18. Thus under the old testament, when God would take the posterity of Abraham into a new, peculiar church-state, he did it by a solemn covenant. Herein, as he prescribed all the duties of his worship to them, and made them many blessed promises of his presence, with powers and privileges innumerable, so the people solemnly covenanted and engaged with him that they would do and observe all that he had commanded them; whereby they coalesced into that church-state which abode unto the time of reformation. This covenant is at large declared, Exod. 24: for the covenant which God made there with the people, and they with him, was not the covenant of grace under a legal dispensation, for that was established unto the seed of Abraham four hundred years before, in the promise with the seal of circumcision; nor was it the covenant of works under a gospel dispensation, for God never renewed that covenant under any consideration whatever; but it was a peculiar covenant which God then made with them, and had not made with their fathers, Deut. 5:2, 3, whereby they were raised and erected into a church-state, wherein they were intrusted with all the privileges and enjoined all the duties which God had annexed thereunto. This covenant was the sole formal cause of their church-state, which they are charged so often to have broken, and which they so often solemnly renewed unto God.
19. This was that covenant which was to be abolished, whereon the church-state that was built thereon was utterly taken away; for hereon the Hebrews ceased to be the peculiar church of God, because the covenant whereby they were made so was abolished and taken away, as the apostle disputes at large, Heb. 7–9. The covenant of grace in the promise will still continue unto the true seed of Abraham, Acts 2:38, 39; but the church-covenant was utterly taken away.
20. Upon the removal, therefore, of this covenant, and the church-state founded thereon, all duties of worship and church-privileges were also taken away (the things substituted in their room being totally of another kind). But the covenant of grace, as made with Abraham, being continued and transferred unto the gospel worshippers, the sign or token of it given unto him is changed, and another substituted in the room thereof. But whereas the privileges of this church-covenant were in themselves carnal only, and no way spiritual but as they were typical, and the duties prescribed in it were burdensome, yea, a yoke intolerable, the apostle declares in the same place that the new church-state, whereinto we are called by the gospel, hath no duties belonging unto it but such as are spiritual and easy, but withal hath such holy and eminent privileges as the church could no way enjoy by virtue of the first church-covenant, nor could believers be made partakers of them before that covenant was abolished
John Owen, The Works of John Owen, ed. William H. Goold, vol. 16 (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, n.d.), 29–30.
This is an interesting quote. Am I correct to understand Owen calls the Mosaic a “peculiar” covenant sandwiched between the covenant of grace? It isn’t the covenant of grace under a legal administration, nor was it the covenant of works under a gospel dispensation. Doesn’t it have to be one of these two latter options?
“This covenant is at large declared, Exod. 24: for the covenant which God made there with the people, and they with him, was not the covenant of grace under a legal dispensation, for that was established unto the seed of Abraham four hundred years before, in the promise with the seal of circumcision; nor was it the covenant of works under a gospel dispensation, for God never renewed that covenant under any consideration whatever; but it was a peculiar covenant which God then made with them, and had not made with their fathers, Deut. 5:2, 3, whereby they were raised and erected into a church-state, wherein they were intrusted with all the privileges and enjoined all the duties which God had annexed thereunto. “
Owen subordinated the Mosaic covenant, insofar as it was a legal covenant, to the covenant of grace. The Mosaic is distinctly called “the Old Covenant” in 2 Cor 3 and in Hebrews 7-10. It is called “inferior.” Note that Owen cited Ex 24 wherein the people entered a national covenant of works, to do all that was commanded. Moses is distinct from Abraham but that’s not to say that the Abrahamic covenant of grace wasn’t always underneath the Mosaic. It was. It came to expression during the Mosaic covenant—after all God did not utterly destroy them even though they broke the national covenant before the tablets made it down the mountain. He bore with them and allowed them to enter the promised land and remain even though they never met the terms of the national covenant.
Thank you for explaining. I agree with you. It seemed though by that quote above he said it was neither a legal administration of the covenant of grace or a covenant of works under a gospel dispensation. Is that just a way to say it was a distinct covenant of works? That works and grace though in operation at the same time as you said, but are not the same covenant?
Owen said a number of things about the Mosaic covenant.
I agree that above he did not call Moses a legal administration of the covenant of grace but the question is what he was trying to accomplish.