First Covenant

In the Westminster Confession there is reference to the covenant of works

I don't know if they meant it
but could we say that the Sinai covenant (i.e. the covenant NOT like the Abrahamic covenant)

is also a covenant of works - not so much to keep a moral law
but to bind 'god's people' into sin that they may see Christ and the true covenant

so then that covenant of works is the first covenant - cf Heb - and the old (meant to pass away) covenant

the always renewed covenant is then in Christ - is called the 2nd covenant
why? because He is the 2nd Adam - in which is covenant is based

the first covenant was only the 'scaffolding' to get us to the 2nd
the 2nd was eternal - based not so much on the works of the Son fulfilling a 'moral law'
but based on the Son Himself, who always is loved by the Father, and loves in return by laying down His life

Bobby puts it nicely here:

I think that the problem that the CoW introduces is one that finds its source in what it must presuppose about God, and his relation to nature by grace. The Covenant of Works presupposes that God is by nature (metaphysically, ontologically) a God who inter-relates amongst Himself through Law-keeping. I say this based upon an inference made by taking the imago Dei,and the imago Christi with upmost seriousness! If in fact man’s relation to God is based upon how the Son relates to the Father (and thus our union with Christ by the Spirit), based upon our creation and recreation in the imago Dei/Christi; then according to this premise, the way that the Son relates to the Father is not based on a mutual coinhering love amongst the God-head (Monarchia), but instead it would be based upon a Covenant of Works wherein the Son (as our vicarious mediator/Priest) only is able to find favor with the Father by His obedience to a morality that flows from the Father as thearche or ingenerate source of the “God-head.” In other words, if God is a God of “Law” prior to being shaped by “Love,” then there is introduced, necessarily, a subordinationist stream within the God-head that bases the identities of the persons within the God-head upon an impersonal Law-keeping and not of mutual love for the other that flows from the One Being of God that is consubtantial and coinhering by the inter-relations of the Three Persons. If this is the case, what this would explain, is how it is that the works of God (energies) are broken away from the being of God; so that how God works in creation can somehow be separated from who He is in His being as God. So that Jesus can be seen as the ‘instrument’ and ‘work’ of God in the incarnation who relates humanity to God by meeting the demands of the “Law.” In this scenario, Jesus becomes a non-necessary aspect of God’s One Being, and collapsed into the creation as the “Law-keeper” who meets the demands of a “Law-giving-demanding-god.”