In the history of Reformed theology, some scholars describe a significant development in the theology of the sixteenth-century magisterial Reformers and their heirs in the seventeenth century. One area of ongoing debate concerns covenant theology. Many modern critics argue that the covenant theology articulated in the Westminster Standards of the seventeenth century represents a departure from the theology of the magisterial Reformers.¹ According to this view, the Reformers emphasized a single covenant of grace, while the later Reformed scholastics of the seventeenth century introduced a more complex system centered on two covenants: the covenant of works and the covenant of grace. Critics often regard this later development as excessively legalistic and disconnected from the original spirit of the Reformation.

The covenant theology of Robert Rollock (1555–1599) challenges this interpretation. Rollock, a Scottish Presbyterian theologian, lived at the end of the early Reformation period and the beginning of early Reformed orthodoxy. Although he lived nearly five decades before the Westminster Assembly, his writings reveal a remarkably developed covenant theology that closely resembles the theology later codified in the Westminster Standards. His work provides compelling evidence that many ideas commonly associated with seventeenth-century high Reformed orthodoxy were already present in the sixteenth century.

Rollock’s covenant theology includes a clear distinction between a covenant of works and a covenant of grace, a strong law-gospel distinction, a doctrine of the republication of the covenant of works within the Mosaic covenant, and a belief in one covenant of grace administered in different ways throughout redemptive history. These themes would later become defining features of classic Reformed covenant theology. An examination of Rollock’s understanding of these doctrines reveals far more continuity between the theology of the early Reformation period of the sixteenth century and later high Reformed orthodoxy than many critics acknowledge.

Rollock’s Twofold Covenant Structure

Rollock’s key theological contribution is his covenant theology. Indeed, he was the first Scottish theologian to write a theological treatise on the covenant, Some Questions and Answers About God’s Covenant and the Sacrament That Is the Seal of God’s Covenant, in 1596. This was followed by a more substantial work on effectual calling entitled A Treatise of Our Effectual Calling in 1597. What is clear in his writings is that his entire hermeneutical framework is covenantal. He states,

Now, therefore, we are to speak of the Word, or of the Covenant of God, having first set down this ground, that all the word of God appertains to some Covenant; for God speaks nothing to man without the covenant. For which cause all the Scripture, both old and new, wherein all God’s word is contained, bears the name of God’s covenant or testament.²

Central to Rollock’s theology is the conviction that Scripture teaches two fundamental covenants by which God relates to humanity. He explicitly identifies these as the covenant of works and the covenant of grace. This distinction forms the foundation of his entire theological system.

Rollock believes that this twofold covenantal structure is rooted in Scripture itself. In particular, he points to Paul’s discussion in Galatians 4:24, where Hagar and Sarah are said to represent “two covenants.” For Rollock, Paul’s language confirms that God’s dealings with humanity must be understood in terms of two distinct covenantal arrangements. One covenant operates according to the principle of works, while the other operates according to the principle of grace.

This position is significant because it demonstrates that a bicovenantal framework is not purely a feature of high Reformed orthodoxy. Rather, Rollock’s writings show that such a framework was already being articulated clearly in the sixteenth century. His theology, therefore, serves as an important bridge between the first generation of Reformers and the later period of Reformed scholasticism.

The Covenant of Works

Rollock defines the covenant of works in this way: “It is the covenant of God in which he promises man eternal life under the condition of good works proceeding from the powers of man’s nature, and man accepts that condition of good works.”³ According to Rollock, the covenant of works was established between God and man before the fall. In this covenant, God promised eternal life on the condition of perfect obedience. For Rollock, Adam was created holy, righteous, and fully capable of fulfilling the covenant’s requirements. God had written his law on Adam’s heart, enabling him to obey perfectly. Mankind therefore entered the covenant of works possessing everything necessary for covenantal faithfulness.

The covenant contained both a promise and a threat. If Adam remained obedient, he would receive eternal blessedness and everlasting life or, as Rollock says, “a blessed life enduring forever.”⁴ If he disobeyed, he would suffer death. Life was promised for obedience, while death was threatened for disobedience.

A key feature of Rollock’s doctrine is the emphasis on the works principle operating within the covenant. Blessing and life were promised for obedience, while curse and death were promised for disobedience.

Rollock argues that there was no need for grace before the fall. Since sin had not yet entered the world, there was no breach between God and man. Adam enjoyed fellowship and friendship with God and therefore required neither forgiveness nor mediation. In this pre-fall state, God and man were not enemies but friends. As a result, Rollock maintains that the covenant of works was grounded in Adam’s original righteous nature rather than in divine grace.

Despite emphasizing the works principle, Rollock rejects the idea that Adam could merit eternal life in a strict sense. He argues that truly meritorious actions must go beyond what is required. Since Adam was already obligated to obey God, his obedience could not place God under obligation. He states, “It is a question here, whether, in the first creation, good works in the covenant of works were required of man, as meritorious for the promised life? I answer, not so.”⁵ Adam’s obedience was therefore performed out of duty, gratitude, and the desire to glorify God rather than as a means of earning merit. This distinction allowed Rollock to uphold the covenant of works while avoiding any suggestion that finite creatures could compel rewards from God through their actions.

The Republication of the Covenant of Works

One of the most influential aspects of Rollock’s covenant theology is his understanding of the Mosaic covenant. Rollock argues that the covenant of works was “repeated” after the fall, especially through the giving of the law at Mount Sinai. In question 18 of his Some Questions and Answers, he asks if the covenant of works is “repeated” after God established it with Adam in Eden. He answers as follows:

It was continually repeated from the creation and fall of man up until the coming of Christ. First, it was delivered by a living voice. Then, it was engraved upon tables of stone by the fingers of God himself. Afterwards, it was handed down and inscribed by Moses. Finally, it was repeated and inscribed by the Prophets, each in his own place and order. And so it is known to us from the Old Testament.⁶

Rollock thus clearly affirms that the law God wrote on Adam’s heart in Eden through the covenant of works is precisely the same law he engraved on stone and handed down to Moses on Mount Sinai. The covenant of works is therefore republished in the Mosaic covenant, according to Rollock. Yet this does not mean that Rollock denies the Mosaic covenant is an administration of the covenant of grace. He clearly affirms that it is, as he denies that Israel could be justified through their obedience to the Mosaic covenant in a post-fall context. Rather, he sees the republished covenant of works operating in the Mosaic covenant performing a pedagogical function, acting as a “schoolmaster.”⁷ Obedience to the law after the fall cannot result in justification before God. Instead, the law is there to convict people of their sins, overwhelm them with the reality that their good works cannot save them, and ultimately lead them to flee to Christ and trust in him as the only perfectly obedient one.⁸ The purpose of the republication of the covenant of works with the children of Israel, for Rollock, was ultimately to prepare them for the covenant of grace.

The Continuing Function of the Covenant of Works

Rollock believes that the covenant of works continues to exist even after the coming of Christ. The requirement of perfect obedience has never changed. God still demands complete righteousness as the condition for eternal life.

This explains why, in Rollock’s view, in Matthew 19:17 Jesus tells the rich young ruler, “If you would enter life, keep the commandments.” The standard remains the same because God’s holiness remains the same. The conditions to enter eternal life have not changed in the New Testament. The Lord still requires perfect obedience to the law, the keeping of the covenant of works, in order to receive eternal life, as the works principle remains. Yet because Christ has fulfilled the terms of the covenant of works through his perfect obedience to the law, those who are in Christ are no longer under a covenant of works; for them the covenant of works is “abolished,” according to Rollock.⁹ For those in Christ, the law no longer functions as a covenant of works in that obedience to the law cannot justify a person. Yet Rollock affirms the usefulness of the law in the life of a believer, that the moral law abides forever and is useful for Christians in the covenant of grace. He is no antinomian. The use of the moral law for the believer is thus to lead to what he calls “works of grace,”¹⁰ or evangelical obedience, which constitutes the process of sanctification and living a life that glorifies God.

The Covenant of Grace

Rollock teaches that God established a second covenant with man, a covenant of grace, due to Adam’s breaking the covenant of works. This was because Adam received the penalty for breaking the covenant of works, death of his body and soul. Thus mankind, dead in sin and trespasses, needs redemption. Rollock says that in man’s sinful state, “he could not even imagine his own redemption.”¹¹ It is precisely for this reason that God had to graciously intervene and provide a mediator, his own Son Jesus Christ, in order to save his people, which is the heart of the promise of the covenant of grace. The covenant of grace was established immediately after the fall in Genesis 3:15, where God promised to send a redeemer from the seed of Eve who will crush the head of the serpent and through that achieve redemption for God’s people.

Christ and the Covenant of Grace

How exactly was this mediator-redeemer to save God’s people? God sent his Son Jesus Christ in the fullness of time, “born of woman, born under the law” (Gal 4:4). Rollock understood this to mean that Jesus was born under the covenant of works. Unlike Adam, who broke the covenant of works, Jesus fulfilled the covenant of works on behalf of his people. He did this in two ways: first, through his perfect obedience to the law (his active obedience), thereby successfully keeping the terms of the covenant. Second, Jesus had to suffer and die on the cross to take on himself the curse of breaking the covenant (his passive obedience). This was necessary to satisfy God’s justice and wrath for those who have broken the covenant. Thus, the ground of the covenant of grace is Jesus’s death on the cross, his payment of the covenant curse due under the covenant of works. Those who trust in Christ receive his righteousness imputed to them, through which they are justified before God. This justification is a gift of grace and mercy from God promised through the covenant of grace.

Interestingly, Rollock does not believe that Christ’s active obedience merited grace and reconciliation to God for sinners. For Rollock, it is only Christ’s passive obedience, his suffering and death on the cross—and not his good works—that actually merit salvation.¹² The reason he gives for this is that he sees Scripture speaking about Christ meriting salvation only through his atonement, specifically in Romans 3:25 and 5:19. The role of Christ’s active obedience is instead to provide, according to Rollock, “the sacred foundation of his satisfaction and his merit, which satisfaction and merit themselves belong to his passion alone.”¹³ The reason Christ’s atoning work on the cross had such efficacy was precisely because of his perfect obedience to the law—that he was in himself holy and sinless.

Regarding the conditionality of the covenant of grace, Rollock denies the existence of any conditions, as it is by nature a gracious covenant. Yet this does not mean that the benefits of the covenant of grace are automatically granted to all. The free condition, according to Rollock, to receive God’s free gift of grace in Christ is “faith in the mediator,”¹⁴ which is itself a free gift from God and not from man’s own strength. This means, then, that good works, as required under the covenant of works, are completely excluded in terms of contributing anything toward the justification of a believer. Good works flow out of regenerating faith. These “evangelical works,” as Rollock calls them, do not contribute toward justification but result from already being justified.¹⁵ It is faith alone in Christ alone that justifies; this, according to Rollock, is the sole “condition” of the covenant of grace.¹⁶ Thus, those who do not receive Christ by faith cannot be justified and remain excluded from the covenant of grace.

One Covenant of Grace, Many Administrations

Following Calvin, Rollock teaches that there is one covenant of grace administered in diverse ways across redemptive history. God first established the covenant in Genesis 3:15 and continued to administer it through the patriarchs, Moses, David, the prophets, and finally Christ. Each stage of redemptive history contributes additional clarity, but the essential promise remains the same. For Rollock, the covenant of grace that God established with the children of Israel in the Old Testament was “the same in thing and substance, but diverse in accidents” regarding the covenant of grace established with Christ’s church in the New Testament.¹⁷

Because the covenant itself remains unchanged, Rollock concludes that believers in both the Old and New Testaments are saved in the same way. Old Testament believers trusted God’s promises concerning the coming Messiah, while New Testament believers trust the Messiah who has already come. In both cases, salvation is by grace through faith in Christ.

This understanding leads Rollock to affirm the unity of God’s people throughout history. There is not one way of salvation in the Old Testament and another in the New Testament. Rather, there has always been a single covenant of grace and a single people of God.

Sacraments and the Covenant of Grace

Rollock’s covenant theology also shapes his doctrine of the sacraments. He understands baptism and the Lord’s Supper as signs and seals of the covenant of grace.

These sacraments point believers toward Christ and his saving work. They signify forgiveness of sins, justification, union with Christ, regeneration, and eternal life. Rollock, however, rejects the idea that the sacraments are merely symbolic reminders. He insists that the Holy Spirit actively works through them. Through faithful participation in the sacraments, believers receive a real confirmation and strengthening of faith.

Thus, baptism and the Lord’s Supper serve both as visible testimonies of God’s promises and as means through which God communicates spiritual blessings to his people.

Continuity with the Westminster Standards

The similarities between Rollock’s covenant theology and the covenant theology of the Westminster Standards are striking. Both teach that God established a covenant of works with Adam wherein Adam was promised eternal, eschatological life if he obeyed God’s law, while he was promised death and estrangement from God if he disobeyed. In other words, the covenant was embedded with a works principle—blessing and life for obedience, curse and death for disobedience.^[18] Both teach that God created Adam good and holy and therefore with the capacity to fulfill the terms of the covenant, yet also with the possibility to disobey.¹⁹

Both Rollock and the Westminster Standards teach a form of republication of the covenant of works in the Mosaic covenant. Both affirm that the Mosaic covenant is an administration of the covenant of grace and that God’s people are not saved through obedience to the law. The purpose of reissuing the covenant of works at Sinai was so that the law would act as a schoolmaster, convicting God’s people of their sins and leading them to trust in Christ for salvation.²⁰

Regarding the law’s role in the Christian life, Rollock and the Westminster Standards also share key similarities. Both clearly deny that believers in Christ continue to be under a covenant of works and thus deny that obedience to the law contributes to a person’s justification in any way.²¹ The role of the law for believers is instead to convict them of their sins, restrain sin, lead them to trust in Christ, and show them how to live a life that glorifies God.²²

There is also much continuity between Rollock’s understanding of the covenant of grace and what is articulated in the Westminster Standards. Both understand that the covenant of grace was established because of man’s fall into sin and his inability to keep the covenant of works. The grace of God—not necessary before the fall as there was no sin—was thus necessary to save man due to his own inability to do so.²³

Both Rollock and the Westminster Standards understand that Christ fulfilled the terms of the covenant of works. He did this through his perfect obedience to the law that Adam failed to keep and by his paying for the covenant curse through his suffering and death on the cross.²⁴ Thus, those who believe in the perfect works of Christ are under a covenant of grace, and they freely receive forgiveness of sins and the imputation of Christ’s righteousness.²⁵ There are no conditions to receiving these blessings of the covenant; only faith in Christ is required, itself a gift from God.²⁶

Both Rollock and the Westminster Standards teach the existence of one covenant of grace established by God in Genesis 3:15, administered in diverse ways across redemptive history. Both see that Christ was promised in the Old Testament administrations of the covenant of grace, and that those promises were fulfilled with the incarnation of Christ in the New Testament through the new covenant.²⁷ Because the substance of the covenant is the same across redemptive history, both conclude that God’s people in the Old Testament and New Testament are saved in exactly the same way—by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone.²⁸

There is also much continuity with Rollock’s understanding of the relationship between the sacraments and the covenant of grace and that of the Westminster Standards. Both teach that the sacraments of baptism and the Lord’s Supper are signs and seals of the covenant of grace.²⁹ By this they mean that the sacraments point to Christ and his benefits, and by participation in them by faith, the Holy Spirit seals Christ and his benefits to the believer. They deny that the sacraments are purely symbolic and both affirm their efficacious nature in communicating Christ by his Spirit.³⁰

The points of disagreement are relatively limited. Rollock does not explicitly develop the doctrine of Adam’s federal headship in the same way as the Westminster Standards. Likewise, he differs regarding the precise role of Christ’s active obedience in meriting salvation. Despite these differences, the two theological systems show undeniable continuity and consistency.

Conclusion

The claim that the covenant theology of the Westminster Standards represents an aberration from the covenant theology of the early Reformation of the sixteenth century is simply not supported by evidence. While the Westminster Standards certainly show development and change compared with Rollock, a representative of the era (as shown through some discontinuities), they also show overwhelming alignment and continuity.

Notes

1. Karl Barth, Church Dogmatics, Vol. 4, Part 1, The Doctrine of Reconciliation, ed by. T. F. Torrance, trans.  Geoffrey W. Bromiley (Clark, 2004), 62–65; David F. Wright and Gary D. Badcock, eds., Disruption to Diversity: Edinburgh Divinity, 1846–1996 (T&T Clark, 1996), 10–11; and James B. Torrance, “Covenant or Contract?: A Study of the Theological Background of Worship in Seventeenth-Century Scotland,” Scottish Journal of Theology 23, no. 1 (February 1970): 51–76.
2. Robert Rollock, A Treatise of Our Effectual Calling, in  The Select Works of Robert Rollock, ed. William M. Gunn (Edinburgh, 1849), 1:33–34.
3. Robert Rollock, Some Questions and Answers About God’s Covenant, trans. Aaron Clay Denlinger (Pickwick Publications, 2016), Q&A 3.
4. Rollock, Some Questions and Answers, Q&A 7.
5. Rollock, Our Effectual Calling, in Select Works, 1:37.
6. Rollock, Some Questions and Answers, Q&A 18.
7. Rollock, Our Effectual Calling, in Select Works, 1:49.
8. Rollock, Some Questions and Answers, Q&A 21.
9. Rollock, Some Questions and Answers; and Our Effectual Calling, in Select Works, 1:37.
10. Rollock, Our Effectual Calling, in Select Works, 1:37.
11. Rollock, Some Questions and Answers, Q&A 31.
12. See Matthew C. McDaniel’s work on Ursinus and Olevianus’s views on the active obedience of Christ: “The Origins of Reformed Discourse on Imputed Active Obedience: Heidelberg’s Reception of Georg Karg’s 100 Propositions on Justification in 1565,” Reformation & Renaissance Review, 27, no. 3 (2025).
13. Rollock, Some Questions and Answers, Q&A 47.
14. Rollock, Some Questions and Answers, Q&A 62.
15. Rollock, Our Effectual Calling, in Select Works, 1:40.
16. Rollock, Some Questions and Answers, Q&A 64.
17. Rollock, Some Questions and Answers, Q&A 82.
18. Rollock, Some Questions and Answers, Q&A 5–7; and Westminster Confession of Faith (WCF) 7.2.
19. Rollock, Some Questions and Answers, Q&A 6; and WCF 4.2.
20. Rollock, Some Questions and Answers, Q&A 8; and WCF 19.2, 6.
21. Rollock, Some Questions and Answers, Q&A 101; and WCF 19.6.
22. Rollock, Our Effectual Calling, in Select Works, 1:37; and WCF 19.6.
23. Rollock, Some Questions and Answers, Q&A 31–32; and WCF 7.3.
24. Some Questions and Answers, Q&A 37–38; and WCF 8.4.
25. Rollock, Our Effectual Calling, in Select Works, 1:38–39; and WCF 7.3.
26. Rollock, Some Questions and Answers, Q&A 62; and WCF 7.3.
27. Rollock, Some Questions and Answers, Q&A 81–82; and WCF 7.5–6.
28. Rollock, Some Questions and Answers, Q&A 86; and WCF 7.5–6, 8.6.
29. Rollock, Some Questions and Answers, Q&A 107–8; and WCF 27.1.
30. Rollock, Some Questions and Answers, Q&A 128; and WCF 27.3.

©Antonio Coppola. All Rights Reserved.

---

RESOURCES

• Subscribe To The Heidelblog!
• Download the HeidelApp on Apple App Store or Google Play
• Browse the Heidelshop!
• The Heidelblog Resource Page
• Heidelmedia Resources
• The Ecumenical Creeds
• The Reformed Confessions
• The Heidelberg Catechism
• Remembering the Reformed Confession: Our Theology, Piety, and Practice (Heidelberg Reformation Association, 2026).
• The Heidelberg Catechism: A Historical, Theological, & Pastoral Commentary (Lexham Press, 2025)
• Recovering the Reformed Confession (P&R Publishing, 2008)
• Why I Am A Christian
• What Must A Christian Believe?
• Heidelblog Contributors
• Support Heidelmedia: use the donate button or send a check to

Heidelberg Reformation Association
1637 E. Valley Parkway #391
Escondido CA 92027
USA
The HRA is a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization

---

Post authored by:

• Antonio Coppola

  

  Antonio Coppola (MDiv Westminster Seminary California) is the Academic Dean at Mukhanyo Theological College in Pretoria, South Africa. He is a minister in the Presbyterian and Reformed Church of South Africa (PARCSA) and the author of Faithful God: An Introduction to Covenant Theology.

  More by Antonio Coppola ›