmly inscribed upon the hearts of believers, that they will be far more secure in the New than in the Old. An unsteady spirit or lack of establishment is an argument that a soul has but a feeble participation in the blessings of this covenant.

Furthermore, the New Covenant shall never be abolished, for there is none to succeed it. Both the Mediator and the privileges of this covenant are eternal. The blood of Christ is the blood of the everlasting covenant (Heb. 13:20–21), and therefore, it is a better covenant than the Old.