Two Covenants Sharing Book

Seven Sermons
On The
Two Covenants
With Recapitulation
Table of Contents
The Two Covenants................................................................4
Eld. J. 0. Corliss
Sermon On The Two Covenants.........................................39
Eld John N. Andrews
–THE TWO COVENANTS..............................................................................................39
–THE TEN COMMANDMENTS DO NOT CONSTITUTE THE COVENANT OF EX.
24:8 .................................................................................................................................59
The Two Covenants..............................................................78
Eld. J. G. Matteson.
The Two Covenants..............................................................96
Eld. Uriah. Smith.
The Two Covenants............................................................127
Mrs. Ellen. G. White
Eld. Wolcott. H. Littlejohn.
–THE COVENANTS DEFINED...................................................................................132
–THE TEN COMMANDMENTS WERE NOT THE FIRST COVENANT................133
–THE HISTORY OF THE MAKING OF THE FIRST COVENANT........................136
–INCIDENTAL PROOFS THAT THERE WERE PROMISES AS WELL AS
CONDITIONS IN THE FIRST COVENANT............................................................143
–INCIDENTAL PROOFS THAT THE PEOPLE PROMISED TO PERFORM ALL,
THAT THE LORD REQUIRED.................................................................................144
–THE TEN COMMANDMENTS NOT THE FIRST COVENANT............................145
–THE CONSEQUENCES OF THE TWO THEORIES...............................................147
–THE TEN COMMANDMENTS INCORPORATED INTO THE NEW COVENANT
AS A PART OF ITS CONDITIONS............................................................................147
–THE TEN COMMANDMENTS THE LAW OF GOD IN THE NEW TESTAMENT.
.......................................................................................................................................149
–THE INCONSISTENCIES OF THE THEORY THAT THE TEN
COMMANDMENTS CONSTITUTE THE OLD COVENANT.................................153
–THE ADVANTAGES PRESENTED BY THE NEW COVENANT..........................155
The Covenants.....................................................................160
Joseph Baker.
–RECAPITULATION–
The Covenants.....................................................................196
–THE ABRAHAMIC COVENANT...............................................................................197
–THE TWO COVENANTS............................................................................................198
Eld. R. F. Cottrell.
The Two Covenants.
Eld. J. 0. Corliss
“I WILL make a new covenant with the house of Israel
and with the house of Judah.” Heb. 8:8.
The subject of the covenants is an important one. It is a
subject in which every person should take the deepest interest,
from the fact that it relates to our spiritual condition in this
world, and to the foundation of all our hope for the world to
come. Paul, in writing to the Ephesians, reminded them that at
one time they were Gentiles, strangers from the covenants of
promise, and consequently without hope and without God in
the world. Eph. 2:12.
What was true of them, is now true of every
unconverted person. To be a stranger to these covenants of
promise, is to be without Christ and without hope. To have a
kindred alliance with them, is to secure the blessings and
promises they are able to confer. It is therefore a matter of
great importance to understand the conditions upon which
these infinite benefits are to be secured.
It will then be in place to ask, What is the nature of
these two covenants, and in what respect do they differ ? To
answer these two questions will be the principal line of
thought introduced in this article. That the old covenant has
been abolished by being superseded by the new, there can be
no question, since this is plainly stated by the apostle Paul. But
we believe that in the removal of the old covenant, the new
abolished nothing but the old.
But what constituted the old, or first covenant, that
gave way so readily to the new ? The answer to this question
depends upon the meaning of the word covenant. In the books
of the New Testament, the words covenant and testament are
used as signifying the same thing. They are, indeed, only two
different translations of the same Greek word, όιαϑήκη,
Six Sermons On The Two Covenants 5
diatheke. So that when our Lord says, “This cup is the new
testament in my blood” (Luke 22:20), it is the same as if he
had said, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood.” The
primary definition of the word, as given by Webster, is, “A
mutual agreement of two or more persons or parties, in writing
or under seal, to do or to refrain from, some act or thing; a
contract; stipulation.” Then in looking for the old covenant,
we can only be satisfied with some transaction to which this
definition will apply.
Going back to the history of Israel as they came out of
Egypt, we lay down as a consistent and self-evident principle,
that the very first transaction we find taking place between
God and the Israelites after they left Egypt, which answers to
the definition of the word covenant, must be the first covenant,
unless some good reason can be shown why it is not.
Do we find anything of this kind in the experience of
that people ? anything which constitutes a formal and mutual
agreement between God and themselves, based upon mutual
promises ? We find one, and only one, transaction of that kind.
The record of it commences in Ex. 19:3: “And Moses went up
unto God, and the Lord called unto him out of the mountain,
saying, Thus shalt thou say to the house of Jacob, and tell the
children of Israel: Ye have seen what I did unto the Egyptians,
and how I bear you on eagles' wings, and brought you unto
myself. Now, therefore, if ye will obey my voice indeed, and
keep my covenant, then ye shall be a peculiar treasure unto me
above all people; for all the earth is mine. And ye shall be unto
me a kingdom of priests and an holy nation. These are the
words which thou shalt speak unto the children of Israel.”
The briefest glance at this language shows it to be a
formal proposition on the part of the Lord to the Israelites.
6 The Two Covenants. – Eld. J. 0. Corliss
Moses was the minister through whom the negotiation was

carried on. Go down, said God to Moses, and make to the
people this proposition: If you will obey my voice, and keep
my covenant, I will secure you in the possession of certain
special blessings above all people. With this instruction Moses
went down to the people, and God waited for their answer.
Verses 7, 8: “And Moses came and called for the elders
of the people, and laid before their faces all these words which
the Lord commanded him. And all the people answered
together, and said, All that the Lord hath spoken we will do.
And Moses returned the words of the people unto the Lord.”
Such was the response of the people. They virtually
said, “We agree to the terms; we will enter into the
arrangement.” We now have the two parties before us, and the
mutual, voluntary action on the part of each. This is the first
transaction of the kind recorded between God and that people.
It answers most strictly to the meaning of the word covenant.
Therefore we say that this has the primary claim to be
considered the old covenant of which Jeremiah prophesied and
Paul discoursed.
But the question may be asked, Are not the ten
commandments called the covenant in Deut. 4:12, 13, and
some parallel passages? Upon this very point is where some
are misled. They are never called “the” covenant, referring to
the first, or old covenant. That the ten commandments are
called “a” covenant we freely admit; but what kind of a
covenant, and in what sense are they so called ?
Please read again Ex. 19:5: “Now, therefore, if ye will
obey my voice indeed, and keep my covenant,” etc. Then God
had something which he called his covenant, which antedated
the covenant made with Israel. It was already in existence,
before any formal agreement whatever was made with that

people. And this explains Deut. 4:13. Those who read that
verse should be critical enough to observe that Moses does not
call the ten commandments the covenant, nor a covenant, but
his [God's] covenant. “And he declared unto you his covenant,
which he commanded you to perform, even ten
commandments.” These, then, are what God referred to in Ex.
19:5, in the words, “my covenant;” and these were already in
existence when the covenant was made with Israel. It should
be noticed, further, that the covenant of Deut. 4:13, is not a
covenant made, but a covenant commanded and surely any
one can see the difference between an arrangement established
upon the voluntary and mutual promises of two parties, and
that which one party has power to enjoin with authority upon
another party. But the covenant here mentioned, God did thus
enjoin upon them without regard to any action on their part.
It is now easy to see why the ten commandments are
called a covenant, and what kind of a covenant they were.
They were simply the basis of that agreement recorded in Ex.
19:3-8. For the very first condition God proposed, was, “If ye
will keep my covenant.” In this sense, and this only, are the
ten commandments ever called a covenant.
And this brings us to the secondary definition of the
word covenant, which is, “a writing containing the terms of
agreement between parties.”
Thus the conditions upon which an agreement, or
covenant, rests, are in a secondary sense called also a
covenant. This may be illustrated by the relation which all
good citizens sustain to their respective States. They are all in
covenant relation with the State. The State says, If you will
obey the laws of this commonwealth, you shall be protected in
your life, liberty, and property. The citizens respond, We will

obey. This is the mutual agreement, the covenant, virtually
existing everywhere between the citizen and the State. But
when we speak of the State alone, its covenant would be its
laws which it commands its citizens to perform. These are the
conditions of the agreement, and hence may be called the
covenant of the State, because upon obedience to these are
suspended all the blessings which it proposes to confer.
Such was the relation established between the Lord and
his people. He had a law which the very circumstances of our
existence bind us to keep; yet he graciously annexed a promise
to the keeping of it. Obey my law, and I will secure you in the
possession of certain blessings above all people. The people
accepted the offer. The matter then stood thus: The people
said, We will keep God's law. God said, Then I will make you
a kingdom of priests, a peculiar treasure unto myself. This was
the agreement, or covenant, made between them. But so far as
God was concerned, his law was his covenant, because it was
the basis of the whole arrangement, and upon the keeping of
that by the people, all the blessings were suspended which he
proposed to confer.
It is sometimes objected that the ark is said to contain
only the ten commandments; and yet Solomon (1 Kings 8:21)
plainly says that the ark contained the covenant made when
their fathers came out of Egypt. Certainly, no one for a
moment will pretend to deny that the ten commandments were
written on tables of stone, and that these tables were kept in
the ark. No, says the objector, that is just what I do believe; on
that point we are agreed.
But if that which was written on the tables of stone was
the old covenant, it certainly was not necessary to write the
same thing in a book and place that in the ark also. But if we
say that the law written on the tables of stone, and kept in the
ark, was the old covenant, we will find ourselves in the
dilemma of having two covenants existing at the same time,
designed for the same end, and kept in the ark together; for we
read in Deut. 31:26, “Take this book of the law, and put it in
the side of the ark of the covenant of the Lord your God.” That
this book of the law is the same as the book of the covenant,
see 2 Kings 22:8 and 23:2.
We will, however, show presently that the covenant
which Moses dedicated with blood was not written on the
tables of stone, but in a book. But before we do this, let us
further examine the process by which it was made. We have
heretofore learned (Ex. 19:5, 8) that when the people promised
to obey the voice of God, they had not yet heard his voice, and
did not know what conditions he would enjoin upon them. But
on the third day after this, the Lord came down in fearful
majesty, and with a voice that shook the solid earth from pole
to pole declared the ten commandments. Here for the first time
the people heard God's voice which they were to obey. Then
the Lord took Moses into a private interview with himself, and
gave him some instruction which the people were to follow in
civil and religious matters, under this arrangement. This
instruction is found in the latter part of Ex. 20, and chapters
21, 22, and 23 entire, and is an epitome of the civil and
ceremonial laws given to that people.
In chapter 24 is resumed the narrative of the steps taken
in the formation of this covenant. Moses appeared before the
people a second time, and rehearsed in their hearing all the
words which the Lord had communicated to him. And here the
people, after having heard for themselves God's voice, and
being told all that he had said to Moses, had an opportunity to

answer again whether they would enter into this arrangement
or not. At their first answer, Ex. 19:8, they did not know what
would be required of them; now they understood all the
conditions; and what will they answer now ? Ex. 24:3: “And
all the people answered with one voice, and said, All the
words which the Lord hath said, will we do.”
It would seem that this was all-sufficient. But the Lord
moved very carefully in the matter, so that the people might
have no opportunity to plead in after years that they did not
know what they were doing in entering into this covenant with
him. So he caused Moses to write out in a book all the words
he had told him, that all points might be again carefully
considered, and then to read it all over to the people. Verse 7:
“And he took THE BOOK OF THE COVENANT, and read in
the audience of the people.” Here is yet another opportunity
for them to say that they could not abide by their first promise.
But what answer did they return ? “And they said, All that the
Lord hath said will we do, and be obedient.” This third and
most solemn promise from the people closed the contract on
their part. It now only remained to dedicate the covenant with
blood, which was done in the most impressive manner. Thus
we read in verse 8: “And Moses took the blood, and sprinkled
it on the people.” Or, as stated by the apostle Paul, he
“sprinkled both the book and all the people.” Heb. 9:19. After
this solemn and impressive act, Moses said to them, “Behold
the blood of the covenant, which the Lord hath made with you
concerning all these words.”
THE covenant thus sealed and ratified with blood, is
called by the apostle the “first” covenant, forever settling the
point as to what constituted the old covenant. But to take away
the shadow of a doubt, if such should linger in any mind, we

will state that at the time of the dedication of the covenant
above referred to, neither Moses nor the people had the tables
of stone; they had not yet been given into their hands. This
plainly appears from reading verse 12: “And the Lord said
unto Moses, Come up to me into the mount, and be there, and
I will give thee tables of stone, and a law, and commandments
which I have written, that thou mayest teach them.” But before
Moses was called up to receive this law of ten commandments
which God had written, the first covenant had been made,
closed up, finished, and ratified by the shedding of blood.
Again, there is, all through the Bible, evidence that the
ten commandments did exist, and that their principles were
well understood, and acted upon long before the old covenant
was made. Hence, if they were the old covenant, why the
necessity of making another ? Says the apostle, “Sin is the
transgression of the law.” 1 John 3:4. We are furthermore
instructed that “sin is not imputed when there is no law.” Rom.
5:13. If no law against murder existed in the days of Cain,
how was he justly condemned for killing his brother ? If no
law against unchastity was in force in the days of Joseph, how
could sin be imputed to him if he complied with the request of
Potiphar's wife ? See Gen. 39:7-9. Or on what ground were the
inhabitants of Sodom destroyed, if there was no law against
unchastity ?
Were those people punished without any knowledge of
wrong doing ? Certainly not. God does not deal thus with his
creatures. Peter, in referring to the matter, says that Sodom
was made an ensample unto all that after should live ungodly.
Yes, God dealt with them just as he will deal with the people
of to-day who do not repent. Was their case an example ?
Then if God will not now punish his creatures who are
ignorantly doing wrong, it shows, inasmuch as he punished
them, that they fully understood the claims of God's law which
required chastity. With these points so clearly established in
the Bible, it is safe to positively affirm that the ten
commandments are not the old covenant.
In pursuing our inquiry thus far, we have learned when
the old covenant was made, and with whom it was made, and
what constituted it. We now turn our attention to the subject of
the new covenant, and ask, With whom was it made, and when
was it made ?
The first we learn of the new covenant is its
announcement by the prophet Jeremiah six hundred years
before Christ, in language as follows:—
“Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, that I will
make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the
house of Judah; not according to the covenant that I made with
their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring
them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake,
although I was an husband unto them, saith the Lord. But this
shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel:
After those days, saith the Lord, I will put my law in their
inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God,
and they shall be my people. And they shall teach no more
every man his neighbor, and every man his brother, saying,
Know the Lord; for they shall all know me, from the least of
them unto the greatest of them, saith the Lord; for I will
forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.”
Jer. 31:31-34.
In this announcement, the new covenant is made a
necessity, because the people had already virtually annulled
the first arrangement. They had broken God's covenant, the ten
commandments, and thus violated the conditions of the
covenant he made with them.
In his letter to the Hebrews, the apostle states the
matter explicitly. He says: “For if that first covenant had been
faultless, then should no place have been sought for the
second. For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold the days
come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with
the house of Israel and with the house of Judah.” This
covenant is declared to be faulty, not that there was anything
wrong about it, in itself considered; but it was imperfect,
simply because its provisions were not ample enough, as we
shall presently see, to meet the emergency which arose under
it. And this is more than intimated in the next sentence: “For
finding fault with them.”
The fault, then, really, was with the people, in breaking
God's covenant, the ten commandments, which violated the
conditions of the covenant made. The violation of a law
cannot abolish the law, but it can and does break up any
arrangement which depends upon the keeping of the law. This
was just the effect of Israel's transgression of God's law. It did
not weaken in the least degree the authority of that law, but it
did render null and void the contract that made God a husband
unto them, and released him from the obligation he had taken
upon himself toward them in the first covenant, and virtually
brought the covenant to an end.
The question may be asked, Was there not some
provision for the removal of sin, so that when the people had
transgressed the law they could return to the same relation
with God that they had sustained before sinning ? It is true that
under the first covenant the blood of beasts was freely offered;
but it was “not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats
should take away sins.” Heb. 10:4. It was necessary through
the Jewish dispensation to shed blood, yet it could not remove
a single sin. The most it could do was to direct the mind to a
“better sacrifice,” whose blood could actually and fully
cleanse from every spot.
The new covenant can and does supply the deficiency
by providing just such a sacrifice. Jesus Christ, offers himself
a sacrifice, and provides the remedy whereby sinners find
mercy at the hands of God, and their sins and iniquities are
remembered no more.
With whom was the new covenant made ? with the
Gentiles ? A more mistaken idea was never entertained. There
is no record that God ever made a covenant with the Gentiles.
The prophet plainly designates the people with whom the new
covenant would be made: “Behold the days come, saith the
Lord, that I will make a new covenant [not with the Gentiles,
but] with the house of Israel, and the house of Judah;” the very
same people with whom the old covenant was made.
In referring to his brethren in the flesh, Paul speaks of
them thus: “Who are Israelites; to whom pertaineth the
adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of
the law, and the service of God, and the promises; whose are
the fathers, and of whom, as concerning the flesh, Christ
came, who is over all, God blessed forever.”
Certainly no higher honors could be conferred upon
any people. Let us for a moment consider them. As the
children of Abraham, whom God loved and adopted as his
friend, they were chosen and set apart as depositaries of God's
law. Among them God's glory was visibly manifested, as to no
other people on earth. To them also pertained “the covenants
[not the old covenant merely, but both were theirs] and the
giving of the law [something separate and distinct from the
covenants] and the service of God, and the promises.”
Even the greatest and richest promise ever bestowed,
came to mankind through the same channel. The Lord Jesus
Christ came of the Jews, and he himself said that salvation is
“of the Jews.” In all this, not one blessing was given to the
Gentiles; not one promise was bestowed; their names were not
even mentioned in the arrangement, and Paul assures us that as
Gentiles they have no interest in the covenants, consequently
no hope, and are “without God in the world.” Eph. 2:12.
ARE the Gentiles then cast out forever ? Just how the
Gentiles from this low state can be brought to share in the
blessings of the new covenant will be noticed further on, but
for the present we will waive this part of the subject to
consider the important point of when and how the new
covenant was instituted.
In Matt. 26:26-30 is an account of the institution of the
Lord's supper: “He took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it
to them saying, bring ye all of it; for this is my blood of the
new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of
sins.” The blood of Christ is the blood of the new covenant,
the word testament, as already noticed, being the same as
covenant. The disciples present on this occasion were Jews,
and there, as representatives of the whole Christian church,
they entered into the new covenant with the Lord. God had
now set forth Christ as the Saviour of the world, virtually
proposing to all that if they would receive him and his
offering, on the conditions which he, in his divine teaching for
three years and a half, had set before them, they should receive
the remission of their sins, as it was for this purpose that his
blood was shed. And they, by partaking of those emblems,

accepted the arrangement.
The following day the Author of the covenant dies; the
blood of Christ is spilled, and he cries out, “It is finished.” The
new covenant is there ratified and sealed, and from that
moment is in full force. This is verified by the statement of
Paul: “For a testament is of force after men are dead;
otherwise it is of no strength at all while the testator liveth.”
Heb. 9:17.
But what effect did this change from the old to the new
covenant have upon God's law, the ten commandments ? Did
it abolish the law or supercede it by another ? Hear the
emphatic declaration of God by the mouth of the prophet: “I
will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their
hearts.” As Paul quotes it, it reads, “I will put my laws into
their mind, and write them in their hearts.” To what law does
this prophecy refer ?—To that which was the law of God in
the days of Jeremiah, which no one will dispute was the ten
commandments. If it does not mean this, then it should have
read, I will put a new law into their minds, and write it in their
hearts.
And if, as our opponents contend, the law of ten
commandments was the old covenant to be abolished, the
prophecy of the change should have read, This shall be the
covenant that I will make with the house of Israel: I will
abolish my law, and take it out of their way. Or if the law was
not to be abolished, but only changed, that fact should have
been noted in some such language as this: This shall be the
change my law, and adapt it to the genius of the gospel
dispensation.
But it says nothing of this kind, as the reader has

sufficiently noticed. It says, “I will put my law into their
inward parts, and write it in their hearts.” I will incorporate it
into their very being; I will take away the carnal mind, which
is not subject to the law of God, so that it will be their delight
to keep it in sincerity and truth.
And this is further indicated in the fact that when the
Minister of the new covenant came to take away the first and
establish the second, he said, “I delight to do thy will, 0 my
God; yea, thy law is within, my heart.” Ps. 40:8; Heb. 10:5-9.
And as he was, in all holy affections and loyalty to God, so
must all his followers be.
Then in what does the difference between the two
covenants, really consist ? This can be readily shown by the
use of the accompanying diagram: —
As previously shown, the death of Christ on the cross

marked the close of the old covenant and the establishment of
the new. So let the cross in the diagram represent the division
between the two covenants, the space on the left side of the
cross representing the old covenant, and that upon the right
representing the new covenant. The question now under
consideration is: What is embraced in the new covenant that
was not in the old ? or, to put it in another form, What did the
old covenant contain that was abolished at the establishment
of the new covenant ?
We have arranged in parallel columns, one on each side
of the cross, some of the more prominent points embraced in
both covenants, which the reader can readily compare, and
thus test the truthfulness of the positions designed to be
maintained.
First in order, then, we ask, Does not the same being
who has proclaimed himself unchangeable, and who was so
prominent in all the arrangements of the old covenant,
maintain his existence in the new covenant ? And does not his
hand still guide the destinies of the world? Certainly; no one
would dispute this. Then, too, the name of Christ appears
prominently in the new covenant Did not the same Christ exert
a controlling influence under the old covenant ? In his letter to
the Hebrews the apostle says that Moses esteemed the
reproach of Christ greater riches than the treasures of Egypt.
How could this be possible if Moses knew nothing of Christ ?
The facts are that Moses had a personal knowledge of Christ,
and was furthermore guided by him in his movements with the
people of Israel.
When God's people started out on their journey from
Egypt, God said to Moses, “Behold, I send an Angel before
thee, to keep thee in the way, and to bring thee into the place
which I have prepared. Beware of him, and obey his voice,
provoke him not; for he will not pardon your transgressions;
for my name is in him.” Ex. 23:20-21. This being whom God
sent to guide Israel, and to give instruction to Moses, had
God's name in him, or bore the name of God; hence the record
of admonitions and directions of those forty years wandering
says: “And the Lord said unto Moses.”
But who was this being so highly favored of God as to
be intrusted with such weighty responsibilities ? In his
instruction to the church, Paul has spoken definitely on this
point. He says: “Moreover brethren, I would not that ye should
be ignorant, how that all our fathers were under the cloud, and
all passed through the sea; and were all baptized unto Moses
in the cloud and in the sea; and did all eat the same spiritual
meat; and did all drink the same spiritual drink; for they drank
of that spiritual Rock that followed them [margin, went with
them]; and that Rock was Christ.” 1 Cor. 10:1-4.
The fact, then, is plainly established that Christ was the
leader of the chosen Israel in the old covenant, and that they
were so intimately connected with him as to receive a constant
supply of “spiritual meat,” notwithstanding the oft-repeated
assertion that the old covenant had no spiritual blessings. Who
can deny that the people under the old covenant had Christ
with them, without denying some of the plainest statements of
Scripture ?
Angels had a work to perform in connection with God's
people of old. This was so well understood by them that
David, in describing God's care for his people, boldly
advocates the ministration of the angels. Thus he says: “The
angel of the Lord encampeth round about them that fear him,
and delivereth them.” Ps. 34:7. But do angels maintain the

same relation to the human family under the new covenant
arrangement ? We think so; for we read in Heb. 1:14 that the
angels are “all ministering spirits, sent forth to minister for
them who shall be heirs of salvation.”
In the gospel dispensation so-called, the Holy Spirit
takes a prominent part in the conviction of the sinner.
Everywhere in the New Testament its operations and office-
work are extolled, and we are warned against grieving it from
us, But were its operations known, and was its influence
sought as something desirable by the men of the Old
Testament ? Hear David plead, when he thought he had lost
favor with God because of his terrible sin: “Cast me not away
from thy presence, and take not thy Holy Spirit from me.” Ps.
51:11. Evidently David felt that the loss of the Holy Spirit was
equivalent to becoming a castaway, and as such, forever
beyond the power of God's mercy.
Again, Isaiah records the presence of the Holy Spirit
with the people of God, and how they vexed that Spirit by
their rebellion until God turned to be their enemy. Certainly all
must acknowledge the operations of the Holy Spirit in the old
covenant.
IN the examination thus far, all must certainly agree
that the two covenants are essentially alike. The next point to
be noticed in the diagram given last week is the law embracing
the Sabbath commandment. Does it occupy the same position
in the new covenant that it did in the old ? One thing is certain.
The new covenant must of necessity have some law or rule by
which to regulate the conduct of those who shall inherit its
promises. All are settled on this point. But what constitutes
this law, and when was it enacted ?
Our opponents say that the law of ten commandments

which constituted the old covenant, and which were in force
up to the cross, were abolished at the death of Christ that in
the new covenant there is a new law, and that Christians are
under obedience to this law only. But when was this new law
instituted ? Certainly no one will contend that before the death
of Christ two rival laws existed. But there must have been, if
the ten commandments were abolished at Christ's death; for
we have learned from the Apostle Paul that the new covenant
was in force immediately upon the death of Christ; that the
spilling of his blood dedicated and forever sealed the new
covenant to all who should after believe in him. Hear what
Paul says: “For where a testament [covenant] is, there must
also of necessity be the death of the testator. For a testament
[covenant] is of force after men are dead.” Heb. 9:16, 17. No
one is authorized to change the testament of a man after he is
dead. To do so would be a crime. How then can a man or any
set of men, though they be apostles, change or add to the
Lord's testament after his death ? In writing to the Galatians,
the apostle makes this matter plain: “Brethren, I speak after
the manner of men. Though it be but a man's covenant, yet if it
be confirmed, no man disannulleth or addeth thereto.”
After the new covenant was confirmed by Christ, no
one had power to take from it or add to it. Now if the Lord did
not before his death enact a new law to take the place of the
old one to be abolished at his death, it is plain that none could
be added to supply the deficiency by his apostles after his
death, since the new covenant was sealed and closed up at his
death, and must forever remain in force as he left it at that
event But the Saviour said that he did not come to destroy the
law. He further contended that till heaven and earth passed,
not one jot or tittle should pass from the law, and that any one
who should break one of its least commandments would be
held in no esteem in the kingdom of Heaven. Matt. 5:17-19.
The great apostle also in his letter to the Romans, written more
than twenty-five years this side of the cross, recognized the
claims of the law. He says: “Now we know that what things
soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law,
that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may
become guilty before God.” Rom. 3:19. In this language the
apostle affirms that whatever the law says will hold, not the
Jew alone, but the whole world, guilty before God. He
certainly thought it belonged to the new covenant
dispensation. Then we are right in placing the law in the new
covenant column of the diagram
If the same law that was enforced under the old
covenant still exists, and is of binding obligation upon
Christians, the Sabbath command that it contained is likewise
in force, and its observance enjoined upon mankind. This
conclusion is inevitable, reasoning from these premises, as all
must readily see. Here is just why some take the position that
the law is abolished, as will be easily proven by testing their
real position. They take their stand that the old covenant was
the ten commandments which people were then required to
obey, and that these gave way and yielded their place to a new
code of requirements that are in force under this dispensation.
When asked to define these requirements, they are found to be
the same exactly as the original ten with the Sabbath left out.
The old covenant was therefore imperfect and faulty because
the Lord had inadvertently put a Sabbath into it; so he
undertakes to make a better one by giving the same law over
again, leaving the Sabbath out. But as soon as this is done, lo
it is found that the Sabbath cannot be dispensed with; for even

man's physical necessities imperatively, demand it. Besides,
were this beneficent institution entirely given up, society
would be the loser mentally and morally.
Now what shall be done ? Under these circumstances
men step in to remedy this defect which the Lord has made in
the new covenant; and the apostles, or somebody else, give to
the church a new Sabbath. Then having a Sabbath inserted, is
not the new covenant identically the same as the old ? Oh ! no;
for another day is taken, which, as a Sabbath, has no
foundation in fact, and no earthly significance whatever, and
the Sabbath is put upon that day, and then it is all right ! So
the old covenant was one with a seventh-day Sabbath, and the
new is one with a first-day Sabbath. The trouble, then, was not
with the Sabbath, in itself considered, but only with the day on
which it was kept. And the only trouble with the day, we must
conclude, was, that it was the day on which God rested in the
beginning; for that alone gave it all its significance.
This is a fair statement of the case; but does it look like
the work of the Lord ? Does it not look like the short-sighted
and blundering work of men, or rather like the work of the
great foe of all righteousness, who is working behind the
scenes, to impel mankind into every species of error and
confusion ?
But unfortunately for those who reason thus, the
Sabbath of the fourth commandment is recognized in the new
covenant. In recording the events of the crucifixion, Luke
says, “That day was the preparation, and the Sabbath drew
on.” Chap. 23:54. He then states that the women who attended
Christ, after viewing the tomb where his body lay, prepared
spices and ointments, and then “rested the Sabbath day
according to the commandment.” But, says the objector, that

was only one day after the crucifixion, and should not
therefore be introduced as evidence in the case. It makes no
difference if it was only half as long after the death of Christ.
Just as soon as his death occurred, the new covenant was in
force, and the people were just as much amenable to new
covenant discipline one day after the cross as they were one
year, or even ten years after.
The very fact that Christ never said anything about a
change of the day before his death, is good evidence he did not
contemplate such a change. Whatever customs he designed to
change, he deliberately made arrangements for before his
death. All else remains the same. Did sin produce death before
the cross ? So death is the result of sin now. Rom. 5:12. Were
the doctrines of grace, the judgment, the resurrection, and
Heaven understood back there ? They are taught the same to
us. Abraham had the gospel as well as we. Gal. 3:8. Faith,
repentance, and baptism were taught before the cross. And
even the Lord's supper, one of the ordinances of the new
covenant, could not be intrusted to man to inaugurate. The
reason is obvious. Had its institution been neglected until after
the death of the Son of God, it could never have found a place
in the new covenant, as that was sealed and ratified with his
blood when he was hanging on the cross. Therefore the Lord
called together his disciples on that eventful night before his
death, and solemnly instituted the communion, that it might
the next day be sealed into the new covenant by his blood.
Now we ask where Sunday-keeping comes in. Where
was that incorporated into the new covenant as one of its
provisions and duties ? We have never yet heard the claim put
forth that it originated the other side of the cross. It is always
placed this side. Then it is too late. It could not be added after
the covenant was confirmed by the blood of the cross, on
Paul's showing. Even if its origin could be traced back to the
days of the apostles, it would avail nothing. We deny that it
can be traced to that early date. It is lost in the theological
bosh and bogs of the days of Constantine. But if it could be
traced beyond that, to the days of the earlier Fathers, to the
days of the apostles, to the day of Pentecost, even to the day of
the resurrection, still “too late !” must be branded upon its
brazen brow, and we must regard it as an interloper, an
intruder, a usurper, a fraud, and a deception. It has no place in
the new covenant, and we are under no obligation thereto.
But what of the Sabbath ? We answer, That holds a
place in the new covenant, with the law of which it was an
integral part,— that law which is the standard of
righteousness, and from which Christ, the minister of the new
covenant, declared not a jot or tittle was to pass while the
heavens and the earth remain.
WHAT then was abolished at the cross ? The answer to
this is very clearly set forth in Ephesians, the second chapter.
The apostle there speaking of the work of Christ says that he
“abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of
commandments contained in ordinances.” Certainly no
reasonable person will for a moment contend that there was
anything in the ten commandments pertaining to ordinances.
The law that God wrote on the tables of stone is widely
separated from the law of commandments contained in
ordinances, which is here said to be abolished.
These ordinances belonged to the sanctuary service
(Heb. 9:1), and constituted the ceremonies of the Jewish
worship, which revealed their faith in the coming Messiah.
When the Messiah was come, and had really died as was
foreshadowed by these ordinances, then they were no longer
needed, and were therefore superseded by other ordinances
that would look back to the sufferings and death of Christ
through the emblems of his broken body and spilled blood,—
the bread and the wine.
This point is made plain in the epistle to the Colossians.
Referring to the work accomplished in the death of the
Saviour, Paul says: “Blotting out the hand-writing of
ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and
took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross.” Chap. 2:14. This
language is explicit. Those things, then, that were nailed to the
cross, and therefore could not extend this side of it, were what
made up and constituted the “hand-writing of ordinances,”
namely, meat-offerings, drink-offerings, and the like.
The apostle proceeds thus in verse 16: “Let no man
therefore (for this reason) judge you in meat, or in drink, or in
respect of an holy day, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath
days, which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of
Christ.” It is very evident from this exhortation that Paul
understood these things to be no longer binding on the people,
because belonging to the abolished ordinances. And why ?
Simply for the reason he offers; that they were shadows
leading forward to coming events, which would find their
substance in the body of Christ. How natural for a shadow to
terminate when it meets the substance that casts it
But what about the “sabbath days” mentioned in the
above catalogue; does the abolition of them include the
weekly Sabbath ? If that is in any way a type of Christ, it most
certainly is included. But the weekly Sabbath was instituted
for a different purpose, as we readily gather by a glance at the
commandment which enforced it. The weekly Sabbath looks

back to the creation week for the reason of its observance, and
not forward to the death of Christ, or, for that matter, to
anything connected with the work of redemption.
The Sabbath enforced by the ten commandments is a
weekly rest, and is a memorial of God's creative work, while
the sabbaths spoken of by Paul as shadowy, and having ceased
at the cross, were yearly sabbaths (see Lev. 23), upon which
the people ceased from secular labor to offer certain sacrifices,
and observe certain feasts appointed on their particular day,
the specific ceremonies of which were celebrated on no other
occasion during the year. After enumerating these in their
order, the Lord says of them in verses 37, 38: “These are the
feasts of the Lord which ye shall proclaim to be holy
convocations. . . . BESIDE the Sabbaths of the Lord.”
When the meat and drink offerings of these annual
sabbaths ceased to be offered, there could certainly be no
virtue in longer recognizing the days themselves, as in the
past; hence they are included among the abolished things,
while the weekly rest-day, as we have seen, is enforced in the
new covenant, by virtue of being a part of the law of God
which is written with the Spirit of God in the “fleshly tables of
the heart.”
In our reasoning thus far, we have purposely said
nothing of how the Gentile world comes into covenant relation
with God. We have seen, however, from Paul's testimony that
they are without God, without Christ, and without hope, and
have no interest in the covenants. The gospel was not theirs,
but was preached to Abraham, to Moses, and the Hebrews, all
through their history; and all its blessings were included in the
new covenant, which, like the old, was made with that people.
Gal. 3:8; Heb. 4:2.

If the new covenant, like the old, was made with the
Israelites, and this contains the promises, as we have already
seen, then it follows that Israelites only are saved, unless it can
be shown that another arrangement has been made for the
special benefit of the Gentiles; and this cannot be done. So
long as a man is a Gentile, he is in a godless, hopeless state.
And such is the state of every unconverted man. His condition
must be changed before God can take him into favor with
himself.
As long as the literal seed of Abraham walked humbly
before God, they were recognized as his own peculiar people,
and had they always proved faithful to the trust committed to
them, and accepted the provision of God in the person of his
Son, it is impossible to say just what the result might have
been. We do however know the result of their disobedience.
They were cut off from favor with God, and the Israelites in
the flesh are no longer known as his peculiar people. But the
very significance of the name Israel,— a prince, one who
prevails with God,—forbids that it should cease with the
downfall of that nation. On the other hand, it is very evident
that God's people still bear the distinctive title of Israel. It
matters not if ten, or even all the original tribes were lost, the
plan of God provides a way by which the loss can and will be
made up. Said John the Baptist, when he saw the Pharisees
and Sadducees at his baptism: “Think not to say within
yourselves, We have Abraham to our father; for I say unto you
that God is able of these stones to raise up children unto
Abraham.” Matt. 3:9. He further intimated to them that unless
they did bring forth good fruit, the time was near when they
would be entirely cut off from their former high privileges.
The Christian world is acquainted with the history of

that people's downfall at the first advent of the Saviour,
although the new covenant had been made with them and
dedicated with the precious blood of Christ. That blood,
however, was not spilled in vain; the covenant made then, and
with that people, is still in force. We are therefore shut up to
the conclusion that Israel still exists as God's peculiar people,
notwithstanding his former people bearing' that name were
cast aside. The apostle James evidently understood the matter
in this way, and so addressed his epistle designed for the
benefit of the Christian world to the “twelve tribes which are
scattered abroad;” and Paul in his closing words to the
Galatian church, includes all who walk according to the rule
he has laid down among the “Israel of God.”
IT seems very clear, therefore, that although Israel's
identity is established in the New Testament, it does not
follow that the title necessarily includes the literal tribes. Paul
further corroborates this fact as follows in Rom. 9:7: “Neither,
because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children
but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called. That is, They which are
the children of the flesh; these are NOT the children of God;
but the children of the promise are counted for the seed.”
In harmony with this, he testifies to the Galatians:
“And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs
according to the promise.” Gal. 3:29. All who are Christ's,
then, are the children of Abraham, not literally, but spiritually,
and are accounted for the seed. So we hear him saying to the
Romans in language still more pointed: “For he is not a Jew
which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision which is
outward in the flesh; but he is a Jew which is one inwardly,
and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in
the letter, whose praise is not of men but of God.” The inward
work of grace, then, in the heart, under the gospel, constitutes
one a Jew in reality, and an Israelite indeed.
Gentiles in this manner may become Israelites, or
children of Abraham, and so, children of God. In this new
relation, they may look up and cry, Abba, Father, because of
their adoption as Abraham's seed into favor with God. Rom.
8:15. But, as adopted children, will any less be required of the
Gentiles than of those with whom the covenant was made ? or,
rather, will not God, who condescends to adopt them into his
family, expect them, to fulfill the conditions of that covenant
by which, alone they can become the “children of the Most
High” ?
But by what process are Gentiles adopted into the
family of Israel ? The condition of both Jew and Gentile is
forcibly illustrated under the figure of two olive trees. While
viewing the Jewish people with prophetic eye, Jeremiah sees
their future condition,—the result of their unbelief and
disobedience,—and sets it forth in the following language:
“The Lord called thy name, A green olive tree, fair, and of
goodly fruit; with the noise of a great tumult he hath kindled
fire upon it, and the branches of it are broken.” Jer. 11:16.
In their fallen condition, the Jews are fitly represented
by the above similitude,—fallen, cast off, and forsaken. But
the tree thus bereft of its branches is not left to decay and die.
Other branches will supply the loss, and the olive tree will
again yield fruit. The process by which this work is
accomplished is forcibly set forth by the apostle in his letter to
the Romans. After speaking of the fall of his own nation, he
reminds those Gentiles that they did not always occupy their
present position and standing. In Rom. 11:17, he evidently
refers to the prophecy just quoted from Jeremiah, and says:

“And if some of the branches be broken off, and thou, being a
wild olive tree, wert grafted in among them, and with them
partakest of the root and fatness of the olive tree; boast not
against the branches. But if thou boast, thou bearest not the
root, but the root, thee.”
Nothing seemingly can be plainer than this language of
Paul. He here represents. the Jewish people, while they were
the children of God, by a tame olive tree, and the Gentiles by a
wild olive tree. The branches of the tame olive tree were
broken off, and grafts from the wild olive tree, the Gentiles,
were inserted in their places. Did this change the tree, and
make a Gentile tree of it ? NO; it was the same tree; but now
the Gentiles are brought in to be a part of it, and thus partake
of its root and fatness, the blessings of the new covenant, the
promises of God through Abraham and his seed.
The Gentiles being thus grafted in on those branches
made vacant by cutting off the disobedient Jews, all will see at
a glance that whatever nourishment the Gentiles receive is
drawn from the root and fatness of the tame olive tree, the
same source whence the Jews formerly received their
sustenance. The two parties being so closely allied, must
become one people.
In another connection the apostle makes this point
appear very conspicuous. After speaking of the Gentiles as
aliens from the commonwealth of Israel and strangers from the
covenants of promise, he says, “But, now in Christ Jesus ye
who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of
Christ. For he is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath
broken down the middle wall of partition between us, having
abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of
commandments contained in ordinances, for to make in

himself of twain one new man, so making peace.” In Eph. 2:19
he adds,.” Now therefore ye are no more strangers and
foreigners, but fellow-citizens with the saints, and of the
household of God.
Thus plainly is it stated that through Christ the Gentiles
are brought, into such a relation to God that they are no longer
strangers from the covenants of promise. The middle wall of
partition between the Jews and themselves was broken down
by what Christ abolished on the cross, which, as we have seen,
is summed up in the ceremonies and offerings that
foreshadowed Christ.
These peculiarities of the Jewish worship, their
circumcision, priesthood, and offerings, for a time hedged in
that people, as by an impassable wall of separation, from all
other nations. This was the middle wall of partition which kept
them separate. And this being broken down, what is the
result ? Here a most ludicrous, and ridiculous blunder is made
by some opponents of the Sabbath, even those who claim to be
ministers of the word. They assert that the wall of partition
was broken down in order that the Jews might come out where
the Gentiles were, and partake of their liberty and blessings,
the privileges of the gospel, and the first-day Sabbath.
This is just exactly the opposite of the truth. The
Gentiles had no blessings to offer. The apostle does not say
that the Jews were the ones who derived benefit from this
union; but he was cautioning the Gentiles against forgetting
the source of their blessings. Now if the Gentiles are made one
with the Jews, are not the Gentiles received into favor with
God on the same terms with the Jews ? Certainly. And if the
new covenant was made and ratified with the Jews, and if the
law of God with the Sabbath were sealed in that covenant by

the blood of Christ, as we have found they were, then the
Gentiles, in order to fulfill the conditions of that covenant,
must certainly obey those moral obligations imposed on the
Jews.
In this manner the Gentiles are “adopted” into the
family of Israel, and bear their name as the children of
Abraham, through faith in Christ. Every nation may embrace
the same privilege. Even the Jews themselves may be “grafted
in again,” if they do not abide in unbelief. And so lost Israel
will be restored, and their name perpetuated in eternity. With
this end in view, no doubt, the Saviour selected the twelve
apostles. Why just the number twelve ? Evidently to secure the
same number to stand at the head of the Christian church as
were chief representatives of God's people under the old
covenant. If otherwise, why was it necessary, when Judas fell,
to select another to fill his place ?
That there was a positive design in the selection of just
twelve to lead out under the new covenant, Christ himself
reveals in his language to Peter on a certain occasion. In
answer to the question of the apostle, the Saviour replied:
“Verily I say unto you, that ye which have followed me, in the
regeneration, when the Son of man shall sit in the throne of his
glory, ye also shall sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve
tribes of Israel.” Matt. 9:28. This language conveys the idea
that in Christ's kingdom the twelve tribes will be recognized,
and that the twelve apostles will there hold eminent positions
as rulers among them.
Again, in the closing work of the gospel, as brought to
view in Rev. 7, one hundred and forty-four thousand are
sealed in their foreheads as servants of God. These, in that
chapter, are said to be of the children of Israel. We find the

same company brought to view again in the fourteenth
chapter, this time standing on Mount Zion, with the Father's
name written in their foreheads. Here before the throne, they
sing a new song that none could learn save those who were
“redeemed from the earth;” showing that these had passed
through an experience that no others had obtained,—-
translation at the coming of Christ.
The home of the saved, finally, is dwelt upon by the
Revelator in chapter 20. The new Jerusalem is seen coming
down from God out of Heaven. It is the habitation of men.
God dwells with them, and wipes away all tears from their
eyes. Death is removed; sorrow and crying are done away, and
all things are new. Surely this is none other than the saints'
eternal rest.
In the light of this city is found the good of all ages,—
those who have lived under the old covenant, as well as those
who live under the new. All dwell there under one name, and
all ascribe salvation to one source. All who have a right to the
tree of life go in through the gates into the city. The gates of
that city are twelve in number, and what seems to some
strange for a Christian city, each gate bears the name of one of
the twelve tribes of Israel. Every one then, who enters there,
will go in under the name of one of the tribes of Israel.
Moreover, there are twelve foundations to the wall of
the city, in each of which is found the name of one of the
twelve apostles. Here the plan of salvation culminates in the
union of the people of God who have lived under both
covenants, with the names of the respective heads of the
church of both dispensations indelibly imprinted in their
mutual home, and the name Israel is retained by the people of
God eternally as a reminder of their redemption from sin.

Thus we have traced the plan of salvation through both
covenants, and find that God has never changed his plan of
saving men. The same plan has ever been employed; but as
faith in Christ changed from the prospective to the
retrospective, the symbols by which man was to show his faith
in the Saviour changed, so as to appropriately mark first the
shadow, afterward the reality, or substance.
If, then, under the new covenant that law which
requires the observance of the seventh-day Sabbath is written
in the heart of every believer, how does it happen that
multitudes who have lived under this covenant, and who have
certainly enjoyed the blessing and favor of God, have lived
and died in the observance of the first day of the week ? This
is with many a very perplexing question. But we think it is
capable of a fair and consistent solution. We reply, that these
persons have had the true principle of obedience implanted in
their hearts. And they have kept the first day of the week
because they have for a time labored under a misapprehension
of what the law requires. In keeping that day, they honestly
supposed they were rendering obedience to the fourth
commandment of the decalogue; or in not keeping any day in
a true Sabbatical sense, they have honestly supposed that
God's law required nothing of the kind at their hands. Had
they become convinced that the fourth commandment required
of them the observance of the seventh day, whether they were
keeping another day or no day, would they not have
immediately changed their practice accordingly ? Assuredly,
every individual of them. Otherwise the principle of obedience
was not in their hearts, and they were not in covenant relation
with God.
Therefore, leaving them with the Lord, who will deal

with all in accordance with the light they have enjoyed, and
the sincerity with which they have followed it, it becomes us
all to look rather for the truth of our time, and to our own
circumstances and obligations. Paul speaks of times of
ignorance which God winked at, and other times of greater
light when he commanded all men everywhere to repent. Our
times are of this latter character. Covering after covering,
which the great apostasy has thrown over the law of God and
other portions of his truth, has been lifted off, and men are
accountable to God, for the increased light. We are living in
days of reform preparatory to the coming of Christ; and we
have reached the last reform; for we can find nothing higher
nor holier than that law of liberty which is designed to develop
perfect characters in us, and by which we are to be judged in
the last day. Jas. 2:10-12. Friend, you may heretofore have
honestly kept the first day of the week for the Sabbath, and
have enjoyed the favor of God; but you can do so no longer.
The light has now come clearly forth; and before whomsoever
it is set, he has no longer a cloak for following the traditions of
men.
Blessed be God, for so graciously condescending to
take mankind into covenant relation with himself. Reader, are
you yet a stranger to these covenants of promise ? If so, you
are without hope. The present brief scene of turmoil and
trouble, and then the regrets, the remorse, and the pains of the
second death, for privileges unimproved and mercies abused,
are your only portion, In place of this infinite evil, you may
have infinite good. Join yourself to the commonwealth of
Israel. Christ is the way, and he invites you to come. The
promises are of value untold, and will soon be fulfilled. The
opportunity will expire by limitation when Christ concludes

his work as priest. Come while you may. And soon in that
heavenly city, which bears upon the twelve foundations, with
which it is garnished, the names of the twelve apostles of the
Lamb, and upon its twelve gates of pearl the names of the
twelve tribes of Israel, and into which all who have entered
into covenant relation with God, both of the literal and
spiritual seed, will have a right to enter, you will realize what
an infinite blessing was couched in that arrangement through
which God condescended to be our God, and took us to be his
people.
—•—•—•—
From a series of articles in the Review and Herald
Periodical, March 27th to May 1st 1883
Sermon On The Two Covenants.
Eld John N. Andrews
1875
This is the covenant that I will make with the house of
Israel after those days, saith the Lord: I will put my laws into
their mind, and write them in their hearts. Heb. 8:10.
THE TWO COVENANTS.

although I was an husband unto them, saith the Lord; but this
Jer. 31:31-34.
The first covenant was made with the people of Israel
at the time of their departure out of Egypt. This covenant no
longer exists. The new covenant long since took its place. But
a very serious error prevails in the minds of many persons
respecting the points of difference between these two
covenants. The old covenant was made with the Hebrew
people. For this reason, whatever entered into it is supposed to
be Jewish. Thus the law of God is summarily set aside as
Jewish; and thus might the God of Israel himself be discarded
as a Jewish God. But the new covenant is held up to our
40 Sermon On The Two Covenants. – Eld John N. Andrews
admiration, because it is, as they say, not made with the Jews,
but with the Gentiles. The old covenant belonged to the Jews,
and with it we have no concern; the new covenant is made
with the Gentiles, and we, as Gentiles, are interested in it,
How can men thus carelessly read the Scriptures ? The
language of inspiration is very explicit in stating that the new
covenant is made with the same people that were the subjects
of the old covenant. Thus Jeremiah, speaking in the name of
the Lord, says: “I will make a new covenant with the house of
Israel, and with the house of Judah.” And he further alludes to
the fact that the new covenant is made with the Hebrew people
when he adds: “Not according to the covenant that I made
with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to
bring them out of the land of Egypt.” (Jer.31:32) And yet
again he identifies the Hebrew people when he says: “This
shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of
Israel.” And Paul quotes at length, in Hebrews 8, this entire
statement of Jeremiah respecting the old and new covenants'
being severally made with the Hebrew people. And, as if this
were not enough, he makes a statement in Rom. 9:4, 5, that
exactly meets the case. Thus he says of the Hebrews: “Who
are Israelites; to whom pertaineth the adoption, and the glory,
AND THE COVENANTS, and the giving of the law, and the
service of God, and the promises; whose are the fathers, and of
whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all,
God blessed forever.” Thus it appears that everything valuable
God has given to the world through the instrumentality, or by
the means, of the Hebrew people. Those who choose to do so
can venture to despise the law of God because given to the
Jews, and to reject Christ because he came of the Jews; but
one thing they cannot do. They cannot say, “We accept the
new covenant because it pertains to the Gentiles, whereas the

first covenant, and the law, etc., pertained to the Jews.” No
such distinction can be drawn. Both the covenants pertain to
the Hebrew people, according to the explicit statement of
Paul; and both are said by Jeremiah and Paul, or rather by the
Spirit of inspiration speaking through them, to be made with
Judah and Israel.
The fact being thus clearly established that the two
covenants are both made with the Hebrews, it becomes a
matter of interest to inquire into the reason of this thing. Why
did God thus honor one nation and pass by all others ?
Undoubtedly there was a sufficient reason for this action, and
that reason we shall find fully laid open to our view in the
Bible. The first thing which Paul has enumerated as pertaining
to the Hebrews, is “the adoption and if we can understand why
God adopted this family, we shall readily understand why all
the other things which he has named should also pertain to this
people.
Know, then, that God did not adopt the family of
Abraham as his first action in behalf of mankind. He
attempted thus to make his own the family of the first man,
Adam, the common head and father of the human race. But at
the end of the antediluvian age, only eight persons remained
upon the earth who feared the God of Heaven. There was no
alternative with him but to witness the extinction of piety in
the earth, or else, by an awful lesson of judgment, to destroy
every wicked man from the earth. And for this reason came
the deluge. And now one family alone remains— the family of
Noah, who is the second head of the human race. And this
family, thus instructed in divine truth, and thus warned by
God’s terrible judgments, might all have been, if they would,
the heritage of the Almighty. But when men began again to

multiply upon the earth, they did not like to retain God in their
knowledge. They forgot God. They plunged into sin. They
united under Nimrod to build Babel. As they set God at
defiance, he placed his curse upon them by confounding their
language. Gen. 10 and 11. In the fourth century after the flood,
only a handful of godly persons remained. Abraham, in the
midst of this dense moral darkness, for even his immediate
ancestors were idolators (Josh. 24:2), was so pre-eminent in
virtue that he was called the friend of God. James 2:23. God
said that he knew Abraham, that he would command his
children and his household after him, and that they would keep
the way of the Lord to do justice and judgment. Gen. 18:19.
God had pledged himself at the time Noah and his family
came forth from the ark, never again to drown the world. Gen.
9:15.
But he must do something to save this one faithful
family from ruin, and, by means of them, to preserve in the
earth some degree of true piety, and to retain among men a
body of faithful worshipers. To do this, he adopts this family
of Abraham, his friend, and separates them by circumcision
and the rites of the ceremonial law, from all the rest of
mankind. Thus Abraham became the third grand father of
mankind. Not the father of the whole race, like Adam and
Noah respectively; but the father of the people of God. This
was the adoption. He gave up the rest of mankind to idolatry
and atheism, not because he was willing that they should
perish, but because they would not hearken to his voice. Yet,
though he thus adopted this one family, he did not so reject the
rest of mankind that he did not make provision for any of them
to be received among the Hebrew people if they would
become circumcised and unite with the Hebrews in his service

and worship. The adoption was just, and right, and necessary.
By means of it, God preserved his knowledge and his worship
in the earth.
The Hebrew people being thus adopted, and by means
of circumcision set apart from the rest of the world, found to
their great profit that, though they were separated from the
world, they were united to Him who made the heaven and the
earth. They had the Lord for their God. They had much
advantage “every way;” the adoption, the glory, the two
covenants, the giving of the law, the service of God, the
promises, the fathers, and the Messiah. And yet Paul says their
chief advantage was that the oracles of God were committed
to them. Rom. 3:1, 2. It is not best to scorn the law of God
because' committed to the Hebrews. It is not best to despise
the new covenant, as Jewish, because, like the old covenant, it
is made with Israel. Nor is it best to reject Jesus as the
Messiah because he comes of that despised race; and, finally,
it is not best to have some other god besides the God of Israel.
Our God, indeed, bears that title; because he was for long ages
worshiped by the Hebrews only, and by the Gentiles almost
not at all. Yet that is not his fault, but ours. And so of all the
sacred things committed to the Israelites. They were not
Jewish, or Hebraic, but divine. In fact, we must have a part in
these precious treasures which God gave to this people, for
their preservation through the long period of Gentile darkness.
They are of equal value to us, and we must share in them.
“Salvation,” said our Lord to the woman of Samaria, “is of the
Jews.” John 4:22.
The opening work in the establishment of the new
covenant must, at least, be as early as the closing hours of the
life of Christ. In the last memorable evening of his life, as he

was about to be betrayed into the hands of the Jewish rulers,
our Lord gave the cup, representing thereby his own blood,
into the hands of his disciples, saying as he did it: “This cup is
the new testament [covenant] in my blood, which is shed for
you.” Luke 22:20. Here is the first mention of the new
covenant by our Lord. It is evident that the shedding of his
blood, and the pouring out of his soul unto death, was that
which should give validity to the covenant. Isa. 53; Heb. 9.
The opening event, therefore, in the ratification of the new
testament, or covenant, was on that memorable night in which
the Saviour was betrayed, when he, the mediator of the new
covenant on the one part, and the eleven apostles on the other
part, as the representatives of the people of God, entered into
solemn contract with each other. He, by giving them the cup
representing his own blood, pledged himself to die for them;
they, by accepting it, thus pledged themselves to accept of
salvation through his blood, and to fulfill the conditions
connected therewith.
Indeed, we must date the preliminary acts in the
establishment of the new covenant, from the opening of
Christ’s ministry. Our Lord began to preach at the close of
Daniel’s sixty-ninth week. Compare Dan. 9:25; Mark 1:14, 15.
The remaining, or seventieth, week, he was to employ in
confirming the covenant with many; and in the midst of the
week, he caused the sacrifice and oblation to cease, by being
offered himself upon the cross, as their great antitype. Heb.
10:5-10. We must, therefore, assign the ministry of Christ to
the introductory work of establishing the new covenant, or
new testament. His preaching was a public announcement of
its principles. He assigned to the law of God its just place. He
laid down the keeping of the commandments as the condition

of eternal life. Matt. 5:17-19; 19:16-19. He revealed the
ground of pardon; viz., the sacrifice of his own life. Matt.
20:28. He also stated in distinct terms the conditions on which
that sacrifice could benefit men; viz., faith and repentance.
John 7:24; Mark. 1:15. We cannot, therefore, deny that the
ministry of Christ was the opening work in the establishment
of the new covenant.
And now we again come to the important fact that the
establishment of the new covenant was “solely with the
Hebrew people. Our Lord confined his ministry to the Jewish
people, declaring that he was not sent but to the lost sheep of
the house of Israel. Matt. 15:24. When he sent out the twelve
during his own ministry, he “commanded them, saying, Go
not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the
Samaritans enter ye not; but go rather to the lost sheep of the
house of Israel.” Matt. 10:5, 6. And when he sent the seventy
also, it was only into those cities and villages whither he
himself would come. Luke 10:1. His apostles were all Jews.
And with them was the first solemn act of ratification of the
new covenant in the cup out of which all drank, representing
the new testament in his blood. Luke 22:20; 1 Cor. 11:25. And
here comes in the fact that the seventy weeks of Daniel’s
prophecy pertain exclusively to the Hebrew people. Dan. 9:24,
The last, or seventieth, week was devoted to the confirmation
of the covenant. Dan. 9:27. It began with our Lord’s ministry
to the Hebrews, and ended when the apostles turned to the
Gentiles. It was in the midst of this week of confirming the
covenant that our Lord was crucified. And thus we find that,
after our Lord's ascension, the ministers of the word preached
the gospel ‘‘to none but unto the Jews only.” Acts 11:19. It
was unto the Jews first that God, having raised up his Son,
sent him to bless them in turning them away from their sins.
Acts 3:25,26. The termination of the seventy weeks closed the
period in which the work pertained exclusively to the
Hebrews. The work for the Gentiles was opened by the
conversion of Saul, and by his commission to them as their
apostle. Acts 9; 26:17. It was also opened on the part of Peter
by his wonderful vision of the sheet let down from Heaven,
and the commission given him at that time. Acts 10; 9;
15:7,14-17.
But what was the condition of the Gentiles before “the
door of faith” was opened to them? Let the apostle Paul
answer this, Eph. 2:11-13, “Wherefore remember, that ye
being in time past Gentiles in the flesh, who are called
Uncircumcision by that which is called the Circumcision in
the flesh made by hands; that at that time ye were without
Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and
strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and
without God in the world; but now in Christ Jesus ye who
sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ.”
The apostle goes on to speak of the union of Jews and
Gentiles in one body as follows, verses 14-20: “For he is our
peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the
middle wall of partition between us; having abolished in his
flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in
ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so
making peace; and that he might reconcile both unto God in
one body by the cross, having slain the enmity thereby; and
came and preached peace to you which were afar off, and to
them that were nigh. For through him we both have access by
one spirit unto the Father. Now therefore ye are no more
strangers and foreigners, but fellow-citizens with the saints,

and of the household of God; and are built upon the
foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself
being the chief corner-stone.”
Those who sneer at everything which God has
committed to the Hebrews, and boast themselves of their
Gentile descent, would do well to compare this statement of
the condition of the Gentiles with Paul’s statement of the
“advantages” of the Jews, and his enumeration of the things
that pertain to them. Rom. 3:1, 2; 9:4, 5. God purposed to
make of the Circumcision and the Uncircumcision one people
for himself. The first thing was to abolish the enmity; viz,, the
code which created national distinction, which was
circumcision and the ceremonial law. See Acts 11:3; Col 2:13-
17; Gal. 2:11, 12. Of the Gentiles it is said that they were “in
time past Gentiles in the flesh,” and “at that time . . . without
Christ, being aliens from the common-wealth of Israel, and
strangers from THE COVENANTS of promise, having no
hope, and without God in the world.” Of the Israelites it is
said: “To whom pertaineth the adoption, and the glory, and
THE COVENANTS, and the giving of the law, and the
service of God, and the promises; whose are the fathers, and of
whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all,
God blessed forever. Amen.” Certainly the Gentiles have no
occasion for boasting. They did not take into the union that
which added much to the common stock. They came in as the
veriest beggars. They became rich by sharing with the
Hebrews the blessings which God had for long ages preserved
in their hands. The Gentiles were made partakers of the
spiritual things which God had wisely and justly placed in the
hands of Israel. Rom. 15:27. But being thus brought nigh by
the blood of Christ, Paul says of those who were Gentiles “in
time past” (but not now) that they were “no more strangers
and foreigners, but fellow-citizens with the saints and of the
household of God.” They were no longer Gentiles, but
Israelites. They became sharers in the name and in the riches
of Israel. And it is by this adoption into the commonwealth of
Israel that they became sharers in the blessings of the new
covenant. The subject is wonderfully illustrated by the words
of Jer. 11:16; and Rom. 11:17-24. Thus we read:—
“The Lord called thy name, A GREEN OLIVE TREE ,
fair, and of goodly fruit; with the noise of a great tumult he
hath kindled fire upon it, and the branches of it are broken.”
“And if some of the branches be broken off, and thou,
being a wild olive tree, wert graffed in among them, and with
them partakest of the root and fatness of the olive tree; boast
not against the branches. But if thou boast, thou barest not the
root, but the root thee. Thou wilt say then, The branches were
broken off, that I might be graffed in. Well; because of
unbelief they were broken off, and thou standest by faith. Be
not high-minded, but fear; for if God spared not the natural
branches, take heed lest he also spare not thee. Behold
therefore the goodness and severity of God: on them which
fell, severity; but toward thee, goodness, if thou continue in
his goodness; otherwise thou also shalt be cut off. And they
also, if they abide not still in unbelief, shall be graffed in; for
God is able to graff them in again. For if thou wert cut out of
the olive tree, which is wild by nature, and were graffed
contrary to nature into a good olive tree; how much more shall
these, which be the natural branches, be graffed into their own
olive tree ?”
Here is the good olive tree, representing the family of
Abraham, as adopted by the God of the whole earth, when he

gave up the rest of mankind to their own chosen idolatry and
wickedness. It is a “green olive tree, fair, and of goodly fruit.”
To this olive tree pertain the covenants of promise. The first
covenant is made with the people thus represented. The new
covenant is made with the same people that the first covenant
was made with. The breaking off of many of the branches of
the tree, is because that God’s ancient people continued not in
his covenant. This is why he regarded them not. Jer. 31:32;
Heb. 8:9. Indeed, in the chapter in which Jeremiah predicts the
breaking off of the branches of the olive tree, he assigns the
reason: The violation of the covenant God made with his
people when he brought them forth out of Egypt. See Jer. 11.
By the new covenant, those who were broken off can, if they
will, be graffed in again, and not they only, but the Gentiles
also with them, We may consider the good olive tree as having
twelve larger branches, and a vast number of small branches.
The tree will at the close of human probation, stand complete,
representing the twelve tribes of “the Israel of God.”
There can be, therefore, no dispute that the first
covenant, and the new covenant, were each made with the
Hebrew people; the first, at the departure out of Egypt; the
second, at the time of our Lord’s ministry and death. The
Gentiles share in the blessings of the new covenant by
becoming members of the commonwealth of Israel. Eph.
2:12,19.
What is meant by the word covenant ? In the books of
the New Testament, the words covenant and testament are
used as signifying the same thing. They are, indeed, only two
different translations of the same Greek word, όιαϑήκη,
diatheke. So that when our Lord says, “This cup is the new
testament in my blood” (Luke 22:20), it is the same as if he

had said, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood.”
Webster thus defines covenant:—
“1. A mutual consent or agreement of two or more
persons, to do or to forbear some act or thing; a contract;
stipulation.
“2. A writing containing the terms of agreement or
contract between parties.”
He thus defines the word contract:—
“1. An agreement or covenant between two or more
persons, in which each party binds himself to do or forbear
some act, and each acquires a right to what the other promises;
a mutual promise, upon lawful consideration or cause, which
binds the parties to a performance; a bargain; a compact.
“2. The act by which a man and woman are betrothed,
each to the other.
“3. The writing which contains the agreement of
parties, with the terms and conditions, and which serves as a
proof of the obligation.”
It appears, therefore, that the word covenant has two
leading significations: 1, That of agreement, or contract,
between parties. 2. That of a writing containing the terms or
conditions of such agreement. In the first and fullest sense, a
covenant is a contract, or agreement, with the conditions on
which that contract is made. In the second and more restricted
use of that word, a covenant is the terms or conditions of such
contract.
Such being the signification of the word covenant, let
us now ascertain what it was which constituted the first
covenant. We have ascertained who were the contracting or
covenanting parties, viz., God and Israel; and when this
covenant was made, viz., when God took that people by the
hand to bring them forth out of Egypt. But what was the
covenant itself into which these two parties entered ?
1. If we take the first definition then, without doubt, it
was the mutual agreement, or contract, made at Sinai between
God and Israel respecting the moral law.
2. But if we take the second definition, it was the law
itself; for that embodied the conditions of the covenant.
Which of these views is the right one ? Those persons
who hold that the law of God still remains in force believe that
the truth is stated in the first of these two answers. But those
who believe that the law was abolished at the death of Christ,
do, with equal assurance, maintain that the law of God alone
was the first covenant, and that the second of these two
answers is the right and proper answer. One party, therefore,
asserts that the law of God, or ten commandments, was the
first covenant. The other, that the mutual agreement between
God and Israel concerning that law constituted that covenant.
Let us now trace the acts by which God and Israel
entered into covenant. When we have noted all these, we shall
be able to determine the truth in this case. Thus we read, Ex.
19:1: “In the third month, when the children of Israel were
gone forth out of the land of Egypt, the same day came they
into the wilderness of Sinai.” And the people encamped before
the mount. “And Moses went up unto God, and the Lord
called unto him out of the mountain, saying, Thus shalt thou
say to the house of Jacob, and tell the children of Israel: Ye
have seen what I did unto the Egyptians, and how I bear you
on eagles’ wings, and brought you unto myself. Now
therefore, if ye will obey my voice indeed, and keep my
covenant, then ye shall be a peculiar treasure unto me above
all people; for all the earth is mine; and ye shall be unto me a
kingdom of priests, and an holy nation. These are the words
which thou shalt speak unto the children of Israel.” Verses 3-
6. Here is a definite proposition from the God of Heaven: IF
YE WILL OBEY MY VOICE , . . , then ye shall be to me a
peculiar treasure.”
Next we read the action of Moses, the mediator
between these parties. Having received this proposition from
the Lord, he immediately bore it to the people. Thus we read
of his action: “And Moses came and called for the elders of
the people, and laid before their faces all these words which
the Lord commanded him.” Verse 7. The proposition of the
Most High was thus submitted to the people of Israel. And
now observe their answer: “And all the people answered
together, and said, All that the Lord hath spoken we will do.”
Verse 8.
Thus the people with one voice accept the conditions
offered them, and pledge themselves to their fulfillment. And
now it is the business of the mediator to return this answer to
him who had made the proposition to them. And thus we read
again: “And Moses returned the words of the people unto the
Lord.” Verse 8. The preliminary contract was thus closed. The
remainder of the chapter is devoted to the preparation of the
people to hear, and the descent of the Almighty to speak, the
ten commandments. Verses 9-25. And now the voice of God
utters the ten words of the moral law. Ex. 20:1-17:—
“And God spake all these words, saying, I am the Lord
thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out
of the house of bondage.
“Thou shalt have no other gods before me.
“Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or
any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in

the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth; thou
shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them; for I the
Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the
fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation
of them that hate me; and showing mercy unto thousands of
them that love me, and keep my commandments.
“Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in
vain; for the Lord will not hold him guiltless that taketh his
name in vain.
“Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days
shalt thou labor, and do all thy work; but the seventh day is the
Sabbath of the Lord thy God; in it thou shalt not do any work,
thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy man-servant, nor thy
maid-servant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy
gates; for in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea,
and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day; wherefore
the Lord blessed the Sabbath day, and hallowed it.
“Honor thy father and thy mother; that thy days may be
long upon the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee.
“Thou shalt not kill.
“Thou shalt not commit adultery.
“Thou shalt not steal.
“Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor.
“Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor’s house, thou shalt
not covet thy neighbor’s wife, nor his man-servant, nor his
maid-servant, nor his-ox, nor his ass, nor anything that is thy
neighbor’s.”
“These words the Lord spake,” says Moses, “unto all
your assembly in the mount out of the midst of the fire, of the
cloud, and of the thick darkness, with a great voice; AND HE
ADDED NO MORE,” Deut. 5:22. This was THE VOICE OF

GOD, which the people had so solemnly covenanted to obey.
Ex. 19:5.
When the ten words of God’s voice had thus been
heard, and the people had witnessed the awful display of the
divine majesty, then they removed and stood afar off. And
they besought Moses to stand between them and the great God
whose voice they had heard, and whose majesty they had
witnessed. Ex. 20:18.
“And the people stood afar off, and Moses drew near
unto the thick darkness where God was.” Verse 21. The
remainder of the chapter, and all of chapters 21, 22, and 23,
are devoted to statutes and judgments, partly defining man’s
duty toward God, but principally relating to his duty toward
his fellow-man. With these are precepts of a ceremonial
character, but the larger part of these chapters is made up of
precepts stating the principles of justice among men. These
three chapters were spoken to Moses only, who was in the
immediate presence of God.
Next, the Lord proceeds to the final contract between
himself and the people. In the preliminary contract, recorded
in Ex. 19, the people had solemnly pledged themselves to
obey the voice of God. In Ex. 20, they heard that voice in ten
precepts. And now it is worthy of notice how careful was the
Most High, in this work of entering into covenant with his
people, to take no advantage of them. Before hearing his
voice, they had pledged themselves to obey it. But the Lord
did not treat the contract as closed yet. With an invitation to a
large number of persons to come up to him, he sends Moses
again to the people. Ex, 24:1, 2. They had heard the voice of
God. Do they still stand to their solemn pledge that they would
obey it ? Lest they had forgotten something of that which God

had spoken, and that they might be informed of all that God
had communicated to him in the mount, it is next added:—
“And Moses came and told the people all the words of
the Lord and all the judgments.” Ex. 24:3. The people have the
chance now to refuse to close this most solemn compact if
they see cause for so doing. They might have said, “When we
agreed to obey the voice of God, we had not heard it. Now that
we have heard it, we cannot abide by our promise.” And
Moses, by repeating every word again, gave them the most
perfect opportunity for so doing. But, observe the answer of
the people:—
“And all the people answered with one voice, and said,
All the words which the Lord hath said we will do.” Ex. 24:3.
We might suppose that this would close the contract between
the parties. But not so. Further acts of ratification were to take
place. The whole thing must be put in writing. And thus we
read:—
“And Moses wrote all the words of the Lord.” And now
the solemnity of a sacrifice to God must take place. So it is
added that Moses “rose up early in the morning, and builded
an altar under the hill, and twelve pillars, according to the
twelve tribes of Israel. And he sent young men of the children
of Israel, which offered burnt offerings, and sacrificed peace
offerings of oxen unto the Lord.” Verses 4, 5.
The sacrifice of these victims having been thus made to
God by the people, the blood itself is carefully secured for an
important purpose. And so the record adds:—
“And Moses took half of the blood, and put it in basins;
and half of the blood he sprinkled on the altar.” Verse 6. One
half of the blood was offered upon the altar, a direct offering
to God. The other half was reserved for another and most
expressive solemnity.
We learn from verse 4 that Moses wrote all the words
of the Lord. Now verse 7 tells us what he did with what was
written. What Moses now reads is called the book of the
covenant. For it contained the covenant between God and the
people as far as, at that point, it had been consummated. And
observe again the care of the Almighty that the people should
understand every word of that to which they agree. Moses
reads every word of the whole transaction in the audience of
the people. Thus verse 7 states the case:—
“And he took THE BOOK OF THE COVENANT, and
read in the audience of the people.” Here is yet another
opportunity for them to say that they could not abide by their
first promise. But, instead of speaking thus, they give their
final and unreserved assent to this solemn compact. And thus
the verse continues: “And they said, All that the Lord hath
said will we do, and be obedient.” This closed the contract on
the part of the people. But there yet remained a most
expressive act on the part of Moses, and a final, solemn
announcement to be made by him, which not only proclaimed
the accomplishment of the work, but gave a definite idea of
what had been done. And so we next read:—
“And Moses took the blood, and sprinkled it on the
people.” Or, as Paul states the case, he “sprinkled both the
book and all the people.” Verse 8; Heb. 9:19. One half of the
blood had been already offered to God upon the altar; the
remaining half is that which Moses thus uses. And how
solemn and expressive is this act' It is what Paul calls the
dedication of the covenant. Heb. 9:18. He sprinkles both the
book and all the people. And thus they enter, in the most
solemn manner, into the bond of the covenant. And thus the
solemn espousal of the people by the Lord of hosts having
been consummated, Moses announces the result in words
which define the contract with remarkable precision. Having
sprinkled the book, and the people, Moses said to them:—
“Behold the blood of the covenant, which the Lord hath
made with you CONCERNING ALL THESE WORDS.”
We have now the first covenant, complete and entire.
And certainly it is possible for us to determine what
constitutes it. We say that the first covenant was this solemn
contract, or agreement, between God and the people of Israel
concerning the law of God. Our opponents, on the contrary,
affirm that the first covenant was simply the law itself.
According to the first view, the first covenant was the contract
made at Sinai between God and Israel concerning the law of
God, or ten commandments, obedience to that law constituting
the condition of the covenant.
According to the second view, the first covenant was
simply the ten commandments.
The first view is the more comprehensive, as it presents
the two leading definitions of the word covenant, and answers
to them both. 1. It presents as the covenant the contract
between the parties. 2. It presents the condition to the contract.
But the second view presents as the first covenant that
which answers to the definition of covenant only in its
secondary sense; viz., the condition on which the contract
rests. Undoubtedly the word covenant is thus used in the
Bible. And for that reason many persons suppose that the ten
commandments answer to, and constitute, the first covenant of
which Jeremiah and Paul speak. That view of this subject
which is really the truth will give to every part of the
testimony its proper place, and will then show a divine

harmony of the whole. But error must of necessity suppress, or
pervert, the truth. Here are the more important passages
quoted to prove that the ten commandments constitute the first
covenant:—
Ex. 34:28: “And he wrote upon the tables the words of
the covenant, the ten commandments.”
Deut. 4:13: “And he declared unto you his covenant,
commandments; and he wrote them upon two tables of stone.”
Deut. 9:9-11: “When I was gone up into the mount to
receive the tables of stone, even the tables of the covenant
which the Lord made with you, then I abode in the mount
forty days and forty nights, I neither did eat bread nor drink
water; and the Lord delivered unto me two tables of stone
written with the finger of God; and on them was written
according to all the words, which the Lord spake with you in
the mount out of the midst of the fire in the day of the
assembly. And it came to pass at the end of forty days and
forty nights, that the Lord gave me the two tables of stone,
even the tables of the covenant.”
1 Kings 8:21: “And I have set there a place for the ark,
wherein is the covenant of the Lord, which he made with our
fathers, when he brought them out of the land of Egypt.”
2 Chron. 6:11: “And in it have I put the ark, wherein is
the covenant of the Lord, that he made with the children of
Israel.”
These are the texts relied upon by our opponents to
disprove our views of the first covenant and to establish their
own. We freely admit that the word covenant is applied to the
ten commandments; and further, we also admit, or, to speak
more properly, we maintain, that the ten commandments do

sustain a very important relation to the first covenant. But all
parties must agree,
1. That the ten commandments are not a covenant in
the sense of being a contract or agreement, as they contain no
such thing.
2, That they are a covenant in the sense of being the
conditions of the agreement which God made with Israel,
It does not seem that either of these two propositions
can be denied by any candid man, as they are, manifestly, the
exact truth. Both parties to this controversy must here come
together upon common ground. And if they each act with a
pure conscience, it will be difficult for them to disagree
respecting the following proposition:—
THE TEN COMMANDMENTS DO NOT CONSTITUTE THE
COVENANT OF EX. 24:8 .
That text reads thus: “And Moses took the blood and
sprinkled it on the people, and said, Behold the blood of the
covenant which the Lord hath made with you CONCERNING
ALL THESE WORDS.” Two palpable reasons sustain the
foregoing proposition: 1. The covenant made with Israel
“concerning all these words,” was the agreement which the
people entered into with the Almighty, as recorded in Ex. 19
and 24, that they would keep the words spoken by him. 2. The
ten commandments were the words concerning which this
covenant or agreement was made. These reasons are not likely
to be disputed. They establish the fact, therefore, that the
covenant which was ratified or dedicated with blood by Moses
was not the ten commandments. On the contrary, it is a
covenant in a more extensive sense than they can be. It is an
agreement between God and Israel concerning his law, and
that law is elsewhere called a covenant, not because there is in
it a contract between God and his people, but simply because

it is the grand condition of the contract, or covenant, which
Moses here dedicates with blood. It is remarkable that the
people entered into formal and solemn contract to obey the
voice of God before they heard it, and that having heard his
voice they ratified that contract in the most solemn manner;
and that to conclude all, Moses, having written the whole
thing in a book, sprinkled both it and all the people, saying,
“Behold the blood of the covenant which the Lord hath made
with you concerning all these words.” Ex. 24:8.
Both parties to the controversy respecting the first
covenant will here again certainly unite in saying that Moses
uses the word covenant in this remarkable text, not as
signifying the ten commandments, but the agreement made
respecting them. Here we stand on solid ground, and our
opponents will not attempt to drive us hence. And now that we
are so happily agreed in this fact, let us advance to the
important truth which lies directly before us. Here it is:—
The contract made in Ex. 19 and 24, relative to the ten
commandments, which Moses (Ex. 24:8) calls “the covenant
which the Lord hath made with you concerning all these
words,” is the identical first covenant concerning which we
are involved in controversy.
This proposition, our opponents stoutly deny. But so
certainly as they are honest men (and we are ready to award
this noble quality to every one of them who has not given
palpable proof that he does not possess it), they will be
constrained to agree with us here also. Providentially, we have
the testimony of the New Testament in so explicit and distinct
an utterance as to leave no chance for dispute on this point.
Paul quotes this very record in Ex. 24:8, respecting the
dedication of the covenant concerning the law of God, and

makes the explicit statement that this covenant thus dedicated
was the first covenant. Here are his words:—
“Whereupon neither the FIRST TESTAMENT
[covenant] was dedicated without blood. For when Moses had
spoken every precept to all the people according to the law, he
took the blood of calves and of goats, with water, and scarlet
wool, and hyssop, and sprinkled both the book, and all the
people, saying, This is the blood of the testament [covenant]
which God hath enjoined unto you.” Heb. 9:18-20.
Here, also, we have a right to ask our opponents to
agree with us. In fact, the testimony is so explicit that there is
no chance for them to do otherwise. Paul settles this point in
dispute, and shows that the first covenant is not the law of
God, but the solemn contract between God and Israel
respecting that law. And that which makes Paul’s testimony in
this case very valuable is, that he writes as a commentator
upon those words of Jeremiah which constitute the theme of
this discourse.
And now let us return to the words of Jeremiah, to
ascertain what he himself means by the covenant made with
Israel when God led them out of Egypt.
When Jeremiah predicts the establishment of a new
covenant with Israel and Judah, he uses the following
language respecting the old covenant. Thus he says:—
“Not according to the covenant that I made with their
fathers, in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them
out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake,
although I was an husband unto them, saith the Lord.” Jer.
31:32.
This text sheds much light on the nature of the
covenant to which Jeremiah refers. But it is remarkable that

Jeremiah, in another place preceding this, has defined with
great precision what he means by the covenant made when
God led Israel out of Egypt. Thus we read, Jer. 11:3, 4:—
“Thus saith the Lord God of Israel: Cursed be the man
that obeyeth not the words of this covenant, which I
commanded your fathers in the day that I brought them forth
out of the land of Egypt, from the iron furnace, saying, Obey
my voice, and do them, according to all which I command
you; so shall ye be my people, and I will be your God.”
Here we have Jeremiah’s own definition of what
constituted that covenant which the children of Israel had, by
their disobedience, dissolved. And it identifies this covenant
with the solemn contract between God and Israel, which Paul
designates as the first covenant. For Jeremiah makes the
essential feature of this covenant to consist in one grand
stipulation on the part of God toward his people; viz, “OBEY
MY VOICE; . . . so shall ye be my people, and I will be your
God.” Now it is a remarkable fact that this is the very
stipulation, and the only one, made by God in entering into
solemn contract with Israel. It is a stipulation exacting
obedience to the voice of God, which was about to utter the
ten commandments. Thus the contract was opened by the God
of Heaven: “If ye; will OBEY MY VOICE indeed, and keep
my covenant, then ye shall be a peculiar treasure unto me
above all people.” Ex. 19:5. We cannot, therefore, fail to
identify the covenant to which’’ Jeremiah refers. It is not the
ten commandments, but the solemn contract made between
God and Israel respecting those commandments.
But the words of Jer, 31:32, are entitled to particular
attention in determining what the prophet understood by this
covenant of which he spoke. He says: “Which my covenant

they brake, although I was an HUSBAND unto them,” The
expression sheds great light on the nature of the covenant in
question. Was that covenant simply the law of God? or was it
the solemn contract between God and Israel by which the
people pledged themselves to obey that law, and God pledged
himself on that condition to accept them as his people, and to
be their God ? Surely, we cannot mistake here. The first
covenant made God the husband of his people. The solemn
contract between them and himself was that whereby he
espoused, or married, that people. Jer. 2:2. There can be no
mistake, therefore, that a contract was requisite, in order that
God should become the husband of that people; and that
contract is found in Ex. 19 and 24. He could be their lawgiver,
by virtue of proclaiming his law to them; but to be their
husband, he must enter into contract with them, and it is
precisely this relation that he sustains to Israel by virtue of the
covenant of which Jeremiah speaks. See Webster’s second
definition of contract, previously quoted.
And this distinction properly introduces a further
argument on the nature of this covenant, from Rom. 9:4:
“Who are Israelites; to whom pertaineth the adoption, and the
glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the
service of God, and the promises.” Paul elsewhere informs us
that there are two “covenants.” Gal. 4:24. Here he
distinguishes between the giving of the law and the covenants.
Our opponents claim that the giving of the law was the making
of the first covenant. We say, Not so; for that covenant was
the solemn contract between God and Israel which preceded
and followed the “giving of the law;” and that the law of God
was that which the people covenanted to obey, when it should
be spoken by the voice of God. This text preserves the

distinction between the law of God and each of the two
covenants.
And this distinction between the law of God and the
first covenant is further shown by another important fact. The
new covenant was made because the first covenant had been
destroyed by the sins of the people, and because God still
desired to save them. The first covenant was rendered null and
void by the disobedience of the people. “Because,” says Paul,
“they continued not in my covenant, and I regarded them not,
saith the Lord.” Heb. 8:9. “Which my covenant they break,
should I have continued an husband unto them? saith the
Lord.” Jer. 31:32, margin. If, therefore, we hold, as do many at
the present day, that the covenant between God and Israel was
simply the ten commandments, then we have the people of
Israel weaken, and finally bring to an end, the law of God,
simply by disobeying it ! So that the law of God did depend
for its strength upon the obedience of the people, and not upon
the authority of the Lawgiver! But let us test the other view of
this subject. It has been shown from Moses, from Paul, and
from Jeremiah, that the first covenant was the mutual
agreement between God and Israel respecting the ten
commandments. This is a covenant in the primary sense of the
term. This covenant it was in the power of the people to
destroy, by violating its conditions, i.e., by breaking the law of
God. This transgression could not in the slightest degree
weaken the authority of the law of God; but it could, and did,
render null and void the contract which made God a husband
unto them. The truth on this point may be expressed in a word:
Men could not release themselves from the obligation to obey
God’s law by breaking that law; but they could release the
God of Heaven from the obligation he had taken upon himself,

toward them in the first covenant, by violating its conditions,
and thus bringing the covenant to an end. Hence the
distinction is palpable between the law of God and the solemn
contract made respecting that law. One could be destroyed by
a failure on the part of the people to fulfill its conditions. The
other can neither be destroyed, nor even weakened, by such
transgression; and it will, in due time, demand the death of all
its transgressors.
The law of the Lord is perfect. Ps. 19:7-11; 111:7, 8;
119:96; James 1:25; 2:8-12. It is God’s great rule of right by
which sin is shown. 1 John 3:4, 5; Rom. 3:19, 20; 7:12, 13.
But the first covenant is declared by Paul not to have been
faultless. Heb. 8:7. This is another palpable proof of a
distinction between the moral law and the covenant which
God entered into with Israel respecting it Nor is this to be met
by the statement that Paul pronounces the law itself to be
faulty, and therefore the law and the covenant may be
identical. For the law thus designated by Paul was not the ten
commandments, but the Levitical law. And here are a few
points out of many in proof of this assertion:—
1. This law was received under the Levitical
priesthood. Heb. 7:11. But the ten commandments were
received before that priesthood had been appointed. Compare
Ex. 20 with Ex. 28.
2. This was a law relating to priesthood, tithes, and
offerings. Heb. 7:5, 12, 28. But the ten commandments said
nothing concerning this.
3. It was a law which required that the priesthood
should be of the tribe of Levi, and which had to be changed in
order to have a priest arise out of the tribe of Judah. Heb. 7:12-
14. But the ten commandments had no precept that related to

the subject, or that needed to be changed for that reason.
Finally, with one further proof of the distinction
between the moral law and the first covenant, this point of the
argument shall be closed. The first covenant having waxed old
and vanished away, the new covenant is made by God in its
place. Jer. 31:31-34; Heb. 8:8-13. And now observe the grand
promise of the new covenant: “But this shall be the covenant
that I will make with the house of Israel: After those days,
saith the Lord, I will put my law in their inward parts, and
write it in their hearts.” Jer. 31:23. It is therefore certain that
the dissolution of the first covenant is not the abrogation of the
law of God. That which was the law of God in the days of
Jeremiah, six hundred years before Christ, is the subject of’
this prediction. This law was not only to survive the
dissolution of the first covenant, but it was to continue to exist
under the new covenant, and to sustain even a more sacred
relation to the people of God under the new, than under the
old, covenant. Here the argument on this part of the subject is
rested. It has been shown,
1. That the first, or old, covenant was not the law of
God, but the contract between God and Israel concerning that
law.
2. That the law of God is a covenant only in a
secondary sense; viz., in that it constituted the condition of
that agreement or contract by which God became a husband
to Israel.
3. That when the old covenant vanishes away, the law
of God remains in full force, and is ready to enter into the
most sacred relations with the people of God under the new.
Let us now consider wherein the first covenant was
faulty. It was not because it was so closely connected with the

law of God; for the new, or better, covenant is even more
intimately connected with the law of God than was the first, or
old, covenant. The old covenant gave man the law of God
upon tables of stone; but the new puts it in his heart. It was not
because the law was faulty: for that is so perfect that even
under the New Testament it is made the standard by which sin
is shown. Ps. 19:7-11; Rom. 3:19, 20, 31; 1 John 3:4, 5. But
Paul plainly intimates wherein the new covenant is better than
the old one. It is “established upon better promises.” Heb. 8:6.
Then it follows that the first covenant was established upon
promises not so well adapted to man’s case; and this very fact
is, of itself, a decisive proof that the first covenant was not
simply the law of God, but a contract between God and his
people. Let us now examine the nature of the promise upon
which the first covenant was made. Jeremiah designates the
first covenant as made when Israel came forth out of Egypt.
And thus he has laid open this covenant, and the nature of that
promise upon which it was established. Jer. 11:3, 4: “Thus
saith the Lord God of Israel: Cursed be the man that obeyeth
not the words of this covenant, which I commanded your
fathers in the day that I brought them forth out of the land of
Egypt, from the iron furnace, saying, Obey my voice, and do
them, according to all which I command you; so shall ye be
my people, and I will be your God.” The promise of the Lord
that he would be their God was upon condition that they
obeyed his voice. Nay, the condition was even stronger than
this: “Do them according to all which I command you; so shall
ye be my people.” But suppose they should fail to do this ?
Then the promise was forfeited. Surely, fallen man needs a
better promise than this. It was just in God to require a man to
live in exact conformity with his perfect law of right; but it

was inevitable that man would forfeit his title to the promises
of God. It is true that there were in the ceremonial law
ordinances of divine service, and a worldly sanctuary
connected with the first covenant. Heb. 9 and 10. But these
could not take away sins. They could only point forward to
Christ. The promises of the first covenant were upon condition
of obedience to God’s perfect rule of right. But such promises
were insufficient to meet the helpless condition of fallen man.
So the apostle says: “For if that first covenant had been
second.” Heb. 8:7. But because the people of Israel broke the
covenant of the Lord, he justly finds fault with them, and
seeks to give the place to a second and better covenant,
established upon better promises. And hence it is, that God, by
his prophet, gives the people of Israel to understand that they
have forfeited the blessings of that covenant, and that the
branches of their olive tree will be broken off. Jer. 11. And
following this announcement, a few years later, is the cheering
promise of a new covenant. Jer. 31:31-34. It was about 600
years before the birth of Christ that the new covenant was thus
foretold. The apostle Paul makes the following expressive
comment: “In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the
first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to
vanish away.” Heb. 8:13. Thus it appears that the first
covenant had in Jeremiah’s time become old, and
thenceforward, to its close, it was “ready to vanish away.”
And when our Lord came to do his work, he took away the
first that he might “establish the second.” Heb. 10:9.
Let us now consider the excellence of the new
covenant, and learn wherein it is a better covenant than the
one which it supersedes. Here are the terms of this covenant:

“But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house
of Israel: After those days, saith the Lord, I will put my law in
their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their
God, and they shall be my people. And they shall teach no
more every man his neighbor, and every man his brother,
saying, Know the Lord; for they shall all know me, from the
least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the Lord; for I
will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no
more.” Jer. 31:33, 34.
Certainly, this is “the better covenant,” and these are
the “better promises.” Let us enumerate them. 1. “I will put
MY LAW in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts.” 2.
“I will be their God, and they shall be my people.” 3. “They
shall teach no more every man his neighbor; . . . for they shall
all know me.” 4. “I will forgive their iniquity.” 5. “I will
remember their sin no more.”
This is a very remarkable list of new-covenant
blessings. First and foremost in this enumeration, stands a
promise concerning the law of God. Surely, this is worthy of
our notice. But what is this promise respecting the law ? Is it,
“I will abolish my law” ? No. Is it, “I will change my law” ?
No. Is it, “I will supersede my law by a better code” ? By no
means. It is very different indeed from such declarations as
these. This is the promise: “I will put my law in their inward
parts, and write it in their hearts.” He will make his law a part
of their very being. He will establish it in their affections; he
will engrave it upon the table of their hearts. This is wonderful
indeed. The law of God is still uppermost in the mind of its
Author. The first covenant required obedience to the law of
God, but failed to secure it. The second covenant insures
obedience by making the law a part of the very nature of those

with whom the covenant is made. God does not leave his law
till he has accomplished that which he has spoken, the raising
up of a people who shall obey him from their hearts. The first
covenant was made concerning the law of God. In a still
higher sense is this true of the second. The great work of the
new covenant is to take away the carnal mind, which is enmity
against the law of God, so that the righteousness of the law
may be fulfilled in those who walk not after the flesh, but after
the Spirit. Rom. 8:1-7.
And so the Mediator of the new covenant lays down
the immutability of the law of God, and solemnly enforces its
observance as the condition of entering eternal life. Matt,
5:17-19; 7:12; 15:1-9; 19:16-19; 22:35-40; Luke 16:17. And
the apostles, Paul, and James, and John, have faithfully
testified to the same great truth. Rom. 2:12-16; 3:19, 20, 31;
7:7-14; 8:3-7; 1 Cor. 15:56; Eph. 6:1-3; James 1:25; 2:8-12; 1
John 3:4, 5; Rev. 11:19; 12:17; 14:12; 22:14.
But how is it that the second covenant is so much more
efficacious than the first in securing obedience to the law of
God? The answer is found in the difference between Sinai and
Calvary. At Sinai the law of God entered in terrible majesty,
but the hard heart of sinful man is incapable of submitting to
the law of God. The carnal mind is not subject to the law of
God, and, indeed, cannot be. At Calvary enters, not the law of
God, but the lamb of God, as our great sin-offering. Not the
condemning law, but the sin-atoning sacrifice, is the central
object upon the hill of Calvary. And yet the law was present
there to strike the Son of God with the sword of divine justice.
Gal. 3:13. How astonishing the events of Calvary! The new
covenant is given to us in the blood of Christ. We have pardon
through his blood. With his stripes we are healed. Mercy and
truth meet together in the sacrifice made for us by the Son of
God.
The new covenant proposes to save those who have
broken the law of God. It is able to forgive their sin, the
transgression of the law, and not only to pardon them for
violating the law of God, but to put that law in their hearts so
that it shall be their very nature to obey it. This is what the
Bible means by conversion. Rom. 7:7-25; 8:1-9; Acts 3:19.
But the Mediator of the covenant can thus give life to the
guilty, only by the sacrifice of his life. We have life from his
death. We have pardon from his blood. We have grace from
the fountain of his grace. The new covenant is a system of
salvation wherein God is shown to be just, even in the very act
of justifying the sinner,.and wherein the law is shown to be
established even by the doctrine of justification by faith. Rom.
3:24-26, 31.
If we place the blessings of the new covenant in
chronological order, they will stand thus: 1. The forgiveness of
sins. 2. The writing of the law in the heart. 3. The blotting out
of sins so that they shall be remembered no more. 4. God fully
unites himself to his people, thenceforward forever to be their
God, and they to be his people. 5. All shall know the Lord,
from the least to the greatest.
But the forgiveness of sins is upon condition of
repentance toward God and faith in our Lord Jesus Christ.
Acts 20:21. Repentance involves, 1. Godly sorrow for sin; 2.
Confession of sin; 3. Reparation of wrong acts, when it is in
our power to make it. 4, Change of conduct, so that we cease
to transgress, and henceforward obey. And faith in our Lord
Jesus Christ views him, 1. As our great sin-offering, and
accepts his blood as our only ground of pardon; 2. As our

great High Priest to plead our cause when we come to God for
mercy and grace; 3. And finally it views his life as the perfect
example of that obedience which the law of God requires, and
the perfect model after which we must pattern.
The writing of the law of God upon the heart is not the
work of a moment. When God begins the work of conversion,
the first act is to forgive the sins of the past. The next is to
write his law in the heart. When this work is fully wrought in
men, then they are, in the highest sense, Christians; for they
are like Christ. He had the law of God in his heart. Ps. 40:8.
Then they love God with all the heart, and their neighbor as
themselves. Then, also, they observe in truth the precepts of
the law written upon their hearts, not less than upon the tables
of stone. The whole gospel dispensation is devoted to the work
of writing the law upon the hearts of the people of God, even
as the whole period of probation with each individual is
devoted to this work in each individual case. Our first ideas of
God’s law are at best but poor. As the Spirit of God enlightens
our minds, we have clearer conceptions of the character of the
law; and as the work of conversion progresses, these elevated
principles become established in our character. Whenever the
minister of Christ opens to our minds new and clearer views of
the principles of right, and causes us to see, as never before,
the extent of God’s demands upon us in his law, then the Spirit
of God, if we will co-operate, writes these principles in our
hearts. And so the work progresses till the law of God is fully
written in our hearts; in other words, till our characters are
perfected in virtue.
But human probation does not last forever. The great
work of our Lord in saving his people from their sins (Matt.
1:21), is brought to a final conclusion when all their sins are

blotted out. Acts 3:19-21. Then the books of God's
remembrance will be as clean from the record of his people’s
sins as though that record had never been entered therein Their
raiment having been washed in Jesus’ blood, so that not one
stain of guilt remains upon them, last of all, the record of that
guilt is removed from the book, and its pages are left as pure
as their character has been rendered by the cleansing blood of
Christ. And thus it is that the promise of the new covenant, “I
will remember their sin no more,” has its perfect
accomplishment. The record of their sins is washed out by the
blood of Christ, and then God himself promises that he will
remember their sins no more. The probation of the people of
God ends in the perfect recovery of their lost innocence, never
again, thank God ! to be lost by them.
When the work of our High Priest is thus completed,
and the saints made meet for their inheritance in light, the
consummation of the new covenant hastens. The Saviour can
no longer bear to have his people so far from him. It is the
good pleasure of the Father to give him the kingdom. He must
show them the glory that Christ had with him before the world
was. John 27:24. So he sends his Son for them, to bring them
to himself. 1 Thess. 4:14. And Jesus, having made all his
saints immortal, and taken them into his Father’s presence,
celebrates his marriage supper, serving his saints in person,
and drinking anew, with them, the fruit of the vine in the
kingdom of God, which he had not before tasted since the
night when he gave them the cup representing the new
covenant in his blood. 1 Cor. 15:51-55; John 14:1-3; Rev.
19:7-9; Luke 12:36, 37; 22:15-20. Then they sit with Christ in
thrones of judgment while the cases of the wicked are
examined (1 Cor. 6:1-3; Rev. 20:1-4); and after the execution

of the judgment, when the lake of fire has given place to the
new creation, then the immortal saints shall receive the eternal
inheritance in the new earth. And thus John describes this
grand consummation of the new covenant when he says: “And
I heard a great voice out of Heaven saying, Behold, the
tabernacle of God is with men, and he will dwell with them,
and they shall be his people, and God himself shall be with
them, and be their God.” Rev. 21:3.
“And they shall teach no more every man his neighbor,
and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord; for they
shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of
them, saith the Lord.” Jer. 31:34. And thus Isaiah describes
this state of things when all shall know the Lord: “The sun
shall be no more thy light by day; neither for brightness shall
the moon give light unto thee; but the Lord shall be unto thee
an everlasting light, and thy God thy glory. Thy sun shall no
more go down; neither shall thy moon withdraw itself; for the
Lord shall be thine everlasting light, and the days of thy
mourning shall be ended. THY PEOPLE ALSO SHALL BE
ALL RIGHTEOUS; they shall inherit the land forever, the
branch of my planting, the work of my hands, that I may be
glorified. A little one shall become a thousand, and a small
one a strong nation; I the Lord will hasten it in his time.” Isa.
60:19-22. And thus the grand result may be stated in one
sentence: God is all in all.
The relation of the law of God to the two covenants has
been, by many persons, strangely misunderstood. But, having
stated the Bible doctrine of the law and covenants, let us now
illustrate it. A young American visits Russia, and, by a
remarkable turn of events, attracts the attention of the
emperor. That monarch, becoming interested in the young

man, proceeds to make a covenant with him. He says to him,
“You see my wealth, my power, my greatness; and you have
already formed some acquaintance with me. I propose now to
take you for my special friend, and to be a special friend to
you on this condition: That you obey the law of this realm.”
To this, the young man gladly assents. The emperor then
places in his hand the volume containing the law of the
empire. This the young man carefully reads. When he has thus
read the volume, the emperor calls up the whole matter anew.
He says, “You have now read the volume concerning which
we have entered into covenant. Do you now choose to make
this a firm covenant, or do you now decline so to do ?” The
young man replies that, having read the volume with care, he
heartily approves of all that it enjoins, and will obey all its
precepts; and that he wishes to consummate the covenant
which they have made concerning all its words.
The reader can see the difference between the covenant
and the law. The contracting parties have made a covenant
concerning all the words of the law. In the primary sense of
the word covenant, the agreement between the emperor and
the young man is the covenant. In the secondary sense, the law
of Russia is the covenant, as being the condition on which that
agreement rests. Yet, when the covenant which the parties
have made concerning all the words of the law of Russia is
spoken of, there is a clear, plain, and unmistakable reference
to the contract, and not to the law.
We will now suppose that the young man falls under
evil influences, and breaks the law of Russia in many
particulars. The emperor informs him that the covenant
between them is at an end, being rendered null and void by his
transgression. Question: What is it that the young man has

destroyed by his evil course ? Is it the law of Russia ? By no
means. That rests upon the sovereign authority of the emperor,
and not upon the obedience of this young man. But what is it,
then, that is abrogated ? Simply the contract which they have
made concerning the law of the empire. It was in the power of
either party to violate its conditions, and thus to release the
other from the obligation of the covenant. This the young man
had done; and thus, by his own act, he had terminated the
covenant.
But we will further suppose that the emperor, out of
pity for the inexperience of the young man, and in view of the
great temptations which surrounded him, and moved by
feelings of true benevolence, makes a second proposition to
him. He says, “I will make a new covenant with you, not
according to the one which you broke; for I will this time, by
means of faithful instruction, put my law in your heart; and if
you break it, I will give you an opportunity by genuine
repentance to find forgiveness, and to prove yourself a man
worthy of my favor.”
Suppose, now, that this young man is told that his
violation of the first covenant had destroyed the law of Russia,
and that the new covenant was framed expressly to enable him
to disregard the law of that empire; who does not see that such
counsel would be ruinous for him to follow ? And who does
not also see that great as is the care of the emperor to save that
young man, his care that the law of Russia shall be obeyed is
still greater ? Who will say that the abrogation of the first of
these covenants, or the establishment of the second one,
rendered null and void the law of the empire of Russia ?
With a few words concerning the allegory in Isa. 54,
and Gal. 4:21-31, this subject shall be concluded. 1. The two

women, Hagar and Sarah, represent, not the law and the
gospel, but old Jerusalem and Jerusalem above. For the
mothers of the two families are not the covenants, but the
Jerusalems. See verses 25-31. 2. The two covenants, whereby
God is in his worship connected with these two Jerusalems,
are represented by the relation which Abraham sustained to
these two women. 3. The children of old Jerusalem are the
natural descendants of Abraham. 4. Those of the new
Jerusalem are those who are his children by faith and
obedience. John 8:39. 5. The bondage of old Jerusalem was
not caused by the law of God, but by sin. John 8:32-36. 6. The
freedom of the children of the heavenly Jerusalem is not their
liberty to violate the law of God, but their freedom from sin.
Rom. 8:1-7. 7. Those who are not under the law, but under
grace, have been pardoned in consequence of faith and
repentance. Rom. 3:19-31. 8. Finally, our heirship is under the
new covenant, not under the old. We have deliverance from
sin through the blood of Christ, but not permission to violate
the law of God. The design of the new covenant is to rescue us
from the condemnation of the law, and not leave us till the law
of God is made a part of our very being, and its righteousness
fulfilled in our lives. The old Jerusalem, with its sanctuary, its
ark, and its priesthood, has passed away. But Jerusalem which
is above is our mother; and in its sanctuary is found, not alone
our High Priest with his atoning blood, but also the ark of
God, wherein is that law which the new covenant writes in our
hearts. Rev. 11:19.
—•—•—•—
The Two Covenants.
Eld. J. G. Matteson.
GOD has made a covenant with his people in the last
days. All that enter into this covenant obtain forgiveness of
their sins, and eternal life. But those who are strangers to it
must bear their own sins and at last reap corruption. Gal. 6:8.
It is of the greatest importance to become acquainted with this
covenant; therefore we will listen to the testimony of the
Scriptures on this point, for they alone are able to make us
wise unto salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. 2 Tim. 3:15.
And these testimonies are so plain that no one can
misunderstand them, if he will weigh the evidences carefully
and honestly before God.
The two covenants, the old and the new, are fully and
clearly presented in Jer. 31:31-34, and Heb. 8:6-12. In Heb. 8,
the Holy Spirit testifies by the apostle of the ministration of
Christ as our high priest in the heavenly sanctuary. Verses 1,
2. Then he speaks of the priests under the old covenant, whose
ministration only served unto the example and shadow of the
ministration of Christ in Heaven. Verses 3-5. But of Christ he
says: “But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry, by
how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, which
was established upon better promises.” Verse 6.
It is this new and better covenant which we desire to
understand and to enter into; for it is founded on better
promises than the old. And Christ, whose ministry is more
excellent than that of the earthly priests, insomuch as he is
more excellent than they, is our divine mediator in this new
and better covenant.
The Scriptures speak of several covenants before
Christ. But to avoid all misunderstanding, the Lord shows
clearly, first, what covenant he calls the old and first covenant;
and then describes the second in unmistakable terms. And this
second covenant he calls “a better covenant” and “a new

covenant.”
THE OLD COVENANT. THE NEW COVENANT.
“For if that first covenant had “For this is the
been faultless, then should no covenant that I will make
place have been sought for with the house of Israel after
the second. For finding fault those days, saith the Lord: I
with them, he saith, Behold will put my laws into their
the days come, saith the Lord, minds, and write them in their
when I will make a new hearts; and I will be to them a
covenant with the house of God, and they shall be to me
Israel and with the house of a people. And they shall not
Judah; not according to the teach every man his neighbor,
covenant that I made with and every man his brother,
their fathers in the day when I saying, Know the Lord; for
took them by the hand to lead all shall know me, from the
them out of the land of Egypt; least to the greatest. For I will
because they continued not in be merciful to their
my covenant, and I regarded unrighteousness, and their
them not, saith the Lord.” sins and their iniquities will I
Heb. 8:7-9. remember no more.” Heb.
8:10-12.
“In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the
first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to
vanish away.” Verse 13. The old covenant has utterly vanished
away. There is no more any good reason to say, that any man,
even though he be a Jew, can obtain any temporal or eternal
blessing by the promises contained in that old covenant.
We will now consider, first, THE OLD COVENANT:
what it was; and how it was established and sealed; and,
second, THE NEW COVENANT: wherein it is like and unlike
80 The Two Covenants. – Eld. J. G. Matteson.
the old; how it was made and ratified; and what it contains.
1. THE OLD COVENANT. The covenant which is
here presented, and denominated old, is that covenant which
God made with the ancestors of the Jews in the day when he
took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt.
Heb. 8:9.
The word diatheke, which is rendered covenant, means
any disposition, arrangement, institution, or dispensation;
hence a testament, a will, a covenant, i. e., mutual promises on
mutual conditions, or promises with conditions annexed:
meton, a body of laws and precepts, etc.—Greenfield,.
The old covenant, now under consideration, was not
the ten commandments; for it was that covenant which the
Lord made with the house of Israel when he led them out of
the land of Egypt. And this no one can deny who believes the
text quoted,—Heb. 8:9. It was a voluntary agreement between
two parties, and not an unconditional law.
This truth is further proved by the statements of the
Bible concerning the old covenant in Ex. 19 and 24. Here we
do most certainly find the first mutual agreement, or covenant,
which the Lord made with the house of Israel after the time
when he “took them by the hand to lead them out of the land
of Egypt.”
1. What the old covenant was. This old contract
contained a promise from the Lord to make the Jews a favored
people above all other nations on the earth, on the condition
that they would obey his voice and keep his commandments.
Moses went up on Mount Sinai where the Lord spoke
to him, and told him to remind the people of their deliverance
from the Egyptians, and then present unto them the covenant
which the Lord proposed to make with them. Ex. 19:2-4.
THE OFFER OF THE THE ANSWER OF THE

LORD. PEOPLE.
“Thus shalt thou say to “And Moses came and
the house of Jacob.” Verse 3. called for the elders of the
The condition: “Now people, and laid before their
therefore, if ye will obey my faces all these words which
voice indeed, and keep my the Lord commanded him,
covenant.” and all the people answered
The promise: “Then ye together, and said, All that the
shall be a peculiar treasure Lord hath spoken we will do.
unto me above all people; for And Moses returned the
all the earth is mine; and ye words of the people unto the
shall be unto me a kingdom Lord.” Verses 7, 8.
of priests, and a holy nation.”
Verses 5, 6.
God's holy commandments and laws, and among these
the Sabbath, existed before they were publicly proclaimed on
Mount Sinai. Abraham obeyed the commandments and laws
of God. Gen. 26:5. The Lord proved the Jews before they
came to Sinai, whether they would walk in his law or no. Ex.
16:4. And it was the Sabbath by which he proved them. Verses
27-30. The world also was full of sin before the law was
publicly proclaimed on Sinai. And when there is sin, there is
also law; for “sin is the transgression of the law.” 1 John 3:4.
Besides this, the Sabbath was instituted at creation. Gen. 2:3.
Thus it was a part of God's holy law from the beginning of the
world.
These considerations show how the Lord could present
obedience to his holy law (or commanded covenant) as a
condition of the old covenant, before the law was publicly
proclaimed.
Then was not obedience to the law of the Lord, the ten
commandments, a condition of the old covenant?
Certainly.
Has not this law, then, vanished away with the old
covenant?
This question is best understood by considering what
the new covenant contains. We have no desire to introduce
anything more in the second covenant than the Lord himself
has brought in; neither do we wish to draw back from a single
point which the Lord has written in it.
2. How the old covenant was established and sealed.
When the people had promised to enter into the covenant, the
Lord was not in a hurry to seal it. They must first be informed
of many points relating to this covenant, in order to understand
fully what they were doing.
In the next chapter (Ex. 20) we read how the Lord
himself proclaimed the ten commandments in the hearing of
the people. Then follows, in chaps. 21, 22, and 23, those civil
and ecclesiastical laws which the Lord gave Moses to make
known unto the people.
In the twenty-fourth chapter we read that “Moses came
and told the people all the words of the Lord, and all the
judgments [or commandments]; and all the people answered
with one voice, and said, All the words which the Lord hath
said will we do.” Verse 3.
This was the second time the people promised to obey
the Lord. It would seem to us that this was enough; but it was
the will of God that this important agreement should be made
still plainer and more sure before it was sealed.
Then Moses wrote all the words of the Lord in a book.
Verse 4. This book is called the book of the covenant. “And he
took the book of the covenant, and read in the audience of the
people; and they said, “All that the Lord hath said will we do,
and be obedient.” Verse 7.
This was the third time the people promised to obey the
Lord. And this time everything was recorded, that it might not
afterwards be forgotten or changed. Thus the old covenant was
finished, and then sealed with blood.
The young men had offered burnt offerings of oxen
unto the Lord, and half of the blood was left in basins. Verses
5, 6. “And Moses took the blood, and sprinkled it on the
people, and said, Behold the blood of the covenant, which the
Lord hath made with you concerning all these words.” Verse
8.
Thus the old covenant was established according to the
plainest Scripture testimony. We have considered how it was
made, and what pertained to it. There were two parties that
mutually entered into it; a mediator who brought it about; one
condition and one promise contained in it; and a seal that
made it of force. We will now name these things in order:—
a. The first party: The Lord, Creator of heaven and
earth.
b. The second party: The house of Israel. And this term
signifies in the old covenant all the Jews, both believers and
unbelievers. This cannot be misunderstood.
c. The mediator: Moses. He laid before the people all
the words of Jehovah, and returned answer to the Lord, wrote
the book of the covenant, and transacted the whole business
between the two parties.
d. The condition: To obey the voice of the Lord and
keep his commandments.
e. The promise: That the Lord would bestow great
blessings on the Jews in preference to all other nations.

f. The seal: The blood of animals that were offered.
And what was the object of all these things?
That they should “serve unto the example and shadow
of heavenly things,” and to develop a people who would
preserve the word of God in the earth. The house of Israel was
a type of the true “Israel of God.” Moses was a type of Christ,
the Mediator of the new covenant, “the Apostle and High
Priest of our profession;” “who was faithful to Him that
appointed him, as also Moses was faithful in all his house.”
Heb. 3:1, 2.
The covenant itself was a type of the new covenant,
and the blood pointed to the precious blood of Christ, whereby
the second covenant should be sealed when the first vanished
away.
2. THE NEW COVENANT. This we have already
quoted as it is found in Heb. 8:10-12. It was not made with the
Gentiles, but with the house of Israel. The Jews are preferred
in the new covenant as well as in the old.
Many try to throw contempt on those who keep the
Sabbath of the Lord by calling it Jewish. They forget that the
new covenant was made with believers among the Jews.
Christ himself was a Jew according to the flesh. The prophets
and apostles were all Jews, and the first Christian church
consisted of Jews. If we ask, What advantage, then, have the
Jews? The Scripture answer is clear and unmistakable:—
“Much every way: chiefly, because that unto them were
committed the oracles of God.” Rom. 3:2. And again the
apostle testifies, that he could wish himself to be accursed
from Christ for his brethren, his “kinsmen according to the
flesh: who are Israelites; to whom pertaineth the adoption, and
the glory, and the covenants [this signifies at least two

covenants], and the giving of the law, and the service of God,
and the promises; whose are the fathers, and of whom as
concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed
forever. Amen.” Rom. 9:3-5.
We Gentiles have nothing to boast of. We were by
nature “aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers
from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without
God in the world.” Eph. 2:12. Truly, unto us belongs only
confusion of face.
How, then, can the new covenant be of any benefit to
us?
By the blood of Christ we may be made members of
the Israel of God. Eph. 2:13. Through Christ, both Jews and
Gentiles “have access by one Spirit unto the Father.” Verse
18. “Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners,
but fellow-citizens with the saints, and of the household of
God.” Verse 19.
The Jews are represented by the natural branches of the
olive tree, which is an emblem of the church of God, but the
Gentiles are wild branches. “Thou standest by faith. Be not
high-minded, but fear; for if God spared not the natural
branches, take heed lest he also spare not thee.” Rom. 11:20,
21.
Thus we see that the new covenant is made with the
house of Israel, or the believing Jews, and that the Gentiles
can be made partakers thereof by faith and obedience.
Considering the new covenant carefully, we find the
following points:—
a. The first party: The Lord of Heaven and earth.
b. The second party: The house of Israel, or believing
Jews.
c. The mediator: Christ, our Saviour.
d. Two conditions: 1. To love the commandments of
God, and 2. To know the Lord.
e. Two promises: 1. Those who are members of this
covenant are the people of God, and 2. Their sins are forgiven.
f. The seal: The precious blood of Christ. Heb. 9:12.
1. Points wherein the new covenant is like and unlike
the old. We can now compare the two covenants, and will
present some points wherein they are alike, and some things
wherein they differ from each other:—
SIMILARITIES BETWEEN THE FIRST AND THE

SECOND COVENANT.
The old covenant was The new covenant is
established by the Lord. also established by the great
It was made God..
voluntarily, without It is a voluntary
compulsion. agreement.
It was made with the It was also established
house of Israel. with the house of Israel.
It was brought about It cannot be entered
by a mediator. into without a mediator.
It was founded upon It is also made on the
obedience to the condition of loving and
commandments of God. obeying the law of the Lord.
It brought great It brings great
advantages to all its members. blessings to all who enter into
It was sealed with it.
blood, and was thenceforth of It was sealed with
force, until the shadow blood and is of force ever

reached the reality. since.
It could not be It cannot be changed,
changed after it was sealed. nor anything added thereto
after it is confirmed. Gal.
3:15; Heb. 9:17.
DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE FIRST AND THE

SECOND COVENANT.
The old covenant was The new covenant is
made with the believing and made with those alone out of
unbelieving Jews, without the house of Israel who have
any distinction. the law of God written in
their hearts, and know the
Lord.
It demanded outward It demands the
circumcision in the flesh and circumcision of the heart,
outward obedience. insomuch that the individual
is made a new creature in
Christ Jesus. Col. 2:11; 2 Cor.
5:17; Gal. 6:15.
It gendered to It begets a spirit of
bondage, and embraced only adoption, and embraces the
the old Jerusalem. Gal. 4:24, heavenly Jerusalem with her
25. children. Rom. 8:15; Gal.
4:26.
It was brought about It has a divine
by a human mediator. Mediator, the only begotten
Son of God. 1 Tim. 2:5; Heb.
8:6.
It could never take It cleanses from all sin

away sins. Heb. 10:11. by the blood of Jesus Christ. 1
John 1:7.
It was sealed with the It is ratified by Christ's
blood of goats and calves. own blood. Heb. 9:12.
Heb. 9:12.
It had many priests. It has only one priest,
Heb. 7:23. — Christ. Heb. 7:24; 8:1.
To the old covenant, and to that only, belonged a whole
law of “commandments contained in ordinances” (Eph. 2:15)
which contained nothing but a “shadow of good things to
come.” Heb. 10:1. In the place of the sacrifices and
ministration which belonged to this law, we have obtained the
more excellent sacrifice of Christ and his high-priestly
ministration. “He TAKETH AWAY the first that he MAY
ESTABLISH the second.” Heb. 10:9.
We want to notice this closely, for it is a question
which is continually agitated, What is it which is taken away?
and what is established in the place of it? Let the word of God
answer:—
THE FIRST, WHICH IS THE SECOND, WHICH IS

TAKEN AWAY. ESTABLISHED.
“Sacrifice and offering “Then said he [Christ],
and burnt offerings and Lo, I come to do thy will, 0
offering for sin thou wouldest God. He taketh away the first,
not, neither hadst pleasure that he may establish the
therein; which are offered by second. By the which will we
the law.” Heb. 10:8. are sanctified through the
offering of the body of Jesus
Christ once for all.” Heb.
10:9, 10.
“And every priest “But now hath he
standeth daily ministering and [Christ] obtained a more
offering oftentimes the same excellent ministry, by how
sacrifices, which can never much also he is the mediator
take away sins.” Verse 11. of a better covenant.” Heb.
8:6.
Thus we have in the new covenant a divine sacrifice
which can take away sin, and “a high priest over the house of
God” (Heb. 10:21), Jesus Christ. And he is the only true priest
in the new covenant.
Then the old covenant, with its sacrifices, its priestly
ministration; and that law which ordained all these services, is
taken away, and the sacrifice and ministration of Christ has
been established in the place of it.
The law of sacrifice, and offering, and burnt offerings,
and offering for sin, and of the Levitical priesthood, was,
consequently, the same as “the middle wall of partition,” “the
law of commandments contained in ordinances” (Eph. 2:14,
15), which was abolished. And to this belong also the annual
sabbaths, which were appointed for days of offerings and
atonement, and were “a shadow of things to come.” Col. 2:16,
17; Lev. 23:24, 27, 28, 32.
But the Sabbath of the Lord, which is weekly, is no part
of “the law of commandments contained in ordinances;” for it
originated in Eden before the fall, and does not point to the
sacrifice and ministration of Christ, but to God's creation and
his holy rest. Gen. 2:2, 3. And it is a part of the law of God,
which also in the new covenant convinces all men of sin.
Rom. 3:19; Ex. 20:8-11.
The law regulating sacrifices and everything pertaining
to the Levitical priesthood is “the first,” which is taken away.

The divine sacrifice of Christ and his heavenly priesthood is
“the second,” which is established in the place of it.
2. How the new covenant was made and ratified: Christ
was made flesh, and dwelt among us. He is not the mediator of
the old, but of the new covenant. Heb. 8:6. He confirmed the
new covenant with many during one prophetic week. Dan.
9:27. Seven prophetic days symbolize seven years. Eze. 4:6, “I
have appointed thee each day for a year.” Christ established
the new covenant with many of the house of Israel in
Palestine, first by his own labor during the three years and a
half in which he preached, and afterward by his apostles
during the following three and a half years. After that time his
disciples commenced to labor among the Gentiles, as they
suffered “great persecution” and were “scattered abroad.” Acts
8:1, 5, 14.
That night when Christ was betrayed, the new covenant
was especially entered into in the most solemn manner by the
apostles, who were present as representatives for all the
believers of the house of Israel.
Jesus took bread, and gave it unto them saying, “This is
my body which is given for you; this do in remembrance of
me.” Luke 22:19. All partook of this, and showed thereby that
they were members of the new covenant and partakers of “the
communion of the body of Christ.” 1 Cor. 10:16. Then he
gave the cup to them, saying, “This cup is the new testament
[or covenant] in my blood, which is shed for you.” Luke
22:20. They all partook of the cup, and thus entered into the
new covenant.
On the next day the new covenant was ratified, or
sealed, as Christ died on the cross, and poured out his own
precious blood for the sins of men. And from that day the new
covenant is of force, and it is not in the power of man to add
anything or to change that covenant, or testament, which our
Saviour thus sealed with his own blood. Heb. 9:16, 17; Gal.
3:15. Please notice that the words testament and covenant are
translated from one word in the original (diatheke). They
denote one and the same thing.
Ponder well this great truth. Those principles, laws,
ordinances, and promises which our divine Mediator has
introduced, or recognized in the new covenant, are necessary
to salvation, and those only. When the covenant was sealed, it
could not be moved or changed by the apostles, neither by any
other man. It is therefore a great mistake to set aside the
testimony of our Saviour, his example and ordinance, under
the pretense that he lived under the old covenant. His
ministration on earth did not have reference to the old, but to
the new covenant. Our Saviour came to this earth as the
mediator of the new covenant. Heb. 8:6. And he that tries to
set aside this great truth, resists the word of God. Christ
prepared the believing children of the house of Israel in three
years and a half to become worthy members of the new
covenant, and then he sealed it with his own blood at his
death. And the third day he rose from the tomb, thus proving
his divine mission.
After that the apostles gained many believers who
entered into the covenant. This was done in the following
manner: They preached the gospel of the death and
resurrection of Christ; they exhorted the people to repent and
believe on the Son of God. Those who believed and obeyed
the good news, were baptized and added to the church. And
the power of God was with them. Matt. 28:18-20; Mark 16:15-
20; Acts 2:38, 41; 8:12, 36-39; 10:40-48.

3. What the new covenant contains. This we have
already partly considered, but we will now more particularly
notice each point which the Lord has introduced in the great
sum of the new covenant. This contains four things:—
(1.) “I [the Lord] will put my laws into their mind, and
write them in their hearts.”
(2.) “And I will be to them a God, and they shall be to
me a people.”
(3.) “And they shall not teach every man his neighbor,
and every man his brother, saying, know the Lord; for all shall
[or they shall all] know me, from the least to the greatest.”
(4.) “For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness,
and their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more.”
Heb. 8:10-12.
The very first proposition in the new covenant is to
love the law of God, the ten commandments. This proves
clearly that those believers who preach or write against the
holy law of God, or speak of it lightly, or set it aside have
gone astray. They have turned aside from the true order of the
divine covenant.
But how do you prove that the ten commandments are
the law of the Lord, and that they are given to convince of sin
under the new covenant?
They are the only law which the Lord has spoken
publicly with his own voice and written with his own finger.
Deut. 4:12, 13; 5:22. They were separated from all other laws.
Ex. 25:10, 16, 21; 26:33. And they are that law which the
apostles pointed to in the New Testament in order to convince
men of sin. “Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law; for I
had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not
covet.” Rom. 7:7. “Behold thou art called a Jew, and restest in
the law, . . . . which has the form of knowledge and of the
truth in the law. Thou, therefore, which teachest another,
teachest thou not thyself ? Thou that teachest a man should not
steal, dost thou steal? Thou that sayest a man should not
commit adultery, dost thou commit adultery? Thou that
abhorrest idols, dost thou commit sacrilege?” Rom. 2:17-22.
None can misunderstand that the apostle in these two
texts speaks of the ten commandments. And this is the very
law which even under the new covenant stops every mouth,
and makes all the world guilty before God. Rom. 3:19, 20. The
same is proved by James 2:10, 11.
This law the Lord now proposes to write in the hearts
of his believing children, that they may be able to love the law
of God. Then it is not a yoke of bondage unto them to obey the
Lord; for they have “received the spirit of adoption,” and can
say with the apostle, “This is the love of God, that we keep his
commandments, and his commandments are not grievous.” 1
John 5:3.
Those who thus with the mediator of the new covenant
learn to say, “I delight to do thy will, 0 my God; yea, thy law
is within my heart” (Ps. 40:8), are the children of God. They
are the children of the covenant; Acts 3:25; the Israel of God;
Gal. 6:16; the people of God, and the Lord “will be to them a
God.” Heb. 8:10.
The third condition in the new covenant which is just
as necessary to salvation as the first, is to know the Lord. So
soon as our faculties are developed, and we have personal
responsibility, so soon must we seek personal fellowship with
the Father and the Son in order to be saved. 1 John 1:3. Thus
testifies our Saviour: “And this is life eternal, that they might
know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou has
sent,” John 17:3. And the prophet testifies of the children of
the new covenant: “And all thy children shall be taught of the
Lord; and great shall be the peace of thy children.” Isa. 54:13;
Gal. 4:26.
With this agree the words of the beloved apostle: “I
write unto you fathers, because ye have known him that is
from the beginning . . . . I write unto you little children,
because ye have known the Father.” 1 John 2:13. The children
of the new covenant need not teach one another to know the
Lord; for no one can become a member of the new covenant
until he knows the only true God, and believes in his Son, our
Saviour. Heb. 8:11. 1
Then follows the last blessed proposition in the new
covenant,—God “will be merciful to their unrighteousness
(past sins) and their sins and their iniquities will I remember
no more.” Heb. 8:12. This blessed promise belongs certainly
to those who love the law of the Lord, and believe in his dear
Son, those who “keep the commandments of God, and the
faith of Jesus.” Rev. 14:12.
May the Lord bless his word in your heart, kind reader,
and make it a living word by his good Spirit. And may you
willingly open the door to Him who stands and knocks, that
you may overcome, even as he also overcame (Rev. 3:20, 21),
1 In the Danish and German translations this text reads: “For they shall
all know me, from the least to the greatest,” referring evidently to those
individuals who have the law of God written in their hearts, spoken of in
the 10th verse. And this agrees with the original; for although the
pronoun “they” is not expressed, yet it is understood by the form of the
verb, In the Greek there is no “they' before the verb “teach” in the
beginning of the verse. Consequently, if it is proper to say, “they” shall
not teach, in the beginning of the verse, it is also right to say, “they” shall
all know me.
and soon with the “Israel of God” “receive a crown of glory

that fadeth not away.” 1 Pet.5:4.
—•—•—•—
From a series of articles in the Signs of the Times
Periodical, April 8th to 22nd 1880
The Two Covenants.
Eld. Uriah. Smith.
TEXT: Heb. 8:8: “For finding fault with them, he saith,
Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, When I make a new
covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah.”
The subject of this text is the new covenant. This new
covenant is called in the preceding verse, the second covenant.
But a new implies an old, and a second implies a first. Two
covenants are thus singled out in the word of God, as standing
in this relation to each other: the one called the first or old,
covenant; the other called the second, or new, covenant. Why
are two covenants thus coupled together, and made so
prominent in the Sacred Scriptures? It is because these relate
particularly to that great work, the redemption of a lost race,
for the furtherance of which, even the scriptures themselves
are given. This is shown in the fact, that the new covenant is
designed to bring all those who avail themselves of its
proffered blessings into such a relation to God that their sins
and iniquities will be remembered no more; which can be
accomplished only by redemption. The conclusion is therefore
clear, that these two covenants embody two grand divisions of
the work which Heaven has undertaken for human
redemption, and cover two especial dispensations devoted to
the development of this work.
The subject of the covenants is one in which every
person has reason to feel the most lively interest; for it
embraces, the whole question of our relation to God in this
world, and of all our hope for the future. There is no evil
which, through Christ, we hope to escape, from which we are
not guarded by these covenants which God has so graciously
condescended to make with his people, and no good which we
hope to obtain, which is not embraced in, and secured to us by
them.
Paul, in Ephesians 2:11, 12, sets forth the condition of

those who do not place themselves within the provisions of the
covenants: “Wherefore remember, that ye being in time past
Gentiles in the flesh, who are called Uncircumcision, by that
which is called the Circumcision in the flesh made by hands;
that at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the
commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of
promise, having no hope, and without God in the world.”
This presents in a startling light the condition of every
unconverted man; and a more utterly wretched and abject
condition it would be difficult to describe. No Christ, no hope,
no God! Such is the condition of him who is a stranger from
these covenants of promise. It becomes therefore a matter of
infinite moment to ascertain what the new covenant is, upon
what conditions its blessings are suspended, and what we are
to do in order to become partakers of its benefits.
In addition to this general statement, we may remark
that the subject of the covenants is becoming a theme of
particular interest at the present time, because it is just now
considered a favorite point of attack by some of those who
oppose the doctrine of the perpetuity of the ten
commandments, and the still binding obligation of the original
Sabbath. Having exhausted every other source of theoretical
opposition to the Sabbath in their futile efforts to overthrow it,
they now claim that in the doctrine of the covenants they find
conclusive evidence that the ten commandments have been
superseded by something better, and that the seventh-day
Sabbath, at least, has consequently come to an end.
It is more particularly with reference to this phase of
the question that the present examination will proceed. We
will therefore fairly state, and then candidly examine, these
98 The Two Covenants. – Eld. Uriah. Smith.
claims of our opponents.

Briefly stated, then, their claim is this: That the ten
commandments constituted the first or old covenant; that that
covenant was faulty and has been done away; which is simply
to say, in other words, that the ten commandment law was
imperfect, and has been all abolished, the Sabbath with the
rest.
In proof of this they quote a few texts of Scripture,
which to new hearers would seem quite pertinent and positive.
Thus, Deut. 4:12, 13: “And the Lord spake unto you out of the
Midst of the fire; ye heard the voice of the words, but saw no
similitude; only ye heard a voice. And he declared unto you
his covenant, which he commanded you to perform, even ten
Here, they claim that the ten commandments are
plainly called the covenant. Then they turn to Deut. 5:2, 3, to
show that this covenant had no previous existence but was
established at Horeb, where Paul also, quoting from the
prophet, says that the first covenant was made: “The Lord our
God made a covenant with us in Horeb. The Lord made not
this covenant with our fathers, but with us, even us, who are
all of us here alive this day.” Having found these texts so
much to their mind, they turn to 1 Kings 8; 21, for a statement
to settle forever the controversy: “And I have set there a place
for the ark, wherein is the covenant of the Lord, which he
made with our fathers, when he brought them out of the land
of Egypt.” Verse 9 of the same chapter says, “There was
nothing in the ark save the two tables of stone, which Moses
put there at Horeb.” They ask us what can be plainer. There
was nothing in the ark but the two tables of stone, containing
the ten commandments; yet Solomon says that in the ark was
the covenant which the Lord made with the fathers of his
people, when he brought them out of the land of Egypt.
Therefore those commandments were the covenant. And
having established this point, they have only to quote Paul's
testimony, that the old covenant has waxed old and vanished
away, to reach the conclusion so long and anxiously sought,
that the ten commandments have been abolished, carrying
with them the obnoxious seventh-day Sabbath into their
eternal tomb.
Now to one who has not made this matter a subject of
study, this seems very plausible. To those not familiar with
this question, the quotations would seem to be to the point, the
reasoning consistent, and the conclusion inevitable, that the
ten commandments constituted the old covenant which has
been abolished. To such we would say that this cable which
our opponents make appear to the uninformed of such strength
and fair proportions, does not contain one solitary fiber upon
which they can justly hang a single proposition contained in
either their claims or their conclusions. This we think we can
clearly show.
That the old covenant has been abolished by being
superseded by the new, Paul plainly states; of this there is no
question. And we affirm further that nothing has been
abolished but the old covenant. Whatever has been abolished
was included in that covenant, and whatever was not included
in that covenant still remains, unaffected by the change from
old to new. If the ten commandments constituted the old
covenant, then they are forever gone; and no man need
contend for their perpetuity or labor for their revival. But if
they did not constitute the old covenant, then they have not
been abolished, and no man need breathe a doubt in regard to
their perpetuity and immutability. This therefore becomes a

test question. It determines as definitely as any one subject
can, the whole question of the perpetuity or abolition of the
moral law.
Can we then tell what did constitute the first, or old,
covenant. What does the word, covenant; mean? Webster
defines it thus: “A mutual agreement of two or more persons
or parties, in writing and under seal, to do or to refrain from,
some act or thing; a contract; stipulation.” This is the primary,
leading definition of the word; and in looking for the old
covenant, we look for some transaction to which this
definition will apply.
We have definite data from which to work. We are told
who was the author of the first covenant. It was God. We are
told with whom it was made. It was made with Israel. We are
told when it was made. It was made with that people when
they came out of the land of Egypt. Jer. 31:32; Heb. 8:9. By
these circumstances the old covenant is clearly distinguished
from the Adamic, the Abrahamic, or any other covenant
brought to view in the Bible.
We go back therefore to the history of Israel as they
came out of Egypt, and lay down this as a consistent and self-
evident principle: That the very first transaction we find taking
place between God and the Israelites after they left Egypt,
which answers to the definition of the word covenant, must be
the first covenant, unless some good reason can be shown why
it is not.
Do we find anything of this kind in the experience of
that people? anything which constitutes a formal and mutual
agreement between God and themselves, based upon mutual
promises? We find one, and only one transaction of that kind.
The record of it commences in Ex. 19:3: “And Moses went up

unto God, and the Lord called unto him out of the mountain,
saying, Thus shalt thou say unto the house of Jacob, and tell
the children of Israel: Ye have seen what I did unto the
Egyptians, and how I bear you on eagles' wings, and brought
you unto myself. Now, therefore, if ye will obey my voice
indeed, and keep my covenant, then ye shall be a peculiar
treasure unto me above all people; for all the earth is mine.
And ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests and an holy
nation. These are the words which thou shalt speak unto the
children of Israel.”
The briefest glance at this language shows it to be a
formal proposition on the part of the Lord to the Israelites.
Moses was the minister through whom the negotiation was
carried on. Go down, said God to Moses, and make to the
people this proposition: If you will obey my voice, and keep
my covenant, I will secure you in the possession of certain
special blessings above all people. With this instruction Moses
went down to the people, and God waited for their answer.
Verses 7, 8: “And Moses came and called for the elders
of the people, and laid before their faces all these words which
the Lord commanded him. And all the people answered
together and, said, All that the Lord hath spoken we will do.
And Moses returned the words of the people unto the Lord.”
Such was the response of the people. They said, “We
agree to the terms; we will enter into the arrangement.” We
now have the two parties before us, and the mutual, voluntary
action on the part of each. This is the first transaction of the
kind recorded between God and that people. It answers most
strictly to the meaning of the word covenant. Therefore we say
that this has the primary claim to be considered the old
covenant of which Jeremiah prophesied and Paul discoursed.

It may be asked, then, how the ten commandments can
be called “the covenant.” We answer, That is just where the
people are misled. They are never called “the” covenant,
referring to the first or old Covenant. That the ten
commandments are called “a” covenant, we admit; but what
kind of a covenant? and in what sense are they so called?
Please read again Ex. 19:5: “Now therefore, if ye will obey my
voice indeed, and keep my covenant,” &c. Then God had
something which he called his covenant, which antedated the
covenant made with Israel. It was already in existence, before
any formal agreement whatever was made with that people.
And this explains Deut. 4:13. Those who read that verse
should be critical enough to observe that Moses does not call
the ten commandments the covenant, nor a covenant, but his
(God's) covenant. “And he declared unto you his covenant,
commandments.” These, then, are what God referred to in Ex.
19:5, in the words, my covenant; and these were already in
existence when the covenant was made with Israel. It should
be noticed, further, that the covenant of Deut. 4:13, is not a
covenant made, but a covenant commanded; and surely any
one can see the difference between an arrangement established
upon the voluntary and mutual promises of two parties, and
that which one party has power to enjoin with authority upon
another party. But the Covenant here mentioned, God did thus
enjoin upon them without regard to any action on their part.
It is now easy to be seen why the ten commandments
are called a covenant, and what kind of a covenant they were.
They were simply the basis of that agreement recorded in Ex.
19:3-8. For the very first condition God proposed was, “If ye
will keep my covenant.” In this sense, and this only, are the
ten commandments ever called a covenant.
And this brings us to the secondary definition of the
term covenant; which is, “a writing containing the terms of
agreement between parties.” Thus the conditions upon which,
an agreement or covenant rests, are in a secondary sense
called, also a covenant. This may be illustrated by the relation
which all good citizens sustain to their respective States. They
are all in covenant relation with the State. The State says, If
you will obey the laws of this commonwealth, you shall be
protected in your life, liberty, and property. The citizens
respond, We will obey. This is the mutual agreement, the
covenant, virtually existing everywhere between the citizen
and the State. But when we speak of the State alone, its
covenant would be its laws which it commands its citizens to
perform. These are the conditions of the agreement, and hence
may be called the covenant of the State, because upon
obedience to these are suspended all the blessings which it
proposes to confer.
Such was the relation established between the Lord and
his people. He had a law which the very circumstances of our
existence bind us to keep; yet he graciously annexed a
promise, to the keeping of it. Obey my law, and I will secure
you in the possession of certain blessings above all people.
The people accepted the offer. The matter then stood thus: The
people said, We will keep God's law. God said, Then I will
make you a kingdom of priests, a peculiar treasure unto
myself. This was the agreement or covenant made between
them. But so far as God was concerned his law was his
covenant, because, it was the basis of the whole arrangement,
and upon the keeping of that by the people, all the blessings
were suspended which he proposed to confer.

1 Kings 8:21, may still present a difficulty to some
minds. Does not Solomon here say that in the ark, where the
ten commandments alone were, was the covenant which God
made with the fathers of his people, when he brought them out
of the land of Egypt? The key to the explanation of this
passage lies in the antecedent of the word wherein. Solomon,
speaking of the temple, says, “And I have set there a place for
the ark, wherein is the covenant of the Lord.” Does the word,
wherein, mean in which ark, or in which place? Hebraists tell
us that the grammatical construction refers it unquestionably
to the place. “I have set there a place for the ark, in which
place, not in the ark, is the covenant of the Lord,” &c. Was the
covenant always in the place where the ark was? See, Deut.
31:26: “Take this book of the law, and put it in the side of the
ark of the covenant of the Lord, your God.” That this book of
the law is the same as the book of the covenant, see 2 Kings
22:8, and chapter 23:2. And the expression “in the side of the
ark,” means in a coffer or receptacle expressly prepared for it
and placed by the side of the ark. See Prideaux, vol. 1, p. 152.
Wherever the ark was there was this book of the covenant by
its side. Hence Solomon could say, referring to the place
where the ark was, that there, in that place, was also the
covenant which the Lord made with that people when he led
them out of Egypt.
Thus the strongest texts claimed to prove that the ten
commandments constituted the old covenant, are found to
contain not one shade of evidence in that direction. We have
found in what sense the ten commandments are called a
covenant, simply because they are God's covenant, the basis of
the agreement which he entered into with Israel. In the same
sense the tables are called the tables of the covenant, and the
ark, the ark of the covenant, because they contained this
covenant; but none of these expressions refer to the covenant
made with Israel by the mutual pledges to each other of the
Lord and that people, as recorded in Ex. 19.
We now return to that chapter and resume the
examination of the covenant then made. When the people
agreed to obey God's voice, verses 5, 8, they had not heard his
voice, and knew not what conditions it might impose. But on
the third day after this, the Lord came down in fearful majesty,
and with a voice that shook the solid earth from pole to pole
declared the ten commandments. Here for the first time the
people heard God's voice which they were to obey. Then the
Lord took Moses into a private interview with himself and
gave him some instruction, which the people were to follow in
civil and religions matters, under this arrangement. This
instruction is found in the latter part of Ex. 20, and chapters
21, 22, and 23 entire, and, is an epitome of the civil and
ceremonial laws given to that people.
In chapter 24 is resumed the narrative of the steps taken
in the formation of this covenant. Moses appeared before the
people a second time, and rehearsed in their hearing all the
words which the Lord had communicated to him. And here the
people, after having heard for themselves God's voice, and
being told all that he had said to Moses, had an opportunity to
answer again whether they would enter into this arrangement
or not. At their first answer, Ex. 19:8, they did not know what
would be required of them; now they understood all the
conditions; and what will they answer now? Ex. 24:3: “And all
the people answered with one voice, and said, All the words
which the Lord hath said, will we do.”'
It would seem that this was all-sufficient. But the Lord

moved very carefully in the matter, so that the people might
have no opportunity to plead in after years that they did not
know what they were doing in entering into this covenant with
him. So he caused Moses to write out in a book all the words
he had told him, that all points might be again carefully
considered, and then to read it all over to the people. Verse 7:
“And he took the book of the covenant, and read in the
audience of the people.” Here they had opportunity for the
third time to reconsider the matter and change their decision if
they so desired. And what was their answer this time? “And
they said, All that the Lord hath said will we do and be
obedient.”
Moses then took blood which had been offered for the
purpose, verses 5, 6, and sprinkled it on the people and said,
“Behold the blood of the covenant which the Lord hath made
with you concerning all these words.” Verse 8. Here the
covenant was closed up, sealed and ratified, by the shedding
of blood.
Keep this scene in mind while we pass down fifteen
hundred and, fifty-five years to the days of Paul, and notice his
remarks upon this event. Heb. 9:17-20: “For a testament is of
force after men are dead; otherwise it is of no force at all.
while the testator liveth. Whereupon neither the first testament
was dedicated without blood. For when Moses had spoken
every precept to all the people according to the law, he took
the blood of calves and of goats, with water and scarlet wool
and hyssop, and sprinkled both the book and all the people,
saying, This is the blood of the testament which God hath
enjoined unto you.”
Paul here plainly states that the first covenant was
dedicated with blood, the words testament and covenant

meaning the same thing, being from the same original word.
And to what scene does Paul refer? To the very one recorded
in Ex. 24:8, just described. Moses says, Behold the blood of
the covenant; and Paul says that the covenant then and there
ratified was the first, or old covenant.
Now to settle the fact, once and forever, that this
covenant was not the ten commandments, we have only to
remark that neither Moses nor the people had a copy of the ten
commandments of any kind in their hands at that time. This
will appear from the further record of Ex. 24. In verse 12, we
read, “And the Lord said unto Moses, Come up to me into the
mount, and be there, and I will give thee tables of stone, and a
law and commandments which I have written, that thou
mayest teach them.” The idea that God had already caused
Moses to write out a copy of these commandments, and that
he had begun to teach them by having spoken them and read
them in the ears of the people, verses 3 and 4, is utterly
inconsistent with this statement, that God was about to put into
his hands a law containing commandments that he had written,
in order that Moses might teach them. But before Moses was
called up to receive this law of ten commandments which God
had written, the first covenant had been made, closed up,
finished, and ratified by the shedding of blood.
These facts throw a fortification around this point
which it is not possible either to break or scale. The first
covenant was dedicated with blood. But when that dedication
took place, the ten commandments, in visible form, had not
been put into the possession of the people; they had no copy of
them; hence they were not dedicated with blood. Therefore,
the ten commandments were not the old covenant.
Another line of thought showing just as clearly that the

ten commandments were not the first, or old, covenant, is
based on Deut. 5:2, 3, a passage to which our opponents
appeal with such seeming assurance: “The Lord our God made
a covenant with us in Horeb. The Lord made not this covenant
with our fathers, but with us, even us, who are all of us here
alive this day.” Having assumed that the ten commandments
were the old covenant, these verses are appealed to, to show
that these commandments were here for the first time
introduced, and hence came to an end with that dispensation.
But the quotation is fatal to the assumption; for the ten
commandments did exist before this time; hence they were not
the covenant at that time made.
The book of Genesis, though so brief in its record that
its fifty short chapters cover a period of over 2300 years,
nevertheless abounds with indications that the principles of the
ten commandments were well understood and acted upon,
even from the creation down. Why was Cain condemned for
killing his brother, if the law against murder did not exist?
“Where no law is, there is no transgression;” and, “sin is not
imputed when there is no law.” By what standard was it
shown that Noah and his house alone were righteous, while all
the rest of mankind were only evil and that continually, if
there was no law for a standard in such matters? To be
righteous is to be living in conformity with a standard of
righteousness, or right doing. “By the law is the knowledge of
sin.” On what ground were the inhabitants of the wicked cities
of the plain given over to the vengeance of eternal fire on
account of their vileness, if there was no law against
unchastity? There was such a law; and Peter makes a
statement which shows that it was as well understood then as
now. He says that those cities were made an ensample unto all
that should after live ungodly. This covers all time from that
day to this, and onward to the end. And the ungodly of to-day
may look back to Sodom, and learn how God will deal with
them unless they repent. Are there moral principles binding on
them now? So there were then, if their case is an example. Do
men understand these laws now? So they did then. Is it an
acknowledged principle now that a man cannot justly be
punished who does not know, or has not had an opportunity to
know the law? So it was then. We have heard of tyrants who
posted their laws so high that no one could read them, and
then struck off the head of every transgressor; but God does
not so deal with his creatures. No; the law of God was in
existence and understood in ancient Sodom, as well as in the
numberless Sodoms of today.
But some may be ready to suppose that even if the
principles of the other commandments were known, surely the
Sabbath was neither known nor regarded before the time of
Moses. We answer that if it can be shown that any other
commandment was known, tenfold more proof can be given
that the Sabbath was known, and a commandment given for its
observance. In proof of this it is only necessary to refer to the
record of Genesis 2:2, 3, which records the origin of the
Sabbatic institution in Eden. God rested on the seventh day.
He then blessed the day; not the day past, but the day for time
to come. Then he sanctified it. Sanctify means to set apart to a
sacred or religious use. This could not refer to past time, but to
the seventh day for time to come. And it was to be used in this
sacred or religious manner, not by the Lord; for he does not
need it; but by man, for whom, says Christ, the Sabbath was
made. Mark 2:27.
How, then, we ask, could the Sabbath be thus sanctified

for man's use, or be set apart to be used in a holy or sacred
manner by him? Only by telling man to use it in this manner.
But just as soon as the Lord had told Adam to use the Sabbath
in a sacred or religious manner, he had given him a command
for its observance. The record in Genesis is therefore plain
that a Sabbath commandment was given in Eden. And we
should do no violence to the text if we should read it, And
God blessed the seventh-day, and commanded Adam to
sacredly observe it. But a command given to Adam under
these circumstances, was a command through him to all his
posterity of every age and clime.
No more need be said to show to all who respect the
testimony of God's word, that the ten commandments were
known through all the ages before the time of Moses, and that
men were held under obligation to obey them. Therefore, these
commandments were not the covenant made with Israel at
Horeb, which covenant had no existence previous to that time.
TEXT: Heb. 8:8: “For finding fault with them, he saith,
Behold the days come, saith the Lord, when I make a new
covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah.”
PERHAPS all has now been said that need be said in
this connection, respecting the old covenant. Every essential
fact concerning it is clearly defined, and can easily be found.
We have seen plainly brought to view the parties between
whom this covenant was made, the time when it was made,
what it contained, and the steps taken in its ratification. It was
made between God and Israel, when that people came out of
Egypt; it was the special arrangement between God and that
people, whereby they became his peculiar treasure; the matter
embraced in it was that privately communicated by the Lord to
Moses, and by him written out in a book, called the book of

the covenant; and it was dedicated with blood.
The ten commandments were not, therefore, the old
covenant, because, (1.) They were in existence, and were just
as much binding on men before as after the exode. (2.) They
were never dedicated with blood. (3.) They were set forth by
the Lord himself as antedating his covenant with Israel, being
the primary and essential basis of the arrangement then
entered into with them.
We now turn to the subject of the new covenant, and
shall pursue our inquiry under this head in the following
channels: When was the new covenant announced? Why was
it necessary that a new covenant should be made? By whom
was it made? When was it made? With whom was it made?
And what are its conditions and provisions?
The new covenant was announced by Jeremiah six
hundred and six years before Christ, in the following
language:—
make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the
although I was an husband unto them, saith the Lord. But this
inward parts, and write it in their hearts, and will be their God
Know the Lord; for they shall all know me from the least of

Jer. 31:81-34.
This language is explicit in answering nearly all the
inquiries raised respecting the new covenant. Over six hundred
years “before Christ, it was announced that such a covenant
would be made. And the reason for this covenant is
announced, because they had already virtually annulled the
first arrangement, by breaking God's covenant.
Paul states this a little more fully in his letter to the
Hebrews. He says, “For if that first covenant had been
second. For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold the days
come saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with
the house of Israel and with the house of Judah.” This
covenant is declared to be faulty, not that there was anything
wrong about it, in itself considered; but it was imperfect,
simply because its provisions were not ample enough, as we
shall presently see, to meet the emergency which arose under
it. And this is more than intimated in the next sentence: “For
finding fault with them.” The fault, then, in reality, was with
the people; and the fault with them was that they had broken
God's covenant, the ten commandments, and thus violated the
conditions of the covenant made. Violating a law does not
abolish the law, but it does break up or nullify any
arrangement which is suspended upon the keeping of the law.
Such was the effect of Israel's transgression of the law. It did
not abolish the law, but it did virtually, abolish the old
covenant, by releasing God from all obligations he had placed
himself under on condition of their obedience.
Well, suppose the people did break the ten
commandments, was there not a remedy provided for such
cases? They, by their transgressions against God, became

sinners; but was there not provision for the removal of sin, so
that they could come back into the same relation to God, as if
they had not sinned? Here was the difficulty. To be sure, they
had their services, their rounds of ceremonies, and their
offerings. There was plenty of blood provided; but it was only
the blood of beasts. Paul gives us a true view of the situation
when he says that “without the shedding of blood there is no
remission,” Heb. 9:22, and yet that it was “not possible that
the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins.” Not all
the millions of offerings that were brought during the fifteen
hundred years of that dispensation, nor all the rivers of blood
that flowed around their consecrated altars, had removed a
single sin; and unless something more effectual should be
provided, all was lost.
The new covenant undertakes to supply this deficiency,
by providing a sacrifice which can take away sin; for the grand
result of it, as expressed by Paul, is, that their unrighteousness
would find mercy at the hands of God, and their sins and
iniquities would be remembered no more.
Prophecy, after announcing the fact that a new
covenant would be made, again takes up the matter, and brings
to view the minister, and the sacrifice. The prophet Daniel,
speaking of the Messiah, says, “And he shall confirm the
covenant with many for one week.” There can be no question
that this refers to the new covenant. Sixty-nine of the seventy
weeks of Daniel 9, were to extend to the manifestation of the
Messiah. The last one of the seventy weeks was allotted to the
work of the Messiah and his apostles for Daniel's people. Our
Lord carried on the work in person for the first half of that
week. In the midst of the week he caused the sacrifice and
oblation (of the Jewish service) to cease, by the offering up of

himself, thus providing the new covenant sacrifice. The
apostles then took up the work and carried it out the remaining
half of the week. Heb. 2:3.
We now have before us the minister of the new
covenant, our Lord Jesus Christ, and the sacrifice provided,
his own blood, and the author of the new covenant, God, who
made the first covenant of which Moses was minister.
We now inquire, With whom was the new covenant
made? Was it made with the Gentiles? Here is an important
point on which a great deal of misapprehension seems to exist.
The idea generally conveyed on this question is, that God at
first made a covenant with Israel, but they finally proved to be
such a hard-hearted, stiff-necked and reprobate race, that God
determined to cast them off, and select a better class of people
with whom to enter into relation; so he cast off the Jews, and
made a covenant with the Gentiles. And this is probably why
we so often hear the expression, “Show us where a Gentile is
ever commanded to keep the Sabbath,” &c.
What a short-sighted view does this betray! A more
mistaken idea was never entertained. God never made, and
never proposed to make a covenant with the Gentiles. He has
nothing whatever to do with the Gentiles, further than to hold
them amenable to his government, and to open the way of
mercy before them. So long as a man is a Gentile, he is in a
Godless, hopeless state. And such is the state of every
unconverted man. His condition must be changed before God
can take him into favor with himself.
In the prophecy as originally given, and as quoted by
Paul, it is plainly stated with whom the Lord would make the
new covenant: “Behold the days come, saith the Lord, that I
will make a new covenant,” not with the Gentiles, but “with
the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah.” The new
covenant, therefore, is made with the very same people with
whom the old was made.
Paul elsewhere mentions this fact in a number of
places. In Rom. 9:3-5, he says, “For I could wish that myself
were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my kinsmen
according to the flesh.” There is no question but Paul is here
speaking of the literal seed of Abraham. He continues: “Who
are Israelites; to whom pertaineth the adoption, and the glory,
and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service
of God, and the promises; whose are the fathers, and of whom,
as concerning the flesh, Christ came, who is over all, God
blessed forever.”
These are very important and lofty distinctions
conferred upon that people. Let us for a moment consider
them. To them pertained “the adoption.” God adopted
Abraham as his friend, and his posterity as his children,
because when all others had apostatized from him, Abraham
alone was found faithful; and of him God bore testimony that
he had obeyed his voice, kept his charge, his commandments,
his statutes, and his laws. Gen. 26:5. So that people were set
apart to be the depositaries of God's law, and preserve the
worship and the knowledge of the true God in the earth.
And to them pertained “the glory;” that is, the
manifestation of God's glory among men. This was exhibited
at the giving of the law, when Moses was obliged to put a vail
over his face to hide the glory of his countenance; and after
that in the visible appearance of God's glory in connection
more especially with the ark and mercy-seat.
And to them pertained “the covenants,” plural, both of
them, the old and the new. He does not say that to them
pertained “the covenant” referring to the old, while the new
pertained to some other people; but both were theirs. “And the
giving of the law.” Then the law was distinct from the
covenants. “And the service of God, and the promises.” All
the promises came through the same channel. No promise is
made to any one who is not in some sense a member of the
Israel of God.
And finally, our Lord himself, as concerning the flesh,
came from that people. Many seem to think that all they need
to say about the Sabbaths is that it is Jewish; and they look
upon anything to which they think they can apply this term
with apparent if not real abhorrence. But in what condition
should we find ourselves to-day, had not the Jews acted the
part they have acted in our world's history? They received the
lively oracles to commit unto us. By them truth was kept alive
in the world. They were for long ages the only conservators of
the knowledge of the true God, and of revealed religion in the
earth. And our Lord said that salvation is “of the Jews.”
Those things did not become Jewish by being for a
time in the charge of that people. The law did not become
Jewish, because they alone were found worthy for a long
period to be its depositaries; nor was our Lord merely a Jewish
Saviour, because, as pertaining to the flesh, he sprang from
that people.
Let us not despise the Jews, but honor them for the
high distinction they once enjoyed, pity them that through
blindness, they rejected the blessings of the gospel, and pray
for them, that they may yet, some of them, come to the light
and be re-united to the good olive tree.
Away with this cry of Jewish; for the new covenant
itself was made with Israel and Judah. How then, do the
Gentiles come in to share in its blessings? Paul explains in
Eph. 2:13-15. After speaking of the Gentiles as aliens from the
common wealth of Israel and strangers from the covenants of
promise, he says, “But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes
were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ. For he is
our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the
middle wall of partition between us, having abolished in his
flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in
ordinances for to make in himself of twain one new man, so
making peace.” In verse 19 he adds, “Now therefore ye are no
more strangers and foreigners, but fellow-citizens with the
saints, and of the household of God.”
Thus plainly is it stated that through Christ the Gentiles
are brought into such a relation to God that they are no longer
strangers from the covenants of promise. The middle wall of
partition between the Jews and themselves was broken down
by what Christ abolished on the cross.
We have already noticed that it was the old covenant
that was abolished, and nothing but the old covenant. Now if
that covenant was the ten commandments, the text should
read, “Having abolished in his flesh the enmity even the ten
commandments.” But it does not read thus. It does not even
intimate a change of those commandments. It reads, “Having
abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of
commandments contained in ordinances;” and no one who can
lay claim to any respectable degree of common sense, will for
a moment contend that there was anything in the ten
commandments pertaining to ordinances, or that could come
under the head of what is here said to have been abolished.
These ordinances point unmistakably to the services
and ceremonies of the Jewish worship, which constituted the

body and substance of the old covenant. These peculiarities of
the Jewish worship, their circumcision, priesthood, and
offerings, for a time hedged in that people, as by an
impassable wall of separation, from all other nations. This was
the middle wall of partition which kept them separate. And
this being broken down, what is the result?
Here a most ludicrous and ridiculous, blunder is made
by some opponents of the Sabbath, even those who claim to be
ministers of the word. They assert that the wall of partition
was broken down in order that the Jews might come out where
the Gentiles were, and partake of their liberty and blessings,
the privileges of the gospel, and the first-day Sabbath.
This is just exactly the opposite of the truth. The
Gentiles had no blessings to offer. We have already seen from
Paul's testimony that they are without God, without Christ,
and without hope, and have no interest in the covenants. The
gospel was not theirs, but was preached to Abraham, to
Moses, and the Hebrews, all through their history; and all its
blessings were included in the new covenant, which, like the
old, was made with that people. Gal. 3:8; Heb. 4:2.
No! the middle wall of partition was broken down that
the Gentiles might go in where the Jews were, and be
partakers of the blessings and promises which they had in their
possession. Through Christ they enter in. He hath made both
one so far as they will accept of his work and his offering. The
Gentiles who thus come in, are then no longer Gentiles, but
members of the commonwealth of Israel; no longer far off, but
made nigh by the blood of Christ; no longer strangers, but
fellow-citizens with the saints.
That the Gentiles are then reckoned as Israel in a
certain sense, Paul elsewhere very clearly shows. Rom. 9:7:

“Neither because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all
children; but in Isaac shall thy seed be called. That is, they
which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children
of God; but the children of the promise are counted for the
seed.”
In harmony with this, he testifies to the Galatians:
“And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs
according to the promise.” Gal. 3:29. All who are Christ's,
then are the children of Abraham, not literally but spiritually,
and are accounted for the seed. So we hear him saying to the
Romans in language still more pointed: “For he is not a Jew
which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision which is
outward in the flesh; but he is a Jew which is one inwardly,
and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in
the letter, whose praise is not of men but of God.” The inward
work of grace; then, in the heart, under the gospel, constitutes
one a Jew in reality, and an Israelite indeed.
Nothing need be added to such plain statements of the
apostle, yet he uses an illustration in Rom. 11, which
beautifully illustrates this point, and is entitled to a passing
notice. He there represents the Jewish people, while they were
the children of God, by a tame olive tree, and the Gentiles by a
wild olive tree, The branches of the tame olive tree were
broken off; and grafts from the wild olive tree, the Gentiles,
were inserted in their places. Did this change the tree and
make a Gentile tree of it? No; it was the same tree; but now
the Gentiles are brought in to be a part of it, and thus partake
of its root and fatness, the blessings of the new covenant, the
promises of God through Abraham and his seed.
Having now seen with whom the new covenant is
made, namely, with Israel and Judah, and how the Gentiles
come in to share in its blessing, namely, by joining themselves
to the common-wealth of Israel through Christ, thus becoming
Abraham's seed, we now inquire,
When was the new covenant made? In Matt. 26:26-30,
we have an account of the institution of the Lord's supper.
After he had broken the bread, “he took the cup and gave
thanks and gave it to them saying, Drink ye all of it; for this is
my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the
remission of sins.” The blood of Christ is the blood of the new
covenant, the word testament, as already noticed, being the
same as covenant. The disciples present on this occasion were
Jews, and there, as representatives of the whole Christian
church, they entered into the new covenant with the Lord. God
had now set forth Christ as the Saviour of the world, virtually
proposing to all that if they would receive him and his
offering, on the conditions which he, in his divine teaching for
three years and a half, had set before them, they should receive
the remission of their sins, as it was for this purpose that his
blood was shed. And they by partaking of those emblems,
accepted the arrangement.
The next day Christ's blood was actually shed upon the
cross, and there the new covenant was ratified and sealed. Paul
says,. “For a testament is of force after men are dead;
otherwise it is of no strength at all while the testator liveth.”
From that moment the new covenant was in force. And right
in connection with this fact we call attention to what Paul says
concerning the ratification of a covenant: “Brethren, I speak
after the manner of men: Though it be but a man's covenant,
yet if it be confirmed, no man disannulleth or addeth thereto.”
Gal. 3:15.
When a covenant is once confirmed no change can be

made in it, not an item can be added, and not an item can be
taken from it. And if this is true of a covenant made by man,
how much more of one made by the Lord! After the new
covenant was ratified, therefore, upon the cross, no addition
whatever could be made to it, and nothing taken from it.
Now we ask where Sunday-keeping comes in. Where
was that incorporated into the new covenant as one of its
provisions and duties? We have never yet heard the claim put
forth that it originated the other side of the cross. It is always
placed this side. Then it is too late. It could not be added after
the covenant was confirmed by the blood of the cross, on
Paul's showing. Even if its origin could be traced back to the
days of the apostles, it would avail nothing. We deny that it
can be traced to that early date. It is lost in the theological
bosh and bogs of the days of Constantine. But if it could be
traced beyond that, to the days of the earlier fathers, to the
days of the apostles, to the day of Pentecost, even to the day of
the resurrection, still “Too late!” must be branded upon its
brazen brow, and we must regard it as an interloper, an
intruder, a usurper, a fraud, and a deception. It has no place in
the new covenant, and we are under no obligation thereto.
But what of the Sabbath? We answer, The Minister of
the new covenant was careful to affirm its perpetuity and
consequent binding obligation in this dispensation, by
affirming in the most positive manner, the perpetuity and
immutability of that law of which it is an integral part; that
law which is the standard of righteousness, and from which
not a jot or tittle was to pass while the heavens and the earth
should remain. Matt. 5:17-20.
And the prophecy of the new covenant itself, has
something very emphatic to say about the law. Under this

covenant says God, “I will put my law in their inward parts,
and write it in their hearts.” As Paul quotes it, it reads, “I will
put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts.”
To what law does this prophecy refer? To that which was the
law of God in the days of Jeremiah, which no one will dispute
was the ten commandments. If it does not mean this, then it
should have read, I will put a new law into their minds, and
write it in their hearts.
And if, as our opponents contend, the law of ten
commandments was the old covenant to be abolished, the
prophecy of the change should have read, This shall be the
abolish my law, and take it out of their way. Or if the law was
not to be abolished, but only changed, that fact should have
been noted in some such language as this: This shall be the
change my law, and adapt it to the genius of the gospel
dispensation.
But it says nothing of this kind, as the reader has
sufficiently noticed. It says, I will put my law into their inward
parts, and write it in their hearts. I will incorporate it into their
very being; I will take away the carnal mind which is not
subject to the law of God, so that it will be their delight to
keep it in sincerity and truth.
And this is further indicated in the fact that when the
Minister of the new covenant came to take away the first and
establish the second, he said, “I delight to do thy will, 0 my
God; yea, thy law is within my heart.” Ps. 40:8; Heb. 10:5-9.
And as he was, in all holy affections and loyalty to God, so
must all his followers be.
But if we take the ground of our opponents, what is the

difference between the old and new covenants? The old
covenant being the ten commandments which people were
then to obey, the new covenant is the code of requirements in
force under this dispensation. And what are these? The same
exactly as the original ten with the Sabbath left out! The old
covenant was therefore imperfect and faulty because the Lord
had inadvertently put a Sabbath into it; so he undertakes to
make a better one by giving the same law over again, leaving
the Sabbath out. But as soon as this is done, lo! it is found that
the Sabbath cannot be dispensed with; for even man's physical
necessities imperatively demand it. Mentally, morally and
physically, society would plunge into complete anarchy and
ruin, were it not for this beneficent institution.
Now what shall be done? Under these circumstances
men step in to remedy this defect which the Lord has made in
the new covenant; and the apostles, or somebody else, give to
the church a new Sabbath. Then having a Sabbath inserted, is
not the new covenant identically the same as the old? Oh! no;
for another day is taken, which, as a Sabbath, has no
foundation in fact, and no earthly significance whatever, and
the Sabbath is put upon that day, and then it is all right! So the
old covenant was one with a seventh-day Sabbath, and the
new is one with a first-day Sabbath. The trouble, then, was not
with the Sabbath in itself considered, but only with the day on
which it was kept. And the only trouble with the day, we must
conclude, was, that it was the day on which God rested in the
beginning; for that alone gave it all its significance.
This is a fair statement of the case; but does it look like
the work of the Lord? Does it not look like the short-sighted
and blundering work of men, or rather like the work of the
great foe of all righteousness, who is working behind the

scenes, to impel mankind into every species of error and
confusion?
If, then, under the new covenant that law which
requires the observance of the seventh-day Sabbath is written
in the heart of every believer, how does it happen that
multitudes who have lived under this covenant, and who have
certainly enjoyed the blessing and favor of God, have lived
and died in the observance of the first day of the week? This is
with many a very perplexing question. But we think it is
subject to a fair and consistent solution. We reply, that these
persons have had the true principle of obedience implanted in
their hearts. And they have kept the first day of the week,
because they have for a time labored under a misapprehension
of what the law requires. In keeping that day, they supposed
honestly they were rendering obedience to the fourth
commandment of the decalogue; or in not keeping any day in
a true Sabbatical sense, they have supposed honestly that
God's law required nothing of the kind at their hands. Had
they become convinced that the fourth commandment required
of them the observance of the seventh day, whether they were
keeping another day or no day, would they not have
immediately changed their practice accordingly? Assuredly,
every individual of them. Otherwise the principle of obedience
was not in their hearts, and they were not in covenant relation
with God.
Therefore, leaving them with the Lord, who will deal
with all in accordance with the light they have enjoyed, and
the sincerity with which they have followed it, it becomes us
all to look rather for the truth of our time, and to our own
circumstances and obligations. Paul speaks of times of
ignorance which God winked at, and other times of greater

light when he commanded all men everywhere to repent. Our
times are of this latter character. Covering after covering,
which the great apostasy, has thrown over the law of God and
other portions of his truth, has been lifted off, and men are
accountable to God, for the increasing light. We are living in
days of reform preparatory to the coming of Christ; and we
have reached the last reform; for we can find nothing higher
nor holier than that law of liberty which is designed to develop
perfect characters in us, and by which we are to be judged in
the last day. Jas. 2:10-12. Friend, you may heretofore have
honestly kept the first day of the week for the Sabbath, and
have enjoyed the favor of God; but you can do so no longer,
The light has now come clearly forth; and before whomsoever
it is set, he has no longer a cloak for following the traditions of
men.
Blessed be God, for so graciously condescending to
take mankind into covenant relation with himself. Reader, are
you yet a stranger from these covenants of promise? If so, you
are without hope. The present brief scene of turmoil and
trouble, and then the regrets, the remorse, and the pains of the
second death, for privileges unimproved and mercies abused,
are your only portion. In place of this infinite evil, you may
have infinite good. Join yourself to the commonwealth of
Israel. Christ is the way; and he invites you to come. The
promises are of value untold, and will soon be fulfilled. The
opportunity will expire by limitation when Christ concludes
his work as priest. Come while you may. And soon in that
heavenly city, which bears upon the twelve foundations with
which it is garnished the names of the twelve apostles of the
Lamb, and upon its twelve gates of pearl, the names of the
twelve tribes of the children of Israel, and into which all who
have entered into covenant relation with God, both of the
literal and spiritual seed, will have a right to enter, you will
realize what an infinite blessing was couched in that
arrangement through which God condescended to be our God,
and took us to be his people.
—•—•—•—
From a series of articles in the Review and Herald Periodical,
October 26th to November 2nd 1876
The Two Covenants
Mrs. Ellen. G. White
As the Bible presents two laws, one changeless and
eternal, the other provisional and temporary, so there are two
covenants. The covenant of grace was first made with man in
Eden, when, after the fall, there was given a divine promise
that the seed of the woman should bruise the serpent's head.
To all men this covenant offered pardon, and the assisting
grace of God for future obedience through faith in Christ. It
also promised them eternal life on condition of fidelity to
God's law. Thus the patriarchs received the hope of salvation.
This same covenant was renewed to Abraham in the
promise, “In thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be
blessed.” Gen. 22:18. This promise pointed to Christ. So
Abraham understood it (see Gal. 3:8, 16), and he trusted in
Christ for the forgiveness of sins. It was this faith that was
accounted unto him for righteousness. The covenant with
Abraham also maintained the authority of God's law. The Lord
appeared unto Abraham, and said, “I am the Almighty God;
walk before me, and be thou perfect.” Gen. 17:1. The
testimony of God concerning his faithful servant was,
“Abraham obeyed my voice, and kept my charge, my
commandments, my statutes, and my laws.” Gen. 26:5. And
the Lord declared to him, “I will establish my covenant
between me and thee and thy seed after thee in their
generations for an everlasting covenant, to be a God unto thee,
and to thy seed after thee.” Gen. 17:7.
Though this covenant was made with Adam and
renewed to Abraham, it could not be ratified until the death of
Christ. It had existed by the promise of God since the first
intimation of redemption had been given; it had been accepted
by faith; yet when ratified by Christ, it is called a new
covenant. The law of God was the basis of this covenant,
128 The Two Covenants – Mrs. Ellen. G. White
which was simply an arrangement for bringing men again into

harmony with the divine will, placing them where they could
obey God's law.
Another compact — called in Scripture the “old”
covenant — was formed between God and Israel at Sinai, and
was then ratified by the blood of a sacrifice. The Abrahamic
covenant was ratified by the blood of Christ, and it is called
the “second,” or “new” covenant, because the blood by which
it was sealed was shed after the blood of the first covenant.
That the new covenant was valid in the days of Abraham, is
evident from the fact that it was then confirmed both by the
promise and by the oath of God,— the “two immutable things,
in which it was impossible for God to lie.” Heb. 6:18.
But if the Abrahamic covenant contained the promise
of redemption, why was another covenant formed at Sinai? —
In their bondage the people had to a great extent lost the
knowledge of God and of the principles of the Abrahamic
covenant. In delivering them from Egypt, God sought to reveal
to them his power and his mercy, that they might be led to
love and trust him. He brought them down to the Red Sea —
where, pursued by the Egyptians, escape seemed impossible
— that they might realize their utter helplessness, their need of
divine aid; and then he wrought deliverance for them. Thus
they were filled with love and gratitude to God, and with
confidence in his power to help them. He had bound them to
himself as their deliverer from temporal bondage.
But there was a still greater truth to be impressed upon
their minds. Living in the midst of idolatry and corruption,
they had no true conception of the holiness of God, of the
exceeding sinfulness of their own hearts, their utter inability,
in themselves, to render obedience to God's law, and their
need of a Saviour. All this they must be taught.

God brought them to Sinai; he manifested his glory; he
gave them his law, with the promise of great blessings on
condition of obedience: “If ye will obey my voice indeed, and
keep my covenant, then . . . ye shall be unto me a kingdom of
priests, and an holy nation.” Ex. 19:5, 6. The people did not
realize the sinfulness of their own hearts, and that without
Christ it was impossible for them to keep God's law; and they
readily entered into covenant with God. Feeling that they were
able to establish their own righteousness, they declared, “All
that the Lord hath said will we do, and be obedient.” Ex. 24:7.
They had witnessed the proclamation of the law in awful
majesty, and had trembled with terror before the mount; and
yet only a few weeks passed before they broke their covenant
with God, and bowed down to worship a graven image. They
could not hope for the favor of God through a covenant which
they had broken; and now, seeing their sinfulness and their
need of pardon, they were brought to feel their need of the
Saviour revealed in the Abrahamic covenant, and shadowed
forth in the sacrificial offerings. Now by faith and love they
were bound to God as their deliverer from the bondage of sin.
Now they were prepared to appreciate the blessings of the new
covenant.
The terms of the “old covenant” were, Obey and live:
“If a man do, he shall even live in them” (Eze. 20:11; Lev.
18:5); BUT “cursed be he that confirmeth not all the words of
this law to do them.” Deut. 27:26. The “new covenant” was
established upon “better promises,”— the promise of
forgiveness of sins, and of the grace of God to renew the heart,
and bring it into harmony with the principles of God's law.
“This shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of
130 The Two Covenants – Mrs. Ellen. G. White
Israel: After those days, saith the Lord, I will put my law in
their inward parts, and write it in their hearts. . . . I will forgive
their iniquity, and I will remember their sin (past sins) no
more.” Jer. 31:33, 34.
The same law that was engraved upon the tables of
stone, is written by the Holy Spirit upon the tables of the heart.
Instead of going about to establish our own righteousness, we
accept the righteousness of Christ. His blood atones for our
sins: His obedience is accepted for us. Then the heart renewed
by the Holy Spirit will bring forth “the fruits of the Spirit.”
Through the grace of Christ we shall live in obedience to the
law of God written upon our hearts. Having the Spirit of
Christ, we shall walk even as he walked. Through the prophet
he declared of himself, “I delight to do thy will, 0 my God:
yea, thy law is within my heart.” Ps. 40:8. And when among
men he said, “The Father hath not left me alone; for I do
always those things that please him.” John 8:29.
The apostle Paul clearly presents the relation between
faith and the law under the new covenant. He says, “Being
justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord
Jesus Christ.” “Do we then make void the law through faith?
God forbid; yea, we ESTABLISH the law.” “For what the law
could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh,” —it could
not justify man, because in his sinful nature he could not keep
the law,— “God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful
flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh; that the
righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not
after the flesh, but after the Spirit.” Rom.5:1; 3:31; 8:3, 4.
God's work is the same in all time, although there are
different degrees of development, and different manifestations
of his power, to meet the wants of men in the different ages.
Beginning with the first gospel promise, and coming down

through the patriarchal and Jewish ages, and even to the
present time, there has been a gradual unfolding of the
purposes of God in the plan of redemption. The Saviour
typified in the rites and ceremonies of the Jewish law is the
very same that is revealed in the gospel. The clouds that
enveloped his divine form have rolled back; the mists and
shades have disappeared; and Jesus, the world's Redeemer,
stands revealed. He who proclaimed the law from Sinai, and
delivered to Moses the precepts of the ritual law, is the same
that spoke the sermon on the mount. The great principles of
love to God, which he set forth as the foundation of the law
and the prophets, are only a reiteration of what he had spoken
through Moses to the Hebrew people: “Hear, 0 Israel: The
Lord our God is one Lord: and thou shalt love the Lord thy
God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy
might.” “Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.” Deut. 6:4,
5; Lev. 19:18. The teacher is the same in both dispensations.
God's claims are the same. The principles of his government
are the same. For all proceed from him “with whom is no
variableness, neither shadow of turning.” James 1:17.
—•—•—•—
From an article in the Review and Herald Periodical, October 17th
1907
The Two Covenants.
Eld. Wolcott. H. Littlejohn.
Text: “Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, that I will
them out of the land of Egypt, which my covenant they brake,
inward parts, and write it in their hearts, and will be their God,
Jer. 3:31-34.
THE COVENANTS DEFINED.
IN the discussion of this question, it would be
superfluous to prove the correctness of propositions generally
admitted to be true. We submit, therefore, that orthodox
scholars, almost universally, agree that the old and new
covenants, so styled, were in force respectively in the Jewish
and Christian dispensations. The term “covenant” has a variety
of meanings. Sometimes it signifies a promise merely; as in
the case of God with Noah, in which he covenanted that the
earth should not again be destroyed with a flood of waters
(Gen. 9:12-16); generally, however, it applies to a solemn
agreement between two or more parties, to do certain things
for a valuable consideration offered. Webster's definition is as
follows: “A mutual agreement of two or more persons or
parties, in writing and under seal, to do or to refrain from
some act or thing; a contract; stipulation. 2. A writing
containing the terms of agreement between parties.” (Thess.)

“The promises of God as revealed in the Scriptures,
conditioned on certain terms on the part of man, as obedience,
repentance, faith,” etc. Here you will observe that in the
theological sense a covenant is said to be the promises of God,
conditioned on certain acts on the part of man, such as
obedience and faith; also that in the general sense it applies to
a writing containing the terms of agreement between parties.
THE TEN COMMANDMENTS WERE NOT THE FIRST
COVENANT.
Now we are ready to inquire after the points of
disagreement between ourselves and those who hold to the
doctrine that the ten commandments were in the fullest sense
of the word, the covenant which God made with Israel when
he brought them out of Egypt; in other words, that they were
the first covenant, and that, as such, they have been abolished,
and cannot be, as a code, any longer binding upon Christians.
We freely admit that the ten commandments are
sometimes called a covenant; but we emphatically deny that
they are ever called the first covenant, or that they are ever
spoken of in a manner which renders it necessary that we
should understand that they are a covenant at all in the strictest
sense of that word. The following are the texts generally
brought forward to prove that the ten commandments were the
first covenant: “And he was there with the Lord forty days and
forty nights: he did neither eat bread, nor drink water. And he
wrote upon the tables the words of the covenant, the ten
commandments.” Ex. 34:28. “And he declared unto you his
covenant, which he commanded you to perform, even ten
Deut. 4:13. “When I was gone up into the mount to receive the
tables of stone, even the tables of the covenant which the Lord
134 The Two Covenants. – Eld. Wolcott. H. Littlejohn.
made with you, then I abode in the mount forty days and forty
nights, I neither did eat bread nor drink water; and the Lord
delivered unto me two tables of stone written with the finger
of God; and on them was written according to all the words
which the Lord spake with you in the mount out of the midst
of the fire in the day of the assembly. And it came to pass at
the end of forty days and forty nights, that the Lord gave me
the two tables of stone, even the tables of the covenant.” Deut.
9:9-11. “And I have set there a place for the ark, wherein is the
covenant of the Lord, which he made with our fathers, when
he brought them out of the land of Egypt.” 1 Kings 8:21. “And
in it have I put the ark, wherein is the covenant of the Lord,
that he made with the children of Israel.” 2 Chron. 6:11.
Now please remember that there are two leading
definitions of the word covenant. The one is, “a mutual
agreement” by parties to do or to refrain from doing a certain
thing; the other is, a writing containing the terms of agreement
between parties.
We inquire, Can it be that the ten commandments are
spoken of in the above texts as a covenant between God and
Israel in the primary signification of that term; i. e., a mutual
agreement ? The answer is obviously in the negative. The ten
commandments are the utterance of but one person, i. e., God.
Thou shalt and thou shalt not, are the words indicative of
imperative command which characterizes them. There is in
them but the voice of one party. They contain not even a
semblance of mutual agreement; hence, we repeat, they cannot
be a covenant in the primary sense.
Now we inquire whether they could be called a
covenant in the secondary sense; i. e., whether they might
have been styled a “covenant,” or “the covenant,” in the sense
that they were the conditions of the first covenant ? Here the
answer is clearly in the affirmative, if we can prove that they
were incorporated into the first covenant as furnishing the
conditions upon which the fulfillment of God's promises in the
first covenant rested.
Before entering upon a positive argument to
demonstrate that such was the case, we wish to say that we do
not claim originality for the theory; nor is it of recent origin.
The view of the subject which we are here defending—i. e.,
that the first covenant was conditioned on the ten
commandments—has been quite generally approved even by
first-day authors.
The following from Smith's Dictionary of the Bible is
in point. After stating that a covenant is sometimes merely a
promise on the part of God, Mr. Smith uses the following
language: “Generally, however, the form of a covenant is
maintained by the benefits which God engages to bestow
being made by him dependent upon the fulfillment of certain
conditions which he imposes on man. Thus the covenant of
Sinai was conditioned by the observance of the ten
commandments (Ex. 34:27,28. Lev. 26:15 ), which are
therefore called `Jehovah's covenant' ( Deut. 4:13), a name
which was extended to all the books of Moses, if not to the
whole body of Jewish canonical literature.” —Art. Cov., p.
192.
Thus much for the opinions of men. Now for the facts
of Bible history.
On the third month after their departure from Egypt,
the children of Israel reached Sinai. Moses went up into the
latter mountain, and God sent him back to the people with a
message. In that message he proposed a covenant. That
covenant was the one under discussion. Now be it

remembered that the question passing in review is, whether
that covenant was a mutual agreement between God and the
people, in which the latter pledged themselves to observe
faithfully all which he should command, while he, on the other
hand, promised them certain honors and immunities in case
they should do so; or whether the ten commandments,
independent of any agreement, were the real covenant.
We unhesitatingly take the position that the agreement
between God and the people concerning the ten
commandments was really the covenant, and that the
commandments themselves could never be called the first
covenant in the primary sense of the word, though they might
be called a covenant in the secondary sense of the word, since
they furnished the conditions upon the fulfillment of which the
promises of that covenant were suspended.
THE HISTORY OF THE MAKING OF THE FIRST
COVENANT.
Here are the facts and the scriptures. In the third month
after the children of Israel came out of Egypt, they reached the
base of Mount Sinai, and Moses went up into the mountain to
commune with God. The order of events from that time
forward was as follows: —
1. God proposed a covenant with Israel: “Thus shalt
thou say to the house of Jacob, and tell the children of Israel:
Ye have seen what I did unto the Egyptians, and how I bare
you on eagle's wings, and brought you unto myself. Now
therefore, if ye will obey my voice indeed, and keep my
covenant, then ye shall be a peculiar treasure unto me above
all people; for all the earth is mine; and ye shall be unto me a
kingdom of priests, and a holy nation. These are the words
which thou shalt speak unto the children of Israel.” Ex. 19:3-6.
Here it will be observed that God proposed to confer upon the

people of Israel certain distinguishing honors. On certain
conditions, they were to become to him a kingdom of priests
and a holy nation. Those conditions were that they would obey
his voice and keep his covenant. The whole matter, therefore,
lay in their own power. It was for them to decide whether they
would hear God's voice and keep his covenant or not. God was
careful to leave the decision of the whole question with them
individually, and so he does not enter into covenant with
Moses as their representative, but instructs him to convey his
proposition to the people in order that they may consider the
same.
2. Moses bears the proposition of God to the people:
“And Moses came and called for the elders of the people, and
laid before their faces all these words which the Lord
commanded him.” Ex. 19:7. Now observe how careful Moses
was to lay before the elders of the people—who, in turn,
would bear them to the people themselves— “all the words
which the Lord commanded him.” Such an action would not
have been necessary, unless it were true that the people had
the power of choosing or refusing God's proposed benefits
upon his terms.
Now let us see what disposition they made of the
matter.
3. The people engaged to do all that God had spoken:
“And all the people answered together, and said, All that the
Lord hath spoken we will do. And Moses returned the words
of the people unto the Lord.” Ex. 19:8. Here the phraseology
is peculiar. It is stated that “all the people answered together
and said, All that the Lord hath spoken we will do;” i. e , there
was the most perfect unanimity in the expression of the
determination on their part to observe all that God would

command, in order that they might receive the blessing which
he had promised in case they should obey him; but be it
remembered that as yet, they were ignorant of what he might
require of them. In order, therefore, that they might be
apprised most fully of the nature of the obligation which they
were taking upon themselves, God delays to close out the
contract until the people should hear for themselves his own
voice uttering the ten commandments, which are a synopsis of
all moral obligation; covering, as they do, all of our duty to
God, and all of our duty to our fellow-men.
4. The voice of God utters the ten commandments. Ex.
20:1-17. From verse 9 to the close of chap. 19, there is found,
first, the instructions God gives to Moses concerning the
manner in which the people should prepare themselves to
listen to Jehovah, who promised to speak to them out of a
thick cloud in an audible voice; and a full description of the
most awe-inspiring demonstrations of majesty and power
which attended the giving of the law, or the commandments.
That these commandments contained all the words that God
then spoke to the people, Moses distinctly declares in Deut.
5:22.
But what reply did the people make to God ? Nothing
immediately. They were so greatly terrified on account of
God's glorious presence, the sound of the trumpet long and
loud, the smoking of the mountain, the trembling of the earth,
the flashing of the lightning, and the crashing of the thunder
and the majestic voice of God heard above all these, that they
retired in fear, beseeching Moses that God should not speak to
them any more, lest they die. Complying with their request,
Moses went up into the mountain alone, and received, at the
hands of God, certain statutes and judgments which are set

forth in the twenty-first, twenty-second, and twenty-third
chapters of Exodus. Having received them, he returned and
laid them before the people. These would in no wise enlarge
their pledge of obedience to God's law, provided they should
give it; since the greater includes the less; in other words,
since a pledge to keep the ten commandments is in itself a
pledge to observe every thing which God might require. (Ex.
20:3.) Nevertheless, Moses lays these before them, and now
that they have had ample opportunity to reflect upon the step
which they are about to take, they are brought to the point of
decision.
What was the decision which they made ? Let the
record declare.
5. Moses comes and tells the people all that the Lord
had communicated to him, and the people promise to do all
that the Lord had said: “And Moses came and told the people
all the words of the Lord and all the judgments; and all the
people answered with one voice, and said, All the words
which the Lord hath said will we do.” Ex. 24:3. Here, then, we
have the unqualified promise on the part of the people, after
mature deliberation, and after having heard the voice of God
speaking the ten commandments, to do all that the Lord had
said. But this was not enough. God had not yet accepted their
action. It is true that all the people had promised with one
voice to do all that God had said; but notwithstanding this
perfect unanimity, it was necessary, in a matter of such
moment, that both the parties should ratify the contract by the
most solemn public rites. Hence, agreeable to the customs of
those times, victims were slain and a most imposing
ceremonial of mutual ratification was entered upon; Moses
acting as the representative of God, and the people acting for

themselves. Not only so, but for the purposes of future
reference it was necessary that the whole transaction should be
put in writing. This was accomplished as follows: —
6. Moses wrote all the words of the Lord, built an altar
and offered burnt-offerings and sacrificed peace-offerings.
“And Moses wrote all the words of the Lord, and rose up early
in the morning, and builded an altar under the hill, and twelve
pillars, according to the twelve tribes of Israel. And he sent
young men of the children of Israel, which offered burnt-
offerings, and sacrificed peace-offerings of oxen unto the
Lord. And Moses took half of the blood, and put it in basins;
and half of the blood he sprinkled on the altar.” Ex. 24:4-6.
Here it will be observed that both the parties to the compact
are represented in the altar and the twelve pillars. The first
representing God, and the latter the twelve tribes of the
children of Israel. It will also be observed that one-half of the
blood is reserved in basins for future use. The specific object
of such reservation will appear hereafter.
7. Moses read out of the book that which he had
written; i. e., the words of the Lord spoken to the congregation
and to him; and the people for the third time solemnly agree to
do all that the Lord had said, and to be obedient. “And he took
the book of the covenant, and read in the audience of the
people; and they said, All that the Lord hath said will we do,
and be obedient.” Ex. 24:7. Now let it be remembered that this
is the third time that the people have solemnly pledged that
they would obey all that the Lord had said, and we are
prepared for the final step in the consummation of the
covenant.
8. Moses takes the remainder of the blood, which had
been preserved in the basins, and sprinkles the people, or, as

Paul declares in Heb.9:19, he “sprinkled both the book, and all
the people.” “And Moses took the blood, and sprinkled it on
the people,” etc. Ex.24:8. Finally, Moses defines the
signification of the act of sprinkling the book and the people in
these words: “Behold the blood of the covenant which the
Lord hath made with you concerning all these words.”
Ex.24:8.
Now observe how explicit Moses is in his statements.
“This,” said he, “is the blood of the covenant which the Lord
hath made with you concerning all these words.” The words
spoken of were those which had been written in the book; i. e.,
what God had commanded. The covenant was not those words
themselves, but it was made concerning them,. The distinction
here is so clear between the covenant proper and the law that it
must be obvious to all. To recapitulate: —
1. God proposes a covenant conditioned upon the
obedience of the people.
2. The people agree to the terms of the covenant; i. e.,
obedience to God.
3. The voice of God utters the ten commandments.
4. Moses, at the request of the people, conducts the
negotiation alone with God.
5. Moses returns and communicates to the people all
that the Lord had spoken to him.
6. The people promise to do all that the Lord had said.
7. Moses writes all the words of the Lord, builds an
altar, offers burnt-offerings, and sacrifices peace-offerings.
8. Moses reads to the people all that he had written in
the book.
9. The people for the third time promise to do all that
the Lord had said.

10. Moses sprinkles the book and all the people with
the blood which had been reserved in the basins, thus
completing the dedication of the covenant.
11. Moses then defines the blood employed as that of
the covenant which God had made with the people concerning
all the words which were written in the book. Now let it be
observed that in the foregoing we have every prerequisite
necessary to the making of a covenant.
a. The parties; i. e., God and the people.
b. The agreement; i. e., the promise of God on the one
side to make them a holy nation and a kingdom of priests
provided they would obey him; and the pledge of the people
on the other side to do all which he might require.
c. The condition of the covenant; i. e., the ten
commandments, the observance of which would secure
obedience to all which God might require under any
circumstances.
d. The dedication of the covenant; i.e., the sprinkling of
the book and the people with the blood of the victim; thus
binding by a most solemn ceremony all the parties to the
covenant made. Be it remembered also that we have the
positive declaration of Moses that the covenant was made
concerning that which was written in the book; also that it was
a covenant made between God and the people. With these
facts before us, he would be an incredulous man indeed who
would persist in denying that the first covenant was a solemn
agreement between God and the Hebrew people in the primary
sense of the word, i.e., an agreement in which the parties
pledged themselves to do or refrain from doing certain things.
Again, it would seem to be the height of presumption to
insist that where all the conditions are found which are
necessary to prove that the covenant made was concerning
that which was written in the book of the law, nevertheless the
ten commandments written therein were actually the covenant
itself. Moses would have been a bungler indeed had he
employed language in so loose a manner; since a covenant, in
the primary sense, is one thing, and that concerning which it is
made is another and entirely different thing.
although I was an husband unto them, saith the Lord; but shall
be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel: After
those days, saith the Lord, I will put my law in their inward
parts, and write it in their hearts, and will be their God, and
they shall be my people. And they shall teach no more every
man his neighbor, and every man his brother, saying, Know
the Lord; for they shall all know me, from the least of them
unto the greatest of them, saith the Lord; for I will forgive
their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.”
Jeremiah 31:31-34.
INCIDENTAL PROOFS THAT THERE WERE PROMISES
AS WELL AS CONDITIONS IN THE FIRST COVENANT.
Having demonstrated now from the history of it’s
enactment that the first covenant had in it promises which
were based upon the condition of obedience to the ten
commandments—or all which God might require—it will be
proper to present a few incidental proofs gathered from
different parts of the Bible in confirmation of the theory that it
did contain promises as well as conditions.
In Heb.8:6, where the apostle is contrasting the

ministry of Christ with that of the Levitical priesthood, he says
that that of Christ was more excellent than that of the Levitical
priesthood,” by how much also he is the mediator of a better
covenant, which was established upon better promises.” The
import of the foregoing is unmistakable. The covenants
contrasted are the old and the new one. The promises of the
latter are said to be better than those of the former; but that
would not be true if the former was made up entirely of the ten
commandments and had no promises whatever. Thus it is
proved that the first covenant had in it both promises and
conditions; in other words, that it was a covenant in the
primary sense of the word. In Jer. 11:3, 4, we read as follows:
“And say thou unto them, Thus saith the Lord God of Israel;
“Cursed be the man that obeyeth not the words of this
covenant, which I commanded your fathers in the day that I
brought them forth out of the land of Egypt, from the iron
furnace, saying, Obey my voice, and do them, according to all
which I command you; so shall ye be my people, and I will be
your God.” The identification of the covenant mentioned in
the above with what we term the first covenant, is complete. It
was made with the Hebrew people when the Lord brought
them out of Egypt. This being the case, we are again forced to
the conclusion that the first covenant contained promises
which were conditioned upon obedience to all which the Lord
might require.
INCIDENTAL PROOFS THAT THE PEOPLE PROMISED
TO PERFORM ALL, THAT THE LORD REQUIRED.
Having learned by these incidental references that the
Bible teaches that God, at least, made certain promises which
entered into the first covenant, we now inquire as to whether
there is any incidental evidence that the people also promised
to perform that which the Lord required. In Jer.31:31-38,

where the new covenant is promised, it is intimated that the
people had broken the first covenant, and that such action on
their part rendered the formation of a new one necessary. But
we submit that this reasoning would not be valid if God's
original covenant was not based upon a promise, either
implied or expressed, on the part of the people, to do or refrain
from doing something either commanded or forbidden. That
such a conclusion would be sound is proved by the wording of
Heb. 8:8, 9, where the apostle states, in substance, that God
found fault with the Hebrew people, and regarded them not,
because they refused to continue in his covenant (the first
covenant). Placing this statement alongside of the promise of
the people, which we have given above in the history of the
formation of the covenant, “to do all that the Lord had
spoken,” the conclusion is inevitable that the reference is to
the promise which they made in that particular. In time, the
word “continue” implies that they did, for a time, comply with
the condition laid down; but such compliance was in and of
itself a promise of continued obedience. Were it not so, God
would not have made the failure to continue to conform to the
terms of the covenant the basis of the necessity for a new
covenant.
THE TEN COMMANDMENTS NOT THE FIRST
COVENANT.
Now that we have shown from general principles and
from Bible history that the first covenant was a covenant in the
primary sense of the word,—i.e, a mutual agreement to do
certain things in consideration of certain promises made, —it
is time to prove from arguments drawn from a variety of
Scripture facts that the ten commandments could not have
constituted the whole of the first covenant. In order to
accomplish that end, the following suggestions are offered

1. As already stated, the ten commandments contain no
mutual promises whatever. This being true, they come short,
in that particular, of constituting the first covenant; since we
have proved that it did contain promises.
2. The covenant was made concerning them; Ex. 24:8;
but that concerning which a thing is made cannot be the thing
itself.
3. The covenant possessed the tables of the law; Heb.
9:1-4; but the Thing possessed cannot be the same as that to
which it belongs.
4. The people destroyed the first covenant by
disobedience, Heb. 8:8, 9. Though disobedience to the law
might cause the destruction of the offender, yet it could not
result in the destruction of the law itself.
5. The first covenant was faulty, Heb. 8:6, 7; but the
law of God is perfect. Ps. 19:7-11; 111:7, 8.
6. The first covenant waxed old and vanished away,
Heb. 8:13; but the law was incorporated into the new
covenant. Jer. 31:31-33.
7. Christ, the mediator of the new covenant, enforces
the law; Matt. 5:17-19; Rom. 3:31, 19, 20; 1. John 3:4-9; but it
cannot be true, as stated in Matt. 5:17 and Rom. 3:31, that
Christ did not come to destroy the law, and that the gospel
establishes it, if the law constituted the old covenant; for
Christ certainly did come to destroy the old covenant and did
not establish the same, as all will admit.
8. Paul discriminates between the covenants and the
law in Rom. 9:4, where he says that the covenants and the
giving of the law pertain to the Israelites; since he would not
have mentioned both if they were identical.
9. The Gentiles by nature have the law, but were not in

the covenant. Rom. 2:14, 15.
THE CONSEQUENCES OF THE TWO THEORIES.
Now that we have demonstrated that the ten
commandments were not the first covenant, we have, of
course, refuted all the arguments drawn from the theory that
they were such a covenant. Those arguments were expressed
in the following syllogism: 1. the ten commandments were the
first covenant: 2. the first covenant was abolished; 3. therefore
we are under no obligation to keep the ten commandments as a
code. The real object, of course, of this line of argument, as a
whole, is to release observers of the first day of the week from
the necessity of keeping the seventh-day Sabbath. This is
made clear by the fact that practically they admit the
obligation of the other nine commandments in this
dispensation. We repeat, We need not stop here to show the
fallacy of an inference which rests upon the hypothesis that all
the ten commandments were abolished and then nine of them
re-enacted for the purpose of getting rid of the fourth; since
such a process would be unnatural, and since we have shown
that the whole theory that the ten commandments constituted
the first covenant was a mistake from beginning to end.
THE TEN COMMANDMENTS INCORPORATED INTO THE
NEW COVENANT AS A PART OF ITS CONDITIONS.
We pass, therefore, to show that if our view of the
question is correct, i. e., that the ten commandments were
simply the condition of the first covenant, and not the
covenant itself, it is not impossible that they should be
incorporated into the new covenant as a part of its conditions
also. To illustrate: As we have seen that a covenant is a
contract, bargain, mutual agreement, etc., suppose that A and
B make a covenant, or bargain, in reference to the clearing of
ten acres of land, as follows: A agrees to clear the land for

$100, and B agrees to give him the $100, provided he will do
so. This is the first bargain that they make in reference to the
matter. Time passes; A enters upon the work, gets
discouraged, making up his mind that the labor is worth more
than the contract price calls for, and so refuses to carry out the
bargain. B, still anxious to have the land cleared, finally offers
him $150 if he will do that work for him. A at last consents,
and a second covenant, or bargain, is entered into, wherein the
clearing of the identical ten acres of land still remains a
condition in the second covenant, as it had been in the first,
which A had broken by non-compliance with its terms.
Here the reader will see that it is possible that there
should be two covenants wherein one of the principal
conditions is the same in both. Having learned this fact, all
that is necessary now is to furnish the evidence from the
Scriptures that the law of God, or ten commandments, which
constituted the conditions of the first covenant, has actually
been brought over into the new covenant and embodied in its
conditions; and all of our difficulties will be removed. To
accomplish this end, we call attention first to Jer. 31:31-33:
“Behold, the days come saith the Lord, that I will make a new
covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of
Judah; not according to the covenant that I made with their
fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them
out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake,
inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their
God,...and they shall be my people.” A glance at the wording
will show that the law of God is to have a place in the new
covenant; since it is stated, in so many words, that God “will
put it in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts.”
The only question remaining relates to the identity of
the law spoken of with the ten commandments. It will be
agreed to by all that the law in question is not the ceremonial,
or Mosaic law. It will also be agreed to, that the ten
commandments were, at the time that Jeremiah wrote, in the
highest sense the law of God, and consequently that, if he
referred to a law then in existence, his reference was to the
decalogue. In order, therefore, to evade the conclusion that the
ten commandments were the law of God of which he makes
mention, it will be necessary to show that he spoke
prophetically of a new law which was to become the law of
God under the new dispensation. Such a showing cannot be
made, as we propose now to prove. Now let the reader bear in
mind that Jeremiah is talking about that which is to be the law
of God in the new dispensation. Remembering that, we
inquire, What law has God in this dispensation which may be
styled peculiarly his own, unless it be the code of ten
commandments ? That they still wear that distinguished title,
we propose to demonstrate as follows:—
THE TEN COMMANDMENTS THE LAW OF GOD IN THE
NEW TESTAMENT.
(a.) They are so styled in the gospels. In Matt. 5:17, 19,
Christ, after having declared that he had not come to destroy
the law or the prophets, employs the following words: “Till
heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise
pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.” Reasoning from this
statement as a premise, he proceeds: “Whosoever therefore
shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach
men so, he shall be called least in the kingdom of Heaven; but
whosoever shall do and teach them the same shall be called

great in the kingdom of Heaven.” The kingdom of Heaven
here alluded to is evidently that kingdom which both he and
John announced to be at hand i. e., the present gospel
dispensation. According to that view, the law of God spoken
of in the connection as “these least commandments” is to be
honored by Christians clear down to the time that the earth
shall pass away. 2 Pet.3:10-13. To make ourselves sure that
we are right in this, we have only to prove that the
commandments mentioned as these “least commandments”
are the decalogue. The proof of that fact can be found in the
immediate connection where, in verses 21 and 27, he speaks
of murder and adultery, both of which are forbidden by the ten
commandments.
(b.) In James 2:8-12 it is said that if we fulfill the royal
law according to the scripture, “Thou shalt love thy neighbor
as thyself,” we do well.” If ye fulfill the royal law according to
the scripture, “Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself, ye do
well; but if ye have respect to persons, ye commit sin, and are
convinced of the law as transgressors; for whosoever shall
keep the whole law and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of
all. For he that said, Do not commit adultery, said also, Do not
kill. Now if thou commit no adultery, yet if thou kill, thou art
become a transgressor of the law.” Let it be observed here that
it is stated that they who are respecters of persons “commit
sin, and are convinced of the law as transgressors.” Now a
law, to convince of sin, must be in force. What law is it, then,
we inquire, which James thus recognizes ? Unquestionably it
is the royal law, for so he styled it; but what law would merit
that title more fully than the law of God, or the ten
commandments ? To make it certain that it is the decalogue to
which he refers, and that the royal law is the law of God, it is
only necessary to call attention to the fact that the pronoun
“he,” employed in the expression, “He that said, Do not
commit adultery, said also, Do not kill,” must refer to God as
the author of the royal law, and the royal law itself must be the
ten commandments, since the words, “Thou shalt not kill,”
and “Thou shalt not commit adultery,” are the sixth and
seventh commandments of the decalogue.
(c.) The apostle Paul in Rom. 7:7 recognizes the
existence of the law of God, and identifies it by a reference to
the commandment against coveting. In verse 7 we read, “What
shall we say then ? Is the law sin ? God forbid. Nay, I had not
known sin, but by the law; for I had not known lust except the
law had said, Thou shalt not covet.” Following his line of
argument till we come to verse 14, we find him speaking of
this same law which condemns covetousness as being
“spiritual,” in the following words: “For we know that the law
is spiritual; but I am carnal, sold under sin.” Passing forward
still along the same line of thought, he alludes to the same law
he has been speaking of in the connection as the law of God.
Here are his words: “For I delight in the law of God after the
inward man.” Bringing the foregoing facts together, we
perceive that in the mind of the great apostle that law which
slew him was the' law which contained the commandment
against covetousness; in other words, the ten commandments;
since the last of them forbids the coveting of “anything that is
thy neighbor's.” See also the following, Rom. 2:12-16; 3:19,
20; 8:5-8; 1 Cor. 15:56; James 1:25; Eph. 6:1-3; Rev. 12:17;
14:12; 22:14; Matt. 5:17-19; 15:1-9; 19:16-19; Rom. 4:15.
The foregoing citations are sufficient to prove beyond
dispute that God has a law in this dispensation, and that it is
the one written by his own finger, spoken by his own mouth,
and that it was the one which constituted the conditions of the
first covenant. It follows, therefore, that this must be the same
law to which Jeremiah alludes in connection with the new
covenant in Jer. 31:31-33, since it will hardly be urged that
God has two laws in this dispensation, one of which is, and the
other is not, embodied in the new covenant.
Thus we have demonstrated by another line of
argument the folly of the theory that the ten commandments
are not binding at the present time, because they were the first
covenant and as such were abolished; since we have made it
clear, from the very terms of the new covenant itself, that the
law of God, or the decalogue, occupies a most prominent
position in the new covenant.
Before leaving this branch of the subject, it may be
well to call attention to the fact that Jeremiah says that the
Lord will place his laws in the minds of his people and write
them in their hearts, and that, in perfect harmony with this
statement, we find Paul declaring, in Rom. 7:22, that he
delights in the law of God after the inward man, and in verse
25 of the same chapter, that with the mind he served the law of
God. By these expressions the great apostles— after having
proved the perpetuity of the law of ten commandments—
renders it certain that he not only gave an intellectual assent to
the fact that the law was “holy, just, and good;” but, also, that
it had a large place in his heart; as indeed it was necessary that
it should have in order that he might have a share in the
benefits of the new covenant.
The beloved apostle John, in harmony with the
teachings of his great compeer, as quoted above, makes the
following declaration in 1 John 5:2, 3: “By this we know that
we love the children of God, when we love God and keep his
commandments. For this is the love of God, that we keep his
commandments; and his commandments are not grievous.”
The teaching of these words is almost identical with that of
Paul in Romans 7; since they contain a high encomium upon
the commandments of God, and represent their observance as
the legitimate fruit of the love of God; i. e., they make it
evident that the heart which is filled with the love of God will
also love his commandments.
although I was an husband unto them, saith the Lord; but shall
be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel: After
those days, saith the Lord, I will put my law in their inward
parts, and write it in their hearts, and will be their God, and
they shall be my people. And they shall teach no more every
man his neighbor, and every man his brother, saying, Know
the Lord; for they shall all know me, from the least of them
unto the greatest of them, saith the Lord; for I will forgive
their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.”
Jeremiah 31:31-34.
THE INCONSISTENCIES OF THE THEORY THAT THE
TEN COMMANDMENTS CONSTITUTE THE OLD
COVENANT.
SHOULD we adopt the view of our opponents that the
ten commandments were the first covenant, we should find
ourselves in a very serious dilemma; for, be it remembered, if
their theory proves anything, it proves altogether too much;
since it not only abolishes the fourth commandment but the
other nine also. It would be strange indeed if in this

dispensation we should be left entirely without a law which
would condemn sin and punish the transgressor; nevertheles
such is the case if the ten commandments were the first
covenant in full, and were abolished as such. For example:
Who is anxious that the sinner should escape punishment
when he refuses to make Jehovah his only God, to refrain
from idolatry, to avoid blasphemy, to honor his father and his
mother, to withhold his hand from the shedding of blood, to
refrain from committing adultery, to avoid theft, to refuse to
commit perjury, or to indulge in covetousness ?
Should it be replied that all these points are covered by
New Testament prohibitions, we answer, (1.) That if the ten
commandments were abolished at the cross, it will be
necessary for the objector to descend from that point twenty or
thirty years down the line of this dispensation before he can
find one of them even mentioned at all; hence that during that
period there was no law punishing the transgressor of the
same: (2.) That the first two are not mentioned at all: (3.) That
the allusions to the others are comparatively indistinct, except
when couched in the original words of the commandments:
(4.) That it must be admitted on all hands that a compact code
like the ten commandments, furnishing, as they did, a
summary of all moral obligation, presents, in every respect,
the most desirable form in which the law of God could be
presented, being easy of reference, and being understood
without difficulty: (5.) That the sinner will gain nothing by the
change, since it will hardly be insisted that the penalty which
he will have to suffer for disobeying God in this dispensation
will be any lighter than it was in the old: (6.) That the believer
will in no wise be advantaged by the change (unless, indeed, it
be in a release from the duty to obey the fourth

commandment), since the other commandments confessedly
rest upon moral principles which are as obligatory now as they
ever were: (7.) That in the abolition of the fourth
commandment he is a loser; because now he is left without
any Sabbath command at all; a very serious misfortune; since
no Sabbath can be enforced successfully without a command
of God which clearly sets forth the duty enjoined and the
penalty affixed.
THE ADVANTAGES PRESENTED BY THE NEW
COVENANT.
Now that we have seen that the view which we are
combating lacks consistency in design, and offers no
perceptible advantage, while presenting many serious
disadvantages, we turn to look at the opposing one from these
standpoints. According to it, the law of God continues the
same in both covenants, the difference between the two
covenants consisting in the relation sustained to them by
believers. We understand that—in harmony with the statement
of Paul in Heb. 8:6—Christ is the mediator of this covenant,
and that it is characterized by the fact that it is “established
upon better promises” than the first one was. Those promises
do not offer release from all obligations to keep the law of
God; because we are distinctly told the opposite in Rom.6:1, 2,
which reads thus: “What shall we say then ? Shall we continue
in sin, that grace may abound ? God forbid. How shall we, that
are dead to sin, live any longer therein?” In 1 John 3:4, sin is
declared to be the “transgression of the law.” Putting the two
passages together, obedience to the law is emphatically
inculcated thereby. We must look, therefore, in some other
direction in order to discover the change of relationship.
In Rom. 6:14 we read: “For sin shall not have dominion
over you; for ye are not under the law, but under grace.” Now
the subject is relieved of all difficulty. As Christians, we are
released from the penalty of the law in the matter of past
transgressions so long as we continue in the faith, but are not
at liberty to reason that because we are under grace we
therefore may transgress the law of God with impunity.” To
the possibility of such a thing the apostle ejaculates, “God
forbid.” Under the old dispensation there was a remembrance
made of sin every year, even in the case of the faithful; Christ
had not come, and therefore the work accomplished was
merely anticipatory. In this dispensation he has come, and the
pardon received is final, provided the individual continues
faithful to the end of life. Should he, however, fall away and
voluntarily indulge in sin, he then takes his place with the
multitude of those sinners who are outside of the covenant of
grace, and, like them, becomes subject to the unmitigated
penalty of the law.
The old covenant offered its benefits simply to the
Jewish people as such. In order therefore, to reap its
advantages, it was necessary for the Gentile to become a Jew
through circumcision. In the new covenant, circumcision is
dispensed with, and all national barriers are broken down,
leaving the blessings of the new covenant accessible to men of
all nationalities.
Under the old covenant, the rights, ceremonies, and
sacrifices were burdensome in the extreme; under the new
covenant, all these are dispensed with, Christ having been
sacrificed once for all. The old covenant was complicated in
its ritual service to that extent that it was difficult or
impossible under the then existing circumstances for the
common people to understand and carry out its provisions;
under the new covenant, simplicity characterizes everything so

fully that all may be said to know the Lord even from the least
to the greatest. In the old dispensation, Jerusalem was the
grand center of worship to which all were to resort, and the
Jews alone could approach God; in the present dispensation
the heavenly Jerusalem is the grand center, and God seeks all
to worship him, who will do so in spirit and in truth, without
reference to the place of their location. Under the old
economy, there was the liability of a withdrawal of all the
benefits offered in the covenant, and of a repeal of the
covenant itself whenever its terms were broken. Under the
new system, while individuals may, by their own action,
deprive themselves of the benefits of the new covenant, still
the covenant itself is destined to stand forever, and will offer
its benefits to all who may avail themselves of the promises
made.
But perhaps the most marked superiority of the new
over the old covenant is found in the promise of God to put his
law in an especial manner in the hearts of his people in this
dispensation; i.e., to enshrine it in their affections, The
experience of fifteen hundred years proved the impossibility
of man's keeping God's law fully; in his own strength, and
from his own intellectual conceptions of its justice, and the
desirableness of the benefits which would accrue from an
obedience thereto. Something more was needed to make his
efforts successful. That something is found in the operations
of the Holy Spirit, whereby the natural heart is so changed
through the mediation of Christ that it comes to love the law
of God and obedience thereto. While this was true to a certain
extent under the old covenant, it is so much more marked
under the new, that it is set forth as its especial characteristic.
This change is stupendous in its character and gradual in its

history. Through the aid of the Holy Spirit the individual gives
his heart to God, and the work, of conversion is commenced.
From that time forward the Holy Spirit carries on the work of
writing the law of God on the heart, until the whole character
is formed upon the model of that perfect law, and the man
becomes “a new creature” in Christ Jesus.
Did space permit, this branch of the subject might be
extended almost indefinitely. From the present order of things
it might be traced on into the eternal state, where the blessings
of the new covenant will culminate in the immortalization, and
perfection of the subjects of the same, so that they shall
become equal unto the angels, being freed from sin and death,
and united forever in a bond of most intimate union with
Christ, their head. (Luke 20:35, 36.)
The theme is a glorious one, and is calculated to inspire
gratitude in all our hearts to God for the new covenant and its
blessings. When the subject is rightly understood also, the
justice as well as the mercy of God is illustrated.
Unless the ten commandments embody only moral
principles, it is difficult to see how God could have made their
observance the condition of favor in the old covenant, or the
rule by which he is to judge the wicked of this dispensation. If,
on the other hand, they are purely moral in their character, it is
incomprehensible that God should release Christians from
their observance. It would be an anomaly indeed if he should
send sinners to hell for deliberately breaking his law, and take
Christians to Heaven who deliberately do the same thing. Nay,
more; it is inconceivable that Christ should have died to give
them the privilege of violating a law which Paul says is “holy,
just, and good.” Rom. 7 12. This would make him the minister
of sin; a thing which the Scriptures distinctly declare, is not

true of him. (Gal. 2:17, also Rom. 1:18.) Any view therefore,
which would necessitate such an unwarrantable discrimination
between saint and sinner, and represent Christ as dying in
order to allow his followers to transgress the law of the Father,
must be inherently unsound. But such is the aim and object of
those who advocate the doctrine, that the ten commandments
are the old covenant; or, at least, such are the necessary
consequences of their logic. How much more desirable and
consistent every way the view which we have advocated at the
present time; i.e., that the law of God stands complete as the
standard of moral character in both covenants, and that saint
and sinner alike are required to honor it in their lives through
obedience to its requirements; the only difference between the
two being that the first is under it in the sense of being
subjected to its penalty, while the second is under it in the
sense of being held to the performance of its obligations,
though freed from its condemnation through the blood of that
Christ who has tasted death for him on the cross. Heb. 2:9.
With this conception, Scripture and reason are
harmonized, God and his law honored, Christ rendered
precious to his saints, and their complete and glorious
redemption made certain.
—•—•—•—
From a series of articles in the Review and Herald Periodical, from
January 3rd to 17th 1882
The Covenants.
Joseph Baker.
“So then, brethren, we are not children of the bond-
woman, but of the free.” Gal. iv, 31.
Our introductory remarks will commence with verse
160 The Covenants. – Joseph Baker.
21. “Tell me, ye that desire to be under the law, (Sinai

covenant,) do ye not hear the law ? (or Sinai covenant?) For it
is written, that Abraham had two sons; the one by a bond-
maid, the other by a free woman. But he who was of the bond-
woman, was born after the flesh; but he of the free-woman
was by promise. Which things are an allegory: for these are
the two covenants; the one from the mount Sinai, which
gendereth to bondage, which is Agar. For this Agar is mount
Sinai in Arabia, and answereth to Jerusalem which now is, and
is in bondage with her children. (Being the Capital of the
Country— promised to Abraham and his seed—to be in
bondage after Christ should come.) But Jerusalem which is
above is free, which is the mother of us all. For it is written,
Rejoice, thou barren that bearest not; break forth and cry, thou
that travailest not: for the desolate hath many more children
than she which hath an husband.
“Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of
promise. But as then he that was born after the flesh
persecuted him that was born after the Spirit, even so it is
now. Nevertheless, what saith the scripture ? 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. So then, brethren,”
&c.
The Promissory, the Abrahamic, and the Sinai
covenants, are illustrated by the situation and character of
those two women under the care of Abraham. Now in our
elucidation of this subject, we shall inquire:
I. What were the peculiar blessings included in the
promises made to the progenitor of the children of the free-
woman ? To this inquiry, it must be said:
1. That the first blessing promised him, was the
multiplication of his children or natural seed. Here, however,

the Scriptures must be our guide; and in their examination, a
few passages must serve as a specimen of many. Gen. xxii, 17.
“That in blessing I will bless thee, and in multiplying I will
multiply thy seed as the stars of the heaven, and as the sand
which is upon the sea shore.” Gen. xii, 2; xiii, 16; xv, 5; xvi,
10; xxvi, 4. “And I will make thy seed to multiply as the stars
of heaven.” Gen. xxviii, 14. “And thy seed shall be as the dust
of the earth.” These passages are too plain to need comment.
They clearly prove the multiplication of Abraham's natural
seed, (typical of the heirs of salvation,) to have been included
in the promissory covenant.
2. The Scriptures being our guide, it may be seen with
equal clearness, that the gift of the literal land of Canaan, was
the second blessing included in the promissory covenant. To
reduce this proposition to a moral certainty, we will introduce
a few passages of Scripture: Gen. xxii, 17. “Thy seed shall
possess the gate of his enemies.” Gen. xxvi, 3. For unto thee,
and unto thy seed I will give all these countries.” Gen. xxviii,
13. “I am the Lord God of Abraham thy father, and the God of
Isaac: the land whereon thou liest, to thee will I give it, and to
thy seed.” Gen. xiii, 14, 15, 17. “And the Lord said unto
Abraham, . . . Lift up now thine eyes, and look from the place
where thou art, northward, and southward, and eastward, and
westward; for all the land which thou seest, to thee will I give
it, and to thy seed forever.” Verse 17. “Arise, walk through the
land in the length of it, and in the breadth of it; for I will give
it unto thee,”
Permit me here to pause, and call your attention to Gen.
xv, 13. “And he (the Lord) said unto Abram, Know of a surety
that thy seed shall be a stranger in a land that is not theirs.”
Now compare this with the other passages quoted, and tell me,
what land was not theirs; if the gift of the New Earth was
intended ?
Gen. xv, 16. “In that same day the Lord made a
covenant with Abraham, saying, Unto thy seed have I given
this land, from the river of Egypt unto the great river, the river
Euphrates.” Gen. xxxv, 11, 12. “And God said unto him,
(Jacob,) I am God Almighty: be fruitful and multiply: a nation
and a company of nations shall be of thee, and kings shall
come out of thy loins. And the land which I gave Abraham
and Isaac, to thee will I give it, and to thy seed after thee will I
give the land.” Ex. iii, 16, 17. “The Lord God of your fathers,
the God of Abraham, of Isaac, and of Jacob, appeared unto
me, saying, I have surely visited you, and seen that which is
done to you in Egypt; and I have said, I will bring you up out
of the affliction of Egypt, unto the land of the Canaanites, and
the Hittites, and the Amorites, and the Perizzites, and the
Hivites, and the Jebusites, unto a land flowing with milk and
honey.” Ex. vi, 2-4, 8. “And God spake unto Moses, and said
unto him, I am the LORD: And I appeared unto Abraham,
unto Isaac, and unto Jacob by the name of God Almighty, but
by my name JEHOVAH was I not known unto them. And I
have also established my covenant with them, to give them the
land of Canaan, the land of their pilgrimage, wherein they
were strangers. And I will bring you (Israel) in unto the land
concerning the which I did swear to give it to Abraham, to
Isaac, and to Jacob; and I will give it you for an heritage.” One
quotation more must suffice under this head. Ex. xxxiii, 1-3.
“And the Lord said unto Moses, Depart and go up hence, thou
and the people which thou bast brought up out of the land of
Egypt, unto the land which I sware unto Abraham, to Isaac,
and to Jacob, saying, Unto thy seed will I give it: and I will
send an angel before thee; and I will drive out the Canaanite,
the Amorite, and the Hittite, and the Perizzite, the Hivite, and
the Jebusite; unto a land flowing with milk and honey.” . . .
See Deut.iv, 1; vi, 1-3; vii, 12, 13; viii, 1-20: ix, 3-6; xi, 8-12,
also, Verses 21, 31; xxvi, 1-3, also, verses 8, 9, 15; xxvii, 3;
xxx, 20; xxxi, 3, 7, 29; xxxii, 49; xxxiv, 1-4.
Josh. xviii, 3. “And Joshua said unto the children of
Israel, How long are ye slack to go to possess the land (the
New Earth) which the Lord God of our fathers (will give you ?
No !) hath given you ?”
3. A third blessing included in the promissory
covenant, was the gift of Christ; which required the fulfillment
of the two previously noticed, in order to give him, in the
manner designated, for the benefit of man. We have here
introduced a fact, which Gal. iv, 4, 5 will prove. “But when
the fullness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son,
made of a woman, made under the law, to redeem them that
were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of
sons.” Also, see chap. iii, 16, 29. Christ was to consummate
the promise, as we also learn from the following. Gen. xxii,
18. “And in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be
blessed.” Gen. xviii, 18. “Seeing that Abraham shall surely
become a great and mighty nation, and all the nations of the
earth shall be blessed in him.” Gen. xii, 3. “And in thee shall
all families of the earth be blessed.” Ps. lxxii, 17. “His name
shall endure forever: . . . and men shall be blessed in him: all
nations shall call him blessed.” Paul in commenting on these
quotations, [Gal. iii, 16,] says, “Now to Abraham and his seed
were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of
many; but of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ.” From
these passages, it appears that Christ was the principal Agent,

included in the everlasting covenant; as all the families of the
earth were to be blessed in him. But how could he be made of
a woman of the tribe of Judah, according to the promise, if
God had not have multiplied Abraham's natural seed, and have
given the literal land of Canaan, in which to keep that tribe
distinct ? Hence there were so many items in making up the
everlasting covenant, and were means by which the ultimate
end was to be secured.
4. A fourth blessing included in the promissory
covenant, was the earth renewed. (Typified by Canaan.) Heb.
xi, 8-10, 12, 13, 16, 39, 40. “By faith Abraham, when he was
called to go out into a place which he should afterward receive
for an inheritance, obeyed; and he went out not knowing
whither he went. By faith he sojourned in the land of promise,
as in a strange country, dwelling in tabernacles with Isaac and
Jacob, the heirs with him of the same promise: For he looked
for a city [Chap. xii. 22; Gal. iv, 26; Rev. xxi, 1, 2 . Heb. xiii,
14] which hath foundations, whose builder and maker is God.”
Verse 12. “Therefore sprang there even of one, and him as
good as dead, so many as the stars of the sky in multitude, and
as the sand which is by the sea shore innumerable. These all
died in faith not having received the promises, (or the extent,
verses 10, 16,) but having seen them afar off, and were
persuaded of them, and embraced them, and confessed that
they were strangers and pilgrims on the earth.” Chap. xiii, 14.
Verse 16.
“But now they desire a better country, that is, an
heavenly: wherefore God is not ashamed to be called their
God; for he hath prepared for them a city.” Verse 39. “And
these all, having obtained a good report through faith, received
not the promises: God having provided better things for us,
that they without us should not be made perfect.” (i.e., without
Christ should not have a resurrection.)
The extent of this promise in our version, is expressed
in very definite language. 2 Pet. iii, 10-13. “But the day of the
Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the
heavens shall pass away with a great noise; and the elements
shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that
are therein shall be burned up. Seeing then that all these things
shall be dissolved, what manner of persons ought ye to be in
all holy conversation and godliness. Looking for, and hasting
unto the coming of the day of God, wherein the heavens being
on fire shall be dissolved, and the elements shall melt with
fervent heat ? Nevertheless we, according to his promise, look
for new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth
righteousness.”
Ps. cii, 25, 26. “Of old hast thou laid the foundation of
the earth: and the heavens are the work of thy hands. They
shall perish, but thou shalt endure: yea, all of them shall wax
old like a garment; as a vesture shalt thou change them, and
they shall be changed.”
Again: Isa. lxvi, 22. “For as the new heavens and the
new earth, which I will make shall remain before me, saith the
Lord, so shall your seed and your name remain.” Isa. lxv, 17.
“For behold, I create new heavens and a new earth: and the
former shall not be remembered, nor come into mind.” Rev.
xxi, 1. “And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first
heaven and the first earth were passed away.”
Having examined the promissory covenant, its basis, or
foundation, next claims our attention. A covenant, or contract,
is supposed always to embrace parties. The covenant under
examination, includes God, the covenantee, Abraham, and his

seed as covenanters. Consequently there were conditions to be
performed by the individual parties.
Having noticed the conditions on the part of the
covenantee, we wish to ascertain those on the part of the
covenanters; for evidently, they must exist, and be the same,
under every dispensation to which the promises apply. For as
evidently there is no limitation to the promissory; so there can
be none to its basis. It is left bounded by the existence of that
to which it applies. The measure of one, is the measure of
both.
Now as the promissory embraced a restitution, it must
have been based on the same conditions on which the first
dominion was suspended. And we cannot be at a loss to know
what they were, with the comment on the first and great
commandment before us; viz., “Thou shalt love the Lord thy
God with all thy heart,” &c. Whether this was the first in
order, or the first in importance, it must have been the rule of
man's life, when he proceeded from the hands of his Maker,
and was given him to regulate his conduct towards the Divine
Being, when he had neither associate nor descendant. For
when he had an associate, a second rule of love was given him
to regulate his conduct toward the society of which he was a
part; hence it was written, “Thou shalt love thy neighbor as
thyself.” In these, are summarily contained the ten
commandments. Matt. xix, 17, gives our Lord's answer to the
inquiry of the young man in which he is instructed to keep the
commandments, as the conditions of life. See also Rev. xxii,
14. Now if life is given by keeping the commandments, death
must be incurred by violating them. And they being the
conditions of life, must be the thread on which the first
dominion was suspended; and as the first dominion was

promised to Christ, (Micah iv, 8,) and through him to
Abraham and his heirs, the promissory covenant must have
been based on the ten commandments. Indeed, the very letter
of the commandments as they stand in the decalogue, puts this
point beyond all dispute. The fourth command refers to the
creation; and this being the only reason assigned for keeping
it, does refer us back to the Eden state; or first dominion:
therefore the ten commandments must have been the basis of
the promissory covenant.
Our evidences on this part of the subject multiply, and
they brighten. We have not only a scripture analogy to teach
us a probable truth, but we have express declarations in the
Word of God, sufficient to reduce this probability to a moral
certainty. Therefore waiving all arguments which might be
drawn from an analogy of scripture, we hasten to notice those
scriptures which expressly state the covenant on the part of
Abraham's seed. Turn with me to Deut. iv, 12-14. “And the
Lord spake unto you out of the midst of the fire: ye heard the
voice of the words, but saw no similitude; only ye heard a
voice. And he declared unto you his covenant, which he
commanded you to perform, even ten commandments,
(therefore they were a covenant whilst in a verbal form,) and
he wrote them upon two tables of stone. And the Lord
commanded me at that time (when he, Moses, received the
tables, Ex. xxiv, 12; xxxiv, 27,) to teach you statutes and
judgments, (a very suitable time to give statutes and
judgments, the constituent part of the Sinai covenant,) that ye
might do there in the land whither ye go over to possess it.”
Still bear in mind, that this land was included in the
promises to Abraham and his natural seed; and then turn to 1
Chron. xvi, 15-19. “Be ye mindful always of his covenant; the

word which he commanded to a thousand generations: even of
the covenant which he made with Abraham, and of his oath
unto Isaac; and hath confirmed the same to Jacob, for a law,
and to Israel for an everlasting covenant, saying, Unto thee
will I give the land of Canaan, the lot of your inheritance;
when ye were but few, even a few, and strangers in it.” This
cannot have any reference to the Sinai covenant; for it is not
true that they were few when that was formed; for Moses hath
said, (Deut. x, 22,) “Thy fathers went down into Egypt with
three-score and ten persons; and now the Lord thy God hath
made thee as the stars of heaven for multitude.” See Ex. i, 7, 9,
20; xii, 37; xviii, 21, 25. Therefore 1 Chron. xvi, 15, &c., must
have reference to Deut. iv, 13. There it is distinctly stated that
He (God,) commanded them to keep the ten commandments
for a covenant; and here (in 1 Chron.) it is said, that the
promissory, made with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, included
the land of Canaan. Hence the covenant for the land, was
based on the ten commandments; as they were spoken with an
audible voice, before they were written, and whilst Israel were
Abraham's natural seed, according to the promissory covenant.
Therefore the argument is conclusive, that the ten
commandments were the conditions both of Abraham and his
seed.
I believe that none pretend that the Sinai covenant was
of force, until the tables were received. Deut. ix, 10. “And the
Lord delivered unto me two tables of stone written with the
finger of God; and on them was written according to all the
words which the Lord spake with you in the mount, out of the
midst of the fire; in the day of the assembly.” Consequently
they were spoken whilst Israel were Abraham's natural seed
according to the promissory covenant; and hence, the

conditions were the same on the part of Abraham, that they
were on the part of his seed. See Gen. xviii, 19; xxvi, 5. We
wish to introduce one testimony more. Deut. vii, 9, 12. “Know
therefore that the Lord thy God, he is God, the faithful God,
which keepeth covenant and mercy with them that love him
and keep his commandments to a thousand generations.” (The
same covenant is brought to view here, that is in 1 Chron. xvi.)
Verse 12. “Wherefore it shall come to pass, if ye hearken to
these judgments, (here the Sinai is referred to,) and keep and
do them, that the Lord thy God shall keep unto thee the
covenant and the mercy which he sware unto thy fathers.”
(Here is brought to view the promissory.)
We anticipate that the objector will quote Deut. v, to
confute our arguments; but it should be remembered, that both
the Horeb and the Abrahamic covenants, are included in this
chapter. The three first, fifth, (that which is included in a
parenthesis,) twenty-seventh and thirty-first verses, have direct
reference to the Horeb covenant; but the remainder of the
chapter, with a few exceptions, includes the basis of the
promissory, which was spoken on Sinai or Horeb, with an
audible voice.
A mass of testimony on this part of our subject, might
be adduced; but sufficient has already been said. Therefore we
pass to notice some arguments in favor of this covenant's
being endless in its duration.
“This, we contend is the original meaning of the term,
everlasting.
What else would it be understood to mean, by the man
who was not warped by prejudice for or against any particular
system ? There is not the least doubt but he would understand
it to mean endless duration. And what such an one would

understand it to mean, is doubtless its true meaning. The
Scriptures are not written in a language of their own, but in the
common language of men; otherwise they would be no
revelation to them. But the unlimited meaning of this word is
denied, because it is sometimes used in the Scriptures in a
limited sense. But does it therefore follow, that it has only a
limited meaning; or that endless duration is not its proper
meaning ? I feel prepared to say, and think I shall be able to
maintain, that in its proper signification, it means endless
duration. This is provable by the plainest and most
unequivocal arguments.
This word is used in the Bible when things are spoken
of known to be endless in their duration; and that too, when
this very unlimited duration was designed to be expressed by
it. It would be a task to mention all the passages in which this
word is used in connexion with the names of Deity and his
attributes. When his unlimited existence is to be expressed,
then is he called the everlasting God, the God that is from
everlasting to everlasting. And the unlimited meaning of this
word is more emphatically marked, from the consideration of
its being used, when applied to the Deity, to distinguish the
true God from idol gods whose existence is but for a time.
Hence it follows, that this word signifies endless
duration, or the original languages in which the Scriptures
were written had no word expressive of this idea. For where
the sacred writers would most emphatically and especially call
the attention to the eternity of God, they would certainly use
the strongest term they could find in the language in which
they wrote. At such times we find them using this term. Now
to suppose that the Hebrews and Greeks had no word
expressive of the idea of endless duration, is to suppose they

had no such idea; which is not true. Therefore they had such a
word, and for the reasons given above, it must have been the
very word we have here under consideration. Since then it
must be considered that this word, when used in connection
with the names and attributes of Deity, signifies endless
duration, the only remaining question is, Is this word in these
connexions, used in its own primary and proper signification,
or is it used in a borrowed and accommodated sense ? To
suppose the latter, would be grossly absurd. What ! a word,
limited in its real meaning, borrowed to express unlimited
ideas ! A word of comparatively weak import, accomodated to
convey ideas infinitely strong ! The eternity of God,
emphatically expressed by a word of a limited meaning ! This
would be the art of sinking to perfection. But how the inspired
writers could suppose such a term would convey an exalted
idea of God, I cannot conceive. This borrowed term would
sink rather than elevate the idea. And they had better have
used no qualifying word at all, than one which properly
signified less than the idea they wished to convey. From the
whole it follows that this word when connected with the
names and attributes of the Deity, signifies endless duration;
and that when used in this connexion, it is used not in an
accomodated, but in its true and proper meaning, therefore the
original and proper signification of this word, is endless
duration. Whenever therefore it is used in any other sense, it
must be considered as a figurative or accomodated mode of
speech.”2
To show the bearing of the foregoing reasoning, upon
the main question under consideration, viz., the meaning of
2 From a discourse by Wilbur Fisk, A. M., on the primary and proper
signification of the terms, Everlasting, Eternal pp. 12, 18, 9, 30.
the term, everlasting, when applied to the covenant, we need

only add, that when the proper signification of any word is
ascertained, that word should be always understood according
to that signification, unless there is something in the manner of
its being used, that restricts, or modifies its meaning.” And
therefore, as there cannot be anything in this covenant, that
would operate to restrict or modify the meaning of this word,
when applied to it, therefore this covenant, termed the
everlasting, must be endless in its duration. We would not be
understood to say, that every item in this covenant separately
considered from the great whole, was endless; for there were
parts, that were means, to last only until they had secured their
end; viz., the multiplication of Abraham's natural seed, and the
gift of Canaan; the end for which they were promised, was the
first advent of Christ; at his death if not before, they ceased.
But who can separate the means from the end, until they have
secured their end, and yet obtain the end for which they were
given ? I am thinking, that it would be quite as difficult, as it
would to bring a clean thing out of an unclean.
We would say further, if there were appendages affixed
to any of the ten commands, to make them applicable to the
peculiar circumstances of Abraham or his seed, they could
apply only to those means which were given to secure the first
advent of Christ; and could be disposed of in the same
manner, and at the same time, without affecting the ten
commandments, any more than the cessation of those means
affected the promissory covenant. Therefore the promises,
singly and collectively, and with their basis as a whole, were
endless. It is not pretended in the foregoing arguments, that
those means which apply to time, were, or that anything else
relating to time, would be endless; this would be an absurdity;
for time bears no proportion to eternity. But those means in

their relation to the covenant, were stamped with infinite
consequences.
II We come now to inquire, what is to be understood by
these representatives: the bond-woman and her son?
There is not the least doubt but that the Apostle
understood them to represent the Sinai covenant. For the
purpose of familiarizing the subject, we inquire,
1. Was there any defect in the promissory covenant ?
The answer is at hand: No ! 2. Was the Abrahamic covenant
defective, that there was a call for the Sinai covenant ? The
answer must be given: It was not. What then could be the
cause of this loud call ? If Moses might be permitted to answer
this question, he would tell you that God said unto him, Israel
is a “stiff-necked people, therefore let me alone, that my wrath
may wax hot against them, and that I may consume them; and
I will make of thee a great nation.” Therefore if we understand
Moses, Israel had ceased to be Abraham's natural seed,
according to the promissory covenant. See Ex. xxxiv, 9.
How ? By violating the conditions on the part of Abraham and
his seed. This would make null and void the promissory
covenant, so far as they were concerned in it. Here then
appears the cause of the call for the Sinai covenant. Israel
must be consumed, or be made again the natural seed of
Abraham. The Sinai covenant was instituted for this purpose.
Who does not therefore, see that the Sinai covenant does not
alter their relation to the Abrahamic, or ten commandments;
but that it only brings the lost child back to his parent; which
does not diminish, but increases his obligation to regard the
parental rules. So Israel had an addition of ritual services to
keep with the ten commands, as the result of their
transgression. This transgression is implied in Ex. xxxii, 9-14.

“And the Lord said unto Moses, I have seen this people, and
behold, it is a stiff-necked people: Now therefore let me alone,
that my wrath may wax hot against them, and that I may
consume them: and I will make of thee a great nation. (Why
make of Moses a great nation ? Because of his promise to
Abraham, to whom he had said, 'I will multiply thy seed ;')
And Moses besought the Lord his God, and said, Lord, why
doth thy wrath wax hot against thy people which thou hast
brought forth out of the land of Egypt, with great power, and
with a mighty hand ? Wherefore should the Egyptians speak
and say, For mischief did he bring them out to slay them in the
mountains, and to consume them from the face of the earth ?
Turn from thy fierce wrath, and repent of this evil against thy
people. Remember Abraham, Isaac, and Israel, (i. e.,
remember the promises thou hast made to them,) thy servants,
to whom thou swarest by thine own self, and saidst unto them,
I will multiply your seed as the stars of heaven, an all this land
that I have spoken of, will I give unto your seed, and they shall
inherit it for ever. And the Lord repented of the evil which he
thought to do unto his people.” (So he did not consume them,
but instituted the Sinai covenant, to preserve them. See Ex.
xxxiv, 9, 10; Deut. vi, 20, 21, 24.) The reason why the Lord
hearkened unto Moses, is assigned in Eze. xx, 14. “But I
wrought for my name's sake, that it should not be polluted
before the heathen in whose sight I brought them out.”
The reasons for the institution of the Sinai covenant,
are recorded in Ex. xxxii, 7, 8, 31. The truth of this assertion
may be doubted, therefore we will here pause, to inquire,
which of the two following positions we ought to take, to
ascertain the truth of this assertion.
1. Ought we to form an opinion, from the order of the

chapters ? 2. Or ought we to form our opinions from the order
of events ? i. e.,Ought we to go by, or be governed by, the
order of the record of facts and events, or by the order of the
events, simply ? Now if we take the first, we can make two
positions appear very plausible. But by taking the latter, we
can prove only one. Now, has truth two sides ? Does it partake
of variegation ?(!) Is God the author of contrariety ! of
confusion ?(!) or is he the author of harmony, and his Word
consistency ? By which of the two positions above, shall we
come to the true conclusion, and get at the true position ? If
we may be permitted to reply, we answer, By the position, by
which we can prove one position; (for truth must be univocal;)
for if we are to go by the order of chapters, or, the order of the
record of events, we are to believe that Moses entered the
tabernacle, something over six or eight months before it was
reared, or built !! See Ex. xl, 1, 2; & xxxiii, 9, &c.
Taking the latter position, we gather the following
conclusions, which we believe to be the true position; viz., that
six days after the Lord spake the ten commandments, he called
unto Moses, to come up into the mount, and receive the tables
and the law, which he had written on them; also that during
those six days, Moses was on the mount, but not where God
was; hence, God said, Come up to me into (or on the top of)
the mount. It also is evident, that Aaron made the calf within
those six days, because Moses longer delayed to return, than
they expected. Therefore the Lord (knowing that Israel had
worshiped a molten image, contrary to the conditions binding
on them,) said unto Moses, Come up to me, and I will give
thee a law which I have written. It also appears evident, that
Moses did not receive the tables, until he had fasted forty
days, and forty nights, because of Israel's transgression; for it

is stated, that the Lord gave them unto him, when he had made
an end of communing with him. This communication, was
evidently, the ritual and judicial law which Moses was to write
in a Book, (Ex. xxxiv, 10-27; xxi; xxiii; xxiv, 3-8,) to accord
with the form of the law on stone.
The purpose for which the Sinai covenant was given, is
beautifully illustrated in Deut. xxix, 13. “That he may
establish thee to-day for a people unto himself, and that he
may be unto thee a God, as he hast said unto thee, and as he
hath sworn unto thy fathers, to Abraham, to Isaac and to
Jacob.” From similar passages, it appears that the Sinai
covenant was not formed for the multiplication of Abraham's
natural seed; or for the gift of Canaan; but to constitute Israel
again, the natural seed of Abraham, according to the
everlasting covenant. Ex. xxxiv, 9, 10. They were re-instated
by the addition of ritual services to these means (Ex. xxxiv,
11; xxiii, 30. Deut. vii, 12, 13,) by which the ultimate end, or
Christ, was to be obtained. After which a new covenant was to
be made with them, to give them the consummate end. For as
no stream can rise higher than its fountain; so no imperfect
law, or covenant, could secure the renewed earth. This could
only be obtained through Christ, who gives the earnest3 until
the redemption of the purchased possession.
Permit me to pause here, and inquire, What were the
ritual services given for ? they were unlike the ten commands;
3 “An earnest is something paid beforehand, to confirm a bargain, of the

same kind with the full sum, and as a pledge and security for the whole.
And if in this matter the Spirit is both a seal and an earnest, the bargain
cannot be disannulled; but upon whomsoever God bestows the first fruits,
he gives them as an earnest of the complete enjoyment of
the ...inheritance.”— Taggart on Perseverance
neither could they take away sins; therefore they must have
been added to The ten commandments, because of
transgression, to preserve natural life, so that Israel might be
Abraham's natural seed, until Christ should come, who was to
be of the tribe of Judah.
Having shown for what end the Sinai covenant was
instituted, we come to inquire what it was. We have shown
that it was not the ten commands, by proving them to be the
basis of the promissory; and that by violating them, Israel was
thrown out of the promissory, and re-instated by the Sinai. It
has been stated also, that the ritual services were given for the
preservation of natural life. But what were the constituent
parts of the Sinai covenant, is what now claims attention. We
answer, All the ritual services, commonly called the
ceremonial law; together with the form of the ten
commandments, taken on Sinai, after being transgressed, in
their original, or verbal form.
This written form was given them, to accord with
written ceremonies, that they might be added; for you cannot
add a written contract to a verbal, so as to make the verbal one
binding. And besides this, a written contract in order to be
valid, must show by its contents, some cause why it was
formed. This is the probable reason why the ten
commandments; and the statutes and judgments were written
alternately in the Book of the law. At any rate, one cause why
the ten commandments were written on tables of stone, was
that ritual services might be added. This form may have been
abolished by him who nailed the ceremonial law to his cross;
and that too, without affecting in the least degree the ten
commands.
I do not wish to be understood to say, that nothing
plausible or specious, can be brought up in favor of the ten

commandments being the Sinai covenant; many plausible
quotations have been made on this argument, especially one
from Deut. ix, 9. But let it be remembered that we are not to
wound one excellency with another; or make the Scriptures
speak with divers tongues; therefore no argument can be made
to bear against the many Scriptures which sustain the positions
taken.
HAVING produced some arguments relative to the
everlasting and Sinai covenants, we pass to notice some
arguments which show that the Sinai covenant has been
abolished, and the new instituted.
Gal. iv, 30. “Nevertheless, what saith the scripture ?
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.” (It
should be remembered that those two women with their sons,
are said to represent the two covenants.) “So then, brethren,
we are not children of the bond-woman, but of the free.” The
argument of the Apostle in this place, does prove the Sinai
covenant abolished, and the new, instituted; or there is, in this
connection, such an abuse of language, as no inspired writer
could be guilty of. Again: see Heb. x, 8, 9. “Above, when he
said, Sacrifice and offering and burnt-offerings and offering
for sin thou wouldest not, neither hadst pleasure therein;
which are offered by the law; then said he, Lo, I come to do
thy will, 0 God. He taketh, away the first, that he may
establish the second.” Chap. ix, 1. “Then verily the first
covenant had also ordinances of divine service,” &c. Here the
Sinai covenant is called the first; and from the foregoing
quotation, we learn that Christ took away the first, that he
might establish the second. Again: Chap. x, 28, 29. “He that
despised Moses' law, died without mercy under two or three

witnesses: of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall
he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of
God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith
he was sacrificed, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto
the Spirit of grace ?”
The next passage to be examined may be found in 2
Cor. iii. Of this it is contended, that the ministration of death
never was written on stone; but in a book. If so, I fail to see it.
It is admitted that the penalty, together with the regulations of
the administrator's office, were written in the book of the law.
But does the administrator perform his office on the strength
of the penalty, or on the strength of the law ? We are told by
the Apostle, that, “the strength of sin is the law.” Therefore, it
must be on the strength of the law, that he administers his
office; and that was written on tables of stone; therefore, the
ministration of death was written and engraven on tables of
stone. We find quite as intricate a passage in Romans; there
the Apostle says, “The commandment which was ordained to
life, I found to be unto death.” How did he find it out? By
transgression, of course. But what produced death? did the
penalty do it? No; for he found the very commandment which
was ordained to life, to be unto death. The commandment
without a penalty could not have done it. But if the penalty
was written somewhere else, it is immaterial: the
administration being on the strength of the commandment.
And indeed, we cannot conceive how the term law can apply
to moral agents without a penalty—it would be a nominal
thing, for which we could not find a name. But the law is one
thing, and the penalty is another. The question naturally
suggests itself here, why was not the penalty written with the
law, on tables of stone? Ans. The law was endless—the

penalty two-fold; temporal and eternal death. Therefore, the
penalty, to accord with the ten commandments, was written in
a book, the means for the preservation of temporal life also.
And as the ten commandments were liable to be violated
again, an administrator was furnished, to meet such an
emergency. But, I believe, all are agreed that Christ abolished
temporal death, when he arose from the tomb; and that now,
no temporal death, authorized by the Divine Being, is inflicted
for any new violation of the ten commandments. By the
universality of this admission, (if what every one says is true,)
one of two things is admissible.
1. That the ten commandments being written on stone,
was the call for the administration of death; and, that now, that
form only, is abolished; and not the ten commandments
themselves; or, 2. That the promissory, the everlasting
covenant is at an end. (For if the ten commandments were the
basis of the promissory covenant, and are abolished, then the
everlasting covenant is at an end! But if their being written,
was the call for the administration of death, now that form is
abolished; and not the ten commands themselves.) Which horn
of this dilemma will you take? The Scriptures plainly declare
that the ten commandments were the basis of the promissory,
the everlasting, covenant; and that their being written on stone,
was the call for the administration of death.
With these remarks before us, we turn to Jer. iii, 16.
“And it shall come to pass, when ye be multiplied and
increased in the land, in those days, saith the Lord, They shall
say no more the ark of the covenant of the Lord; [Jer. xxxi,
32,33; 2 Cor. iii, 3,6; Heb. viii, 6-8; ix, 1-4; x, 9;] neither shall
it come to mind, neither shall they remember it; neither shall
they visit it; neither shall that be done any more.” See Heb. x,
16-22. If this language does not express its abolition, I do not
understand the meaning of terms. What was the ark made for ?
Certainly not to contain a verbal contract, but one written.
This is provable by the tables of stone being its chief' contents.
It is not to be visited; which proves its useless state, and the
object for which it was given, accomplished. This the verses
following, prove Christ is given: the object for which the
multiplication of Abraham's natural seed, and Canaan were
promised.
Now, then, look up, and call Jerusalem, or the free-
woman, the throne of the Lord. Again, I say, Look up; or
under this dispensation, the ten commandments are to be
impressed on thy heart, by the Spirit of him who dwelt in the
bush, and in the sanctuary of Israel, and had his throne in old
Jerusalem; but now in the Jerusalem above, which is free, and
the mother of all that believe.
By the free-woman and her son, the Apostle
undoubtedly meant to convey the idea of the new covenant, or
gospel dispensation, as being a part of the promise to
Abraham, and his seed. And how the notion came into
existence, that the gospel was a distinct system, embracing a
different object, I cannot conceive: unless it was among the
fables collected from spurious and apocryphal writings,
canonized by superstition; or the offspring of the deliriums of
pious visionaries, early converts from heathenism, from which
they imported this part of their creed. There is not one text of
scripture, legitimately interpreted, that gives the least
countenance to this dogma.
The new covenant referred to in our text, and
mentioned in Hebrews, is expressed by way of promise in Jer.
xxxi, 31-34. “Behold the days come, saith the Lord, that I will
house of Judah: not according to the covenant that I made with
their fathers, in the day that I took them by the hand to bring
them out of the land of Egypt; Which my covenant they brake,
shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel;
after those days, saith the Lord. I will put my law in their
Know the Lord; for they shall all know me from the least of
Paul, in reference to this covenant, says, “In that he saith, A
new covenant he hath made the first old. Now that which
decayeth and waxeth old, is ready to vanish away.” Heb. viii,
13. From the preceding chapter, it is evident that the Apostle
considered that the first covenant was abolished; and from the
tenth, it is equally certain that the new is instituted and that all
that was expressed in the promise in Jeremiah, was literally
fulfilled. For though the promise was given in view of the new
earth, yet, the new earth is not expressed in the promise;
neither has it any reference to what it would ultimately do; but
only has reference to its formation. What this covenant will
do, may be understood by referring to the promise of it, given
to Abraham. We shall take it for granted, therefore, that every
part of the promise made to Israel through Jeremiah, has had
its literal fulfillment. And therefore, we would refer all those
who contend that Israel is to say to his neighbor, or Gentile,
[Eze. xvi, 61,] Know the Lord, to Heb. x; where this point is
clearly illustrated, and testified to, by the holy Ghost. John vi,
45; 1 John v, 20.
Permit me here to quote a few passages as a specimen
of many, to show the law on the heart, according to the
promise. Rom. vii, 22. “For I delight in the law of God after
the inward man.” Gal. vi, 8. “But he that soweth to the Spirit,
shall of the Spirit reap life everlasting.” 2 Cor. iii, 6. “Who
also hath made us able ministers of the new testament; (i.e.,
covenant,) not of the letter, but of the Spirit.” Verse 8. “How
shall not the ministration of the Spirit be rather glorious ?”
Also iv, 6. “For God, who commanded the light to shine out of
darkness, hath shined in our hearts, to give the light of the
knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ.”
Again: Chap.iii, 3. “Forasmuch as ye are manifestly declared
to be the epistle of Christ ministered by us, written not with
ink, but with the Spirit of the living God; not in tables of
stone, but in fleshly tables of the heart.” Nothing can be
plainer than these passages they prove that it was the same
law, that by the finger of God was written on tables of stone,
that now is written by the Spirit of God on the heart
As the words, new covenant, and gospel, are generally
used as synonymous terms, [Rom. i, 16 Acts iii, 25, 26; xiii,
26, 32, 33, 46, 47; Eph. 12-22; Jno. viii, 56; 1 Pet. i, 4, 10-12;
Luke i 46-55; ii, 28-32,] we shall in the remaining part of our
subject, generally use the term, gospel, instead of covenant; as
it will better accommodate the age in which we live. We now
proceed to define the word, gospel. And an appeal might here
be made to the most learned critics and lexicographers who
have given the definition of the word, and also to the
etymology of the word, both in the English and original
languages; and in either case, the decision would, most
certainly be in favor of the gospel's being a system of good

news. But it has become so fashionable for every man who
knows the names and characters of the Greek alphabet to turn
critic, and question the authority and learning of all the literary
world, that the unlearned know not what to decide upon. They
either conclude that there is no dependence to be put upon any
of them, and therefore none upon the Bible; or they adopt such
translations as suit their particular creed, and with these rest
satisfied. Waiving therefore, all argument founded upon the
authority of the learned, or the derivation of this word, its
meaning may be determined by an appeal to the Apostle who
says that the “gospel is the power of God unto salvation to
every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the
Greek.” Rom. i, 16; also see Acts iii, 26, 38, 46, 47. The same
may be said of the meaning of the word, Jesus; which
signifies, Saviour. Matt. i, 21; Acts v, 30-32; xiii, 38, 39; Luke
ii, 10, 11; iv, 17-21; viii, 1. Therefore the gospel must
certainly be considered a system of good news; or salvation
from sin, or the transgression of some law; “for sin is the
transgression of the law.”
We ask if salvation from sin is not good news? Again:
Is this good news a law of itself ? If so, what may we expect
from it, if Paul has given a right definition of the term,
gospel ? Certainly, salvation from its transgression. With this
expectation, how unmeaning the sanction it contains ! viz.,
“He that believeth not shall be damned !” This is not good
news, and cannot be applied to the gospel without making
Paul's definition chimerical or absurd, if the gospel is not
founded on law; for it is said that “sin is not imputed (charged)
when there is no law.” Therefore the gospel must be based on
law, or there is no sin. Indeed, the passages already quoted
show the existence of a law written by the Spirit of God on the

heart; and this too, to accord with the gospel, which purports
to save from the condemning power of the law. Hence the
salvation expected from the gospel, is salvation from
transgression of the law.
The preceding reasonings are founded on the
supposition, that the gospel saves from condemnation only.
And as good news of salvation never could be rejected,
abstract from depravity, therefore the term salvation, is
unmeaning in its application to the gospel, abstract from its
foundation.
As the preceding reasonings are founded on the
supposition, that the gospel saves only from condemnation,
and that it cannot even do this, without being founded on law,
we will now briefly consider the guilt of the transgression
causing condemnation, And we not only accumulate guilt by
transgression, but while neglecting salvation from this
transgression of the law, there stands a blank, where duties
were required, and none performed; and this must so corrupt
the fountain, that all its streams will be impure. And, as no
being can cleanse his own infected nature, or undo the
criminal acts which he has already done; the gospel therefore,
must possess power to deliver and re-instate or make the
fountain pure, or the plaster is not as large as the wound. Can
good news do this and at the same time be a law ? We answer,
It cannot. But as it admits the thundering sanctions of law, its
basis must be law.
Now as the gospel proffers salvation to those only, who
believe, hence, where faith is wanting the law of ten
commandments admit of the full administration of the penalty
previously affixed, notwithstanding the gospel of good news.
They run therefore to the extent of the promises, and are made
appropriate to each dispensation under which they pass:
having the affixed rules of that dispensation. Hence there were
appendages affixed, to make them appropriate to the peculiar
situation of Abraham and his seed, and under the Sinai, they
were written to accord with that dispensation; but under the
gospel, which is not to be superseded by another, in time, they
apply to the heart, where the whole system of the gospel
applies
Now we learn from each dispensation, appropriate
rules of application Under the Sinai, killing maliciously was
by those rules of application, considered murder; but under the
gospel rules, to hate our brother without cause, is murder. 1
John. iii, 15; Matt. v, 21, 22; xv, 18, 19. Thus we might
enumerate the ten commands, and we should find gospel rules,
applying them to the heart.
0.Scott, in quoting from Mr. Wesley, makes him say,
that we are “as really preaching Christ when saying, The
wicked shall be turned into hell, and all the people that forget
God,' as when saying, ‘Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh
away the sin of the “But to my mind, the former is preaching
the sanctions of law, the gospel, (abstract from its foundation,)
has no such sanctions. It is therefore evident that it has law for
its foundation
0.Scott, makes Dr. A. Clarke say, “The gospel is a law
for it imposes obligation from God, and prescribes a rule of
life; and it punishes transgressors, and rewards the obedient.”
This must be a gross mistake and is self-contradictory; for the
term gospel, will not admit (separately considered from its
foundation) of any such sanctions. Also, it is a palpable
contradiction of a sermon of A. Clarke's which I hold in my
possession, and from which I shall take the liberty to make an

extract. Page 32. “Hence the gospel proclaims both pardon and
purification; and they that believe are freely justified from all
things, and have their hearts purified by faith. Thus the grand
original law is once more written on their hearts by the finger
of God; and they are restored both to the favor and to the
image of their Maker.” If under the gospel, this is the privilege
of those that believe, what must be the fate of those who do
not believe, but to remain under the condemning power of this
same law ? the sanctions of which are recognized by the
gospel. For the gospel having law for its foundation, or basis,
supposes the most awful sanctions. “He that believeth shall be
saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.” Here we see
that faith in Christ, is a condition of salvation, from the
condemning power of the law. Therefore this law, the penalty
of which, (under the gospel,) is eternal death is permitted by
the gospel to have its full condemning power on those who do
not believe. (But “because sentence against an evil work is not
executed speedily, therefore the heart of the sons of men is
fully set in them to do evil;” but “vengeance belongeth unto
me, I will recompense saith the Lord.”) The commission given
to the disciples, cannot be regarded in any other light.
I have yet to learn how Christ can be preached without
preaching the gospel. And I am equally at a loss, to know how
the full commission given to the disciples could be fulfilled,
without proclaiming the basis of the gospel; for this
commission embraces one of the most awful sanctions: “He
that believeth not, shall be damned!” which partakes not of the
nature of good news, but of the rigors of law. This, therefore
must show the gospel built on law; otherwise this threatening
would be contradictory and absurd. For gospel, abstract from
law, has no penalty: it being simply, good news. And the law
abstract from the promise to Abraham, has nothing to do with
Christ. But who does not see that this promise embraced
Christ, and that it was founded on the ten commandments ?
Now, therefore, Christ cannot be preached, without showing
the fulfillment of a gracious promise. And yet, a promise,
resting on the ten commandments, (its basis,) yet remains to
be given through Christ; and this, the renewed earth.
Therefore, how can Christ be successfully preached, without
proclaiming the consequences of rejecting him ? And as this
gospel precedes, to prepare for the fulfillment of the promise
of the renewed earth; and as judgment precedes the reception
of the new earth, the consequence of rejecting the gospel, must
be looked for, in the sanctions of law; which leads to the
inevitable conclusion, that the ten commandments are the
basis of the gospel.
It can but be admitted that the gospel permits the
promulgation of sanctions the most awful imaginable; yet they
cannot partake of the nature of good news. Hence these spurs
to duty, these incitements to obedience, are the results of law.
And as they make up a considerable part of the New
Testament, therefore the new covenant or gospel must be
based on the ten commandments, as this is the only
unabolished law contained in the Bible.
It has been urged in some preceding remarks, that why
the penalty was not written with the ten commands on stone,
was, that the nature of the penalty was two-fold; and that the
penalty under the gospel was only eternal death. Now,
therefore, they might be recorded (under the new covenant or
gospel dispensation) with their penalty. They are so recorded.
And too, proceeding on the principle that the gospel is in
substance one of the promises, and has for its foundation the
ten commandments, it may admit of the most awful sanctions,
and condign punishment to be executed on the gospel
rejectors, and at the same time be a system of good news, or
salvation from sin, on the easy condition of simple faith in
Christ. Who could measure the guilt accumulated by rejecting
Christ, but God ! and where should the penalty for this guilt be
recorded but with the gospel ? though it partakes of the nature
of law ? God's threatenings are by no means to be cast out of
the New Testament, or rejected because they are not good
news; neither are they to be considered abstract from his
promises, for these promises were founded on law, And Christ
being included in one of these promises, we may, therefore,
hear from his mouth, and from the apostles, the most terrific
thunders of wrath, roaring louder, tenfold, than from the law
of Moses; describing the damnation of hell; painting in colors
of the deepest dye the agonies of the damned, and the horrors
of the bottomless pit; a burning world, the Judge coming
down, the parted skies in flaming fire, the dead rising, the
amazing throng divided; and the wicked sentenced to eternal
death. Are such representations admitted by the gospel ? then
the gospel must be based on law; as it abstractly considered
could not admit of such sanctions.
Again: the gospel proceeds on the principle of a
revelation from God; and this perfectly accords with the ten
commandments being written on the heart. This is expressed
and illustrated by Christ in his question to the disciples, and
answer to Peter. Matt. xvi, 15-18. “And Simon Peter answered
and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. And
Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon
Bar-jona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee,
but my Father which is in heaven. And I say also unto thee,

That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my
church.” . . . i. e., upon this principle of revelation from God,
will I build my church; not on Peter; but on the principle of
revelation from God. 1 Cor. ii, 10-13; Prov. xx, 27; Jno. xiv,
15-17, 23-26; xv, 26, 27; xvi, 7-15; Rev. viii; 1 Jno. iii, 24; iv,
6; v, 6.
But we are told that “God acts on the scale of general
good; therefore the gospel can hold out the most awful
sanctions, and thereby deter men from violating it, and thus
promote the general good.” But this idea burlesques the
Scriptures. The threatenings admitted by the gospel, mean
what they say; and must be permanently built, either on gospel
or on law; and as it has been proved, that they are the
sanctions of law, therefore the gospel must be based on law.
It is said that “nine precepts are sufficient.” We ask,
Why were not nine sufficient to have based the promises
upon ? and especially the promise of the new covenant, or
gospel dispensation ? Infinite wisdom never acts without
sufficient reasons; therefore the new covenant or gospel
dispensation is based on ten commandments. Christ was given
to build upon the foundation which God had laid, and this was
the ten commandments. Therefore he found ten, and built
upon ten.
In reviewing the subject, we would say that it has been
proved that the fulfillment of the promises to Abraham, were
conditions on the part of God; and, that living in obedience to
the ten commandments, were conditions on the part of
Abraham and his seed. And that both, or either might with the
strictest precision, be called a covenant; that the promises
were made to Abraham, not for his benefit alone, but for his
seed also; that his seed, until we come to the new covenant, or
gospel dispensation, consisted in his natural seed; and that the
land promised, was Canaan; which also was typical of the new
earth; that also Christ, the new covenant, and the renewed
earth, were included in the promissory covenant; and, that the
promises, (i.e. the promissory covenant,) singly and
collectively, were based on the ten commandments; that
consequently, while a single promise remained unfulfilled,
(whilst heaven and earth remain, Matt. v, 18,) the basis or ten
commandments must remain unbroken and unabolished;
therefore the ten commands came under the new covenant, or
gospel dispensation with all their native force: the covenant
being endless as a whole,
We know that Christ has said, “All power is given unto
me, both in heaven and earth ;” but are we to infer from this
mode of expression that he had power to dethrone God ? or
abolish his promise of a new earth ? Would it not be more
with the analogy of the Scriptures to suppose that he had
sufficient power to accomplish the work assigned him to do?
and that the work said to be done by Jehovah alone, never has
been assigned over to another ? or been affected by
delegation ? It has also been proved that a violation of the
conditions on the part of the covenanters, would subject them
to a loss of the promises; and, that they might be restored, and
again become Abraham's seed, by a temporary covenant,
which is true of the Sinai, but that it could ensure them no
more than temporal life, and could extend no further than to
the first advent of Christ; there it must cease, having
accomplished the object for which these promises, the
multiplication, and the gift of Canaan, were given: and that the
temporality of the first, was the cause of the call for the new
covenant. It has been proved, also, that the Sinai did not alter
Israel's relation to the Abrahamic it being given only to bring
them back to a relationship with Abraham, according to the
covenant; that this relationship involved all their former
liabilities; and the fact that the ten commands were written on
stone, by the finger of God, and carried with them, is
sufficient proof that they were among their former liabilities;
and that they could not be abolished without destroying the
strength of the promise of a new earth. To abolish the Sinai,
was the work of Christ; and that has been accomplished:
leaving God's promise of a new earth, standing on its original
basis. All therefore, who live under the gospel dispensation,
may view the ten commands in all their native beauty and
strength, bringing back to Christ the first dominion, according
to the promise in Mic. iv, 8, and all those who are obedient to
them, and through faith in his blood are made heirs with him.
Hence their application must be to the heart, to accord with the
last promise, which is immortality. The Sinai depended on
outward evidences; but the new covenant, applies them to the
thoughts, and intents of the heart: our Lord's sermon on the
Mount, being a specimen, where he takes the liberty to correct
their application under the Sinai dispensation, and applies
them to the heart, giving rules for their application to this
effect. Whatever light therefore, the Scriptures afford,
showing the new covenant a part of the Abrahamic, must be
regarded as proof that the ten commandments are its basis;
and, in their examination, we have found this point abundantly
substantiated; for Christ and his works were promised at a
very early date, especially to Abraham, through his seed. Gal.
iii, 8. “And the Scriptures foreseeing that God would justify
the heathen through faith, preached before the gospel unto
Abraham, saying, In thee shall all nations be blessed.” “That

the blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles through
Jesus Christ.” . . . “And this I say, That the covenant that was
confirmed before of God in Christ,” &c. It was the promise of
God to Abraham, that God confirmed through Christ;
therefore the new covenant, with all its privileges and
blessings, was included in the promises given to Abraham.
Indeed, the Scriptures in too many places to be at this time
recited, show the new covenant to have been included in the
promissory, and hence its basis, running parallel, must be here.
And it has been proved that when God formed the new
covenant or gospel dispensation, he wrote ten moral precepts
on the heart; and, that on this principle of revelation from God,
Christ built his church. But now, where is the fourth command
? There are only nine, and a substitute, taught by the
opponents. Who has effected this change ? It could not have
been done by the promised seed, or his disciples; for he and
they, kept his Father's commandments, and must, in order to
teach by revelation. And as this law was to be sealed among
his disciples, they could not have violated that which was
requisite for translation, without setting an unworthy example
for the last generation. It must be, therefore, something that
has been effected since the days of Christ, and of his apostles.
If man could be translated with this man-made
substitute, there would be a jargon in heaven; part keeping the
fourth command, and part the substitute, as the gospel was
introduced with ten; and if God would accept of a substitute
for the basis of the gospel, he might on the same principle,
accept of another gospel; which accords very well with the
new revelation given by the “Spirit Rappers,” who introduce a
new way of getting into heaven: one aside from the one
revealed in the Bible. Again: if the promise embraced the new

earth, and the ten commands were its basis, they must remain
until the consummation of that promise, or judgment at least;
and for this reason attempts have been made of late to do away
the idea of a judgment altogether; and of what use is a trial,
without a law, on which to found a penalty ? That the gospel is
a law of itself, is so contradictory and absurd, that only one
man has ever (to my knowledge) attempted to raise any
arguments in its favor; and he was fairly met, and his
arguments put down by an able hand, at the outset. Since it
must be granted that there is a future judgment, the gospel
must either be a law of itself, or be based on law; and as it has
been proved that it cannot be law, therefore, it must have law
for its foundation. The testimony of James [Chap. ii, 12, 13,]
is to this point. “So speak ye, and so do, as they that shall be
judged by the law of liberty; for he shall have judgment
without mercy that hath showed no mercy.” “So then,
brethren, we are not children of the bond-woman, but of the
free.” i. e, We do not belong to the Sinai covenant; for Christ
has redeemed us from that, “being made a curse for us; for it is
written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree.” So then,
the blessing of Abraham has come on the Gentiles, through
Jesus Christ; and they have received the fulfillment of the
“promise of the Spirit through faith.” Gal. iii, 13, 14.
The way is now paved for the third angel's message;
which should be regarded, not so much for its proof of the
existence of the ten commandments, under the present
economy, as to show our whereabouts in this world's history;
and taken in this light, it is a subject, the most momentous,
that ever arrested or interested the attention of man. To the
men of this generation, it speaks in tones of thunder, saying,
Here are they that keep the conditions on which the last
promise is based: the commandments of God, in connection
with the faith of Jesus, who has lived, our example, and has
died, our sacrifice; who has ascended to the first apartment of
the heavenly Sanctuary, and removed to the Most Holy, and
there commenced his last work. The faith of these things being
predicated on good authority, how awfully solemn their
appeal. We are looking for him to come the second time to
raise the dead saints, to change the living, and to renew the
earth, according to the promise of God to Abraham. “So then,
brethren, we are not children of the bond-woman, but of the
free.”
Lebanon, N. H., Jan. 18th, 1854.
P. S. The preceding Discourse was not written to
express any man's sentiments; but to speak out the sentiment
of the Book of books on this subject, in accordance with the
rules laid down by Bacon, and successfully followed by
Newton; which is, to “trace facts up to first principles, and not
to assume first principles, and from these infer facts.”
—•—•—•—
From two articles in the Review and Herald Periodical, February 7th
& 17th 1854
–RECAPITULATION–
—•—•—•—•—•—
The Covenants.
For the satisfaction of all who may be troubled upon
this subject, we conclude, agreeably to the suggestion of one
of the corresponding editors, to give through the paper the
following article from the Bible Student's Assistant booklet.
We hope this article will set the subject of the covenants in its
true light before all minds which will carefully study it. Mark
this: it is not to be merely read over in a hasty manner, but
studied. We have also one question to ask in this connection,
of those who may be inclined to think that the ten
commandments are abolished by the new covenant. It is in
relation to Jer. 31:33, a text which bears a prominent part in all
discussions on this question; and we wish to inquire what
those laws are which God said he would write in the hearts of
his people under the new covenant. Let this be carefully
considered. Under the former covenant, God's laws were
written on tables of stone; under the new they are written on
the fleshly tables of the heart. There is then no intimation in
Jer. 31:33 of a change in that law, but only of a change of its
position—a transfer from the tables of stone to the hearts of
the disciples. We think this will appear to all who, as before
said, will study the following testimony from B. S. Assistant
pp. 30-33.
The word covenant, (Gr. diatheke,) signifies, according
to Robinson, “a disposition, arrangement. Hence.1. Of a
testamentary disposition, a testament, a will. 2. A covenant, i,
e. a mutual arrangement, embracing mutual promises, or
mutual conditions,” &c. Greenfield;— “Any disposition,
arrangement, institution, or dispensation; hence, a testament,
will; a covenant, i. e., mutual promises or mutual conditions,
or promises with condition annexed; meton, a body of laws

and precepts to which certain promises are annexed.”
It is so variously used that its precise meaning in any
place must be determined by its connection, as is shown by the
following examples:
God's promise to Noah, Gen. 9:8-17.
His promise to Abraham, Gen. 17:1-8.
The agreement of Abimelech with Abraham. Chap.
21:27, 32.
Also with Isaac. Chap.26:28.
The agreement made between the Lord and Israel at
Sinai. Heb. 8:9; Gal. 4:24; Ex. 19:4-8.
The ten commandments. Ex. 19:5; 34:28; Deut. 4:12,
13; 1 Chron. 16:15-17.
The Sabbath. Ex. 31:16.
The promises to Israel through Moses. Deut. 29:1, &c.
An agreement between Ahab and Ben-hadad. 1 Kings
20:34.
Josiah's promise of obedience. 2 Kings 23:3.
Israel's promise to seek God. 2 Chron. 15:12.
The promises to David. Ps. 89:3, 4, 34, 39.
Agreement with death. Isa. 38:15, 18.
Agreement between the king of Babylon and Israel.
Eze. 17:12, 13.
THE ABRAHAMIC COVENANT.
The blessings of the Abrahamic covenant embraced all
that was lost in the fall of Adam,
The dominion of the earth. Gen. 1:26, 28; Micah 4:8;
Gen. 12:7; 13:14-17; 17:16-18; 24:7; 26:3, 4; 28:3, 4, 13;
35:9-12; Ps. 37:11; Matt.5:5; Rom. 4:13.
It is identical with the gospel, otherwise termed the
New and everlasting Covenant. Gal. 3:7, 8, 16-18, 29; Acts
198 The Covenants. – The Covenants.
26:6, 7; Heb. 6:11-20; Rom. 4:1, 11, 12, 16; Luke 19:9, 10;
Gal. 4:22, 26-28.
Its basis or condition is the law of God. Comp. Gen
26:3-5, and 1 Chron. 16:15-17, with Deut. 4:12, 13; Gal. 3:13,
14; Comp. Rom. 4:11, and 2:25; 2 Cor. 5:19, 20; Rom. 8:7.
It is evident that the gospel was called the new
Covenant, because it was second in order as made with the
children of Israel, and it was ratified or confirmed by the
blood of Christ after the Sinaitic. But it existed in promise (to
Abraham) and its blessings were secured by faith before the
Sinaitic covenant was made.
THE TWO COVENANTS.
Webster gives the following definitions of covenant:
“1. A mutual consent or agreement of two or more persons, to
do or to forbear some act or thing: a contract, stipulation. 2. A
writing containing the terms of agreement or contract between
parties.”
It is used in both senses in 2 Kings 23:3: the king made
a covenant, to perform the words of the covenant, written in
the book found in the house of the Lord.
In the scriptures speaking of the “two covenants,” both
these senses are included, either expressed or understood.
I. Sinaitic.—1. The agreement made on conditions. Ex.
19:5-8; 24:3,7; Deut. 24:16-19.
2. Written condition of this agreement. Ex. 20:17-17;
Deut. 4:12, 13; Ex. 24:12; 31:18; 32:15, 16; 34:28.
3. It had a mediator, or mediators. Gal. 3:19; Ex. 20:19,
21, 22; Deut. 5:5, 23-27; Lev. 10:17; 16:15, 16, 30.
4. Obedience to its conditions would have secured the
same blessings that are now granted in the gospel. Comp. Ex.
19:5, 6, with 1 Pet. 2:5, 9; Lev. 18:5; 20:22, 23, 26; Deut.
5:29; 7:6-9; 14:2;28:9; Comp. chap. 26:18, 19, with Titus
2:14; Deut 30:15-20; Ps. 19:7:11; 135:5; Jer. 7:22, 23; 11:3-5;
Eze. 20:11, 12, 19, 20; Eccl. 12:13, 14.
5 Its sole condition was obedience; therefore it did not
embrace forgiveness of sins. Ex. 19:5; Heb. 7:18, 19; 9:9;
10:1-4.
6. It was typical of the New Covenant. Luke 24:44;
Col. 2:17; Heb. 8:1-5; 9:9, 23, 24; 10:1
II. New Covenant.—1. Its object is a perfect agreement
between God and man. Isa. 53:6; John 3:16, 17; 14:6, 16, 20,
23; 17:22-26; Rom. 5:1, 10; 2 Cor. 5:18-20; Gal. 3:26; Eph.
2:13-18; 1 Pet. 3:18; 1 John 1:3.
2. This object is accomplished by (1.) The remission of
sin. Isa. 53:10-12;. Jer. 31:31-34; Dan. 9:24, 26; Mal. 4:2;
Matt. 20:28; Luke 5:24; 11:4; 24:46, 47; Acts 2:38; 3:19; 5:31;
10:43; 13:38, 39; 22:16; Rom. 1:16; 3:25, 26; 1 Cor. 15:3;
Eph. 5:25-27; Heb. 2:17; 7:27; 8:12; 9:14, 15, 22-28; 2 Pet.
1:4, 9; 1 John 1:7, 9; 2:1; Rev. 7:14. By bringing sinners back
to obedience. Ps. 89:30-32; Isa. 55:6, 7; Eze. 18:31, 32; Dan.
9:24; Matt. 1:21; 5:17-20; 6:21-23; 19:17; 21:43; Luke 10:25-
28; John 7:17; 8:11; Acts 3:25, 26; 5:29-32; Rom. 5:19; 6:1, 2,
4, 6, 12-16, 18; 7:22-25; 8:4; 10:20, 21; Gal. 5:24; Eph. 2:12,
13, 16; 2 Tim. 3:15-17; Titus 2:14; Heb. 9:11-14; Jas. 1:22,
25; 2:8-12; 4:12; 1 John 1:5-7; 2:1-6; 3:4, 8; 5:2, 3.
3. Its basis or condition is the law of God. Jer. 31:33;
John 6:38; Rom. 2:12, 16; 3:31; Gal. 3:13, 14; Heb. 8:10.
4. Execution of judgment or of the penalty of the law
belongs to this arrangement as well as to its type. Ps. 9:17;
Eccl. 12:14; Isa. 24:6, 17-22; 63:1-6; 66:15, 16; 59:17,18. Jer.
25:29-38. Dan. 7:11. Joel 3:12-16. Zeph. 1:14-18. Matt. 16:27;
24:30. Luke 17:29, 30. John 5:22, 27. Acts 10:42; 17:31. Rom.
6:23; 12:19. 2 Thess. 1:7-9. Heb. 10:27. 1 Pet. 4:17. 2 Pet. 2:1-
200 The Covenants. – The Covenants.
3. Jude 14, 15. Rev. 1:7; 6:14-17; 11:18; 14:9-11; 16; 19:19-
21; 20:9, 11, 15.
By the above scriptures it will be seen that the “better
promises” of the New Covenant are, the placing the law of
God in the heart, instead of on stone, and the forgiveness of
sin, by remission and surety of future obedience, which the old
did not contain, because its ministers had no blood to offer
which could remove sin. The points of identity show that if it
had not been broken, or being broken, if their sins could have
been remitted under it, there would have been no need of
another, as the object of the new would then have been fully
accomplished by that.
Some suppose that the covenant that passed away was
the ten commandments. A contract, or mutual agreement is
made void by the failure of either party to fulfill its
obligations: the children of Israel did not obey as they
promised, and the covenant ceased of necessity. But a law is
never invalidated or annulled by being transgressed. The
transgressor, by transgression, changes his position or relation
to the government of which the law is the basis, but the law is
not changed or weakened by his action.
—•—•—•—
From an article in the Review and Herald Periodical, April 12th 1860
The Two Covenants.
Eld. R. F. Cottrell.
1. WHAT is a covenant ?
(1.) A mutual agreement, or contract. It always requires
two parties, at least, to make a covenant. (2.) A writing
containing terms of agreement.
2. When was the old or “first covenant” made with
Israel?
“In the day,” says God, “that I took them by the hand to
bring them out of the land of Egypt.” Jer. 31:32.
3. Where was it made
“The Lord our God made a covenant with us in Horeb.”
Deut. 5:2.
4. What did the Lord do at that time ?
“The Lord talked with you,” said Moses, “in the mount
out of the midst of the fire.” Verse 4.
5. What did he speak out of the midst of the fire ?
“And he declared unto you his covenant, which he
commanded you to perform, even ten commandments.” Deut.
4:13.
6. Did the people act a part in making the covenant at
Horeb
“The Lord our God made a covenant with us.” Deut.
5:2.
7. Did the people help God make the ten
commandments ?
8. Did God and the people make a mutual agreement,
or contract, at the mount in Horeb ?
God said to Moses, “If ye will obey my voice indeed,
and keep my covenant [the ten commandments, Deut. 4:13],
then ye shall be a peculiar treasure unto me above all
people, . . these are the words which thou shalt speak unto the
children of Israel.” Ex. 19:5, 6.
202 The Two Covenants. – Eld. R. F. Cottrell.
9. When Moses laid these words before the people,

what did they reply ?
“And all the people answered together, and said, All
that the Lord hath spoken we will do. And Moses returned the
words of the people unto the Lord.” Verse 8.
10. In all these transactions, did God and the people
make a mutual agreement, contract, or covenant?
11. After they had heard the voice from Sinai which
they had promised to obey, did they ratify the covenant they
had made ?
“And Moses came and told the people all the words of
the Lord, and all the judgments, and all the people answered
with one voice, and said, All the words which the Lord hath
said will we do.” Ex. 24:3.
12. Was the covenant then dedicated with blood? (See
Heb. 9:18-20.)
“And Moses wrote all the words of the Lord And he
took the book of the covenant, and read in the audience of the
people: and they said, All that the Lord hath said will we do,
and be obedient. And Moses took the blood and sprinkled it on
the people, and said, Behold the blood of the covenant, which
the Lord hath made with you concerning all these words.” See
Ex. 21:4-8.
13. Were “these words” of the Lord the covenant made
in Horeb ? or was the covenant an agreement between the
Lord and the people “concerning all these words”?
14. Did the people break the covenant ?
“Which my covenant they brake.” Jer. 31:32.
15. When they had broken their promise, was the Lord
bound to fulfill his ?
“Should I have continued a husband unto them? saith
the Lord.” Verse 32, margin.

16. With whom was the new covenant to be made ?
“With the house of Israel, and with the house of
Judah.” Verse 31.
17. How can Gentiles partake of its blessings
By being grafted in among them. Rom. 11:17.
18. By what blood is the new covenant dedicated ?
Said Jesus, “This is my blood of the new testament.”
Matt. 26:28.
19. When God promised a new covenant, did he
promise a new law ?
Said he, “I will put my law in their inward parts, and
write it In their hearts.” Jer. 31:33.
20. What did Jesus, who is the mediator of the
covenant, say concerning the existing law ?
“Think not that I am come to destroy the law.” “Till
heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise
pass from the law.” Matt. 5:17, 18.
21. Repeat the “better promises” of the “better
covenant.”
“I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in
their hearts; and will be their God. . . . They shall all know me.
. . . I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin
no more.” Jer. 31:33, 34. And, being redeemed from sin, they
have “the promise of eternal inheritance.” See Heb, 9:14, 15.
—•—•—•—
From an article in the Review and Herald Periodical, September 7th
1886

Two Covenants Sharing Book

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Two Covenants Sharing Book

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Seven Sermons

Moses was the minister through whom the negotiation was

before any formal agreement whatever was made with that

your life, liberty, and property. The citizens respond, We will

being told all that he had said to Moses, had an opportunity to

the shadow of a doubt, if such should linger in any mind, we

blood was shed. And they, by partaking of those emblems,

But it says nothing of this kind, as the reader has

As previously shown, the death of Christ on the cross

and delivereth them.” Ps. 34:7. But do angels maintain the

Our opponents say that the law of ten commandments

it is found that the Sabbath cannot be dispensed with; for even

according to the commandment.” But, says the objector, that

commandment which enforced it. The weekly Sabbath looks

Gal. 3:8; Heb. 4:2.

The Christian world is acquainted with the history of

refers to the prophecy just quoted from Jeremiah, and says:

commandments contained in ordinances, for to make in

law of God with the Sabbath were sealed in that covenant by

chapter, are said to be of the children of Israel. We find the

God eternally as a reminder of their redemption from sin.

Therefore, leaving them with the Lord, who will deal

opportunity will expire by limitation when Christ concludes

THE TWO COVENANTS.

new covenant because it pertains to the Gentiles, whereas the

the heritage of the Almighty. But when men began again to

become circumcised and unite with the Hebrews in his service

life of Christ. In the last memorable evening of his life, as he

laid down the keeping of the commandments as the condition

strangers and foreigners, but fellow-citizens with the saints,

Abraham, as adopted by the God of the whole earth, when he

testament in my blood” (Luke 22:20), it is the same as if he

any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in

ADDED NO MORE,” Deut. 5:22. This was THE VOICE OF

obey it ? Lest they had forgotten something of that which God

testimony its proper place, and will then show a divine

more properly, we maintain, that the ten commandments do

it a contract between God and his people, but simply because

dedication of the covenant concerning the law of God, and

covenant to which Jeremiah refers. But it is remarkable that

covenant of which he spoke. He says: “Which my covenant

be spoken by the voice of God. This text preserves the

God of Heaven from the obligation he had taken upon himself,

14. But the ten commandments had no precept that related to

faulty. It was not because it was so closely connected with the

live in exact conformity with his perfect law of right; but it

one which it supersedes. Here are the terms of this covenant:

obedience by making the law a part of the very nature of those

accepts his blood as our only ground of pardon; 2. As our

1:21), is brought to a final conclusion when all their sins are

examined (1 Cor. 6:1-3; Rev. 20:1-4); and after the execution

emperor. That monarch, becoming interested in the young

transgression. Question: What is it that the young man has

and Gal. 4:21-31, this subject shall be concluded. 1. The two

second covenant he calls “a better covenant” and “a new

THE OFFER OF THE THE ANSWER OF THE

blessings on the Jews in preference to all other nations.

the glory, and the covenants [this signifies at least two

SIMILARITIES BETWEEN THE FIRST AND THE

force, until the shadow blood and is of force ever

DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE FIRST AND THE

It could never take It cleanses from all sin

THE FIRST, WHICH IS THE SECOND, WHICH IS