Chapter 11: Of the Difference of the One Testament from the Other

What then? Will you say: shall there be no difference left between the old testament and the new? And to what purpose serve all those places of Scripture, where they are compared one against the other, as things most contrary? I do willingly allow those differences that are rehearsed in the Scripture: but so that they nothing hinder the unity already established, as it shall be plain to see, when we shall have treated of them in order. Those differences are (as far as ever I could mark or can remember) chiefly four in number, to the which if you wish to add the 5, I am not against it. I say and trust to prove that they are all such as rather belong to the manner of ministration, than to the substance of them. And by this means they shall nothing hinder, but that the promises of both the old and new testament may remain all one and all one foundation of the same promises, Christ. Now the first difference is, that although, even in the old time also, the Lord's will was to direct the minds of his people, and to have them raised up to the heavenly inheritance: yet, that they might be the better nourished in hope thereof, he gave it to be seen or rather to be tasted of, under earthly benefits: but now having revealed the grace of the life to come, by the Gospel, he more clearly and plainly directs our minds the straight way to the meditation thereof, leaving the inferior manner of exercising which he used with the Israelites. They that mark not this purpose of God, do not think that the old people climbed any higher than to the good things promised to the body. They so often hear the land of Canaan named, as the excellent, or rather only reward for the keepers of God's law. They hear that God threatens nothing more severely to the transgressors of the same law, than that they shall be driven out of the possession of the same land, and scattered abroad into strange regions. They see that in a manner to this effect come all the blessings and curses that are pronounced by Moses. Hereby they do undoubtedly determine, that the Jews not for their own sakes, but for others, were severed from other nations: that is, that the Church of Christ might have an image, in whose outward form she might see examples of spiritual things. But since the Scripture does sometimes show, that God himself directed all the earthly benefits that he did for them to this end, that so he might lead them by the hand to the hope of heavenly benefits. It was too much unskilfulness, I will not say blockishness, not to consider this order of disposition. The issue or point of our controversy with this sort of men is this, that they teach that the possession of the land of Canaan was to the Israelites their chief and last blessedness, and that to us after the revealing of Christ, it does but figuratively signify the heavenly inheritance. On the other side we affirm, that they did in the earthly possession which they enjoyed, as in a looking glass behold the inheritance to come, which they believed to be prepared for them in heaven.

That shall better appear by the similitude that Paul used to the Galatians. He compares the nation of the Jews to an heir, within age, which being not yet able to govern himself, follows the guiding of the tutor or schoolmaster, to whose custody he is committed. And whereas he applies that similitude to the ceremonies, that nothing hinders but that it may also very fittingly serve to this purpose. The same inheritance was appointed for them, that was appointed for us: but such as yet for want of age, they were not of capacity to enter upon and use. The same Church was among them, but whereof the age was yet but childish. Therefore the Lord kept them under this schooling, that he gave them not the spiritual promises so naked and openly, but as it were shadowed with earthly promises. Therefore, where he called Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and their posterity to hope of immortality, he promised them the land of Canaan to be their inheritance: not to determine their hopes upon it, but that in beholding of it, they should exercise and confirm themselves in the hope of that true inheritance that did not yet appear. And that they might not be deceived, there was given them a higher promise to testify, that that land was not the highest benefit of God. So Abraham was not allowed to lie slothful in the promise received of the land, but his mind was with a greater promise raised up to the Lord. For Abraham heard this said to him: I am your protector, and your reward exceeding great. Here we see, that Abraham has the end of his reward set forth in the Lord, that he should not account upon a transitory and slippery reward in the elements of this world, but rather think it to be such as cannot wither away. Afterward he adds the promise of the land to no other intent, but that it should be a token of the good will of God, and a figure of the heavenly inheritance. And that the holy men had this meaning, their own sayings do declare. So David rises upward from temporal blessings, to that same highest and last blessing. My heart (says he) and my flesh faint for desire of you. God is my portion forever. Again. The Lord is the part of my inheritance, and of my cup: you are he that saves my heritage for me. Again. I have cried to you, O Lord, I have said, You are my hope, my portion in the land of the living. Truly they that dare so speak, do without doubt profess that with their hope they climb above the world, and all the good things here present. But the Prophets do often describe this blessedness of the world to come, under the figure that they had received of the Lord. And so are these sayings to be understood. That the godly shall possess the land by inheritance, and the wicked shall be destroyed out of it. That Jerusalem shall abound with all kind of riches, and Zion overflow with plenty of all things. All which we see, cannot properly be spoken of the land of our wayfaring, or the earthly Jerusalem, but of the true country of the faithful, and that heavenly city wherein the Lord has commanded blessing and life forever.

This is the reason why it is read that the holy men in the time of the old testament did esteem the mortal life and the blessings thereof more than is now fitting to do. For although they knew well that they should not rest in it, as in the end of their race, yet when they called to mind what marks of his grace the Lord had pointed therein, to exercise them according to the small rate of their tenderness, they felt a greater sweetness of it, than if they had considered it by itself. But as the Lord in testifying his good will toward the faithful, by present good things, did as in shadow express the spiritual happiness, by such figures and signs: so on the other side he did in corporal pains show examples of his judgment against the reprobate. Therefore, as the benefits of God were to be seen in earthly things, so were also his punishments. While the unskillful do not weigh this comparison or agreement, as I may call it, between the punishments and the rewards, they marvel at so much alteration in God, that in old time was so suddenly ready to take vengeance on every offense of man with severe and horrible punishments, and now as if he had laid away the affection of his old angriness, he punishes both much more gently and less often, and indeed for the same cause they do almost imagine several gods of the old and new testament: which the Manichees did indeed. But we shall easily be delivered from such doubts, if we lay our minds to consider this orderly disposition of God that I have spoken of, whose will was for the time to signify and set forth in figure both the grace of the eternal happiness to come, by temporal benefits, and the grievousness of the spiritual death, by corporal pains. Whereby he delivered his Testament to the Israelites, as yet after a certain manner folded up.

Another difference of the old and new Testament is said to be in the figures: for that the old testament did show only an image in absence of the truth, and a shadow in place of the body. But the new testament gives the truth present, and the solid body itself. And this difference is mentioned commonly wherever the new testament is in comparison set against the old: but it is more largely treated of in the epistle to the Hebrews than anywhere else. There the Apostle disputes against them, which thought that the observations of Moses' law might not be taken away, but that they should also draw with them the ruin of all religion. To confute this error, he uses that which had been forespoken by the Prophet concerning the priesthood of Christ. For whereas there is given him an eternal priesthood, it is certain, that that priesthood is taken away, wherein new successors were daily put in, one after another. But he proves that the institution of this new priesthood is to be preferred, because it is established with an oath. He after adds further, that in the same change of the priesthood, is also contained the change of the Testament. And that it was necessary so to be, he proves by this reason: for that the weakness of the law was such that it could help nothing, to perfection. Then he proceeds in declaring what was that weakness, even this, that it had certain outward righteousnesses of the flesh, which could not make the observers of them perfect, according to conscience: that by sacrifices of beasts, it could neither wipe away sins, nor purchase true holiness. He concludes therefore that there was in it a shadow of good things to come, but not the lively image of the things themselves: and that therefore it had no other office, but to be as an introduction into a better hope, which is delivered in the Gospel. Here is to be seen, in what point the covenant of the law is compared with the covenant of the Gospel: and the ministry of Christ with the ministry of Moses. For if the comparison concerned the substance of the promises, then were there great difference between the two testaments: but since the point of our case leads us another way, we must tend to this end, to find out the truth. Let us then set forth here the covenant which he has established to be eternal, and never to perish. The accomplishment thereof, whereby it attains to be established and continuing in force, is Christ. While such establishment was in expectation, the Lord did by Moses appoint ceremonies, to be as it were solemn signs of the confirmation. Now this came there in question, whether the ceremonies that were ordained in the law, ought to give place to Christ or no. Although these ceremonies were indeed only accidents, or verily additions and things adjoined, or (as the people call them) accessory things to the covenant, yet because they were instruments or means of the administration thereof, they bear the name of the covenant itself, as the like is wont to be attributed to other sacraments. Therefore in sum, the old Testament is in this place called the solemn form of confirming the covenant, contained in ceremonies and sacrifices. The Apostle says, that because in it is nothing perfect, unless we pass further, therefore it behooved that they should be discontinued and abrogated, that place might be given to Christ, the assurer and mediator of better testament, by whom eternal sanctification is once purchased to the elect, and the transgressions blotted out that remained under the law. Or, if you like it better, thus: That the old testament of the Lord was that, which was delivered, wrapped up in the shadowy and effectual observation of ceremonies: and that therefore it was but for a time, because it did but (as it were) hang in suspense, until it might stay upon a more steadfast and substantial confirmation: and that then only it was made new and eternal, after that it was consecrated and established by the blood of Christ. Whereupon Christ calls the cup that he gave at his supper to his Disciples, The cup of the new testament in his blood: to signify, that then the testament of God [reconstructed: attains] his truth: by which it becomes new and eternal, when it is sealed with his blood.

Hereby appears in what sense the Apostle said: that in the schooling of the law, the Jews were brought to Christ, before he was shown in the flesh. And he confesses, that they were the children and heirs of God, but yet such, as for their young age were to be kept under the custody of a schoolmaster. For it behoved, that before the Son of Righteousness was yet risen, there should be neither so great a brightness of revelation, nor so great a depth of understanding. Therefore God so gave them in measure the light of his word, that they saw it as yet far off and darkly. Therefore Paul expresses this slenderness of understanding by the term of young age, which the Lord's will was to have exercised with the elements of this world and with outward observations, as rules of instruction for children until Christ should shine abroad, by whom it behoved that the knowledge of the faithful people should grow to full age. This distinction Christ himself meant of, when he said, that the law and the Prophets were until John, and that from thenceforth the kingdom of God is preached. What did the law and the Prophets open to men of their time — even this: they gave a taste of that wisdom which in time to come should be plainly disclosed, and they showed it before as it were twinklingly shining afar off. But when it came to pass that Christ might be pointed to with the finger, then was the kingdom of God set open. For in him are laid abroad the treasures of all wisdom and understanding, whereby we attain, even in a manner, into the secret closets of heaven.

And it makes not against us, that there can scarcely any one be found in the Christian Church, that in excellence of faith may be compared with Abraham, or that the Prophets excelled in such force of spirit, that even at this day they lighten the whole world withal. For our question is not here, what grace the Lord has bestowed upon a few, but what ordinary disposition he used in teaching his people — such as is declared in the Prophets themselves, which were endued with peculiar knowledge above the rest. For even their preaching is dark and enclosed in figures, as of things afar off. Moreover, however marvelous knowledge soever appeared in them above others, yet forasmuch as they were driven of necessity to submit them to the common childish [reconstructed: instruction] of the people, they themselves also were reckoned in the number of children. Finally, there never chanced any such clear [reconstructed: sight] to any at that time, but that it did in some part savor of the darkness of the time. Whereupon Christ said, Many kings and Prophets have desired to see the things that you see, and have not seen them: and to hear the things that you hear, and have not heard them. Therefore blessed are your eyes, because they see, and your ears because they hear. And truly it was meet that the presence of Christ should have this excellence of prerogative, that from it should arise the clear revealing of the heavenly mysteries. And for this purpose also makes that, which even we now cited out of the first epistle of Peter: that it was opened to them, that their travail was profitable, principally for our age.

Now I come to the third difference, which is taken out of Jeremiah, whose words are these. Behold the days shall come, says the Lord, and I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and the house of Judah, not according to the covenant that I made with your Fathers, in the day when I took them by the hand, to lead them out of the land of Egypt, the covenant that they made void although I ruled over them. But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel. I will put my law in their bowels, and I will write it in their hearts, and I will be merciful to their iniquity. And no man shall teach his neighbor, and no man his brother. For they shall all know me, from the least to the most. Of which words the Apostle took occasion to make this comparison between the law and the Gospel, that he called the law a literal, and Gospel a spiritual doctrine: the law, he said, was fashioned out in tables of stone, the Gospel written in hearts: that the law was the preaching of death, the Gospel the preaching of life: the law the preaching of damnation, the Gospel the preaching of righteousness: that the law is made void, that the Gospel abides. Since the Apostle's purpose was but to declare the meaning of the Prophet, it shall be sufficient that we weigh the words of one of them, to attain the meaning of them both. Albeit, there is some [reconstructed: unlikeness] between them. For the Apostle speaks more odiously of the law than the Prophet does: and that not in simple respect of the law, but because there were certain wicked men, having a wrong zeal to the law, which did with perverse love of the ceremonies, obscure the brightness of the Gospel. He disputes of the nature of the law, according to their error and foolish affection. Therefore it shall be good to note that peculiarly in Paul. But both of them, because they do by comparison set the old and the new testament, the one against the other: do consider nothing in the law, but that which properly belongs to it. As for example. The law does commonly in every place contain promises of mercy, but because they are borrowed from elsewhere, therefore they are not reckoned as part of the law, when the mere nature of the law is spoken of. The only thing they ascribe to it, to command things that are right, and to forbid wicked doings: to promise reward to the followers of righteousness, and to threaten punishment to the transgressors: but in the meantime neither to change nor amend the perverseness of heart, that is naturally in all men.

Now let us expound the Apostle's comparison, one piece after another. The old testament is literal, because it was published without the effectual working of the Spirit: the new is spiritual, which the Lord has spiritually graven in the hearts of men. Therefore the second diversity is as it were a declaration of the first. The old is deadly, because it can do nothing but wrap all mankind within the curse. The new is the instrument of life, because it delivers from curse, and restores into favor with God. The old is the ministry of damnation, because it condemns all Adam's children of unrighteousness. The new is the ministry of righteousness, because it reveals the mercy of God, by which we are made righteous. The last diversity is to be referred to the ceremonies. Because the old testament had an image of things absent, it was necessary that it should in time decay and vanish away: but the Gospel, because it gives the true body indeed, keeps still a firm and perpetual steadfastness. Jeremiah indeed calls even the moral laws a weak and frail covenant: but that is for another reason, because by the sudden falling away of the ungrateful people, it was by and by broken, but forasmuch as such breaking of it was the fault of the people, it cannot properly be laid upon the testament. But the ceremonies, forasmuch as by their own weakness were dissolved by the coming of Christ, had the cause of their weakness within themselves. Now, that difference of the letter and spirit is not so to be taken, as though the Lord had given his laws to the Jews without any fruit at all, having none of them converted to him: but it is spoken by way of comparison, to advance the abundance of grace, by which the same lawmaker as it were putting on a new persona, did honorably set forth the preaching of the Gospel. For if we reckon up the multitude of those whom the Lord out of all peoples has by the preaching of the Gospel regenerated with his Spirit, and gathered into the communion of his Church, we shall say, that there were very few, or in a manner none in the old time in Israel, that with affection of mind and entirely from their heart embraced the covenant of the Lord: who yet were very many, if they be reckoned in their own number without comparison.

Out of the third difference rises the fourth. For the Scripture calls the old testament, the testament of bondage, for that it engenders fear in men's minds: but the new testament, the testament of liberty, because it raises them up to confidence and assurance. So says Paul in the eighth chapter of Romans: You have not received the spirit of bondage again to fear, but the spirit of adoption, by which we cry Abba, Father. Hereto serves that in the Epistle to the Hebrews, that the faithful are not now come to the bodily mount, and to kindled fire, and whirlwind, darkness and tempest, where nothing can be heard or seen but that strikes men's minds with terror, in so much that Moses himself quaked for fear, when the terrible voice sounded, which they all besought, that they might not hear: but that we are come to Mount Zion, and the City of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem. But that which Paul briefly touches in the sentence that we have cited out of the Epistle to the Romans, he sets out more largely in the Epistle to the Galatians, when he makes an allegory of the two sons of Abraham, after this manner, that Hagar the bondwoman is a figure of Mount Sinai, where the people of Israel received the law: Sarah the freewoman is a figure of the heavenly Jerusalem, from which proceeds the Gospel. That, as the seed of Hagar is born in bondage, which may never come to the inheritance, and the seed of Sarah is born free, to whom the inheritance is due: so by the law we are made subject to bondage, by the Gospel only we are regenerated into freedom. But the sum comes to this effect, that the old testament did strike into consciences fear and trembling: but by the benefit of the new testament it comes to pass, that they are made joyful. The old did hold consciences bound to the yoke of bondage, by the liberality of the new they are discharged of bondage, and brought into freedom. But if out of the people of Israel they object against us the holy fathers, who since it is evident, that they were endowed with the same spirit that we are, it follows that they were also partakers both of the self same freedom and joy: we answer, that neither of both came of the law. But that when they felt themselves by the law to be both oppressed with a state of bondage, and wearied with unquietnesses of conscience, they fled to the succor of the Gospel, and that therefore it was a peculiar fruit of the new testament, that beside the common law of the old testament they were exempted from these evils. Moreover, we will deny that they were so endowed with the spirit of freedom and assurance, that they did not in some part feel both fear and bondage by the law. For however they enjoyed that prerogative which they had obtained by grace of the Gospel, yet were they subject to the same bonds and burdens of observation, that the common people were. Since therefore they were compelled to the careful keeping of those ceremonies, which were the signs of a schooling much like to bondage, and the handwritings whereby they confessed themselves guilty of sin, did not discharge them from being bound: it may rightfully be said, that in comparison of us they were under the testament of bondage and fear, while we have respect to that common order of distribution that the Lord then used with the people of Israel.

The three last comparisons that we have recited are of the law and the Gospel. Therefore in them by the name of the Old Testament is meant the law, and by the name of the New Testament is meant the Gospel. The first stretched further, for it comprehends under it the promises also that were published before the law, but whereas Augustine denies that they ought to be reckoned under the name of the old testament, therein he thought very well, and meant even the same thing that we now teach, for he had regard to those sayings of Jeremiah and Paul, where the old testament is severed from the word of mercy and grace. And this also he very aptly adds in the same place, that the children of promise regenerate of God, which by faith working through love, have obeyed the commandments, do from the beginning of the world belong to the new testament, and that in hope not of fleshly, earthly and temporal, but spiritual, heavenly, and eternal good things, principally believing in the mediator, by whom they doubted not that the Spirit was not ministered to them, both to do good, and to have pardon so often as they sinned. For the same thing it is that I meant to affirm, that all the saints whom the Scripture recounts to have been from the beginning of the world chosen by God, were partakers of the self same blessing with us to eternal salvation. This difference therefore is between our division and Augustine's: that ours (according to that saying of Christ: The law and the Prophets were to John: from then on the kingdom of God is preached) does make distinction between the clearness of the Gospel, and the darker distribution of the word that went before: and Augustine does only cover the weakness of the law from the strength of the Gospel. And here also is to be noted concerning the holy fathers, that they so lived under the old testament, that they stayed not there, but always aspired to the new, yes and embraced the assured partaking thereof. For the Apostle condemns them of blindness and accursedness, which being contented with present shadows, did not stretch up their mind to Christ. For (to speak nothing of the rest) what greater blindness can be imagined, than to hope for the purging of sin by the killing of a beast, than to seek for the cleansing of the soul in outward sprinkling of water? Than to seek to appease God with cold ceremonies, as though he were much delighted therewith? For to all these absurdities do they fall, that stick fast in the observations of the law without respect of Christ.

The fifth difference that we may add lies in this: that until the coming of Christ the Lord had chosen out one nation, within which he would keep separate the covenant of his grace. When the highest did distribute the nations, when he divided the sons of Adam (says Moses) his people fell to his possession: Jacob the cord of his inheritance. In another place he thus speaks to the people: Behold the heaven and earth and all that is in it, are the Lord your God's. He cleaved only to your fathers, he loved them, to choose their seed after them even yourselves out of all nations. Therefore he vouchsafed to grant the knowledge of his name to that people only, as if they only of all men belonged to him: he laid his covenant as it were in their bosom: to them he openly showed the presence of his Godhead: them he honored with all prerogatives. But (to omit the rest of his benefits, and speak that which only here is to our purpose) he bound them to him by the communicating of his word, that he might be called and counted their God. In the meantime he suffered other nations to walk in vanity, as though they had not any intercourse or anything to do with him: neither did he [reconstructed: extend to help prevent] their destruction, even that which was the only remedy, namely the preaching of his word. Therefore Israel was then the Lord's son that was his darling, others were strangers: Israel was known to him and received into his charge and protection, others were left to their own darkness. Israel was sanctified by God, others were profane: Israel was honored with the presence of God, others were excluded from coming near to him. But when the fullness of time was come, appointed for the restoring of all men, and that same reconciler of God and men was delivered indeed, the partition was plucked down, which had so long held the mercy of God enclosed within the bounds of Israel, and peace was preached to them that were far off, even as to them that were near adjoined, that being together reconciled to God, they might grow into one people. Therefore, now there is no respect of Greek or Jew, circumcision or uncircumcision, but Christ is all in all, to whom the nations are given for his inheritance, and the ends of the earth for his peculiar possession, that universally without difference he might have dominion from sea to sea, and from the rivers to the uttermost ends of the world.

Therefore the calling of the Gentiles is a notable token, whereby is clearly showed the excellence of the new testament above the old. It had indeed been before testified by many, and most plain oracles of the Prophets, but so as the performance thereof was still deferred to the kingdom of Messias. And Christ himself did not proceed to it at the first beginning of his preaching, but deferred it so long until that all the parts of our redemption being performed, and the time of his abasement ended, he received of his father a name that is above all names, before whom all knees should bow. For which cause when this convenience of time was not yet fulfilled, he said to the woman of Canaan, that he was not sent but to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. And he suffered not his Apostles at the first sending, to pass these bonds. Go not you, (says he) into the way of the Gentiles, nor enter into the cities of the Samaritans, but rather go you to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. But however it was before uttered by so many testimonies, yet when the Apostles were first to begin it, it seemed so new and strange a thing to them, that they were afraid of it, as of some monster. Truly very fearfully and not without sticking at it, they first did set upon it. And no marvel, for it seemed against reason, that the Lord which by so many ages had chosen out Israel from all other nations, should now undo that choice, as it were, suddenly changing his purpose. It was indeed spoken of before by prophecies: but they could not give so great heed to the prophecies, as to be nothing moved with the newness of the thing that they saw. And these examples which the Lord had showed of the calling of the Gentiles that should one day come to pass, were not sufficient to move them. For besides this that he had called very few, he did after a certain manner engraft them into the household of Abraham, to add them to his people as parcel of them: but by this general calling the Gentiles, were not only made equal with the Jews, but also it appeared that they came into the place of the Jews, that were become dead. And yet all those strangers whom God has before that time brought into the body of the Church, were never made equal with the Jews. And therefore not without cause does Paul so extol this mystery hidden from ages and generations, and which he also says to be marvelous to the very Angels.

In these four or five points, I think, I have well and faithfully set forth the whole difference of the old and new testament, as much as suffices to the simple order of teaching. But because many report this variety in governing the Church, this diverse manner in teaching, so great alteration of usages and ceremonies, to be a great absurdity: they are also to be answered before that we pass forth to other things. And that may be done shortly, because the objections are not so strong that they need a curious confutation. It hangs not together (say they) that God which does always steadfastly agree with himself, should suffer so great an alteration, as afterward to disallow the same thing, which he had before both commanded and commended. I answer, that God ought not therefore to be counted mutable, for that he applied diverse forms to diverse ages, as he knew to be expedient for every one. If the husbandman appoint to his household one sort of business in winter, and another in summer, shall we therefore accuse him of inconstancy, or think that he swerves from the right rule of husbandry which agrees with the continual order of nature? Likewise if a father of a household does instruct, rule, and order his children of one sort in childhood, of another in youth, and of another in man's state, we cannot therefore say that he is fickle and forsakes his own purpose. Why therefore do we charge God with reproach of inconstancy, for that he has severed the diversity of times with fit and agreeable marks? The last similitude ought fully to satisfy us. Paul makes the Jews like to children, and Christians to young men. What disorder is there in this government of God, that he held them in their childish lessons, which according to the capacity of their age were fit for them, and instructed us with stronger and as it were more manly discipline? Therefore herein appears the constancy of God, that he taught one self-same doctrine in all ages, and continues in requiring the same worship of his name, which he commanded from the beginning. But whereas he changed the outward form and manner thereof, in that he showed not himself subject to change: but so far he tempered himself to the capacity of man, which is diverse and changeable.

But from where (say they) comes this diversity, but because God willed it to be such? Could he not as well from the beginning as since the coming of Christ, reveal the eternal life in plain words without any figures, instruct those that are his with a few sacraments easy to perceive, give his Holy Spirit, and pour abroad his grace throughout the whole world? This is even as if they should quarrel with God for that he has created the world so late, since he might have created it from the beginning: or for that his will was to have interchanged courses between winter and summer, between day and night. But as for us, even as all godly men ought to think, let us not doubt that whatever God has done, is wisely and righteously done, although often we do not know the cause why it ought so to have been done. For that were to take presumptuously too much upon us, not to give God leave to have the causes of his own purpose secret to himself from us. But it is marvelous (say they) that he now refuses and abhors the sacrificing of beasts, and all that furniture of the Levitical priesthood, with which in the old time he was delighted. As though these outward and transitory things did delight God, or any way move affection in him. We have already said that he did none of these for his own cause, but disposed them all for the salvation of men. If a Physician does heal a young man after one very good method from his disease, and afterward does use another manner of healing with the same man being old: shall we therefore say, that he has refused the manner of healing which before pleased him, but rather continuing still in the same, he has consideration of age? So it behooved, that Christ being absent, should be expressed in figure by one sort of signs, and by another sort be beforehand shown that he was to come: and it is fitting that now being already delivered, he be represented by other signs. But as concerning God's calling, now at the coming of Christ more largely spread abroad among all peoples than it was before, and the graces of the Holy Spirit more plentifully poured out, who, I pray you, can deny it to be right, that God have in his own hand and will the disposing of his own graces, to give light to what nations it pleases him? To raise up the preaching of his word in what places it pleases him? To give what doctrine and how great profiting and success of doctrine it pleases him? And in what ages he will, to take away the knowledge of his name out of the world for their unthankfulness? And again when he will to restore it for his own mercy? We see therefore, that the cavillations are too much unfitting, with which wicked men do in this point disquiet the minds of the simple, to make them call either the righteousness of God, or the faith of the Scripture into doubt.

What then? Does this mean there is no difference between the old covenant and the new? And what purpose do all those Scripture passages serve where they are compared as though they are opposites? I willingly accept the differences Scripture describes — but in a way that does not undermine the unity already established, as will become plain when we treat them in order. Those differences are, as far as I can identify, chiefly four in number — and if you wish to add a fifth, I have no objection. I say, and intend to prove, that they all relate to the manner of administration rather than to the substance. By this they will not prevent the promises of both the old and new covenant from remaining one and the same, with the same foundation: Christ. The first difference is this: although even in the old era the Lord's will was to direct His people's minds and lift them to the heavenly inheritance, He gave it to be seen — or rather tasted — through earthly blessings, the better to nourish their hope. But now, having revealed the grace of the life to come through the Gospel, He directs our minds more clearly and directly to the meditation of that life, setting aside the more basic kind of training He used with the Israelites. Those who do not notice this purpose of God conclude that the ancient people aspired to nothing higher than bodily blessings. They hear the land of Canaan mentioned repeatedly as the grand — or even the only — reward for those who keep God's law. They hear that God's most severe threat to transgressors is banishment from that land and exile among foreign peoples. They see that virtually all the blessings and curses pronounced by Moses point in this direction. They therefore conclude that the Jews were set apart from other nations not for their own sake but for the sake of others — so that the church of Christ might have a visible type in which to see pictures of spiritual realities. But since Scripture itself often shows that God directed all the earthly blessings He gave the Israelites toward the very end of leading them by the hand to the hope of heavenly blessings, it is not merely unskillful — I will not say dull-witted — to ignore this divine arrangement. The real dispute with these people is this: they teach that possession of the land of Canaan was the supreme and final blessedness for the Israelites, and that only after the revealing of Christ does it figuratively signify the heavenly inheritance. We on the other hand affirm that in the earthly possession they enjoyed, as in a mirror, they saw the inheritance to come, which they believed was prepared for them in heaven.

This becomes clearer from the comparison Paul uses in Galatians. He compares the Jewish nation to an heir who is still a minor — not yet able to manage his own affairs and therefore placed under a tutor or guardian. Though Paul applies that comparison to the ceremonies, nothing prevents it from fitting the present purpose equally well. The same inheritance was appointed for them as for us — but they were not yet old enough to enter and enjoy it. The same church existed among them, but still in its childhood. Therefore the Lord kept them under this training: He gave them the spiritual promises not naked and open, but wrapped in earthly promises. So when He called Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob and their descendants to the hope of immortality, He promised them the land of Canaan as their inheritance — not to fix their hopes there, but so that in beholding it they might exercise and confirm themselves in the hope of the true inheritance that had not yet appeared. And lest they be deceived, a higher promise was given to testify that the land was not God's greatest gift. Abraham was not permitted to rest lazily in the promise of the land — his mind was lifted up by a greater promise to the Lord. For Abraham heard this: 'I am your shield; your reward will be very great.' Here we see that the end of Abraham's reward is set forth as the Lord Himself, so that he would not count on a passing and unstable reward in the elements of this world, but would think of his reward as something that cannot fade. The promise of the land was added afterward for no other purpose than to serve as a token of God's goodwill and a figure of the heavenly inheritance. That this was the holy men's understanding is shown by their own words. David rises from temporal blessings to that highest and final blessing: 'My heart and my flesh cry out for You. God is my portion forever.' Again: 'The Lord is my chosen portion and my cup; You hold my lot.' Again: 'I cry to You, O Lord; I say, You are my refuge, my portion in the land of the living.' Those who dare speak this way are without doubt declaring that their hope rises above the world and all its present goods. But the prophets often describe the blessedness of the world to come using the figures they had received from the Lord. So are these sayings to be understood: that the godly will inherit the land and the wicked will be cut off from it; that Jerusalem will overflow with every kind of riches and Zion with abundance of all things. These cannot properly be spoken of the land of our earthly pilgrimage or of the earthly Jerusalem, but of the true homeland of the faithful and the heavenly city where the Lord has commanded blessing and life forever.

This is why we read that the holy men of the old covenant valued mortal life and its blessings more than we might consider fitting today. Although they knew well that their race did not end there, yet when they reflected on the marks of God's grace He had pointed to in earthly things — training them according to their tender capacity — they felt a greater sweetness in those things than if they had considered them purely on their own terms. But just as the Lord, by testifying His goodwill toward the faithful through present blessings, expressed the shadow of spiritual happiness through figures and signs, so on the other side He used physical sufferings to display examples of His judgment against the reprobate. Therefore, as God's blessings were to be seen in earthly things, so too were His punishments. Those who do not weigh this correspondence — this balance, as I may call it — between punishments and rewards, are troubled by what appears to be a great change in God. They see that in ancient times He was so swift to take vengeance on every human offense with severe and terrible punishments, yet now seems to have set aside His former anger, punishing both more gently and less frequently. Indeed, for this very reason, they nearly imagine two different gods — one of the old and one of the new covenant, as the Manichees actually did. But we will easily be freed from such perplexities if we keep in mind the orderly arrangement of God I have described — whose will it was for a time to represent in figure both the grace of eternal happiness through temporal blessings, and the severity of spiritual death through physical punishments. In this way He delivered His covenant to the Israelites still, in a manner, folded up.

Another difference between the old and new covenant is said to lie in the figures: the old covenant offered only an image in the absence of the reality, and a shadow in place of the substance. The new covenant gives the reality itself, present and substantial. This difference is mentioned whenever the new covenant is compared with the old, but it is treated at greatest length in the letter to the Hebrews. There the apostle argues against those who thought the practices of Moses's law could not be removed without bringing down all of religion with them. To refute this error, he appeals to what the prophet had foretold about the priesthood of Christ. Since an eternal priesthood was given to Him, it is certain that the prior priesthood — in which one successor after another was continually installed — has been ended. He then proves that the institution of this new priesthood is superior because it was established with an oath. He further adds that with the change of priesthood comes also a change of covenant. And he proves that this was necessary because the weakness of the law was such that it could not bring anything to perfection. He then explains what that weakness was: the law had only outward requirements concerning the flesh, which could not perfect the consciences of those who observed them; and through the blood of animals, it could neither wipe away sins nor obtain true holiness. He concludes therefore that the law contained a shadow of the good things to come, but not the living image of the things themselves — and so its only office was to serve as an introduction to a better hope, which is delivered in the Gospel. Here we see the precise point of comparison between the law's covenant and the Gospel's covenant, between the ministry of Christ and the ministry of Moses. If the comparison concerned the substance of the promises, there would be a vast difference between the two covenants. But since the argument points in a different direction, we must press toward the truth. Let us therefore set forth the covenant He has established as eternal, never to perish. Its fulfillment — by which it attains stability and lasting force — is Christ. While that fulfillment was still in expectation, the Lord appointed ceremonies through Moses as solemn signs of confirmation. The question then arose: should the ceremonies ordained in the law give way to Christ or not? Although the ceremonies were only attendant features — additions and accessories to the covenant — because they were instruments of its administration, they took the name of the covenant itself, as similar things are commonly attributed to other sacraments. In short, in this passage the old covenant refers to the solemn form of confirming the covenant, contained in ceremonies and sacrifices. The apostle says that because nothing in it is perfect unless we press further, it was necessary that those ceremonies be discontinued and abrogated to make room for Christ — the guarantor and mediator of a better covenant, through whom eternal sanctification was once and for all purchased for the elect, and the transgressions that remained under the law were blotted out. Or to put it another way: the Lord's old covenant was what was delivered wrapped up in the shadowy and preparatory observance of ceremonies. It was therefore temporary, because it remained in suspense, waiting to be confirmed by something more solid and enduring. It was made new and eternal only when it was consecrated and established by the blood of Christ. This is why Christ called the cup He gave His disciples at the supper 'the cup of the new covenant in My blood' — to show that the covenant of God then attained its reality, becoming new and eternal, when sealed with His blood.

This makes plain in what sense the apostle said that under the training of the law, the Jews were being brought to Christ before He appeared in the flesh. He acknowledges that they were children and heirs of God — but children who, on account of their young age, had to remain under the custody of a guardian. It was fitting that before the Sun of Righteousness had fully risen, there should be neither so great a brightness of revelation nor so deep an understanding. God therefore gave them His Word's light in measure, so that they saw it still from far off and dimly. Paul expresses this limited understanding through the metaphor of childhood — the Lord's will was to exercise them with the outward elements of this world and with external observances, as instruction suited to children, until Christ would shine out, under whom the knowledge of God's people would grow to full maturity. This distinction is what Christ Himself had in mind when He said that the law and the prophets were until John, and that from then on the kingdom of God has been proclaimed. What did the law and the prophets open to the people of their time? They gave a taste of the wisdom that would be plainly disclosed in due time, and they pointed to it as something twinkling far in the distance. But when the time came that Christ could be pointed to directly, the kingdom of God was thrown open. For in Him are laid open the treasures of all wisdom and understanding, by which we attain, in a sense, to the very inner rooms of heaven.

It is no objection that hardly anyone in the Christian church can be found who equals Abraham in excellence of faith, or that the prophets excelled in such spiritual power that even today they illuminate the whole world. Our question here is not what grace the Lord bestowed on a select few, but what ordinary manner of teaching He used with His people — the manner described in the very prophets who were endowed with a special knowledge above the rest. For even their preaching is obscure and wrapped in figures, as of things seen from far away. Moreover, however extraordinary a knowledge appeared in them compared to others, since they were compelled to submit themselves to the same childish instruction common to the whole people, they too were reckoned among the children. There was never so clear a vision granted to anyone in that era that it did not in some measure carry the darkness of that age. Hence Christ said: 'Many kings and prophets longed to see what you see, and did not see it, and to hear what you hear, and did not hear it. But blessed are your eyes, for they see, and your ears, for they hear.' It was fitting that the presence of Christ should carry this distinctive privilege: that from it would spring the clear revealing of heavenly mysteries. This is also the point of what we cited earlier from Peter's first letter — that it was opened to the prophets that their labor was profitable primarily for our age.

Now I come to the third difference, drawn from Jeremiah, whose words are these: 'Behold, the days are coming, declares the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah, not like the covenant that I made with their fathers on the day when I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, My covenant that they broke, though I was their husband. But this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel: I will put My law within them, and I will write it on their hearts. I will be merciful to their iniquity, and no longer will each one teach his neighbor and each his brother, saying, Know the Lord, for they shall all know Me, from the least to the greatest.' From these words the apostle drew his comparison between the law and the Gospel: he called the law a letter and the Gospel a spiritual doctrine; the law written on tablets of stone, the Gospel written on hearts; the law the ministry of death, the Gospel the ministry of life; the law the ministry of condemnation, the Gospel the ministry of righteousness; the law fading away, the Gospel enduring. Since the apostle's purpose was only to explain the prophet's meaning, it is enough to weigh the words of one of them to understand both. Yet there is some difference in their tone. The apostle speaks more harshly about the law than the prophet does — not because of the law as such, but because there were certain misguided men whose distorted zeal for the law, and their perverse attachment to the ceremonies, was obscuring the brightness of the Gospel. He is describing the nature of the law according to their error and foolish thinking. That specific context in Paul is worth noting. But both the prophet and the apostle, when they set the old and new covenants in contrast, consider the law only in what properly belongs to it. For instance: the law commonly contains promises of mercy throughout, but because those promises are borrowed from elsewhere, they are not counted as part of the law when the law's own nature is under discussion. What they attribute to the law alone is this: it commands what is right, forbids what is wicked, promises reward to those who pursue righteousness, and threatens punishment for those who transgress — but in the meantime it neither changes nor amends the perverseness of heart that is naturally in all people.

Let us now go through the apostle's comparison piece by piece. The old covenant is called the letter because it was published without the effective working of the Spirit; the new is called spiritual because the Lord has spiritually engraved it on the hearts of people. This second contrast is thus a further explanation of the first. The old covenant brings death because it can do nothing but wrap all of humanity under the curse. The new is the instrument of life because it delivers from the curse and restores us to favor with God. The old is the ministry of condemnation because it convicts all of Adam's children of unrighteousness. The new is the ministry of righteousness because it reveals the mercy of God by which we are made righteous. The final contrast is to be referred to the ceremonies. Because the old covenant contained an image of absent things, it was necessary that it should in time decay and vanish; but the Gospel, because it gives the true substance itself, maintains a firm and permanent stability. Jeremiah also calls even the moral law a weak and fragile covenant — but for a different reason: because the ungrateful people quickly broke it by their sudden falling away. But since that breaking was the fault of the people, it cannot rightly be charged against the covenant itself. The ceremonies, however, were dissolved by the coming of Christ because of a weakness that was inherent in themselves. Now the distinction between letter and spirit is not to be taken as though the Lord gave His law to the Jews with no fruit at all and converted none of them to Himself. It is a comparison designed to magnify the abundance of grace, by which the same Lawgiver, taking on a new character as it were, gloriously set forth the preaching of the Gospel. If we count up the multitude of those whom the Lord from all nations has regenerated by His Spirit through the preaching of the Gospel and gathered into the fellowship of His church, we would say that in ancient Israel there were very few — almost none — who embraced the covenant of the Lord with wholehearted sincerity. Yet they were indeed a very great number when counted in their own right, apart from any comparison.

Out of the third difference arises the fourth. Scripture calls the old covenant the covenant of bondage because it produces fear in people's minds; the new is called the covenant of freedom because it lifts them to confidence and assurance. So Paul says in Romans 8: 'You did not receive the spirit of bondage again, leading to fear, but you have received the Spirit of adoption, by which we cry, Abba, Father.' To this belongs the statement in Hebrews that the faithful have not come to the physical mountain blazing with fire and darkness and wind and tempest — where nothing could be heard or seen without striking terror into people's hearts, so that even Moses trembled with fear at the terrible voice, and the whole people begged not to hear any more. Rather, we have come to Mount Zion and to the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem. What Paul touches briefly in Romans he develops at greater length in Galatians through his allegory of Abraham's two sons: Hagar the slave woman represents Mount Sinai, where the people of Israel received the law; Sarah the free woman represents the heavenly Jerusalem, from which the Gospel proceeds. As the child born of Hagar is born into slavery and can never receive the inheritance, while the child born of Sarah is born free, to whom the inheritance belongs — so through the law we are brought into bondage, and through the Gospel alone we are regenerated into freedom. In sum: the old covenant struck consciences with fear and trembling; through the benefit of the new covenant, consciences are made joyful. The old held consciences bound under the yoke of bondage; through the generosity of the new, they are released from bondage and brought into freedom. But if they point to the holy fathers from among the people of Israel, who — since they clearly had the same Spirit we have — must have been partakers of the same freedom and joy, our answer is that neither came from the law. When they felt themselves oppressed by bondage and worn down by troubled consciences through the law, they fled to the help of the Gospel, and so it was a particular fruit of the new covenant that, going beyond the common condition of the old, they were freed from those evils. We will also deny that they were so fully endowed with the spirit of freedom and confidence that they felt no fear or bondage from the law at all. However much they enjoyed the privilege they had obtained through the grace of the Gospel, they were still subject to the same bonds and burdens of outward observance as the common people. Since they were required to observe carefully those ceremonies that were signs of a training much like slavery — and the certificates by which they confessed their guilt in sin did not discharge them from that binding — it may rightly be said that in comparison with us they were under the covenant of bondage and fear, when we have in view the common ordering that the Lord then used with the people of Israel.

The last three comparisons we have cited contrast the law and the Gospel. So in them, the term 'old covenant' refers to the law and 'new covenant' refers to the Gospel. The first difference stretched further, because it included the promises published before the law. But when Augustine argues that those earlier promises should not be placed under the heading of the old covenant, he thought well and meant the same thing we are now teaching — for he had regard to those passages in Jeremiah and Paul where the old covenant is distinguished from the word of mercy and grace. He very aptly adds in the same place that the children of promise — those regenerated by God, who through faith working through love have obeyed the commandments — belong to the new covenant from the very beginning of the world. Their hope was not fixed on earthly, temporal, or physical blessings, but on spiritual, heavenly, and eternal ones, believing above all in the Mediator through whom they were confident the Spirit was given them — both to do good and to obtain pardon whenever they sinned. This is precisely what I intended to affirm: all the saints whom Scripture records as chosen by God from the beginning of the world were partakers of the same blessing as we are for eternal salvation. The difference between our division and Augustine's is this: ours — following Christ's saying, 'The law and the prophets were until John; from then on the kingdom of God is proclaimed' — distinguishes the clarity of the Gospel from the darker distribution of the word that preceded it. Augustine's distinction covers only the weakness of the law as compared to the strength of the Gospel. We must also note about the holy fathers that though they lived under the old covenant, they did not stop there but always pressed forward toward the new and embraced a confident share in it. For the apostle condemns as blind and accursed those who, content with present shadows, did not stretch their minds up to Christ. To say nothing of the rest: what greater blindness can there be than to hope for the cleansing of sin through the killing of an animal, or to seek the purifying of the soul through an outward sprinkling of water? Or to seek to appease God with cold ceremonies, as though He were greatly pleased by them? All of these absurdities befall those who cling to the observances of the law without any regard for Christ.

The fifth difference we may add is this: until the coming of Christ, the Lord had chosen out one nation within which He would keep the covenant of His grace distinct. 'When the Most High divided the nations, when He separated the sons of Adam,' says Moses, 'His own people fell to His possession — Jacob the lot of His inheritance.' In another place He says to the people: 'Behold, the heavens and the earth and everything in them belong to the Lord your God. Yet He set His love on your fathers and chose their descendants after them — you above all peoples.' He therefore was pleased to grant knowledge of His name to that people alone, as if they alone of all people belonged to Him. He placed His covenant, as it were, in their bosom; He openly showed them the presence of His Godhead; He honored them with every privilege. But to set aside His other benefits and speak only of what is relevant here: He bound them to Himself by communicating His Word, so that He could rightly be called and counted their God. Meanwhile, He allowed the other nations to walk in their emptiness, as though they had no dealings with Him and nothing to do with Him. He withheld from them even the only remedy for their destruction — the preaching of His Word. Israel was then the Lord's son, His beloved; the others were strangers. Israel was known to Him and received into His care and protection; the others were left in their own darkness. Israel was sanctified by God; the others were profane. Israel was honored with the presence of God; the others were excluded from coming near to Him. But when the fullness of time appointed for the restoration of all people arrived, and the Reconciler of God and humanity had actually been given, the dividing wall was torn down — the wall that had long kept God's mercy enclosed within the borders of Israel. Peace was proclaimed to those who were far off, as well as to those who were near, so that both, having been reconciled to God, might grow together into one people. Therefore now there is no distinction between Greek and Jew, circumcision and uncircumcision, but Christ is all and in all — to whom the nations are given as His inheritance and the ends of the earth as His possession, that He might reign universally and without distinction from sea to sea and from the rivers to the ends of the world.

The calling of the Gentiles is therefore a notable sign that clearly demonstrates the superiority of the new covenant over the old. It had indeed been foretold beforehand by many plain oracles of the prophets, but in such a way that its fulfillment was still deferred to the kingdom of Messiah. Christ Himself did not move toward it at the beginning of His ministry but put it off until all the parts of our redemption had been accomplished and the time of His humiliation had ended — when He received from the Father the name above every name, before whom every knee should bow. For this reason, when that appointed time had not yet arrived, He told the Canaanite woman that He had been sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. And at their first sending out, He did not permit His apostles to cross those bounds: 'Do not go among the Gentiles or into any town of the Samaritans, but go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.' Yet even though the calling of the Gentiles had been announced beforehand by so many testimonies, when the apostles first had to carry it out, it seemed so new and strange to them that they shrank from it as from something monstrous. They approached it with great fear and reluctance. No wonder — for it seemed contrary to reason that the Lord, who had set Israel apart from all other nations through so many ages, should now reverse that choice as if suddenly changing His purpose. The prophecies had spoken of it, but they could not attend to the prophecies with enough care to be unmoved by the strangeness of what they were now seeing. The examples the Lord had previously shown of calling individual Gentiles were not sufficient to prepare them. For beyond the fact that He had called very few, He had in a sense grafted those into the household of Abraham, adding them to His people as members of it. But in this general calling, the Gentiles were not only made equal with the Jews — it appeared that they were actually taking the place of the Jews, who had fallen away. Yet none of the foreign converts God had previously brought into the body of the church had ever been made equal with the Jews in that way. It is therefore not without good reason that Paul so magnifies this mystery — hidden for ages and generations — which he says is marvelous even to the angels.

In these four or five points I believe I have set forth faithfully and clearly the whole difference between the old and new covenants, to the extent that a basic treatment of the subject requires. But because many people cite this variety in governing the church — this different manner of teaching and this great change in practices and ceremonies — as a serious objection, they must be answered before we move on. This can be done briefly, since the objections are not strong enough to require a labored refutation. They say: it is inconsistent that God — who always agrees perfectly with Himself — should tolerate so great a change, afterward disapproving the very things He had both commanded and commended before. My answer is that God should not on this account be considered changeable, since He adapted different forms to different ages as He knew to be fitting for each. If a farmer assigns one kind of work to his household in winter and a different kind in summer, do we therefore accuse him of inconsistency or think he has deviated from the sound principles of farming that are in harmony with the natural order of the seasons? Likewise, if a father of a family governs and instructs his children one way in childhood, another way in youth, and another way in adulthood, we cannot say that he is fickle or has abandoned his own purpose. Why then do we charge God with the fault of inconsistency simply because He marked off different seasons with fitting and appropriate signs? The last comparison ought to satisfy us completely. Paul compares the Jews to children and Christians to young men. What disorder is there in God's governance — that He kept the Jews in the childish lessons suited to their stage of development, while He trains us with a stronger and more mature discipline? In all of this God's consistency is displayed: He taught the same doctrine in every age and continues to require the same worship of His name that He commanded from the beginning. The fact that He changed the outward form and manner of that worship does not show that He Himself changed — rather, He adapted Himself to the capacity of humanity, which is itself varied and changeable.

But where does this diversity come from, they ask, except from God's own will? Could He not, just as well from the beginning as after the coming of Christ, have revealed eternal life in plain words without figures, instructed His people with a few easily understood sacraments, given His Holy Spirit, and spread His grace throughout the whole world? This is like quarreling with God for creating the world so late, since He could have created it from the beginning — or for choosing to alternate winter with summer, and day with night. For our part, as every godly person ought to think, let us not doubt that whatever God has done is done wisely and rightly, even when we often do not know the reason why it had to be done that way. To demand to know would be to presumptuously take too much upon ourselves — refusing to allow God to keep the reasons for His own purposes hidden from us. But they find it strange, they say, that God now rejects and abhors the sacrificing of animals and all the furnishings of the Levitical priesthood — things in which He appeared to take delight in ancient times. As if outward and temporary things actually gave God delight or stirred any affection in Him! We have already said that He instituted none of these things for His own sake but arranged them all for the salvation of people. If a physician heals a young man from a disease by one very good method, and then uses a different approach with the same man when he is old, do we say that he has rejected the method that pleased him before? No — he remains consistent in his practice but takes the man's age into consideration. So it was fitting that while Christ was absent, He should be expressed in one kind of signs pointing to His future coming, and fitting that now He has actually been given, He should be represented in another kind. As for God's calling being now, at Christ's coming, spread more widely among all peoples than before, and the graces of the Holy Spirit being poured out more abundantly — who could deny that it is right for God to hold in His own hand and will the disposition of His own graces? To shed light upon whatever nations He pleases? To raise up the preaching of His Word in whatever places He pleases? To grant what teaching and however much fruit of teaching He pleases? And in whatever ages He will, to withdraw knowledge of His name from the world in response to ingratitude? And when He wills, to restore it again in His own mercy? We see therefore that the quibbles by which wicked people disturb the minds of simple believers — trying to cast doubt on either God's righteousness or the trustworthiness of Scripture — are entirely without merit.