Willem van Oranje
Puritan Board Junior
Although we admit that the covenant of Sinai differed as to mode of administration from the covenant of works and the covenant of grace, nevertheless as to substance and species we deny that it constituted a third covenant, and we insist that there was nothing else than it is the same as the covenant entered into with Abraham, but different as to accidents and circumstances; that is, clothed as to outward administration in the form of a covenant of works, through a severe promulgation of law, but not with a view to exacting afresh a covenant of works with the sinner. That was impossible. The aim was to remember the violated covenant of works, and so to make the Israelites feel their sin and impending curse, and give them the more burning a thirst for the righteousness of redemption. So in it there was a mixture of law and gospel; of the former, to strike terror into sinners, of the latter to raise up and conform contrite consciences. Further, that the Sinaitic covenant was not different from the covenant of grace entered into previously with the patriarchs is clear: (a) on God's side, who makes a pact with the Israelites as their God and likewise as the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob; (b) on the Israelites' side, who are viewed as God's people and Abraham's seed; (c) on the side of the ceremonial law, the whole of which was typical..."
From Heppe, Reformed Dogmatics, p. 399
From Heppe, Reformed Dogmatics, p. 399