Q. 93. What is the moral law? 

A. The moral law is the declaration of the will of God to mankind, directing and binding everyone to personal, perfect, and perpetual conformity and obedience thereunto, in the frame and disposition of the whole man, soul and body, and in performance of all those duties of holiness and righteousness which he oweth to God and man: promising life upon the fulfilling, and threatening death upon the breach of it.

WCF 4.2 -

2. After God had made all other creatures, he created man, male and female, with reasonable and immortal souls, endued with knowledge, righteousness, and true holiness, after his own image; having the law of God written in their hearts, and power to fulfill it: and yet under a possibility of transgressing, being left to the liberty of their own will, which was subject unto change. Beside this law written in their hearts, they received a command, not to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil; which while they kept, they were happy in their communion with God, and had dominion over the creatures.

 "All men alike stand contemned, not by alien [i.e. outside of himself]  codes of ethics, but by their own, and all men therefore are conscious of guilt."

Is racism a special category of sin to be dealt with by means other than those set forth in Scripture? I think not.

As understood in Reformational circles, God's Moral Law diagnoses sin (see WLC 93-98) as well as points believers to godly living. All deviation from the Moral Law is condemned as sin by God. This includes sins like adultery, theft, bearing false witness, etc.... or racism; which are a subset of violating the second table (i.e. not loving neighbor). And defined as sin, these acts are worthy of God's wrath. The Gospel, on the other hand, is the only remedy for sin and disobedience given by God, as taught in Scripture (WLC 31-36, Romans 1:16). The Gospel promises and offers forgiveness of sin, salvation, and eternal life by God's grace alone through Christ to all those who believe, including all saving graces unto a changed heart and a new obedience.

Yet when the Church diagnoses a sin problem (e.g. racism) in such a way that Christ (as he is offered in the Gospel) is Not the Answer or Remedy for sin, past and present, then she has not fully or Biblically diagnosed the problem. When this is the case, I would conjecture that the Church may be too optimistically intent on eradicating outward symptoms rather than exposing the iceberg heart of sin below the waterline. All too often we focus on eradicating outward behaviors as proof of "solving the problem", i.e. righting the wrongs. This is understandable given that the symptoms of sin (bigotry, adultery...) are horrible and painful. Yet a diagnosistic goal primarily focused on stopping outward symptoms often leads to an ends justifies the means prescription. Broad brushes in Law prescriptions lathered with explicit or implicit guilt-assigning offer possible remedies for shaping things up more quickly. Whereas sanctification as a grace of the Gospel seems relatively slow and weak. In my view, when this course is taken, the Gospel is in danger of being clouded if not set aside. Isn’t it Christ crucified, as he is presented in the Gospel, who alone cleanses from sin and changes sinful hearts through the accompanying work of the Holy Spirit? 

This whole matter of sanctification and holiness is peculiarly joined with and limited unto the doctrine, truth, and grace of the gospel; for holiness is nothing but the implanting, writing, and realizing of the gospel in our souls... 

The “law,” indeed, for certain ends, “was given by Moses,” but all “grace and truth came by Jesus Christ.” There neither is, nor ever was, in the world, nor ever shall be, the least dram of holiness, but what, flowing from Jesus Christ, is communicated by the Spirit, according to the truth and promise of the gospel.

When the gospel is then diminished or relegated to the role of merely a means to an end, as good as that end may be, then Jesus Christ is no longer held up as preeminent (Col 1:18b) and the Church's path has likely deviated to a moral mission away from its redemptive mission.

From The Westminster Larger Catechism:

Q. 97. What special use is there of the moral law to the regenerate?A. Although they that are regenerate, and believe in Christ, be delivered from the moral law as a covenant of works, so as thereby they are neither justified nor condemned; yet besides the general uses thereof common to them with all men (see WLC Q/A 95), it is of special use, to show them how much they are bound to Christ for his fulfilling it, and enduring the curse thereof in their stead, and for their good; and thereby to provoke them to more thankfulness, and to express the same in their greater care to conform themselves thereunto as the rule of their obedience.

And an encouragement from Thomas Boston, A View of the Covenant of Works, from the Sacred Records: Exhortation to Believers, pp 230-231 -

Secondly, Believers in Christ, delivered from this covenant [of works],

(1.) Be thankful for your deliverance, as a deliverance from the Curse. Let the warmest gratitude glow in your breasts for so great a deliverance; and let your soul, and all that is within you, be stirred up to bless your glorious deliverer for this unspeakable blessing. 

(2.) Walk holily and fruitfully in good works, since the bands of death are removed, and your souls are healed. Be holy in all manner of life and conversation; adorning the doctrine of God your Saviour in all things. Let the whole tenor of your lives testify that you are not under the curse, but that you inherit the blessing of eternal life, by living to the praise and honour of Christ, who hath delivered you from the wrath to come.

(3.) Turn not back to the broken covenant of works again, in legal principles, nor in legal practices. The more the temper and frame of your spirit lies that way, the more unholy will ye be; and the more your duties savour of it, the less savoury will they be unto your God. It is only by being dead to the law, that ye. will live unto God.

"Simply stated, Venema believes the covenant of works is abrogated, and I do not. The promise of the law still Stands and functions, and has been unchanged by the entrance of sin into the world. That is, if you perfectly obey the law of God you will live and have eternal life. The law has not changed, and neither has the promise appended to it. Rather, what has changed is that human­ity has fallen and is unable to fulfill the requirements of the law. The defect, therefore, is with man, not with the law (Rom. 7:12; 8:3). To say, then, that the covenant of works is abrogated, fails to consider that its prom­ises and curses still hang over humanity, and the only way to be delivered from them is through faith alone in Christ. Jesus delivers sinners from the moral law as a covenant of works. This State of affairs is true now and was also true for believers in the Old Testament."

J.V. Fesko, The Confessional Presbyterian, Volume 9, 2013
[HT - John Fonville]

The Sum of Saving Knowledge, written by David Dickson and James Durham, uses "covenant of works" and "law" interchangeably when considering the "chief general use of Christian doctrine." Dickson, along with two others, was also appointed by the Scottish Kirk to write the Directory of Publick Worship. This treatise (Sum of...) was bound together and originally published with the Westminster Standards in 1650 as an explanation of the doctrines found in the Standards and it continued to be published together at least well into the 19th century. It was universally accepted as orthodox. Although never reaching official confession status, it was considered an accurate exposition of Christian doctrine as found in the Westminster Confessional Standards at the time of the first publication of those standards and still so today.

THE chief general use of Christian doctrine is, to convince a man of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment, John xvi. 8, partly by the law or covenant of works, that he may be humbled and become penitent; and partly by the gospel or covenant of grace, that he may become an unfeigned believer in Jesus Christ, and be strengthened in his faith upon solid grounds and warrants, and give evidence of the truth of his faith by good fruits, and so be saved.

The sum of the covenant of works, or of the law, is this: "If thou do all that is commanded, and not fail in any point, thou shalt be saved: but if thou fail, thou shalt die." Rom. x. 5. Gal. iii 10, 12.

The sum of the gospel, or covenant of grace and reconciliation, is this: "If thou flee from deserved wrath to the true Redeemer Jesus Christ, (who is able to save to the uttermost all that come to God through him,) thou shalt not perish, but "have eternal life." Rom. x. 8, 9, 11.

For convincing a man of sin, of righteousness, and of judgment by the law, or covenant of works, let these scriptures, among many more, be made use of...

Reading David VanDrunen's latest book, Divine Covenants and Moral Order, got me to thinking about Adam's temptation in the garden and the temptation that Jesus faced many millennia later. VanDrunen posits that the natural law was given covenantally to man as part of the image of God woven into his being at his creation.

By their image-bearing nature human beings were morally obligated before God, and by their image-bearing nature they were destined for eschatological life.  The absence of any covenant-making ceremony and of the word ברית in Genesis 1-2 may be explained by the fact that humanity's very creation established a covenantal relationship requiring no further establishment or confirmation. p. 85

In other words, the righteousness of the moral law written on Adam's heart requiring obedience had a view to an end - a fulfillment, or as the Divines wrote, a "fruition of him as their blessedness and reward " (WCF 7.1). Thus the creation of man was itself a covenantal, "voluntary condescension" of God due to the hope of eschatological blessedness.

Taking that view, the prohibition to not eat of the tree of knowledge of good and evil upon penalty of death that came later to Adam, as VanDrunen writes, can then be understood

not as supplementing Adam's natural obligation but as focusing it. As I argued earlier in this chapter, the command to work and to guard the Garden served as a concrete test of Adam's general and natural obligation to subdue the earth. Likewise, the command to refrain from eating of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil would become a concrete test of his general and natural obligation to exercise dominion over the creatures. The commands of 2:15-17 did reveal something that Adam could not have know simply by his image-bearing nature... pp. 85-86

God put Adam in the garden to "guard it" and to exercise dominion (rule with justice) over all including the serpent. The tree prohibition was a concentrated test of Adam's faithful obedience to God's creation mandate, moral law, and God himself. And it was particularly focused for the reason that the prohibition was a positive command that came from without. The command to not eat of the forbidden tree wasn't directly found in the natural law directly given at Adam's creation. There wasn't anything inherently wrong with eating that fruit that could be understood from the moral law. Yet it was God's command. In the upcoming test Adam had only God's outward spoken command to lean on. In other words, the prohibition to not eat of the forbidden tree wasn't inherently known by Adam, an image bearer of God. Obedience was required to a command that in and of itself that one could say seemed arbitrary and morally neutral. And yet being God's spoken word it wasn't neutral. It was indeed both morally right to obey and morally wrong to disobey.

The point I'm focusing on is simply that God's law-command regarding the tree was a outward one apart from the moral law written inwardly on Adam's heart. So in that sense it was a command extrinsic to him, i.e. not subjective or inherent to him. His obedience would lean solely on the outward word - "Thus God said..."

That being said, for Adam to bow to the serpent and disobey the outward command to not eat of that tree was indeed a violation of the moral law, especially in light of the first commandment.

“I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery.  You shall have no other gods before me."

And to violate just one command of God is to be guilty of all the law (James 2:10).

When challenged on the outward command to not eat Adam fell from his original righteousness, bowing before the serpent. Adam disobeyed the command that came not from the law written inwardly on his heart but that came outwardly from the mouth of God.

Turning to the New Testament we see a similar scene played out in the wilderness (Matthew 4:1-11). Jesus had just completed forty days of fasting. Satan's presents the first of three temptations to Jesus and upon first blush it hardly seems like the temptation has anything that has to do with a moral right and wrong. Is there a moral law against nourishing oneself after a fast? Or turning a stone to bread to do so? We know later in a different circumstance Jesus does perform a food miracle by multiplying five loaves of bread and two fish in order to feed a multitude of people and we presume himself.  So Satan was working from that same old play book he used in the garden with Adam.

Then Jesus was led by the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted by the devil. After fasting forty days and forty nights, he was hungry. The tempter came to him and said, “If you are the Son of God, tell these stones to become bread.”

The Spirit of God had led Jesus into the wilderness to be tempted and the divine lead up to that test was forty days of fasting. Though starving, one could infer that Jesus knew that as man it was not his to take up his own judgment and efforts to end that divine mandated fasting. For Jesus to rule justly and exercise dominion as a man required his absolute obedience to and reliance on his Father. So it is of no small coincidence that as the Second Adam Jesus replied with words that echoed the battle that took place long ago in the garden of Eden concerning God's original outward command to Adam.

Jesus answered, “It is written: ‘Man shall not live on bread alone, but on every word that comes from the mouth of God.’”  

Jesus had been given by the Spirit of God a wilderness test that included coming to near starvation and three temptations. The fasting wasn't to be over until the final temptation was over.

Upon Satan's third temptation, Jesus as a man in obedience to his Father judged the tempter with righteousness and authority by quoting God's word:

Then Jesus said to him, “Be gone, Satan! For it is written,
“‘You shall worship the Lord your God and him only shall you serve.’”

Then the devil left him, and behold, angels came and were ministering to him.

A man, the Second Adam, once again had righteous dominion over all creation, including over the serpent.

A View of the Covenant of Works by Thomas Boston

18             The Covenant of Works           Part I. 

1. Here is a concurrence of all that is necessary to constitute a true and proper covenant of works: The parties contracting, God and man; God requiring obedience as the condition of life; a penalty fixed in case of breaking; and man acquiescing in the proposal. The force of this cannot be evaded, by comparing it with the consent of subjects to the laws of' an absolute prince- For such a law proposed by a prince, promising a reward upon obedience to it, is indeed the proposing of a covenant, the which the subject consenting to for himself and his, and taking on him to obey, does indeed enter into a covenant with the prince, and having obeyed the law, may claim the reward by virtue of paction. And so the covenant of works is ordinarily in Scripture called the law, being in its own nature a pactional law. 

2. It is expressly called a covenant in Scripture, Gal, iv. 24. For there are the two covenants, the one from the mount Sinai, &c. This covenant from mount Sinai was the covenant of works*, as being opposed to the covenant of grace, namely, the law of the ten commandments, with promise and sanction, as before expressed. At Sinai it was renewed indeed, but that was not its first appearance the world. For there being but two ways of life to be found in Scripture, one by works, the other by grace; the latter hath no place, but where the first is rendered ineffectual: therefore the covenant of works was before - the covenant of grace in the world; yet the covenant of grace was promulgated quickly after Adam's fall; therefore the covenant of works behoved to have been made with him before. And how can one imagine a covenant of works set before poor impotent sinners, if there had not been such a covenant

* That the covenant of works was, For special ends, repeated and delivered to the Israelites on mount Sinai, our author has proved in his notes on the Marrow of modern divinity, chap. ii. sect. ii.3. The reader may also consult Witsius's Economy of the covenants, book iv. chp. 4. 47. &c.
___________________________________________

19               a proper covenant.

with man in his state of integrity?  Hos. vi.7. But as for them, like Adam, they have transgressed the covenant. Our translators set the word Adam on the margin. But in Job xxxi. 33. they translate the very same word, as Adam. This word occurs but three times in Scripture, and still in the same sense. - Job xxxi. 3 3. If I covered my transgressions as Adam. Psalm lxxxii. 7. But ye shall die like Adam. Compare ver. 6. I have said, Ye are gods,- and all of you are children of the Most High; compared with Luke iii. 33.- Adam, which was the son of God. And also here, Hos. vi. 7. While Adam's hiding his sin, and his death are made an example, how natural is it that his transgression, that led the way to all, be made so too? This is the proper and literal sense of the words: it is so read by several, and is certainly the meaning of it.
_____________________________________________

Thomas Boston's notes in the Marrow of Modern Divinity noted in the above footnote:

[8] 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 a covenant to be believed, the other a covenant to be done, and thus the apostle states, the difference betwixt these two, (Gal 3:12), "And the law is not of faith, but the man that DOETH them shall live in them." As to the former, viz: the covenant to be believed, it was given to their fathers as well as to them. Of the latter, viz: the covenant to be done, Moses speaks expressly, (Deut 4:12,13), "The Lord spake unto you out of the midst of the fire, and he declared unto you his covenant, which he commanded you to PERFORM [or DO] even ten commandments." And (5:3), he tells the people no less expressly, that "the Lord made not THIS COVENANT with their fathers."

A View of the Covenant of Works by Thomas Boston

It [the Covenant of Works] commands without any promise of strength at all to perform. There is no such promise to be found in all the Bible, belonging to that covenant. It shews what is to be done, and with all severity exacts the task; but furnishes not anything whereof it is to be made. So the case of men under that covenant is represented by Israel’s case in Egypt, Exod. v. 18, “God therefore now and work,” said Pharaoh to that people; “for there shall no straw be given you, yet shall ye deliver the tale of bricks.

Under the covenant of grace, duty is required, but strength is promised too, Ezek. xxxvi. 27, “A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you; and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you an heart of flesh.” And the commands in the hands of the Mediator are turned into promises, as appears from Deut. x. 16, “Circumcise the foreskin of your heart, and be no more stiff-necked.” Compare chap. xxx. 6, “And the Lord thy God will circumcise thine heart, and with all thy soul, that thou mayest live.” Yea, the Mediator’s calls and commands to his people bear a promise of help; Prov. x. 29, “The way of the Lord is strength to the upright.

But there is no such thing in the covenant of works; the work must be performed in the strength that was given; they must trade with the stock that mankind was set up with at first: but that strength is gone, that stock is wasted; howbeit the law can neither make it up again, nor yet abate of its demands...” (p. 132-133)

The holiness of God gave out the holy commandment in the covenant, justice annexed the threatening of death to the breach of it, truth secures the accomplishment of the threatening, and so lays the  sinner under justice, without relief. So that there is no parting of them, till the utmost farthing be paid (2 Thess. i. 9. punished with Gr. justice or vengeance, everlasting destruction) by the sinner himself, or a cautioner. (p. 162)

Lee Irons writes:

"Did the Mosaic law demand obedience as the legal basis of obtaining life (Lev 18:5), or is that only a Jewish misunderstanding of the law? If the latter, one cannot make sense of the teaching of Paul that the Mosaic law-covenant was Israel’s “pedagogue unto Christ” (Gal 3:24). One could try to get around this by claiming that it is not the Mosaic covenant but the universally-binding, trans-historical “moral law” that has this pedagogical function. But Paul has already blocked that move by defining what he means by “the law” (ὁ νόμος) in the context: it is the specific covenant that came 430 years after the Abrahamic promise (Gal 3:17); it is the historical expression of the law accompanied by the threat of a curse to the disobedient (Gal 3:10 quoting Deut 27:26) and a promise of life to the doers of the law (Gal 3:12 quoting Lev 18:5); it is the temporary guardian set over the minor children (Israel) “until the date set by the father” (Gal 4:1-2). Of course, there is universal application of this pedagogical function, even for Gentiles, as the Spirit uses the law to convince us of our inability to keep it, but the original reference is to the historical Mosaic covenant and its pedagogical role in redemptive history."

In a FaceBook exchange a while back, someone said that the third use of the law was operative in the sanctification of the Christian's life, i.e. in force or in effect. That's a pretty standard Reformed sound bite. But what does that mean? How is the moral law operative in the lives of Christians? Are we to live by keeping the moral law? I think how one answers that question determines whether one falls into a legal view of sanctification or a gospel view. The Westminster Larger Catechism points the way:

WLC Q. 97. What special use is there of the moral law to the regenerate? 

A. Although they that are regenerate, and believe in Christ, be delivered from the moral law as a covenant of works, so as thereby they are neither justified nor condemned; yet besides the general uses thereof common to them with all men, it is of special use, to show them how much they are bound to Christ for his fulfilling it, and enduring the curse thereof in their stead, and for their good; and thereby to provoke them to more thankfulness, and to express the same in their greater care to conform themselves thereunto as the rule of their obedience.

In beginning to answer the question of how Christians are to use the moral law, it's significant that the Divines, first and foremost, remind the believer of his justification. Christians are delivered from the moral law as a covenant of works. They are no longer under the "law" (Rom 6:14b)  and therefore they are no longer under the condemnation of the law (Rom 8:1). They are under grace as a covenant though faith in Christ. Likewise, they are no longer under the law of works as a path or way to keep their justification, or for that matter their salvation (Eph 2:8-9). WSC 33 states: 

Justification is an act of God's free grace, wherein he pardoneth all our sins, and accepteth us as righteous in his sight, only for the righteousness of Christ imputed to us, and received by faith alone. 

This is the starting point for the third use of the law. Why remind the believer of what the Confession of Faith, as well as the Larger and Shorter Catechism's have already taught? Because we are by nature legalists, born under the law as a covenant of works. Written on our heart is "Do this and live." Though believers we are still sinners who have a bent towards justifying ourselves. And that's what sinners do. Yet how futile! And because of sin we attempt to do that law-keeping by the corrupt tendency within ourselves to water down the law's standards and elevate the quality of our obedience. If we are going to talk about the moral law in the lives of sinners/saints we need to again and again emphasize the ground of grace upon which they stand.

The first use of the law in believer's lives that the Divines refer to is the "general uses thereof common to them with all men" which is the topic of Question 95:

Q. 95. Of what use is the moral law to all men? 

A. The moral law is of use to all men, to inform them of the holy nature and will of God, and of their duty, binding them to walk accordingly; to convince them of their disability to keep it, and of the sinful pollution of their nature, hearts, and lives: to humble them in the sense of their sin and misery, and thereby help them to a clearer sight of the need they have of Christ, and of the perfection of his obedience.

So the law informs believers of God's holy nature. It teaches that their duty, as those made in the image of God, is to live in a godly way defined by God's moral law as revealed in Scripture (summed up in the Ten Commandments but not limited to those ten words). And that standard of holy living is non-negotiable. As Jesus taught in Matthew 5, "Therefore you are to be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect." Created in his image and likeness, God's children are meant to be morally like him. Considering that high requirement, it's crucial that believing sinners having a proper view of their natural state as well as having their feet firmly planted on the ground of God's free grace of justification.

... to convince them of their disability to keep it, and of the sinful pollution of their nature, hearts, and lives: to humble them in the sense of their sin and misery, and thereby help them to a clearer sight of the need they have of Christ, and of the perfection of his obedience.

As the hymn states, "all other ground is sinking sand." The moral law continues in the lives of believers to convince them of their disability to meet the law's requirements and point them to their salvation in Christ who as their Mediator fulfilled all of the law for them - For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes (Rom. 10:4). This is true even though we continue to fall short of the moral law in thought, word, and deed. So the law, as described in this function general to all men including believers, continues to discover to God's people the sinful pollutions which remain in their lives.

This brings us back to Answer 97 and the first mention of the laws' use specific to believers.

Although they that are regenerate, and believe in Christ, be delivered from the moral law as a covenant of works, so as thereby they are neither justified nor condemned; yet besides the general uses thereof common to them with all men, it is of special use, to show them how much they are bound to Christ for his fulfilling it, and enduring the curse thereof in their stead, and for their good; and thereby to provoke them to more thankfulness, and to express the same in their greater care to conform themselves thereunto as the rule of their obedience.

Sounds like our justification in Christ is front and center when it comes to thankfully giving care to conform ourselves more and more to the law as a rule of obedience.

In a sense the gospel of grace scares us. Sinners saved by grace, we are completely dependent (like an infant in his mother's arms) solely on God's initiating and continuing love and grace which he has given in Christ. We don't have and will never have control over that by our works. To paraphrase the Tom Petty song, we were 'free falling' to our death except that the grace and love of God was poured out on us in the Beloved who caught us. And it is that same  sovereign grace that now holds us. Getting used to grace is getting used to God loving us, despite the good that we don't bring to the table and despite the bad that we do. God, apart from our doings, chose us in Christ, sent his Son to die on the cross for us, and Jesus, now at the right hand of the Father, secures our salvation by his mediation in heaven for us. How to explain that? With Paul, I think we'll spend the rest of our lives seeking to comprehend "with all the saints what is the breadth and length and height and depth, and to know the love of Christ which surpasses all knowledge..."
Christians can walk and chew gum at the same time. As a reasonable and thankful response to God's grace in Christ we can take seriously Christ's command to follow him in accord with the rule of righteousness found in the moral law. And as we walk that path of righteousness our eyes of faith are fixed, not on own works - as if to measure or ascertain some kind of progress, but only upon Christ Jesus as our righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption.

SECTION 2: A threefold Law 

EVANGELISTA, a Minister of the Gospel.
NOMIST, a Legalist.
ANTINOMISTA, an Antinomian.

Evan. Yea, in the Scriptures there is mention made of divers laws, but they may all be comprised under these three, viz.the law of works, the law of faith, and the law of Christ;1 (Rom 3:27, Gal 6:2); and, therefore, I pray you, tell me, when you say the law ought to be a rule of life to a believer, which of these three laws you mean.

Extended Excerpt From The Marrow of Modern Divinity
by Edward Fisher with Notes by Thomas Boston
EVANGELISTA, a Minister of the Gospel.
NOMIST, a Legalist.
ANTINOMISTA, an Antinomian.
NEOPHYTUS, a Young Christian.

Chapter II, Section II, 3  The law, as the covenant of works, added to the promise.
Ant. But whether were the ten commandments, as they were delivered to them on Mount Sinai, the covenant of works or no?

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 under that covenant of grace which God made with their father; and therefore I do not think
that they were delivered to them as the covenant of works; for you know the Lord never delivers the covenant of works to any that 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, many of them were still under the covenant of works made with their father Adam. ²

Nom. But, sir, you know, in the preface to the ten commandments, the Lord calls himself by the name of their God in general; and therefore it should seem that they were all of them the people of God. ³

Evan. That is nothing to the purpose; ⁴ for many wicked and ungodly men, being in the visible church, and under the external covenant, are called the chosen of God, and the people of God, though they be not so. In like manner were many of these Israelites called the people of God, though indeed they were not so.

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 one and the same; so that at Mount Sinai the Lord delivered no new thing, only it came more gently to Adam before his fall, but after his fall came thunder with it.

Nom. Ay, sir, but as yourself said, 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 thereupon agreed: now, we do not find that God and these people did agree upon any such terms at Mount Sinai.

Evan. No; ⁵ say you so? do you not remember that the Lord consented and agreed, when he said, (Lev 18:5), "Ye shall therefore keep my statutes and my judgments, which if a man do, he shall live in them"; and in Deuteronomy 27:26, when he said, "Cursed is he that confirmeth not all the words of this law, to do them?" And do you not remember that the people consented, (Exo 19:8), and agreed, when they said, "All that the Lord hath spoken we will do?" And doth not the apostle Paul give evidence that these words were the form of the covenant of works, when he says, (Rom 10:5), "Moses describeth that righteousness which is of the law, that the man that doeth these things shall live in them"; and when he says, (Gal 3:10), "For it is written, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things written in the book of the law to do them?" ⁶ And in Deuteronomy 4:13, Moses, in express terms, calls it a covenant, saying, "And he declared unto you his covenant, which he commanded you to perform, even the ten commandments, and he wrote them upon tables of stone." Now, this was not the covenant of grace; for Moses afterwards, (Deut 5:3), speaking of this covenant, says, "God made not this covenant with your fathers, but with you"; and by "fathers" all the patriarchs unto Adam may be meant, [says Mr. Ainsworth,] 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 that he did not. ⁸

Nom. And do any of our godly and modern writers agree with you on this point?

Evan. Yes, indeed. Polonus says, "The covenant of works is that in which God promiseth everlasting life unto a man that in all respects performeth perfect obedience to the law of works, adding thereunto threatenings of eternal death, if he shall not perform perfect obedience thereto. God made this covenant in the beginning with the first man Adam, whilst he was in the first estate of integrity: the same covenant God did repeat and make again by Moses with the people of Israel." And Dr. Preston, on the New Covenant, [p. 317,] says, "The covenant of works runs in these terms, 'Do this and thou shalt live, and I will be thy 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 unto the will of God. Hereof there are also two several administrations; 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, upon condition that he continued obedient to God, as well in all other things, as in that particular commandment of not eating of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. The second administration of this covenant was the renewing thereof with the Israelites at Mount Sinai; where, after the light of nature began to grow darker, and corruption had in time worn out the characters of religion and virtue first grave in man's heart, ⁹ God revived the law by a compendious and full declaration of all duties required of man towards God or his neighbour, expressed in the decalogue; according to the tenor of which law God entered into covenant with the Israelites, promising to be their God in bestowing upon them all blessings of life and happiness, upon condition that they would be his people, obeying all things that he had commanded; which condition they accepted of, promising an absolute obedience, (Exo 19:8), 'all things which the Lord hath said we will do'; and also submitting themselves to all punishment in case they disobeyed, saying, 'Amen' to the curse of the law, 'Cursed be every one that confirmeth not all the words of the law: and all the people shall say, Amen.'" 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 else but a renewing of the old covenant of works, ¹⁰ which God made with Adam in paradise." And it is generally laid down by our divines, that we are by Christ delivered from the law as it is a covenant. ¹¹

Nom. But, sir, were the children of Israel at this time better able to perform the condition of the covenant of works, than either Adam or any of the old patriarchs were, that God renewed it now with them, rather than before?

Evan. No, indeed; God did not renew it with them now, and not before, because they were better able to keep it, but because they had more need to be made acquainted what the covenant of works is, than those before. For though it is true the ten commandments, which were at first perfectly written in Adam's heart, were much obliterated ¹² by his fall, yet some impressions and relics thereof still remained; ¹³ and Adam himself was very sensible of his fall, and the rest of the fathers were helped by tradition; ¹⁴ and, says Cameron, "God did speak to the patriarchs from heaven, yea, and he spake unto them by his angels"; ¹⁵ but now, by this time, sin had almost obliterated and defaced the impressions of the law written in their hearts; ¹⁶ and by their being so long in Egypt, they were so corrupted, that the instructions and ordinances of their fathers were almost worn out of mind; and their fall in Adam was almost forgotten, as the apostle testifies, (Rom 5:13,14), saying, "Before the time of the law, sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed when there is no law." Nay, in that long course of time betwixt Adam and Moses, men had forgotten what was sin; so, although God had made a promise of blessing to Abraham, and to all his seed, that would plead interest in it, ¹⁷ yet these people at this time were proud and secure, and heedless of their estate; and though "sin was in them, and death reigned over them," yet they being without a law to evidence this sin and death unto their consciences, ¹⁸ they did not impute it unto themselves, they would not own it, nor charge themselves with it; and so, by consequence, found no need of pleading the promise made to Abraham; ¹⁹ (Rom 5:20), therefore, "the law entered," that Adam's offence and their own actual transgression might abound, so that now the Lord saw it needful, that there should be a new edition and publication of the covenant of works, the sooner to compel the elect unbelievers to come to Christ, the promised seed, and that the grace of God in Christ to the elect believers might appear the more exceeding glorious. So that you see the Lord's intention therein was, that they, by looking upon this covenant might be put in mind what was their duty of old, when they were in Adam's loins; yea, and what was their duty still, if they would stand to that covenant, and so go the old and natural way to work; yea, and hereby they were also to see what was their present infirmity in not doing their duty: ²⁰ that so they seeing an impossibility of obtaining life by that way of works, first appointed in paradise, they might be humbled, and more heedfully mind the promise made to their father Abraham, and hasten to lay hold on the Messiah, or promised seed.

Nom. Then, sir, it seems that the Lord did not renew the covenant of works with them, to the intent that they should obtain eternal life by their yielding obedience to it?

Evan. No, indeed; God never made the covenant of works with any man since the fall, either with expectation that he should fulfil it, ²¹ or to give him life by it; for God never appoints any thing to an end, to the which it is utterly unsuitable and improper. Now the law, as it is the covenant of works, is become weak and unprofitable to the purpose of salvation; ²² and, therefore, God never appointed it to man, since the fall, to that end. And besides, it is manifest that the purpose of God, in the covenant made with Abraham, was to give life and salvation by grace and promise; and, therefore, his purpose in renewing the covenant of works, was not, neither could be, to give life and salvation by working; for then there would have been contradictions in the covenants, and instability in him that made them. Wherefore let no man imagine that God published the covenant of works on Mount Sinai, as though he had been mutable, and so changed his determination in that covenant made with Abraham; neither, yet let any man suppose, that God now in process of time had found out a better way for man's salvation than he knew before: for, as the covenant of grace made with Abraham had been needless, if the covenant of works made with Adam would have given him and his believing seed life; so, after the covenant of grace was once made, it was needless to renew the covenant of works, to the end that righteousness of life should be had by the observation of it. The which will yet more evidently appear, if we consider, that the apostle, speaking of the covenant of works as it was given on Mount Sinai, says, "It was added because of transgressions," (Gal 3:19). It was not set up as a solid rule of righteousness, as it was given to Adam in paradise, but was added or put to; ²³ it was not set up as a thing in gross by itself.

Nom. Then, sir, it should seem that the covenant of works was added to the covenant of grace, to make it more complete.

Evan. O no! you are not so to understand the apostle, as though it were added by way of ingrediency as a part of the covenant of grace, as if that covenant had been incomplete without the covenant of works; for then the same covenant should have consisted of contradictory materials, and so it should have overthrown itself; for, says the apostle, "If it be by grace, then it is no more of works; otherwise grace is no more grace: but if it be of works, then it is no more of grace; otherwise work is no more work," (Rom 11:6). But it was added by way of subserviency and attendance, the better to advance and make effectual the covenant of grace; so that although the same covenant that was made with Adam was renewed on Mount Sinai, yet I say still, it was not for the same purpose. For this was it that God aimed at, in making the covenant of works with man in innocency, to have that which was his due from man: ²⁴ but God made it with the Israelites for no other end, than that man, being thereby convinced of his weakness, might flee to Christ. So that it was renewed only to help forward and introduce another and a better covenant; and so to be a manuduction unto Christ, viz: to discover sin, to waken the conscience, and to convince them of their own impotency, and so drive them out of themselves to Christ. Know it then, I beseech you, that all this while there was no other way of life given, either in whole, or in part, than the covenant of grace. All this while God did but pursue the design of his own grace; and, therefore, was there no inconsistency either in God's will or acts; only such was his mercy, that he subordinated the covenant of works, and made it subservient to the covenant of grace, and so to tend to evangelical purposes.

Nom. But yet, sir, methinks it is somewhat strange that the Lord should put them upon doing the law, and also promise them life for doing, and yet never intend it.



Thomas Boston's Notes [1] As to this point, there are different sentiments among orthodox divines; though all of them do 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 unto Abraham, and the way of salvation therein revealed, but 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 [viz: the covenant of works] with our first parents, is confirmed by several parts of Scripture," (Hosea 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 the Mount Sinai which gendereth 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 treatise against Professor Simpson's doctrine, [for which I make no question but 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 federa, etc., that is, "Now here are two covenants mentioned, the first the legal one, by sin rendered ineffectual, entered into with Adam, and now again promulgate." [Exam. Doctr. Joh. Simp. p. 125.] And afterwards, speaking of the law of works, he adds, Atque hoc est illud fadus, etc., that is, "And this is that covenant promulgate 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, "Yea, it is expressly called a covenant," (Hosea 6, Gal 4). And Mr. Gillespie proves strongly, that Galations 4 is understood of the covenant of works and grace. See his Ark of the Testament, part 1. 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 the delivering of them as a perfect rule of righteousness; forasmuch as that covenant did always contain in it such a rule, the true knowledge of which the Israelites were at that time in great want of, as our author afterwards teaches.

[2] The strength of the objection in the preceding paragraph lies here, namely, that at this rate, the same person, at one and the same time, were both under the covenant of works, and under 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 of their visible church state; but under the covenant of works made with their father Adam internally and really, in respect of the state of their souls before the Lord. Herein there is no absurdity; for to this day many in the visible church are thus, in these different respects, under both covenants. Farther, as to believers among them, they were internally and really, as well as externally, under the covenant of grace; and only externally under the covenant of works, and that, not as a covenant co-ordinate with, but subordinate and subservient unto, the covenant of grace: and in this there is no more inconsistency than in the former.

[3] As delivered from the covenant of works, by virtue of the covenant of grace.

[4] That will not, indeed, prove them all to have been the people of God in the sense before given, for the reason here adduced by our author.

Howbeit, the preface to the ten commandments deserves a particular notice in the matter of the Sinai transaction, (Exo 20:2), "I am the Lord thy God, which have brought thee 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 avoucheth 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 unto thee, and to thy seed after thee": and their God, which 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 shall they come out with great substance. And he first declares himself their God, and then 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 THEE, to make THEE for ever blest through the promised SEED,] walk thou before me, and be thou perfect." But that the covenant of works was also, for special ends, repeated and delivered to the Israelites on Mount Sinai, I cannot refuse, 1. Because of the apostle's testimony, (Gal 4:24), "These are the two covenants; the one from Mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage." For the children of this Sinai covenant the apostle here treats of, are excluded from the eternal inheritance, as Ishmael was from Canaan, the type of it, (verse 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 covenant from Sinai itself, and its children, were even before the coming of Christ under a sentence of exclusion, to be executed on them respectively in due time. 2. The nature of the covenant of works is most expressly in the New Testament brought in, propounded, and explained from the Mosaical dispensation. The commands of it from Exodus 20 by our blessed Saviour, (Matt 19:17-19), "If thou wilt enter into life keep the commandments. He saith unto him, Which? Jesus said, Thou shalt do no murder, thou shalt not commit adultery," etc. The promise of it, (Rom 10:5), "Moses describes the righteousness which is of the law, that the man which doth these things shall live by them." The commands and promise of it together, see Luke 10:25-28. The terrible sanction of it, Galations 3:10. For it is written [viz: Deuteronomy 27:26,] "Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them." 3. To this may be added the opposition betwixt 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 doeth 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 as 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 was 430 years after, cannot disannul"; yea, such an one as did, in its own nature, bear a method of obtaining the inheritance, so far different from that of the promise, that it was inconsistent with it; "For if the inheritance be of the law, it is no more of promise," (Gal 3:18), wherefore the covenant of the law from Mount Sinai could not be the covenant of grace, unless one will make this last not only a covenant seeming to destroy itself, but really inconsistent: but it was the covenant of works, which indeed had such a semblance, and in its own nature did bear such a method as before noted; howbeit, as Ainsworth says, "The covenant of the law now given could not disannul the covenant of grace," (Gal 3:17). Annot. on Exodus 19:1

Wherefore I conceive the two covenants to have been both delivered on Mount Sinai to the Israelites. First, The covenant of grace made with Abraham, contained in the preface, repeated and promulgate there unto Israel, to be believed and embraced by faith, that they might be saved; to which were 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 commands, delivered with thunderings and lightnings, the meaning of which was afterwards cleared by Moses, describing the righteousness of the law and sanction thereof, repeated and promulgate to the Israelites there, as the original perfect rule of righteousness, to be obeyed; and yet were they no more bound hereby to seek righteousness by the law than the young man was by our Saviour's saying to him, (Matt 19:17,18), "If thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandmentsThou shalt do no murder," etc. The latter was a repetition of the former.

Thus there is no confounding of the two covenants of grace and works; but the latter was added to the former as subservient unto it, to turn their eyes towards the promise, or covenant of grace: "God gave it to Abraham by promise. Wherefore then serveth the law? it was added, because of transgressions, till the Seed should come," (Gal 3:18,19). So it was unto the promise given to Abraham, that this subservient covenant was added; and that promise we have found in the preface to the ten commands. To it, then was the subservient covenant, according to the apostle, added, put, or set to, as the word properly signifies. So it was no part of the covenant of grace, the which was entire to the fathers, before the time that was set to it; and yet is, to the New Testament church, after that is taken away from it: for, says the apostle, "It was added till the seed should 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 lay most open to the view of the people. According to this account of the Sinai transaction, the ten commands, there delivered, 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 twice written on tables of stone, by the Lord himself,the first tables the work of God, (Exo 32:16), which were broken in pieces, (verse 19), called the tables of the covenant, (Deut 9:11,15)the second tables, the work of Moses, the typical Mediator, (Exo 34:1), deposited at first [it would seem] in the tabernacle mentioned, (33:7), afterward, at the rearing of the tabernacle with all its furniture, laid up in the ark within the tabernacle, (25:16); and whether or not, some such thing is intimated, by the double accentuation of the decalogue, let the learned determine; but to the ocular inspection it is evident, that the preface to the ten commands, (Exo 20:2, Deut 5:6), stands in the original, both as a part of a sentence joined to the first commands, and also as an entire sentence, separated from it, and shut up by itself.

Upon the whole, one may compare with this the first promulgation of the covenant of grace, by the messenger of the covenant in paradise, (Gen 3:15), and the flaming sword placed there by the same hand, "turning every way to keep the way of the tree of life."

[5] Here, there is a large addition in the ninth edition of this book, London, 1699. It well deserves a place, and is as follows: "I do not say, God made the covenant of works with them, that they might obtain life and salvation thereby; no, the law was 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, as a covenant of works, for their humbling and conviction; and so do his ministers preach the law to unconverted sinners still, that they who 'desire to be under the law may hear what the law says,' (Gal 4:21). And as to what you say of their not agreeing to this covenant, I pray take notice, that the covenant of works was made with Adam, not for himself only, but as he was a public person representing all his posterity, and so 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, Gal 3:10). Hence all men are born under that covenant, whether they agree to it or no; though, indeed, there is by nature such a proneness in all 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 upon them to do all that the Lord requireth; for do you not remember," etc.

[6] That the conditional promise, (Lev 18:5), [to which agrees Exodus 19:8,] and the dreadful threatening, (Deut 27:26), were both given to the Israelites, as well as the ten commands, is beyond question; and that according to the apostle, (Rom 10:5, Gal 3:10), they were the form of the covenant of works, is as evident as the repeating of the words, and expounding them so, can make it. How, then, one can refuse the covenant of works to have been given to the Israelites, I cannot see. Mark the Westminster Confession upon the head of the covenant of works; "The first covenant made with man was a covenant of works, wherein life was promised to Adam, and in him to his posterity, upon condition of perfect and personal obedience." And this account of the being and nature of that covenant is there proved from these very texts among others, Romans 10:5, Galatians 3:10, chap. 7, art. 2.

[7] "But the covenant of the law [adds he] came after, as the apostle observeth, (Gen 3:17).They had a greater benefit than their fathers; for though the law could not give them life, yet it was a schoolmaster unto, i.e., to bring them unto, Christ." (Gal 3:21-24). Ainsworth on Deuteronomy 5:3.

[8] 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 a covenant to be believed, the other a covenant to be done, and thus the apostle states, the difference betwixt these two, (Gal 3:12), "And the law is not of faith, but the man that DOETH them shall live in them." As to the former, viz: the covenant to be believed, it was given to their fathers as well as to them. Of the latter, viz: the covenant to be done, Moses speaks expressly, (Deut 4:12,13), "The Lord spake unto you out of the midst of the fire, and he declared unto you his covenant, which he commanded you to PERFORM [or DO] even ten commandments." And (5:3), he tells the people no less expressly, that "the Lord made not THIS COVENANT with their fathers."

[9] That is, had worn them out, 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).

[10] Wherein I differ from this learned author as to this point, and for what reasons, may be seen earlier [footnote #4].

[11] But not as it is a rule of life, which is the other member of that distinction.

[12] Both in the heart of Adam himself, and of his descendants in the first ages of the world.

[13] Both with him and them.

[14] The doctrine of the fall, with whatsoever other doctrine was necessary to salvation, was handed down from Adam, the fathers communicating the same to their children and children's children. There were but eleven patriarchs before the flood; 1. Adam, 2. Seth, 3. Enos, 4. Cainan, 5. Mahalaleel, 6. Jared, 7. Enoch, 8, Methuselah, 9. Lamech, 10. Noah, 11. Shem. Adam having lived 930 years, (Gen 5:5), was known to Lamech, Noah's father, with whom he lived 66 years, and much longer with the rest of the fathers before him; so that Lamech, and those before him, might have the doctrine from Adam's own mouth. Methuselah lived with Adam 243 years, and with Shem 98 years before the deluge. See Genesis 5. And what Shem, who, after the deluge, lived 502 years, (Gen 11:10,11), had learned from Methuselah, he had occasion to teach Arphaxad, Salah, Eber, Peleg, Reu, Serug, Nahor, Terah, Abraham, Isaac, (Gen 21:5,), and Jacob, to whose 51st year he [viz: Shem] reached. Genesis 11:10, and 21:5, and 25:26, compared. [Vid. Bail. Op. Hist. Chron. p. 2, 3.] Thus one may perceive, how the nature of the law and covenant of works given to Adam, might be far better known to them, than to the Israelites after their long bondage in Egypt.

[15] That is, and besides all this, God spake to the patriarchs immediately and by angels. But neither of these do we find during the time of the bondage in Egypt, until the angel of the Lord appeared to Moses in the bush, and ordered him to go and bring the people out of Egypt, (Exo 3).

[16] The remaining impressions of the law on the hearts of the Israelites.

[17] By faith; believing, embracing, and appropriating it to themselves, (Heb 11:13, Jer 3:4).

[18] Inasmuch as the remaining impressions of the law on their hearts were so weak, that they were not sufficient for the purpose.

[19] By faith proposing it as their only defence, and opposing it to the demands of the law or covenant of works, as their only plea.

[20] How far they came short of, and could not reach unto the obedience they owed unto God, according to the perfection of the holy law.

[21] Nor before the fall neither, properly speaking; but the expression is agreeable to Scripture style, (Isa 5:4), "Wherefore when I looked it should bring forth grapes, brought it forth wild grapes?"

[22] (Rom 8:3), "For what the law could not DO, in that it was weak through the flesh; God sending his own Son," etc.

[23] It was not set up by itself as an entire rule of righteousness, to which alone they were to look who desired righteousness and salvation, as it was in the case of upright Adam, "For no man, since the fall, can attain to righteousness and life by the moral law," Lar. Cat. quest. 94. But it was added to the covenant of grace, that by looking at it men might see what kind of righteousness it is by which they can be justified in the sight of God; and that by means thereof, finding themselves destitute of that righteousness, they might be moved to embrace the covenant of grace, in which that righteousness is held forth to be received by faith.

[24] This was the end of the work, namely, of making the covenant of works with Adam, but not of the repeating of it at Sinai; it was also the end or design of the worker, namely of God, who made that covenant with Adam, to have his due from man, and he got it from the Man Christ Jesus.

[25] That is, the perfect obedience of the law; as it is said, (Eccl 7:29), "God made man upright."