Ant. But were the Ten Commandments, as they were delivered to them on Mount Sinai, the Covenant of Works or not?
Evan. They were delivered to them as the Covenant of Works.1
Nom. But, by your favour, sir, you know that these people were the posterity of Abraham, and therefore were under that Covenant of Grace which God made with their father. Therefore I do not think they were delivered to them as the Covenant of Works; for you know the Lord never delivers the Covenant of Works to any who are under the Covenant of Grace.
Evan. Indeed it is true, the Lord did manifest so much love to the body of this nation, that all the natural seed of Abraham were externally, and by profession, under the Covenant of Grace made with their father Abraham — though it is to be feared that many of them were still under the Covenant of Works made with their father Adam.2
Nom. But sir, you know that in the preface to the Ten Commandments, the Lord calls himself by the name of their God in general; therefore it would seem they were all the people of God.3
Evan. That is not to the purpose;4 for many wicked and ungodly men, being in the visible church and under the external covenant,
Nom. But, sir, was the same Covenant of Works made with them that was made with Adam?
Evan. For the general substance of the duty, the law delivered on Mount Sinai, and formerly engraven on man’s heart, was the same law; so that at Mount Sinai, the Lord delivered nothing new — only it came more gently to Adam before his fall; but after his fall it came with thunder.
Nom. Yes sir, but as you said yourself, the Ten Commandments, as they were written in Adam’s heart, were but the matter of the Covenant of Works, and not the covenant itself, till the form was annexed to them — that is to say, till God and man were agreed on it. Now, we do not find that God and these people agreed upon any such terms at Mount Sinai.
Evan. Indeed;5 do you say so? Do you not remember that the Lord consented and agreed, when he said in Lev. 18.5, “You shall therefore keep my statutes and my judgments, which if a man does, he shall live in them;” and in Deut. 27.26, when he said, “Cursed is he that does not confirm all the words of this law, to do them?” And do you not remember that the people consented and agreed when they said, Exo. 19.8, “All that the Lord has spoken, we will do?” And does not the apostle Paul give evidence that these words were the form of the Covenant of Works, when he says in Rom. 10.5, “Moses describes that righteousness which is of the law, that the man who does these things shall live in them;” and when he says in Gal. 3.10, “For it is written, Cursed is everyone that does not continue to do all things written in the book of the law?”6 And in Deu. 4.13, Moses expressly calls it a covenant, saying, “And he declared his Commandments, in Exo. 20.2 and Deu. 5.6, stands in the original both as part of a sentence joined to the first commandments, and also as an entire sentence, separated from them, and enclosed by itself.
On the whole, one may compare this with the first promulgation of the Covenant of Grace by the messenger of the covenant in paradise, Gen. 3.15; and with the flaming sword placed there by the same hand, “turning every way to keep the way of the tree of life.” covenant to you, which he commanded you to perform, even the Ten Commandments; and he wrote them on tablets of stone.” Now, this was not the Covenant of Grace; for speaking of this covenant afterwards in Deu. 5.3, Moses says, “God did not make this covenant with your fathers, but with you;” and by “fathers” may be meant (says Mr. Ainsworth) all the patriarchs back to Adam who had the promise of the covenant of Christ.7 Therefore, if it had been the Covenant of Grace, he would have said, God did make this covenant with them, rather than he did not.8
Nom. And do any of our godly and modern writers agree with you on this point?
Evan. Yes, indeed. Polonius says, “The Covenant of Works is that in which God promises everlasting life to a man who in all respects performs perfect obedience to the Law of Works, adding to it threatenings of eternal death if he does not perform perfect obedience to it. God made this covenant in the beginning with the first man Adam, while he was in the first estate of integrity. God repeated and made the same covenant again by Moses with the people of Israel.” And Dr. Preston,9 on the New Covenant (p. 317) says, “The Covenant of Works runs in these terms, ‘Do this and you shall live, and I will be your God.’ This was the covenant which was made with Adam, and the covenant that is expressed by Moses in the Moral Law.” And Mr. Pemble (Vind. Fid. p. 152) says,
“By the Covenant of Works, we understand what we call in one word ‘the law,’ namely, that means of bringing man to salvation, which is by perfect obedience to the will of God. There are also two respective administrations of it: the First is with Adam before his fall, when immortality and happiness were promised to man, and confirmed by an external symbol of the tree of life, on condition that he continued obedient to God in that particular commandment of not eating of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, as well as in all other things. The Second administration of this covenant was renewing it with the Israelites at Mount Sinai. There, after the light of nature began to grow darker, and corruption had in time worn out the characters of religion and virtue that were first graven in man’s heart,10 God revived the law by a compendious and full declaration of all the duties required of man towards God and his neighbour, as expressed in the Decalogue. According to the tenor of this law, God entered into covenant with the Israelites, promising to be their God in bestowing on them all the blessings of life and happiness, on condition that they would be his people, obeying all things that he had commanded. They accepted this condition, promising absolute obedience, Exo. 19.8, ‘All things which the Lord has said, we will do;’ and also submitting themselves to punishment in case they disobeyed, saying, ‘Amen’ to the curse of the law, ‘Cursed is everyone that does not confirm all the words of the law: and all the people shall say, Amen.’” Deu 27.26
And Mr. Walker, on the Covenant (p. 128), says that “the first part of the covenant which God made with Israel at Horeb, was nothing but a renewing of the old Covenant of Works11 which God made with Adam in paradise.” And it is generally laid down by our divines that we are delivered from the Law by Christ, as it is a covenant.12
As to this point, there are different sentiments among orthodox divines; though all of them agree that the way of salvation was the same under the Old and New Testament, and that the Sinai covenant, whatever it was, carried no prejudice to the promise made to Abraham, and the way of salvation revealed in it only served to lead men to Jesus Christ. Our author is far from being singular in this decision of this question. I adduce only the testimonies of three late learned writers. “That God made such a covenant (namely: the Covenant of Works) with our first parents, is confirmed by several parts of Scripture,” Hos. 6.7; Gal. 4.24, — Willison’s Sacr. Cat. p. 3. The words of the text last quoted are these: “For these are the two covenants, the one from Mount Sinai which gives birth to bondage.” Hence it appears that in the judgment of this author, the covenant from Mount Sinai was the Covenant of Works; otherwise there is no shadow of reason from this text for what it is adduced to prove. The Rev. Messrs. Flint and M’Claren, in their elaborate and seasonable treatises against Professor Simpson’s doctrine (for which I have no doubt their names will be in honour with posterity) speak to the same purpose. The former having adduced the fore-cited text, Gal. 4.24, says, Jam duo foedera, etc., that is, “Now here two covenants are mentioned, the first a legal one entered into with Adam, rendered ineffectual by sin, and now again promulgated.” [Exam. Doctr. Joh. Simp. p. 125.] And afterwards, speaking of the Law of Works, he adds, Atque hoc est illud foedus, etc., that is, “And this is that covenant promulgated on Mount Sinai, which is called one of the covenants,” Gal. 4.24. Ibid. p. 131. The words of the latter, speaking of the Covenant of Works, are these, “Indeed, it is expressly called a covenant,” Hos. 6. and Gal. 4. And Mr. Gillespie proves strongly that Gal. 4. is understood of the Covenant of Works and grace. See his Ark of the Testament, part I, chap. 5. p.180. The New Scheme Examined, p. 176. The delivering of the Ten Commandments on Mount Sinai as the Covenant of Works, necessarily includes in it delivering them as a perfect rule of righteousness; because that covenant always contained such a rule in it, the Israelites greatly lacked the true knowledge of it at that time, as our author afterwards teaches.
The strength of the objection in the preceding paragraph lies here, namely, that at this rate, the same persons, at the same time, were under both the Covenant of Works and the Covenant of Grace, which is absurd. Ans. The unbelieving Israelites were under the Covenant of Grace made with their father Abraham externally and by profession in respect to their visible church state; but under the Covenant of Works made with their father Adam internally and really, in respect to the state of their souls before the Lord. There is no absurdity in this; for to this day many in the visible church are in these different respects, under both covenants. Further, as to the believers among them, they were internally and really, as well as externally, under the Covenant of Grace; and only externally were they under the Covenant of Works; and that was not as a covenant co-ordinate with, but subordinate and subservient to, the Covenant of Grace: and in this there is no more inconsistency than in the former.
As delivered from the Covenant of Works, by virtue of the Covenant of Grace.
That will not, indeed, prove they were all the people of God in the sense given before, for the reason adduced here by our author.
Nonetheless, the preface to the Ten Commandments deserves particular notice in the matter of the Sinai transaction: Exo. 20.2, “I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage.” Hence it is evident to me, that the Covenant of Grace was delivered to the Israelites on Mount Sinai. For the Son of God, the messenger of the Covenant of Grace, spoke these words to a select people, the natural seed of Abraham, typical of his whole spiritual seed. He avouches himself to be their God; namely, in virtue of the promise or covenant made with
Abraham, Gen. 17.7, “I will establish my covenant — to be a God to you and to your seed after you:” and their God, who brought them out of the land of Egypt according to the promise made to Abraham at the most solemn renewal of the covenant with him. — Gen. 15.14, “Afterwards they shall come out with great possessions.” And he first declares himself to be their God, and then he requires obedience according to the manner of the covenant with Abraham, Gen.
17.1; “I am the Almighty God (i.e., in the language of the covenant: The Almighty God TO YOU, to make YOU forever blest through the promised SEED); walk before me, and be perfect.”
But I cannot deny that the Covenant of Works was also, for special ends, repeated and delivered to the Israelites on Mount Sinai, 1. Because of the apostle’s testimony, Gal. 4.24, “These are the two covenants; the one from Mount Sinai, which gives birth to bondage.” For the children of this Sinai covenant, which the apostle treats here, are excluded from the eternal inheritance, as Ishmael was excluded from Canaan, the type of that inheritance, ver. 30, “Cast out the bond-woman and her son; for the son of the bond-woman shall not be heir with the son of the free woman;” but this could never be said of the children of the Covenant of Grace under any dispensation, though both the law and the covenant from Sinai itself, and its children, were under a sentence of exclusion even before the coming of Christ, to be executed on them respectively in due time. 2. The nature of the Covenant of Works is most expressly brought in, propounded, and explained in the New Testament, from the Mosaic dispensation — Its commands from Exo. 20, by our blessed Saviour in Mat. 19.17-19, “If you would enter into life, keep the commandments.” He asks him, “Which?” Jesus said, “You shall not murder, you shall not commit adultery,” etc. Its promise in Rom. 10.5: “Moses describes the righteousness which is of the law, that the man who does these things shall live by them.” For its commands and promise together, see Luke 10.25-28. Its terrible sanction in Gal. 3.10: For it is written (Deu. 27.26) “Cursed is everyone that does not continue to do all things which are written in the book of the law.” 3. To this may be added the opposition between the law and grace, so frequently inculcated in the New Testament, especially in Paul’s epistles. See one text for all: Gal. 3.12, “And the law is not of faith, but the man that does them shall live in them.” 4. The law from Mount Sinai was a covenant, Gal. 4.24, “These are the two covenants, the one from the Mount Sinai;” and such a covenant that it had a semblance of disannulling the Covenant of Grace; Gal. 3.17, “The covenant that was confirmed before of God in Christ, the law which came 430 years after, cannot disannul;”‘ indeed, such that in its nature, it bore a method of obtaining the inheritance, that is so far different from that of the promise, that it was inconsistent with it. “For if the inheritance is by the law, then it is no more by promise,” Gal. 3.18. Therefore the covenant of the law from Mount Sinai could not be the Covenant of Grace, unless one would make this last covenant not only a covenant that seems to destroy itself, but really inconsistent. Rather, it was the Covenant of Works which indeed had such a semblance, and in its own nature bore such a method as noted before; nonetheless, as Ainsworth says, “The Covenant of the Law now given, could not disannul the Covenant of Grace,” Gal. 3.17. Annot. on Exo. 19.1.
Therefore I conceive that the two covenants have both been delivered on Mount Sinai to the Israelites. First, the Covenant of Grace made with Abraham, contained in the preface, repeated and promulgated there to Israel, to be believed and embraced by faith, that they might be saved; to this was annexed the Ten Commandments, given by the Mediator Christ, the head of the covenant, as a rule of life to his covenant people. Secondly, the Covenant of Works made with Adam, contained in the same Ten Commandments, delivered with thunderings and lightnings, the meaning of which was afterwards clarified by Moses, describing the righteousness of the law and its sanction, repeated and promulgated to the Israelites there as the original perfect rule of righteousness, which was to be obeyed; and yet if they were no more bound by this to seek righteousness by the law than the young man was bound by our Saviour’s saying to him in Mat. 19.17, 18, “If you would enter into life, keep the commandments — You shall not murder,” etc., then the latter was a repetition of the former.
Thus there is no confounding of the two covenants of Grace and Works; rather, the latter was added to the former as subservient to it, to turn their eyes towards the promise, or the Covenant of Grace: “God gave it to Abraham by promise. What purpose therefore does the Law serve? It was added, because of transgressions, till the Seed would come,” Gal. 3.18, 19. So this subservient covenant was added to the promise given to Abraham; and we have found that promise in the preface to the Ten Commandments. The subservient covenant, according to the apostle, was then added to it, put or set to it, as the word properly signifies. So it was not part of the Covenant of Grace, which was entire to the fathers before the time that was set to it; and yet, to the New Testament church, it is after that is taken away from it: for the apostle says, “It was added till the seed would come.” Hence it appears that the Covenant of Grace was, both in itself and in God’s intention, the principal part of the Sinai transaction: nevertheless, the Covenant of Works was the most conspicuous part of it, and it lay most open to the view of the people.
According to this account of the Sinai transaction, the Ten Commandments, delivered there, must come under a twofold notion or consideration; namely, as the Law of Christ, and as the Law of Works: and this is not strange, if it is considered that they were written twice on tablets of stone by the Lord himself, — the first tablets, “the work of God” (Exo. 32.16), which were broken in pieces(ver. 19), were called the “tablets of the covenant” in Deut. 9.11, 15— the second tablets, the work of Moses (Exo. 34.1) who was the typical Mediator, were deposited at first (it would seem) in the tabernacle mentioned in Exo. 33.7; and afterward, at the raising of the tabernacle with all its furnishings, they were laid up in the ark within the tabernacle (Exo. 25.16). Whether the double accentuation of the Decalogue intimates this, let the learned determine; but to the naked eye, it is evident that the preface to the Ten calls them the chosen of God and the people of God, even though they are not so. In like manner, many of these Israelites were called the people of God, even though indeed they were not so.
Here there is a large addition in the 9th edition of this book, London, 1699. It well deserves a place, and reads as follows:
“I do not say God made the Covenant of Works with them, that they might obtain life and salvation by it; no, the law had become weak through the flesh, as to any such purpose, Rom. 8.3. But he repeated, or gave a new edition of the law, and that was as a Covenant of Works for their humbling and conviction; and his ministers so preach the law to unconverted sinners still, that those who desire to be under the law may hear what the law says,’ Gal. 4.21. And as to what you say about their not agreeing to this covenant, I ask you to note that the Covenant of Works was made with Adam, not for himself only. Still, as he was a public person representing all his posterity, and that covenant was made with the whole nature of man in him, as appears by Adam’s sin and curse coming upon all, Rom. 5.12, etc.. Gal. 3.10. Hence all men are born under that covenant, whether they agree to it or not; though, indeed, there is by nature such a proneness in all men to desire to be under that covenant, and to work for life, that if natural men’s consent were asked, they would readily (though ignorantly) take it upon themselves to do all that the Lord requires; for do you not remember,” etc.
It is beyond question that the conditional promise in Lev. 18.5 (which Exo. 19.8 agrees with), and the dreadful threatening in Deu. 27.26, were both given to the Israelites, as well as the Ten Commandments; and according to the apostle (Rom. 10.5; Gal. 3.10), they were the form of the Covenant of Works; this is as evident as the repeating of the words, and expounding them so, can make it. How then, one can reject that the Covenant of Works was given to the Israelites, I cannot see. Mark the Westminster Confession under the heading of the Covenant of Works, chap. 7, art. 2: “The first covenant made with man was a Covenant of Works, in which life was promised to Adam, and in him to his posterity, on condition of perfect and personal obedience.” And this account of the being and nature of that covenant is proved there from these very texts, among others: Rom. 10.5; Gal. 3.10.
“But the covenant of the law [he adds] came after Gen. 3.17, as the apostle observes: — They had a greater benefit than their fathers; for though the law could not give them life, yet it was a schoolmaster to Christ, i.e., to bring them to Christ.” Gal. 3.21-24. Ainsworth on Deu. 5.3.
The transaction at Sinai or Horeb (for they are but one mountain) was a mixed dispensation; there was the promise or Covenant of Grace, and also the Law; the one was a covenant to be believed, and the other a covenant to be done; and thus the apostle states the difference between these two in Gal. 3.12, “And the law is not of faith, but the man that does them shall live in them.” As to the former, namely, the covenant to be believed, it was given to their fathers as well as to them. Of the latter, namely, the covenant to be done, Moses speaks expressly in Deut. 4.12, 13, “The Lord spoke to you out of the midst of the fire, and he declared his covenant to you, which he commanded you to PERFORM (or DO) even the Ten Commandments.” And in Deu. 5.3, he tells the people no less expressly that, “the Lord did not make this covenant with our fathers.”
John Preston succeeded John Donne at Lincoln’s Inn Chapel. He became Master of Emmanuel College, 1622-1628.
That is, had worn them off, in the same measure and degree as the light of nature was darkened; but neither the one nor the other was ever fully done. Rom. 2.14, 15: For when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do the things in the law, these, although not having the law, are a law to themselves, 15 who show the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and between themselves their thoughts accusing or else excusing them).
“In this I differ from this learned author as to this point, and for what reasons, may be seen in the note on p. 55.
But not as it is a rule of life, which is the other member of that distinction.