The Marrow Of Modern Divinity (7/13/26)
Chapter 1, Sections 2-3
Episode 4, releasing 7/13/26, will cover Chapter 1, Sections 2-3:
In this section, The Marrow introduces the Covenant of Works: the original covenant God made with Adam before the fall. Adam was created holy, upright, and able to obey God.
The terms were simple: perfect obedience would lead to life, but disobedience would bring death. Though the Ten Commandments had not yet been written on stone, the moral law was written on Adam’s heart.
The command not to eat from the forbidden tree gathered up Adam’s whole duty to God: trust, love, worship, reverence, and obedience. But Adam fell by willingly breaking God’s command, and in him all mankind fell under guilt, death, and condemnation.
CHAPTER I. OF THE LAW, OR COVENANT OF WORKS.
Sect. 1. — The Nature of the Covenant of Works
Evan. The Law of Works, as opposed to the Law of Faith (Rom. 3.27), holds forth as much as the Covenant of Works; for it is manifest, says Musculus,1 that the word which signifies covenant, or bargain, is put for law: so that you see the Law of Works is the same as the Covenant of Works. The Lord made this covenant with all mankind in Adam before his fall, the sum of which was this: “Do this, and you shall live,” Lev. 18.5; “and if you do not do it, you shall die the death,” Gen. 2.17. In this covenant was first contained a precept, “Do this;” secondly, a promise joined to it, “If you do it, you shall live;” thirdly, a similar threatening, “If you do not do it, you shall die the death.” Imagine, says Musculus1, that God had said to Adam, Look, with the intent that you may live, I have given you liberty to eat, and I have given you abundantly to eat: let all the fruits of paradise be in your power, except one tree; see that you do not touch it, for I keep it to my own authority: it is “the tree of knowledge of good and evil;” if you touch it, its food shall not be life, but death.
Nom. But, sir, you said, that the law of the Ten Commandments, or Moral Law, may be said to be the matter of the Law of Works; and you have also said, that the Law of Works is the same as the Covenant of Works, whereby it seems to me that you hold that the law of the Ten Commandments was the matter of the Covenant of Works, which God made with all mankind in Adam before his fall.
Evan. That is a truth agreed upon by all authors and interpreters that I know. And indeed, the Law of Works (as a learned author says) signifies the Moral Law; and the Moral Law, strictly and properly taken, signifies the Covenant of Works.2
Nom. But, sir, what is the reason that you call it only the matter of the Covenant of Works?
Evan. The reason why I choose to call the law of the Ten Commandments the matter of the Covenant of Works, rather than the covenant itself, is because I conceive that the matter of it cannot properly be called the Covenant of Works, unless the form is put upon it; that is to say, unless the Lord requires it, and man undertakes to yield perfect obedience to it, on condition of eternal life and death. And therefore, till then, it was not a Covenant of Works between God and all mankind in Adam. For example, you know that even though a servant3 can do a master’s work, and even though a master has wages to bestow on him for it, yet there is no covenant between them till they have agreed upon it. Even so, though man at first had power to yield perfect and perpetual obedience to all the Ten Commandments, and God had an eternal life to bestow on him, yet there was no covenant between them till they were agreed upon it.
Nom. But, sir, you know there is no mention made in the book of Genesis of this Covenant of Works, which you say was made with man at first.
Evan. Though we do not read the word “covenant” between God and man, yet we have recorded there what may amount to as much; for God provided and promised to Adam eternal happiness, and called for perfect obedience, which appears from God’s threatening in Gen. 2.17; for if man must die if he disobeyed, then it implies strongly that God’s covenant was with him for life if he obeyed.
Nom. But, sir, you know the word “covenant” signifies a mutual promise, bargain, and obligation between two parties. Now, though it is implied that God promised man to give him life if he obeyed, we do not read that man promised to be obedient.
Evan. I ask you to take notice that God does not always tie man to verbal expressions, but often contracts the covenant in real impressions in the heart and frame of the creature;4 and this was the manner of covenanting with man at first.5 For God had furnished his soul with an understanding mind whereby he might discern good from evil, and right from wrong: and not only this, but there was also in his will the greatest uprightness, Eccl. 7.29; and his instrumental parts6 were framed to obedience and order. The truth is, God engraved in man’s soul wisdom and knowledge of His will and works, and integrity in the whole soul, and such a fitness in all its powers, that the mind neither conceived, nor the heart desired, nor the body executed anything except what was acceptable to God; so that man, endued with these qualities, was able to serve God perfectly.
Nom. But, sir, how could the law of the Ten Commandments be the matter of this Covenant of Works, when they were not written, as you know, till the time of Moses?
Evan. Though they were not written in tablets of stone until the time of Moses, yet they were written in the tablets of man’s heart in the time of Adam: for we read that man was created in
Nom. Yet I cannot but marvel that God, in making the covenant with man, made mention of no other commandment than that of the forbidden fruit.
Evan. Do not marvel at it: for by that one species of sin, the whole genus or kind of sin is shown; just as the same law, being more clearly unfolded, expresses, Deu. 27.26; Gal. 3.10. And, indeed, in that one commandment consisted the whole worship of God, such as obedience, honour, love, confidence, and religious fear; together with outward abstinence from sin, and reverend respect for the voice of God. Indeed, in this also consists his love, and so his whole duty to his neighbour;7 so that, as a learned writer says, “Adam heard as much (of the law) in the garden, as Israel did at Sinai, only in fewer words, and without thunder.”8
Nom. But, sir, should not man have yielded perfect obedience to God even though this covenant had not been made between them?
Evan. Yes, indeed; perfect and perpetual obedience was due from man to God, even though God had made no promise to man; for when God created man at first, he put forth an excellency from himself into man; and therefore it was the bond and tie that lay upon man to return that to God;9 so that being God’s creature by the law of creation, man owed all obedience and subjection to God his Creator.
Nom. Why, then, was it necessary that the Lord make a covenant with him, by promising him life, and threatening him with death?
Evan. For the answer to this, in the first place, I ask you to understand that man was a reasonable creature; and so, out of judgment, discretion, and election, he was able to choose his way; and therefore it was fitting that there should be such a covenant made with him that he might reasonably serve God, according to God’s appointment. Secondly, it was fitting that there should be such a covenant made with him to show that he was not such a prince on earth, that he did not have a sovereign Lord: therefore, God set a punishment upon the breach of his commandment,10 so that man might know his inferiority, and that things between him and God were not as between equals. Thirdly, it was fitting that there should be such a covenant made with him, to show that he had nothing by personal, immediate, and underived right, but it was all by gift and gentleness: so that you see it was an equal covenant,11 which God, out of his royal prerogative, made with mankind in Adam before his fall.
Nom. Well, sir, I do perceive that Adam and all mankind in him were created most holy.
Evan. Yes, and most happy, too: for God placed him in paradise in the midst of all delightful pleasures and contents, in which he enjoyed most near and sweet communion with his Creator, in whose presence is fulness of joy, and at whose right hand are pleasures evermore, Psalm 16.11. So that if Adam had received from the tree of life by taking and eating from it, while he stood in the state of innocence before his fall, then he would certainly have been established in a happy estate forever;12 and he could not have been seduced and supplanted by Satan, as some learned men think, and as God’s own words seem to imply, Gen. 3.22.13
Sect. 2. — Adam’s Fall.
Nom. But it seems that Adam did not continue in that holy and happy estate.
Evan. No indeed; for he disobeyed God’s express command in eating the forbidden fruit, and so he became guilty of the breach of the covenant.
Nom. But, sir, how could Adam, who had his understanding so sound and his will so free to choose good, be so disobedient to God’s express command?
Evan. Though he and his will were both good, yet they were mutually good; so that he might stand or fall at his own election or choice.
Nom. But why then did the Lord not create him immutable? Or, why did he not overrule him in that action, so that he might not have eaten the forbidden fruit?14
Evan. The reason why the Lord did not create him immutable, was because he would be obeyed out of judgment and free choice, and not by fatal necessity and absolute determination;15 and with this, let me tell you, it was not reasonable to restrain God on this point, to make man such that he would not or could not sin at all; for it was at God’s choice to create man how he pleased. But why he did not uphold him with the strength of steadfast continuance; that rests hidden in God’s secret council. Nevertheless, we may certainly conclude that Adam’s state was such that it served to remove all excuse from him; for he received so much, that of his own will he wrought his own destruction;3 because this act of his was a wilful transgression of a law, under the precepts of which he was most justly created; and under the malediction of which he was just as necessarily and righteously subject if he transgressed. For just as being God’s creature meant he was subject to God’s will, so being God’s prisoner meant he was as justly subject to his wrath. That was made more just by how much more the precept was just, the obedience easier, the transgression more reasonable, and the punishment more certain.
Wolfgang Musculus (1497-1563) – a leading Reformer in the cities of Augsburg and Berne.
The Moral Law is an ambiguous term among divines. (1.) The Moral Law, simply, is taken from the Decalogue, or Ten Commandments. So the law in the Ten Commandments is commonly called the Moral Law, Westm. Confess., chap. 19. art. 2, 3. And thus our author has used that term up to this point, reckoning the Moral Law to be not the Covenant of Works itself, but only the matter of it. (2.) The Moral Law is taken for the Ten Commandments, having the promise of life, and threatening of death annexed to them; that is, taken for the Law, or Covenant of Works. Thus the Moral Law is described to be, “the declaration of the will of God to mankind, directing and binding everyone to personal, perfect, and perpetual conformity and obedience to it, in the frame and disposition of the whole man, soul and body, and in the performance of all these duties of holiness and righteousness which he owes to God and man, promising life upon its fulfilling, and threatening death upon its breach.” Westm. Larger Catech. Quest. 93. That this is the Covenant of Works, is clear from the Westm. Confess., chap. 19. art. 1, “God gave to Adam a law, as a Covenant of Works, by which he bound him and all his posterity to personal, entire, exact, and perpetual obedience; promised life upon the fulfilling, and threatened death upon the breach of it.” And this our author admits to be the sense of that term, strictly and properly taken — the reason for which I conceive that the Moral Law, properly signifying the law of manners, answers to the Scripture term, the Law of Works, by which is meant the Covenant of Works. And if he had added that in this sense, believers are delivered from it, he would have said no more than the Larger Catechism does, in these words: “Those who are regenerate, and believe in Christ, are delivered from the Moral Law as a Covenant of Works,” Quest. 97. But, in the meantime, it is evident he does not use that term in this sense here; and in the next paragraph, he gives a reason why, save once, he did not use it in that sense.
Not a hired servant, for there is a covenant between such a servant and the master; rather, a bond-servant, bought with money from another person, or born in the master’s house, who is obliged to serve his master, and is liable to punishment in case he does not; but he cannot demand wages, since there is no covenant between them. This was the case of mankind with relation to the Creator, before the Covenant of Works was made.
The soul approving, embracing, and consenting to the covenant; without any more, this is plain language, even if not to men, yet to God who knows the heart.
The covenant being revealed to man, created in God’s own image, he could not help but perceive the equity and benefit of it; and so he heartily approved, embraced, accepted, and consented to it. And this accepting is plainly intimated in Eve’s words to the serpent, Gen. 3.2, 3, “We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden; but of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God has said, you shall not eat of it, nor shall you touch it, lest you die.”
His executive faculties and powers, whereby the good that was known and willed was to be done.
Col 3:10 put on the new man who is renewed in knowledge according to the image of Him who created him;
That one commandment was in effect a summary of the whole duty of man; this clearly appears if one considers that its breach was a transgression of all ten commandments at once, as our author afterwards distinctly shows.
John Lightfoot, Miscellanies Christian and Judiciall (London, 1629), 182-83.
God having given man a being after his own image, a glorious excellency, it was man’s natural duty to make suitable returns to the Giver by way of duty, by living and acting for him; even as the waters which originally are from the sea return to the sea again in brooks and rivers. Man, being of God as his first cause, was required to have God as his chief and ultimate end, Rom. 11.36.
The punishment of death upon the breach of his commandment touching the forbidden fruit.
That is, an equitable covenant, fair and reasonable.
This contradicts the text of Scripture in asserting that Adam was previously forbidden from the Tree of Life; clearly, only the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil was forbidden (2.17). Adam would have lived forever in the Garden, eating of the Tree of Life, if he had not eaten the forbidden fruit. But lest he live forever in sin, God blocked Adam from eating of the Tree of Life anymore, having made provision for eternal life in the sanctifying blood of Christ.
The author says that some learned men think so, and that the words of Gen. 3.22 seem to imply as much, but all this does not amount to a positive determination of the point. The words of that verse are these: “Behold, the man has become as one of us, to know good and evil; and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live forever,” etc. Whether or not these words seem to imply some such things, I leave to the judgment of the reader, whom I am not inclined to entertain with my own or others’ conjectures on this topic; but three things I take to be plain and beyond conjecture in this text: (1.) That there is no irony or scoffing here, as many think there is; but, on the contrary, a most pathetic lamentation over fallen man. The literal version and sense of the former part of the text run thus: “Behold the man that was one of us,” etc., compare for the version. Lam. 3.1; Psalm 3.7; and for the sense of it, Gen. 1.26, 27, “And God said, Let us make man in our image. — So God created man in his own image,” etc. The latter part of the text I would read thus: “And eat that he may live forever.” Compare for this version, Exo. 4.23; 1 Sam. 6.8. It is evident the sentence is broken off abruptly; the words, “I will drive him out,” being suppressed; even as in the case of a father, with sighs, sobs, and tears, putting his son out of doors. (2.) That it was God’s design to prevent Adam’s eating of the tree of life, as he had forbidden eatingof the tree, “lest he take also of the tree of life;” thereby mercifully taking care that our fallen father, to whom the Covenant of Grace was now proclaimed, might not, according to the corrupt natural inclination of fallen mankind, run back to the Covenant of Works for life and salvation, by partaking of the tree of life — a sacrament of that covenant — and so reject the Covenant of Grace by eating of that tree now, as he had before broken the Covenant of Works by eating of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. (3.) That at this time, Adam thought that by eating of the tree of life, he might live forever. I do not dip further into this matter here.
These are two distinct questions, both of them natively arising from a legal temper of spirit: and I doubt if ever the heart of a sinner will receive a satisfying answer to either of them, until it comes to embrace the gospel-way of salvation — taking up its everlasting rest in Christ for wisdom, righteousness, sanctification, and redemption.