The Covenant of Works: The Origins, Development, and Reception of the Doctrine (Oxford Studies in Historical Theology) [1 ed.] 9780190071363, 9780190071387, 9780190071370, 9780190071394, 0190071362

Table of contents :
Cover
Series
The Covenant of Works
Copyright
Dedication
Contents
Preface
Acknowledgments
Abbreviations
Introduction
1. The Reformation
2. Robert Rollock
3. Jacob Arminius
4. James Ussher
5. John Cameron and Edward Leigh
6. The Westminster Standards
7. The Formula Consensus Helvetica
8. Thomas Boston
9. John Colquhoun
10. The Twentieth Century
Conclusion
Notes
Bibliography
Scripture Index
Subject Index

Citation preview

The Covenant of Works

OX F O R D S T U D I E S I N H I S T O R IC A L T H E O L O G Y Series Editor Richard A. Muller, Calvin Theological Seminary Founding Editor David C. Steinmetz † Editorial Board Robert C. Gregg, Stanford University George M. Marsden, University of Notre Dame Wayne A. Meeks, Yale University Gerhard Sauter, Rheinische Friedrich-​Wilhelms-​Universität Bonn Susan E. Schreiner, University of Chicago John Van Engen, University of Notre Dame Robert L. Wilken, University of Virginia THE UNACCOMMODATED CALVIN Studies in the Foundation of a Theological Tradition Richard A. Muller

AFTER CALVIN Studies in the Development of a Theological Tradition Richard A. Muller

THE CONFESSIONALIZATION OF HUMANISM IN REFORMATION GERMANY Erika Rummell

THE POVERTY OF RICHESf St. Francis of Assisi Reconsidered Kenneth Baxter Wolf

THE PLEASURE OF DISCERNMENT Marguerite de Navarre as Theologian Carol Thysell REFORMATION READINGS OF THE APOCALYPSE Geneva, Zurich, and Wittenberg Irena Backus WRITING THE WRONGS Women of the Old Testament among Biblical Commentators from Philo through the Reformation John L. Thompson

REFORMING MARY Changing Images of the Virgin Mary in Lutheran Sermons of the Sixteenth Century Beth Kreitzer TEACHING THE REFORMATION Ministers and Their Message in Basel, 1529–​1629 Amy Nelson Burnett THE PASSIONS OF CHRIST IN HIGH-​MEDIEVAL THOUGHT An Essay on Christological Development Kevin Madigan

THE HUNGRY ARE DYING Beggars and Bishops in Roman Cappadocia Susan R. Holman

GOD’S IRISHMEN Theological Debates in Cromwellian Ireland Crawford Gribben

RESCUE FOR THE DEAD The Posthumous Salvation of Non-​Christians in Early Christianity Jeffrey A. Trumbower

REFORMING SAINTS Saint’s Lives and Their Authors in Germany, 1470–​1530 David J. Collins

GREGORY OF NAZIANZUS ON THE TRINITY AND THE KNOWLEDGE OF GOD In Your Light We Shall See Light Christopher A. Beeley THE JUDAIZING CALVIN Sixteenth-​Century Debates over the Messianic Psalms G. Sujin Pak THE DEATH OF SCRIPTURE AND THE RISE OF BIBLICAL STUDIES Michael C. Legaspi THE FILIOQUE History of a Doctrinal Controversy A. Edward Siecienski ARE YOU ALONE WISE? Debates about Certainty in the Early Modern Church Susan E. Schreiner EMPIRE OF SOULS Robert Bellarmine and the Christian Commonwealth Stefania Tutino MARTIN BUCER’S DOCTRINE OF JUSTIFICATION Reformation Theology and Early Modern Irenicism Brian Lugioyo CHRISTIAN GRACE AND PAGAN VIRTUE The Theological Foundation of Ambrose’s Ethics J. Warren Smith KARLSTADT AND THE ORIGINS OF THE EUCHARISTIC CONTROVERSY A Study in the Circulation of Ideas Amy Nelson Burnett READING AUGUSTINE IN THE REFORMATION The Flexibility of Intellectual Authority in Europe, 1500–1620 Arnoud S. Q. Visser

SHAPERS OF ENGLISH CALVINISM, 1660–​1714 Variety, Persistence, and Transformation Dewey D. Wallace, Jr. THE BIBLICAL INTERPRETATION OF WILLIAM OF ALTON Timothy Bellamah, OP Miracles and the Protestant Imagination The Evangelical Wonder Book in Reformation Germany Philip M. Soergel THE REFORMATION OF SUFFERING Pastoral Theology and Lay Piety in Late Medieval and Early Modern Germany Ronald K. Rittgers CHRIST MEETS ME EVERYWHERE Augustine’s Early Figurative Exegesis Michael Cameron MYSTERY UNVEILED The Crisis of the Trinity in Early Modern England Paul C. H. Lim GOING DUTCH IN THE MODERN AGE Abraham Kuyper’s Struggle for a Free Church in the Netherlands John Halsey Wood Jr. CALVIN’S COMPANY OF PASTORS Pastoral Care and the Emerging Reformed Church, 1536–​1609 Scott M. Manetsch THE SOTERIOLOGY OF JAMES USSHER The Act and Object of Saving Faith Richard Snoddy HARTFORD PURITANISM Thomas Hooker, Samuel Stone, and Their Terrifying God Baird Tipson AUGUSTINE, THE TRINITY, AND THE CHURCH A Reading of the Anti-​Donatist Sermons Adam Ployd

AUGUSTINE’S EARLY THEOLOGY OF IMAGE A Study in the Development of Pro-​ Nicene Theology Gerald Boersma

ORTHODOX RADICALS Baptist Identity in the English Revolution Matthew C. Bingham

PATRON SAINT AND PROPHET Jan Hus in the Bohemian and German Reformations Phillip N. Haberkern

DIVINE PERFECTION AND HUMAN POTENTIALITY The Trinitarian Anthropology of Hilary of Poitiers Jarred A. Mercer

JOHN OWEN AND ENGLISH PURITANISM Experiences of Defeat Crawford Gribben

THE GERMAN AWAKENING Protestant Renewal after the Enlightenment, 1815–​1848 Andrew Kloes

MORALITY AFTER CALVIN Theodore Beza’s Christian Censor and Reformed Ethics Kirk M. Summers

THE REGENSBURG ARTICLE 5 ON JUSTIFICATION Inconsistent Patchwork or Substance of True Doctrine? Anthony N. S. Lane

THE PAPACY AND THE ORTHODOX A History of Reception and Rejection Edward Siecienski DEBATING PERSEVERANCE The Augustinian Heritage in Post-​ Reformation England Jay T. Collier THE REFORMATION OF PROPHECY Early Modern Interpretations of the Prophet & Old Testament Prophecy G. Sujin Pak ANTOINE DE CHANDIEU The Silver Horn of Geneva’s Reformed Triumvirate Theodore G. Van Raalte

AUGUSTINE ON THE WILL A Theological Account Han-​luen Kantzer Komline THE SYNOD OF PISTORIA AND VATICAN II Jansenism and the Struggle for Catholic Reform Shaun Blanchard CATHOLICITY AND THE COVENANT OF WORKS James Ussher and the Reformed Tradition Harrison Perkins

The Covenant of Works The Origins, Development, and Reception of the Doctrine J. V. F E SKO

1

3 Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University’s objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide. Oxford is a registered trade mark of Oxford University Press in the UK and certain other countries. Published in the United States of America by Oxford University Press 198 Madison Avenue, New York, NY 10016, United States of America. © Oxford University Press 2020 All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, without the prior permission in writing of Oxford University Press, or as expressly permitted by law, by license, or under terms agreed with the appropriate reproduction rights organization. Inquiries concerning reproduction outside the scope of the above should be sent to the Rights Department, Oxford University Press, at the address above. You must not circulate this work in any other form and you must impose this same condition on any acquirer. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Names: Fesko, J. V., 1970– author. Title: The covenant of works : the origins, development, and reception of the doctrine / by J. V. Fesko. Description: New York, NY, United States of America : Oxford University Press, 2020. | Series: Oxford studies in historical theology | Includes bibliographical references and index. Identifiers: LCCN 2020007419 (print) | LCCN 2020007420 (ebook) | ISBN 9780190071363 (hb) | ISBN 9780190071387 (epub) | ISBN 9780190071370 (updf) | ISBN 9780190071394 (oso) Subjects: LCSH: Covenant theology—History of doctrines. | Reformed Church—History of doctrines. | Covenants—Religious aspects—Christianity. | Calvinists—Biography. | Theologians—Biography. Classification: LCC BT155 .F525 2020 (print) | LCC BT155 (ebook) | DDC 231.7/6—dc23 LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2020007419 LC ebook record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2020007420 1 3 5 7 9 8 6 4 2 Printed by Integrated Books International, United States of America

to Brian Miller

Contents Preface Acknowledgments Abbreviations

Introduction

xi xiii xv

1

1. The Reformation

11

2. Robert Rollock

33

3. Jacob Arminius

45

4. James Ussher

59

5. John Cameron and Edward Leigh

73

6. The Westminster Standards

95

7. The Formula Consensus Helvetica

119

8. Thomas Boston

137

9. John Colquhoun

155

10. The Twentieth Century

187

Conclusion

213

Notes Bibliography Scripture Index Subject Index

217 277 297 301

Preface This study represents the second installment in my ongoing research of early modern Reformed covenant theology. My first foray into this field was with my book The Covenant of Redemption: Origins, Development, and Reception (Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht, 2015). As I waded into the sources, I felt like I had received a theological education as I sat at the feet of some of the Reformed church’s greatest minds. I expected nothing less as I began my historical investigation of the covenant of works. Despite the noisy din of criticism against covenant theology and especially the covenant of works, I encountered a symphony of insight as I carefully listened to the primary sources. The more that I study early modern covenant theology, the more I am impressed with its insight, exegetical rigor, and theological profundity. I have chosen to use monographs and confessional documents to guide the narrative of the development of the doctrine. Despite the doctrine’s widespread presence in the Reformed church, few books are dedicated exclusively to the subject. Reformed confessions such as the Irish Articles, Westminster Confession, or Formula Consensus Helvetica also provide way points to demonstrate the doctrine’s development and reception. In addition to these sources, I have done my best to ground my historical narrative in primary sources and allow them, rather than secondary sources, to tell the story. While I may focus on key monographs, I appeal to other primary sources from each period to illuminate and fill out the narrative to avoid thrusting a lone source out onto the stage to sing a solo. As key documents and monographs receive the spotlight, they nevertheless receive support from a chorus of contributors. I typically use primary-​text sources in concert with their English-​language translations when available. Unless otherwise noted, all foreign-​language quotations are my own translations. In the end, my hope is that this book encourages people to dive back into the ocean of primary sources rather than linger on the shore with the questionable claims of secondary sources. The doctrine of the covenant of works is not a one-​text doctrine, as if it only amounted to a thimbleful of Scripture.

xii Preface Rather, there is an ocean of exegetical work that feeds the doctrine. And while one might not always agree with cited passages, there is undoubtedly a great body of Scripture to swim through in order to understand how theologians argued for the doctrine. In the end, I hope that readers find the story of the covenant of works interesting and edifying. I, for one, was fascinated and intrigued by all that I uncovered.

Acknowledgments I want to take stock of the assistance I have received as I have pursued this writing project. I am grateful first and foremost to Richard Muller, a fellow early modern pilgrim, for his friendship, support, and collegial engagement. Thank you for being willing to read my work and offer feedback and advice. You set a high bar of quality in your own work that I continually strive to emulate. I am also appreciative for Jonathan Cruse, who carefully read the manuscript and gave me numerous helpful suggestions to improve it. Thank you to David VanDrunen for taking the time to read through the manuscript and offer valuable advice. Similarly, Harrison Perkins provided insights particularly as it relates to my chapter on James Ussher. I also thank Levi Berntson, my TA, who helped me by compiling the index. I am thankful to the board and faculty of my former institution, Westminster Seminary California, which granted me a sabbatical during the 2016–​2017 academic year, affording me the opportunity to complete this project. As academic dean I  oversaw a dual re-​accreditation process that year: two reports, two site visits, and all of the attending work that goes with them. I was nevertheless able to squirrel away pockets of time to allow me to work on this book. I am now especially grateful to be on the faculty of Reformed Theological Seminary (RTS), Jackson, Mississippi, an institution that loves Reformed covenant theology and fully supports the academic labors of its professors. My hope is that this work contributes to RTS’s ongoing pursuit of studying and promoting the Reformed faith. My thanks to Cynthia Read for assessing my proposal and her positive engagement. The blind peer reviewers made excellent suggestions that undoubtedly enriched the work, so they definitely merit recognition, even if they lurk anonymously in the shadows. Thanks are due to the whole team at Oxford who played a role in seeing this book to press. I am grateful to my family, to my mom and dad, Lee and Eren Fesko, for your continued prayers and encouragement. Thank you to my in-​laws, Bob and Linda Jones, for your prayers and interest in my research and writing. I appreciate all of the love that my children give me—​John Jr., Robert, and Carmen Penelope—​you make coming home from work a joy. To my wife,

xiv Acknowledgments Anneke, thank you for your love and unceasing support of my labor. Without you, my family, all of my work would be hollow. You continually show me the love of Christ, our faithful covenant-​keeping last Adam. Dietrich Bonhoeffer once wrote, “In ordinary life we hardly realize that we receive a great deal more than we give, and that it is only with gratitude that life becomes rich.” I therefore dedicate this book to a friend, Brian Miller. You are a man of courage and integrity. While others bow to influence and wealth and play politics with truth, you calmly rest in God’s providence. You love and trust truth. God sent you at the right time to be my guardian angel, and I am profoundly grateful. I pray that the Lord continues to bless you, your family, and your labors.

Abbreviations art. article CNTS Calvin’s New Testament Commentaries Comm. comments on CTS Calvin Translation Society FCH Formula Consensus Helvetica fol., fols. folio, folios NICNT New International Commentary on the New Testament 1 NPNF Nicene Post-​Nicene Fathers, Series 1 NPNF2 Nicene Post-​Nicene Fathers, Series 2 NS New Series p., pp. page, pages s. v. sub verbo (“under the word”) vol. volume WCF Westminster Confession of Faith WLC Westminster Larger Catechism WSC Westminster Shorter Catechism

Introduction Acquaintance with the covenant of works was of the greatest importance, according to Dutch Reformed theologian Wilhelmus à Brakel (1635–​1711). “For whoever errs here or denies the existence of the covenant of works,” writes à Brakel, “will not understand the covenant of grace, and will readily err concerning the mediatorship of the Lord Jesus. Such a person will readily deny that Christ by his active obedience has merited a right to eternal life for the elect.”1 For à Brakel, the covenant of works was a vital and commonly professed doctrine in early modern Reformed theology. Although the doctrine arose in the late sixteenth century, theologians quickly made it a regular feature in Reformed thought. They believed that there was strong scriptural evidence revealing that when God first plunged his hands into the dust of the earth to form man and breathed life into his lungs, God made a covenant with him. The terms of this covenant were simple: all Adam had to do was obey God’s command and not eat from the tree of knowledge and obey God’s command to be fruitful, multiply, and subdue the earth. The reward for Adam’s obedience was profound: eschatological life for him and his offspring. The consequences for his disobedience were dire:  God would visit Adam with death for both him and his offspring. In the covenant of works, Adam was not merely acting on his own behalf but served as a public person, or the federal head of the human race. The Westminster Confession of Faith (1647) gives a succinct definition of this all-​important covenant: “The first covenant made with Man, was a Covenant of Works, wherein Life was promised to Adam, and in him to his posterity, upon condition of perfect and personall obedience.”2 Yet, as common as the doctrine was, by the twentieth century a number of high-​profile Reformed theologians rejected it as unbiblical and characterized it as a threat to the grace of God in Christ. They downplayed the forensic elements in Calvin’s doctrines of justification and union with Christ and have thus earned the label of the “Anti-​Legal School.”3 Rather than serving as the doctrine that preserved the covenant of grace and the work of Christ, Karl Barth (1886–​1968) believed that the doctrine infected Reformed theology with the virus of Pelagianism.4 The Covenant of Works. J. V. Fesko, Oxford University Press (2020). © Oxford University Press. DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780190071363.001.0001

2 Introduction The disparate and contradictory assessments of à Brakel and Barth evoke the question, How did the covenant of works go from rampart to a siege engine against the work of Christ? The short answer to this question is that, despite claiming their professed commitment to Reformed theology, critics of the doctrine ceased to employ classic Reformed theological principles such as the analogia Scripturae (analogy of Scripture), rejected natural theology, and were hostile toward Reformed scholasticism. The longer and more detailed answer follows in the pages of this volume, which traces the origins, development, and positive and negative reception of the covenant of works in Reformed theology. In this book I seek to prove that, despite its negative reception in the twentieth century, early modern Reformed theologians of the Reformation (1517–​65), Early Orthodoxy (1565–​1640), and High Orthodoxy (1640–​1700) constructed the doctrine in an exegetically careful manner by collating numerous biblical texts to conclude that God created Adam and entered into a covenantal relationship with him. The covenant of works was not a de novo creation of Reformed theology but has pedigree in the ancient church, with broad exegetical footing, and serves as the nexus for a number of key theological loci, including anthropology, Christology, soteriology, and eschatology. But before proving this claim I offer a survey of the present state of the question—​a necessary prerequisite.

State of the Question Primary Sources Despite the perceived importance of the covenant of works according to theologians such as à Brakel, there are surprisingly few monographs on the doctrine. By my count, only seven books exclusively treat the topic prior to the twentieth century. There is Thomas Boston’s (1676–​1732) eighteenth-​ century work, A View of the Covenant of Works; the nineteenth-​century works by John Colquhoun (1748–​1827), A Treatise on the Covenant of Works; William Lusk, Discourses on the Covenant of Works, the Fall of Man, and Original Sin; James Duncan, A Treatise on the Covenant of Works; and John Love, The Covenant of Works: Its Nature and End.5 Boston, Colquhoun, and Lusk positively exposit and defend the doctrine, which stands in stark contrast to John Eagleton’s nineteenth-​century work, Thoughts on the Covenant of Works, and Samuel Jones’s Doctrine of the Covenants Wherein Is Shewn That

Introduction  3 There Never Was a Covenant of Works Made with Adam, in which they seek to dismantle it.6 There are, of course, numerous treatments of the doctrine within various early modern theological works, such as Francis Turretin’s (1623–​87) Institutes of Elenctic Theology and books dedicated to covenant theology in general, such as Herman Witsius’s (1636–​1708) Economy of the Covenants or Francis Roberts’s (1609–​75) Medulla Bibliorum.7 And in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries the doctrine appears in the systematic theologies of Charles Hodge (1797–​1878), Herman Bavinck (1854–​1921), and Louis Berkhof (1873–​1957), for example.8 There are also a few scattered published sermons on the doctrine.9

Secondary Sources Among the secondary sources, a small handful of monographs and essays explore the history of the doctrine from various vantage points.10 In the early twentieth century, N. Diemer wrote his The Creation Covenant with Adam (the Covenant of Works):  In the Theologians of the Sixteenth, Seventeenth, and Eighteenth Centuries in Switzerland, Germany, the Netherlands, and England.11 Diemer’s thesis is that seventeenth-​century Reformed theologians including Johannes Cloppenburg (1592–​1652), Johannes Cocceius (1603–​ 69), and Witsius departed the more scripturally sound covenant theology of the Reformation, represented by Ulrich Zwingli (1484–​1531), Heinrich Bullinger (1504–​75), and John Calvin (1509–​64). Diemer’s work focuses primarily on the covenant of works as his test case to prove the discontinuities between the Reformation and post-​Reformation periods. Diemer’s work marks a twentieth-​century trend in which theologians and historians pit the Reformation against the post-​Reformation period, or more specifically, Calvin against the so-​called Calvinists. Barth, for example, rejected the covenant of works because he believed it introduced a foreign contractual concept rather than recognize the promissory character of God’s dealings with humanity.12 According to Barth, Calvin also supposedly rejected the concept of natural law, which was a key element of the covenant of works.13 Other twentieth-​century Reformed theologians rejected the covenant of works for similar reasons. John Murray (1898–​1975) argued that covenants were promissory in character and hinged his claim upon the fact that the term berith (covenant) first appeared in God’s dealings with Noah, not before. Hence, there was no Adamic covenant. Instead, Murray labeled God’s

4 Introduction dealings with Adam the Adamic Administration.14 James B. Torrance (1923–​ 2003) made similar claims. Torrance maintained that post-​Reformation Calvinists imposed the idea of contract (a mutual agreement) upon the biblical idea of covenant (a promise). Following Barth, Torrance believed that later Calvinists inverted Calvin’s gospel-​law construct and replaced it with a law-​gospel structure by contaminating Calvin’s theology with the covenant of works. When combined with the doctrine of election, the covenant of works produced negative side effects such as limited atonement and imputed guilt. Holmes Rolston III (1932–​) has also made these claims regarding the covenant of works vis-​à-​vis Calvin and the later Reformed tradition.15 Later Calvinists were federal theologians, but Calvin was not.16 Diemer, Barth, Murray, and Torrance are part of the group of historians and theologians who pit Calvin against later Reformed theologians, especially on matters related to the covenant of works. Another group claims continuity between Calvin and later Reformed theologians. This is not to say that these scholars accept the claim that Calvin is a normative figure for the Reformed tradition but rather that his own theology contains the basic building blocks of what would later develop into the covenant of works.17 Other lines of scholarship argue that Reformed covenant theology developed as an effort to soften the supposedly harsh edges of the doctrine of predestination, a claim that goes back to the nineteenth century and historians such as Heinrich Heppe (1820–​79).18 But some historians have countered this thesis arguing that there are not two strains of Reformed theology, namely, the covenantal and predestinarian. Rather, Reformed theologians employ both doctrines harmoniously within their respective theological works.19 There is also a small body of literature that has sought to pinpoint the precise origins of the covenant of works; David Weir and Robert Letham suggest Zacharias Ursinus (1534–​83) is a chief source of the doctrine, though Derk Visser and others dissent.20 But some, such as Peter Lillback, suggest that Calvin is a likely source behind Ursinus’s covenant concept and thus the doctrine owes its origins to Calvin as well.21 Beyond the quest for the source of the covenant of works, some historians have pushed back against the Barthian-​ influenced historiography that claimed that later Reformed theologians imposed a misguided notion of covenant upon the biblical text. In an essay that showcases the views of Witsius and à Brakel, Richard A.  Muller demonstrated the exegetical argumentation and theological methodology behind the covenant works as a doctrinal construct.22 Other essays fall in this trajectory and refute criticisms of

Introduction  5 the covenant of works and demonstrate its compatibility with confessional documents.23 In addition to these historical works, some have contributed hybrid works that present both the history of the doctrine and a positive doctrinal case for it.24 Some historians have cut their own path through the field of studies on the covenant of works and have explored its relationship to the Mosaic covenant.25 Several summary observations regarding the state of the question based upon the above-​cited literature are as follows. In the Calvin versus the Calvinists strand of scholarship, historians pit the reformer against the later tradition because they erroneously believe he was normative and they desire to return to his version of covenant theology. They seek to turn back the clock, before the rise of the covenant of works, and undo the early and high orthodox corruptions of Calvin’s theology. This literature usually bears two marks. First, it looks for the presence or absence of the term covenant in the Genesis 1–​3 creation account and fails to examine the substance of the doctrine (e.g., Murray). Second, for theological reasons, authors impose a Barthian grid over their historiography, that is, Calvin was the Barthian morning star and supposedly posited a gospel-​law construct rather than a law-​gospel arrangement in his understanding of pre-​redemptive and redemptive history (Barth, Torrance, Rolston). A  concomitant with these historiographical claims is that scholasticism was a foreign invader to the Reformed tradition, which contributed to the development of illegitimate doctrines like the covenant of works. The second group within the body of literature does not identify Calvin as normative but nevertheless places his theology in continuity with the later developments and refinements that eventually formally gave birth to the covenant of works. Moreover, rather than identify the origins of the covenant of works within the sixteenth century as a bastardization of Calvin’s theology, this body of literature generally recognizes the patristic, medieval, and even Roman Catholic antecedents to the covenant of works. Aaron Denlinger, for example, presents compelling evidence that Roman Catholic theologian Ambrogio Catharinus (1483–​1553) was the first theologian to promote a fully federal Adamic covenant that Reformed theologians discovered and later advocated.26 Unlike the critics, those who see the covenant of works as a legitimate maturation of Reformation theology identify scholasticism as a development in theological methodology rather than something that predetermines theological doctrines. Precision in doctrinal formulation does not predispose a theologian for or against the covenant of works.

6 Introduction This volume stands within the second strand of literature on the covenant of works and argues that the covenant of works flows from earlier patristic, medieval, and Reformation exegesis and crystalizes in the early modern tradition. Calvin is not the sole normative standard for the tradition but he does play a role in contributing to the development of the doctrine. Hence, this book does not focus on Calvin but upon the wider Reformed tradition embodied in various theologians and confessional documents. Thus, in this manner, I trace the origins, development, and the positive and negative reception of the doctrine in the eighteenth, nineteenth, and twentieth centuries.

Plan of the Argument This book presents a survey of the origins, development, and reception of the covenant of works from the sixteenth to the twentieth century. It begins with a survey of the sixteenth-​century origins of the covenant of works. Contrary to the popular idea submitted by earlier twentieth-​century historians, the doctrine of the covenant was not merely an engine of war invented to defend the doctrine of infant baptism. As much as the covenants played a role in the defense of infant baptism, the doctrine of the covenant—​and the idea of an Adamic covenant in particular—​has roots in patristic theology as well as Roman Catholic theologians of the period. Roman Catholics were some of the first to promote the idea of an Adamic covenant, but the concept caught on when Reformed theologians such as Wolfgang Musculus (1497–​ 1563) and Ursinus coordinated the concepts of law and covenant. Chapter 2 explores the views of Scottish theologian Robert Rollock (ca. 1555–​99), who contributed to the development of the covenant of works by being one of the first Reformed theologians to employ the term foedus operum as well as articulate a fully federal concept of imputed guilt. Rollock likely gleaned elements of his doctrine from Roman Catholic theologians, most notably Catharinus, as well as others such as Ursinus. Chapter 3 ventures across the continent to the University of Leiden, a location seldom factored in the development of covenant theology, and to a figure rarely examined, Jacob Arminius (1560–​1609). While c­ hapter 3 focuses on Arminius and his disputation on the covenant of works, the chapter also provides contextual comparisons with his colleagues at Leiden:  Francius Junius (1545–​1602), Franciscus Gomarus (1563–​1641), and Lucas Trelcatius

Introduction  7 (1542–​1602). Arminius was knowledgeable of covenant theology through his interaction with the likes of Ursinus and William Perkins (1558–​1602), but the four Leiden theologians acted as a dissemination point of the doctrine through their writings and disputations. Later high orthodox Reformed theologians testified to their knowledge of Arminius’s doctrine of the covenant of works and had few objections. Their rejection of Arminius’s doctrine was not over the covenant of works but they instead complained that his doctrine of the covenant of grace too closely resembled God’s covenant with Adam. But Arminius also proves to be an important figure in the development of the covenant of works because he debated his colleague Junius over matters that pertained to the precise nature of Adam’s pre-​fall state, namely, puris naturalibus. Arminius and Junius thus debated the nature and possibility of Adam’s merit in the covenant of works. Despite Arminius’s advocacy of the doctrine, later Remonstrant theologians abandoned it, which demarcates an early path of the doctrine’s reception. That is, the doctrine was advocated largely among early modern Reformed theologians. Chapter 4 transitions to Ireland to examine the doctrine of James Ussher (1581–​1656), a figure often ignored in the contemporary period but a giant in early modern Reformed theology. Ussher plays an important role in the development and reception of the doctrine because he was instrumental in its codification in the Irish Articles (1615), and he promoted the idea of imputed covenantal guilt, first articulated by Rollock among the Reformed. Ussher’s expositions of the covenant of works in his various catechisms and especially his Body of Divinity also formed a foundational layer of documents that theologians of the Westminster Assembly employed in their own codification of the doctrine in the Westminster Confession of Faith (1647). But before the study investigates the Westminster Assembly, ­chapter 5 detours to examine the contributions of two lesser-​known but nevertheless influential theologians: John Cameron (ca. 1579–​1625) and Edward Leigh (1602–​ 71). Many contemporary historians and theologians leapfrog from Calvin straight to the Westminster Assembly and then bound into the twentieth century to establish a baseline for early modern Reformed theology, but such a method fails to account for the impact of theologians like Cameron. As a Scottish theologian who labored at the Academy of Saumur in France, Cameron developed a threefold doctrine of the covenant: a pre-​fall Adamic covenant; the Mosaic covenant, which was neither of the covenants of works nor grace; and the covenant of grace. In addition to this unique formulation, Cameron also claimed that Adam’s reward was not eternal but temporal life

8 Introduction in the garden. This shift marked a distinct change in the nature of Adam’s reward, and Leigh picked up Cameron’s formulation and served as a distribution point for this version of covenant theology. Leigh took Cameron’s Latin theses on covenant theology and incorporated them in his work A Treatise of the Divine Promises (1633), and disseminated Cameron’s ideas to an English-​ speaking audience.27 Even though Cameron and Leigh are not household names like Calvin, the Westminster Assembly made confessional room for their views. Therefore, ­chapter 6 explores the covenant of works at the Westminster Assembly, but contrary to popular contemporary notions of the doctrine, the confession does not contain only one version of the covenant of works. Rather, with some deft phrasing, the confession serves as a warehouse for several different variants of the doctrine. The divines crafted the confession in this manner because there was disagreement regarding the precise nature of Adam’s reward. Was temporal or eternal life the goal of the covenant of works? In other words, the divines created doctrinal room for Cameron’s formulation of the covenant of works. But the doctrinal flexibility of Westminster withered under the hot sun of controversy over disputed teachings emanating from the Academy of Saumur. Turretin and Johannes Heidegger (1633–​98) created the Formula Consensus Helvetica (1675) to close the door on Cameronian covenant theology by rejecting his doctrine of the threefold covenant and temporal life as Adam’s reward. But this narrowing of the gate of confessional orthodoxy did not last long, as the formula was not widely adopted and was quickly abandoned. Chapter 7, thus, covers the reception of the covenant of works in the Formula Consensus. Chapter 8 studies the reception and formulation of the covenant of works in the eighteenth century, primarily through the work of Thomas Boston, one of the few theologians to write a monograph on the doctrine. But in the eighteenth century, Reformed confessional theology began to erode across Europe. Some theologians were weary of years of doctrinal conflict and religiously motivated wars and thus excised perceived extraneous doctrines such as the covenant of works. But just because some abandoned the doctrine as non-​essential does not mean everyone forsook it. Boston imbibed from high orthodox Reformed theology and promoted the doctrine. Boston largely repeated seventeenth-​ century exegetical and theological formulations, but he did make some changes to it. In the context and wake of the Marrow Controversy (1718–​22), Boston and other Marrow men were much more specific regarding the relationship between the law of nature

Introduction  9 and the covenant of works. Unlike earlier constructions, such as those in the Westminster Confession, Boston claimed that the natural law did not hold out the promise of eternal life; the reward of eternal life was only a reward of the natural when it was construed as a covenant. Boston formulated the relationship between natural law and the covenant of works in this manner because other debate participants, such as James Hadow (1707–​47) believed that natural law had penal sanctions appended to it. But if the natural law undergirded all of God’s covenants, then believers in Christ were never free from the penal sanctions of the natural law. These questions thus shaped the reception of the covenant of works in the eighteenth century. Chapter  9 considers the covenant of works in the nineteenth century. If dissatisfaction hovered around the periphery of the Reformed confessional tradition in the eighteenth century, then it made further inroads in the nineteenth. A number of theologians both within and outside Scottish Presbyterian circles openly challenged the doctrine’s legitimacy, which marked a decided shift away from common early modern Reformed exegetical and doctrinal commitments. Higher critical views of Scripture influenced the exegesis of Reformed theologians on at least two fronts. First, they rejected the idea of a good and necessary consequence, that is, the collation of various biblical texts to produce an exegetical and theological conclusion. Theologians instead demanded that the Scriptures explicitly state that God and Adam were in covenant. Second, theologians redefined covenant. Early modern Reformed theologians essentially defined a covenant as an agreement between two or more persons with stipulations and conditions. But in the nineteenth century theologians redefined a covenant instead as promise. This redefinition combined with an unfamiliarity with earlier formulations of the covenant of works led a number of theologians to dispense with the doctrine. An exception to this trend is John Colquhoun, one of the few Reformed theologians to write a monograph on the topic. Colquhoun stands out because he maintained a common early modern version of the doctrine and continued to employ traditional Reformed hermeneutical and theological commitments. Chapter  10 studies the twentieth-​ century reception of the doctrine through its rejection by the likes of Barth, Murray, and Herman Hoeksema (1886–​1965), and its positive use by Geerhardus Vos (1862–​1949), among others. Several things separate the critics of the doctrine from its proponents. First, critics generally have a negative assessment of early modern Reformed theology to varying degrees: Murray’s rejection is milder than Barth’s severe

10 Introduction attitudes, for example. Second, critics repeat the nineteenth-​century trend and reject the use of a good and necessary consequence as it relates to the covenant of works. Third, philosophical influences played a role in the rejection of the doctrine, particularly with the influx of German Idealism. Theologians such as Barth and Hoeksema organized their theological systems around one principle, which left little room for other doctrinal concepts such as the covenant of works. Vos and other proponents of the doctrine embodied the inverse of these trends: they had a positive attitude toward early modern works, employed good and necessary consequences, and philosophical shifts in the modern period had a negligible impact on their doctrinal formulations.

Conclusion The covenant of works represents a touchstone for contemporary Reformed historical theology. Is the doctrine a novel invention that was born under the dark star of Reformed scholasticism that obscures the biblically pure doctrine of Calvin and distorts the person and work of Christ? Or does the doctrine originate in the patristic and Middle Ages and naturally developed as Reformed theologians gave greater attention to the doctrine of the covenant? This book argues that the latter more accurately describes the origins and development of the covenant of works. In this volume I also contend that the later negative reception of the covenant of works was not simply a matter of its supposed unbiblical character but because theological commitments shifted in the eighteenth, nineteenth, and twentieth centuries. Theologians either forgot or abandoned the hermeneutical and doctrinal tools of their forefathers, such as good and necessary consequences, and thus, in a sense, lost the ability to defend and articulate the doctrine.

1 The Reformation The story of the origins of the covenant of works as a doctrine begins in the earliest days of the church, not in the sixteenth century as some historians suggest.1 The latter view places ideas and doctrines in chronologically adjacent but nevertheless separate silos where each age gives birth to its own thought. Perhaps one of the most vivid portrayals of such a concept of history comes from Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel (1770–​1831), who described the Reformation as “the all-​illuminating sun, which follows that day-​break at the end of the Middle Ages.”2 Such a description implies that the Reformation was a complete and total break with the medieval past. In this case, the covenant of works supposedly arises de novo in the late sixteenth century. Yet, while the examination of history under the rubrics of epochs or periods is a useful way to proceed, at the same time we should not isolate any one period from its historical antecedents.3 Rather, no period is sufficient unto itself because every age transcends its boundaries and relies on what has been transmitted.4 Therefore, rather than examine the Reformation under the rubric of the tripartite view, which separates the ancient, medieval, and modern periods, this chapter examines the origins of the covenant of works under what Heiko Oberman (1930–​2001) has called the “cradle view of history.”5 That is, each period of history gives birth to the next in such a way that its birth pangs precede its arrival.6 Such a view recognizes that theologians do not create doctrines ex nihilo, but that they use pre-​existing ideas to create, shape, and mold their thought. In this vein, then, this chapter addresses the question of the origins of the covenant of works by surveying the patristic and Middle Ages to discover where early modern Reformed theologians gleaned the doctrine. Rather than an ex nihilo birth, the covenant of works originates with the exegesis of the Scriptures, like most doctrines. Moreover, Reformation-​era Reformed theologians were not the first to uncork the doctrine of the covenant. Rather, patristic and medieval theologians first imbibed of this doctrine from the bottle of Scripture. The chapter then briefly explores two early modern Roman Catholic theologians, Diego Lañyez (1512–​ 65) and Ambrogio The Covenant of Works. J. V. Fesko, Oxford University Press (2020). © Oxford University Press. DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780190071363.001.0001

12  The Covenant of Works Catharinus (1483–​1553), delegates to the Council of Trent. These two theologians are important because they openly spoke of a twofold covenant, a first and second covenant, the first with Adam prior to the fall and the second through Christ. In fact, some forty years before Reformed theologians articulated a fully federal Adamic covenant, Catharinus expressed such views during the proceedings of Trent. The chapter then proceeds to examine three first-​generation reformers—​ Ulrich Zwingli (1484–​1531), Heinrich Bullinger (1504–​75), and William Tyndale (1494–​1536)—​to survey the initial use of covenant. Contrary to the claim of some, Zwingli did not first employ covenant to defend infant baptism and argue for the unity of salvation across Old and New Testaments, but instead followed the patristic use of covenant. The chapter then explores the views of second-​generation reformers: John Calvin (1509–​64), Wolfgang Musculus (1497–​1563), Zacharias Ursinus (1534–​83), and Caspar Olevianus (1536–​87). These theologians continued the use of covenant but expanded it. Calvin, for example, contains a number of elements that constitute the covenant of works, and Musculus, Ursinus, and Olevianus explicitly spoke of a twofold covenant. To be sure, these theologians did not advocate the covenant of works, but they nevertheless provide the raw materials that would eventually mature into the fully formed doctrine. The chapter concludes with some summary observations about the nature of the origins of the covenant of works.

Patristic and Middle Ages Bible translations were one of the first ways that the idea of a pre-​fall Adamic covenant entered theological discussion. For example, in his Latin translation of the Scriptures, Jerome (ca. 347–​420) rendered Hosea 6:7 as, “But they like Adam transgressed the covenant” (ispsi autem sicut Adam trasngressi sunt pactum). Roman Catholic theologian Cornelius à Lapide (1567–​1637) glosses Hosea 6:7 as, “the first parents in paradise violated the covenant with God.” Lapide cites a number of patristic and medieval exegetes who argue the same conclusion, including Jerome, Cyril (ca. 376–​444), Rupert of Deutz (ca. 1075–​1129), Hugh of St. Victor (ca. 1096–​1141), and Nicholas of Lyra (ca. 1270–​1349). Lapide did not blindly follow tradition but also noted that the Septuagint rendered the verse as a common reference to humanity: “Like men they transgressed the covenant.”7

The Reformation  13 In addition to Jerome, a number of other patristic writers refer to the doctrine of the covenant in more general terms, which set the stage for extending the concept into the pre-​fall state. Irenaeus (130–​200), for example, was well aware of the term, and in Against Heresies he explained that God is the author of both the Old and New Covenants.8 Irenaeus used the covenant concept to stress the unity of the method of salvation for Old and New Testament saints, a principle that sixteenth-​century reformers employed. Irenaeus argued that God gave four covenants to the human race, which was part of a larger creational pattern. There were four Gospels, four zones in the world, and four principal winds: “For this reason were four principle (katholikai) covenants given to the human race: one, prior to the deluge, under Adam; the second, that after the deluge, under Noah; the third, the giving of the law, under Moses; the fourth, that which renovates man, and sums up all things in itself by means of the gospel, raising and bearing men upon its wings into the heavenly kingdom.”9 Clement of Alexandria (ca. 150–​ca. 215) employed the same fourfold covenant structure in his theology.10 Early church historians such as Eusebius (ca. 260–​340) observed the covenantal continuity between Judaism and Christianity; he argued that they were not two antithetical religions but rather one and the same. Lactantius (ca. 250–​ca. 325) noted the parallel between the Old Testament practice of circumcision and the New Testament practice of baptism.11 From within this broader context of discussing God’s covenantal dealings with humanity, Augustine (354–​430) also mentioned the existence of an Adamic covenant in his writings. Specifically, in his City of God, he argued that infants, though they have not committed actual sin, are still considered guilty for original sin because of Adam’s initial covenantal relationship with God. Augustine writes, But even the infants, not personally in their own life, but according to the common origin of the human race, have all broken God’s covenant in that one in whom all have sinned (Rom. 5:12, 19). Now there are many things called God’s covenant besides those two great ones, the old and the new, which any one who pleases may read and know. For the first covenant, which was made with the first man, is just this: ‘In the day ye eat thereof, ye shall surely die (Gen. 2:17).’12

Augustine based the Adamic covenant on the Adam-​Christ parallel that appears in Romans 5:12–​21 as well as in the divine administration of God’s

14  The Covenant of Works command not to eat from the tree of knowledge. In other words, Augustine does not look for explicit mention of an Adamic covenant but instead draws inferences from different statements in Scripture. Early modern Reformed theologians later employ this exegetical and interpretive pattern in their own articulation of the doctrine. Along these lines, one of the most commonly cited texts in support of the early modern covenant of works is Genesis 2:17, the divine prohibition against eating from the tree of knowledge. Augustine appealed to this text as evidence of a pre-​fall Adamic covenant: Now there are many things called God’s covenants besides those two great ones, the old and the new, which any one who pleases may read and know. For the first covenant, which was made with the first man, is just this: ‘In the day ye eat thereof, ye shall surely die’ (Gen. 2:17). Whence it is written in the book called Ecclesiasticus, ‘All flesh waxeth old as doth a garment. For the covenant from the beginning is, Thou shalt die the death’ (Ecclus. 14:17). Now, as the law was more plainly given afterward, and the apostle says, ‘Where no law is, there is no prevarication’ (Rom. 4:15), on what supposition is what is said in the psalm true, ‘I account all the sinners of the earth prevaricators’ (Psa. 119:119), except that all who are held liable for any sin are accused of dealing deceitfully (prevaricating) with some law?13

More than a thousand years before early modern Reformed theologians reflected and commented on the creation narrative, Augustine combined categories of law, covenant, and the transmission of sin, albeit in realistic, not federal, terms. In fact, Augustine bound Adam and his progeny and their sin-​ affected state to the pre-​fall covenant between God and Adam. According to Augustine, “The whole plentitude of the human race was embraced in the first man.”14 These themes reappear in the early modern period. But according to Augustine, God gave Adam the law in two forms, the verbal prohibition against eating from the tree of knowledge as well as the law inscribed on Adam’s heart. Augustine believed that the law of God was eternal and unchanging and that humans were always obligated to obey it and that all people derive their own temporal laws from this eternal paradigm. Augustine also claims, “To explain shortly as far as I can the notion which is impressed on us of eternal law [aeternae legis], it is the law by which it is just that everything should have its due order.”15 Augustine does not cite Romans 2:14–​15 as later early modern Reformed theologians do, but he

The Reformation  15 nevertheless affirms a concept of natural law, which is a key element of the covenant of works.16 In this vein, like later reformers such as John Calvin, Augustine saw the parallels between biblical and Stoic notions of natural law and employed the latter in his theology. In fact, Augustine and Calvin both learned their concepts of natural law in part from Cicero (106–​43 bc).17 Like later Reformed theologians, Augustine believed that God repeated the Edenic natural law at Sinai. God gave the eternal law in Eden as well as Sinai.18 Those who please God live under the eternal law, whereas those who do not please God unhappily live under the temporal law. Those who live by the eternal law do not need the temporal law.19 When combined with Augustine’s understanding of individual and corporate election, the role of the eternal law takes on greater significance. The Edenic law reappears at Sinai, but it is not beneficial for all who receive it. Only those who are in Christ benefit from the eternal law. Augustine distinguished between an individual’s personal election unto salvation and the broader category of Israel’s non-​redemptive election as a people.20 In other words, individuals united to Christ received the eternal law to their blessing, but those corporately elected only knew of the covenant of the law at Sinai. Augustine does not label these ideas the covenant of works or speak in terms of its reappearance at Sinai, but he nevertheless presents a number of key building blocks that eventually constitute the doctrine. He also anticipates the challenges that early modern Reformed theologians encountered relating the covenant of works to the Mosaic covenant. In the Middle Ages, the doctrine of the covenant expanded beyond the earlier mentioned translations of Hosea 6:7 by Rupert of Deutz, Hugh of St. Victor, and Nicholas of Lyra. Lyra, for example, translates and glosses Hosea 6:7 in the following manner: “For just as Adam transgressed the command of the Lord regarding eating the forbidden tree, so the Jews from both kingdoms transgressed the law of the Lord given at Mt. Sinai.”21 One of the possible sources for Lyra might have been medieval glosses attributed to Walafrid Strabo (808–​49), who glossed Hosea 6:7’s adam as a reference to Adam in paradiso, and pactum as legem.22 In other words, Strabo’s glosses interpreted Hosea 6:7 as a reference to Adam and recognized covenant as being interchangeable with law. In a number of trends, medieval theologians employed the covenant concept in their theology that undoubtedly fed into early modern Reformed covenant theology. Historians do not categorize Thomas Aquinas (1225–​74), for example, as a covenant theologian, but he does invoke the concept in

16  The Covenant of Works several places in his theology. Aquinas observed the biblical connection between law and covenant. In answer to the objection that the precepts of the Decalogue are dispensable, Thomas replies in the sed contra: “The words of Isaiah 24:5, where some are reproved for that ‘they have changed the ordinance, they have broken the everlasting covenant;’ which, seemingly apply principally to the precepts of the decalogue.”23 In answer to the question of whether the precepts of the Decalogue are suitably set forth, in the sed contra Aquinas appeals to Deuteronomy 4:13: “He shewed you His covenant, which He commanded you to do, and the ten words that He wrote in two tables of stone.”24 In his explanation of the old and new law, he alluded to passages about the new covenant, such as Jeremiah 31–​33.25 In his treatment of Christology, Aquinas answers the objection that it seemed unfitting for the Son of God to assume a human nature that descended from the stock of Adam, which was ultimately sinful. In reply, Aquinas argues that between Adam and Christ there were certain types that prefigured his future holiness. God also appointed signs of holiness, such as the sign of circumcision, “as a sign that the covenant should be kept” (Gen. 17:11).26 In other words, while perhaps not a prominent theme in his theology, Aquinas nevertheless acknowledged the covenantal character of salvation. In fact, on this particular point Aquinas articulates a threefold office of Christ, something typically characterized as the great insight of Calvin.27 Rather, the threefold office of Christ (prophet, priest, and king) was a way that patristic theologians such as Justin Martyr, Eusebius of Caesarea, and John Chrysostom described the breadth of Christ’s saving work.28 Aquinas followed this patristic pattern and described Christ as “king, prophet, and priest.”29 In his threefold office he fulfilled God’s covenantal relationship with Israel. Christ’s threefold offices corresponded to the threefold division of the law: moral, ceremonial, and judicial.30 While Aquinas may not have directly influenced the doctrine through his use of covenant in his theology, one possible manner by which he contributed was through his exegetical labors. In his exegesis of Romans 5:14, namely that death reigned from Adam to Moses, Aquinas explains, “Death . . . reigned, i.e., exercised its power over men, by bringing them to damnation from Adam through whom sin entered the world, unto Moses, under whom the law was given: the law was given through Moses (John 1:17), not only over those who sinned actually, but even over them also who have not sinned, after the similitude of the transgression of Adam, who sinned actually: but like Adam they

The Reformation  17 transgressed the covenant; there they dealt faithlessly with me (Hos. 6:7).”31 Aquinas explains the entrance of sin into the world by means of Hosea 6:7 and the covenant that Adam violated. Another medieval theologian who employed covenant in his work is John Duns Scotus (1265–​1308). In debates over sacramental efficacy Scotus took issue with Aquinas, who argued that the sacraments were instrumental causes of grace.32 But Scotus objected because he did not believe a material or natural agent (bread, wine, water) could have supernatural causal power. Instead of the ex opere operato view of Aquinas, Scotus argued for sacramental occasionalism—​namely, the sacraments have no inherent power, but when administered, God grants the gift of grace. God formalizes this arrangement between sacrament and grace through his pactio, through his covenant. God’s sacramental efficacy rests upon the pactione divina cum Ecclesia (the divine covenant with the church). Indeed, no one can be saved apart from this divine covenant unless God confers it and one receives it through the sacraments.33 This covenantal structure marked Scotus’s soteriology as well as his doctrine of God.34 Another way that medieval theologians employed the doctrine of the covenants was in order to explain the distinction between the potentia Dei absoluta and the potentia Dei ordinata, or the absolute and ordained power of God. According to these concepts, medieval nominalist theologians recognized that God’s absolute power was limited only by the law of non-​ contradiction. God can affect all possibilities and is constrained only by his own nature.35 By way of contrast, God condescends and creates the world according to his pactum, his covenant, with himself and the creation. In other words, the orders of nature and grace remain stable and sure because of God’s covenant with the creation.36 God makes one covenant with the world in general, a covenant made with all humanity, initiated at creation and assured through promises made to Adam and Noah. God then makes a second covenant with the church, that is, all those who belong to the city of God, which includes all saints, whether in the Old or New Testaments.37 Medieval theologians, therefore, like Aquinas and Scotus employed covenant in their theology. This is not to say that Aquinas and Scotus advocated the covenant of works, but rather that sixteenth-​century Reformed theologians were not innovating when they employed the covenant in their own theology. There was a basic continuity between medieval and Reformation theology on the connections between covenant, law, creation, and salvation.

18  The Covenant of Works

Early Modern Roman Catholics: Lañyez and Catharinus Common Reformation lore is that covenant theology originated with Reformed theologians with works by Zwingli and Bullinger in their debates with the Anabaptists.38 Zwingli and Bullinger undisputedly laid key foundation stones in the Reformed doctrinal cathedral, but few investigators have addressed the Roman Catholic contributors to Reformed covenant theology. Just because polemics divided the two camps did not mean they wrote theology in isolation from one another and could not therefore employ good ideas from the other when they saw them. Historical evidence points to the fact that Roman Catholics were some of the first Reformation-​era theologians to advocate a twofold covenant. Among the delegates to the Council of Trent (1545–​63), Spanish Jesuit theologian Diego Lañyez delivered a three-​hour speech against the doctrine of imputed righteousness during the council’s deliberations on the doctrine of justification.39 In the midst of his speech, Lañyez mentions the “covenant of the grace of God” (pacti gratiae Dei) and the “first covenant that the Lord made with Adam” (primo illo pacto, quod pepigit Dominus cum Adam). He refers to these two covenants as the first and second covenants (primo et secondi pactii).40 Roman Catholic versions of the Adamic covenant were not exactly like later Reformed versions of the doctrine, as Lañyez likely echoed earlier Augustinian sentiments and Jerome’s translation of Hosea 6:7. In other words, given his three-​hour speech against imputation, Lañyez advocated an Adamic covenant but did not combine it with federalism. But this was not the case with every Roman Catholic theologian. A few years before Lañyez made his 1546 speech at Trent, Dominican theologian Ambrogio Catharinus stated, “So then, God established a covenant with Adam from the beginning.”41 In his treatise on original sin, Catharinus writes of a covenant between Adam and God and a second covenant in Christ, what he calls the novo pacto, or new covenant.42 But unlike other Roman Catholics who posited a realistic doctrine of transmitted sin, Catharinus conceived of the relationship between Adam and his offspring in forensic or federal terms. In other words, all humanity was in Adam by virtue of God’s covenant with him, and God imputed Adam’s sin to his offspring on this basis. Noteworthy is that Catharinus raised these issues at the Council of Trent in 1546 during its deliberations over the doctrine of justification, specifically the question of imputed righteousness.43 According to the account of Italian church historian Paolo Sarpi (1552–​1623), Catharinus delivered “a long discourse” on the subject.44

The Reformation  19 Catharinus opposed the idea of the realistic transmission of sin and instead proposed a covenantal imputation. Within the context of the covenant, Adam had the obligation to keep the law of God for himself and for his offspring. He distinguished between the actual sin of Adam (peccato actuale) and original sin (peccato originale) imputed to his offspring per virtu del patto (by virtue of the covenant).45 Catharinus invoked Romans 5:12–​21, namely, that all have sinned in Adam, as well as Hebrews 7:6–​10, that Levi paid a tithe to Melchizedek because he was in Abraham’s body. Sarpi recounts how Catharinus defended the idea of imputed guilt: He prooved the covenant of God [il patto di Dio] with Adam, by a place of the Prophet Osea, by another of Ecclesiasticus, and by many places of Saint Austin. That the sinne of every one is the act onely of the transgression of Adam, he proved by Saint Paul, when he said, that by the disobedience of one man, many are made sinners; and because the Church hath ever understood that sinne is nothing else but a voluntary action against the law, of which kind there was none but that of Adam.46

This account is important regarding the origins of the covenant of works for several reasons. First, Catharinus’s fully federal pre-​fall Adamic covenant preceded similar Reformed formulations by roughly forty years.47 Second, this statement reveals an early pattern of argumentation for proving the doctrine, a configuration that includes appeal to Hosea 6:7 and presumably Jerome’s Vulgate translation, Paul’s statements in Romans 5:12–​21, as well as reference to Augustine. In fact, when Catharinus appeals to Ecclesiasticus (Sirach), this is likely the same text to which Augustine appealed in his City of God: “All flesh waxeth old as a garment: for the covenant from the beginning is, Thou shalt die the death” (Ecclus. 14:17). This reference is significant because it not only points to Catharinus’s likely reliance on Augustine, especially given his many allusions to the African theologian, but it also points to an older pre-​patristic tradition that placed God in covenant with Adam. Ecclesiasticus claims that when God put Adam under the prohibition not to eat from the tree of knowledge (Gen. 2:17), this command constituted a covenant.48 These two points overturn a number of historical claims regarding the origins of the covenant of works, namely, that it was a doctrinal novelty and purely an invention of Reformed theologians. Instead, it confirms the idea that the doctrine organically originated from the patristic period and Roman

20  The Covenant of Works Catholic theologians carried the doctrine forward, but Catharinus undoubtedly added refinements to it, given his departure from the Augustinian realistic theory of the transmission of sin. Beyond Catharinus and Lañyez, scattered references to an Adamic covenant appear in later seventeenth-​ century Roman Catholic works. For example, Jesuit theologian Robert Parsons (1546–​1610) writes, This is evident by the first covenant of all, that ever God did make with man, when he said to Adam our first father in Paradise; In what day so ever thou shalt eat of the tree that is forbidden, thou shalt die. Which covenant being after broken, on the parte of our said progenitour: he receaved his judgment; but yet with a most benigne promisse of redemption for the tyme to come: for thus God said to the devil or serpent that had deceived him: The seed of the woman shall crush thy head, & thou shalt lie in wait to hurt his heele.49

Like Augustine, Parsons bases the existence of an Adamic covenant on Genesis 2:17 and the prohibition against eating from the tree of knowledge. But the fact remains, the doctrine does not develop as robustly as it does in the Reformed church in the late sixteenth and early seventeenth centuries, as subsequent chapters explain.

Zwingli, Bullinger, and Tyndale The covenant concept was employed by theologians in the Middle Ages to varying degrees but arguably fully flowered in the early days of the Reformation in the writings of first-​ generation reformers and their 50 successors. This broader discussion fostered a hospitable context for the further development of the Adamic covenant. Zwingli’s first clear statement about the doctrine of the covenant came in November 1525.51 In a polemical work Zwingli argued against the Anabaptists for the legitimacy of infant baptism because it was a sign of the covenant. He expressed his belief that there was one covenant of grace under which all saints, Old and New Testament, were saved. In another work aimed at Anabaptist errors, Zwingli cast Adam in covenant with God at the creation: “On the covenant then I speak after the following fashion: Although the Architect of the universe created this great world that it might have man as a cultivator, yet before any colony was sent

The Reformation  21 out to any part, nay, before the future colonists were born, the one hope of the whole race, the father of the human race, rebelled against his Maker.”52 In the wake of the fall, God showed mercy to Adam and promised to deliver him from the seed of the serpent through the seed of the woman. Sin, however, soon overtook the creation and God therefore judged it through the flood. But God renewed his covenant-​making activity: “Noah and his family alone were saved in the ark. The covenant was renewed with him, in whom the whole human race was renewed and spreading to all parts of the earth in order to its cultivation.”53 God renewed the pre-​fall Adamic covenant with Noah. Zwingli was not the only theologian to use the concept. His successor in Zurich, Heinrich Bullinger, published a work specifically on the covenant in 1534: A Brief Exposition of the One and Eternal Testament or Covenant of God.54 In this work Bullinger also argued against Anabaptists who believed that the Old Testament was no longer binding for New Testament Christians. Bullinger, as Zwingli did before him, argued for the unity of the testaments. Bullinger began his work by defining testament using the relevant Hebrew, Greek, and Latin terms. He concludes that the “very God who has graciously deigned to call this mystery of the unity and fellowship with the divine by a human expression has at the same time followed human custom, on account of the weakness of our nature, in making the covenant or instituting the testament.”55 Bullinger asserted that the covenant of God is gracious; God grants his mercy to man in the covenant. For example, Bullinger affirmed in his Decades, a series of doctrinal sermons published in 1549, that “God’s mind was to declare the favour and good-​will that he bare to mankind, and to make us men partakers wholly of himself and his goodness, by pouring himself out upon us, to our great good and profit, it pleased him to make a league or covenant with mankind.”56 Hence Bullinger emphasized the divinely initiated nature of the covenant of salvation. But Bullinger did not simply argue that God provided salvation and humanity is free to act and do as it pleases. He also emphasized the mutual responsibilities of the covenant. Bullinger writes in his 1534 work on the covenant that it is our duty to adhere firmly by faith to the one God, inasmuch as he is the one and only author of all good things, and to walk in innocence of life for his pleasure. For anyone who has neglected these things and has sought false gods, who has lived shamefully or impiously, and who has worshipped

22  The Covenant of Works God more with ceremonies or external things than with true holiness of life, will be excluded, disinherited, and rejected from the covenant.57

Bullinger did not contradict himself by asserting that salvation is synergistic. Rather, he was fending off antinomianism and thus reminded his auditors of their covenantal responsibilities. Bullinger was insistent on protecting the boundary between law and gospel in salvation. He reached back to Eusebius (263–​339), who documented how the Ebionites conflated law and gospel and argued that faith alone in Christ was insufficient for salvation. Bullinger believed that Christ as the end of the law (Rom. 10:4).58 Bullinger argued that the one eternal covenant was one but that the Mosaic covenant introduced “many circumstantial legalities” (circunstantes uallat legalis), which originated from the Decalogue.59 Bullinger lacks the terminological specificity that one finds in later formulations, but he clearly distinguishes between the substance of the one eternal covenant and the circumstantial legal elements of the Mosaic covenant. Later theologians like Calvin and others also take this approach, which eventually flowers into key elements of the covenant of works. Though the covenant concept was first mentioned by Zwingli and later expounded by Bullinger, it did not stay confined to the city limits of Zurich. Rather, the covenant concept spread all over Europe on the winds of the Reformation. In England, various works of the Reformers were translated and published in English, and during the Marian exile, many students and theologians sought refuge in cities such as Bullinger’s Zurich.60 Through these means, the covenant concept spread to English theologians such as William Tyndale. Tyndale writes in his prologue to the Gospel of Matthew that the “general covenant, wherein all other are comprehended and included, is this: If we meek ourselves to God, to keep all his laws, after the example of Christ, then God hath bound himself unto us, to keep and make good all the mercies promised in Christ throughout all the scripture.”61 Moreover, Tyndale also saw the covenant as the best means for comprehending Scripture: “The right way, yea, and the only way, to understand the scripture unto salvation, is that we earnestly and above all things search for the profession of our baptism, or covenants made between God and us.”62 Tyndale made the covenant the hermeneutical principle for the proper understanding of how salvation comes to man: it comes by way of covenant. With the passage of time the covenant concept continued to spread, and inevitably second-​generation Reformers also advocated the doctrine of the covenant.

The Reformation  23

Calvin, Musculus, Ursinus, and Olevianus Second-​generation reformer John Calvin expounded on the covenant in his writings. Like his predecessors, Calvin affirmed that salvation in the Old Testament is the same as it is in the New Testament. While acknowledging differences in the way the covenant of grace is administered, he noted that the differences are merely accidental. For example, Calvin writes that the differences between the two testaments “belong to the mode of administration rather than to the substance. In this way, there is nothing in them to prevent the promises of the Old and New Testament from remaining the same, Christ being the foundation of both.”63 Calvin employed the doctrine of the covenant to explain the unified nature of redemption from Old Testament to New Testament. And he even expanded the covenant concept into the pre-​ fall context in his discussion about the sacraments of the garden, namely, the trees of knowledge and of life. But twentieth-​century historians and theologians have made much of Calvin’s brusque dismissal of the Adamic interpretation of Hosea 6:7.64 Calvin was aware that some interpreted Hosea 6:7 as a reference to Adam rather than common men, to which he commented, “I do not stop to refute this comment; for we see that it is in itself vapid.”65 Critics of the covenant of works have used this comment to claim that Calvin would have nothing to do with the doctrine, but the argument rests on the assumption that the doctrine only has one verse that potentially serves as evidence of its validity. As subsequent chapters in this book demonstrate, the exegetical footing for the doctrine extends far beyond Hosea 6:7. Calvin does not advocate the covenant of works, but he explains a number of texts in a manner consonant with later exegetical arguments that support the doctrine. Calvin affirms four key elements that later appear in formulations of the covenant of works.66 First, Calvin believed that God created and placed Adam within a legal context in which he was supposed to obey and thus secure eternal life; other reformers such as Luther also characterized Adam’s pre-​fall state in these legal terms. Concerning Genesis 2:16–​17, Luther writes, “This threat, which was so clearly added, also proves that a Law was given to Adam.”67 And while Luther does not coordinate the texts, he nevertheless translated Hosea 6:7 as a reference to Adam rather than man: “Aber sie übertreten den Bund, wie Adam.”68 Calvin describes Adam’s state in the following manner: “As Adam’s spiritual life would have consisted in remaining united and bound [coniunctum et deuinctum] to his Maker, so

24  The Covenant of Works estrangement from him was the death of his soul.”69 God and Adam were bound to one another in the pre-​fall context, which is the same type of language that Calvin uses to describe covenantal bonds:  “If a covenant [foedus] of this kind, evidently forming our first union with God [cum Deo coniunctionem], depends on mercy, there is no foundation left for our righteousness.”70 In continuity with ancient, contemporary, and later formulations, Calvin believed that God inscribed his law on human hearts (Rom. 2:14–​15), and thus Gentiles were not “blind as to the rule of life.”71 The natural law was connected to the moral law, which Calvin linked to the Decalogue: “The Ten Commandments of the Law . . . which God originally prescribed is still in force. . . . The very things contained in the two tables are, in a manner, dictated to us by that internal law, which, as has been already said, is in a manner written and stamped on every heart.”72 The relationship between the natural and moral laws is the same as those delineated in contemporaries such as Peter Martyr Vermigli and in the later formulations of the Westminster Confession.73 A second area of continuity appears in Calvin’s exegesis of Leviticus 18:5, and the related texts of Romans 10:5 and Galatians 3:10. In his lectures on the Pentateuch, Calvin explains Leviticus 18:5. He first rejects the medieval nominalist concept of merit in justification, that God does not accept a person’s works based on their dignity or merit but on the basis of his covenant.74 He argues that Moses presents two ways of justification—​either through obedience to the law or by faith in Christ. Vermigli makes similar claims in his exegesis of Romans 10:5 (Lev. 18:5; Luke 10:25–​28) as do Luther and Philip Melanchthon.75 Calvin does not mention names but nevertheless rejects the idea that Leviticus 18:5 only promises temporal life, although Vermigli connects the view to Augustine.76 Calvin claims that proponents of this view feared that some would subvert this passage and claim that God grounded salvation in the merit of works. Rather, because of sin and corruption, fallen sinners are unable to meet the requirements of the law.77 In other words, with a proper anthropology and doctrine of sin, theologians would not erroneously understand Leviticus 18:5 or the other places where this verse appears in Scripture (e.g., Rom. 10:5; Gal. 3:10).78 Given human sinfulness, they are unable to offer the requisite obedience and can in no way contribute to their justification. Calvin, therefore, rejects Roman Catholic soteriology:  “The rantings of the Popish theologians about partial righteousness are frivolous and silly, since God embraces at once all the commandments; and who is there that can boast of having thoroughly fulfilled them?”79 To be sure,

The Reformation  25 Calvin does not apply this text to Adam’s pre-​fall state, but his exegesis agrees with how proponents of the covenant of works explain it. Third, like later proponents of the covenant of works, Calvin argued that the tree of life was a sacrament. Calvin writes, He gave the tree of life its name, not because it could confer on man that life with which he had been previously endued, but in order that it might be a symbol and memorial of the life which he had received from God. For we know it to be by no means unusual that God should give to us the attestation of his grace by external symbols. He does not indeed transfer his power into outward signs; but by them he stretches out his hand to us, because, without assistance, we cannot ascend to him.80

Calvin uses all of the nomenclature that he normally assigns to post-​fall sacraments, and he explicitly labels the tree of knowledge as such: “We know what is the efficacy of sacraments; and it was said above that the tree was given as a pledge of life.”81 That Calvin identifies the tree as a sacrament might not be newsworthy unless one coordinates it with his broader theology. Calvin argued that the presence of a sacrament implied the existence of a covenant: It is well known that sacraments are described as ‘testaments’, in order to make our minds all the surer of it. For the Lord deals with us in a similar way to men, who make their covenants with each other with solemn rites. This way of speaking is by no means unsuitable because, by reason of the connection between word and sign, the covenant of the Lord really is bound up with sacraments, and the term covenant [foedus] bears a relation to us, or embraces us. This will be of great value for understanding the nature of the sacraments, for, if they are covenants, then they contain promises, which may awaken men’s consciences to an assurance of salvation.82

To be clear, Calvin unequivocally connects the sacramental tree of knowl­ edge to the existence of an Adamic covenant: The term sacrament, in the view we have hitherto taken of it, includes, generally, as the signs which God ever commanded men to use, that he might make them sure and confident of the truth of his promises. These he was pleased sometimes to place in natural objects—​sometimes to exhibit in

26  The Covenant of Works miracles. Of the former class we have an example, in this giving the tree of life to Adam and Eve, as an earnest of immortality, that they might feel confident of the promise as often as they ate of the fruit. Another example was, when he gave the bow in the cloud to Noah and his posterity, as a memorial that he would not again destroy the earth by a flood. These were to Adam and Noah as sacraments.83

Calvin structures the relationship between covenant and sacrament in such a manner that the presence of an Adamic covenant is an irresistible, if not explicit, conclusion. Indeed, according to Calvin, sacraments are, in a sense, covenants. Fourth, Calvin’s exegesis of Galatians 4 and Hagar and Sarah representing the legal and evangelical covenants is a major building block of what would eventually become the covenant of works. Luther’s earlier comments on Galatians 4:24–​25 are simple in comparison with Calvin’s exegesis. Luther believed that Paul’s contemporaries regarded the promises of the law as if they were unconditional, but the law is a conditional promise and depends on whether people fulfill the condition, obedience.84 In contrast to Luther, Calvin presents his exegesis in his definitive 1559 edition of the Institutes in a decidedly covenantal fashion. Calvin deals with the subject of unity of salvation in both the Old and New Testaments; namely, salvation is by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone. However, Calvin notes a difference between the testaments: “The covenant [foedus] made with all the fathers is so far from differing from ours in reality and substance [substantia et re], that it is altogether one and the same: still the administration [administratio] differs.”85 This statement presents a programmatic understanding of the relationship between the testaments. Like Bullinger, Calvin affirms that salvation is the same in substance but differs in administration (or circumstances). Calvin calls the one trans-​ testamental covenant the spiritual covenant (spirituale foedus).86 All of God’s elect participate in this spirituale foedus.87 But just because the spiritual covenant unites all believers in the mode of salvation does not mean that Calvin flattened redemptive history. He gave full force to the idea that the administratio differed between the testaments. He argues that with the dispensation of the Mosaic covenant God introduced two separate covenants, the foedus legale and the foedus evangelicum, which he connects to the respective ministries of Moses and Christ.88 It seems that the foedus evangelicum is one and the same with the spirituale foedus, as both

The Reformation  27 rest on the work of Christ. The foedus legale, however, or the Old Testament (Vetus testamentum) refers to the solemn method of confirming the covenant comprehended under ceremonies and sacrifices. Since there is nothing substantial in it, until we look beyond it, the Apostle contends that it behooved to be annulled and become antiquated, to make room for Christ, the surety of a better covenant, by whom the eternal sanctification of the elect was once purchased, and the transgression which remained under the Law wiped away.89

The foedus legale, therefore, contains these ceremonies and sacrifices, was temporary, and thus gave way to Christ; it was part of the administratio, not the substantia et re of the foedus evangelicum or spirituale foedus.90 Calvin argued that the law reveals human sin and renders sinners inexcusable, but at the same time it shows that a perfect righteousness is the only means by which “a man may be deemed and pronounced righteous at the divine tribunal.” Calvin, therefore, further states, “Nor can it be denied, that the reward of eternal salvation, as promised by the Lord, awaits the perfect obedience of the Law (Deut. 30:19).”91 Calvin clearly stipulates that sinful human beings cannot fulfill this requirement, but it does not mitigate the fact that the law holds forth the promise of eternal life for perfect obedience. Once again, this is part of the foedus legale and is accidental to the substance of the foedus evangelicum. Like Bullinger, Calvin identifies the legal character of the Mosaic covenant and distinguishes it from the spiritual covenant that unites all believers by means of an Aristotelian distinction between substance and accidents. This is also the same way Vermigli relates the old and new covenants.92 Calvin’s comments regarding the legal and evangelical covenants coalesce in his exegesis of Galatians 4:24, where Paul identifies Sarah and Hagar as two covenants. “Doctrine is the mother by whom God begets us,” writes Calvin, and this doctrine is twofold: “legal and evangelical.”93 He again invokes the language of the legal and evangelical covenants and identifies them with Hagar and Sarah, respectively.94 Calvin explains that the legal covenant (or Hagar) birthed the holy prophets and other believers, but not to a permanent slavery; God only placed them under this covenant as a schoolmaster for a time. God concealed their freedom under the veil of ceremonies and sacrifices. Outward appearances only revealed slavery, yet inwardly these saints were free in the sight of God. This inward and outward distinction corresponds

28  The Covenant of Works to the substance-​accidents relationship between the legal and evangelical covenants. So, their slavish birth under the law did not prevent Old Testament saints from having Jerusalem, the evangelical covenant (Sarah), as their mother in spirit. Calvin then makes an important qualification when he writes, “But those who cleave to the bare law and do not know it as a schoolmaster to bring them to Christ, but rather make it a barrier against coming to Him, are the Ishmaelites born to slavery.”95 Calvin follows Paul’s argument and thus explicitly identifies Hagar (the legal covenant) with Sinai. Calvin’s exegesis is important because this argumentation regarding the two different covenants (legal versus evangelical) eventually evolves into an explanation of the relationship between the Adamic and Mosaic covenants in the later reception of the covenant of works. This is not to say that Calvin, therefore, affirms the covenant of works but rather that he affirms four key building blocks for what theologians later label and include in the covenant of works, namely: Adam was under a legal context in his pre-​fall state, Leviticus 18:5 holds out justification by obedience, the tree of life was a sacrament, and Calvin’s exegesis of Galatians 4 anticipates later interpretations that feed into the covenant of works. During the Reformation, theologians developed and articulated a parallel covenant to the covenant of grace: a covenant of nature. Three theologians played a role in propagating this second covenant: Musculus, Ursinus, and Olevianus.96 One of the reasons the covenant concept drew greater attention was that theologians like Musculus devoted an entire locus to the topic of the covenant of God in his Common Places of Christian Religion.97 Within this locus, Musculus writes about the twofold covenant of God: I find that the covenant of God is of two sortes [foedus duplex inuenio]. The one is general [generale], an other is special and everlasting [specialis ac sempiternum]. The general covenant is that, which he made with his whole frame of the earth and all that dwelleth therein, as well beastes as men, with the day also and the night, winter and sommer, cold and heate, seed time and harvest.98

Musculus connects the general covenant with the creation as well as God’s dealings with humanity on the heels of the flood; he cites Genesis 9 and Jeremiah 33 in support of his explanation. By contrast, “The speciall and everlasting covenant, is the same which he hath vouchsavyd to make with his elect and believing.” Musculus identifies the special covenant with God’s

The Reformation  29 renaming of Abraham in Genesis 17, though he also invokes Romans 9 and Galatians 3.99 Musculus bifurcated the covenant: a general covenant with the created order and a special covenant that is strictly for the elect of God. This is not the covenant of works, but it nevertheless represents the acceptance of a twofold doctrine of the covenants; it also echoes earlier medieval nominalist covenantal concepts regarding a general covenant with the creation and a special covenant with the church. Ursinus and Olevianus, two Heidelberg theologians, spoke of a covenant of nature.100 Ursinus associated a covenant of creation with the law of God; he writes, Q. What does the divine law, or Decalogue teach? A. It teaches the kind of covenant that God established with mankind in creation, how he managed in keeping it, and what God requires of him after establishing a new covenant of grace with him—​that is, what kind of person God created, for what purpose, into what state he has fallen, and how he ought to conduct his life after being reconciled to God.101

By the law of God, man first learned how he should act; it also showed man what God desired from him after the covenant of grace had been initiated. Important to note, however, is that Ursinus does not associate the covenant of creation directly with Adam but instead with the broader creation.102 He writes, Q. What is the difference between the law and the gospel? A. The law contains the natural covenant [foedus naturale], established by God with humanity in creation, that is, it is known by humanity by nature, it requires our perfect obedience to God, and it promises eternal life to those who keep it and threatens eternal punishment to those who do not. The gospel, however, contains the covenant of grace [foedus gratiae], that is, although it exists, it is not known at all by nature; it shows us the fulfillment in Christ of the righteousness by Christ’s Spirit; and it promises eternal life freely because of Christ to those who believe in him.103

Ursinus does not speak of a covenant with Adam, but of a covenant that is ingrained and embedded in the creation with the law written upon the

30  The Covenant of Works heart of humanity, or natural law. This formulation stands in continuity with Calvin’s earlier claims regarding the role of natural law and the reward of Adam’s obedience, and like Calvin, Ursinus wraps these concepts in the doctrine of the covenant. Ursinus’s contributions are important because he connects the natural law to the Decalogue, to produce a legal covenant with both Adam and Israel at Sinai, which creates fodder for later discussions about the republication in some sense of the covenant of works in the Mosaic covenant. Olevianus also spoke of a covenant of creation in his various works. He explained that “Satan led mankind away from God, and the creationis foedere,” and that the Son’s redemptive work was necessary to make expiation for the dissolution of the creation covenant. The creation covenant is the primum foedus (first covenant) and the foedus naturale (natural covenant).104 Olevianus employed the term foedus naturale because Adam and Eve were image bearers and thus conformed to their creator.105 Olevianus’s speaking of a creation covenant does not mean that he advocates a covenant of works. Lyle Bierma notes four discontinuities between Olevianus’s creation covenant and later early modern formulations of the covenant of works: 1. Olevianus nowhere speaks of eternal life as the reward of Adam’s obedience. Obedience is the requirement of the iure creationis and the opportunity to love God. Conformity to God is a reward in and of itself. 2. He never identifies the prohibition of eating from the tree of knowledge (Gen. 2:16–​17) as a condition of the creation covenant. 3. He never juxtaposes the creation covenant against the covenant of grace. He does not compare and contrast the two covenants. Olevianus only hints at a relationship between them. 4. Olevianus does not identify Adam as the federal or representative head of humanity in the creation covenant.106 Olevianus does not disagree with later formulations. But once again, we find the building blocks for the covenant of works in his theology. Hence, through the writings of Calvin, Musculus, Ursinus, and Olevianus, the covenant concept was expanded, and the idea of a covenant of creation clearly began to emerge within Reformed theology.

The Reformation  31

Conclusion In this survey of the origins of the covenant of works, there are four things to observe. First, as a matter of history, the concept of an Adamic covenant unambiguously emerged in the inter-​testamental period in Ecclesiasticus (Sirach), which theologians such as Augustine encountered and employed. Another entry point of the doctrine was from Holy writ itself through Jerome’s translation of the Vulgate and later medieval glosses. Moreover, theologians in the patristic and Middle Ages used covenant as a rubric under which to discuss the unity of salvation between the testaments, law, soteriology, and the sacraments. All of the building blocks for the covenant of works were therefore already in place long before the sixteenth century. Second, a fully federal pre-​fall Adamic covenant appeared among Roman Catholic theologians decades before the doctrine took hold in Reformed circles. Such a phenomenon undermines theories claiming that theologians created the doctrine to soften the harsh edges of the divine decrees—​to account for the intersection between divine sovereignty and human responsibility.107 Third, when theologians like Calvin and Ursinus coordinated law and covenant and recognized the existence of a creation covenant, this was not a unique move but had precedent in the patristic and Middle Ages; these two things stand in continuity with antecedent formulations. What stands out, however, is a growing clarity regarding an Adamic or creation covenant. Fourth, Augustine and Catharinus both exhibit the exegetical-​theological method by which they arrive at their conclusion—​the Adamic covenant is a theological construct. Augustine appealed to the divine prohibition against eating from the tree of knowledge and Paul’s two-​Adams comparison in Romans 5.  Moreover, Augustine saw the Genesis 2:17 prohibition as constitutive of a covenant. Catharinus exhibited the same pattern of argumentation but did so in reliance on Augustine. When Early Orthodox Reformed theologians reflected on these developments—​exegesis and the theological insights of the earlier church—​the cradle of ancient, medieval, and Reformation theology had prepared the way for the formal birth of the doctrine.

2 Robert Rollock Despite contemporary unfamiliarity with Robert Rollock (ca. 1555–​99), in his own day he was an important figure in the development and dissemination of the doctrine of the covenant of works. This chapter explores Rollock’s contribution to the development and subsequent reception of the covenant of works. Even though there is a lack of scholarly attention, Rollock serves as a significant transitional theologian in the doctrine’s development. Rollock employed categories from the earlier tradition but integrated other doctrines to produce his doctrine of the covenant of works. He was arguably one of the first Reformed theologians to articulate a fully federal bi-​covenantal theology. Instead of employing common patristic or medieval views of the transmission of sin, Rollock based the transmission of sin upon federal imputation. But little known is that Rollock likely did not glean the doctrine of imputed original sin from Reformed but Roman Catholic sources. In the wake of the publication and dissemination of Rollock’s works, he wielded influence upon the subsequent development of the doctrine of the covenant of works. In order to understand Rollock’s place in the development and reception of the covenant of works, this chapter begins with a brief overview of Rollock’s life, one that explores his education, influences, and interrogative world. The chapter then addresses Rollock’s doctrine of the covenant of works within the context of a number of his key writings, most notably a catechism on the doctrine and what is perhaps his best-​known work, A Treatise on Effectual Calling. This exploration makes use of Rollock’s commentaries in which he addresses passages related to the doctrine. The chapter also surveys the subsequent sway of Rollock’s doctrine. I  then conclude with some summary observations regarding Rollock’s place and influential role in the development of the doctrine of the covenant of works.

The Covenant of Works. J. V. Fesko, Oxford University Press (2020). © Oxford University Press. DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780190071363.001.0001

34  The Covenant of Works

Background Life, education, and experience all feed into the development of a theologian’s views, and Rollock is no exception. Rollock was born around 1555 near Stirling, Scotland; had his initial education at a local grammar school; earned his master of arts at St. Salvator’s College in St. Andrews in 1578; and eventually studied Hebrew under famed Scottish theologian James Melville (1556–​1614) at St. Mary’s College. Rollock taught for a time at St. Andrews before he was asked in 1583 to lead a newly founded college in Edinburgh. While at Edinburgh he mediated continental Reformed theology to his students by lecturing on the Questiones et Responsiones (1570) of Theodore Beza (1519–​1605) and the Heidelberg Catechism (1563).1 To inform his lectures on the Heidelberg Catechism, a strong possibility exists that Rollock employed Zacharias Ursinus’s (1534–​83) commentary.2 In addition to his lectures, Rollock wrote commentaries on Ephesians, Daniel, Romans, 1 and 2 Thessalonians, Philemon, select psalms, and the Gospel of John; his commentaries on Colossians, Galatians, and Hebrews were published posthumously.3 According to an older line of scholarship, such as found in T. F. Torrance (1913–​2007), Calvin and John Knox argued that Christ was the substance of both the Old and New Testaments and hence there was no place for a legal covenant. Torrance suggests that the rise of the twofold covenantal architecture was largely due to the influence of William Perkins (1558–​1602), and particularly his work Golden Chaine.4 Torrance also claims that the covenant of works originated with Perkins, and Rollock likely learned it from his English colleague. We have already seen that there is sufficient data to prove that Reformation-​era theologians characterized the Mosaic administration of the law as a legal covenant and that the natural law was imbedded in the creation itself. This is considerable precedent for a pre-​lapsarian covenant that invalidates Torrance’s claim. His argument that Rollock relied on Perkins is also questionable. Aaron Denlinger proposes an alternative scenario. Denlinger notes that when Perkins published the first edition of his Golden Chaine (Armilla Aurea) in 1590, he does not mention a pre-​fall covenant.5 Perkins then published an expanded second edition in 1591, which served as the basis for the English translation of 1592—​the edition that Torrance cites as evidence of the doctrine’s rise in English theology.6 So Perkins did not publish on the covenant of works until 1591, but in the previous year Rollock published his Ephesians commentary, in which he first

Robert Rollock  35 mentions the twofold covenantal structure: “God, then, established a twofold covenant with man from the beginning: one natural, established in creation itself, containing the law; the other a covenant of grace, established with man after the fall, containing the gospel.”7 Given that Rollock beats Perkins to the punch, it certainly raises questions about the supposed influence of Perkins upon Rollock.8 Chances are, then, that Perkins was not an influence for Rollock. Another potential source of influence upon Rollock is the work of English theologian Dudley Fenner (ca. 1558–​87). Fenner published his work Sacra Theologia in 1585, and scholars identify it as the source of the first explicit reference to the covenant of works.9 Fenner asserts that there are two covenants: “the covenant of works” and “the covenant of the free promise.”10 Fenner defines the two covenants in the following manner: “The covenant of works is the covenant where the condition of perfect obedience is annexed. . . . The covenant of the free promise is the covenant, (a) concerning Christ and the eulogia given forth in him, which is freely given, and (b) where the condition is: if a person receives Christ.”11 Rollock and Fenner might have relied upon a common source. One of Fenner’s colleagues, Thomas Cartwright (1534–​1603), was an early English covenant theologian who spent time with Zacharias Ursinus and Caspar Olevianus (1536–​87) during his 1573–​74 stint at the University of Heidelberg.12 In his posthumously published works, Cartwright refers to the twofold covenant structure.13 Noteworthy is that Cartwright wrote the preface to Fenner’s 1585 Sacra Theologia, which means that he was likely well aware of the twofold covenant structure in concert with Fenner.14 With warrant, Weir surmises that Fenner and Cartwright both adopted the covenant works between 1580 and 1585, but Fenner was first to publish in 1585 and Cartwright later followed with the posthumous publication of his works.15 There are several possibilities given this data: (1) Rollock could have developed his own doctrine of the covenant of works independently; (2) he could have interacted with Fenner’s 1585 work; (3) given that Cartwright, Fenner, and Rollock were exposed to the work of Ursinus and the Heidelberg Catechism, all three could have resourced Ursinus’s writings on the covenant; or (4) it could be a both/​and scenario in which Rollock found the covenant idea in Ursinus and also encountered it through Fenner and Cartwright. Regardless of the specific direction of intellectual traffic, one common denominator is Ursinus. But beyond Ursinus, Reformation-​era Roman Catholic covenant theology is another little-​explored source of influence.

36  The Covenant of Works As noted previously, historical evidence points to the fact that Roman Catholics were some of the first Reformation-​era theologians to advocate a twofold covenant. Diego Lañyez (1512–​65), a delegate to the Council of Trent (1545–​63), delivered a three-​hour speech against the doctrine of imputed righteousness during the council’s deliberations on the doctrine of justification.16 In his speech he mentions the “covenant of the grace of God” (pacti gratiae Dei) and the “first covenant that the Lord made with Adam” (primo illo pacto, quod pepigit Dominus cum Adam). He also refers to these two covenants as the first and second covenants (primo et secondi pactii).17 A few years before Lañyez made his 1546 speech at Trent, Dominican theologian Ambrogio Catharinus (1483–​1553) stated, “So then, God established a covenant with Adam from the beginning.”18 In his treatise on original sin, Catharinus writes of a covenant between Adam and God and a second covenant in Christ, what he calls the novo pacto, or new covenant.19 But unlike other Roman Catholics who posited a realistic doctrine of transmitted sin, Catharinus conceived of the relationship between Adam and his offspring in forensic or federal terms. In other words, all humanity was in Adam by virtue of God’s covenant with him, and God imputed Adam’s sin to his offspring on this basis. Catharinus’s fully federal Adamic covenant preceded similar Reformed formulations by roughly forty years.20 Roman Catholic covenant theology becomes especially relevant for Rollock because he makes explicit reference to Catharinus’s work on original sin in his treatise on effectual calling. Rollock explains that medieval scholastics had diverse opinions on original sin, and he mentions Peter Lombard (ca. 1096–​1160) by name. Rollock then writes, “Albertus Pighius [1490–​1542] and Ambrosius Catharinus said, that it was nothing else but that first transgression of Adam.” Rollock concluded that original sin is the same in all men and that the sin was really Adam’s, but ours by imputation.21 There is the possibility that Rollock encountered these opinions through a secondary source, the work of Roman Catholic theologian Robert Bellarmine (1542–​1621). Rollock engages Bellarmine’s assessment of Pighius and Lombard.22 But another distinct possibility is that Rollock gleaned the concept from Catharinus.23 All of this contextual background information leads to the conclusion that several likely sources contributed to the development of Rollock’s doctrine of the covenant:  (1) the broader context of Reformed covenant theology, (2) the specific exposure to and study of Ursinus and the Heidelberg Catechism, (3)  possible exposure to other early bi-​covenantal thought of

Robert Rollock  37 theologians such as Fenner and Cartwright, and (4)  the familiarity with Roman Catholic covenant theology through theologians such as Catharinus. These connections provide the context for understanding how Rollock receives, modifies, and influences the subsequent development of the covenant of works in the Reformed tradition.

Rollock’s Doctrine of the Covenant of Works The best place to begin the survey of Rollock’s view on the covenant of works is his 1596 catechism on the doctrine of the covenant. He starts his catechism by asking about the nature of God’s covenant with man, to which he responds, “It is that by which God promises man something good under some settled condition, and man accepts the condition.”24 At its most fundamental level, Rollock defines a covenant (foedus) as an agreement under conditions (conditione) or stipulations. Rollock then explains that God’s covenant is twofold (duplex): the covenant of nature or works (foedus natura sive operum) and the covenant of grace (foedus gratiae).25 He defines the covenant of works as follows: “It is the covenant of God in which he promises man eternal life under the condition of good works proceeding from the power of man’s nature, and man accepts that condition of good works.”26 Rollock cites three biblical texts in support of this definition: Leviticus 18:5, Romans 10:5, and Galatians 3:12—​“If a person does them [the statutes and rules], he shall live by them.” Rollock’s commentaries on Galatians and Romans provide insight into why he cites Leviticus 18:5 and its subsequent quotations by Paul. Some might think that a text from the Mosaic covenant has nothing to do with Adam’s pre-​fall state. But Rollock appeals to Paul’s use of Leviticus 18:5 because Rollock believes that the apostle employs the text to prove the difficulty and impossibility of obtaining legal righteousness by means of obedience to the law.27 The only way to obtain life from the law is by rendering perfect obedience to it.28 In the context of Romans 10:5, Paul contrasts the righteousness by the law with the righteousness that comes through faith.29 He makes a similar point in his exegesis of Galatians 3:12, where he argues that Paul’s point is to press the antithesis between grace and works in justification: “If justification is by faith, it follows, I  say, righteousness in no way can be through the law.” Righteousness is, therefore, either by the law or by faith.30 Rollock connects Galatians 3:12 with his exegesis of Romans 11:8, where

38  The Covenant of Works Paul once again places works and grace in antithesis in justification.31 So, in part, Rollock bases the theological legitimacy of the covenant of works on the two paths that Paul establishes in his use of Leviticus 18:5, either works or grace. And Rollock thus echoes Paul when he explains that the law is not of faith, or that the law has nothing in common with faith because the condition of the legal covenant is works.32 Adam was under the law in the garden, hence Leviticus 18:5 is relevant for the covenant of works. Rollock rests several points on Romans 10:5 and Galatians 3:12 regarding the covenant of works. These two texts explain that eternal life (vita beata in aeternum) is the promised reward of the covenant and that its condition is good works, which would proceed from Adam’s good, holy, and upright nature.33 Rollock further explains there was no place for Adam to have faith in Christ. The covenant of works does not admit faith in Christ because, based upon Romans 11:6, “If [election] is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works; otherwise grace would no longer be grace,” works that proceed from man’s nature cannot coexist with “the grace of Christ and works of grace.”34 Beyond the exegetical rationale, Rollock responds to the question of whether the condition of the covenant of works is merit: “Not at all. Rather, it is one of duties that bear witness to gratitude towards God the creator.”35 Rollock contrasts merit, something owed by virtue of a work performed, to the ideas of duty and gratitude. In other words, Rollock does not advance a strict quid pro quo arrangement in his doctrine of the covenant of works. Rollock explains, “It does not follow from this that they [works] must be meritorious. For the rule of merit is properly this: compensation is due to work that is done—​work that is not owed—​according to the order of justice. As Rom 4:4 says, ‘To the one who works’—​that is to the one who merits—​ ‘wages are reckoned according to debt.’ ”36 The last two questions that Rollock treats deal with the rationale for calling the Adamic covenant the covenant of works and the precise time when God established this covenant. As to the former, Rollock argues that the term works best denominates the Adamic covenant because they are its condition. Regarding the timing of the covenant, Rollock maintains that God created Adam in covenant.37 Rollock specifies, however, the order and means by which God established the covenant with Adam. First, God engraved his law upon Adam’s heart: “Work and serve according to the rule of my law (for it is written upon your heart), and you will live.” Adam, according to Rollock, “accepted the condition, and pledged himself to fulfill it.”38 Important to note is that Rollock did not believe the entirety of the law was engraved upon Adam’s

Robert Rollock  39 heart but only the “heads of his covenant’s condition” (captia conditionis foederis sui). Rollock bases the idea of the engraved natural law upon three texts from Romans: 1:19, 1:32, and 2:14.39 That Rollock cites these texts places him in continuity with the earlier Reformed tradition. Second-​generation reformers, such as John Calvin (1509–​64), did not advocate the doctrine of the covenant of works, but they did place Adam under the rubric of the law and explained Romans 2:14–​16 in this vein.40 Calvin, for example, writes of the “internal law” (lex interior) “stamped on every heart” (cordibus inscriptam).41 Adam, therefore, had the law stamped upon his heart. But Calvin also believed that God gave the law to Adam in the garden: “A law was imposed upon [Adam] as a sign of his subjection. . . . God from the beginning, imposed a law upon man, for the purpose of maintaining the right due to himself.”42 As noted in the previous chapter, second-​generation Reformed theologians—​including Wolfgang Musculus (1497–​1563), Calvin, and Ursinus—​coordinated law and covenant, and Rollock reflects this development.43 In other words, theologians did not speak merely of the bare law but maintained that all of God’s administrations of his law came through covenants. Theologians added a new conceptual layer to the law-​gospel distinction and spoke in terms of two covenants like their Roman Catholic counterparts. That is, theologians no longer wrote in terms of law and gospel but in terms of the covenants of works and grace. The idea of covenantally imputed guilt and righteousness did not take hold in Roman Catholic theology, but Rollock, among others, fanned these ideas into a flame of a twofold federal covenant theology. The promise of eternal life on the condition of perfect obedience still stands before fallen human beings.44 Rollock writes, The first and principal grace promised in this covenant [of grace] is righteousness; which must necessarily here have the first place, for after the breach of the covenant of works, that one first original justice, as they call it, was quite lost, and injustice did succeed into the place thereof. And this justice, which is here promised in the Covenant of Grace, is no inherent righteousness, as that original justice was, but is the righteousness of our Mediator Jesus Christ, which is ours by faith, and by the imputation of God.45

According to Rollock, believers receive eternal life through the imputation of Christ’s righteousness in the covenant of grace. Rollock believed that, while

40  The Covenant of Works one may distinguish between Christ’s suffering and his law keeping (active obedience), God imputes both to the believer by faith alone and that both constitute the righteousness of Christ.46 But Rollock also coordinates covenant and imputation for Adam’s original place in the garden. When asked how the efficacy of the power of Adam’s first sin extends to all humanity, Rollock responds, This efficacy of that sin is by reason of that word and covenant which God made with Adam in his creation, as it were in these words; ‘If man will stand and persist in that his innocency which he had by creation, he shall stand for his own good and for his progeny; but if he do not stand, but fall away, his fall shall turn as to his own damage, so to the hurt of his posterity; and whatsoever evil shall betide him, the same shall ensue to all his offspring after him.’47

In other words, Rollock posits a full-​fledged double imputation: God imputes Adam’s guilt and Christ’s righteousness to those who are respectively united to the two covenantal representatives.48 Rollock does not talk of the transmission of original sin through natural generation but “by reason of that word and covenant which God made with Adam.” Transmission of original sin is covenantal and through federal imputation. It is noteworthy that one of the earliest expressions of the covenantal basis for original sin appears in the Roman Catholic theologian Catharinus, whom Rollock cites in his chapter on original sin.49 A likely scenario is that Rollock adopted Catharinus’s idea of imputed guilt.50 For Rollock, like Catharinus before him, humanity shared a covenantal solidarity with Adam, and hence God imputes guilt upon a covenantal rather than ontological basis. That is, God does not transmit guilt through procreation or by means of physical transmission but through immediate (apart from means) imputation given Adam’s role as the universal representative for all humanity.

Subsequent Influence Rollock was one of the first Reformed theologians to advocate a federal twofold covenant theology: the covenants of works and grace, both of which employed immediate imputation as the means by which guilt and righteousness were communicated to the confederated parties. The natural question is, To

Robert Rollock  41 what degree did Rollock influence subsequent theologians? This question is difficult to answer because the rules of intellectual property and definitions of plagiarism are different today in comparison with the early modern period. Theologians often borrowed from one another without acknowledging their sources. Nevertheless, a few clues provide an answer to this question. Some theologians looked upon Rollock as a biblical exegete. Edward Leigh (1602–​ 71), a lay theologian and member of Parliament during the period when the Westminster Assembly created its confession and catechisms, lists Rollock among the best expositors of John’s Gospel, including Calvin, Beza, Johannes Piscator (1546–​1625), Musculus, and Lutheran theologian Paul Tarnovius (1562–​1633).51 In similar fashion, Leigh includes Rollock as an exemplary exegete of Scripture, along with Peter Martyr Vermigli (1499–​1562), Ludwig Lavater (1527–​86), Musculus, Girolamo Zanchi (1516–​90), and André Rivet (1572–​1651).52 Chances are that many theologians encountered Rollock’s exegetical work through his commentaries and acquired the covenant of works through this channel. But in addition to Rollock’s popularity as an exegete, he was equally known as a theologian. Leigh lists Rollock among the best-​known theologians of Scotland, including Knox, Melville, John Cameron (ca. 1579–​1625), Robert Baron (ca. 1596–​1639), and John Forbes (1593–​1648).53 There are many notable Scottish theologians of this period, such as Westminster divines George Gillespie (1613–​48) and Samuel Rutherford (1600–​61), but, at least in Leigh’s mind, Rollock warranted mention and these two Scottish greats did not. Gillespie and Rutherford would undoubtedly make a top-​ten list, but when Leigh whittled his list to six, Rollock made the cut. Evidence of Rollock’s influence upon subsequent formulations of the covenant of works appears explicitly in the writings of Rutherford. In his book on the covenant, Rutherford sets forth an argument for the covenant of works: But man being considered as indued with the Image of God, so the Holy God made with him a Covenant of life, with Commandments, though positive and Moral, yet not deduced from the Law of Nature, in the strictest sense, as to observe such a Sabbath, the seventh from the Creation, the not eating of the forbidden tree, and with a promise of such a life. And therefore though Divines, as our solid and eminent Rollock, call it a Covenant natural, as it is contradistinguished from the supernatural Covenant of Grace, and there is good reason so to call it.54

42  The Covenant of Works Rutherford invokes Rollock and provides direct evidence that he interacted with him on the covenant of works. Given Rutherford’s knowledge of Rollock, it also indicates that Rollock was a tributary stream of theological influence upon the articulation of the doctrine for the Westminster Confession and catechisms through Rutherford’s participation in the Westminster assembly. Rutherford also advocates a covenantal imputation of guilt and righteousness similar to Rollock. Rollock’s influence appears most prominently when Rutherford answers the question about the nature of humanity’s connection to the two Adams, beginning with original sin: Adams sin is ours really and truly, not so much because it is ours, as because it is imputed to be ours by God, who so contrived the Law of Works as it should be made with Adam not as a single father but with Adam as a public person representing all man, and having our common nature as a father both by nature and Law, which came from the mere freewill of God.55

Rutherford’s explanation echoes the Anselmic and Thomistic view that Adam corrupted the platonic ideal of human nature and hence infected subsequent humanity by his sin, a view that Calvin repeated.56 But unlike Calvin and in line with Rollock, he hinges the transmission of Adam’s sin first on imputation and his role as a public person—​in other words, he maintains a fully federal doctrine of imputation but combines it with a secondary emphasis upon the common nature shared between Adam and humanity. In fact, in a marginal note Rutherford writes, “Adams sin is not ours by nature, but because he is our father both by nature and by law.”57 The priority Rutherford places upon immediate imputation becomes clearer when he writes, “When therefore our Divines say, we are as guilty of eating the forbidden fruit, as if our hands were there and our teeth, and we did eat in him, the speech cannot be taken physically, personally (for we were not then born) but morally and legally: but our nature was legally there.”58 Rollock explains imputation purely in terms of God’s word of the covenant, and nothing more. Rutherford follows this path but also mentions human nature as a factor. So, Rutherford does not repristinate Rollock but he does bear his influence.59 There are other advocates of immediate imputation, however, who perhaps bear the uncredited influence of Rollock: Particular Baptist theologian Nehemiah Coxe (d. 1688), Francis Roberts (1609–​75), and Westminster divine Anthony Burgess (d. 1664).60 Coxe argues that had Adam not been in a covenant with God his sin would have only affected his own well-​being.

Robert Rollock  43 “It could only be upon the account of such a Covenant,” writes Coxe, “that his Posterity should be concerned as they were, in his standing, or falling.”61 Adam’s sin impacted his posterity because he was the “common root and Representative of all Mankind.” He did not function in a private capacity.62 Francis Roberts comments in his massive Mysterium & Medulla Bibliorum on the significance of Romans 5:12 and 1 Corinthians 15:22. He answers the question as to how all people are guilty of Adam’s one sin. He rejects several different options: “Not only by Imitation of Adam as an evil example: for death seized on them that have not so sinned, not actually sinned, Rom. 5.14. Not meerly by Propagation, as from a corrupt Root or fountain. For the Apostle doth not parallel Adam and Christ as two common Roots only, but also as two common publike or universal Persons.”63 Roberts rejects, therefore, the Pelagian and realistic views of the transmission of sin. Roberts, like Coxe and Rollock, opts for covenantal solidarity and imputation. Roberts writes, “For our immediate parents are Corrupted roots, & we corrupted by them, yet their Actual Sins are not made ours, as Adams is. But in Adams first Sin, we all became Sinners, by Imputation: Adam being an universal Person, and all mankind one in him by Gods covenant of works.” Roberts contends that all humanity was in Adam “by federal Consociation.” He explains, “God covenanted with Adam, and in him with all his Posterity: and therefore Adams breach of Covenant fell not only upon him, but upon all his Posterity.”64 Burgess, one of the Westminster divines, wrote a treatise on original sin and clearly advocates the imputation of Adam’s guilt to all humanity. Burgess takes a creationist view regarding the origin of the soul and then turns to answer the question as to how these newly created souls contract the contagion of original sin: “That in respect of Gods Decree and Covenant we were all present to God in Adam.”65 Rollock was not specifically cited by these theologians and was thus not identified as a direct influence, but given his early articulation of the doctrine he was likely a general influence upon these advocates of immediate imputation.

Conclusion Despite general unfamiliarity with him today, Rollock wielded considerable influence in his own day as an exegete and theologian in Scotland and throughout Europe. Rollock did not create the doctrine of the covenant of works de novo but gleaned it from doctrinal elements already present

44  The Covenant of Works in a number of theologians, such as Ursinus, Calvin, Catharinus, Fenner, Cartwright, and Beza. Such diverse geographical and theological sources demonstrate that the covenant of works did not originate with one specific theologian but through a confluence of sources. Moreover, contrary to popular contemporary lore, Rollock did not impose a theological grid over the Scriptures but instead first deduced the covenant of works through his exegetical labors. He arguably spent more time writing commentaries than theological works, which undoubtedly testifies to the exegetical nature of his theology. Yet the story of the covenant of works does not end with Rollock but proceeds across the North Channel to the University of Leiden. Seldom factored in the development of the doctrine, Jacob Arminius (1560–​1609) and his colleagues contributed to its reception and refinement.

3 Jacob Arminius Jacob Arminius (1560–​ 1609) is a name forever associated with the Remonstrance in the early seventeenth-​century Netherlands. He began a movement that challenged the Reformed theological consensus of his day. In post-​Reformation lore, Arminius inspired the dispute that led to the formation and deliverances of the Synod of Dort (1618–​19), which many now popularly call the Five Points of Calvinism. Much of the secondary literature has focused, therefore, upon Arminius’s soteriology. But to date, very little literature explores Arminius’s role in the dissemination and articulation of the covenant of works.1 As the doctrine took shape in the mid-​sixteenth century among Roman Catholics and later through Reformed theologians, formulations became clearer and more refined. Arminius stood at a key juncture and participated in the doctrine’s shaping and transmission, given his role as a professor at the University of Leiden. But just because Arminius held to the doctrine did not mean that it functioned in the same manner as for other theologians of the period. This chapter sets forth Arminius’s doctrine of the covenant of works by first explaining the antecedent history of the doctrine’s development. Second, the chapter explores the specific elements of Arminius’s doctrine—​its definition, exegetical support, and theological function. Third, the chapter examines the reception of his doctrine. Only a contextual analysis of Arminius’s view can best account for how he factors in the development and reception of the covenant of works. The chapter closes with a few observations about Arminius’s largely unacknowledged role in the development and reception of the doctrine. This chapter does not claim that Arminius single-​handedly influenced the development of the covenant of works. Rather, it focuses upon his role as a part of the theological faculty at the University of Leiden. The turn of the seventeenth century witnessed a number of the Leiden faculty advocating the covenant of works, including Arminius. This chapter therefore highlights what some have called institutional continuity.2 In other words, lines of continuity and influence develop along institutional lines rather than merely upon The Covenant of Works. J. V. Fesko, Oxford University Press (2020). © Oxford University Press. DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780190071363.001.0001

46  The Covenant of Works personal, bibliographic, or programmatic lines. This chapter features the University of Leiden’s role in the development of the covenant of works with a particular emphasis on Arminius.

Background Recent historiography commonly and rightly identifies key Reformed theologians and confessions in the development of the covenant of works.3 Earlier chapters have noted the influence of Zacharias Ursinus (1534–​83), given that he was one of the earliest Reformed theologians to correlate creation, law, and covenant. Ursinus’s formulation is different from later, more refined formulations, but all of the necessary building blocks for the doctrine appear in his work. Among the many theological learning centers scattered around Europe, Heidelberg was one of the more influential. This was due not only to Ursinus’s role but also the number of students who studied, learned, departed, and then disseminated their acquired knowledge. Two notable figures function as transmission agents for the doctrine of the covenant of works: Francis Junius (1545–​1602) and Franciscus Gomarus (1563–​1641). Junius studied at Geneva and became a professor of theology at Neustadt, where he taught alongside Ursinus from 1576 to 1584; Junius then taught at Heidelberg from 1584 to 1592, and then finally settled as a professor at the University of Leiden from 1592 until his death in 1602.4 Gomarus studied at Strasbourg, Neustadt, Oxford, Cambridge, and Heidelberg.5 While he was at Heidelberg he sat under Ursinus, Girolamo Zanchi (1516–​90), and Daniel Tossanus (1541–​1602). In 1594 Gomarus was appointed a professor of theology at the University of Leiden. In 1614 he moved to Samur; he finally taught at the University of Groningen from 1618 until his death in 1641.6 Gomarus overlapped with Arminius during his time at Leiden and engaged him in theological debate. Junius and Gomarus are important players in the dissemination of the covenant of works for two reasons. First, they both studied or worked in Heidelberg and with Ursinus, which would have given them access and exposure to his views. Second, they both present the doctrine as their own. During his time at Leiden, Gomarus wrote a preface for Junius’s translation of the New Testament in 1594, which was a brief oration on the covenant of God. In his oration Gomarus defines a covenant as a mutual obligation between God and man concerning eternal life with certain given conditions. There are two

Jacob Arminius  47 parts of the covenant: the obligations of God, which is eternal life, and the obligations of man, which follows the divinely stipulated conditions of the covenant. Gomarus then divides the covenant in two: the natural and supernatural covenants (foedus est duplex, Naturale & Supernaturale).7 In the natural covenant God promised eternal life on the condition of man’s perfect obedience. Gomarus rests his understanding on Romans 2:14–​15, evidence of God’s law written upon man’s heart. God made this covenant with our first parents in paradise, but under a test of obedience, namely, abstaining from eating from the prohibited tree (Gen. 2:17), and the prospects of eating from the tree of life. That Gomarus identifies the natural covenant with the moral law appears in his claim that the Mosaic covenant repeats the natural covenant in its form (expressam foederis naturalis formam continet).8 Gomarus sets the natural covenant in contrast to the supernatural covenant, which comes through Christ and his perfect obedience unto reconciliation and eternal life. The condition to this covenant is not perfect obedience, as in the natural covenant, but faith and repentance, which God gives through the Holy Spirit.9 In the natural covenant, God’s only obligation is the promise of eternal life, whereas in the supernatural covenant he provides eternal life and promises Christ’s perfect obedience to the law, which is the given condition of the new covenant. So Gomarus juxtaposes perfect obedience with faith in Christ.10 Junius promotes a similar understanding of the covenant of works. In a series of theses on the divine covenants and testaments, Junius explains that humanity has a twofold state according to Scripture: integrity and corruption.11 The contexts in which these states unfold are God’s covenants. The first covenant from God the Father was with our first parents in Eden, where he promised to give them eternal life in return for service and worship. God gave them this promise under the threat of death if they failed to render this obedience.12 The author of this covenant is God alone so that humanity could commune with the triune God.13 The matter of the covenant is twofold: God as author promises eternal life under the stipulated condition, and humans must render their service unto him. The promise of eternal life rests upon Adam and Eve and the fact that they bear the image of God.14 The form of the covenant is the mutually stipulated conditions, and the goal of the covenant is the glory of God, from whom, through whom, and in whom are all things (Rom. 11:36).15 The instruments of the covenant were twofold: the first was the tree of life, which was a sacrament of eternal life, which ultimately comes through Jesus Christ in a post-​fall world (Gen. 3:22; Acts 3:15; Rev. 2:17). The

48  The Covenant of Works second was a pledge of obedient love to God by abstaining from eating of the tree of knowledge and evil.16 Gomarus and Junius provide a number of key elements of the mature doctrine of the covenant of works: the idea of an Adamic covenant, natural law inscribed upon the heart, a revelation of the divine promise of eternal life, the necessity of perfect obedience, and characterizing the trees of life and knowledge as sacramental manifestations of the pre-​fall covenant. These formulations resonate points made by earlier theologians. Gomarus echoes the influence of Ursinus with his emphasis upon the law written on the heart, and arguably the same emphasis appears in Junius, although he does not explicitly state this.17 Junius, on the other hand, bears the marks of his time at Geneva, particularly with the claim that the trees of life and knowledge were sacraments of the first covenant, and that the tree of life pointed to eternal life through Christ.18 These are things that John Calvin (1509–​64) argues regarding the trees of the garden.19 Junius elsewhere repeats sentiments that appear in Calvin regarding the connections between creation and natural law.20 The cauldron of sixteenth-​century Reformed theology bubbled with these different elements that coalesced into the covenant of works, but the question is, To what degree did Arminius embrace these concepts?

Arminius on the Covenant of Works Arminius never wrote a system of doctrine, but his public and private disputations serve as an outline and index for his overall beliefs.21 In his series of private disputations, Arminius presents one titled “On the Covenant into Which God Entered with Our First Parents.”22 Arminius characterizes this covenant as evidence of God’s desire to elicit from humanity voluntary and free obedience, and thus he entered into a contract and covenant with man (contractum & foedus). God entered into this covenant with Adam subsequent to his creation, which means that Adam was created for covenant rather than in covenant.23 Within this covenant God required obedience and promised a reward, but he also added a stated punishment. God did this so that Adam would not think that this covenant was between equals, but that he was completely bound to God.24 Embedded in Arminius’s description of the first covenant is his understanding that “the law of God is very often called a Covenant” (lex Dei saepissimè foedus dicitur).25 This statement echoes the connections Musculus draws between law and covenant, and this could

Jacob Arminius  49 therefore be due to his influence.26 This is a distinct possibility given that Arminius owned a copy of Musculus’s Common Places.27 Although other potential sources of influence might include Ursinus and Stephanus Szegedinus (1515–​72), as Arminius owned the former’s volume 1 of his works and the latter’s Loci Communes.28 If the entry in Arminius’s library refers to volume 1 of the 1584 edition of Ursinus’s collected works, then Arminius had access to Ursinus’s Larger Catechism where he draws the connections between law and covenant in humanity’s creation. In similar fashion to Musculus, Szegedinus advocates a twofold covenant, a general covenant with the creation and special covenant with the elect.29 This is not to say that Arminius relied directly upon Musculus or Szegedinus specifically, as they both locate this covenant with Noah in Genesis 8 and 9, but rather points toward the general idea of a creation covenant that Ursinus and other theologians advocated. Like Gomarus and Junius, Arminius attributed God’s prescribed obedience to a twofold source. First, God placed his law and imprinted it upon the mind of man, which contains his duties towards God and his neighbor. Through the knowledge of this imprinted law, Adam was supposed to love, honor, and worship God. Indeed, “the whole law is contained in the right ordering of love.”30 Arminius does not cite the text, but this is an allusion to Romans 2:14–​15; he does refer to the passage, however, in his public disputations.31 Arminius does not completely identify natural law with the covenant of works but does acknowledge that it is a part of the primeval covenant.32 The second source was God’s symbolical command to Adam, which was to refrain from consuming fruit from the tree of knowledge. Symbolical law (symbolica lex) is a command that prescribes or forbids an act, which in and of itself is neither agreeable nor disagreeable to God.33 Had Adam and Eve obeyed God’s moral and symbolical law, God would have transformed them from their natural to a supernatural existence—​they would receive spiritual bodies if they refrained from consuming the forbidden fruit.34 Although he does not reference Leviticus 18:5 here, in line with other advocates of the covenant of works Arminius believed that it required perfect obedience. According to Arminius, the law is the doctrine of works, which requires from humanity perfect obedience; he cites Leviticus 18:5—​do this and live—​and Matthew 19:17: “If you would enter life, keep the commandments.”35 Arminius did not believe, however, that obedience and love were at odds. Rather, Adam “was able to render to God that worship which had been prescribed according to the law of legal righteousness, that says, ‘This do, and thou shalt live;’—​he was able to ‘love with all his heart and soul’ that

50  The Covenant of Works Good and Just Being.”36 For Arminius, worship, obedience, and love all characterize Adam’s covenantal relationship with God. In his 1603 inaugural oration on theology, which he delivered when he was appointed to his position at Leiden, Arminius couched the required obedience in the same type of terms as Junius: service and worship.37 Arminius writes that sacred theology treats the will of God expressed in a certain covenant into which he has entered with man, and which consists of two parts: (i.) The one, by which he declares it to be his pleasure to receive adoration from man, and at the same time prescribes the mode of performing that worship; for it is his will to be worshipped from obedience, and not at the option or discretion of man.—​ (ii.) The other, by which God promises that he will abundantly compensate man for the worship which he performs; requiring not only adoration for the benefits already conferred upon man, as a trial of his gratitude; but likewise that he may communicate to man infinitely greater things to the consummation of his felicity.38

That Arminius characterizes Adam’s obedience as worship likely echoes Junius’s same emphasis. In the following two disputations, Arminius explains the significance of Adam’s failure in the first covenant.39 If Adam and Eve had persevered through their probation in the garden, they would have obtained for themselves and their offspring the rewards promised by God.40 But the converse was also true: that if they did not persevere, their offspring would receive the penalty of violating the covenant.41 Under this covenant Arminius believed that Adam only had need for a general faith in God, not a specific faith in Christ.42 This is evidence of Arminius’s federal commitments, which stands in contrast to Roman Catholic views of original sin. Rather than an ontological means of transmission, Arminius posits a federal mode of transmission, though his federalism has two unique features. First, like earlier medieval theologians such as Thomas Aquinas (1225–​74), Arminius believed that original sin was not the positive presence of sin but rather the absence of original righteousness.43 In technical terms, original sin is a lack, or privatio, of original righteousness.44 Second, unlike the majority of Reformed theologians, Arminius believes that God imputed Adam’s penalty, not his guilt.45 Beyond the likely sources already identified, such as Ursinus, Musculus, and Szegedinus, there are other potential sources of influence that played some role in Arminius’s articulation of the covenant of works. Given his

Jacob Arminius  51 presence at the University of Leiden, he undoubtedly interacted with his colleagues through personal conversation, public disputations, written debate, and reading their works. In his written debate with Junius, for example, Arminius cites Junius’s published theses and interacted with him on matters pertaining to the doctrine of original sin.46 Arminius may have been familiar with Gomarus’s preface to Junius’s New Testament, which was a brief treatise on the doctrine of the covenants as well as Junius’s theses on the covenant that appeared in the disputation cycle at Leiden.47 In addition to Gomarus and Junius, another Leiden professor is relevant, Lucas Trelcatius Jr. (1573–​ 1607). Trelcatius’s time at Leiden overlapped with Arminius’s, and in his loci communes he too advocates a twofold covenant; Arminius also owned a copy of Trelcatius’s work.48 Trelcatius distinguishes between the covenant with Noah, which is general, earthly, temporal, and made with all created things, from the special covenant that he entered with our first parents. This first covenant was given to humanity in the state of integrity with a trial of obedience and the promise of supernatural life with the threat of double-​death. Trelcatius contrasts this first special covenant with the second, which is the covenant that God establishes with corrupt humanity whereby he promises eternal salvation by the death of his Son.49 From one vantage point we must account, therefore, for the institutional influence on Arminius as his colleagues Junius, Gomarus, and Trelcatius were all advocates of the covenant of works. Other potential sources of influence were the various works that Arminius likely read. While the auction catalog of his library is not an airtight indicator of what Arminius read, at minimum it provides information regarding the books to which he had access and likely read. As mentioned above, Arminius had the loci communes of Szegedinus and Musculus as well as the first volume of Urisinus’s works. In addition to these works, Arminius owned a copy of A Golden Chain by William Perkins (1558–​1602), in which Perkins writes of the covenant of works.50 He owned exegetical commentaries by Robert Rollock (1555–​ 99) on Romans, Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, and Thessalonians.51 Recall, Rollock explained Romans 2:14–​15 in terms of the covenant of works and also had an excursus on the covenant in his Romans commentary.52 Arminius owned a copy of Amandus Polanus’s (1561–​1610) Partitiones Theologiae, a treatise in which he advocated the covenant of works.53 By the time Arminius arrived at Leiden to serve as a professor, he had already likely encountered the doctrine through numerous written sources but especially through interaction with his colleagues at the

52  The Covenant of Works university. But his positive reception of the doctrine did not insulate him from criticism.

Reception of Arminius’s Doctrine of the Covenant of Works There is a sense in which Arminius’s doctrine of the covenant of works was not a source of controversy or debate, though two issues arise: its function in his broader system and a technical point of dispute on the precise relationship between nature and grace. Arminius’s doctrine of the covenant of works functions similarly to views advocated by his Reformed peers. Disagreement arises not with regard to the covenant of works but with other parts of his theological system. Herman Witsius (1636–​1708), for example, criticized Arminius’s doctrine of the covenant of grace because, in Witsius’s mind, it too closely resembled the covenant of works. Witsius believed that Arminius made faith and repentance prerequisites to the application of the benefits of Christ’s death.54 In Arminius’s understanding, the effect of Christ’s satisfaction could not be the automatic application of the forgiveness of sins apart from the prerequisite faith and repentance.55 In reply to such an objection, Witsius offered two points. First, regenerated believers have the right to enter God’s presence boldly by virtue of Christ’s payment and purchase through his satisfaction. They could do so, in Witsius’s mind, because Christ fulfilled all of the prerequisites in the covenant of grace. Hence, strictly speaking, faith and repentance are not pre-​conditions of the covenant of grace. This is where Arminius errs: “For, in this manner Arminius explains these things; that, instead of perfect obedience, which the covenant of works required, the act of faith succeeds in the covenant of grace; to be, in God’s gracious account, imputed to us for righteousness, that is, to be our claim of right to ask eternal life.”56 Witsius was not alone in this criticism; others, such as Pierre Du Moulin (1568–​1658) raised the same objection. Du Moulin draws upon Arminius’s broader system of thought and connects election and foreknown faith. If God grants salvation to those whom he foreknows will believe, and all people have the inherent ability to believe by virtue of God’s prevenient grace, then faith and repentance become pre-​conditions for admission to the covenant of grace rather than something that only the elect receive by virtue of God’s sovereign work: “For the Schoole and followers of Arminius, are of opinion,

Jacob Arminius  53 that every man hath power of beleeving, and that God is bound to give to all men power of fulfilling the condition of the second covenant, and that the grace of God is but the cause in part of faith, and that it is not begot in man by the grace of God alone.”57 Arminius writes, for example, “To him who does what he can by the primary grace already conferred upon him . . . God will bestow further grace upon him who profitably uses that which is primary.”58 These points do not constitute objections to Arminius’s doctrine of the covenant of works but instead touch on his soteriology. Bottom line: Witsius and Du Moulin believed Arminius’s doctrine of the covenant of grace looks too much like a covenant of works. A second issue of reception deals with technical matters regarding the precise relationship between nature and grace in Adam’s pre-​fall state under the covenant of works. To say the least, this issue is complex and steeped in medieval and early modern debates about pre-​fall humanity. In his work on covenant theology, Westminster divine Samuel Rutherford (ca. 1600–​61) explains the nature of Adam’s reward in the covenant of works. He affirms the idea that God was under no obligation to create and gave freely to his creatures and thus he is a debtor to no one.59 This means that Adam’s reward in the covenant of works was not directly proportional to the work performed. Rutherford invokes medieval categories that distinguish between Adam’s natural and supernatural ends. He writes, “To live an intellectuall life in obeying God, was to Adam so created a connatural end, as to burn, is to fire, and to give light, to the Sunne.”60 Adam’s natural and temporal felicity was therefore a connatural end to his obedience. Adam’s obedience, in and of itself, could not secure eternal life. But according to Rutherford, God could apply any reward to Adam’s obedience: But that Adam should have such an eminent life, for the reward of his obedience as a communion with God, which is farre above his obedience, is the free donation of God: nor is there any necessary connexion between Adams perfect obedience, and so high and eminent a life, nor can this Covenant, as touching such a promise, be written in his heart. God then never loved to make any Covenant, yea even that of Works, without some acts and out goings of grace.61

Adam’s reward in the covenant of works, therefore, is according to God’s grace, not according to strict justice or merit.

54  The Covenant of Works At this point in Rutherford’s explanation, he objects to Arminius’s construction of Adam’s reward in the covenant of works: Arminius saith, the reward of keeping the Covenant of works, cannot be spirituall, nor can the punishment be spirituall, because you teach (saith he) that the obedience is natural. Ans. It followeth not, for the reward is spiritual, yea and supernatural from the free promise of God. It was, that God should recompence our naturall obedience, coming from connatural principles, with so eminent a crown as communion with God Creator, in a life of glory. And this came from no innate proportion between a natural work and supernatural reward; Otherwise we must say, first that there is such an instrinsecall connexion ex natura rei between Adams work and so high wages, as that glorious communion was, as the Lord could not be in justice, so have rewarded his obedience, except he would be unjust, but there is nothing in the creature, that can conclude, limite, or determine, his will and wisdom, who is infinite.62

Rutherford then appeals to arguments made by Anselm (1033–​1109) and Thomas Bradwardine (1290–​1349) to support his point. Rutherford cites a quotation from Anselm to the effect that a sinner owes his whole being to God because he is so high above the sinner.63 Rutherford extrapolates: “Now God, who is more and greater then Adam, promised himself, to be enjoyed by Adam, if he should continue in obedience.” He then quotes Anselm once again: “For what can be the highest goodness (sayeth he) give to one that loves it, but itself?”64 Rutherford cites Bradwardine to make the point, “No merit can win God, for he is greater then our work.”65 In a nutshell, Rutherford objects to the way Arminius structures the relationship between nature and grace within the covenant of works. According to Rutherford, Arminius only posits a natural end for obedience. But in Rutherford’s opinion, Adam’s obedience can secure eternal life by virtue of God’s promise, not on the basis of justice but because God’s grace bridges the gulf between God and pre-​fall humanity. Rutherford cites Arminius’s debate with Junius on predestination where the two theologians discuss Adam’s pre-​fall nature and his relationship to grace. The pressing question is, Does Rutherford accurately represent Arminius’s views on these issues? The question concerning the relationship between nature and grace and the various medieval views on the subject is complex, with many moving

Jacob Arminius  55 parts and different interpretations of the evidence.66 Rather than diving into these complex waters, we can focus upon Rutherford’s cited debate between Arminius and Junius to determine the precise nature of Arminius’s views. Arminius and Junius debated the doctrine of predestination. In the course of the debate Arminius objected to the view of Junius concerning the object of predestination, namely, that it was humanity in pure nature (puris naturalibus).67 Arminius disagreed and countered that the object was created and fallen humanity (homo creatus et lapsus).68 The discussion moved from Esau and Jacob, who feature prominently in any debate about election given Romans 9:13, to questions about Adam and Eve.69 Esau and Jacob were fallen human beings, but what about pre-​fall Adam and Eve and their relationship to the decree of election? Arminius objects to Junius’s view that God predestined humanity apart from any consideration of their sin-​fallen condition. Moreover, he believes that no person was ever created in pure nature, even though many affirm the idea.70 Arminius’s acknowledgment that many hold the idea may be a reference to the debates that occurred in Roman Catholic circles over the question of pure nature that involved the views of Michael Baius (1513–​89), among others. Baius argued that Adam was created in a state of pure nature and did not require the grace of God in his pre-​ fall state.71 Baius wielded influence over Cornelius Jansen (1585–​1638) and later Jansenists on this particular point. But despite Baius’s influence, he was condemned in a papal bull in 1567 by Pius V (1504–​72). Baius submitted to the censure, but others were not so easily persuaded.72 Among his seventy-​nine errors, the underlying idea is that man was created in a state of pure nature and that grace was ultimately the response to sin but unnecessary in a sinless pre-​fall state. Beyond the possibility of Arminius’s familiarity with the Baius controversy, both he and Junius had read Aquinas on the subject, which shows this was not strictly an intra-​ Reformed debate or question.73 Arminius defines natural things (naturalia) as those things that belong to the substance and existence of humanity, such as the soul and body with all their natural properties, affections, and passions. Supernatural things (supernaturalia), on the other hand, are whatever God added to humanity above and beyond natural things. Arminius calls the supernatural aspects of Adam’s original pre-​fall nature superinfused grace (gratiam superinfusam).74 There is therefore no state in which God creates humanity in a state of pure nature (puris naturalibus).75 Junius agreed with Arminius on this point,

56  The Covenant of Works though he was more willing to distinguish between the natural and supernatural aspects of humanity’s pre-​fall condition: “The end of our nature, as natural, is this, to approach God as nearly as possible: the supernatural end is, for man to be united to God.”76 Junius, in a Augustinian-​Thomist fashion, believed that Adam’s natural abilities were proportionate to a natural end, whereas he required supernatural abilities to attain a supernatural end.77 Hence, “Towards the former end Adam could make way by nature: towards the latter he could be elevated by grace.”78 There does not appear to be a great disagreement between Junius and Arminius on the relationship between nature and grace for Adam’s pre-​fall nature. Rather, the disagreement arises regarding how this relates to the decree of election: Junius declines to make sin and hence homo creatus et lapsus the object of predestination whereas Arminius does.79 But Rutherford bypasses the debated point about the object of predestination and rejects Arminius’s understanding of nature and grace as it relates specifically to the covenant of works and the relationship between obedience and reward. Rutherford correctly understands Arminius’s position and he offers his own view, but the two views differ only in the slightest ways. According to Arminius, because Adam was created in supernatural grace, there is no sense in which he could be considered in a state of pure nature. The law, according to Arminius, required obedience toward God, which means that his obedience was not earth-​but heaven-​bound and hence ultimately spiritual, not natural. The cause of his spiritual obedience was supernatural grace.80 Supernatural grace and supernatural felicity go hand in hand (supernaturalis gratia & supernaturalis felicitas sunt analoga).81 The end result is the same, but Rutherford and Arminius take different routes. Arminius believes Adam’s obedience was suited for the reward of eternal life because God infused supernatural grace to enable him to achieve an end that was greater than his natural ability to accomplish. Rutherford, on the other hand, believes that humanity’s natural obedience cannot achieve the goal of eternal life unless God rewarded Adam’s natural obedience by his grace.82 Arminius suggests that God elevates Adam by his supernatural infused grace, and Rutherford instead proposes that God elevates Adam’s obedience so that Adam can attain eternal life. Both theologians argue for the necessity of divine grace in the pre-​fall state, but one locates it in Adam and the other in his obedience. Rutherford’s critique, therefore, is accurate in the sense that he rightly understands Arminius’s view and proposes an

Jacob Arminius  57 alternative. But he does not reject his doctrine of the covenant of works, per se, but rather critiques Arminius on its finer points regarding the precise relationships between nature, grace, obedience, and reward.

Conclusion Despite the controversy surrounding Arminius’s theology, it is fair to say that his doctrine of the covenant of works closely aligns with his peers at Leiden:  Gomarus, Junius, and Trelcatius. Subsequent critical engagement with Arminius’s doctrine did not focus on his understanding of the first covenant but rather on his construction of the second covenant. This was due, in large part, to his understanding of the decree, which sent shock waves throughout the rest of his system.83 How influential was Arminius in transmitting the doctrine of the covenant of works to others? The results are mixed. Even though Arminius employed the covenant of works, subsequent Remonstrant theologians nevertheless rejected it. Simon Episcopius (1583–​1643) and Philip von Limborch (1633–​1712) scuttled the covenant of works. Episcopius and Limborch both studied at Leiden—​the former under Arminius and Gomarus, and the latter enrolled at the university well after Arminius’s death.84 There were, however, other students who embraced the doctrine. Gisbert Voetius (1589–​1676) studied under Gomarus at Leiden from 1604 to 1611—​this period overlapped with Arminius’s professorship until his death in 1609.85 Other Reformed luminaries such as Francis Turretin (1623–​87) and Witsius also studied at Leiden.86 As noted above, Witsius closely engaged Arminius’s doctrine of the covenants and likely first encountered them in his days as a student at Leiden. All of this is to say, Arminius did not single-​handedly propel the reception of the covenant of works as other theologians like Musculus or Ursinus, but he did participate in the institutional dissemination of the doctrine through his various works. When the Leiden faculty was writing about the covenant of works (1595–​ 1605), there were approximately 382 divinity students who matriculated through the institution. Approximately 32 students per year were present during disputations, likely read the works of their professors, and then carried the doctrine abroad once they left Leiden. The students were largely Dutch and German, but there were also French, English, Scandinavian, and

58  The Covenant of Works Hungarian students.87 Theologians such as Du Moulin, Rutherford, and Witsius later interacted with Arminius’s doctrine of the covenant of works at some level, which indicates that Arminius contributed to the development of the doctrine. Reformed theologians took greater care and precision to differentiate the covenants of works and grace in light of Arminius’s covenant of legalized construction of the covenant of grace. Arminius, therefore, contributed to the development of the doctrine through the institutional influence of the University of Leiden.

4 James Ussher Archbishop James Ussher (1581–​1656) is not often associated with covenant theology, let  alone the doctrine of the covenant of works. In fact, recent studies of his theology pay little attention to his doctrine of the covenants.1 Nevertheless, despite contemporary unfamiliarity with Ussher, he played a key role in the reception, development, and articulation of the covenant of works.2 Ussher’s contemporaries were aware of his theological acumen, which earned him two separate invitations to join the Westminster assembly, but his loyalties to the crown and commitment to episcopal polity kept him from accepting.3 In spite of his refusal to participate in the assembly, Ussher still wielded significant influence on the creation of the Westminster Confession.4 Historians have noted that Ussher was a key figure in the creation of the 1615 Irish Articles, a document that served as a source for the theology and often-​explicit phraseology of the Westminster Confession.5 In addition to this, Ussher’s Body of Divinitie was published in 1645 at the early stages of the assembly’s confessional labors, which provides both a window into Ussher’s own views and a glimpse into how the covenant of works was formulated prior to the codification of the doctrine in the Westminster Confession.6 Ussher therefore provides an excellent source to examine the reception and development of the doctrine during the early orthodox period (1565–​1640). This chapter begins with a brief overview of Ussher’s life and education and the likely sources that informed Ussher’s covenant theology, offers an exposition of his doctrine of the covenant of works through his Body of Divinitie and two brief catechisms written early in Ussher’s life, explores the confessional codification of the doctrine under Ussher’s supervision, and then presents some concluding observations concerning Ussher’s contribution to the reception and development of the doctrine.

The Covenant of Works. J. V. Fesko, Oxford University Press (2020). © Oxford University Press. DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780190071363.001.0001

60  The Covenant of Works

Background James Ussher was born in 1581 and enrolled at Trinity College in Dublin, Ireland, in 1594.7 While at Trinity he pursued the usual four-​year course that had no formal theological content but rather focused on the trivium—​ grammar, rhetoric, and logic. One of the prominent influences during this period of his life was French Reformed philosopher Peter Ramus (1515–​ 72).8 In fact, his student notebooks were littered with so many Ramist diagrams that some have characterized his notes as “dichotomization gone mad.” Despite his great interest in Ramism, however, there is little evidence that it impacted the content of his sermons and writings. It was more of a means of organizing information rather than a method for determining theological content.9 In addition to Ramism, two Scotsmen who studied at St. Andrews under Robert Rollock (1555–​99) moved to Dublin to teach theology in 1587: James Fullerton and James Hamilton. Both also studied under noted Scottish theologian Andrew Melville (1545–​1622).10 Rollock and Melville were advocates of the covenant of works.11 Rollock’s works were listed among the books available in the library at Trinity College during Ussher’s time there.12 In addition to his tutors and the available books in the library, Ussher made a series of summer trips to England to buy books in 1603, 1606, 1609, and 1612. This cycle of travel allowed Ussher to add to his library and conduct research by spending a month each at Oxford, Cambridge, and London.13 The specific sources that Ussher read and engaged on the doctrine of the covenant of works are largely a mystery, though a few clues are available. In one instance, biographers discovered manuscript notes on Sabbath observance gathered from the work of William Perkins (1558–​1602).14 As noted above, Ussher likely encountered the covenant theology of Melville and Rollock, either through works in the Trinity library, or as it was mediated by two of Ussher’s tutors, Fullerton and Hamilton. Another likely source comes through the writings of Thomas Cartwright (1534–​1603). A  small debate surrounds the precise nature of Ussher’s relationship to his Body of Divinitie. John Downame (1571–​1652) originally published the book in 1645 under Ussher’s name, but Ussher initially denied authorship of the work. Ussher later recanted his denial and embraced the work as his own. He admitted that he compiled the book by gathering ideas from a number of authors, including a catechism by Cartwright, though he also consulted other works by Cartwright.15

James Ussher  61 Relevant in Cartwright’s catechism is his advocacy of the twofold covenant. In the series of questions and answers, Cartwright asks what the parts of the Bible are, to which he responds, “The lawe and the ghospell, otherwyse called the Covenant of Woorkes and the Covenant of grace.”16 In the following questions Cartwright then explains several things: (1) that the law precedes the gospel and was given to Adam before his fall; (2) he uses law and covenant as virtual synonyms; and (3) he states that the law included all of Adam’s duties, and the sum of the law is, “Do this, and thowe shalt lyve.”17 In his Christian Religion, a work Ussher consulted, Cartwright elsewhere repeats idea of the interchangeability of the law and gospel with the covenants of works and grace when he explains the parts of Scripture: “It is either the doctrine of Works, commonly called the Law: or of Grace, called the promise, and sithence the comming of Christ, the Gospell.”18 Cartwright’s interchangeable use of law/​gospel and covenants of works/​grace appears in Ussher’s work along with another repeated phrase. Cartwright explains, “By the covenant of works life everlasting is propounded.”19 Cartwright connects the promise of the covenant of works to eternal life, and this phrase, “life everlasting,” albeit inverted, “everlasting life,” repeatedly appears in Ussher’s treatment of the covenant of works and might reveal Cartwright’s influence on this particular point. Cartwright does not constitute the only point of influence on him, but he definitely plays a role in Ussher’s acquisition of the doctrine of the covenant of works.

Ussher on the Covenant of Works Catechisms Ussher was a prolific writer, evident by the seventeen volumes of the nineteenth-​century edition of his published works.20 Among his earliest writings were two catechisms that were published in 1653, but according to Ussher, he wrote them when he was in his early twenties around 1603–​ 04.21 Ussher treats the covenant of works in both of these short catechisms. These two catechisms, therefore, likely represent some of Ussher’s earliest formulations of the covenant of works. Ussher introduces the covenant of works after his treatment of the creation of angels, by asking the question, “How did God deale with man, after he made him?” He answers, “He made a Covenant or agreement with Adam, and in him with all mankind” (Mal. 2:10;

62  The Covenant of Works Gen. 2:17; Rom. 2:15).22 While Ussher does not seem interested in the question of when God made his covenant with Adam, at this point he places the covenant of works after God’s act of creation rather than coterminous with it. Noteworthy are the texts that Ussher cites—​Genesis 2:17 and Romans 2:15 are common, but his reference to Malachi 2:10 stands out: “Have we not all one Father? Has not one God created us? Why then are we faithless to one another, profaning the covenant of our fathers?” Here Ussher identifies the “covenant of our fathers” with God’s covenant with Adam. In his Method of Christian Religion, Ussher begins his treatment of the covenant of works by explaining how God ordered mankind under a twofold covenant (Gal. 3:10–​13; 4:24; Rom. 3:27; 10:5–​6) and the world to come by a twofold judgment (Luke 16:22–​23; Rom. 14:10, 12; Matt. 25:31–​32).23 As he continues in both catechisms, Ussher explains that the first covenant was “the Law, or the covenant of workes” where God promised “everlasting life unto man, upon condition that he performe intire and perfect obedience unto his Law, according to that strength wherewith he was indued by vertue of his creation.”24 In his Method Ussher does not cite any Scripture but in his Principles he cites a series of texts: Luke 10:26–​27; Romans 7:7, 12, 14; Galatians 3:10, 12; and 1 Timothy 1:5.25 The Luke and Galatians texts both cite Leviticus 18:5, Romans deals with the law in its role of eliciting sin, and 1 Timothy 1:5 does not immediately seem relevant, as it deals neither with the law or sin. It appears, however, that Ussher cites this text in support of the idea that the covenant of works was supposed to be marked by love: “The aim of our charge is love that issues from a pure heart and a good conscience and a sincere faith.” In other words, the covenant of works was the context where Adam was supposed to serve God in love, not in a bald contractual legalism. Both catechisms emphasize that God promised Adam everlasting life, though do so in slightly different ways. In his Principles, Ussher simply states that God promised everlasting life to Adam and to all of his children.26 In a slight variation on this theme, in his Method Ussher instead focuses upon the “seales” of the covenant, namely, the trees of knowledge and life. The tree of life signified everlasting life should Adam continue in his obedience (Gen. 2:9, 17; 3:3, 7, 11, 17, 22, 24; Rev. 2:7; Prov. 3:18), and the tree of knowledge signified what would occur should Adam fail to obey God’s command.27 In both catechisms Ussher then transitions to his treatment of the effects of Adam’s transgression of the covenant, though in his Method he favors an Augustinian concept of the realistic transmission of sin rather than any form of federalism. In response to the question of what follows from Adam’s sin,

James Ussher  63 Ussher explains, “First, the corruption of nature, called original sin, derived by continuall descent from Father to Son; wherewith all the powers of the soule and body are infected, and that in all men equally: and then actuall sin, arising from hence.”28 In his Principles, Ussher places all humanity in Adam and Eve, which reflects an Augustinian realism that stands in contrast to his later exposition of the doctrine in his Body of Divinitie.29

Body of Divinitie In his Body of Divinitie Ussher begins his treatment of the covenant of works under the broader category of God’s creation of humanity. He explains that God created humans under a special order of government, which was a twofold covenant. According to Ussher, a covenant is “an agreement which it pleaseth Almighty God to enter into with man, concerning his everlasting condition.”30 Ussher identifies the twofold covenant as “The Law, or Covenant of works,” and “The free promise, or Covenant of grace,” which he labels “the Gospel” (Rom. 10:5, 6; Gal. 3:11, 12).31 Immediately evident from Ussher’s choice of terms is the overlapping relationship between covenant and law. Ussher still bears the marks of earlier Reformed theology when he identifies the two chief ways of God’s interaction with humanity under the categories of law and gospel, but he also places these categories under the covenants of works and grace. This is evidence that early orthodox theologians subsumed law and gospel under the category of covenant. This point is confirmed by Ussher’s explanation of the relationship between the two concepts. Ussher asks the question regarding the manner in which the law was in the world prior to the revelation of the Decalogue through Moses at Sinai. He distinguishes between the law engraved on the two tablets of stone and the law written upon humanity’s heart in their creation, what he calls “the law of nature” (Rom. 2:14). In Ussher’s view the law at Sinai and the law engraved on the heart are substantively the same.32 But the two forms of the law are not precisely identical. God wrote the law upon humanity’s heart in their creation but also partly uttered it to them in their ears in the garden. God gave Adam and Eve both the knowledge and ability to obey him. God also revealed the nature of their duty through command to observe the Sabbath, their conduct toward their neighbors, their treatment of one another in marriage, and their daily work in the garden. In Ussher’s mind these things constitute the substance of the

64  The Covenant of Works moral law, which was written upon Adam’s and Eve’s hearts, and God subsequently revealed the summary of the moral law in the “ten words,” or the Decalogue, which was ultimately more fully revealed in the books of Scripture and committed to the church for all ages.33 Ussher does not explicitly make the point, but he distinguishes between the moral law in two different forms—​the law of nature, the key element of the covenant of works, and the Decalogue, the summary of the moral law that persists in the church and ultimately constitutes the “Royall Law for direction of our obedience to God” (James 2:8) and for the discovery and punishment of sin (Deut. 27:26; Rom. 1:31, 3:20).34 When Ussher explains the specific nature of the covenant of works, he draws upon Leviticus 18:5 as the exegetical rationale for the duties God required of Adam: “Do this and live.” Moreover, Ussher stipulates that since the fall God still requires this command of all people, which consequently binds all people to eternal death for the slightest divergence from this command (Deut. 17:26).35 Given this information, Ussher defines the covenant of works in the following manner: It is a conditionall Covenant between God and man, whereby on the one side God commandeth the perfection of godlinesse and righteousnesse, and promiseth that he will be our God, if we keep all his Commandments; and on the other side, man bindeth himselfe to perform entire and perfect obedience to Gods Law, by that strength wherewith God hath endued him by the Nature of his first Creation.36

Ussher’s definition parallels others of the period, such as Rollock’s.37 This covenant requires perfect obedience and yields the reward of eternal life. Ussher draws the connection between obedience and eternal life based upon Leviticus 18:5 and its subsequent New Testament interpretation: “What is meant by life, promised to those that should keep all the Commandments? The reward of blessedness and everlasting life” (Lev. 18:5; Luke 10.28).38 Recall that in Luke 10:25–​28 Jesus fields a question from a lawyer who asked him, “Teacher, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?” Jesus pointed him to the law and asked him what it said. The lawyer responded, “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind, and your neighbor as yourself.” Jesus responded by quoting Leviticus 18:5, “You have answered correctly; do this, and you will live.” According to Ussher’s understanding, Christ connects

James Ussher  65 obedience of the law with eternal life. The converse was also true; if Adam disobeyed he would “dye the Death.” This death was not merely a temporal punishment but culminated in eternal death (Deut. 27:26; 29:19–​20; 32:33; Lev. 26; Deut. 28).39 That Ussher cites these texts from Deuteronomy and Leviticus reveals his interpretive strategy, reading the creation narrative in the light of subsequent covenantal texts. Ussher examined Genesis 1–​3 in the light of the rest of Scripture but with special attention upon the Pentateuch as well as Christ’s interpretation of key texts, such as Leviticus 18:5. According to Ussher, God planted two trees in the midst of the garden to function as outward seals of the covenant of works (Gen. 2:9; 3:3). The tree of life symbolized “Happiness, Life, and Glory unto Man, upon condition of obedience,” and as such functioned as a sacramental sign (Gen 2:9; Prov. 3:18; Rev. 2:7). Conversely, the tree of knowledge was both a sign for Adam’s trial of obedience and a seal for death and damnation in the event that he disobeyed (Gen. 2:17).40 Unlike Calvin, for example, Ussher does not connect the tree of life with Christ but rather eternal life. Ussher does not introduce Christ until he considers the relationship between the covenants of works and grace. In the covenant of works Adam and Eve stood as the representatives of all humanity—​they represented everyone who would descend from them by natural generation. Hence, if Adam stood he would secure eternal felicity for himself and his descendants. Correlatively, since he fell he passed sin and misery on to his offspring. Conversely, in Christ, the second Adam, believers receive his imputed righteousness. Ussher summarizes these points: “So in the Covenant, the sinne of the first Adam (who herein sustained a common person) is reckoned to all the posterity that descend from him by carnall generation, because they were in him, and of him, and one with him” (Rom. 5:15–​19).41 Unlike medieval and early Reformed views of transmitted sin, Ussher echoes Rollock and his doctrine of federally transmitted sin, which stands in contrast to views expressed in Ussher’s earlier catechisms. Ussher does speak of all naturally generated humanity being in Adam’s “loyns” and that through this means all people become partakers of Adam’s first sin. In other words, Ussher tips his hat to an Augustinian realistic mode of the transmission of original sin.42 But at the same time, he distinguishes between two types of sin—​imputed and inherent: “The one without us, the other within us.” According to Ussher, imputed sin is “Our sin in Adam, in whom as we lived, so also we sinned; for in our first parents (as hath been shewed) every one of us did commit that first sinne, which was the cause of all other; and

66  The Covenant of Works so we all are become subject to the imputation of Adams fall, both for the transgression and guiltinesse” (Rom. 5:12, 18–​19; 1 Cor. 15:22).43 Given these statements, Ussher leans toward Rollock’s federal understanding of imputed guilt and away from Augustine’s realistic theory of transmission. There is a sense in which the ripples of Rollock’s federalism move through Ussher’s system and continue to spread into the period of High Orthodoxy with greater clarity and precision. But another notable feature in Ussher’s explanation of the covenant of works is the absence of any discussion or mention of pre-​fall grace. One of the subjects that appears in some treatments of the covenant of works is the relationship between nature and grace. Recall that Francis Junius (1545–​1602) and Jacob Arminius (1560–​1609) debated the question of whether Adam was created in a state of pure nature, and Samuel Rutherford (ca. 1600–​61) subsequently engaged Arminius on this issue.44 Junius, Arminius, and Rutherford may have disagreed about some of the particulars, but all three theologians concluded that pre-​fall grace was a part of Adam’s state in the covenant of works. All three theologians believed that the reward of eternal life was disproportionate to the nature of Adam’s obedience. Arminius counterbalanced this disequilibrium by employing the common Augustinian-​Thomist concept that God infused supernatural grace into Adam to make him capable of achieving eternal life through his obedience. Rutherford, on the other hand, took a slightly different tack and argued that God elevated the value of Adam’s obedience. Ussher does not appear concerned with these specific questions and does not raise the issue of nature and grace in the covenant of works. Nevertheless, the absence of any mention of grace in his explanation of the covenant of works reveals a shift in the broader discussion. Rather than invoke categories of infused grace, Ussher simply affirms, “Man bindeth himself to perform intire and perfect obedience to Gods Law, by that strength wherewith God hath endued him by the nature of his first creation.”45 The closest that Ussher comes to invoking grace in the pre-​fall context is when he describes Adam’s pre-​fall faculties and nature as adorned with God’s “gifts,” the same term he uses to denote the blessings of the covenant of grace.46 When Ussher discusses the nature of the imago Dei, another place where theologians might invoke categories of natural and supernatural gifts, or infused grace, Ussher takes a different path.47 When he asks how many ways Scripture speaks of the image of God, Ussher explains: (1) either for Christ (Col 1:15; Heb. 1:3; John 12:45; 14:9); (2)  the glory of humanity’s value (Gen. 9:6); (3)  man’s

James Ussher  67 authority over the woman, Eve (1 Cor. 11:7); or (4): “For the Perfection of his Nature, endued with Reason and Will, rightly disposed in Holiness and Righteousness, Wisdom and Truth, and accordingly framing all Motions and Actions, both inward and outward” (Col. 3:9–​10; Eph. 4:24).48 At humanity’s creation, they were “fitted with Freedom of Will and Ability for perfect Obedience unto God, according to the Tenor of the Covenant of Works.”49 In fact, in his treatment of the covenants Ussher only invokes the term grace in connection with the second covenant, or covenant of grace. The foundation of the covenant is the meer mercy of God in Christ, whereby grace reigneth unto life, through the obedience of one, which is Jesus Christ (Rom. 5:21). For there being three persons of the Trinity, the Father sent his Son to accomplish the work of our Redemption, and both of them send the Holy Ghost to work saving grace in our hearts, and apply unto our soules the holinesse purchased by the Son of God.50

Unlike the covenant of works, which has the condition of perfect obedience, God freely gives to sinners a gift, which “nothing is required on mans part, but the receiving of grace offered.”51 Ussher places grace in the second covenant exclusively, which he highlights in seven points of comparison between the covenants of works and grace: 1. Reason has access to the law in many points, whereas in every point the gospel is beyond the reach of human reason. 2. The law commands to do good but offers no strength; the gospel enables people to do good because the Holy Ghost writes the law upon our hearts (Jer. 31:31) and assures us of the promises of this gift. 3. The law only promises life; the gospel gives righteousness and life. 4. The law requires perfect obedience, the gospel requires the righteousness of faith (Rom. 3:31). 5. The law reveals sin, rebukes us for it, and leaves us in it. The gospel reveals the remission of sins and frees us from punishment. 6. The law is a ministry of wrath, condemnation, and death. The gospel is a ministry of grace, justification, and life. 7. Humanity’s own righteousness is the ground of the law, and the law requires perfect obedience (Deut. 27:26), and if broken it demands satisfaction and everlasting punishment (Ezek. 18:21–​22; Gal. 3:10–​12).

68  The Covenant of Works But the righteousness of Christ is the ground of the gospel, which admits his obedience as payment on behalf of others (Gal. 3:13–​14). For these reasons Ussher concludes, “And thus this Covenant abolisheth not, but is the accomplishment and establishment of the former” (Rom. 3:31; 10:4).52 In other words, the covenant of grace does not abolish the covenant of works but rather constitutes its fulfillment. This comparison and contrast once again demonstrate the development of the doctrine of the covenant of works. Where earlier reformers spoke in terms of law and gospel, Ussher adds the layer of the covenant. Law and gospel and the covenants of works and grace are interchangeable in Ussher’s formulation. And lest one hastily conclude that Ussher posits a cold, logical, and contractual covenant of works in contrast with the mercy-​filled covenant of grace, Ussher also devotes a few words to explaining where the covenants of works and grace agree. According to Ussher these two covenants concur in that they are both from God and declare “one kind of righteousnesse, though they differ in offering it unto us.” What is this one kind of righteousness? Ussher succinctly answers: “It is the perfect love of God and of our neighbour.”53 In the simplest of terms, Adam’s covenantal relationship with God was the context in which he was supposed to love his Lord and neighbor, but in the wake of the fall God now gives by his grace to fallen sinners what he first required of Adam.

The Irish Articles At the turn of the seventeenth century, numerous theologians in England, Scotland, Ireland, and the continent professed the covenant of works. But it was not until the 1615 Irish Articles that the doctrine was confessionally codified and elevated to the status of an official ecclesiastical doctrine. Historians disagree on the nature of Ussher’s precise relationship to the Irish Articles. Some nineteenth-​century historians such as Philip Schaff (1819–​ 93) attribute sole authorship of the articles to Ussher, whereas others, such as Jaroslav Pelikan (1923–​2006), express their doubts and only admit that Ussher might have written them.54 Others such as Carl Trueman and Alan Ford admit that Ussher is the likely author of the articles.55 One need not definitively determine Ussher’s precise relationship to the articles, but one can conclude that they certainly bear marks of his influence.56 Moreover, given

James Ussher  69 his role with the Irish Reformed church, he undoubtedly had a role in the adoption of the confession. The Irish Articles consist of 104 articles that cover the whole gamut of theology from Scripture to the final judgment. The document divides its articles under typical doctrinal headings, and as such, devotes a series of articles to “the creation and government of all things.” Under this heading the articles present the following regarding humanity’s creation: Man being at the beginning created according to the image of God (which consisted especially in the Wisdome of his minde & the true Holynesse of his free will) had the covenant of the law ingrafted in his heart: whereby God did promise unto him everlasting life, upon condition that he performed entire and perfect obedience unto his Commandments, according to that measure of strength wherewith hee was endued in his creation, and threatened death unto him if he did not performe the same (art. XXI).57

Article XXI bears a number of significant parallels to statements in Ussher’s catechism and his Body of Divinitie, which at a minimum indicate his influence or maximally his authorship of at least this article (see Table 4.1). The parallels are inexact but nevertheless reveal Ussher’s influence on the formulation of the covenant of works in the Irish Articles evident by similar phrases, words, or concepts, such as the engraved law upon the heart and the citation of Romans 2:15. A number of potential reasons lie behind the minor differences between the four documents. Ussher gave the document he authored to the convocation of Irish clergy in Dublin when they approved the articles, but they may have altered it. There is also question regarding the precise timing of the authorship of Ussher’s Body of Divinitie. Ussher likely wrote his catechism around 1603–​04, which occurs well before the creation of the Irish Articles.58 But the Irish Articles may reveal Ussher’s developing opinions and his Body of Divinitie his more mature thoughts on the doctrine, though there is a great degree of conceptual continuity between the catechism, articles, and his Body of Divinitie. Regardless of the exact direction of intellectual traffic, the Irish Articles bear his fingerprints. The articles reveal that Ussher influenced the Irish Reformed church to adopt formally the doctrine of the covenant of works and fully embrace covenant theology.59 This development stands in contrast to the Thirty-​Nine Articles, which do not refer to the doctrine of the covenant.60 Ussher, therefore, not only influenced the Irish

Table 4.1:  Evidence corroborating Ussher’s authorship of Irish Article XXI Irish Articles

Principles of Christian Religion

Briefe Method

Body of Divinitie

Man being at the beginning created according to the image of God (which consisted especially in the Wisdome of his minde and the true Holyness of his free will)

Q. Wherein was the Image of God principally seen? A. In the perfection of the Understanding; and the freedome, and holinesse of the Will (7–​8).

had the covenant of the law ingrafted in his heart

Q. How did God deale with Man, after he made him? A. He made a Covenant or agreement, and in him with all mankind (Mal. 2:10; Gen. 2:17; Rom. 2:15) (9–​10).

Q. What is the first of these Covenants? A. The Law, or the covenant of works (71).

“The Law, or Covenant of Works” (124). “The Law . . . was imprinted in the beginning in the hearts of our first parents” (124).

whereby God did promise unto him everlasting life, upon condition that he performed entire and perfect obedience unto his Commandments

Q. What was Man bound to do by this Covenant? A. To continue as holy as God at the first made him, to keep all Gods Commandments, and never to break any of them (Luke 10:26–​27; Rom. 7:7, 12, 14; Gal. 3:10, 12; 1 Tim. 1:5) (10).

whereby God promiseth everlasting life unto man, upon condition that he performe intire and perfect obedience unto his Law (72).

Adam was “fitted with freedome of will and ability for perfect obedience unto God, according to the tenor of the Covenant of Works” (127).

whereby God did promise unto him everlasting life, upon condition that he performed entire and perfect obedience unto his Commandments, according to that measure of strength wherewith hee was endued in his creation, and threatened death unto him if he did not performe the same.

Q. What did God promise unto Man, if he did thus keep his Commandments? A. The continuance of his favour and everlasting life (Rom. 7:10; 10:5; Luke 10:25, 28; Gal. 3:12) (11).

Q. What is the “The Reward of first of these Blessedness Covenants? and Everlasting A. The Law, or Life” (125). the covenant of “Man bindeth workes: whereby himself to God promiseth perform entire everlasting life and perfect unto man, upon Obedience to condition that God’s Law, by he performe that Strength intire and perfect wherewith God obedience hath endued him unto his Law, by the Nature of according to his first Creation” that strength, (125). wherewith he was endued by virtue of his creation (71–​72).

The image of God is “the perfection of his nature, indued with reason and will, rightly disposed in holinesse and righteousnesse, wisdome and Truth” (124).

James Ussher  71 Reformed churches for a time, but his legacy endured, given the Westminster Assembly’s use of the Irish Articles as a source document for the Westminster Confession. While the Westminster divines undoubtedly included the covenant of works in their confession and catechisms because they believed it was exegetically and doctrinally warranted, there is reason to believe that they gained confidence to do so from its inclusion in the Irish Articles.

Conclusion Ussher stands as an important figure in the dissemination and formulation of the covenant of works in early orthodox Reformed theology. Ussher collated earlier ideas in his own work, notably formulations from Thomas Cartwright. He was one of the early advocates of the doctrine. But his biggest contribution rests with his influence upon the Irish Articles and its promotion of the doctrine as well as his Body of Divinitie. Ussher was instrumental in the ecclesial codification of the doctrine, which gave the covenant of works a greater profile during early orthodoxy and contributed to its dissemination. The most notable point of reception on this issue appears in the Westminster Assembly’s later use of the Irish Articles as a source document for their own confession of faith. But in addition, Ussher’s Body of Divinitie undoubtedly contributed to the doctrine’s diffusion among English-​speaking Reformed theologians. In his own Systeme or Body of Divinity Edward Leigh (1602–​71) lists Ussher’s volume among other influential works of his day: “There are Calvins Institutions, Bullingers Decades, Zanchies Works, Gerhards Common Places, Ursins Summe of Divinity, and some others, that have more fully handled the Body of Divinity, but there are a few of our English Writers (unless Master Perkins of old, and Bishop Usher lately, who have largely and fully written in English this way.”61 Leigh lists Ussher among the pantheon of influential Reformed theologians of his day, which reveals that he undoubtedly served as a source for the promotion, development, and reception of the doctrine of the covenant of works.

5 John Cameron and Edward Leigh In the unfolding narrative of the development and reception of the covenant of works, some scholars pay scant attention to Early Orthodoxy (1565–​ 1630/​ 40)—​ they move from John Calvin (1509–​ 64) immediately to the Westminster Assembly (1643–​52), or they evaluate later doctrinal developments against Calvin’s theology as if he were somehow normative for the Reformed tradition.1 Early Orthodox theologians are either ignored or for unstated reasons have no right to shape and mold the Reformed tradition. Others, however, correctly engage Early Orthodoxy and recognize its crucial role in the development of covenant theology.2 Among the many Early Orthodox Reformed theologians who contributed to the development of the covenant of works, two stand out and merit investigation:  John Cameron (ca. 1579–​1625) and Edward Leigh (1602–​71). Cameron and Leigh are little known in comparison with other Reformed Orthodox theologians.3 Some scholars have devoted major studies to Calvin’s covenant theology, but there is little on Cameron and nothing on Leigh.4 But what, specifically, commends exploring the contributions of these two theologians? In short, Cameron threw a disputation on the covenants into the European theological pond that rippled for decades to come. Cameron introduced the idea of a threefold covenant: a covenant of works with Adam, a distinct covenant with Israel, and the covenant of grace with the elect. This formulation stood in contrast to earlier bi-​covenantal formulations of the covenants of works and grace. By changing the nature of the reward in question, Cameron cut through the Gordian knot of how Adam could merit eternal life. Cameron argued that the reward for the covenant of works was temporal, not eternal—​ long life in the garden. This completely eliminated the need for discussions about nature and grace and the question of the proportionality of merit. Cameron also introduced a number of terminological distinctions to explain the nature of God’s covenants; they were either absolute or conditional. Edward Leigh wrote a treatise on divine promises that contained his theology of the covenants and interacted with Cameron’s disputation in a significant way. Although Latin was the lingua franca of Europe at this point in The Covenant of Works. J. V. Fesko, Oxford University Press (2020). © Oxford University Press. DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780190071363.001.0001

74  The Covenant of Works history, which meant that scholars could access Cameron’s disputation, Leigh was likely one of the first theologians to introduce Cameron’s work to an English-​speaking audience. At certain points Leigh copied Cameron’s work point for point and thus transmitted Cameron’s ideas to English theologians. Although Leigh embraced a number of Cameron’s ideas, he rejected others. Rather than advocate Cameron’s threefold covenant theology, Leigh instead appealed to older distinctions to explain the precise relationship between the Adamic and Mosaic covenants. Leigh’s modification of Cameron’s theology anticipates developments that occur at the Westminster Assembly. Leigh also adopted Cameron’s understanding of Adam’s reward: long life in the garden, not eternal life. Given that Cameron taught at the University of Glasgow, Scotland, and the Academy of Saumur, France, he had ample opportunity to influence Reformed theologians in the British Isles and on the continent.5 Likewise, Leigh not only published significant works on theology but was also a member of Parliament during the Westminster Assembly, which means that he too played a role in the development of Reformed covenant theology. These facts warrant exploring the covenant theology of Cameron and Leigh to determine the ways in which they impacted the development and reception of the covenant of works. The chapter begins, therefore, with a brief sketch of some of the doctrinal developments leading up to and surrounding Cameron and Leigh. The chapter then presents surveys of Cameron and Leigh. I offer a comparative analysis to demonstrate the precise areas where Cameron and Leigh influenced the development of the covenant of works and then conclude with some observations about Cameron’s place in the early modern Reformed tradition.

Backgrounds and Contexts At the turn of the seventeenth century, proponents of the covenant of works were scattered throughout the British Isles and continental Europe. What began as brief and isolated statements in the works of a few continental Reformed theologians, such as Caspar Olevianus (1536–​87), Zacharias Ursinus (1534–​ 83), Wolfgang Musculus (1497–​ 1563), or Stephanus Szegedinus (1515–​72), flowered into fuller statements of the doctrine by Dudley Fenner (ca. 1558–​87), Thomas Cartwright (1534–​1603), William Perkins (1558–​1602), and Robert Rollock (c. 1555–​99).6 Evidence of the

John Cameron and Edward Leigh  75 doctrine’s growing reception appears in its confessional codification by James Ussher (1581–​1656) in the Irish Articles (1615). These individual theologians gave greater definition and shape to the doctrine, and others—​ such as the faculty of the University of Leiden, including Franciscus Gomarus (1563–​1641), Francis Junius (1545–​1602), Jacob Arminius (1560–​1609), and Lucas Trelcatius (1542–​1602)—​spread the doctrine through their writings and scholastic disputations. This section examines two figures who led up to the contributions of Cameron and Leigh: Henry Finch (c. 1558–​1625) and William Ames (1576–​1633). These two theologians contributed to the ongoing development of the doctrine.

Henry Finch Henry Finch was an Anglican theologian who authored a well-​known theological work traditionally attributed to John Downame (1571–​1652), the Summe of Sacred Divinitie.7 Finch defines the covenant in the following manner: “With the Creatures, who are thus to doe his will, it hath pleased God to make a Covenant, which is called the Covenant of Workes: A Covenant of life (or blessednes) to the doers: of death (or of a curse) unto transgressors.”8 Immediately evident is that Finch invokes a new title for the covenant, as he calls it a “covenant of life,” a term that the Westminster assembly would later use in its Shorter Catechism.9 Finch explains that God promises reward through a “contract and covenant,” which contains several conditions, and like earlier formulations he identifies this as “the same that we call the Law or Covenant of workes.” As with other formulations, he cites Romans 10:5 and Galatians 3:10. To this end Finch believed that the Law of God, as with all other laws, “are but streames and shaddowes of that everlasting Law.”10 Finch explains the nature of the reward in the covenant of works. The reward of the covenant flows from God’s free and undeserved goodness because what creature can make God his debtor? We are in the end, after all, unprofitable servants (Luke 17:10).11 By contrast, the punishment of the covenant is according to justice—​sin justly merits punishment.12 There is therefore disproportionality between obedience and reward, but Finch does not resort to categories of infused grace to explain the disparity between them. In his treatment of humanity at their creation, Finch does not invoke the category of grace to characterize their primeval nature. Rather, he says that Adam and Eve were loved by God, enjoyed his presence (Gen. 2:29), had

76  The Covenant of Works dominion over the creatures of the earth (Gen. 1:26; 2:19–​20), were endued with strength of nature and not subject to sickness or infirmity (Gen. 3:17), and were all glorious. Finch acknowledges that God furnished Adam and Eve “with all Graces,” but he defines these graces as wisdom, knowledge, and understanding of the nature of the creatures under their authority.13 In concert with earlier formulations, Finch believed that the reward of the covenant of works was eternal life, which he characterizes as a life of holiness, happiness, honor, and immortality. He cites Leviticus 18:5, Ezekiel 20:11, Romans 10:5, and Galatians 3:12 to support his claim.14 Conversely, the punishment of the covenant was ultimately eternal death. He rests upon Paul’s statements from Ephesians 2:1–​3 that we are by nature children of wrath, and connects Adam’s state in the garden with the curses of the Mosaic covenant (Deut. 27:26; Gal. 3:10). Finch does not confuse the Mosaic and Adamic economies but instead aligns the curses with the function of God’s law regardless of its context, whether in the pre-​fall Adamic or post-​fall Mosaic economy.15 As I show later in the chapter, Cameron and Leigh have a different view on the reward of the covenant of works.

William Ames William Ames plays an important role in the dissemination of the doctrine, given his unique place in Early Orthodoxy. Unlike Finch, who labored in an English context, Ames was an English theologian who largely worked in a continental context. Ames was a student of William Perkins and eventually immigrated to the Netherlands, where he served as the assistant to the president of the Synod of Dort (1618–​19) and became a theology professor at the University of Franeker from 1622 until his death in 1633.16 Ames, therefore, undoubtedly contributed to the propagation of the doctrine through his exposure to Perkins and then through his own theological efforts as an author and professor. Ames does not devote a separate locus to the doctrine of the covenant but instead treats the topic under the subject of the application of Christ for salvation. He introduces the covenant as the means by which God brings salvation to sinners. A covenant is a promise, and God promises salvation through the new covenant since the old covenant was broken (Heb. 8:8, 10). Ames explains the differences between the old and new covenants in nine points, as noted in Table 5.1.17

John Cameron and Edward Leigh  77 Table 5.1:  Differences between the old and new covenants, according to William Ames Category

Old

New

Kind

Covenant of friendship

Action Object Principle Basis Matter

Agreement of two parties (God and man) Extends to all people Sovereignty Man himself Promised life

Covenant of reconciliation Only God covenants

Conditions

Perfect obedience

Effect

Teaches and reveals righteousness Abrogated for those in the new covenant

Duration

Only for the elect Mercy Jesus Christ Righteousness and the means of life No prior condition, but only an intermediate condition of faith Quickening spirit Everlasting in duration and application.

Immediately evident is that Ames associates the covenant of works with the old covenant, or Mosaic covenant. In his comparison between the old and new covenants, he places everything from Adam to Christ under the rubric of the old covenant. Although in his comparison here he does not invoke the term, elsewhere he identifies the covenant of works with “the government by law,” which applies both to the Adamic and Mosaic economies.18 In his view, a covenant is a “kind of transaction” between God and the creature when God commands, promises, threatens, and fulfills, and the creature binds himself to obedience to God.19 Ames highlights that such a covenant is not between equals but is between lord and servant.20 Other theologians from this period, such as John Preston (1587–​1628), argue that Paul has the covenant of works in view in 2 Corinthians 3:6 when he characterizes the law as a ministry of death. For Preston, the covenant of works is essentially the law.21 Preston believes that Paul connects Hagar (Gal. 4:22) with the covenant of works, not just the Mosaic covenant.22 Preston succinctly makes the connection between the two economies when he writes, “The Covenant of works runs in these termes Do this and thou shalt live, and I will be thy God. This is the Covenant that was made with Adam; and the

78  The Covenant of Works Covenant that is expressed by Moses in the Moral Law, Do this and live.”23 Similar patterns appear in the Synopsis Purioris Theologigae (1625) and the Synod of Dort’s Statenvertaling. The Statenvertaling explains, The word Testament is a Latine word, whereby the Greek word Diatheke is rendered, which the Greek Translators use to expresse the Hebrew word Berith, that is, Covenant. And thereby is properly understood the Covenant it self, which God hath made with mankind upon certain conditions to give them everlasting life:  which Covenant is twofold, the Old and the New. The Old is that which God made with the first man before the fall, wherein eternal life was promised upon condition of a throughly perfect, and keeping of the Law; and is therefore called the Legall Covenant [Verbond der Wet], which God again propounded to the Israelites [Godt den Israëliten wederom voor-​gehouden heeft], that from thence they might learn to understand (seeing this condition is transgressed by all men, and can now be fulfilled by no man) that they must seek their salvation in another Covenant, which is called the New [Covenant,] and consisteth in this: That God hath appointed his Son for a Mediator, and promiseth eternal life upon condition that we believe in him; and is called the Covenant of Grace.24

The Synopsis Purioris Theologiae, a handbook of theology written by four professors of theology from the University of Leiden, exegetes Galatians 4:24 in a similar fashion. In the literal sense, the Old Testament stands for the law and is a ministry of death (2 Cor. 3:6–​7; Gal. 4:23–​24) and in this way is the covenant of works.25 But once the word new modifies testament, in the literal or strict sense it refers exclusively to the covenant of grace, or the gospel. The Synopsis thus posits an antithesis between law versus gospel and the Old versus New Testaments. Taken strictly, there are substantive differences between the Old and New Testaments, since the former demands perfect obedience and the latter promises salvation by faith in Christ.26 But at the same time the Synopsis recognizes that the gospel is present in both the Old and New Testaments, which no Reformed theologian would deny. It was present in the Old Testament immediately after the fall and by virtue of the promises made to the patriarchs.27 To explain the manner in which the gospel is present in both testaments the Synopsis introduces a distinction absent from Perkins, Finch, and Ames. The Synopsis states that the two testaments have the same substance, but they have different accidental qualities.28 A theologian who

John Cameron and Edward Leigh  79 believed that the old covenant and covenant of works were coextensive did not necessarily believe that the covenant of grace was absent from redemptive history. Richard Sibbes (1577–​1635) offers an explanation that lies implicit in these other treatments of the covenant of works.29 Namely, God made the covenant of works with Adam, but once Adam broke it, God immediately extended the mercy of the covenant of grace to Adam. God then subsequently renewed the covenant of grace in four distinct periods: from Adam to Abraham, from Abraham to Moses, from Moses to Christ, and now from Christ until the end of the world.30 But at the same time Sibbes believed God renewed the covenant of works “in the delivery of the ten commandments, requiring from man obedience to them in his own person, exactly, at all times, perpetually.”31 Sibbes argues that both the covenants of works and grace are present in the church because the former shows us our failings that only the latter can remedy.32 Sibbes makes his case by appealing to typology. Moses, he argues, did not bring Israel into the promised land; Joshua did. In this respect, Joshua serves as a type of Christ. The ark of the covenant also conveys the same typological portrait—​the law lies within the ark, which is the covenant of works, but the mercy seat rests above, which signifies that we cannot have a beneficial relationship to the law apart from the mediatory work of Christ.33 By way of contrast, Cameron and Leigh present more nuanced explanations of the relationship between the Adamic and Mosaic economies and in this manner offer significant contributions to the ongoing development of the doctrine.

John Cameron Cameron contributes to the development of Reformed covenant theology through his 1608 Heidelberg Disputation, in which he sets forth eighty-​two theses to explain the doctrine of the covenant. His theses stand in continuity with earlier formulations but also offer noteworthy developments that contributed to the ongoing discussion. Cameron delivered the initial disputation in Heidelberg, but it was subsequently republished on three different occasions: twice in collections of his works and once in English translation by Westminster divine Samuel Bolton (1606–​54) as an appendix to one of his works.34 This immediately demonstrates the spread of Cameron’s views because, though he initially delivered them in Heidelberg as a student, their

80  The Covenant of Works subsequent publication, reception, and effect upon Reformed covenant theology reverberated for generations to come.35 Cameron begins his disputation by introducing the covenant concept under the rubric of God’s promises, which is a slightly different emphasis in comparison with earlier surveyed works. Other works stress covenant as agreement, but Cameron starts with covenant as promise.36 Of course, earlier theologians noted the promissory character of God’s covenants but did not stress the ideas as prominently as Cameron.37 But he then distinguishes these promises under two types: absolute—​a promise God gives without the requirement of restipulation (restipulatio)—​and conditional—​a free promise of God but one that nevertheless requires restipulation. In his mind, the covenant between Noah and God is an absolute covenant (Gen. 9:11), and this is the nature of the covenant that God grants to the elect (Heb. 8:10).38 In line with earlier formulations, Cameron emphasizes the love of God in his covenantal activity.39 Once again he makes a twofold distinction: there is a love of God for the creature whence everything good in the creature flows and the acquiescent love of God (amor Dei acquiescens), which flows entirely from God. In other words, acquiescent love enables creatures to love because God first loves them. Cameron employs another set of terms for this distinction, namely, antecedent (primary) and consequent (secondary) love. Absolute and conditional covenants rest upon this twofold distinction of God’s love.40 Cameron inches closer to the covenant of works when he explains how absolute and conditional covenants function in light of the twofold distinction of God’s love.41 In conditional covenants God fulfills what he promises when the creature meets God’s requirement. Even though God promises great things contingent upon human performance, the reward flows from God’s antecedent love. In absolute covenants, on the other hand, nothing in the creature impels God either to promise or perform what he promises. Even in those absolute covenants where God expects creaturely restipulation, God nevertheless fulfills what he promises.42 The twofold love of God also informs Cameron’s understanding of reward. When God provides a covenantal reward, it flows from his voluntary will. In other words, God is under no obligation to reward creatures when they perform covenant requirements. God rewards covenant fidelity out of his voluntary and consequent love, which are natural to him. It is in his nature to reward good and punish evil.43 Cameron builds his doctrine of three covenants on these two layers of distinctions:  absolute and conditional covenants and the antecedent and consequent love of God. He identifies the three covenants as the covenant of

John Cameron and Edward Leigh  81 nature (foedus natura), the covenant of grace (foedus gratiae), and the subservient covenant (foedus subserviens), or the old covenant (vetus foedus) (Heb. 8:13).44 In scriptural language, Cameron attaches these terms (the covenants of nature and subservient covenant) to God’s dealings with Adam and Israel, or the Mosaic covenant. This threefold formulation immediately stands out as a unique feature of Cameron’s theology. The subservient covenant is distinct from the covenant of grace. Throughout the rest of his disputation Cameron explains the differences between the three covenants. The first way Cameron expounds the covenants is through a comparison between the covenants of nature and grace by comparing them in their points of agreement and disagreement. The two covenants agree on four points:

1. 2. 3. 4.

General end: God’s glory. Persons: they both bind God and human beings. External form: they both have restipulations. Nature: they are both unchangeable.45

By contrast, they differ on six points as shown in Table 5.2.46 These points of similarity and difference flesh out Cameron’s view but also highlight the unique features of the covenant of nature. But Cameron still has much more to say about these unique features of the covenant of nature. Table 5.2:  Differences between the covenants of nature and grace, according to John Cameron Difference

Covenant of Nature

Covenant of Grace

Special ends Foundations

Declares God’s justice Creation of man and the integrity of his nature God the creature requires his due of man as pure and perfect

Declares God’s mercy Redemption of man by Christ

Quality

Stipulation

God requires natural righteousness Promise Eternal and blessed life in Paradise Manner of sanction There was no mediator, hence it was not promised before it was published

God as merciful Father offers himself to the sinner, who is wounded in his conscience by sin God requires faith alone Heavenly spiritual life It was first promised and then long after published and ratified by the blood of Christ

82  The Covenant of Works When Cameron invokes the contrast between God’s justice and mercy in the two covenants, one might hastily conclude that he abandons his presuppositional commitment to the twofold love of God as that which characterizes all of God’s covenants. How, after all, can justice and love coexist? Are they not the proverbial oil and water? They can be temporarily emulsified if violently shaken together, but they eventually separate. In Cameron’s mind these two ideas are compatible. He places justice in the category of God’s mutual love and faith under the persuasive love of God. To be sure, justice and faith differ—​one gives and the other receives. Justice gives to God his due and faith receives from God what is not due to us.47 The difference between justice and faith naturally affects Cameron’s understanding of the two covenants. Why, asks Cameron, does God not require faith in the covenant of nature? Why, instead, does he require obedience and love?48 To answer this question—​why God did not require faith of Adam—​ Cameron provides two principal reasons. First, God only required faith of Adam incidentally, not chiefly.49 Adam had no reason to distrust God’s love—​the noetic effects of sin were not yet a factor as in the covenant of grace. Second, God placed requirements upon Adam according to strict justice.50 Cameron admitted that Adam had faith, but he carefully explains how faith functions in the two different covenants. Pre-​and post-​fall faith agree in that both come from God, are a persuasion of God’s love, and beget a mutual love for God. But pre-​and post-​fall faith differ in four points, as noted in Table 5.3.51 For Cameron, pre-​fall faith is a mutable general trust in God’s love, whereas post-​fall faith is immutable (or indefectible) and rests in Christ, which grants the believer access to greater blessings than Adam had. Relevant at this point is an innovative twist to the ongoing development of the covenant of works, that is, the stated reward for Adam’s covenant fidelity. In all of the previously surveyed explanations of the doctrine, theologians posited that Adam’s reward was eternal life. They based this conclusion chiefly upon the intra-​canonical exegesis of Leviticus 18:5.52 In earlier discussions, theologians debated the question of nature versus grace. In other words, to what extent was God’s grace necessary in order either to elevate Adam’s nature or his obedience, since the general consensus was that Adam’s obedience was disproportionate to the reward of eternal life? Cameron bypasses the whole discussion by changing Adam’s reward. He introduces a different text to the discussion, namely, 1 Corinthians 15:47–​48: “The first man was from the earth, a man of dust; the second man is from heaven. As was the man of

John Cameron and Edward Leigh  83 Table 5.3:  Differences between pre-​and post-​fall faith, according to John Cameron Difference

Covenant of Nature

Foundation

Presupposes a perfect human The promise made in Christ nature, and thus has no place in post-​fall humanity Presupposes nature (per Presupposes supernatural modum naturae) grace (per modum gratia supernaturalis) Adam’s righteousness (iustitia) Our holiness (sanctitas) is was mutable immutable and eternal because it flows from an immutable and eternal principle, the Spirit of Grace Adam’s nature was perfect but The holiest saint falls short of beneath the holiness begotten Adam’s original righteousness, by faith in Christ but this occurs due to the weakness of one’s faith; but nevertheless post-​fall faith is far higher than pre-​fall faith and grants access to a higher holiness than Adam’s original state

Nature vs. grace Mutability vs. immutability

Pre-​ vs. post-​fall nobility

Covenant of Grace

dust, so also are those who are of the dust, and as is the man of heaven, so also are those who are of heaven.” For Cameron, this Pauline passage informs us of the distinct ends of the covenants of nature and grace. Adam’s goal was eternal and blessed life in the garden of Eden, whereas, by contrast, the elect receive eternal heavenly life.53 According to Cameron, 1 Corinthians 15:47–​ 48 warrants these distinct ends because this text sets forth the difference between animal (vitam animalem) and heavenly life (vita coelestis). Adam could only know duration of life according to the perpetuity of his obedience, whereas Christ provides eternal heavenly life.54 Despite its novelty, theologians at the Westminster Assembly debated this very point and created confessional room for this distinctly Cameronian understanding of Adam’s reward.55 The following chapter on the Westminster Assembly addresses the specifics of this debate. There is a sense in which Cameron shifts the exegetical footing for the entire discussion regarding the covenant of works. Leviticus 18:5 features prominently in other explanations of the doctrine, but not in Cameron’s disputation. Cameron’s unique covenant theology further manifests itself when

84  The Covenant of Works he compares and contrasts the covenant of nature with the subservient (or Mosaic) covenant.56 The two covenants agree on five points:57

1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

Both involve two parties, God and man. Both have annexed stipulations. The stipulations are the same as it concerns the Mosaic law. The promise is generally the same. Both covenants lead us to Christ.

The first three points require little explanation. Who would argue, for example, against the ideas that God and man were the parties, that God gave Adam and Israel stipulations, or that death was the consequence of violating the respective covenants? The fourth and fifth points, however, require brief elaboration, as they are not immediately clear. For Cameron, the promise of the two covenants is essentially the same. God promised Adam perpetual blessed life in the garden, and God promised Israel perpetual blessed life in Canaan.58 In technical terms, Cameron believed that the Mosaic covenant was a type of the covenant of nature toward a twofold end: (1) to draw connections between the similarities between Adam’s and Israel’s covenant, and (2) to point forward to their fulfillment in Christ. In the architecture of his covenant theology, Cameron employs the language of dumbratur, or “shadowed out” in Bolton’s translation, to denote types and figures (typis & figuris).59 The Spirit of God, according to Cameron, describes the benefits and office of Christ through words and types.60 By the means of typology, the two covenants (nature and subservient) lead us to Christ, but Cameron stipulates that the covenant of nature does so in an accidental manner. That is, he does not believe that the covenant of nature according to its original institution leads us to Christ but rather in its post-​fall function it leads sinners to Christ.61 In a post-​fall world God uses the covenant of works to cause sinners to thirst for Christ, a thirst that only the promise of the gospel relieves. Likewise, the subservient covenant accentuates this thirst in the economy of redemption for post-​fall humanity.62 Cameron lists only five points of agreement between the two covenants (nature and subservient) but thirteen points of disagreement (see Table 5.4).63 These stated points of difference further elaborate Cameron’s understanding of the covenant of nature. Although Cameron does not cite the text, the fact that he mentions two times that the covenant of nature was written on the heart and that Adam was subject to the law of nature alludes to Romans 2:15.

John Cameron and Edward Leigh  85 Table 5.4:  Differences between the natural and subservient covenants, according to John Cameron Covenant of Nature (Adamic)

Subservient Covenant (Mosaic)

Made with all people Made with man at his creation with no preparation for it Only binds us to the law of nature (lege Naturae) unto obedience Reward of earthly paradise Accidentally leads us to Christ Founded upon creation and general conservation (generali conservatione) Written upon the heart with a view to drawing people sweetly unto God

Made only with Israel Made with Israel after many preparations

Eternal No regard for restraint from outward impiety (Exo. 20:20) Engraved on the heart Made in paradise No mediator Made with man in a perfect state of integrity

Adds ceremonies Reward of Canaan Leads us to Christ Founded upon Israel’s election and their conservation in the land The covenant was to compel people unto Christ and pressed people into bondage (Gal. 4:24) Temporary Has regard for outward impiety Engraved on tablets of stone Made on Mount Sinai Had Moses as a mediator Made with fallen human beings

Cameron holds this in common with other theologians. But as noted above, he neither invokes nor alludes to Leviticus 18:5 in support of the covenant of nature. He does, however, elsewhere invoke the text when he explains the differences between the subservient covenant and the covenant of grace. The stipulation of the subservient covenant is, “Do this and live” (Gal. 3:12), whereas the stipulation of the covenant of grace is, “Believe, and thou shalt not come into judgment” (John 3:18).64 As Cameron constructs his disputation, he has been building to its capstone—​the final series of definitions of each of three covenants. Cameron defines the covenant of nature as follows: “That, whereby God, by right of Creation, doth require a perfect obedience of all mankind, and promises a most blessed life to as many as doe give it to him, to be lived in Paradise: but against those that deny him this perfect obedience, he doth denounce eternal death.”65 God made the subservient (or old) covenant with Israel under requirement of obedience unto the moral, ceremonial, and judicial laws and,

86  The Covenant of Works if found faithful, promised blessings—​possession of the land and Canaan. For those who were covenantally unfaithful, he rendered severe penalties through death and curses to the ultimate goal of bringing sinners unto Christ.66 The covenant of grace, conversely, required only faith in Christ and promised the remission of sins and the blessing of heavenly life.67

Edward Leigh Edward Leigh offers a significant examination of the doctrine of the covenants in his work A Treatise of the Divine Promises.68 Cameron’s disputation is at times sparsely argued and only periodically cites biblical texts, which is expected given that it is a series of theses intended for oral defense. Leigh’s treatise, on the other hand, is a full-​fledged treatment of the subject. Even though Leigh’s work explicates divine promises in general, the work’s subtitle gives readers a clue that he also has the doctrine of the covenants in view. The subtitle indicates that the first of five books treats divine promises and that the last four books deal with “the Covenant it selfe, the Bundle and Body of all the Promises, and the Speciall Promises likewise, which concerne mans self, or others, both Temporall, Spirituall, and Eternall.” To the uninitiated reader, Leigh’s reliance upon Cameron’s earlier work might not be immediately evident, but the first hint appears in the title to Leigh’s treatise. Just like Cameron, Leigh identifies the covenants as a subset of God’s promises.69 But Cameron was not the only source from which Leigh drew his doctrine of the covenants. In his opening discussion Leigh cites a number of Reformed theologians as he constructs his view of the relationship between promises and covenants.70 Leigh cites Amandus Polanus (1561–​ 1610) and Francis Junius (1545–​1602), who argue that promise is a synecdoche for word.71 He also cites Theodore Beza (1519–​1605) and Johannes Piscator (1546–​ 1625), who argue that word is sometimes a metonym for the good things God promises.72 Leigh then defines a promise as “a word, passed from man to man, for performance of some lawfull things; as in contracts, bargaines, marriages, and other affaires of common life.”73 God can also make promises to man, which explains why Leigh employs this definition in his covenant theology. Citing Polanus again, Leigh argues that promises are God’s declarations concerning good to be received and the removal of evil.74 Immediately evident is that Leigh defines a promise in common

John Cameron and Edward Leigh  87 seventeenth-​century terms, such as bargains or contracts, terms typically employed as synonyms for covenant. In Leigh’s view, a covenant is not a bald legal contract but is ultimately a promise. Such a definition does not fit the caricature of early modern Reformed concepts of covenants, according to some twentieth-​century analysis.75 Leigh draws an exegetical connection between promise and covenant when he alludes to Ephesians 2:12, namely, that Israelites know of hope through God’s promises but that non-​ Christians are “aliens from the covenant of promise.”76 From the foundation of covenant as promise, in similar fashion to Cameron, though in explicit reliance upon Perkins, Leigh explains that there are legal and evangelical promises: “Legall are made on condition of workes, as the perfect keeping of the Law, which none since Adam, save Christ, can lay claime to” (Deut. 7:12; Jer. 3:23).77 By contrast, “Evangelical are made on condition of beleeving or repenting” (2 Cor. 7:10; John 3:15).78 The similarities between Cameron and Leigh at this point most likely reveal that they both work from common sources rather than Leigh relying exclusively on Cameron. Evidence that Leigh rests his own understanding of the covenants upon a broad exegetical and theological footprint arises in his efforts to define the term covenant. Leigh argues that God’s promises are either general or special, and he then explains the significance of the Hebrew term berith. Contrary to claims that early modern theologians imposed their own cultural understanding of contracts upon the Scriptures, Leigh engages in significant linguistic study of the term berith to establish its meaning.79 Leigh notes, for example, the different potential origins of the term, such as choosing (eligendo) or possibly from the Hebrew term bara, “to create.” He cites several Hebrew authorities, including Johannes Buxtorf (1564–​1629); Roman Catholic Hebrew scholar Sante Pagnino (1470–​1536); Lutheran theologian Matthias Flavius Illyricus (1520–​75), who was a professor of Hebrew at the University of Wittenberg; and Junius’s oration on the covenant.80 He also notes the Greek and Latin translations of the term: diatheke, testamentum (Heb. 9:17), foedus (Matt. 20:28; Acts 2:25), and diatithemi, or dispono (appoint) (Luke 22:29).81 Beyond scriptural examination, Leigh surveys the term through contemporary and ancient sources, which include the following, among other cited authorities: • There is different Latin terminology—​foedus, pactum, testamentum—​ according to Wolfgang Musculus (1497–​1563).82

88  The Covenant of Works • There were variant spellings, such as fidus, according to Marcus Terentius Varro (116–​27 bc).83 • The term was used to denote interposed faith, according to Isidore of Seville (560–​636).84 • In the seventeenth century there were different spellings of the term foedus vs. fedus, according to Johann Heinrich Alsted (1588–​1638).85 • A covenant was a ceremonial rite marked by the slaying of a sow, according to Virgil (70–​19 bc).86 • The term was derived from feriendo (to strike), according to Peter Martyr Vermigli (1499–​1562).87 He also cites the French term alliance and other English terms: league, covenant.88 Leigh does not simply make a show of his vast knowledge but instead reveals the significant research he employs to determine the meaning of the term berith. It was never a question of imposing a preconceived notion of covenant over the biblical text, but was actually the result of meticulous linguistic research and study. In fact, all of this linguistic study was merely the tip of an iceberg in Leigh’s overall oeuvre as he published numerous editions of his Critica Sacra, which was a lexicographical study of Old Testament Hebrew terms. This work covers contemporary and ancient authorities, and traces the term through biblical, inter-​testamental, and extra-​biblical literature.89 His linguistic study leads him to define a covenant as A simple promise of grace without condition (Gen. 9:11; Numb. 25:12–​13) but ordinarily it notes a mutuall contract or agreement betweene the parties covenanting by stipulation and promise (Psa. 50:16; 25:10, 14; 44:17). A Covenant is a solemne Contract, passing betweene some parties (two at the least) whereby they bind themselves, each to other in certaine articles to both their contents, for their mutuall peace and comfort.90

Leigh notes that there are different types, such as civil covenants (Gen. 21:32), and religious or sacred covenants, which concern the salvation of humanity. In this case, there are two covenants—​the covenant of nature (foedus naturale) and the covenant of the gospel (foedus evangelicum).91 Once again Leigh echoes Cameron’s formulations and to a certain extent his terminology, especially the foedus naturale.92 But at this early stage in his discussion, Leigh also exercises a degree of independence from Cameron.

John Cameron and Edward Leigh  89 He argues that the natural covenant was the agreement God made with our first parents (Gen. 2:17). He calls it the natural covenant because God made it with man at his first creation and it contained the law known to humanity by nature. But he also calls it a foedus legale (legal covenant) because its condition was works, and, in contradistinction to Cameron, Leigh cites Ezekiel 20:11, Leviticus 18, Romans 10:5, and Galatians 3:12 in support of his claim. Leigh walks along earlier exegetical citation paths to support the doctrine. Here Leigh also appeals to Galatians 4:22 and employs a series of terms that the Westminster Assembly will later use to characterize and describe the covenant of works: “The law requireth, 1. Personall, 2. Perpetuall, 3. Perfect obedience, 4. And that from a perfect heart, and that under a terrible curse.”93 Recall, Cameron did not cite these texts in support of the covenant of nature, but only for the subservient covenant.94 In fact, up to this point Leigh parallels Cameron’s explanation of the covenant of works but then discretely separates himself from Cameron. Leigh borrows much of what Cameron has to say regarding the relationship between the covenant of nature and the Mosaic covenant, but he demurs from embracing Cameron’s concept of the subservient covenant. The close but distinct correspondences between Leigh and Cameron appear in several places. Like Cameron, Leigh believes that the Mosaic covenant was a type of the natural covenant: God shadowed out this covenant also to the children of Israel in the wilderness of Sina, when he brought them out of Egypt. Moses describes it (Exo. 19 & 24) the blessings and curses comprehended in that Covenant are cited (Lev. 26; Deut. 27–​28). It hath rationem speculi: It is a glasse to manifest and discover sinne and death, and so serves to humble men which are naturally proud (Matt. 19:17) and to make them fly unto Christ for sanctuary, who perfectly fulfilled the Law for the Elect; in and through whom we may obtaine the Legall promises (Rom. 10:4; Gal. 4:4).95

Leigh closely echoes Cameron’s understanding of the function of the Mosaic covenant but still departs from Cameron regarding its proper place. Leigh’s close but nevertheless distinct similarity with Cameron emerges when he explains the manner in which the “covenants of workes and Grace, do both agree and differ.”96 Leigh then cites Cameron on this very point and closely repeats Cameron’s own list with some minor differences. But when he explains the differences between the covenants of works and grace, he

90  The Covenant of Works does not advocate Cameron’s doctrine of the subservient covenant, and unlike Cameron, Leigh invokes the doctrine of the covenant of redemption, the eternal intra-​trinitarian covenant between the Father and Son.97 The covenant of grace differs from the covenant of works because it is testamentary in character. That is, it becomes valid because of the death of the testator (Heb. 9:16–​17), which the covenant of redemption establishes. The Old Testament “shadowed out” Christ’s death, but it was consummated in the New Testament. Leigh invokes the covenant of redemption but offers no further explanation of its significance, unlike his fuller explanation in the second edition of his massive Body of Divinity published some two decades later.98 But Leigh’s belief that the Old Testament shadows out the work of Christ in terms of his legal fulfillment of the law and his death leads Leigh to a slightly different formulation concerning the relationship between the covenant of nature and the Mosaic covenant. Rather than employ Cameron’s distinct subservient covenant, Leigh invokes the formulations of Johannes Scharpius (1572–​ 1648) and 99 Polanus. In contrast to Cameron, Leigh argues, “This Covenant [of Grace] is but one for substance, yet in divers respects and circumstances it is either Old or New.”100 Leigh cites Scharpius’s distinction between the substance and accidents of the covenant of grace.101 The Old Testament is called the law because its chief element is the law of Moses, and the New Testament is called the gospel, because its chief element is the glad tidings of our redemption. “The forme of the Covenant is in the one Legall, in the other Evangelicall.”102 In this vein Leigh cites Gulielmus Bucanus (d. 1603) to the effect that the new covenant is renewed as he promised in the seed of Abraham (Gal. 3:8).103 Leigh echoes Cameron’s list of the ways in which the old covenant agrees with the covenant of nature but does not employ his subservient covenant. Instead, when he explains how the old and new covenants agree, he instead appeals to Polanus and Lucas Trelcatius (1542–​1602).104 Leigh’s shift away from Cameron’s subservient covenant and toward Scharpius, Polanus, and Trelcatius reveals his desire to demonstrate that the old and new covenants do not “differ essentially as the Covenant of works and grace, but modo administrandi, in the manner of administration.”105 Such a formulation stands in contrast not only to Cameron but also to the earlier formulations of Perkins, Preston, Sibbes, and Leigh’s Oxford University divinity tutor, William Pemble (1591–​ 1623). Pemble clearly equates covenant and law: “By the Covenant of Workes, we understand that

John Cameron and Edward Leigh  91 we call in one word the Law.”106 God first made this covenant with Adam and then a second time with Israel: The second administration of this Covenant was the renuing thereof with the Israelites at Mount Sinai: where (after that the light of nature began to grow darker, & corruption had in time worne out the characters of Religion and Virtue, first graven in mans heart) God revived the Law, by a compendious and full declaration of all duties required of man, towards God and his neighbour, expressed in the Decalogue. According to the tenor of which Law God entered into covenant with the Israelites, promising to be their God, in bestowing upon them all blessings of life and happiness, upon condition that they would be his people, obeying all things that he had commanded. Which condition they accepted of, promising an absolute obedience (Exo. 19:24; Deut. 27:26).107

Once again, as with earlier formulations, Pemble relates the two covenants (works and grace) in terms of law and gospel. The promise of the perpetual bliss of the covenant of works remained in force even in a post-​fall world, but given its fallen condition, humanity cannot meet the requirement of perfect obedience. Only by faith in Christ can sinners lay hold of the reward of perpetual bliss.108 Leigh chose not to explain the relationship between the Adamic and Mosaic covenants in this manner. He returned to earlier formulations that invoked what was by then a tried-​and-​true distinction between form and matter, or accidents and substance, to affirm how the covenant of works reappeared in the dark clouds of Sinai when God made his covenant with Israel.

Comparative Analysis This exploration of Cameron and Leigh reveals a number of important developments for the covenant of works in Early Orthodoxy that should not be ignored. Cameron and Leigh both display their knowledge of the earlier tradition through the reception of the covenant of works, but Cameron was independently minded enough to suggest a number of new contributions to the ongoing discussion. The first significant innovation was the introduction of a third covenant to the architecture of the twofold covenantal scheme of works and grace.109 All Reformed theologians acknowledged the existence of

92  The Covenant of Works the Mosaic covenant but placed it either under the broader rubric of the covenant of grace (e.g., Calvin, Bucanus, Trelcatius, Scharpius, Polanus) or under the covenant of works (aka the old covenant) (Finch, Ames, Statenvertaling, Leiden Synopsis, Pemble). Categorizing the Mosaic covenant as neither of the covenants of works or grace but a distinct subservient covenant shifted the alignment of the typical exegetical argumentation for the covenant of works. Cameron no longer associated Leviticus 18:5 and its subsequent canonical appearances (Ezek. 20:11; Luke 10:28; Rom. 10:5; Gal. 3:12) with the covenant of works but with the subservient covenant. He instead only aligned Romans 2:15 with the covenant of works. In other words, Cameron still maintained the general connection between law and covenant prevalent in numerous Reformation and Early Orthodox texts. Leigh was one of the early adopters of aspects of Cameron’s covenant theology but not his unique doctrine of the subservient covenant. Cameron’s views were popular with French Reformed theologians at the Academy at Saumur, such as Moïse Amyraut (1596–​1664), as well as Westminster divines Samuel Bolton and Thomas Goodwin (1600–​80), and congregational theologian John Owen (1616–​83).110 But Leigh’s early rejection foreshadowed the later vehement refutations from, among others, Francis Turretin (1623–​87) and Johannes Heidegger (1633–​98), in their effort to bury Amyraldian theology.111 But even though some demurred from Cameron’s subservient covenant they nevertheless adopted other aspects of his covenant theology. John Ball (1585–​1640), John Preston, Francis Roberts (1609–​75), and Westminster divine Obadiah Sedgwick (1600–​58) used Cameron’s distinctions of absolute and conditional covenants, for example. Theologians employed these terms to explain the differences between the covenants of works and grace.112 Another significant contribution is Cameron’s suggestion that Adam’s covenantal reward was extended temporal, not eternal, life. As novel as this view appears in the context of the overall discussion, two factors warrant further examination of his argument. First, subsequent theologians found it an appealing alternative to the highly controverted and debated nature of the relationship between nature-​grace and merit-​reward in Adam’s pre-​ fall estate. Leigh, for example, adopted the position but so did a number of theologians in High Orthodoxy, evident by the debates and final wording of the Westminster Confession. The assembly officially sanctions Cameron’s view in the confession when it states, “The first Covenant made with Man, was a Covenant of Works, wherein Life was promised to Adam, and in him to his posterity, upon condition of perfect and personall obedience.”113 The

John Cameron and Edward Leigh  93 divines do not say “eternal life” but “life,” which allowed advocates of both the common and Cameronian views to affirm the statement, because the confession leaves the specific nature of Adam’s reward undefined.114 Second, in both Cameron and Leigh, typology comes to the fore in the development of the covenant of works. In the earlier formulations of Finch, Ames, the Statenvertaling, the Leiden synopsis, and Pemble there was little need to employ typology to explain the relationship between the Adamic and Mosaic covenants because they were essentially one and the same. But when Cameron identified the Mosaic covenant as distinct from both the covenants of works and grace, he explained their relationship in terms of typology—​the Adamic and Mosaic covenants typified the antitypical reality of the covenant of grace. Cameron’s use of typology introduced a new dimension to the development of the covenant of works. Earlier formulations relied on the medieval form-​matter or substance-​accidents distinction to explain how the legal and evangelical elements of law and gospel or the covenants of works and grace both appeared in the Mosaic covenant. Leigh employed this distinction but colored it with Cameron’s emphasis upon typology even though Leigh rejected Cameron’s doctrine of the subservient covenant. This typological aspect of the covenant of works persists in future formulations of the doctrine along with the medieval substance-​accidents distinction.

Conclusion To say the least, Cameron and Leigh are significant figures in the Early Orthodox development and reception of the doctrine of the covenant of works. And if these two theologians are mountain peaks, then Cameron looms as the larger of the two summits. His covenant theology “belongs to one of the major trajectories of developing Reformed covenantal thought” and thus cannot be ignored.115 Through his introduction of a threefold covenantal scheme, a reconfigured Adamic reward, altered exegetical arguments, and the use of typology, Cameron significantly influenced Reformed covenant theology and introduced categories and topics that others carried forward into High Orthodoxy and beyond.

6 The Westminster Standards “It was alwayes Gods way to deal with man in the way of a covenant,” writes Westminster divine William Bridge (ca. 1600–​70).1 This statement reveals the significant role that covenant theology played in the creation of the Westminster Standards. Covenant was the lens through which the divines viewed all of God’s interactions with the human race. But as admirers of the Westminster Confession have only examined the finished product, they might be unaware of the various theologians who influenced the composition of the document. One such theologian is John Cameron (ca. 1579–​ 1625), who wielded significant influence within the Reformed tradition.2 Cameron’s impact surfaces in a number of the writings of theologians who served in the Westminster Assembly (1643–​52) and who wrote the Westminster Standards, which includes the Westminster Confession, the Larger Catechism, and the Shorter Catechism. Other theologians and confessional documents also shaped the covenant theology of the Standards, including James Ussher (1581–​1656) and the Irish Articles (1615). In addition to these different sources, the participants in the assembly held their own views, exegeted the Scriptures, and read other sources that eventually culminated in the formulations that appear in the confession’s doctrine of the covenant of works. Scottish theologian Samuel Rutherford (1600–​ 61), Independent Thomas Goodwin (1600–​80), and Anthony Burgess (d. 1664) were significant voices within the assembly and also presented their views in their published writings. Despite the many streams of thought that flowed into the discussions in the Jerusalem Chamber at Westminster Abbey, the confession presents a calm pool of water that gives the impression of uniformity of conviction and belief regarding the covenant of works. Yet there are immediate indicators that the Standards embody a variegated set of convictions, such as the different terms employed to denote the Adamic covenant, whether of “works” or “life.”3 The Standards do not embody a single doctrine of the covenant of works but rather confessionally codify a number of key elements that were held in common agreement among the Westminster divines.4 To substantiate this claim, this chapter examines The Covenant of Works. J. V. Fesko, Oxford University Press (2020). © Oxford University Press. DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780190071363.001.0001

96  The Covenant of Works views present among the divines: those of Samuel Rutherford and Anthony Burgess, Thomas Goodwin, and George Walker (c. 1581–​1651). The chapter then presents an analysis of the Standards to demonstrate how they accommodate different understandings of the covenant of works. The chapter concludes with some observations about the significance of the confessional codification of the covenant of works.

Rutherford and Burgess Among the many stars of the Westminster Assembly, Samuel Rutherford and Anthony Burgess were two of the brightest. Rutherford was a well-​respected theologian among the Scottish divines, and Burgess had a similar reputation among the English.5 Both published on a wide range of theological topics, including the covenant of works. Given that Rutherford wrote specifically on covenant theology, Burgess serves here as a secondary witness seeing that his chief contribution to the subject was a book on the law.6 Rutherford devotes the bulk of his work to expounding the nature of the covenant of grace—​the redemption that comes by faith alone in Christ. But in order to explain the covenant of grace, Rutherford contrasts the two covenants to show where they agree and disagree. Rutherford therefore opens his work with a discussion of Adam’s pre-​fall state but does so in an unusual manner. Rather than begin with a discussion of what were by now common scriptural texts such as Genesis 2:17, Romans 5:12–​21, Leviticus 18:5, or Romans 2:14–​15, Rutherford first refers to 1 Corinthians 15:47. Rutherford’s appeal to this verse is noteworthy because John Cameron introduced this same text into the discussion in his theses on the doctrine of the covenants.7 Further evidence of Cameron’s influence appears in Rutherford’s subsequent explanation: “The Apostle, I Cor. 15.47 [sic]. The first man is of the earth, earthie, the second man is the Lord from Heaven, speaking of the two eminently publick persons the noble heads of great Families; makes the condition of the first Adam to be animal and earthly, & that of the second Adam to be spiritual and Heavenly.”8 Cameron raises these same points, but Rutherford uses Paul’s text in a different manner. Cameron employed the text to argue that the covenant of works was purely natural and that Adam could only secure natural animal life through his obedience, but Rutherford believed that God promised Adam eternal life, a “heavenly communion with God.”9 In contrast with the covenant of grace,

The Westminster Standards  97 which promised justification by faith alone in Christ alone by God’s grace alone, Adam’s path to justification was different.10 Adam’s path was justification by works, or his obedience.11 Rutherford’s position stands in greater contrast to Cameron’s when we consider his understanding of Leviticus 18:5. According to Rutherford, God gave Adam a conditional decree, and that had he continued in his obedience, Adam would have obtained eternal life. This is the nature of Leviticus 18:5: “The man that does these things shall live.” In Rutherford’s opinion, this text shows the equity and holiness of the law.12 Burgess presents a fuller explanation of Leviticus 18:5 and how it applies to the pre-​and post-​fall states. Burgess was well aware that he employed a post-​fall text from the Mosaic law to characterize Adam’s pre-​fall state. Cameron, recall, argued that Leviticus 18:5 only applied to the post-​fall state and the subservient Mosaic covenant. That is, the Mosaic covenant was neither of the covenants of works or grace.13 Burgess, however, interpreted Leviticus 18:5 differently. He believed the law functioned in one of two manners: either as the whole doctrine delivered on Sinai conjoined with the preface and promises, or as an abstracted rule of righteousness. In the former sense the law was a covenant of grace, but abstracted from the Mosaic covenant it was not of grace but works.14 Burgess employed this distinction because he saw the exegetical complexities. He acknowledged that Paul drew the words “Do this and live” from Leviticus 18:5, but also noted that the same words appear in Deuteronomy 30:16: “In that I command thee this day to love the Lord thy God, to walk in his ways, and to keep his commandments and his statutes and his judgments, that thou mayest live and multiply: and the Lord thy God shall bless thee in the land whither thou goest to possess it.” Burgess connected this use of the idea with the righteousness that comes by faith through the gospel. Some divines, such as Edmund Calamy (1600–​60), escaped this apparent dilemma by cutting the Gordian knot and arguing that Leviticus 18:5 had nothing to do with the covenant of works and that it was entirely of the covenant of grace. The verse presupposed Israel’s existence under the covenant of grace—​and thus it was about evangelical obedience, not the obedience of the covenant of works.15 Burgess, however, escapes the horns of the apparent impasse through a distinction—​the law contextually and abstractly considered. These terms are similar to another popular distinction that makes the same point: the law narrowly or broadly considered.16 God embedded the law and attendant blessings of obedience within the covenant of grace, but this is only when the law is a covenant of grace. When the Scriptures place

98  The Covenant of Works the law in contrast with faith in the point of justification–​that is, “taken in a limited and abstracted consideration”—​“works and faith differ as much as heaven and earth.”17 According to Burgess, Roman Catholic theologians did not recognize this stark antithesis between the righteousness of the law versus the righteousness of faith. Rather than posit a Pauline antithesis between faith and works, they characterized the former as imperfect righteousness and the later as perfect.18 So, then, both Burgess and Rutherford employ Leviticus 18:5 to describe Adam’s state in the garden because God hinged the goal of eternal life upon Adam’s obedience to his commands. But even though Rutherford and Burgess placed obedience and eternal life in the same equation does not mean that they believed that Adam had the ability to merit heaven in the strict sense of the term. They were careful to explain the specific relationship between Adam’s obedience and the reward. Rutherford and Burgess went to great lengths to distance themselves from Roman Catholic concepts of merit, namely, that there was a strict or even qualified quid pro quo of obedience for reward. Both theologians present a number of arguments and statements to explain the precise relationship between Adam’s obedience and the reward. First, both highlight the grace present in the covenant of works. Rutherford explains, “In all pactions between the Lord and man, even in a Law-​covenant there is some out-​breakings of Grace.” Rutherford distinguishes, however, between gospel-​grace, the fruit of Christ’s merit, and the grace present in the covenant of works. The grace available to Adam was God’s “undeserved goodness.”19 Burgess notes that Adam could not obey God apart from his help. Some divines called this help grace, but others dissented from the term because they supposed grace only flows from Christ.20 Despite the common contemporary caricatures, many of the divines not only characterized the covenant of works as an agreement marked by God’s grace and divine love, but they also maintained it was the arena for Adam to demonstrate his love for his creator.21 Second, both theologians believed there was a great distance between God and Adam, and thus Adam’s obedience was disproportionate to the offered reward of eternal life. In reliance upon common medieval theology, Rutherford argues that there can be no mathematical equity between Adam’s obedience and his reward, that is, “So many ounces of natural actings, and the same number of ounces of grace and glory.” Instead, relying on Augustine (354–​430), Rutherford contends that a geometrical proportion exists between obedience and reward. In other words, God is not a debtor according to strict justice but according to his own free promise.22 God did not owe

The Westminster Standards  99 Adam life by nature but because of God’s promise.23 Burgess takes a similar but nevertheless slightly different path. Burgess argues that Adam’s obedience would have efficiently but not meritoriously procured his happiness.24 In other words, his obedience was the occasion and not the strict cause of the reward. Adam could not merit eternal life because the reward far exceeded his obedience—​Adam’s obedience was finite, and the reward was infinite.25

Thomas Goodwin Thomas Goodwin also begins his doctrine of the covenant of works by drawing on the same portion of 1 Corinthians (15:46), among other passages. Goodwin appealed to this verse to establish the fact that there were two orders: natural and spiritual states.26 He addresses a number of basic points that place his doctrine within the main stream of the ongoing discussion. Goodwin explains, for example, the various common terms for Adam’s initial created state, a state he describes as “pure nature,” but one that he also identifies as the foedus naturae (the covenant of nature) or the covenant of works. But Goodwin’s preference was to refer to Adam’s state as the creation law, jus creationis, or what was equitable between God considered merely as a Creator on one part, and his intelligent creatures that were endued with understanding and will on the other, simply considered as such creatures, whether angels or men,—​the measure of which law, in general lay in an equitable transaction between God and them, a congruity, dueness, meetness on either part.27

That Goodwin identifies the covenant of works with the creation law places him in continuity with the formulations of the earlier sixteenth-​century reformers who placed Adam under the rubric of law and contrasted this estate with his post-​fall existence under the gospel. Law and gospel and the covenants of works and grace are interchangeable concepts, but the move from the former set of terms to the latter reveals theologians’s desire to incorporate the doctrine of the covenants into their theology. This trend appears quite explicitly, for example, in the Marrow of Modern Divinity (1645), written by Edward Fisher (fl. 1627–​55), when he cites the work of Wolfgang Musculus (1497–​1563) and the connection he draws between law and covenant.28

100  The Covenant of Works At this point the similarities among Goodwin, Rutherford, and Burgess begin to evaporate as Goodwin shines exegetical sunlight on his doctrinal formulations. Goodwin and Rutherford both appeal to 1 Corinthians 15:45ff., but to very different ends. Rutherford and Goodwin agreed on the existence of the natural and spiritual states connected to the first and last Adams, but they parted company on the interpretive significance of Adam’s natural state. Rutherford argued that, through his obedience, Adam could theoretically secure eternal life. Goodwin, on the other hand, contended that, even if Adam obeyed perfectly, his reward was ultimately temporal. Why did Goodwin limit Adam’s successful probation to a temporal reward? The answer lies in Goodwin’s pre-​fall Adamic ontology. In concert with Rutherford and Burgess, Goodwin believed that, even in a state of pure nature, Adam was only in possession of natural gifts, and thus natural gifts were only capable of reaching a natural end. Adam’s natural end was proportional to his natural state.29 All three theologians, therefore, believed that Adam’s naturally created state was disproportionate to the supernatural end of eternal life. Rutherford and Burgess bridged the gap by boosting the efficacy of Adam’s obedience through a double remedy:  God simultaneously condescended to Adam to put heaven in reach by virtue of his gracious promise, and God also graded Adam’s obedience on a curve. Rutherford and Burgess were concerned about explaining how Adam’s obedience was not meritorious. Goodwin operated with the same presuppositions as Rutherford and Burgess but offered a different solution. Rather than inflate the value of Adam’s obedience and bring heaven down through divine condescension, Goodwin bypassed the whole question of merit by changing the reward. Heaven was no longer before Adam but rather merely extended natural and temporal life in the garden.30 Goodwin provides significant exegetical and theological rationale to support his idea that Adam’s reward was strictly natural. Like Rutherford, Goodwin believed that the covenant of works was Adam’s context for his justification—​a legal probation by which God would declare him righteous.31 But unlike Rutherford, Goodwin believed Adam’s reward was natural because his gifts were natural, which can reach only as high as natural ends.32 Adam’s untested righteousness was natural; thus, theoretically, if he successfully passed the probation, his reward would only have been natural. To support this claim, Goodwin appeals to Romans 4:4: “Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt.” Goodwin argues that Paul contrasts justification under the covenants of works and grace.

The Westminster Standards  101 Under the covenant of works, Adam’s reward would have been of debt (kata opheilema), whereas under the covenant of grace the reward is entirely of grace (kata charin). This does not mean, however, that Adam would have God over a barrel if he passed the probation. Goodwin argues that Adam’s reward would have been a debitum naturalae, a debt of nature, “not a debt of retribution in a mercenary way”—​because, “who hath first given to him, and it shall be recompensed unto him again?”33 Here Goodwin echoes a common Thomistic notion: equality and justice should govern relationships, a concept that Aquinas ultimately draws from Aristotle.34 In other words, Goodwin excises any notion of strict merit even for Adam’s natural obedience and reward and argues that, for all intents and purposes, Adam’s reward is the natural consequences of his God-​given gifts. Beyond these arguments, Goodwin provides three chief reasons to support his claim that Adam’s reward was natural and temporal, that is, prolonged life in the garden. Goodwin enlisted Leviticus 18:5 to argue that God promised Adam life, though not eternal life, first, because Paul identifies Jesus solely as the “heavenly man” and the “Lord from heaven,” which he contrasts with Adam, the “earthly man” (1 Cor. 15:47–​48). As such, only the last Adam provides eternal life; conversely, Adam can only secure natural life.35 Second, the garden of Eden and Adam’s Sabbath were merely types, or foreshadows, of heaven. Adam, likewise, was merely a type of Christ; thus, even Adam can only enter heaven by the second Adam, Christ (cf. Luke 23:43; Eph. 2:6).36 Third, God published to Adam the moral law through the law of nature, and it mentions nothing of the promise of heaven. The moral law merely says, “ ‘Do this, and thou shalt live’; that is, live as thou dost, in God’s favour, but yet still as on earth enjoyed.” This is why, according to Goodwin, the Old Testament says so little about heaven.37 Goodwin was undoubtedly aware of how other theologians employed Leviticus 18:5 to claim that eternal life was Adam’s reward, and so he addressed this interpretation directly. Goodwin cited Christ’s interaction with a ruler who asked, “Good Master, what shall I  do to inherit eternal life?” (Luke 18:18). Christ invoked the second table of the law and its prohibitions against adultery, murder, theft, deceit, and dishonor of one’s parents, to which the ruler responded that he kept all of these since his youth (Luke 18:20–​21). Jesus pressed the man to follow him that he might have “treasure in heaven” (Luke 18:22). In other words, Goodwin was aware that this passage seemed to indicate that the Bible placed obedience and heavenly reward in the same equation. Goodwin, however, dismissed this conclusion because

102  The Covenant of Works he believed the text distinguished between eternal life and the treasure of heaven. Goodwin acknowledged that the ruler asked what he had to do to inherit “eternal life” (Luke 18:18), but Goodwin appealed to the parallel passage in Matthew 19:17 to prove that something less was in view: “But if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.” In other words, the rich young ruler mistakenly believed that keeping the law would give him eternal life, whereas Christ merely pointed him to the covenant of works: “Do this, and thou shalt live,” which had natural life as its reward. As Paul writes, “The Spirit is life because of righteousness” (Rom. 8:10), not eternal life. This conclusion not only rests upon exegesis but also accords with the law of nature, which teaches that creatures cannot attain a station higher than the state of their creation.38 Some may object: Does not a temporal reward fall short of the beatific vision? Would not Adam in his state of pure nature have desired the beatific vision? Goodwin provides three responses to these questions. First, Adam was capable of the bliss of the beatific vision, as are all sinners. But the beatific vision would have been above his natural created state. Adam would first require ontological transformation to make him fit for the beatific vision, as do all sinners. Second, Adam was not ordained for heaven. If Adam had desired heaven, “He had gone out of his rank, and sat quiet beside the cushion.”39 Third, Adam would neither have been miserable nor would his state of temporal blessedness been the least bit harmed by a lack of desire for heaven. A stone at rest has no desire for upward motion. Adam’s state would have been perfect, though not as perfect as it could be. In other words, Adam’s state would have been perfectione competente, not absoluta, that is, a competent perfection rather than absolute perfection. Goodwin thus concludes, “Adam’s covenant was foedus naturae, so his happiness should have been a perfect contentment in God, enjoyed per modum naturae; not in God himself immediately, neither should he have tasted this heavenly contentment by faith, which is a prelibation of heaven and of its beatifical vision, but only in effects.”40 There are several things to note about Goodwin’s doctrine of the covenant of works. First, Goodwin’s formulation bears the fingerprints of John Cameron’s doctrine of the covenant of works. The parallels between Cameron and Goodwin point at the former’s influence, and Goodwin’s explicit citation of him confirms it. When Goodwin begins his defense of Adam’s temporal reward, like Cameron, he begins with 1 Corinthians 15:47–​48 and appeals to Paul’s distinction between the earthly and heavenly men. But Goodwin later concludes his treatment of the covenant of works by directly appealing

The Westminster Standards  103 to “learned Cameron” and his theses on covenant theology.41 Goodwin, thus, employed Cameron’s theses in the construction of his own covenant theology and embraced many elements of his doctrine of the covenant of works. In fact, Goodwin held Cameron’s understanding of the subservient covenant, namely, that the Mosaic covenant was neither of the covenants of works or grace, but a third type of covenant subservient to the purposes of the covenant of grace: “This covenant, which was foedus subserviens to the gospel (as the learned Cameron calls it), had many scopes and aspects.”42 Other Westminster divines, such as Samuel Bolton (ca. 1606–​54) and Jeremiah Burroughs (1599–​1646), also advocated Cameron’s doctrine of the subservient covenant.43 Second, unlike Rutherford and Burgess, who characterized Adam’s pre-​fall state as marked by grace, Goodwin did not resort to this category. Goodwin embraced the idea of God’s condescension in his creation of Adam, and in this act God gave all that was necessary for Adam to attain happiness in “a proportioned communion” with him.44 In contrast with Roman Catholic theologians, who argued that God gave Adam natural and supernatural gifts (the donum superadditum), Goodwin argued that God gave Adam everything he needed to succeed in the covenant of works by virtue of his creation in God’s image.45 Goodwin was familiar with the contemporary and historic debates over these questions and the distinction between Adam’s natural righteousness and supernatural grace: “Knowing and enjoying God in a way natural to man, and tending to a natural happiness in God, and the knowl­ edge of and fellowship with God in a way supernatural or above nature, which tends to a supernatural happiness to be had in him.”46 That Goodwin argues that Adam’s natural gifts were proportionate to his natural end means he could sidestep a number of issues, including the nature of Adam’s merit, the disproportionality between Adam’s finite obedience and the infinite reward, and the Roman Catholic doctrine of the donum superadditum, as well as the disputed question of whether the covenant of works was in some sense marked by grace. Third, Goodwin’s formulation requires a supralapsarian Christology. In Rutherford’s and Burgess’s formulations, Adam had the theoretical possibility of securing eternal life through his obedience to the stipulations of the covenant of works, but such was not the case in Goodwin’s understanding. The highest perch that Adam could have ascended was extended temporal life in the garden of Eden; moreover, Eden was ultimately nothing more than a type of heaven: “That paradise that Adam enjoyed was but the type

104  The Covenant of Works of the paradise above, and his Sabbath a type of heaven, as himself was of Christ. And therefore he was not to have entered into the heavenly paradise, except by this second Adam, Christ, whose paradise alone it was.”47 Put another way, even if sinless, Adam still required a mediator to reach heaven. Goodwin cited Cameron, however, to point out that while Adam was a type of Christ, this did not mean that Christ would become incarnate before Adam’s fall.48 In fact, Goodwin explicitly denied the idea of a supralapsarian Christology: “Neither yet, on the other side, do I, or dare I, affirm that Christ should have been incarnate, and assumed our nature, though man had never fallen; because all things are ordained to fall out no otherwise than they do.”49 In other words, Cameron and Goodwin explicitly reject the idea of a supralapsarian Christology. But their rejections notwithstanding, there appears to be little other option since Adam was incapable of reaching heaven apart from Christ, whether fallen or unfallen. In this respect Goodwin has a Christology similar to John Calvin’s (1509–​64) cosmic Christology, namely, that Christ is mediator regardless of the presence or absence of sin.50 Goodwin might respond that God did not ordain events to allow for the possibility of a supralapsarian Christology—​Providence is such that we only have an infralapsarian Christology.51 His formulation of the covenant of works has room for a supralapsarian Christology, but Goodwin bars and bolts the door to prevent access to the idea.

George Walker Another variant understanding of the covenant of works comes from George Walker, a participant in the assembly’s deliberations. In concert with earlier efforts to align the covenants of works and grace with the concepts of the law and the gospel, Walker opined, “The knowledge of the true difference of the Old and New Testament, the Covenant of Workes, and the Covenant of Grace, the Law and the Gospel, will not only give us great light, for the right understanding of divers particular speeches used in the New Testament by the Evangelists and Apostles, but also may keepe us from many dangerous errours.”52 Walker’s chief goal is to demonstrate the differences between law and gospel, a drum he continually beats.53 In fact, echoing Martin Luther’s (1483–​1546) categories of active and passive righteousness, Walker explains, “They are righteous, and are so called, not actually or effectually, but passively; that is, not making the doer of them righteous, but by the doers

The Westminster Standards  105 receiving of Christs righteousnesse by that faith whereof they are fruits.”54 Understanding the differences between law and gospel and the covenants of works and grace enabled people to recognize the categories of active and passive righteousness and thus understand the gospel itself. Like other theologians of the period, Walker defines his terms, such as testament and covenant, based upon his study of the Greek and Hebrew text. A testament is a person’s last will, and it becomes effective upon the death of the testator.55 In this vein, God bequeathed to the patriarchs righteousness of life under the Old Testament through the promised mediator.56 In the New Testament, Christ is no longer the promised mediator, but he has come and fulfilled the promises. To explain the significant differences between the Old and New Testaments, however, Walker appeals to the common distinction between the “outward forme and manner” of the testaments—​they may differ, but the testaments share the same substance.57 Christ the substance remains the same in both testaments, but the outward form of the Old Testament is largely typical. Christ’s advent then abolishes the types and leaves the substance.58 Under the broad rubric of the testaments, Walker nestles his doctrine of the covenant, which he defines as a mutual promise, bargain, and obligation, a definition he draws from the Hebrew and Greek terms berith and diatheke.59 But Walker does not unilaterally impose this definition upon all occurrences of the terms but rather acknowledges that context is decisive.60 From this lexicographical pad, Walker launches his definitions of the two covenants. The first, “the covenant of natural life and blessings,” or covenant of nature, is the agreement God made with Adam in his creation. The second, the covenant of grace, is the agreement God made with man after his fall.61 Like Cameron and Goodwin, Walker believed that Adam’s reward was “eternall Life on earth, and of all blessings needful to keep man in life” (Jer. 33:20).62 Walker compares the two covenants to explain how they agree and disagree. They have three points of agreement: parties (God and man), promises and conditions, and annexed seals.63 The two covenants differ in twelve points, as shown in Table 6.1.64 Walker presents a pedestrian account of the covenants of works and grace that bears the influence of Cameron and the notion of a temporal reward. Nevertheless, Walker was dissatisfied with Cameron’s subservient covenant and presented an alternative formulation to explain the relationship between the Adamic and Mosaic covenants. Rutherford and Burgess placed the Mosaic covenant under the covenant of grace, and Cameron and Goodwin identified it as a subservient

106  The Covenant of Works Table 6.1:  Differences between the covenants of nature and grace, according to George Walker Covenant of nature

Covenant of grace

God and man were friends God revealed himself as one God God was one party No mediator Only natural life promised Perfect righteousness required

God and man were enemies God revealed himself as triune God is on both sides Christ is mediator Eternal life promised Obedience to the enlarged whole law by Jesus Christ Spirit-​empowered righteousness Habitual holiness and active and passive obedience Obedience to the moral and ceremonial law Christ performs the requirements as surety Seals—​the Sabbath, sacrifices, circumcision, Passover, and now baptism and the Lord’s Supper Eternal

Natural righteousness Simple, actual obedience to the law Obedience to the moral law No surety Seals—​tree of life Abolished

covenant, but Walker argued that the Mosaic covenant was neither purely the covenant of works nor grace but was a mixed covenant. Walker believed that the covenant of works reappeared at Sinai.65 When God promulgated the law at Sinai, Israel heard the covenant of works—​they heard what God required of them.66 But this did not mean that the gospel was absent; rather, the covenants of works and grace were mixed together at Sinai. Walker came to this conclusion for a number of reasons. First, the Mosaic covenant chiefly promised earthly and temporal blessings, which were the same promised blessings of the covenant of works, which typified the blessings that would come through Christ and the new covenant.67 Second, God renewed the covenant of works with Israel when he gave them the law, but he also renewed the covenant of grace with them when he gave them the Levitical laws, the tabernacle, and the mercy seat, all of which were types of Christ.68 These things all “shadowed out” Christ.69 Hence the Mosaic covenant was partly conditional and partly absolute, partly legal, and partly evangelical.70

The Westminster Standards  107 Third, in Walker’s mind, a number of exegetical flags warranted his mixed-​ covenant conclusion. God delivered the moral law at Sinai, which Moses identified as a covenant (Deut. 4:13; 9:9). The law, then, “was given to Israel as a Covenant which required obedience for justification and life.”71 Walker believed this was summarized in the pithy Levitical precept, “Do this and live.”72 Walker, however, made an important distinction regarding the moral law that must be factored in his formulation. The moral law as a covenant required obedience for justification, so in this vein Moses presented the renewed covenant of works. By contrast, the moral law could function as a rule of life. With the advent of Christ, God abolished the law and covenant given by Moses with respect to its outward administration. He highlights the outward-​inward aspects of the Mosaic covenant to explain in what ways the law as a covenant has been abrogated. “Their obedience to the morall Law was first preached,” wrote Walker, “and afterward the sacrifice of Christ was promised in types and figures.” After the advent of Christ, pastors first preach Christ “and then after justification in him, the Law is set as a rule to walk by in the wayes of sanctification; and also to shew how it is impossible to finde perfect righteousness, & to be justified and saved, but only in Christ.”73 The moral law, then, can have one of two relationships to a person, depending on whether he is in or out of Christ. The law, according to Walker, is either a covenant, which demands obedience for justification, or it is a rule for sanctification if one is in union with Christ. Walker employs his inward-​outward distinction to explain how this mixed covenant functions pre-​and post-​ Christ: “There the promises were set forth and sealed darkly in types and figures, but now these figures and ceremonies are ceased, and Christ the substance of them is set forth naked in his owne colours before our eyes.”74

Confessional Formulation The various formulations and conflicting views on the covenant of works casts interpretive light upon the assembly’s final outcome in its statements about the doctrine and related matters. The confession opens its chapter on the doctrine of the covenant by acknowledging God’s voluntary condescension to his creatures by way of covenant because “the distance between God and the Creature is so great” (VII.i). But noticeably absent are any specifics. The divines cite a flurry of texts: Isaiah 40:13–​17; Job 9:32–​33; 1 Samuel 2:25; Psalm 113:5–​6; 100:2–​3; Job 22:2–​3; 35:7–​8; Luke 17:10; and Acts 17:24–​25.

108  The Covenant of Works Nevertheless, the divines do not explain the precise nature of this voluntary condescension. The confession says nothing about merit, connatural ends, supernatural ends, or the specific nature of Adam’s reward. Rather, the divines simply acknowledge that God was under no obligation to create man and enter into covenant with him. Curiously absent, for example, is any reference to pre-​fall grace. Given the differences of opinion between Rutherford and Burgess versus Goodwin, they believed that the language of “voluntary condescension” could accommodate a wide range of convictions. The divines, however, appear completely unified in the opinion that in a post-​fall world it is impossible for fallen creatures, redeemed or not, to merit pardon of sin or eternal life (XVI.v). When the divines discuss God’s covenant with Adam, they define it in the following manner: “The first Covenant made with Man, was a Covenant of Works, wherein Life was promised to Adam, and in him to his posterity, upon condition of perfect and personal obedience” (VII.ii). Deliberate ambiguity marks this description. On the one hand, the confession’s statement seems rather perfunctory—​it mentions the covenant of works, life as the promised reward, Adam’s covenantal role as federal head to his posterity, and the necessity of perfect and personal obedience. Moreover, the divines cite Galatians 3:12, Romans 10:5, and Romans 5:12–​20. Noteworthy are the imbedded references to Leviticus 18:5 through their citation of Galatians 3:12 and Romans 10:5. But upon closer examination, several important features emerge. First, the confession does not specify whether Adam’s reward was temporal or eternal life. The confession’s ambiguous use of life allowed theologians of both opinions to embrace the statement.75 Additionally, even though they cite Leviticus 18:5 through appeal to Galatians 3:12 and Romans 10:5, given the ambiguous use of life in the statement, the divines do not commit to a specific interpretation of the verse. Divines were therefore free to interpret Leviticus 18:5 in a number of different ways and still arrive at the mutually agreed conclusion that life was the reward without indicating whether it was temporal or eternal. In fact, on this point, though Rutherford argued that Adam’s reward was eternal life, he nevertheless was open to other views: “Yet I should not oppose, if any say that earthly blessings were given to Adam, as a reward of an actual obedience, as they are given to such as keep the Law (Deut. 28).”76 Burgess had a similar opinion on this matter.77 The confession, therefore, sidesteps the various opinions regarding the specific nature of Adam’s reward and matters related to the question.

The Westminster Standards  109 Several other important statements fill out the confession’s doctrine of the covenant of works. First, even though the term natural or covenant of nature was popular among theologians of the period, the Standards only employ two terms: the covenant of works (VII.ii) and covenant of life (WLC q. 19; WSC q. 12).78 In fact, the divines acknowledged that the first covenant was “commonly called the Covenant of Works” (WLC q. 29). There were, of course, other terms. Obadiah Sedgwick (ca. 1600–​58), for example, called the covenant of grace the covenant of life, the same term the Standards apply to the covenant of works.79 Second, the covenant of works makes another appearance in the confession’s treatment of the law. The confession explains that God gave to Adam “a Law, as a Covenant of Works, by which he bound him, and all his posterity to personal, entire, exact, and perpetuall obedience; promised life upon the fulfilling, and threatened death upon the breach of it: and indued him with power and ability to keep it” (XIX.i). Once again, the confession employs the ambiguous life as Adam’s reward, but noteworthy is the confession’s close identification of the covenant of works with moral law. The divines cite a number of passages to support their claim that connect the moral law and the covenant of works: Genesis 1:26–​27; cf. 2:17; Romans 2:14–​15; 10:5; 5:12, 19; Galatians 3:10, 12; Ecclesiastes 7:29; and Job 28:18. Theologians leading up to the assembly argued that one of the chief elements of the covenant of works was the moral law written upon Adam’s heart.80 In his Vindicae Legis—​for example, where he explains Romans 2:14–​15—​ Burgess addresses the law of nature in terms of (1) mere law, (2) as a covenant of works with Adam, and (3) the moral law given at Sinai.81 Burgess recognized that God gave Adam the law, which was partly natural and partly positive. That is, the law was inscribed upon Adam’s heart by virtue of his status as a divine image-​bearer.82 In agreement with patristic and medieval theologians, such as John Chrysostom (ca. 349–​407) and Aquinas, Burgess endorsed the concept of common notions (koinai ennonai).83 But in addition to natural law, God also gave Adam a positive law—​that is, a command that was, in the end, indifferent. In this case, God’s command not to eat of the tree of knowledge was a positive law.84 God thus made a twofold giving of the law—​one by outward precept and the other by implantation.85 Burgess argues that when God threatened death and promised life to Adam (Gen. 2:17), God gave Adam the law as a covenant. In Burgess’s mind, a bare command is merely the law, but when God appends promises and threatens, then the law becomes a covenant. Moreover, in this particular case, God not only presented a nudum pactum but he also sealed it with the sacrament of

110  The Covenant of Works the tree of life. Another point that leads Burgess to conclude that Adam received the law as a covenant is that all of Adam’s posterity became guilty of his sin. In other words, Adam functioned as a public person, or in a federal capacity.86 Adam, therefore, had to render his obedience, not faith, to remain faithful in this covenantal bond with God.87 Hence, the tree of life was not a sacrament of Christ to Adam, but rather was a seal to remind Adam of the life God gave him as well as the goal of his obedience.88 Other divines, such as William Bridge, were less sure and were willing to admit that the tree of life might point to Christ.89 A number of other elements must be factored in when Burgess explains the nature of the law as God delivered it to Moses at Sinai. Burgess asks whether the law of nature implanted in human beings is the same that Moses delivered. Burgess provides a positive but nevertheless qualified answer to this question. They are substantively the same, but in a post-​fall world, the law of nature is “almost defaced in us.” Additionally, Burgess notes there are many positive laws in the Mosaic law that God did not give to the nations and thus are not binding upon them. The Sabbath command, for example, bound Israel to this specific day of worship; the Gentiles “never heard of that determined time by God.” When God gave the law through Moses, it obligated the recipients to obey it, and though the commands overlapped with the law of nature, breach of the newly republished moral law brought greater obligation and penalty. Lastly, the moral law requires justifying faith and repentance.90 In other words, only regenerated and justified sinners can use the moral law correctly and to their benefit. What takes Burgess numerous pages to explain, the confession succinctly summarizes: “This Law, after his fall, continued to be a perfect rule of righteousnesse, and, as such, was delivered by God upon Mount Sinai, in Ten Commandments” (XIX.ii). The moral law, therefore, appears in the commands (implanted and positive) given to Adam, the law as a covenant, and the law delivered at Sinai through Moses.91 The implication of this structure is that God did not enter into the covenant of works with Adam until he specifically issued the Genesis 2:17 command with its appended promises and sanctions. In other words, God created Adam for covenant rather than in covenant. The Larger Catechism points in this direction when it describes God’s providence “toward man in the estate in which he was created.” The Larger Catechism implies that God first created Adam and then subsequently entered into the covenant of works (q. 19). But this issue is not entirely cut and dried; significant amounts of theological herbs in the field still require a more nuanced analysis. Rutherford

The Westminster Standards  111 unpacks Adam’s relationship to the covenant of works in a similar manner as Burgess but also provides some clarifying comments. Rutherford explains three ways in which one should relate Adam to the covenant of works: (1) as a creature, (2) as a reasonable creature, and (3) as a reasonable creature made in the image of God. First, Rutherford places Adam under the “covenant natural,” which is common to all creatures. That is, God creates the world in a covenantal manner, and hence God subjects Adam to this creational covenant by virtue of his status as a creature. Second, as a reasonable creature Adam has the obligation to obey God because he has God’s law written upon his heart. But this is not strictly a covenant, except in the broadest sense, because there are no appended promises or sanctions. Rutherford here parallels Burgess’s definition that the law only serves as a covenant when it has the appended promises and sanctions. Third, Rutherford explains, But man being considered as indued with the Image of God so the Holy God made with him a Covenant of life, which Commandments, though positive and Morall, yet not deduced from the Law of Nature, in the strictest sense, as to observe such a Sabbath, the seven from the Creation, the not eating of the forbidden tree, and with a promise of such a life. And therefore though Divines, as our solid and eminent Rollock call it a Covenant natural, as it is contradistinguished from the supernaturall Covenant of Grace, there is good reason so to call it.92

Rutherford acknowledges that key elements of the covenant of works are natural, and therefore the image of God is constitutive of the doctrine. To say, therefore, that Adam was created for covenant versus in covenant imposes a false dilemma on the issue because there would be no covenant of works apart from Adam’s image-​bearing status, something that he bore before the reception of the Genesis 2:17 command. There is a sense in which the divines acknowledge that the law of nature is the material cause and Genesis 2:17 is the formal cause of the covenant of works. Goodwin, for example, explains that God gave Adam the law on his heart at the instant of his creation and that Adam intuitively knew through these dictates, or common notions (koinai ennonai), that he would live by performing them.93 Recall that Goodwin believed the covenant of works was the jus creationis, or creation law, and thus God brought the human race into the covenant of nature by means of their creation and status as image-​bearers.94 In fact,

112  The Covenant of Works Goodwin believed that humanity’s covenant by creation mirrored the same terms that governed the angelic covenant.95 Goodwin’s, Rutherford’s, and Burgess’s nuanced explanations echo a similar formulation that appears in the confession: After God had made all other creatures, he created man, male and female, with reasonable and immortall souls, indued with knowledge, righteousnesse and true holiness, after his own Image; having the Law of God written in their hearts, and power to fulfill it: and yet, under a possibility of transgressing, being left to the liberty of their own will, which was subject unto change. Beside this Law written in their hearts, they received a command, not to eat of the tree of Knowledge of good and evil, which whiles they kept, they were happy in their Communion with God, and had Dominion over the Creatures. [IV.ii]

The confession presents both elements—​the law written upon the heart along with the ability to keep it, and the positive covenant-​formalizing command not to eat from the tree of knowledge. While one may distinguish these elements, the divines never posited the possibility that they could or should be separated. The natural and positive law are different sides of the same covenantal coin. Or in the words of Westminster divine William Strong (d. 1654), “Man stands bound to God by a double bond of Creation and stipulation.”96 Beyond this threefold explication of the law (law of nature, covenant of works, and moral law at Sinai), the covenant of works makes one more explicit appearance in the assembly’s treatment of the law.97 The confession states, “Although true Beleevers be not under the Law, as a Covenant of Works, to be thereby justified, or condemned; yet, is it of great use to them, as well as to others; in that, as a Rule of life informing them of the will of God, and their duty, it directs, and binds them to walk accordingly” (XIX. vi). Recall that Walker employed the distinction of the law as a rule versus a covenant in his explanation as to how the covenants of works and grace both appeared at Sinai.98 Walker did not coin this distinction, but its appearance in his 1640 work indicates its widespread use, and hence the divines codified it in the confession, which guaranteed its continued popularity. Once codified in the confession, the distinction appeared in numerous works.99 One Westminster divine who devoted significant space to explain the distinction was the aforementioned William Strong. Strong preached a series of sermons that was eventually published as a large tome, A Discourse of the Two

The Westminster Standards  113 Covenants. According to the preface written by Theophilus Gale (1628–​78), one of Strong’s chief concerns was refuting those who destroyed the grace of the gospel by exalting the letter of the law as a covenant.100 In other words, he was concerned with legalism, or neonomianism—​the effort to seek justification by means of obedience to the law. What makes this an important aspect of the codification of the covenant of works is the collection of proof texts that the confession connects to the idea that the law serves as a covenant of works for those who are not true believers. The confession’s (XIX.vi) series of proof texts presents the antithesis between being under law versus grace (Rom. 6:14), that a person cannot be justified by works of the law but only by faith (Gal. 2:16), that Christ suffered the curse of the law (Gal. 3:13), that he was born under the law to redeem those under its curse (Gal. 4:4–​5), that faith in Jesus frees sinners from “which ye could not be justified by the law of Moses” (Acts 13:39), and that there is no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus (Rom. 8:1). This chain of passages amounts to a somewhat different exegetical matrix from which theologians supported the covenant of works. Strong presents detailed argumentation from within this matrix and provides others to demonstrate how the law functions as a covenant of works. In a sermon on Romans 7:8, “But sin taking occasion by the commandment wrought in me all manner of concupiscence,” Strong maintains that those who are in union with Christ no longer know the law as a covenant, whereas, conversely, “Every unregenerate man is under the Law as a Covenant of works.”101 He partly bases this conclusion on his understanding of Romans 6:14, namely, that the regenerate are no longer under the law but grace—​one of the same texts cited by the confession. When Paul writes that we are no longer under law, Strong infers that he means under the law as a covenant. Alluding to Romans 7:1–​4 on being married to the law as a husband, Strong argues that once believers are in Christ, they are dead to the law and thus freed from it. Christ frees believers from the husband of the law by his own mediatory work (Col. 2:14). Because of Christ’s work as our covenant surety, we are therefore dead to the law and thus freed from its grip.102 Invoking another common text, Strong argues that whoever is under the law is a child of Hagar, the bond-​woman, whereas those who are under grace are children of the promise—​the children of Sarah, the free-​woman (Gal. 4). Recall, earlier formulations from theologians like William Perkins (1558–​1602) baldly associated Hagar with Sinai and the covenant of works.103 Strong presents a more nuanced exegesis of the text to argue that, in a qualified manner, Hagar

114  The Covenant of Works does represent the covenant of works. Other divines, such as William Bridge, advance similar arguments concerning Hagar, Sinai, and the covenant of works.104 God does not change the covenant of works and its terms but rather changes the sinner’s legal status and thus delivers him from it.105 Either one is in union with Adam and thus under the law or in union with Christ and under grace.106 Given that the covenants of works and grace overlap in the confession’s treatment of the law, questions naturally arise regarding their precise relationship. Once again, the confession does not provide too many specifics; it primarily focuses upon soteriological issues. In other words, if one is a true believer in Christ, then the moral law is a rule for the Christian life; conversely, if a person is outside of Christ, then the moral law is a covenant of works to him. Whether the Mosaic covenant is subservient to the covenant of grace, or that the two covenants are mixed, or that the Mosaic covenant is externally or accidentally in the form of the covenant of works but its substance is of the covenant of grace, the confession does not say. This stands in significant contrast, for example, to the explicit rejections of Cameron’s doctrine of the subservient covenant in the Formula Consensus Helvetica (1675).107 Strong echoes the formulations of Burgess and Rutherford. Strong believed that God had a twofold intention in presenting the law at Sinai: (1) to set forth the covenant of works to carnal, unbelieving Jews, and (2) to set forth Christ and the covenant of grace in dark shadows. In the former sense, God “set forth a copy of the covenant of works, that God made with Adam before his fall,” but God did not intend it so that sinners could attain righteousness and life by their obedience, but he intended it as a subservient covenant (foedus subserviens) in order to advance the cause of the gospel.108 At this point Strong echoes Cameron’s subservient covenant formulation. But at the same time, Strong also presents a number of nuanced arguments to qualify what he means when he says that the Mosaic covenant was subservient to the gospel and new covenant. Unlike Cameron, Strong went as far as to say that the Mosaic covenant was substantively the same as the covenant of works for unbelieving Israelites. But as quickly as he makes this statement, he qualifies it: “It is given in the form of a Covenant of Works, with a this do, and thou shalt live; and so it was afterwards by Christ, and by the Prophets also preached: it was to the carnal Jews plainly a Covenant of Works, not in Gods intention, but by their own corruption.”109 Now even though he argued that the Mosaic covenant was substantively the same as the covenant of works, he also believed it differed in many ways from the covenant of works. Human

The Westminster Standards  115 beings no longer stood in a state of innocence but in a condition of sin, thus God took the covenant of works and made it subservient to the covenant of grace—​God took Hagar and subordinated her to Sarah. Broadly considered, the law contained all of the doctrine delivered at Sinai, including the gospel and hence the covenant of grace. Narrowly considered, the law holds forth the principle of, “Do this and live” (see Rom. 10:5). Broadly, then, the law is the covenant of grace; narrowly and strictly considered, it is the covenant of works.110 The last significant element of the confession’s doctrine of the covenant of works appears in its statements regarding imputed sin. The confession states, “They [Adam and Eve] being the roote of all man-​kinde, the guilt of this sin was imputed, and the same death in sin and corrupted nature, conveied to all their posterity descending from them by ordinary generation” (VI.iii; Gen. 1:27–​28; 2:16–​17; Acts 17:26; cf. Rom. 5:12, 16–​19; 1 Cor. 15:21–​22, 48). While the divines may have been divided over the precise nature of Adam’s reward and the correct exegetical path, they were more united on the federal elements of the covenant of works. But the confession does not codify a very narrow federalism in the covenant of works. In this respect, historians must read the confession against the backdrop of the Placaeus controversy. Josua Placaeus (ca. 1596–​1655) was a theology professor at the Academy of Saumur. He sparked significant controversy at the Synod of Charenton (1644–​45) when ministers accused him of denying the doctrine of imputed guilt. By this point in the development of the doctrine, the concept of federally imputed guilt gained widespread acceptance. Theologians such as Robert Rollock (ca. 1555–​99) and James Ussher coordinated Adam’s covenantal existence with the doctrine of original sin to account for a federalized understanding of the transmission of Adam’s first sin.111 That is, Adam was a representative for all of humanity—​when he sinned, all sinned. Hence, God imputed the guilt of Adam’s sin to his offspring. The Synod of Charenton condemned Placaeus for denying the doctrine of imputed sin.112 Placaeus responded to the condemnation by claiming he affirmed the doctrine of imputed sin but nevertheless employed a distinction between mediate and immediate imputation. Mediate imputation is consequent whereas immediate is antecedent. In immediate imputation the universal guilt for Adam’s sin according to the order of nature (ordo naturae) precedes the inherent corruption present in the human race. The opposite is true with mediate imputation, where according to the order of nature, inherent corruption precedes guilt.113 In other words, do people sin because they are guilty (immediate)

116  The Covenant of Works or are they guilty because they sin (mediate)? Placaeus created a firestorm of controversy that raged for years to come. The confession takes a nuanced approach to the question of imputed guilt. On the one hand, it does not advocate a doctrine of the realistic transmission of sin. Following in the steps of Rollock and Ussher, the confession openly embraces the doctrine of imputed sin with the phrase, “the guilt of this sin was imputed.”114 Placaeus rejects such an idea and explicitly argues that original sin comes only through natural generation.115 On the other hand, unlike the Synod of Charenton, the confession is silent with regard to Placaeus’s doctrine of mediate imputation.116 Once again, the confession’s silence regarding mediate imputation stands in stark contrast to the direct condemnations of the Formula Consensus Helvetica.117 Some have speculated that there was little time for the Westminster Assembly to determine the orthodoxy of Placaeus’s views, given that the synod’s condemnation was so close to the period when they finalized the confession.118 This conclusion is warranted, given that both bodies were meeting and deliberating over doctrinal formulations at roughly the same time.

Conclusion The Westminster Confession has been associated with all that is cold, rigid, and inflexible—​an oppressive bridle that has kept the Reformed tradition from freely roaming the theological plains. Confessional codification does set doctrinal boundaries. At the same time, this chapter demonstrates that on many issues the divines drew circles rather than lines in the sand. That is, they did not set forth a rigid doctrine of the covenant of works where every detail was defined, boxed, and shelved. Rather, the assembly held a number of different convictions regarding the covenant of works and thus wrote the confession in such a manner as to house these contrasting views. To be sure, at certain points the confession gets very specific and delineates the precise boundaries between orthodoxy and heterodoxy. The confession’s chapter on the doctrine of justification, for example, amply illustrates this point. God justifies sinners not, by infusing righteousnesse into them, but by pardoning their sins, and by accounting and accept their persons as righteous; not, for anything wrought in them, or done by them, but for Christs sake alone; nor, by

The Westminster Standards  117 imputing faith it self, the act of beleeving, or any other evangelical obedience, to them, as their righteousnesse, but, by imputing the obedience and satisfaction of Christ unto them, they receiving, and resting on him and his righteousness by faith; which faith, they have, not of themselves, it is the gift of God. [XI.i]

This one statement makes more than ten qualifications regarding the precise nature of justification. The divines purposefully avoid this type of precision with the covenant of works and merely state that God voluntarily condescended to humanity, made a covenant with Adam, and offered him life. The confession is also silent regarding the precise relationship between the Adamic and Mosaic covenants, other than to say that if one is in Christ, then the law is not a covenant but a rule. The confession also says nothing about mediate imputation but simply affirms that God imputed Adam’s sin to his offspring and thus presents the doctrine of immediate imputation. This deliberate silence and ambiguity demonstrate that theologians such as John Cameron made a significant impact upon the doctrine of the covenant of works, so much so that the divines crafted the confession to accommodate his unique contributions. Some were quite positively disposed to Cameron’s theological covenantal formulations and terminology. This acceptance appears in Goodwin and Sedgwick, for example.119 Creating confessional room for a formulation, however, did not mean that all of the framers agreed with the various views. Some, such as Calamy and Rutherford were critical of Cameron’s threefold covenantal scheme.120 But confessional room versus personal approval of a formulation are related yet nevertheless distinct issues. Personal conviction is different from a range of plausible views within a diversified confessional orthodoxy. The confession’s ambiguity at certain points also reveals that the divines purposefully steered away from codifying any particular doctrine of pre-​fall grace or Adamic merit. They instead established the boundaries of the doctrine and left a lot of room for different opinions regarding the precise nature of the covenant of works. Far from rigid and inflexible, the divines purposefully designed the confession to house a number of different views regarding the covenant of works. Other theologians of High Orthodoxy did not prove to be as flexible, as the next chapter reveals.

7 The Formula Consensus Helvetica What one generation receives with open arms, another generation rejects. This general observation marks the reception of certain elements of the doctrine of the covenant of works as it pertains to the views of John Cameron (ca. 1579–​1625). In the early seventeenth century a number of theologians—​such as Edward Leigh (1602–​71), Moises Amyraut (1596–​1664), and members of the Westminster Assembly—​positively received elements of Cameron’s threefold covenant view.1 Cameron’s influence was significant enough that the Westminster Assembly created confessional room for his view by leaving the precise nature of Adam’s reward undefined. The Westminster Confession merely states that God promised Adam “life,” which allowed advocates of both views (temporal or eternal life as the reward) to subscribe to the confession’s statements regarding the covenant of works. As time passed, however, some Reformed theologians grew concerned about perceived theological threats coming from the Academy at Saumur, the chief point of dissemination for the views of Cameron and Amyraut, which led to the creation of the Formula Consensus Helvetica (FCH) in 1675. Theologians such as Francis Turretin (1623–​87) of Geneva and Johannes Heidegger (1633–​98) of Zurich composed the FCH to counteract what they perceived were the corrosive effects of Salmurian teachings. This chapter therefore surveys the history leading up to the creation of the FCH and specifically explores its treatment of the covenant of works. This confessional document provides an excellent window to observe the ongoing development and reception of the covenant of works during High Orthodoxy (1630/​40–​1700). This exploration not only examines the FCH’s statements on the covenant of works but also employs contextual theological illumination from theologians of the period, but most notably Turretin and Heidegger. The chapter then concludes with summary observations about the reception and development of the covenant of works in the late seventeenth century. The FCH represents a narrower understanding of the doctrine because it rejects elements that an earlier generation were willing to

The Covenant of Works. J. V. Fesko, Oxford University Press (2020). © Oxford University Press. DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780190071363.001.0001

120  The Covenant of Works accept. Nevertheless, the FCH’s influence was short-​lived, and the confessional document was quickly abandoned.

Background to the Formula Consensus In the wake of the Remonstrant controversy and the ensuing Reformed response at the Synod of Dort (1618–​19), numerous Reformed theologians were concerned about the rising popularity of Remonstrant theology and the apparent compromises that were emerging from the Academy at Saumur.2 A number of doctrinal issues streamed from Saumur that gave theologians concern, including Amyraut’s hypothetical universalism, Josué La Place’s (ca. 1596–​1655) doctrine of mediate imputation, Louis Cappel’s (1585–​1658) rejection of the authority of the Masoretic vowel points, and Cameron and Amyraut’s threefold doctrine of the covenants.3 Theologians wanted to create a confessional document that would address these doctrinal threats. Opposition to Salmurian theology did not arise de novo with the FCH but in the middle of the seventeenth century in Geneva. Alexandre Morus (1616–​70) was a professor of theology at the Academy of Geneva who triggered one of the first formal responses because he was suspected of teaching Remonstrant theology due to his Salmurian sympathies.4 The Company of Pastors responded by drawing up the Règlement of 1647 and the Theses of 1649. These documents brought a brief respite from doctrinal controversy in Geneva, but by 1669, other professors became supportive of Salmurian doctrine and controversy erupted once again.5 Morus composed the Theses to clear his name from accusations of heterodoxy and affirmed the following points: • The immediate imputation of Adam’s sin to his posterity and rejected mediate imputation. • The predestination of the elect and the application of Christ’s merit and satisfaction solely to them, and the rejection of a conditional decree to offer Christ’s satisfaction to the non-​elect. • The promises of the law are not strictly for temporal and earthly blessing but heavenly and eternal (céleste et éternelle) blessing, and thus the promises of the legal covenant (l’Alliance légale) are not merely earthly and temporal. Thus, the fathers of the Old Testament had the same

The Formula Consensus Helvetica  121 mediator and savior, and shared in the same spirit of adoption as the New Testament saints.6 Of particular interest is the last set of theses, which dealt specifically with Cameron’s unique understanding of the Mosaic covenant and its rewards. While the theses do not directly address the covenant of works, they nevertheless touch upon issues related to its reward, namely earthly versus heavenly rewards. This was an issue specifically under debate at the Westminster Assembly, an issue on which the divines allowed a diversified orthodoxy.7 But in the climate of suspicion, Genevan theologians closed the door on temporal rewards for the covenant of works. In fact, the form of subscription for these theses specifically required signees to “flee the novelties” (fuir les nouveautés) of universal grace and mediate imputation and to conform their opinions to the confession of faith of the Reformed Churches of France, the Synod of Dort, and “our catechism,” presumably the Genevan Catechism (1549).8 The Theses and the Règlement formed the confessional precedent for the FCH.9 By 1669 concern over the influx of Salmurian teaching reached its pinnacle, and theologians from among the various Swiss cantons met in Baden to decide how to respond to the encroaching threat. There were concerns about a number of different issues, such as the Salmurian teachings, some of the views of Johannes Cocceius (1603–​69), and Johannes Piscator’s (1546–​ 1625) rejection of the imputed active obedience of Christ. Participants in the meeting, which included Heidegger of Zurich, wanted to emulate the Lutheran Formula Concord (1577), which rejected doctrines rather than individuals. The participants in the Baden meeting decided only to address Salmurian doctrines.10 In 1674 the Swiss Evangelical Diet met and appointed Heidegger to prepare a creedal document.11 Heidegger received input from a number of different colleagues, most notably Turretin.12 The document eventually consisted of twenty-​six articles that addressed the authority and inspiration of the Masoretic vowel points, Amyraut’s hypothetical universalism, Placaeus’s doctrine of mediate imputation, and Cameron’s and Amyraut’s threefold covenant theology.13 By 1679 Basle, Zurich, Bern, Neuchatel, and Geneva adopted the FCH, though there was dissent among the ministers and professors of these cities. Some refused to sign because they had sympathies for Saumur; dissenters were allowed to teach as long as they did not contradict the FCH.14 At Geneva the Company of Pastors required the faculty of the academy and

122  The Covenant of Works candidates for the ministry to subscribe to the FCH, but several Genevan professors signed under protest.15 The protestors objected to the FCH because they believed it unduly narrowed the boundaries of orthodoxy; it was the novel imposition of unprecedented stricter boundaries. Others simply viewed it as an explanatory appendix to the Second Helvetic Confession (1566).16 On issues such as the affirmation of the inspiration of the vowel points, the charge of novelty rings true. No church creed before or after the FCH codified such views. But as the following exposition shows, the lion’s share of the affirmations about the covenant of works merely reemphasized already-​existing convictions about the doctrine, though at certain points the FCH does eliminate the earlier flexibility of the Westminster Confession on the precise nature of Adam’s reward and the permissibility of holding a threefold covenant theology.

The Formula Consensus on the Covenant of Works As just noted, the FCH addresses a number of doctrinal issues, but the following analysis focuses specifically upon the covenant of works by examining its statement on the doctrine, the nature of Adam’s reward, immediate imputation, and the relationship between the covenants of works and grace.

The Covenant of Works The FCH has the unique role of being one of the few Reformed confessional documents that codifies the covenant of works. Only the Irish Articles (1615) and the Westminster Standards (1647) and its derivatives (e.g., the Savoy Declaration and Second London Confession) codify the doctrine; the doctrine does not formally appear in any other major Reformed confession. That being said, while not presenting a full-​fledged explanation of the doctrine, the FCH nevertheless invokes it: “Having created man in this manner, he put him under the Covenant of Works, and in this Covenant freely promised him communion with God, favor, and life, if indeed he acted in obedience to his will” (VII).17 The statement is sparse and therefore requires contextual illumination from theologians of the period to gain a better sense of its significance. Heidegger, for example, defines the covenant of works as “the covenant of God with Adam in his innocence as head of the whole human

The Formula Consensus Helvetica  123 race, which required from man perfect obedience to the law, and for such obedience promised heavenly life, but upon transgression eternal death.”18 In line with the FCH, Heidegger likewise describes the covenant of works as that which manifests the goodness (bonitate) of God and was the context for divine-​human communion and friendship (amicitia).19 In slight distinction to Heidegger, Turretin prefers the term covenant of nature (foedus naturae) but otherwise maintains a similar definition: “The covenant of nature is that which God the Creator made with innocent man as his creature, concerning the giving of eternal happiness and life under the condition of perfect and personal obedience.”20 Turretin preferred the term covenant of nature because God founded the covenant on human nature, that is, man’s God-​created integrity and natural powers. Other theologians of the period likewise preferred this term for similar reasons.21 These two definitions capture the common formulations and definitions of the doctrine among various High Orthodox theologians.22 Among these various definitions and statements are several noteworthy elements. First, in concert with theologians of the period, both Heidegger and Turretin connect the covenant of works to the image of God.23 Johannes Cocceius (1603–​69), for example, writes, “God did not describe in a book what Adam was required to do. For it was recorded in the tablets of his heart (Jer. 17:1), because he had been created upright (Eccl. 7:29) and in the image of God (Gen. 1:26), that is, in wisdom (Col. 3:10) and the sanctity of truth (Eph. 4:24).”24 Theologians connected the image with the covenant of works because God published the requirements of his covenant through natural and special revelation—​natural revelation by the law’s inscription on the heart as part of the divine image and special revelation in the revealed command not to eat from the tree of knowledge. There is a sense in which, therefore, Adam’s very creation constitutes his covenantal existence because he has the stipulations of the covenant inscribed on his heart in his creation. A second noteworthy facet is the way in which Turretin and Heidegger describe God’s communion with Adam. Heidegger defines the covenant of works as the binding agreement in which Adam must render perfect obedience, but he also describes this covenant as one of friendship (amicitia) and communion.25 Turretin characterizes God’s approbation of Adam’s obedience as an outflowing of love to Adam for doing his duty.26 Witsius combines the themes of covenant, the law of nature, and love when he writes, “The law of nature could be nothing but a precept of conformity to God, and of perfect love; which is the same in the Decalogue.”27 À Brakel similarly notes,

124  The Covenant of Works “Adam doubtlessly had the most perfect law. The most perfect law is the law of love.”28 In this vein, Heidegger explains that the sum of the law and hence the law of nature was to love God with one’s whole heart, soul, and strength; thus this too characterized the covenant of works.29 So, then, law, covenant, and love all converge in the covenant of works and inform the FCH’s statement that it was the context for communion with God. Reformed Orthodox theologians like Turretin and Heidegger did not impose these ideas on the text of Scripture but rather gleaned them from a close lexical and exegetical study. Heidegger, for example, presents a lexical study of the term covenant (foedus) and notes that it derives from the term to strike (feriendo), which arose from the priestly ceremonies when they slaughtered sacrificial animals. He also connects the term to the Hebrew term berith and the verb to create (bara).30 He notes that the Scriptures use the term foedus improperly and properly, and as a synecdoche, metonymy, or metaphor. As a synecdoche—​that is, a figure of speech where a part refers to the whole—​ Heidegger states that it denotes a command or promise (Job 31:1; Exo 34:27–​28; Hos. 6:7; Gen. 9:10–​17; Isa. 59:21; 2 Sam. 23:5; Jer. 33:25). The New Testament takes the Hebrew term berith and translates it as diatheke or, in Latin, testamentum. As a metonym—​that is, when one thing is substituted for another—​covenant refers to the tables of the law, the ark, or signs of the covenant (Num. 10:33; Gen. 17:13). As a metaphor—​that is, where one applies a figure of speech to something that is not literally true—​Heidegger explains that the term denotes an obligation that yields goodwill and friendship such as with the covenant between Tyre and Israel (Amos 1:9).31 In short, like other Reformed Orthodox theologians, Heidegger presented detailed lexical and exegetical analysis to arrive at his theological conclusions regarding the existence and nature of the covenant of works.32 From a similar lexical and exegetical foundation, Turretin constructed his own doctrine of the covenant of works. Turretin proves the covenant of works from the following four theological observations. First, God created man in his image and inscribed his law on his heart, and thus Adam as a rational creature received the promise of rewards and punishment for his obedience or disobedience, which was supposed to lead to communion and happiness (communionem beatitatis).33 Second, the fact that God imposed a law on Adam (Gen 2:17) implies the presence of a federal agreement and contract (pactum et contractum aliquem foederalem), because whoever receives the command binds himself to the promises and sanctions. Turretin correlates Genesis 2:17 with Leviticus 18:5

The Formula Consensus Helvetica  125 to explain the nature of God’s commands, that the person who performs them will live in them (cf. Deut. 27:26; Ezek. 20:11; Matt. 19:17; Gal. 3:12).34 The list of texts that Turretin cites is important because it is not merely a series of crass proof texts but rather reflects the ongoing exegetical discussion regarding the intra-​canonical exegesis of Leviticus 18:5.35 Deuteronomy 27:26 reiterates the point of Leviticus 18:5, that one must do the law to receive its promises. Ezekiel 20:11 repeats the same idea: “I gave them my statutes, and shewed them my judgments, which if a man do, he shall even live in them.” Key in this string of texts are the subsequent New Testament texts that employ and interpret Leviticus 18:5. In Matthew 19:17, Christ tells an inquirer, “But if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.” Turretin’s citation of Galatians 3:12 functions in a similar vein when the apostle contrasts salvation by obedience to the law versus faith in Christ: “But the law is not of faith, rather ‘The one who does them shall live by them.’ ” Turretin’s argument is brief but nevertheless has deep exegetical roots, which reveal the matrix of texts that supports the doctrine of the covenant of works.36 In addition to these same texts, Cocceius, for example, appeals to Romans 7:10: “The very commandment that promised life to me brought death.” Cocceius comments, “It follows that this reward, if ever, had a place before the fall. For after the fall the law is no longer able to give life (Rom. 3:20; 8:3; Gal. 3:21).”37 This evidence stands in stark contrast to the assessment of Philip Schaff (1819–​93), who claimed that Reformed theologians only cited one text in favor of the doctrine, namely, Hosea 6:7.38 Third, Turretin appeals to Hosea 6:7, where the prophet likens Israel’s transgression of the covenant to Adam’s.39 Up until the mid-​to late seventeenth century Hosea 6:7 did not feature prominently as an exegetical pillar in formulations of the covenant of works. But by the middle of the seventeenth century, theologians regularly appealed to it.40 They did not baldly cite it but compared it with Job 31:33, which presents the same Hebrew phrase, k’adam. In other words, they compared the specific Hebrew grammar of two different texts in order to reach the exegetical conclusion that Hosea 6:7 speaks of an Adamic covenant. Others, such as à Brakel, present more detailed exegesis of Hosea 6:7.41 Fourth, and finally, the goodness and philanthropy of God, man’s created state, and desire for happiness were engraved on his heart in his creation and prove the existence of the covenant of works. Adam was, therefore, supposed to fulfill it through his obedience. This fourth claim summarizes the previous three arguments.42 In short, Turretin’s arguments rest on a series of

126  The Covenant of Works commonly cited biblical texts, which includes Leviticus 18:5, 1 Corinthians 15:44–​45, Romans 2:14–​15, Romans 7:14, Hosea 6:7, and Genesis 2:16–​17.43

Eternal Life as Adam’s Reward Although Article VII states that God placed Adam under the covenant of works and promised him “life,” the following article eliminates any potential ambiguity of whether this was temporal or eternal life: Moreover that promise connected to the Covenant of Works was not a continuation only of earthly life and happiness, but the possession especially of eternal and celestial life, a life, namely of both body and soul in heaven, if indeed man ran the course of perfect obedience, with unspeakable joy in communion with God. For not only did the Tree of Life prefigure this very thing unto Adam, but the power of the law, which, being fulfilled by Christ, who went under it in our place, awards to us nothing other than celestial life in Christ who kept the same righteousness of the law. The power of the law also threatens man with both temporal and eternal death. [VIII]

Recall that at the Westminster Assembly the precise nature of Adam’s reward was an issue of debate and the divines decided to leave the issue undefined, which created confessional legitimacy for the idea that Adam’s reward was only extended temporal life in the garden.44 But by 1675, opinions changed and there was now less tolerance for this idea. In fact, in the following article the FCH devotes a second paragraph to the rejection of this perceived error: Wherefore we cannot agree with the opinion of those who deny that a reward of heavenly bliss was offered to Adam on condition of obedience to God. We also do not admit that the promise of the Covenant of Works was anything more than a promise of perpetual life abounding in every kind of good that can be suited to the body and soul of man in a state of perfect nature, and the enjoyment thereof in an earthly Paradise. For this also is contrary to the sound sense of the Divine Word, and weakens the power of the law considered in itself. [IX]

What led to the FCH’s rejection of Cameron’s view? Why was the Westminster Assembly willing to leave this issue confessionally undefined, whereas by

The Formula Consensus Helvetica  127 1675 Turretin claimed, “The received opinion among the orthodox is that the promise given to Adam was not only of a happy life to be continued in paradise, but of a heavenly and eternal life”?45 Did Turretin exaggerate when he claimed that eternal life was the received opinion among the “orthodox”? Turretin’s claim was not an exaggeration; by the late seventeenth century the position was dominant.46 But why would opinions shift and the Reformed Orthodox close the door on Cameron’s view? There were two likely reasons behind this shift in opinion. First, the Reformed Orthodox no longer associated with Cameron the view of temporal life as Adam’s reward but with Amyraut and the Academy of Saumur. As noted earlier, decades of suspicion and controversy brewed between the Swiss cantons and the Academy of Saumur over various doctrinal issues. Second, the Reformed Orthodox believed that Amyraut’s view looked too much like Socinian and Remonstrant views regarding Adam’s pre-​fall state. The Remonstrant versus Reformed Orthodox exegeses of Leviticus 18:5 stand in stark opposition to one another. Turretin’s own exegetical reasoning closely parallels the argument presented in Article IX of the FCH. Turretin presents six reasons to support his claim that eternal life was the reward of the covenant of works: 1. The law promises heavenly and eternal life—​the one who does these things shall live by them (Lev. 18:5; Matt. 19:16–​17; Rom. 7:10). 2. Christ confirmed this exegetical conclusion because he fulfilled what Adam failed to do, and Christ provides eternal life (Rom. 8:4; Gal. 4:5). 3. God threatened Adam with both temporal and eternal death (Heb. 2:14). 4. Eternal life is the highest state of good. 5. Man’s dignity demands eternal life. 6. The state of the way (status viae) should differ from the state of the native country (status patriae). That is, Adam’s reward should be greater than his original state in the garden. Turretin concludes his arguments with a citation of John Calvin’s (1509–​ 64) comments on Genesis 2:17: “The earthly life indeed would have been temporal; into heaven, however he would have migrated without destruction and uninjured.”47 For the Reformed Orthodox, the covenantal seal of the promise of eternal life was the tree of life, a sign that first and foremost pointed to eternal life, not to Christ. Only after the fall does the tree of life

128  The Covenant of Works now refracted through the covenant of grace point to Christ, the only means by which fallen sinners can obtain eternal life.48 Remonstrant theologian Philip von Limborch (1633–​ 1712), on the other hand, offers a completely different take on these same texts. Unlike Reformed Orthodox theologians, Limborch acknowledged that God gave Adam a positive law in the prohibition against eating from the tree of knowledge. But he believed that the Scriptures were silent regarding the precise reason for this prohibition—​it was merely a “trial of Adam’s obedience” (experimentum capere voluisse obedientiae Adami) and nothing more. Adam was not bound to God by a covenant.49 Limborch’s views stand in contrast with those of Jacob Arminius (1560–​1609), who was an early-​seventeenth-​ century advocate of the covenant of works.50 Adam’s trial of obedience was not so that he could secure eternal life by his successful probation. Rather, he would have never died and God would have eventually translated him to a heavenly state.51 The tree of life was a type of eternal life, but nowhere do the Scriptures indicate that it was a promise of eternal life.52 From these basic observations Limborch refutes the common Reformed Orthodox exegesis of Leviticus 18:5. Limborch bases his rejection on two chief points. First, he argues that the Reformed Orthodox exegesis of Leviticus 18:5 erroneously presupposes that God and Adam were in covenant. Just because God prescribed and required the observation of moral precepts did not mean that Adam was in covenant with God. Second, Limborch did not believe the law (Lev. 18:5) promised eternal life, whether in the Old or New Testaments. Limborch was familiar with the commonly cited exegetical chain of texts in this regard and notes Matthew 19:16–​17, Ezekiel 20:11, Galatians 3:12, and Romans 7:10.53 One of the likely contributing factors behind the rejection of Cameron and Amyraut’s view regarding Adam’s reward was that the Reformed Orthodox perceived that Remonstrant and Socinian theology was on the rise and was a greater threat in the latter seventeenth century than during the 1640s when the Westminster Assembly debated and discussed these same issues. But in taking temporal life off the table as an option for Adam’s reward, the Reformed Orthodox had to deal with the relationship between Adam’s obedience and his reward. One of the attractive features of Cameron’s view was that it purportedly cut the Gordian knot regarding the question of how a finite creature could somehow merit eternal life. A finite creature with his finite obedience could conceivably merit a finite reward, namely, extended temporal life. But now that the Reformed Orthodox determined that eternal life

The Formula Consensus Helvetica  129 was the reward, how did they account for the purported disparity between Adam’s finite obedience and the disproportionate reward of eternal life? The FCH does not explicitly address the question, but Articles VIII and IX repeatedly connect promise with the covenant of works. That is, the FCH characterizes Adam’s reward as the promise of eternal life. An important distinction lies behind this characterization. Rather than invoke categories of pre-​fall grace, High Orthodox Reformed theologians plied the doctrine of the covenant to greater use. Turretin, for example, appeals to the nature of God’s promise to Adam rather than argue that Adam required God’s grace. The promise was “gratuitous, as depending upon a pact or gratuitous promise [fuit gratuita, utpote pendens ex pacto seu promissione gratuita] (by which God was bound not to man, but to himself and to his own goodness, fidelity and truth, Rom. 3:3; 2 Tim. 2:13).”54 The reward, therefore, is “not as to the proportion and condignity of the duty rendered to God by man (Rom. 8:18; Luke 17:10), but to the pact of God and justice (i.e., the fidelity of him making it).”55 Turretin was willing to say that Adam, therefore, could have merited eternal life through his obedience, but it would not be merit “properly and rigorously” (proprie et in rigore) considered. God is a debtor to no man, and taken by itself, man’s work does not have condignity or intrinsic value: “It can bear no proportion to the infinite reward of life.” Only by God’s “pact and the liberal promise of God” (ex pacto, et liberalis Dei promissione) can man, therefore, expect the reward of eternal life on the ground of his obedience.56 Similar formulations appear in other High Orthodox theologians.57 But lest one prematurely conclude that he whittled Adam’s relationship with God to cold legal terms as a mutual agreement between equals, Turretin offers two important qualifications. First, Turretin acknowledged that God and man were in no way equal; thus, the only way God could enter into covenant with man was by way of his “infinite condescension.” God showered Adam with his philanthropy, truthfulness, and fidelity, but most importantly, his love by means of the covenant of works.58 Conversely, Adam’s fulfillment of God’s covenantal precepts was supposed to be a testimony of “his uncorrupted love and obedience towards God.”59 Second, while Turretin did not prefer to invoke the category of pre-​fall grace, Adam was nevertheless supposed to rely upon the assistance (auxilio) of God. By virtue of his creation Adam had the natural powers to fulfill the requirements of the covenant of works, but “he still needed the help of God both to actuate these faculties and powers to preserve them from change.” “This help,” writes Turretin, “did not tend to the infusion of any new power, but only to exercising the efficacy

130  The Covenant of Works of that power which he had received.”60 Cocceius makes a similar argument when he writes, “For that reason grace, or as we say more properly rectitude, in which he was endowed in creation, we rightly deny to be called making acceptable.” Cocceius specifically cites Robert Bellarmine’s (1542–​1621) view as a foil to his own, in which Bellarmine claimed that Adam required God’s grace to make him acceptable even in the pre-​fall state.61 The covenant of works, therefore, was the arena of God’s benevolence and love and the context for Adam to respond with his own love to and for God.

Immediate Imputation The third issue related to the covenant of works in the FCH deals with the doctrine of imputation. The FCH addresses this topic in three articles (X–​ XII), which treat the topics of Adam’s covenantal and thus representative relationship to his offspring (X)—​a conclusion informed by Romans 5:12, 19 and 1 Corinthians 15:21–​22—​and the doctrine of immediate imputation (XI–​XII). The FCH gives priority to the forensic impact of Adam’s sin over the hereditary corruption that ensues from the fall: For a double reason, therefore, man, because of sin, is by nature, and hence from his birth, before committing any actual sin, exposed to God’s wrath and curse; first, on account of the transgression and disobedience which he committed in the loins of Adam; and, secondly, on account of the consequent hereditary corruption implanted to his very conception, whereby his whole nature is depraved and spiritually dead; so that original sin may rightly be regarded as twofold, imputed sin and inherent hereditary sin. [XI]

Imputed guilt takes priority to inherent corruption, but both serve as the constituent elements of original sin. The next article, however, explicitly identifies the reason why imputed guilt takes priority. Adam’s sin “is imputed, therefore, immediately to his posterity; and under this mediate and consequent imputation not only destroy the imputation of the first sin, but also expose the doctrine of hereditary corruption to grave danger” (XII). These statements target the views of Placaeus, professor at the Academy of Saumur, who promoted mediate imputation.62 By this point in the post-​Reformation period, the doctrine of triple imputation was standard

The Formula Consensus Helvetica  131 fare—​God imputed Adam’s sin to his offspring, the sins of the elect to Christ, and the righteousness of Christ to the elect. Robert Rollock (ca. 1555–​99) was one of the first to promote an explicitly federal doctrine of imputation, one situated within the framework of the covenants of works and grace.63 However, in the wake of the controversy surrounding Placaeus’s doctrine of mediate imputation, theologians were more explicit about affirming immediate imputation.64 This became one more issue emanating from Saumur that created concern for High Orthodox theologians. Reformed Orthodox theologians wanted to explain the means by which God linked the one and the many. In other words, How does Adam’s one sin impact humanity? Turretin argues that imputation must rest on some sort of connection between one and another. In this case he identifies three possible connections: (1) natural, such as the link between a father and his children; (2) political or forensic, such as the bond between a king and his subjects; and (3) voluntary, such as when one willingly takes the place of another. In his argument Turretin focuses on the first two and, in line with the FCH, acknowledges the natural and forensic bonds between Adam and his offspring. The natural bond is real, but the forensic or federal bond takes priority because Adam functioned as a representative person on behalf of his offspring. The federal bond between Adam and his offspring is a part of the covenant between God and Adam.65 The covenant was the means by which God united the one and the many.66 Turretin rests his argument on his exegesis of Romans 5:12ff., namely, just as God constituted Adam as the head of the human race, so he constituted Christ, the second Adam, as the head of all of the elect.67 As such, Adam’s imputed guilt is the cause of the privation of original righteousness, and thus precedes inherent corruption.68 For these reasons, Turretin claims that “the orthodox” denominate imputation as immediate and antecedent to inherent corruption.69 Given these presuppositions, Turretin believed that Placaeus merely retained the term imputation but stripped it of its covenantal and federal content. Placaeus’s use of the term was a smoke screen because, if God imputed Adam’s guilt mediately, then humanity only derived hereditary corruption, and hence was solely guilty of inherent corruption. The federal element vanishes. “It is one thing,” writes Turretin, “to lie under exposure to the wrath and condemnation of God on account of inherent and native corruption, propagated by generation, another, on account of sin of Adam imputed to us.”70 In Turretin’s mind, Placaeus’s denial of immediate imputation drew too close to Pelagian, Socinian, Remonstrant, and Anabaptist denials of the

132  The Covenant of Works doctrine of original sin. Others, he knew, saw this threat, because Placaeus was reproved by the French National Synod, which met at Charenton in 1644.71 Turretin’s fears were not without good reason, as Remonstrant theologians also rejected the doctrine. In his treatment of original sin, Remonstrant theologian Limborch rejects imputation altogether. Limborch objects to the doctrine because the term original sin does not appear in the Scriptures. He avers, if original sin simply meant the misfortune that fell upon humanity because of Adam’s sin, then he would happily embrace the concept.72 People receive this corruption from their parents by ordinary generation.73 Limborch presents a number of reasons for rejecting imputation, but of interest are his objections as they relate to the covenant of works.74 He knew that the Reformed Orthodox appealed to the covenant of works as a ground for the doctrine of imputation, but Limborch nevertheless objected on four grounds: 1. Scripture nowhere states that God made a covenant with Adam, and reason does not allow us to believe any such notion. 2. If humanity was in the loins of Adam, as some have claimed, then why would Adam’s forgiveness not also apply to his offspring? 3. No one can represent another unless personally authorized by the person to do so. 4. Sin is a voluntary and personal action; therefore, it does not affect anyone but the person who commits it.75 For Turretin and the Reformed Orthodox, covenant and imputation go hand in hand, but for Remonstrant theologians such as Limborch, there was no imputation because there was no covenant of works.

Relationship between the Covenants of Works and Grace The last issue that the FCH addresses is the relationship between the covenants of works and grace. In one sense, this issue is one that has broad agreement across the early modern Reformed tradition particularly as it pertains to affirming the unity of salvation for Old and New Testament saints—​God saves all sinners by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone (XXIV). The FCH reiterates this principle when it identifies the only two ways of justification: “Either by one’s own works or deeds in the law, or

The Formula Consensus Helvetica  133 by the obedience or righteousness of another, even of Christ our Guarantor” (XXIII). The two means of justification, obedience or faith, correspond to the covenants of works and grace. Article XXIII of the FCH reveals that Heidegger and Turretin only had the Academy of Saumur in view by virtue of its silence regarding other debated issues. The FCH notes that, though there are two ways of justification, sin voided the covenant of works as a means of justification for fallen sinners. By way of contrast, the covenant of grace cannot be broken, whereas the covenant of works “can be abrogated” (XXIII). The FCH acknowledges the abrogative nature of the covenant of works but says nothing more—​it remains silent on the specific means of its abrogation. This is especially relevant vis-​à-​vis the minority view of Cocceius and his doctrine of the fivefold abrogation of the covenant of works. Cocceius believed that God abrogated the covenant of works in a series of five steps: (1) sin precludes the possibility of obtaining eternal life by obedience; (2) Christ eliminates the threat of damnation for the elect; (3) Christ eradicates the terror of death and bondage to sin through redemption and does so through his imputed righteousness (Gal. 2:19; Rom. 7:4; 2 Cor. 5:15–​ 21); (4) the death of the body removes the struggle with sin; (5) the resurrection of the dead reverses the effects of the fall.76 Few embraced Cocceius’s unique formulation; in fact, some reacted quite negatively to it, calling it a “monstrous doctrine.”77 Witsius and à Brakel, both students of Cocceius, speak of the abrogation of the covenant of works in much simpler terms.78 Sin broke the covenant as a means of justification for sinners and cannot be renewed, but the law nevertheless remains as the “rule of our duty,” but as such has been stripped of its federal nature.79 In Witsius’s view, this was one simple abrogation with several effects. Witsius politely critiques Cocceius’s position, though he neither mentions him by name nor cites his work.80 The FCH swims in the stream of silence and passes by Cocceius’s peculiar doctrine without comment.81 When the FCH turns its attention to the Salmurian doctrine of the covenants, on the other hand, it takes a decidedly different tack: We disapprove therefore of the doctrine of those who fabricate for us three Covenants, the Natural, the Legal, and the Gospel, different in their entire nature and essence; and in explaining these and assigning their difference, so intricately entangle themselves that they greatly obscure and even impair the nucleus of solid truth and piety. Nor do they hesitate at all, with regard to the necessity, under the OT dispensation, of knowledge of Christ

134  The Covenant of Works and faith in him and his satisfaction and the whole sacred Trinity, to speculate much too loosely and dangerously. [XXV]

The FCH keeps with its method of not mentioning names of adherents to the various views, but once again Amyraut and Cameron appear in the crosshairs. This statement stands in stark contrast to the earlier silence of the Westminster Confession, which only explicitly precluded one view, namely, the double covenant of grace view of Tobias Crisp (1600–​43).82 This is likely due to the fact that there were a number of adherents among the assembly to Cameron’s threefold covenant formulation, including Samuel Bolton (1606–​54), Jeremiah Burroughs (1600–​46), Thomas Goodwin (1600–​80), and Obadiah Sedgwick (ca. 1600–​58).83 Other theologians beyond the assembly also held the view, such as Edward Fisher (fl. 1627–​55), Samuel Petto (ca. 1624–​1711), John Owen (1616–​83), and Richard Baxter (1615–​91).84 The threefold covenant view was not, however, without its critics; Samuel Rutherford (1600–​61) rejected it.85 So, if Turretin and Heidegger rejected the threefold covenant scheme, what did they propose in its place? The FCH sets forth a twofold historical scheme, the covenants of works and grace. The covenant of grace follows the covenant of works and stretches from Adam’s fall to the consummation. The FCH recognizes, however, that the covenant of grace has been administered “according to the diversity of times” and has “different dispensations” (XXIV). They acknowledged that there were different dispensations of the one covenant of grace. The FCH does not specify what marks these different dispensations but merely makes the implicit statement that, since salvation is the same throughout redemptive history, then the covenant of grace is substantively the same from the Old to New Testaments. Turretin gets much more specific in his Institutes when he employs a distinction of external pedagogical legal economy and internal evangelical economy (externam oeconomiam paedagogiae legalis, vel quoad internam veritatem promissionies Evangelicae) to account for the legal elements of the Mosaic covenant.86 Rather than a covenant that is neither of the covenant of works or grace but is subservient to the covenant of grace as in Cameron’s formulation, Turretin argues that the substance of the Mosaic covenant is the covenant of grace but its accidents are of the covenant of works.87 Turretin writes, “A twofold relation (schesis) ought always to obtain: the one legal, more severe, through which by a new promulgation of the law and of the covenant of works, with an intolerable yoke of ceremonies, he wished to set forth what men owed and in what was

The Formula Consensus Helvetica  135 to be expected by them on account of duty unperformed.” According to this twofold relation, the administration of the covenant of grace, according to Turretin, “can be viewed either as to the external economy of legal teaching or as to the internal truth of the gospel promise lying under it.”88 Heidegger employs the same type of distinction to explain the nature of the Mosaic covenant. He too states that the law at Sinai has a twofold schesis, or relation: one legal in the open (aperto) and one evangelical, which is hidden (occulto).89 Turretin and Heidegger, therefore, willingly acknowledged that the covenant of works reappeared at Sinai and used a distinction to explain the manner in which it functioned and related to the covenant of grace, but they insisted that the Mosaic covenant was part of the one covenant of grace. Turretin’s and Heidegger’s construction stands in contrast, however, not only to the views of Cameron and Amyraut but to the earlier, cruder formulation of Amandus Polanus (1561–​1610), who baldly stated that the Mosaic covenant was the covenant of works.90 This difference finds explanation in the fact that Polanus stands at the early stage of the development of the covenant of works and Turretin and Heidegger at its latter stages, a period that made a greater use of scholastic distinctions to resolve knotty theological questions.

Conclusion The FCH is an important way station for tracking the development of the doctrine of the covenant of works. It not only codifies the doctrine and identifies common elements but reveals areas of disagreement, most notably the nature of Adam’s reward and the relationship between the covenants of works and grace. The Swiss cantons were concerned about Saumur’s influence and thus took steps to halt its growing influence. But as important as the FCH is for understanding the development of the covenant of works, there are two important qualifiers regarding its historical and doctrinal significance. First, some historians categorize the rift between the Swiss cantons and the Academy of Saumur as one between orthodoxy and heresy, but this is a misleading description of the debate.91 To be sure, the debates among the Reformed Orthodox over these issues were bitter and intense, but at no time did the disputes rupture the church. Moreover, the FCH nowhere identifies Salmurian doctrine as heresy but as problematic teaching that endangered orthodox theology.92 In fact, the preface to the FCH calls the faculty of Saumur “venerable foreign brothers” (venerandi fratres exteri).93

136  The Covenant of Works Second, while the statements regarding the covenant of works represent a majority opinion within High Orthodoxy, the need formally to reject Cameron’s view of the threefold covenants and Adam’s reward is a minority position. The document’s short lifespan and limited Swiss adoption confirm this conclusion as the FCH was employed for roughly fifty years before it was abandoned.94 As early as seven years after its publication, candidates for the ministry in Lausanne only had to subscribe quatenus (“in so far as”) it agreed with the Bible. From 1675 to 1700, 51 ministerial candidates out of 160 were allowed to opt out of subscribing to the FCH.95 Fewer than ten years passed before different interest groups pressed the Swiss cantons to set aside the FCH. In 1686 the elector Frederick William of Brandenburg (1620–​ 88) pressured the Swiss church to retract the FCH because, in the wake of the revocation of the Edict of Nantes, many Salmurian theologians fled France to Bern and found themselves unwelcome because of their doctrinal views. Four of the cantons responded and informed the elector that, while they required subscription to the FCH, they considered non-​subscribers as brothers. Basle, on the other hand, ceased requiring subscription to the FCH and eventually altogether dispensed with it by 1722.96 In many ways the death of Turretin was a portent of the FCH’s demise because it lost one of its chief champions. Turretin’s son, Jean-​Alphonse (1671–​ 1737), was one of the main opponents of the FCH and convinced Neuchatel to abandon it in 1703.97 Three years later Jean-​Alphonse convinced the Company of Pastors at Geneva to repeal required subscription to the FCH.98 The company determined that the FCH dealt with matters of adiaphora.99 Zurich, where Heidegger served, was one of the few cantons that persevered, but even then they eventually discarded the FCH by 1741.100 Another contributing factor to the FCH’s demise was the fact that, after the revocation of the Edict of Nantes and the closing of the Academy of Saumur in 1685, the formula’s primary target ceased to exist.101 Regardless of its long-​term viability as a binding confessional document, the FCH nevertheless shines important light upon the reception and development of the covenant of works. But given the short life span, the FCH also signals the decreased enthusiasm for the covenant of works that spread in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries.

8 Thomas Boston By the peak of the seventeenth century, the doctrine of the covenant of works was a common staple in the Reformed churches. But the perceived threat of the Academy of Saumur led to the creation of the Formula Consensus Helvetica (1675), a confessional document intended to mitigate the growing influence of the theology of Moises Amyraut (1596–​1664) and John Cameron (1579–​1625). There is a sense in which the Formula Consensus represents a high-​water mark for the large-​scale reception and adoption of the covenant of works. Arguably, no other period in the history of the Reformed church matches this point. The covenant of works was virtually unquestioned in Reformed circles, but the eighteenth century marks a turning point in the doctrine’s history. The eighteenth century was the beginning of what some have described as a period of deconfessionalization, denominational disintegration, and theological stagnation.1 The rising tides of doctrinal controversy, the impact of religious wars, rationalism, and calls for ecumenical union among Protestants threatened to inundate the Reformed system of doctrine. As the tides rose, some theologians felt the need to abandon doctrines such as the covenant of works; this was especially true in the continent among the Swiss Reformed churches. In other parts of the Reformed world, however, the doctrine continued to thrive, especially in Scotland. Despite the Marrow controversy (1717–​ ca. 1730), Scottish theologians such as Thomas Boston (1676–​1732) continued to promote the covenant of works.2 Boston, in fact, wrote one of the few monographs on the subject: A View of the Covenant of Works from the Sacred Records (1775).3 Boston’s book on the covenant of works provides an excellent window, therefore, into the continued development and reception of the doctrine in the eighteenth century. Set against the context of deconfessionalization, Boston’s promotion of the doctrine takes on greater significance. It is one thing to maintain a doctrine when the surrounding ecclesiastical context is a hospitable environment. But when the context turns inhospitable due to perceived doctrinal obsolescence or theological controversy, historians must pay attention to see in what way, if any, the doctrine’s The Covenant of Works. J. V. Fesko, Oxford University Press (2020). © Oxford University Press. DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780190071363.001.0001

138  The Covenant of Works shape changes. Although this chapter focuses primarily on Thomas Boston’s doctrine of the covenant of works, it compares Boston’s view with that of several other theologians, including Adam Gib (1714–​88), John Brown of Haddington (1722–​87), and Particular Baptist theologian John Gill (1697–​ 1771). Boston serves as the chief point of reference, but by triangulating Boston’s view with these other theologians, we can gain a better sense of the reception of the covenant of works in the eighteenth century. The chapter therefore begins with a brief overview of the broader eighteenth-​century context, particularly the deconfessionalization impulse that led some to scuttle the covenant of works. The chapter then explores Boston’s doctrine within its historical context. The chapter analyzes the eighteenth-​century reception of the covenant of works and concludes with some summary observations.

Broader Context In the seventeenth century, Reformed theologians were fairly uniform in their adoption and promotion of the covenant of works. The doctrine reached confessional status most notably in the Westminster Confession of Faith (1646) and the Formula Consensus Helvetica (1675). In addition to these Reformed symbols, the doctrine also appears in the Savoy Declaration (1658) and the Second London Confession (1689).4 But things reached a tipping point in the late seventeenth century when theologians were less inclined to press the need of certain doctrines, and the covenant of works was among them. Thomas Hobbes (1588–​1679) famously inveighed against the Long Parliament, which gave birth to the Westminster Assembly, its confession, and catechisms. Not only did the Long Parliament commit regicide and unleash political anarchy upon the British Isles, but the Presbyterian ministers who fomented sedition debated minor points of doctrine. Hobbes believed their unnecessary doctrinal disputes flowed out of the universities and into the commonwealth.5 Few controversies between the Presbyterians and theologians, such as Archbishop Laud (1573–​1645), were about things necessary for salvation.6 Hobbes writes, “Is there any Controversy between Bishop and Presbyterian concerning the Divinity or Humanity of Christ, do either of them deny the Trinity, or any Article of the Creed? Does either party preach openly or write directly against Justice, Charity, Sobriety, or any other duty necessary to Salvation?”7

Thomas Boston  139 Hobbes believed that Christianity should focus on big-​picture issues. He recommends, for example, the work of Richard Allestree (ca. 1621–​81), an Anglican Remonstrant theologian who wrote a practical work titled The Whole Duty of Man:  Laid Down in a Plain and Familiar Way.8 The work focuses on practice and ethics rather than doctrine, and when Allestree deals with texts commonly associated with the covenant of works, such as Romans 2:15, he does not connect it to the doctrine.9 He relegates the covenant of works to the preface of the book and covers it in two brief paragraphs.10 The majority of the attention falls on the “second covenant,” that is, the covenant of grace.11 Allestree spotlights Christian duty, not doctrine. Hobbes believed practice was more important than conflict-​producing doctrine. He also believed that scholastic theology was too indebted to Aristotle and theological distinctions, which “signifie nothing, but serve only to astonish the multitude of ignorant men.”12 The theologians of his day went far beyond the reforms of Martin Luther (1483–​1545) and John Calvin (1509–​ 64) and created a great number of sects as a result of their “many strange & many pernicious doctrins.”13 For Hobbes, technical theology was a big-​ budget movie with plenty of special effects but little plot and poor acting. Hobbes found sympathetic, like-​ minded theologians on the continent in one of the chief Reformation cities:  Geneva, Switzerland. In addition to Hobbes, Latitudinarian theologians such as John Tillotson (1630–​94) and William Wake (1656–​ 1737) promoted theological toleration and deconfessionalization; the latter was also in epistolary dialogue on these issues with continental theologians such as Geneva’s Jean-​Alphonse Turretin (1671–​1737).14 Turretin labored diligently to persuade a number of the Swiss cantons to abandon the Formula Consensus Helvetica and its various doctrines as litmus tests of orthodoxy.15 Even before Turretin’s efforts to sideline the Formula Consensus, Swiss cantons such as Lausanne only had one-​third of its ministerial candidates formally subscribe to the document from 1675 to 1700.16 Moreover, in the wake of the Thirty Years War (1618–​48), many were weary of religious controversy and wanted to put theologically inspired violence behind them. Turretin, therefore, wanted to move away from the Reformed Orthodoxy of his father, Francis Turretin (1623–​87), toward an enlightened form of orthodoxy.17 Instead of intricate confessional documents that detailed many doctrinal particulars, the younger Turretin was more interested in the use of fundamental articles for the basis of ecclesiological unity. Fundamental articles were once one integral part of theological

140  The Covenant of Works prolegomena but were now deemed sufficient to define one’s sole theological commitments.18 In this context, some believed that cardinal doctrines such as the return of Christ, the trinity, or the two natures of Christ were not fundamental articles since they were added in the Constantinian era and were not explicitly taught in Scripture. The one-​time concern for doctrinal orthodoxy and precision gave way to an emphasis on praxis.19 The shift in different concerns appears prominently in a brief comparison of two catechetical works, the Westminster Shorter Catechism (1648) and the Catechism for Youth (1702), written by Jean Frédéric Ostervald (1663–​1747).20 Ostervald was a close friend of the younger Turretin and agreed that the Formula Consensus was an obstacle to ecumenical efforts.21 His catechism, therefore, reveals what doctrines Ostervald believed were necessary for the church. The Westminster Shorter Catechism asks the following question: “What special act of Providence did God exercise toward man in the estate wherein he was created?” The catechism responds, “When God had created Man, he entred a Covenant of life with him, upon condition of perfect Obedience: forbidding him to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, upon pain of death.”22 By way of comparison, Ostervald’s catechism opens with an abridgement of sacred history and describes the creation. The catechism mentions Adam’s creation, the divine command not to eat from the tree of knowledge, the transgression of this command, the expulsion from Eden, and that sin and death entered the world. Ostervald, however, mentions nothing of the covenant of works.23 When Ostervald treats the doctrines of creation and providence in catechetical format, once again the doctrine of the covenant of works does not appear. Ostervald presents questions about creation ex nihilo, the days of creation, Adam’s creation in God’s image, the creation of woman, the protological Sabbath, and the parallels between the Genesis creation account and ancient Near Eastern accounts. The catechism then segues to the doctrine of providence.24 Ostervald follows providence with his treatment of the fall, where one might expect the covenant of works to appear, but the doctrine is absent. For example, Ostervald asks the question, “Under what law was he [Adam] placed?” He answers, “Under the moral law, besides which one positive law was given him, as the test of his obedience and submission to the will of his Creator.” If sixteenth-​and seventeenth-​century theologians robed the law in the doctrine of covenant, Ostervald disrobed the law. He believed the covenant of works was superfluous and spoke of Adam’s creation under a state of law, his transgression as a violation of the command, and the consequences of

Thomas Boston  141 his action merely as original sin. Based on Romans 5:12, he states that all men are sinners and thus disposed to evil: “From their birth, and this sin which is commonly called original sin, consists of the guilt of Adam’s first sin, the want of original righteousness, and the corruption of his whole nature.”25 What the Westminster divines believed was important was deemed unimportant in the early eighteenth century by ecumenically minded Reformed theologians. Ostervald’s failure to mention the covenant of works reflected a broader sentiment of doctrinal fatigue. Jonathan Swift’s (1667–​1745) Gulliver’s Travels captures a commonly held attitude toward doctrinal precision and ensuing polemical debates. When Gulliver washed ashore on Lilliput, he encountered the diminutive, narrow-​minded inhabitants who argued over the most insignificant things. The Lilliputians bickered with the citizens of the nearby island of Blefuscu over the proper way to crack an egg, from the small or large end? For the two islands, this was a matter of deep theological concern: The Emperors of Blefuscu did frequently expostulate by their Ambassadors, accusing us of making a Schism in Religion, by offending against a fundamental Doctrine of the great Prophet Lustrog, in the fifty-​fourth Chapter of the Brundecal (which is their Alcoran). This, however, is thought to be a meer Strain upon the Text: For the Words are these; That all true believers shall break their Eggs at the convenient End; and which is the convenient End, seems, in my humble Opinion, to be left to every Man’s Conscience or at least in the power of the chief Magistrate to determine.26

In his satire, Swift characterizes theological disputes in these absurd terms, which reveals that many had grown weary of seemingly picayune controversies. The eighteenth century was an age that began to grow impatient with perceived theological minutiae. Moreover, with the advent of Baconian science, the ascendency of Cartesianism, Kantianism, atheism, higher criticism, and the various philosophical challenges to the dominant Aristotelianism, many began to question the adequacy and necessity of carefully presented scholastic argumentation.27

Boston on the Covenant of Works There was a burgeoning movement within the Reformed community to dispense with the doctrine of the covenant of works. Critics of the

142  The Covenant of Works doctrine believed it was an impediment to ecumenical union among the various Protestant factions. At the same time, there were a number of late-​ seventeenth-​century theologians who lived into the early eighteenth century who advocated the doctrine, including Wilhelmus á Brakel (1635–​1711) and Benedict Pictet (1655–​1724).28 The doctrine was also still the subject of theological disputations at continental universities.29 And it was still professed among Scottish theologians such as Thomas Boston.30 Boston was among a group of Scottish theologians, including brothers Ralph (1685–​1752) and Ebenezer Erskine (1685–​1754), under whom classic Reformed theology flourished.31 The following exposition compares Boston’s views with those of John Brown of Haddington, Adam Gib, and John Gill, among others.32 Along the way, the exposition notes the potential points where Boston gleaned insights from Herman Witsius (1636–​1708).33 Edward Fisher’s (fl. 1627–​55) Marrow of Modern Divinity (1645) is another important source of influence for Boston who republished the work with his own annotations.34 Boston divides his work into four main sections: the covenant’s truth and nature, its violation, the imputation of Adam’s sin, and fallen humanity’s state under the fractured covenant of works.35 The following exposition focuses on the first main section, namely, the truth and nature of the covenant of works.

THe Truth (Exegetical Foundations) Boston opens his exposition of the covenant of works by appealing to Genesis 2:17, the divine command not to eat from the tree of knowledge.36 This text represents the initial interaction between God and Adam in the garden of Eden, and it contained an explicit and implicit promise. God explicitly promised to punish him with death should he eat from the tree, but this implicitly means that he also promised to give him life should he obey. Boston appeals to a standard Reformed interpretive principle for rightly understanding the law: when God commands one thing, such as prohibiting murder, the converse is also true, the preservation of life.37 The Westminster divines codified this hermeneutical principle in the Larger Catechism: “That, as, where a duty is commanded, the contrary sin is forbidden; and, where a sin is forbidden the contrary duty is commanded: so, where a promise is annexed, the contrary threatning is included; and, where a threatning is annexed, the contrary promise is included.”38 In addition to this command Boston appeals to Paul’s citation of Leviticus 18:5 in Romans 10:5: “The man which doth things,

Thomas Boston  143 shall live by them.”39 In his mind, obedience to the law holds the prospects of eternal life as the reward, and Paul’s use of Leviticus 18:5 confirms Boston’s interpretation of Genesis 2:17. In other words, Boston did not arbitrarily assume that Genesis 2:17 taught that obedience to God’s command would have yielded life, but rather confirmed his interpretation by comparing it with Paul’s use of Leviticus 18:5.40 Boston was well aware of the fact that the term covenant did not appear in the Genesis narrative, but this was not reason to dismiss the doctrine. Other terms, such as trinity, did not appear in the biblical text, but theologians nevertheless employed the concept of a good and necessary consequence, or Scripture interprets Scripture, to arrive at doctrinal conclusions.41 Theologians collated various texts and arrived at doctrinal conclusions by determining how the canon of Scripture collectively spoke on particular topics.42 Once again Boston reveals his continued commitment to established Reformed hermeneutical principles; the Westminster Confession codifies the idea of the good and necessary consequence.43 In this particular case, Boston placed the Genesis command within the broader canonical interpretive framework and also noted that, substantively, the elements of a covenant were present: “Here we have the thing; for the making over of a benefit to one, upon a condition, with a penalty, gone into by the party it is proposed to, is a covenant, a proper covenant, call it as you will.”44 In addition to the three cited texts (Gen. 2:17; Lev 18:5; Rom. 10:5), Boston appeals to Galatians 4:24, Hosea 6:7, Romans 3:27, 6:14, and 5:12.45 Elsewhere he cites and explains the covenant of works from Romans 2:15 and 3:27, Galatians 3:12, and Acts 17:31.46 Although Boston does not spill a great deal of ink exegeting these texts, they nevertheless represent his effort to tether his doctrine to an ongoing exegetical discussion that reaches back into the sixteenth century. Boston argues that Galatians 4:24, for example, specifically identifies the Genesis command as a covenant: “For these are the two covenants; the one from the mount Sinai.”47 Connecting the covenant of works to the Mosaic covenant was common. According to Gib, when the Bible refers to the old covenant, “This can be no other but the Covenant of works made with the first man.”48 Brown also cites Galatians 4:24 in the same manner.49 Boston believed, “This covenant from mount Sinai was the covenant of works, as being opposed to the covenant of grace.”50 In other words, God delivered the law at Sinai with attending sanctions just as he had done with Adam in the garden. God therefore “repeated” Adam’s covenant at Sinai. “For there being but two ways of life

144  The Covenant of Works to be found revealed in Scripture,” writes Boston, “one by works, the other by grace; the latter hath no place, but where the former is rendered ineffectual: therefore the covenant of works was before the covenant of grace in the world.”51 Boston employs the analogy of Scripture to arrive at his doctrinal conclusion. That is, he observes the parallels between God’s administrations of the law to Adam in the garden and Israel at Sinai to arrive at the conclusion that God and Adam were in covenant. But Boston’s effort to connect Adam and Sinai lacks nuance that others include. Gib, for example, argues that God delivered the moral law in the form of the covenant of works, but the Mosaic covenant was part of the covenant of grace in its substance; God did not renew the covenant of works at Sinai.52 Boston’s appeal to Hosea 6:7 is further evidence of the doctrine’s reception in the eighteenth century.53 Theologians did not appeal to the text until the mid-​to late seventeenth century, but Boston was nevertheless convinced of the text’s significance. Like theologians before him, he notes the parallel lexeme, k’Adam (like Adam) in Job 31:33: “If I covered my transgressions as Adam.” But he also cites Psalm 82:7: “But ye shall die like Adam.”54 Boston surveyed numerous other exegetes and translations to arrive at his conclusion, including “the Vulgate, Tirgurine, Castalio, Arias Montanus, Rabbi Solomon, Grotius, and the Dutch translation.”55 Boston appeals to the significance the role that the apostle Paul assigns to the law. He notes that Paul juxtaposes the law of works against the law of faith: “Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? Of works? Nay; but by the law of faith.” Boston identifies the law of works with the covenant of works, or in nontechnical terms, the divine command–​imposed state of Adam’s initial existence. In Boston’s mind, evidence that believers are no longer under the state of law appears in Romans 7:14: “Ye are not under the law, but under grace.” The law was Adam’s initial state due to the Genesis 2:17 command.56 Further corroborating evidence comes from the fact that God gave Adam sacramental signs and seals of his “transaction” with God. As with his covenant with Noah and the attending sign of the rainbow (Gen. 9:12–​13), his covenant with Abraham and the sign of circumcision, Passover and the Israelites, and baptism and the Lord’s Supper in the new covenant, God gave Adam the trees of knowledge and life (Gen. 3:22). These sacramental seals confirm the existence of a covenant.57 The last passage that Boston mentions is Romans 5:12 and the Adam-​ Christ parallel. Boston believed this text was important, but others, such as Gib, believed that it was the “principal evidence” of the covenant of works.58

Thomas Boston  145 “For if a Covenant of Grace was made with Christ in the name of his seed, as hath been shown,” writes Gib, “a Covenant of Works must have been made with the first man in the name of his seed.”59 He notes that God considered Adam’s offspring to be by nature children of wrath (Eph. 2:3) before they committed actual sin. The only reason God does this is that he imputed Adam’s first sin to his offspring. In line with the earlier opinions of Rollock, Boston maintains that God appoints or constitutes people as sinners due to Adam’s sin.60 This means there must be a particular relationship between Adam and his offspring. He is not merely the natural—​that is, biological—​head of the human race, because if this was the means of conveying guilt to his offspring, then they would be guilty of Adam’s first and all other subsequent sins. Rather, there is a federal—​that is, covenantal—​relationship between Adam and his offspring, which is another piece of evidence that confirms the existence of the covenant of works.61 These are the chief texts to which Boston appeals, but they are not the only passages. Throughout his work he continues to appeal to numerous biblical texts. He notes the Adam-​Christ parallel, for example, in 1 Corinthians 15:45, and concludes that Adam was a “public person” because Paul explains the representative relationship between the first and last Adams.62

Its Nature (Theological Formulation) Upon this exegetical foundation Boston builds his doctrine of the covenant of works and discusses its nature, parties, parts, and seals. In his consideration of God as the first party of the covenant Boston is keen to highlight God’s profound kindness in its establishment, which also entails dealing with man as the second party of the covenant. Boston conceptually echoes the opening line of the Westminster Confession’s explanation of the covenant when it states that the distance between God and the creature is so great that they could never have him as their blessedness or reward except “by some voluntary condescension on Gods part, which he hath been pleased to expresse by way of Covenant.”63 In and of himself, man could never merit eternal life. What God, therefore, could have exacted by mere authority, he instead required by “compact,” by which he voluntarily made himself a “debtor to man upon man’s obedience, which without a covenant he could not have been.”64 Elsewhere Boston characterizes Adam’s obedience in ex pacto terms: “But now the Covenant being made, God becomes debtor to

146  The Covenant of Works his own faithfulness.”65 Unlike the confession’s reticence to connect the term grace with the covenant of works, Boston had no such hesitation. If Adam had continued in obedience, it was due entirely to the covenant that God made with him: “And where was grace even in the covenant of works, that God was pleased by promise to secure the continuance of man’s being, while he continued obedient.”66 In his consideration of the practical application of the covenant of works, he encourages his readers to consider “the wonderful condescension of God, and his goodness and grace toward his creature man.”67 Gib likewise comments, “Man was then an object of God’s grace toward him, as undeserving.”68 And Brown characterizes God’s interaction with Adam as “an infinite condescension.”69 When Boston explains the parts of the covenant he identifies three: the condition, promise, and penalty, which are the same three categories that Brown employs.70 The condition of the covenant was obedience to the law (Rom. 10:5); Adam was therefore under a twofold law: natural and symbolical.71 Jesus summarily comprehends the natural law, which is the ten commandments, in Matthew 22:37–​39. People are supposed to love the Lord with all their heart, soul, mind, and strength and love their neighbors as themselves. God created Adam upright and holy (Gen. 1:27; Eph. 4:24; Col. 3:10; Eccl. 7:29), and inscribed the law upon his heart, the remains of which still exist in the hearts of fallen humanity (Rom. 2:15).72 Boston was aware that the administration of the law to Adam and Israel was different: “That same law which God gave from Sinai with thunder and lightning, in all the precepts of it, was breathed into Adam’s soul, when God breathed into him the breath of life, and he became a living soul.”73 God afterward incorporated this same law into the covenant of works. The covenant of works is not as old as the natural law. This distinction that Boston makes is important, namely, the difference between the natural and symbolical law. The natural law was inscribed in Adam’s heart at his creation whereas God re-​administered the law qua covenant subsequent to his creation.74 Adam, therefore, was not created in covenant, as fellow Scotsman Robert Rollock (ca. 1555–​99) maintained, but was created for covenant.75 The natural law had no annexed promise of eternal life as did the law in the covenant of works. Once he appended the promise of eternal life to the law, and conversely the threat of eternal death for its violation, then the law became a covenant.76 Boston believed there was a difference between the natural and symbolical law because God’s command to Adam was positive, that is, indifferent. The command was in its essence

Thomas Boston  147 contingent; God could have appointed things differently. But once God issued the covenantal command, then natural law bound Adam to obeying it.77 The Adamic covenant, therefore, rides on the twin tracks of the natural and symbolic law. God bound Adam to both, and insofar as he obeyed the symbolical law he complied with the natural. Conversely, if he broke the former he also transgressed the latter. To change metaphors, the two forms of law “were but several links of one chain, constitutions of the Supreme Lawgiver, which in point of obedience stood and fell together.”78 The trial of his obedience, however, was not a legal test tube to see if Adam would submit to the arbitrary imposition of God’s rule. Rather, the natural and symbolical law were of a piece with the ten commandments, which Christ summarized in the need to love God and neighbor.79 Adam’s trial was, first and foremost, the context for him to love his covenant Lord; even nature itself taught Adam the need to love God.80 The covenant of works was “a compend of the law of nature. Love to God and one’s neighbor was wrapt up in it; and all the ten commands were summarily comprehended therein.”81 This means that love lies at the heart of the covenant of works.82 Adam was supposed to render his perfect, perpetual, and personal obedience to God’s command, which once again echoes the formulation of the Westminster Standards, but Boston is silent regarding the duration of Adam’s probation. He knows that whatever the duration, Adam was supposed to remain perpetually obedient throughout.83 Eternal life and eternal death hung on Adam’s obedience, as there was neither a mediator nor covenant surety as in the covenant of grace.84 Although Boston continually echoes the teaching of the Westminster Standards throughout his explanation of the covenant of works, this did not mean that he merely regurgitated everything that he received from these documents. Recall that the Westminster divines debated the precise nature of Adam’s reward—​some believed that it was eternal life whereas others believed it was extended temporal life in the garden.85 The divines reached a compromise by employing a deliberately ambiguous phrase:  “The first Covenant with Man, was a Covenant of Works, wherein Life was promised to Adam.”86 The ambiguous term life allowed proponents of both views to subscribe to the statement because it did not specify whether Adam’s reward was eternal or temporal life. Each person was allowed to attach his own meaning to the statement. Boston, however, opted for eternal life. Boston explained that God’s covenantal promise offered both natural and eternal life. Based on Romans 10:5 and Paul’s quotation of Leviticus 18:5,

148  The Covenant of Works the covenant promised life, first and foremost a continuation of natural life (Rom. 6:23). Adam’s obedience would have ensured that he was no longer subject to the posse peccare and thus the posi mori. The covenant promise would have secured him from returning to dust again.87 So long as Adam was obedient, he would avert death. But upon the completion of his probation, God would have rewarded him with eternal life. Boston believed this was a sound conclusion because Romans 10:5 indicated this, and Christ’s statement to the “legalist” also pointed in the same direction:  “Our Lord Jesus Christ himself proposing the covenant of works to a legalist, holds forth eternal life as the promise of it, to be had on performance of the condition, Luke 10:25–​28.”88 Adam’s reward and the gift of heaven received by the saints through Christ’s intercessory work, however, are somewhat distinct in Boston’s formulation. Boston distinguishes these two things in four points: (1) redeemed saints have a greater experience of joy due to the fact that they were redeemed out of want and misery; (2) Adam would have never beheld “the fairest flower in heaven,” namely Christ; (3) Adam would have never known the greater blessings of the covenant of grace, a charter secured by the blood of Christ; and (4)  Adam would have dwelled eternally as a friend of God but not a member of the mystical body of Christ.89 Particularly noteworthy is Boston’s rejection of a supralapsarian Christology when he states that Adam would have never beheld the fairest flower of heaven: “It is a groundless anti-​scriptural notion, that the Son of God would have been incarnate, though man had never sinned, John 3:16. 1 Tim. 1:15. It was for sinners the Saviour was sent. The ruin of man’s nature in the first Adam, was the occasion sovereign love took to raise it up to the highest possible pitch of glory and dignity, in the person of the Son of God.”90 Boston believed that eternal life as the reward of the covenant of works was “without controversy,” and others such as Gib and Brown held the same view.91 But there were, of course, dissenting opinions. John Gill advocated John Cameron’s view of temporal life as Adam’s reward. Gill, for example, notes, “Some divines, and these of great name and figure in the churches of Christ, think, and indeed it is most generally received, that Adam continuing in his obedience, had a promise of eternal life. I cannot be of that mind.”92 He corroborates Boston’s assessment that most held to the view that Adam’s reward was eternal life, but Gill nevertheless lodged his minority report with six objections that echo Cameron’s original position:

Thomas Boston  149 1. Adam’s covenant was natural (1 Cor. 15:46–​47). 2. There was an eternal covenant that preceded the covenant of works that promised eternal life (Titus 1:2; 2 Tim. 1:1; 1 John 5:10). 3. Eternal life only comes through Christ as the mediator of the covenant of grace (Rom. 6:23; John 10:10; 17:3; 10:28). 4. If Adam attained eternal life, it would have been by his works. If it was by works, then it would no longer be of grace, but eternal life is the free gift of God. 5. Neither the light of nature nor the law of Moses reveals eternal life and the means to attain it; only the gospel of Christ reveals this (2 Tim. 1:10). 6. There is no proportion between humanity’s best works and the reward of eternal life, even the sinless obedience of Adam. Even though God threatened Adam with eternal death, the converse promise did not include eternal life.93 Gill’s rejection rested in the concern about the relationship between Adam’s merit and the purported reward of eternal life. As with Cameron and others, Gill cut the Gordian knot by making the reward natural rather than supernatural, thus eliminating the possible problem of the disproportionality between finite obedience and an infinite reward. Boston, on the other hand, cut the knot by presupposing God’s grace in his act of divine condescension to Adam. Exegetically, Gill appealed to some of the same texts as Cameron, such as 1 Corinthians 15:46–​47, and he also presented counter-​exegesis of Luke 10:25–​28 through a parallel text in Matthew 19:16–​22 and Christ’s encounter with the rich young ruler. When the young man asked Christ, “What good thing shall I do that I may inherit eternal life?” and Christ responded, “If thou wilt enter into life keep the commandments,” Gill claimed that Christ did not say that eternal life was the effect of obedience. Rather, Jesus did not challenge the young man’s erroneous assumption that he could achieve eternal life through obedience. He merely took the flawed notion and pressed the point to prove to the young man that he was incapable of rendering perfect obedience to the law, not that perfect obedience would have yielded eternal life.94 Recall that this exegesis differs from the path taken by other Cameronian-​influenced theologians, such as Westminster divine Thomas Goodwin (1600–​80). Goodwin argued that Christ did not present eternal life as the reward for the young man’s obedience but merely temporal life.95 This slight exegetical difference means that adherents to the view might have

150  The Covenant of Works agreed on the theological conclusion but were not necessarily inclined to take the exact same exegetical route. It also reveals that Gill may not have relied on the specific views of Cameron or Goodwin but instead formulated his own conclusions. Unlike other portions of his Body of Divinity that have numerous references to the works of sixteenth-​and seventeenth-​century Reformed theologians, Gill’s treatment of the covenant of works has no citations to other works. In his version of the pactum salutis, for example, Gill cites William Ames (1576–​1633), Richard Baxter (1615–​91), William Twisse (1578–​1646), Johannes Maccovius (1588–​1644), Francis Turretin (1623–​87), Thomas Goodwin, Johannes Hoornbeek (1617–​66), Herman Witsius (1636–​ 1708), and John Owen (1616–​83), among others.96 He cites no authorities in his exposition of the covenant of works, but these theologians likely informed his understanding. In terms of the punishment of the covenant of works, eighteenth-​century theologians were in agreement that it was a twofold death: legal and real. Through the violation of the covenant of works Adam was subject to legal death, that is, the curse of the law (Gal. 3:10). He was also subject to real death, which is the execution of the threatened punishments in the curse of the law (Deut. 29:19–​20). Real death has three forms: spiritual, natural, and eternal death, which are the same three categories that Brown uses.97 Spiritual death entails the death of the soul and spirit of man (Eph. 2:1), which results in the separation of the body and the soul.98 Natural death is the death of the body, which is either stinged or unstinged. Unstinged death is the lot of the people of God (1 Cor. 15:55), whereas stinged death is the penalty of the broken covenant of works. In other words, there is a difference between the death of believers and unbelievers. After their death, believers will be raised and transformed, whereas the wicked will be raised but unchanged.99 Finally, eternal death is the full outworking of the curse of the broken covenant of works (2 Thess. 1:7–​9).

Nature of the Reception There are two major factors in the eighteenth-​century reception of the covenant of works:  the influence of the Westminster Standards and the Marrow controversy, though one should not forget the traces of Witsius in Boston’s formulation. Among the first noticeable features of Boston’s formulation are the marks left by the Westminster Standards. Shortly after the

Thomas Boston  151 completion of the Standards the Scottish Kirk formally adopted the confession and catechisms. Almost immediately Scottish theologians, such as David Dickson (ca. 1583–​1663), began writing commentaries on these confessional documents.100 This confessional commentary is a factor in both Boston’s and Brown’s articulations. Both wrote commentaries on the Shorter Catechism where they treat the covenant of works.101 Other theologians of the period, such as Ebenezer Erskine, also wrote commentaries.102 The close interactions with the exegesis, terminology, and structure of the Standards informs the reception of the doctrine. Both Boston and Brown follow the hermeneutical principle of good and necessary consequence to arrive at the conclusion that Adam and God were in covenant. Their exegetical citation pattern evidences that they collated various texts to arrive at their theological conclusions. Another imprint left by the Standards is that both men at times employ confessional nomenclature, such as the necessity for Adam’s personal, perpetual, and perfect obedience, which echoes question 20 of the Larger Catechism.103 Therefore, despite the ecumenical trends toward deconfessionalization, a portion of the Reformed community still retained and promoted a commitment to confessional doctrines such as the covenant of works. Boston and Brown were not slavish to the Standards, but their respective formulations definitely bear their influence. The same is true of Gib, who does not use confessional terminology, but whose doctrine falls within confessional parameters. A related factor in the Westminsterian nature of their doctrinal formulations is due to the fact that the Scottish Kirk in 1710 required formal subscription to the Westminster Standards for ordination. The theology and terminology of the Standards ran in the blood of eighteenth-​century Scottish theologians.104 A second issue is the exigencies of controversy and how they shape doctrinal formulation. The Marrow controversy revisited worn paths as the two sides accused one another of antinomianism and neonomianism. Controversy originated in Martin Luther’s (1494–​1566) day in his debates with Johannes Agricola (1494–​ 1566), were repeated in John Calvin’s polemics against the Libertines, resurfaced in the debates of the Westminster Assembly (1643–​ 53), and harried the church during the neonomian-​ antinomian controversy of the late seventeenth century.105 As familiar as the key issues were, finer points of the debate affected elements of the covenant of works, particularly the precise relationship between moral law, natural law, and the covenant of works. In earlier configurations, theologians aligned the natural law with the covenant of works. James Ussher (1581–​1656), for

152  The Covenant of Works example, distinguishes between the two forms of the moral law: the natural law and the Decalogue, which is the summary of the moral law. He coordinates this distinction with the covenant of works, which is the context in which God gives Adam the natural law.106 The natural law serves as the moral standard of the covenant of works. This type of basic formulation appears in the Westminster Confession’s treatment of the law. The confession states, “God gave to Adam a Law, as a Covenant of Works, by which he bound him, and all his posterity to personal, entire, exact, and perpetuall obedience” (XIX.i). The confession then states, “This Law . . . was delivered by God upon Mount Sinai, in ten Commandments” (XIX.ii). The divines identify “this Law” as the moral law (XIX.iii). The moral law appears, therefore, as natural revelation and the divine command not to eat of the tree (Gen. 2:17) in the covenant of works, and as special revelation in the Mosaic covenant. The moral law is substantively the same in both covenantal administrations, but the specific covenantal terms determine how the law functions, whether as a covenant or as a rule (XIX.vi). One of the key framers of the confession’s chapter on the law, Anthony Burgess (d. 1664), explains that the Mosaic covenant repeats the law of nature implanted in Adam and that served as the standard of the covenant of works. Burgess spells out the differences between them, but the continuity between them “is taken for granted by many.”107 So if earlier formulations established that the divine command not to eat from the tree was a piece of the natural law and thus served as the moral standard of the covenant of works, why does Boston instead argue that there were two moral standards, the natural law and the covenantal command? Why does he distinguish them?108 The answer comes from the Marrow controversy. One of the chief protagonists of the Marrow controversy was James Hadow (1667–​1747), the principal of St. Mary’s College at St. Andrews University. Like his fellow Presbyterian ministers, Hadow affirmed the doctrine of the covenant of works, but he reconfigured the relationship between covenant and law. Hadow believed that penal sanction and law were inseparable and that, even if God did not make the covenant of works with Adam, Adam still would have been subject to the sanctions of the natural law. Hadow connected the penal sanctions to the natural law in this manner because it reflected God’s being. By way of contrast, one of the Marrow men, Ebenezer Erskine, believed that God connected the penal sanctions to the specific terms of each divine covenant rather than immediately to the natural law.109 Like Boston, Erskine distinguishes between law and covenant. In his commentary on the

Thomas Boston  153 Shorter Catechism, Erskine asks the question, “Was the covenant of works a law, as well as a covenant?” He answers, “It was a law, because not between equals, but injoined by the sovereign lawgiver; it was a covenant, because it contained a promise of reward, graciously annexed to the precept.”110 The rewards, and conversely the penalties, come by way of the covenant, not by natural law. Boston similarly comments, “The natural law had no promise of eternal life, for God might have annihilated his creature though he had not sinned, till once the covenant of works was made. But then God annexed to the natural law, a promise of eternal life, and a threatening of eternal death; and so it became a covenant of works.”111 The Marrow men, like Boston and Erskine, created this distinction because they detected a problem with Hadow’s formulation. If the law of nature contains penal sanctions, then there is no substantial difference between the law of nature and a covenant. In short, Hadow’s law of nature was not a law but a covenant. Another perceived error is that Hadow agreed with the Marrow men and the Westminster Confession that the law of nature underlies the covenants of works and grace. But if the law of nature always carried penal sanctions, then believers were never free from the threat of its penalty.112 Prior to the eighteenth century, theologians did not address the specific relationship between the law of nature and the covenant of works except in general terms; the issue arose specifically within the context of the Marrow controversy. The Westminster Confession might favor the Marrow men rather than Hadow because it does not attach penal sanctions to the law of nature but to the specific covenantal administrations, though it does not specifically address the issue. The confession states that God gave Adam “a Law, as a Covenant of Works,” and that as a part of the covenant of grace it “continued to be a perfect rule of righteousness” (XIX.i, ii). Believers do not know the law “as a Covenant of Works, to be thereby justified, or condemned,” but only know it as a rule (XIX.vi). That the confession distinguishes between the law as a covenant and as a rule means that believers are no longer subject to the penal sanctions of the law because they have been “freed from the curse thereof threatned in the Law” (XIX.vi). The confession does characterize sin as a violation of the law, which makes people liable to its sanction (VI.vi), but the emphasis falls upon the law in its various covenantal administrations. Believers are never subject to an abstract law but always to a specific covenantal administration, either works or grace.113 Thus, this particular aspect of the Marrow controversy shaped the doctrine of the covenant of works and required theologians to be more specific regarding the precise

154  The Covenant of Works relationship between the law of nature and the covenant of works. Doctrinal controversy shaped the covenant of works.

Conclusion Despite the beginning of the erosion of doctrinal orthodoxy, there were still adherents to the covenant of works. Arguably, those such as Jean-​Alphonse Turretin and Frederick Ostervald who abandoned the covenant of works were part of the left wing of the Reformed world. They were more interested in ecumenism than in maintaining the confessional standards of Reformed Orthodoxy. In the eighteenth century, however, even though the doctrine was professed, there were some developments in its reception. There were new layers of doctrinal development that contributed to its stratigraphy. Theologians no longer appealed to first-​and second-​generation reformers such as Wolfgang Musculus (1497–​1563) or Zacharias Ursinus (1534–​83). There are arguably echoes of Rollock in the works of Boston, which is natural given the esteem for a Scottish home-​team player among other Scotsmen. But there was also a new stratum of doctrinal formulation in the Westminster Confession. With the formal adoption of the Westminster Standards in the Scottish Kirk, theologians now regularly invoked its language in their own articulations of the doctrine. In addition to Rollock and the Westminster Standards, one name that surfaces is Herman Witsius. Despite the distaste for Reformed scholastic theology among some, Boston was among those who gleaned, appreciated, and learned from his Reformed Orthodox forefathers. Another voice that continued to surface was John Cameron and his understanding of Adam’s reward. Although it was a minority position, it still had its proponents among Particular Baptist theologians such as John Gill. But the corrosive effects of doctrinal minimalism began to take their toll, and theologians within conservative nineteenth-​century Reformed circles would reject the covenant of works on exegetical and theological grounds.

9 John Colquhoun The doctrinal commitments of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries began to erode in the eighteenth century; it was a period of deconfessionalization, denominational disintegration, and theological stagnation.1 Increased dissatisfaction with debates over perceived theological minutiae and the desire to unite a splintered Protestantism around fundamental articles of the faith in lieu of the picayune doctrinal distinctives led theologians to ignore the covenant of works; they deemed it superfluous. But the bud of doctrinal indifference flowered in the nineteenth century. Indifference from those within the Reformed confessional community, such as Jean-​Alphonse Turretin (1671–​1737) or Jean Frédéric Ostervald (1663–​1747), gave way to sustained criticism and rejection of the doctrine within the very heart of the Reformed world. Theologians no longer deemed the doctrine superfluous but exegetically and theologically erroneous. Two distinct streams emerged within nineteenth-​century Reformed theology, one critical of the covenant of works and the other favorable to it. This splintered reception of the covenant of works owes its origins to three chief factors. First, critics abandoned common Reformed interpretive principles, most notably the good and necessary consequence. Detractors of the doctrine were no longer satisfied with the idea of a theological construct; they wanted an explicit statement in Scripture to justify a doctrine’s existence. Second, fatigue with scholastic argumentation in the eighteenth century turned to hostility and ridicule in the nineteenth century. Theologians believed that proponents of the doctrine imposed the covenant of works upon the text and only arrived at this doctrinal conclusion through crass proof-​texting. Scholastic theologians spun doctrine out of logic and imagination, not out of careful attention to the biblical text. Third, critics rejected the covenant of works because they defined covenant in a different manner. They rejected the common basic definition of a covenant as an agreement and presented a number of alternatives: covenant as disposition, appointment, or promise. Conversely, proponents of the doctrine continued to uphold the hermeneutical principle of the good and necessary consequence and recognized that The Covenant of Works. J. V. Fesko, Oxford University Press (2020). © Oxford University Press. DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780190071363.001.0001

156  The Covenant of Works the covenant of works was a doctrinal construct. They were positively disposed toward Reformed scholastic theology, and they continued to maintain that the most fundamental definition of a covenant was agreement. A covenant, however, took on different characteristics depending on its placement in pre-​redemptive or redemptive history. In order to compare and contrast these two divergent streams, this chapter first explores the claims of the critics of the covenant of works. It then surveys the proponents of the doctrine primarily through the work of Scottish Presbyterian theologian John Colquhoun (1748–​1827). Colquhoun serves as an ideal window on the nineteenth-​century reception of the covenant of works for several reasons. First, he labored in Scotland in the context of the origins of the criticisms of the doctrine, and thus his own formulation serves as an excellent source because it is a positive foil for the negative reception of the doctrine. Second, he is one of the few theologians to write a monograph specifically on the subject.2 While many other Reformed theologians disseminated the doctrine, few engage it to the level of detail as does Colquhoun. Thus, Colquhoun’s work serves as the chief source, and other theologians provide supplementary information to fill out the nineteenth-​ century portrait of the covenant of works. The chapter then compares and contrasts the views of the critics and proponents to explain the positive and negative reception of the covenant of works. In short, critics forsook hallmark Reformed hermeneutical and theological principles, which led them to reject the covenant of works.

Critics Among the nineteenth-​century critics of the covenant of works, three stand out:  John Eagleton (1785–​1832), David Russell (d. 1848), and John Kelly (1801–​76). All three theologians leveled significant criticism of the covenant of works: Eagleton in a small monograph, and Russell and Kelly in their larger treatments of the biblical concept of covenant.

John Eagleton Eagleton was a Wesleyan-​Arminian Methodist minister who presented a lengthy lecture on the covenant of works, which was later published

John Colquhoun  157 as Thoughts on the Covenant of Works (1829).3 Although Eagleton was not a Reformed theologian, his work nevertheless is one of the few extant monographs on the doctrine.4 But Eagleton’s desire was not to promote but dismantle the doctrine; his aim was to persuade ministers of all denominations to abandon the covenant of works.5 Unlike the Scottish theologians of the eighteenth century who greatly esteemed the Westminster Standards, Eagleton characterized the Westminster divines as “religious partisans,” which reveals that he believed the covenant of works was an impediment to ecumenism.6 Eagleton echoes the sentiments of Jean-​Alphonse Turretin and his desire to set aside the Formula Consensus Helvetica (1675); it was an impediment to Protestant ecumenical union. Eagleton stared down the Westminster Shorter Catechism’s twelfth question on the covenant of works: “This statement as a whole, what truth soever there may be in some of its parts, is diametrically opposed to that of the Apostle: that either the testimony of St. Paul, or that of the Rev. Assembly, must fall to the ground, I pledge myself to prove; and ere I reach the termination of my Epistle, it will be evinced that the covenant of works is a scholastic fiction.”7 Eagleton was well aware that he was embarking on a steep uphill climb in his efforts to deconstruct the covenant of works: “No article of faith, perhaps, not excepting that of our salvation through Christ, is more popular than the covenant of works.”8 The doctrine was advocated by synods, schools, and doctors, and “has long been incorporated with almost every system of divinity and implied in most of the discourses of popular orthodox preachers.”9 These admissions are interesting given Eagleton’s status as a Methodist minister, but he never cites any works or theologians to substantiate his claim.10 In fact, he almost refuses to name names: “You know, and cannot but know, that I have honestly exhibited the substance of the popular faith. Can you not remember the very authors whom I must have consulted, and whose language I have imitated? Do you not know the very volumes from which most of the terms and the phrases have been borrowed?”11 Eagleton assumed his auditors and readers would know whom he had in mind when he summarized the doctrine. Eagleton argues his case by positively explaining the doctrine and then presenting his critique. On the whole, Eagleton provides a sound description and reveals his familiarity with the doctrine.12 But at the same time he liberally sprinkles criticisms throughout his exposition to remind the reader of his disdain for the doctrine, a teaching that he characterizes as “a phantom of a dreaming intellect,” the “imaginations of schoolmen and doctors,” and

158  The Covenant of Works “exceedingly plausible . . . as far as human reasoning can go to establish an opinion and acquire for it the cordial approbation of the religious world.”13 When he transitions to his critique, he identifies eleven biblical elements of the doctrine:

1. Adam was created holy, happy, and intellectual. 2. God created Adam by a special act of providence and placed him in the garden, which was the place of his probation. 3. Adam’s probation meant that God created him in a state of posse peccare. 4. God tried Adam just as he tried the angels. 5. Adam’s sin displeased God. 6. Satan was pleased with Adam’s fall. 7. By his sin Adam subjected his offspring to sin, Satan, and a world of woe. Degenerate parents thus produce degenerate sons. 8. God did not intend to ruin the human race through this special act of providence but rather promote its eternal welfare. 9. The moment sin appeared in the garden, God revealed his mercy in Christ. 10. God redeems fallen sinners by faith in Christ, from whom they receive pardon, holiness, and heaven. 11. Any attempt for fallen man to save himself by his own obedience is a sin of the greatest magnitude.14

These eleven points of agreement are basic claims and, in and of themselves, lack specificity. On the consequences of Adam’s sin upon his offspring, for example, Eagleton does not state that God imputed Adam’s guilt to them but that degenerate parents produce sinful progeny. It is one thing to agree that Adam’s sin affected all humanity but quite another to affirm that it comes by federal imputation. Nevertheless, even though Eagleton lists eleven points of agreement, he believed that the doctrine was, prima facie, characterized by error.15 While Eagleton registers a number of reasons why he rejects the doctrine, we can group them into four categories: definition, hermeneutics, exegesis, and theology. Regarding the definition of covenant, Eagleton excluded the common idea that it was a mutual agreement. According to Eagleton, the interaction between God and Adam “was a command delivered with sovereign authority, stamped with the majesty of God, and enforced by sanctions that involved

John Colquhoun  159 the dearest interests of man.” “But where,” writes Eagleton, “will you find in this transaction a trace of your covenant of works? Is there here anything like a mutual agreement between two contracting parties? Are the parties before us on equal footing, as to the matter of the supposed covenant, and both alike free, either to adopt or reject the proposed terms, so long as the contract remains unfinished?”16 Although he cites no lexical authorities or examples from Scripture, Eagleton claims that berith means “established, placed, given, raised up, slain, cut off, but never said to be made except in the translations. The roote, a verb, signifies to purify, and all the nominal derivatives carry the idea of purification, while berith itself is emphatically the purifier.”17 In one of the few instances where Eagleton cites an authority, he appeals to Edward Leigh’s (1602–​71) Critica Sacra.18 According to Eagleton’s reading of Leigh, diatheke means neither testament, covenant, nor agreement but rather a disposition or institution. Hence the English word dispensation is the best translation for diatheke, and this harmonizes with the Hebrew term berith.19 Eagleton ignores the fact that Leigh makes this observation about several specific New Testament texts: Romans 11:27; Hebrews 7:22, 9:17; and Galatians 3:17. Eagleton’s selective citation does not account for how Leigh incorporates these exegetical observations into his own doctrine of the covenant of works.20 Eagleton, however, acknowledges that if the terms berith and diatheke refer to an agreement, such a definition can never signify a covenant between God and humans, and none of the texts where these terms appear ever refer to a covenant between God and Adam.21 This brings us to the next category of Eagleton’s objections against the covenant of works: hermeneutics. One of his repeated mantras is that the Scriptures offer no explicit statement about the existence of the covenant of works.22 Eagleton writes, “Do the Prophets, or the Apostles, or Jesus Christ teach us to believe, that God entered into a covenant of life and death with Adam not only for himself but for all his posterity? I presume they do not. Their writings seem to me to be replete with matter wholly incompatible with the idea.” According to Eagleton, “God never proposed to Adam, directly or indirectly, for any purpose whatever, to covenant with his Maker.”23 In Eagleton’s mind, if there was a covenant between God and Adam, Scripture would have recorded the event “in plain and unambiguous terms.” This is an example of Eagleton’s biblical positivism—​that is, in order for a doctrine to be valid, it must appear in express statements of Scripture. This represents a turn away from the interpretive principle of the good and necessary consequence.24 In fact, Eagleton was aware of the general nature of the argument in

160  The Covenant of Works favor of the doctrine as a theological construct. But he nevertheless objected to the practice: “But by the same rules of interpretation, by which any can find a covenant of works in this narrative, all the dogmas of party and fictions of fancy may be found in other scriptures.”25 Interestingly, other critics believed that doctrines should be based on fewer texts. Samuel Jones writes, “I have long been of opinion, that one passage of Scripture, if it be full and express to the purpose, is sufficient to prove any point; and that to add many others, as is too commonly the way, out of a fondness for many witnesses does but weaken the cause, unless they be full in point.”26 Thus far, one should note Eagleton’s methodology: he dismisses any appeal to the commonly cited texts because they do not explicitly mention the doctrine. Eagleton never engages in the exegesis of texts such as Genesis 2:16–​17; Galatians 3:10–​12; Romans 2:15, 5:12–​21, 7:1–​4, 10:5; and the like. He does not engage these texts because he believed that proponents of the doctrine hardly ever exegeted Scripture, a claim he does not substantiate with evidence. He only lists a number of names, including John Calvin (1509–​64), Martin Luther (1483–​1545), John Gill (1697–​1791), John Owen (1616–​83), Jonathan Edwards (1703–​58), Joseph Bellamy (1719–​90), Herman Witsius (1636–​ 1708), Isaac Watts (1674–​ 1748), Philip Doddridge (1702–​ 51), Matthew Henry (1662–​1714), Thomas Boston (1676–​1732), John Brown of Haddington (1722–​87), and John Wesley (1703–​91).27 This list is interesting because it reveals Eagleton’s opinion regarding how widespread the doctrine was, whether among Reformed and non-​Reformed theologians. It is noteworthy that Eagleton includes Calvin and Luther, which casts doubt upon Eagleton’s knowledge of these sources because neither Luther nor Calvin explicitly promote the doctrine. Instead of significant exegesis, he relies on bluster when he repeatedly bemoans the doctrine as a “scholastic dream,” a “notion,” “the phantom of a disordered imagination,” “metaphysical ingenuity,” “scholastic arrangements,” “fine spun metaphysics,” a “metaphysical labyrinth,” and “scholastic pomposity.”28 When Eagleton steps off his soapbox and exegetes Scripture, he only explains one text, Hosea 6:7, and alludes to another, Matthew 19:16–​30 (cf. Mark 10:17–​31; Luke 18:18–​30; Lev. 18:5). Eagleton dismisses any claims that the Scriptures teach the doctrine, though he admits that covenant theologians appeal to Hosea 6:7. Eagleton grants that the text might say, “They, like Adam, have transgressed the covenant,” but that such a translation does not say, “Adam fell by transgressing the covenant of works which promised eternal life to his obedience, and threatened his disobedience with

John Colquhoun  161 eternal death.” Instead, Eagleton employs the strictest positivist reading. The text, he argues, does not say covenant of works but berith. As such, the text refers to a purification, not a mutual agreement with conditional rewards and sanctions.29 Even then, Eagleton rejects the idea that adam is a proper noun and instead refers to men. Israel, like common men, walked in the ways of the nations and sinfully conducted themselves.30 In his mind, the covenant of works hinges on one text, Hosea 6:7, and with the stroke of his pen he cut the slender thread that supposedly suspended the doctrine. The other text he engages by way of allusion is Leviticus 18:5 through its appearance in Christ’s interaction with the rich young ruler. Eagleton opines that nowhere does the law tell people, “Obey and live.” Rather, when Christ confronted the ruler, he did not challenge the premise of his question. Jesus assumed the erroneous premise and told him, “If you can produce a perfect righteousness I will see that you gain eternal life.” The answer was purely hypothetical.31 This brings us to the fourth and final category:  theological objections. Eagleton was under the impression that advocates of the doctrine believed that Adam did not require God’s grace and that they intended to convey that God and Adam were equals in the covenantal agreement. All discussions of proportion between Adam’s obedience and the supposed reward of eternal life were scholastic inventions.32 Instead, Eagleton claims that the reason Adam fell was that he ceased to rely on Christ, the source of paradisiacal life and happiness.33 Ironically, Eagleton here has no problem appealing to Christ, which requires recourse to other portions of Scripture; there is no explicit mention of Christ in Genesis 1–​2. So Eagleton freely employed a good and necessary consequence when it suited his own doctrine but disallowed it for proponents of the covenant of works. Nevertheless, a covenant could not intervene or subvert the unconditional promises God gave to Adam of the prospects of eternal life: “No subsequent act could reverse an absolute and unconditional grant. The blessings conferred on Adam in his creation-​state were not suspended on a single condition, expressed or implied.”34 Hence, to place a covenant between Adam and God’s unconditional promise of life would be subversive of grace.35 God never proposed two means of justification, one by works and one by faith. Rather, salvation has always been the same from the beginning: “Adam was made by and for Christ. On Christ he depended for his paradisiacal life.”36 Not only, therefore, did the covenant of works subvert the grace of God, but it harbored a host of other doctrinal aberrations:  “Give up the covenant of works—​unveil the scheme of eternal redemption and everlasting

162  The Covenant of Works grace—​show the multifarious ways of Providence to be all subservient to the great scheme, and you will dethrone the arbitrary and reprobating God of the Antinomianism, whose creed is written with the blood of the slain, and ought to be rehearsed in sounds discordant as the groans and yells of the damned.” Eagleton believed that the covenant of works was the front and back superstructure of antinomianism.37 He does not explain the exact connection between the covenant of works and antinomianism. One might expect Eagleton, instead, to level the charge of legalism since Adam was supposed to offer his obedience instead of faith in Christ to secure paradisiacal life. Nevertheless, the covenant of works was supposedly the gateway to antinomianism, an accusation that reoccurs in the criticisms of Kelly.

David Russell Eagleton’s critique floats above the Scriptures and only lightly touches on a few isolated texts, whereas Scottish Congregationalist David Russell nestles his rejection of the covenant of works in a cradle swaddled in numerous biblical passages. Russell’s rejection largely rests on his re-​definition of covenant. He opens his work with the claim, “The new and everlasting covenant is nothing more than the development of the plan of redemption.”38 Russell wrote another work just two years later in which he expressly treated the Adamic context. But he keeps with his redefinition of covenant and calls the relationship between God and Adam a dispensation or constitution.39 He was willing to call the relationship a covenant as long as people did not confound this term with a “compact between parties on a level,” that is, an agreement between equals.40 Russell equates covenant with promise and the gospel: “God having revealed his purposes of mercy in the form of a promise, the plan of redemption is denominated a covenant. That which the Scriptures call the covenant of God, his covenant of peace, and the new and everlasting covenant, is just the Gospel of his grace, in connexion with the blood of Christ.”41 Russell was aware of the common view that most defined a covenant as a mutual agreement, though he does not cite any specific sources. Nevertheless, he was horrified at such a definition: “What more dishonorable to God, than to turn his gracious proclamation of forgiveness, into the ground of a bargain between himself and rebels, as if he had they were on a footing?”42 Russell does not specifically invoke the covenant of works, but he nevertheless believes that a mutual agreement automatically entails that the

John Colquhoun  163 two parties stand on equal footing. In Russell’s mind, all of God’s covenants involve his condescension.43 To substantiate his claim that covenants are purely promissory, Russell appeals to several biblical examples to demonstrate that God’s covenants require no mutual stipulation: God’s address to Moses (Exo. 34:10), his promise to Israel (Isa. 49:21), his promise to Abraham (Psa. 105:8–​11), and his covenant with David (Acts 2:30; Psa. 139:3, 4; 2 Sam. 7:12–​13).44 Based on these texts Russell concludes that a covenant is “a gracious constitution of things; and an institution, or a system of institutions, founded upon and illustrative of the promises.”45 When Russell explains his understanding of covenant, he begins with Adam and Eve in their post-​fall state. He does not address the pre-​fall state under the category of covenant. In his formulation, Russell notes that the first appearance of the term covenant is with God’s interaction with Noah. God first hints at the covenant in his post-​fall promise to Adam and Eve that he would redeem them through the seed of the woman.46 God confirmed this promise with a sacrifice, but his language was nothing like a mutual agreement—​it was nothing like a contract.47 In the scant attention that Russell devotes to Adam’s pre-​fall state, he characterizes God’s interaction with Adam as a promise, not as a covenant: “In the first constitution in relation to man, there was a simple promise of life in case of obedience, for no mediator was then required.”48 God promised Adam life, but because it was conditioned on his obedience it could not by definition be a covenant, which was purely promissory. Moreover, all covenants have sacrifices connected to them, hence yet another reason why God and Adam were not in covenant in the pre-​fall state.49 Russell was aware, however, that God required things of his people as a part of his covenantal dealings. These requirements were not stipulations that undercut the promissory character of his covenant; rather, they were appointments that illustrated elements of the covenant.50 Things get a little more complicated, however, with the Sinai covenant. In Russell’s formulation, the Sinai covenant comes close to the features of the covenant of works. Within the Sinai covenant God required Israel’s obedience in order to enjoy the temporal benefits of Canaan.51 As a nation, as long as Israel continued in their obedience, they were able to enjoy the blessings of the land.52 But this obedience-​land connection did not mean that Israel could merit eternal life. Rather, the early blessings of the Sinai (old) covenant were typical of heavenly blessings.53 Here Russell introduces an important qualification: Israel’s national typical obedience is distinct from the personal obedience of the

164  The Covenant of Works individual. Just because a person suffered temporal penalties attached to disobedience did not mean he warranted the punishment of hell.54 In other words, Israel’s tenure in the land was typical of Christ’s obedience to the law, not a merit-​reward construct for the individual.55 This structure did not undermine Russell’s definition of covenant because, in his view, the typical obedience and temporal reward illustrated the superior blessings of the promissory and unconditional covenant of God.56 Given Sinai’s unique place in redemptive history, the Mosaic covenant was subservient to the unconditional covenantal promise of God.57 Russell echoes John Cameron’s (ca. 1579–​1625) language of this threefold covenant regarding the precise function of the Mosaic covenant, that it was neither of the covenant of works or grace but a tertium quid.58 But since Russell rejected the covenant of works, he bracketed the Mosaic covenant as a unique, unrepeatable event in redemptive history. In fact, Russell exegetes Romans 10:5 (Lev. 18:5) in a very similar fashion to Cameron.59 When Paul contrasts the righteousness of the law versus faith, Russell identifies the former with Sinai (the old covenant) and the latter with Christ (the new covenant): “It must be evident then, that the earthly blessings conferred by God as the king of Israel, were given on the ground of obedience to him in that character. But the blessings of the new covenant are bestowed on the ground of the perfect righteousness of Christ; there is thus a difference between the two covenants.”60 Romans 10:5 deals with temporal blessings, not eternal life. So, even though Russell rejects the covenant of works and redefines covenant as promise, there are still some Cameronian traces of the doctrine in Russell’s construction of the Mosaic covenant.

John Kelly The third nineteenth-​century theologian who rejected the covenant of works was John Kelly (1801–​76). He provides the details for his own view in his work The Divine Covenants.61 Although some forty years separate Eagleton’s and Kelly’s critiques, they share many of the same features. Kelly was aware of the works of a number of covenant theologians, including Witsius, Francis Roberts (1609–​75), William Strong (d. 1654), Thomas Blake (ca. 1596–​1657), and Thomas Boston (1676–​1732).62 He was pleased that that the writings of these theologians had fallen into neglect. Kelly’s criticism against these works is that they were systems of theology rather than a close examination of the

John Colquhoun  165 covenants of Scripture. These theologians supposedly provided slender support for their views and misled many on a number of points. In Kelly’s judgment, David Russell’s work was a much-​needed and welcomed corrective.63 In contrast to these systems, Kelly declared to his readers that he would base his exposition “exclusively on Scripture.” “We must be careful,” writes Kelly, “that we are not imposed upon by terms.”64 Kelly believed that advocates of the covenant of works were guilty of eisegesis for several reasons. First, too many covenant theologians allowed their definition of the term covenant to vitiate their formulation. Like Eagleton and Russell, Kelly believed that there could not be a mutual agreement between God and man. Such an idea was “preposterous.”65 He recognized that, in the Bible, human beings could enter into mutual agreements; such arrangements were properly denoted as covenants.66 But God’s “transactions” with human beings, on the other hand, were of an entirely different nature.67 Even though human and divine transactions go under the same term, covenant, they are very distinct. All of God’s transactions with human beings are free promises that are solemnly ratified by sacrifice. When applied to divine-​human transactions, covenant “is expressive, invariably, of a gracious and sovereign constitution, or economy, consisting mainly of free promises, or of a system of laws subservient to these promises, ratified by sacrifice, and usually connected with institutions illustrative of the nature of these promises.”68 This description echoes Russell’s earlier definition, which includes Cameronian subservience language. Kelly arrived at this conclusion through his understanding of the underlying Greek and Hebrew terms behind the word covenant. In his mind, berith and diatheke do not signify a compact or agreement. The Greek term for agreement is suntheke; by way of contrast, diatheke means a will or testamentary document. In other uses, diatheke can mean an arrangement or disposition.69 While covenant can serve as a suitable translation of diatheke, a better translation is testament.70 At this point, it is important to note that Kelly makes this claim but does not present evidence or exegesis to substantiate it. Second, Kelly presents a series of objections against the doctrine. Despite its common presence and unquestioned acceptance in nineteenth-​century theology, he believed the doctrine had no warrant from Scripture, for the following reasons: 1. God’s dispensation to Adam was not a free promise in the proper sense of the term. There is no trace of anything resembling a promise in the

166  The Covenant of Works









Genesis text. Even though God issued Adam a command and threatened him with death for its transgression, Kelly thought it was an unwarranted inference to conclude that the command implicitly promised eternal life. The narrative only contains the threat of death for disobedience and nothing more. 2. The Scriptures present heaven as the inheritance for the redeemed as the result of the work of Christ alone. To infer that Adam could have secured heaven through his obedience violated fair principles of interpretation. 3. There was neither sacrifice nor mediation, and since sacrifice is a necessary part of all covenants, God’s interaction with Adam could not be a covenant. 4. Scripture nowhere calls God’s “constitution” with Adam a covenant. The “old covenant” or “first covenant” refers to the Sinaitic dispensation, not the Adamic state. Hosea 6:7 presents a generic noun, not the proper noun, Adam. 5. As common as it is to use extra-​ scriptural terms for theological concepts, the term covenant should not be applied to the pre-​fall Adamic state.71

Kelly does not completely dispense with every element of the covenant of works, as he still maintains Adam’s role as the legal and representative head of humanity, but this Adamic function does not prove that Adam was in covenant with God. There are covenants that have no representative character, and conversely there is representation where there is no covenant.72 Kelly, however, does not provide examples to support his claim. For all of these reasons, to Kelly the Abrahamic covenant is paradigmatic for all other biblical covenants.73

Reception Despite the fact that all three theologians recognized that they were part of a small minority, reception of their critique was positive. One review of Eagleton’s work notes four points that corroborate his rejection of the doctrine. First, the review sets up Calvin as a theological norm for the Reformed tradition and states that Scottish theologians blindly followed him. But Scottish theologians only mimicked Calvin as far as the five points (total

John Colquhoun  167 depravity, unconditional election, limited atonement, irresistible grace, and perseverance of the saints). The resemblance between Calvin and his successors ended with the five points.74 Second, the reviewer claimed that in Scottish universities and dissenting academies, the five points were the chief theological “textbook” along with the Westminster Confession. The Bible was only a “reservoir, or armoury of sentences, from whence weapons may be drawn to defend them.”75 In this context, the reviewer believed that one could be an excellent controversialist without being a true theologian. The reviewer opined, “Hence theology has declined, while a bastard Calvinism has been engendered, which is preached, and believed, and defended by thousands who never read a line of Calvin, except perhaps a part of his Institutes.”76 In the reviewer’s mind, systematic divinity displaced the Scriptures, and in their place theologians used creeds, doctrines, catechisms, and all other sorts of religious machinery to engage in doctrinal debate. According to the reviewer, “It is not too much to say, that, for one person who has an orthodox belief founded on the word of God, there are one hundred who have an equally orthodox belief founded on a creed or on a confession of faith, and on nothing else.” 77 The reviewer believed that Calvin’s followers erroneously introduced the doctrine of limited atonement, which was an error of equally egregious proportions in comparison to the invalid covenant of works.78 Third, if Calvin’s epigones were blind and only proof-​texted the Scriptures, then naturally the reviewer rejected the views of well-​known covenant theologians such as Boston and Witsius. In Eagleton’s wake, the reviewer argues that covenant “in the sense of bargain between two parties, as applicable to the relationship subsisting between Creator and creature, is absurd.” Scripture nowhere states that God and Adam were in covenant.79 Again, like Eagleton, the interpretive standard for drawing doctrinal conclusions is explicit statement rather than a good and necessary consequence. Fourth, and finally, the reviewer believed the chief reason behind the doctrine’s creation was that theologians read about the new covenant in the Scriptures and therefore concluded that there must be an old covenant. So they hunted in vain until they arrived at the Genesis narrative and erroneously fastened the doctrine there.80 Like Eagleton, the reviewer believed that five-​point Calvinism was the parent of antinomianism, but he does not explain the precise doctrinal link.81 For unexplained reasons, five-​point Calvinism and the covenant of works were equally responsible for spawning antinomianism.

168  The Covenant of Works Reviews of Kelly’s work ranged from the pedestrian to full and hearty agreement. According to one review, the theme of the covenants had fallen into neglect.82 Such a comment likely does not refer to the absence of works on covenant theology, as a number of theologians published volumes on this subject. Rather, the complaint was about the relatively few biblical-​exegetical books on the subject. The comments of another reviewer echo this sentiment, and he endorses Kelly’s book as orthodox.83 In one of the more critical but nevertheless positive reviews, one commentator notes that Kelly was severe in his criticism of the doctrine but nonetheless glad that he differed from the teaching of the Westminster Standards. The teaching of the covenant of works “has really greatly tended to embarrass the clearness of Christian truth and faith.”84 But at the same time the reviewer registers a complaint that Kelly did not engage the history of the doctrine. He notes, for example, that Westminster divine William Strong exposited and defended the covenant of works, as did Theophlius Gale (1628–​78), who wrote the foreword to Strong’s work on covenant theology.85 With such an admission, the reviewer surmises, “For it seems to us very likely that old Theophilus Gale would rudely have classed our author with those whom he reprobates as ‘originistic monks.’ ”86 In other words, seventeenth-​ century Reformed theologians would have looked at Kelly as they would a cloistered monk who sat isolated with his copy of the Scriptures. There was no interaction with the opinions and views of others. The reviewer yet notes that the only other work that anticipated Kelly’s was Eagleton’s Thoughts on the Covenant of Works.87 The author was apparently unaware of Russell’s work. This critic believed that Kelly’s work broke new ground and would arm ministers against serious doctrinal error: “A careful study and application of its principles by our young ministers would fortify them against the dangers of Arminianism, which really has its chief strength in the supposed Covenant of works made with Adam, and the foundation thus given to the self-​confident Pelagianism of its inner creed.”88 Linking Arminianism and Pelagianism was a common polemical move among Reformed theologians of the seventeenth century, but this is perhaps the first time that someone linked these doctrinal errors to the covenant of works, a doctrine with a Reformed confessional pedigree. In addition to serving as an antidote for these twin errors, the writer believed Kelly’s rejection of the covenant of works would leave no quarter for the “atrocious teachings of Antinomianism.” He believed this was the case because “the stability of God’s Covenant, with the race, is never dependent on the obedience of man.”89 The assessor does not explain the nature

John Colquhoun  169 of the connection, but with Eagleton and Kelly he believed that eliminating the covenant of works would topple a key pillar of antinomianism.

Colquhoun on the Covenant of Works Scottish minister John Colquhoun presents a very different take on the covenant of works, which we can divide into three main concepts: definition, exegesis, and its nature.

Definition In contrast to the views of the detractors, Colquhoun defines the covenant of works as a mutual agreement. “A covenant,” writes Colquhoun, “is a free and mutual compact between two Parties, on express terms or conditions.” More specifically, the covenant of works is the free compact or agreement, between Jehovah and the first Adam, as the head and representative of all his natural offspring; in which, he promised to him life, in all its possible extent and duration; if he would continue for a limited time, to perform perfect obedience to his commandments, and threatened death, in all its awful extent and duration, if he would in the least instance disobey; to which Adam freely and fully consented.90

At this point in the reception of the doctrine, one should not expect Colquhoun to spill much ink over the definition of covenant, given that he published his work in 1821 and works critical of the doctrine did not emerge until eight years later with Eagleton’s publication. Nevertheless, he briefly addresses matters of definition. Unlike the opponents, Colquhoun recognizes that berith can mean a promise, precept, statute, or constitution, but that in most cases it means an agreement with conditions.91 He traces a number of its uses, such as in Jeremiah 33:25, God’s covenant with the day and night, which denotes a constitution or establishment. He also notes the term’s likely root origins: to choose, to cut down, or strike through. Parties of a covenant often entered into an agreement by dividing a beast in two and passing between the severed halves to commemorate the occasion. This practice appears in Jeremiah 34:18–​20 and Genesis 15:9–​10. He also points to a

170  The Covenant of Works number of places where the term means a disposition or testamentary covenant, such as Hebrews 9:15. Colquhoun documents the ancient Roman use of covenant in its Latin forms.92 Important to note is that Colquhoun does not assume a definition and impose it universally upon all texts, nor does he cite a confessional document to substantiate his claims. In fact, references to the Westminster Standards are infrequent in comparison to the over-​abundance of references to and the exegesis of Scripture.

Exegesis In his exposition, Colquhoun dedicates a twenty-​page chapter to the exegetical proofs, which challenges the critics’ notion that there was scant biblical evidence for the doctrine of the covenant of works. In the most gen­eral terms, Colquhoun appeals to Romans 3:27 and Paul’s statement that there is the “law of works” and the “law of faith.” With these two lexemes, the apostle Paul substantively presents the covenants of works and grace.93 Beyond Romans 3:27, Colquhoun next appeals to Galatians 4:24: “These are the two covenants; the one from mount Sinai, which generdereth to bondage, which is Agar.” In the nineteenth century, this text was commonly cited. Scottish theologian Thomas Bell (1733–​1802), for example, wrote a work on the covenant in which Galatians 4:24 was the chief text; Bell spends nearly two hundred pages exegeting this one verse.94 In Colquhoun’s mind, this text directly and explicitly speaks of the covenants of works and grace, but does this claim validate one of the earlier-​cited reviewers’ opinions that theologians see the new covenant and thus rummage for the old covenant? Colquhoun would likely respond in the negative to this criticism for several reasons. First, Hagar creates children of bondage, which confirms that the apostle Paul refers to the covenant of works.95 This was not a case of mistaken identity, as Colquhoun was well aware that Paul’s immediate reference was to the Mosaic and not the Adamic covenant. Nevertheless, Colquhoun believed that God republished the Adamic covenant to Israel at Sinai.96 There were, in his mind, parallels between the Adamic and Mosaic covenants because of the commanded obedience and the penalty of death for the transgression of said commands.97 Immediately evident in this claim is the different hermeneutic at work. The critics focused upon the meaning of individual terms (such as covenant), looked for explicit mention of the term in connection with Adam, and scanned the Genesis text but found nothing. Colquhoun,

John Colquhoun  171 on the other hand, starts with Paul’s statements in Galatians, connects to the events at Sinai, and then reads the Genesis narrative in the light of these later texts. In short, Colquhoun collates various texts across the entire canon; he employs the principle of the good and necessary consequence, or Scripture interpreting Scripture. A second text to which Colquhoun appeals is Hosea 6:7, and naturally he argues that adam is an explicit reference to Adam rather than a generic noun. Colquhoun does not dogmatically cite the text but notes the appearance of the lexeme k’adam in other texts, such as Job 31:33 and Psalm 82:7. These other two texts refer to Adam; Colquhoun’s determination that Hosea 6:7 refers to Adam is thus a reasonable conclusion. The earlier-​surveyed detractors of the doctrine pointed out that theologians of the period were quick to appeal to confessions, creeds, or the five points before they ever exegeted the Scriptures. Nevertheless, the original Westminster Standards do not cite Hosea 6:7 as a proof text for the covenant of works; hence Colquhoun’s use of this text represents an instance where he was willing exegetically to go beyond the received confessional tradition.98 The third text that Colquhoun exegetes is Romans 5:12–​21, which he deemed a locus classicus for the doctrine because it speaks of Adam’s role as federal head of humanity, a function that is tantamount to a covenantal relationship. Again, careful attention to the biblical text marks Colquhoun’s treatment. He rejects, for example, Augustine’s (354–​430) translation of Romans 5:12, where he rendered Paul’s eph ho as in quo (in whom). Colquhoun observes that Paul states that “all sinned” and thus the meaning is the same as Augustine’s mistranslation of Paul’s text. In other words, Colquhoun believed Augustine’s doctrinal conclusion was correct but that his exegesis was faulty.99 Colquhoun did not, therefore, blindly follow tradition but carefully engaged the biblical text. Based on his exegesis Colquhoun asks the question as to how Adam’s one sin could impact the rest of humanity. Something more than a natural biological union connected Adam to his offspring. Only a federal or covenantal union best explains the connection between Adam and his progeny, namely imputed covenantal guilt.100 Colquhoun observes the Adam-​Christ parallel and especially the fact that Adam served as a type of Christ: “As, therefore, it was by a covenant made with Christ, that he was constituted the Representative of his spiritual offspring; so it must have been by a covenant made with Adam, that he was constituted the representative of his natural descendants.”101

172  The Covenant of Works A fourth exegetical anchor point is a cluster of texts that include Romans 7:10, Leviticus 18:5, and Galatians 4:4–​5. In Romans 7:10 Paul talks about the “commandment which was ordained to life, I found to be unto death.” There is a link between obedience to a divine command and life, versus disobedience and death. This link applies to pre-​redemptive and redemptive history wherever God’s commands appear. When God first commanded Adam, it was for the prospects of life, and thus God required Adam’s perfect obedience. God condescended to Adam, which means that he was not equal in this arrangement, and promised life: “The man which doeth those things, shall live by them” (Lev. 18:5).102 Colquhoun expands his vista from creation and relates Adam’s pre-​fall state to Christ’s work when he cites Galatians 4:4–​ 5: “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.”103 In other words, the Adam-​Christ parallel of Romans 5 also appears elsewhere in the Scriptures, notably where Paul places Christ under the law; Christ too must render his obedience to the law in order to secure the redemption of those whom he represents. Although Colquhoun does not appeal to confessional documents in his exegesis, he does invoke a confessional distinction to bolster his use of these three texts. He notes the distinction between the moral law as a covenant versus a rule.104 As a covenant, the moral law requires personal, perfect, and perpetual obedience.105 As a rule, the moral law serves as a guide for the Christian life. Colquhoun therefore concludes that Christ delivers believers from the law as a covenant but not as a rule.106 This distinction is relevant given that critics regularly raised the specter of antinomianism, a charge that does not apply to Colquhoun’s formulation or other theologians of the period.107 Throughout his work Colquhoun exegetes and cites numerous other biblical texts, but these four exegetical pillars reveal that Colquhoun did not merely appeal to chapter and verse of the Westminster Confession in order to support his doctrinal claims.

Nature Three characteristics define Colquhoun’s treatment of the nature of the covenant of works: grace, law, and love. In the very opening words of his work, Colquhoun describes the covenant of works as “divine grace and condescension.”108 This proves that he did not view the covenant as an agreement between equals as the critics claimed. In fact, Colquhoun writes, “Though he

John Colquhoun  173 hath an absolute, an infinite right, to the perfect obedience of man, his own creature; yet so low did he stoop, as to enter into a covenant with him, and to become a debtor to him, for that obedience.”109 God and Adam, therefore, were not equals. The rule of the covenant of works was natural and a positive law. In his formulation, Colquhoun argues that the natural law is the ten commandments, otherwise known as the moral law.110 And the principle that stands behind the law is, if a person performs the law, he will live in it (Lev. 18:5), and God intended the law to convey life (Rom. 7:10; Gal. 3:10, 12). Even Christ confirms this role of the law when he responds to the rich young ruler, “If thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments” (Matt. 22:37–​ 40).111 Immediately after he first formed Adam, God wrote the moral law upon Adam’s heart. The moral image of God consisted in knowledge, righteousness, and holiness, which was concreated with and in Adam’s nature (Eccl. 7:29; Col. 3:10; Eph. 4:24; Gen. 2:7, 15–​17). As such, the natural law existed before God made the covenant of works with Adam.112 But when God annexed the promise of life to the natural law and the express threat of death for Adam’s disobedience, the natural law became a covenant of works. The annexed promise and condition constituted a positive law, which had its foundation in the good pleasure of God, while the natural law was founded in the divine nature.113 For Colquhoun, the moment that God commanded Adam not to eat from the tree of knowledge was the instant Adam entered the covenant; this is a point he gleans from fellow Scottish theologian Adam Gib (1714–​88).114 Similar to earlier formulations, Colquhoun argued that the entire moral law was comprehended in the one positive law not to eat from the tree.115 But Colquhoun makes one slight unexpected move in his explanation of the relationship between the natural law and the covenant. Unlike Boston, Colquhoun did not believe that the penalty of the covenant of works was connected exclusively to the covenant. Rather, “The penalty of the covenant of works, flows, not from a mere act of the will of God, as the making of the covenant did, but from the essential perfections of his nature; particularly, from—​his supreme majesty—​his immaculate holiness, and—​his vindicative, or vindictive justice.”116 On this specific point, Colquhoun sided with James Hadow (1667–​1747) over and against the Marrow men, as did others such as Robert L. Dabney (1820–​98).117 Even though Colquhoun believed that the covenant of works was characterized by law, that did not make it a cold arrangement. God stooped in an act of divine condescension and mercy, and conversely Adam was supposed to

174  The Covenant of Works meet God with his whole being—​to love God with his whole heart and life.118 Colquhoun captured both sides of this coin when he described God’s and Adam’s respective conduct. Concerning God, Colquhoun writes, “Reader, behold here, the goodness and grace of God to man. Though the first covenant, was a covenant of works, there was, notwithstanding much grace displayed in it.”119 Conversely, “Adam’s love to God,” writes Colquhoun, “and to his own descendants, as manifested in his keeping of the positive law, was to be accounted, a fulfilling of the whole moral law, under which he then stood.”120 As with earlier formulations, Colquhoun believed the covenant of works was the arena in which Adam was supposed to demonstrate and reveal his love toward his merciful covenant Lord. This stands in marked contrast to the critics who do not mention love to explain Adam’s pre-​fall relationship to God.

Comparative Analysis Two very different portraits emerge in the nineteenth-​ century reception of the covenant of works, which rotate around three chief issues: anti-​ scholasticism, hermeneutics, and concerns about antinomianism. While there may be other contributing causes, these three categories shape the positive and especially the negative nineteenth-​century reception of the doctrine.

Anti-​Scholasticism The first factor is the spirit of anti-​scholasticism that characterized the negative reception of the doctrine, which appears in several ways. Eagleton, for example, was willing to allude to the supposedly well-​known theologians who advocated the doctrine but he never actually cited any of them. Eagleton briefly interacts with Edward Leigh and only mentions in passing Gill, Owen, Edwards, Witsius, Boston, and a few others. He never directly interacts with their formulations. Eagleton was more content to lambast their supposed metaphysical speculation and scholastic pomposity. One of the most damning nineteenth-​century characterizations of scholasticism came from the pen of James Hogg’s (1770–​1835) novel, The Private Memoirs and Confessions of a Justified Sinner (1824). This work of fiction showcased

John Colquhoun  175 the dangers of antinomianism, which Hogg connected to scholasticism. At several points in the novel he satirized the scholastic ways of one of the chief characters, antinomian minister Rev. Wringhim:  “Wringhim held in his doctrines that there were eight different kinds of faith, all perfectly distinct in their operations and effects.”121 One character rebuked Wringhim, You are one, Sir, whose righteousness consists in splitting the doctrines of Calvin into thousands of undistinguishable films, and in setting up a system of justifying-​grace against all breaches of all laws, moral or divine. In short, Sir, you are a mildew—​a canker-​worm in the bosom of the Reformed Church, generating a disease of which she will never be purged, but by the shedding of blood.122

Despite the strongly worded censure, the vignette concludes with Rev. Wringhim and his critic “again set keenly to the splitting of hairs, and making distinctions in religion where none existed.”123 Evident in this statement is that Hogg pits Calvin against those who distorted his views, though there is no evidence that anyone actually held Rev. Wringhim’s views. But Hogg nevertheless saw a connection between antinomianism and scholasticism.124 By way of stark contrast, nineteenth-​century proponents of the doctrine held Reformed Orthodox authorities in high esteem. Colquhoun, for example, does not have many references to other theologians in his book on the covenant of works. But he does approvingly cite several authors and documents, including Boston, Gib, James Fisher (1697–​1775), the Westminster Larger Catechism, the Westminster Confession, and Jonathan Edwards.125 This was part of a larger positive attitude toward confessions evident, for example, in John Dick’s (1764–​1833) sermon titled Confessions of Faith Shown to Be Necessary, and the Duty of Churches with Respect to Them Explained.126 Colquhoun’s amicable relationship with Reformed Orthodoxy is especially evident in his positive use of the Westminster Standards, but also in his endorsement of Thomas Bell’s treatise on the covenants of works and grace.127 Bell’s work has positive references to Reformed Orthodox theologians such as Johannes Cocceius (1603–​69), Philip Doddridge (1702–​ 51), Witsius, Campegius Vitringa (1659–​1722), William Pemble (ca. 1591–​ 1623), Leigh, André Rivet (1572–​1651), Edward Reynolds (1599–​1676), Leonard Riissen (ca. 1636–​1700), Benedict Pictet (1655–​1724), Francis

176  The Covenant of Works Turretin (1623–​87), William Ames (1576–​1633), and Johannes Maccovius (1588–​1644).128 Another noteworthy fact is that Bell translated Witsius’s Conciliatory, or Irenical Animadversions, which was the Dutchman’s effort to assist in a theological controversy between neo-​and antinomians.129 In addition to Bell’s translation, William Crookshank’s eighteenth-​century translation of Witsius’s Economy of the Covenants was published in a number of editions, which gave access to this Latin work to an English-​speaking audience.130 This represents a marked contrast between the opponents and proponents of the doctrine. Proponents considered the Reformed Orthodox a vital resource, whereas opponents saw them as an obstacle. In fact, the positive review of Eagleton’s work marked the effort to pit Calvin against these so-​called Calvinists. The effort to set Calvin against the Reformed Orthodox thrived off two significant sources. The disenchantment with confessions and scholasticism caused theologians to eliminate perceived obstacles to ecumenical efforts. Recall Eagleton’s desire to appeal to young ministers of all denominations. The nineteenth century also witnessed the birth of Calvin studies as a formal discipline, and thus the Genevan received significant attention in comparison with his Reformation and post-​ Reformation peers. The Calvin Translation Society, for example, published new English editions of Calvin’s Institutes in 1845–​46, a collection of his theological treatises in 1844, as well as his Old and New Testament commentaries.131 In the minds of many, Calvin was unsullied by scholasticism, he did not teach doctrines such as the covenant of works or limited atonement, and he was chiefly an exegete rather than a theologian. Only later did dark confessional clouds descend upon the church to stifle a vibrant biblical faith. Scholasticism and confessionalism were two ugly peas in the same pod that a growing number of nineteenth-​century theologians would sooner ignore or leave untouched on their dinner plates. Conversely, nineteenth-​century proponents of the covenant of works did not blindly follow their Reformed Orthodox predecessors. As respected as Witsius was, for example, several noted their objection to his view that there were four sacraments of the covenant of works: the garden, the tree of life, the tree of knowledge, and the Sabbath.132 A. A. Hodge (1823–​86) opts only for the tree of life, and John Dick for the trees of life and knowledge.133 In other words, nineteenth-​ century proponents of the doctrine did not repristinate early modern views but instead embraced what they believed accurately reflected the teaching of Scripture.

John Colquhoun  177

Hermeneutics A second significant factor in the nineteenth-​century reception of the covenant of works is the change in biblical hermeneutics. The challenge with making this observation is that critics of the covenant of works do not come out and explicitly state that they reject classic Reformation interpretive principles. The different methods are nevertheless palpable and produce dissimilar doctrinal conclusions. At least two chief elements are involved in the hermeneutical shift from the Reformation to the nineteenth century: the advent of biblical theology and the rise of biblicism. In the eighteenth century, biblical theology was born as a formal discipline under the dark star of rationalism with Johann P. Gabler’s (1753–​1826) 1787 lecture titled “On the Proper Distinction between Biblical and Dogmatic Theology and the Specific Objectives of Each.”134 Gabler’s principal aim in his lecture was to separate biblical and dogmatic theology, not merely distinguish them, as his lecture title suggests. Gabler believed that dogmatic theology arose from theologians and biblical theology originated from the Bible.135 He also believed that dogmatic theology and creeds suffocated a true understanding of the Scriptures. This stands in glaring contrast to John Dick’s assessment of the need for confessions; he argued that they were biblical tools for the church.136 Gabler’s lecture signaled a sea change in biblical hermeneutics and influenced the development of historico-​critical exegesis. David Friedrich Strauss (1808–​74) believed that historico-​critical exegesis was free from theological presuppositions and thus superior to dogmatic theology.137 Loosed from the straitjacket of doctrine, exegetes were free to move wherever their exegesis led them. Noted English biblical scholar Benjamin Jowett (1817–​93) wrote in 1860, Scripture, like other books, has one meaning, which is to be gathered from itself without reference to the adaptations of Fathers or Divines; and without regard to a priori notions about its nature and origin. It is to be interpreted like other books, with attention to the character of its authors, and the prevailing state of civilization and knowledge, with allowance for peculiarities of style and language, and modes of thought and figures of speech.138

Biblical scholars used history to trump doctrine, and in some cases claimed that historical evidence eliminated any claims of divine inspiration. Rather

178  The Covenant of Works than interpret Scripture with Scripture because it was an inspired whole, biblical scholars claimed to shatter the text into a million different historical shards. Although his observation comes from the eighteenth century, Immanuel Kant (1724–​1804) captures the overall methodology in a letter he wrote to a colleague: If a religion once reaches the point where critical knowledge of old languages, philological and antiquarian erudition, constitute the foundation on which that religion must be constructed through every age and among all nations, then he who is most at home in Greek, Hebrew, Syrian, Arabian etc., and in the archives of antiquity, will drag the orthodox (they may look as sour as they please) like children wherever he wants; they mustn’t grumble; for they cannot compare themselves to him in what according to their own confessions carries the power of proof, and they look shyly at a Michaelis as he recasts their ancient treasure in an entirely different coinage. If theological faculties should in time become less insistent on maintaining this sort of literature among their pupils . . . if philologists independent in their faith should only master this volcanic weapon, then respect for those demagogues will be totally finished and they will have to take instruction from the literary people on what they have to teach.139

Systematic theology was no longer queen of the theological sciences, but now historico-​critical exegesis reigned. If covenant no longer meant an agreement but something else, then the icy doctrine of the covenant of works would evaporate beneath the hot sun of historico-​critical exegesis. Gabler thus opened the way for an “increasingly independent dogmatic theology far less influenced by the results of exegesis, even as it reinforced the removal of exegesis from the theological patterning of the exegetical tradition of the fathers, the medieval doctors, and the interpreters of the Reformation and post-​Reformation eras.”140 In fact, Charles Hodge (1797–​ 1878) laid at the feet of rationalism the blame for the demise of federal theology in the broader church: “Rationalism was introduced into the Church under the guise of a philosophical statement of the truths of the Bible free from the mere outward form in which the sacred writers, trained in Judaism, had presented them. On this ground the federal system, as it was called, was discarded.”141 Hodge likely had Gabler’s project in view with his observation. Dogmatic and creedal theology were therefore excrescences on the

John Colquhoun  179 Scriptures requiring removal rather than something that grew organically from them. In this vein Gabler contributed to what some have called “the death of Scripture.”142 Gabler built his project on the foundation of Enlightenment rationalism, which led him to deny the plenary inspiration of the Bible. The theologian’s task was to discern what was truly inspired, sift out the chaff of mere human opinions, and then employ these inspired truths in dogmatic theology adapted to the Zeitgeist.143 Hence, theologians and universities had to sever the bond between the Bible and dogmatics. Anything that smacked of scholasticism or sectarianism was discouraged and discarded.144 This movement began in the eighteenth century and picked up steam in the nineteenth century, evident in the growing rejection of the covenant of works. This shift in theological foundations naturally impacted biblical exegesis. Critics of the covenant of works have a decidedly different hermeneutic than those who affirm the doctrine.145 Eagleton, Russell, and Kelly share the following common interpretive principles. They 1. Reject the common definition of covenant as agreement and replace it with something else, such as constitution, disposition, promise, or purification. 2. Rest the viability of the doctrine on the need of an explicit statement in Scripture. In their minds, Hosea 6:7 was one of the few, if only, texts that might testify to the doctrine’s existence. 3. Survey the concept of covenant in biblical history but do not offer very much doctrinal formulation. 4. Hardly engage any of the commonly cited proof texts for the covenant of works. 5. Do not interact with the history of interpretation on the exegetical and related theological issues. 6. Substantively reject the common Reformation principle of a good and necessary consequence. 7. Define terms by their etymological root rather than contextual usage. Suntheke is an agreement, whereas diatheke is a testament. The critics all share these common traits and at the same time claim to stand within the Protestant and even Reformation tradition. The nineteenth century began to witness a new version of sola Scriptura. Protestants were no longer committed to tradition 1, as Heiko Oberman

180  The Covenant of Works (1930–​2001) termed it: tradition 1 recognizes that creedal articles of faith appear in the Scriptures. The church develops and passes them down by tradition, which functions in a subordinate role to Scripture but at the same time plays an integral interpretive role. This stands in contrast to tradition 2, which has a dual source of authority:  Scripture and tradition.146 Sola Scriptura was now largely shorn from tradition. In the nineteenth century tradition 0 displaced tradition 1: there was little to no place for tradition in the interpretation of Scripture.147 In fact, John Dick noted this trend in his sermon on the necessity of confessions.148 He believed the antidote to tradition 0 was a healthy dose of confessions, but only after a person took the utmost care to compare the confession against Scripture to ensure that the document conformed to it.149 This interpretive method stands in demonstrable contrast to the hermeneutics of the proponents of the doctrine. Advocates of the doctrine were well aware that few direct statements in Scripture attested to the covenant of works. They were cognizant of the contested interpretation, for example, of Hosea 6:7. But the doctrine never rested exclusively on this one text, for early Reformed advocates of the covenant of works do not cite it in support of the doctrine. One could eliminate this text and the doctrine would still have multiple anchor points spread throughout the canon of Scripture. When Colquhoun, for example, answers objections to the doctrine, he writes, That though the Scriptures do not make express mention, of God’s having made a promise of eternal life, to Adam and his posterity, on the ground of his perfect obedience, as their representative; yet, by just and natural deductions, from express passages compared together, it is sufficiently evident, as has been shown in the preceding pages, that he made such a promise to him. It is justly inferred—​from the express threatening of death in all its extent, for sin—​from the tree of life, which, as Adam evidently knew, was a sign and seal of that promise of life—​and from the repeated declarations, ‘That the man which doeth those things, shall live by them.’150

This one statement showcases the principle of the good and necessary consequence at work. Colquhoun was not necessarily looking for an express statement but rather collated and compared various passages of Scripture to arrive at his doctrinal conclusion.

John Colquhoun  181 Table 9.1:  Canonical nature of John Colquhoun’s interpretive method Phrase

Biblical reference

Promise of eternal life Perfect obedience as their representative Threat of death Tree of life That the man who doeth those things, shall live by them.

Rom. 7:10; Lev. 18:5 Rom. 5:12–​21 Gen. 2:16–​17 Gen. 2:9; 3:17, 22, 24; Rev. 22:2, 14, 19 Lev.18:5; Gal. 3:10; Rom. 10:5; Matt. 19:16–​22

He does not explicitly provide Scripture references, but within the context of Colquhoun’s broader work, this statement presents a different interpretative pattern in comparison with the critics of the covenant of works. Table 9.1 illustrates the canonical nature of Colquhoun’s interpretive method. Like the doctrine of the trinity or the two natures of Christ, the covenant of works rests in a web of texts rather than an express statement of Scripture. Other nineteenth-​century advocates of the doctrine openly acknowledged this fact. A. A. Hodge, for example, writes, “The inspired record of God’s transactions with Adam presents definitely all the essential elements of a covenant as coexisting in that constitution.”151 Hodge’s father, Charles, opens his treatment of the covenant of works with a similar declaration.152

Antinomianism The third and final factor in the nineteenth-​century reception of the covenant of works was the fear of antinomianism. The Marrow controversy was still fresh in the collective mind of the Scottish Kirk, and many were concerned that antinomianism was lurking. English theologians sounded the alarm about the growing threat in the Anglican Church.153 Several theologians believed there was a link between the covenant of works and antinomianism, but they did not explain the exact relationship between the two ideas. Antinomianism was truly a grave concern, especially in nineteenth-​ century Scotland. Robert Burns’s (1759–​96) poem, “Holy Willie’s Prayer,” likely echoed in the national consciousness. The poem was a fictional prayer

182  The Covenant of Works of an elder in the church who was a staunch predestinarian but also a profligate antinomian, evident in his praise of God’s election and his sexual immorality that go hand in hand: I bless and praise Thy matchless might, When thousands Thou hast left in night, That I am here before Thy sight,    For gifts an grace A burning and a shining light    To a’ this place  . . .  Yet I am here a chosen sample, To show Thy grace is great and ample; I’m here, a pillar o Thy temple,    Strong as a rock, A guide, a buckler, and example,    To a’ Thy flock. But yet, O Lord! confess I must, At times I’m fash’d wi fleshly lust; An somtimes, too, in worldly trust,    Vile self gets in; But Thou remembers we are dust,    Defil’d wi sin O Lord! yestreen, Thou kens, wi Meg—​ Thy pardon I sincerely beg! O, may’t ne’er be a livin plague    To my dishonor! An I’ll ne’er lift a lawless leg    Again upon her. Besides, I farther maun avow, Wi Leezie’s lass, three times I trow—​ But, Lord, that Friday I was fou,    When I cam near her, Or else, Thou kens, Thy servant true Wad never steer her.154

In short, Scotsmen like Burns believed predestination and antinomianism went hand in hand.

John Colquhoun  183 James Hogg’s novel The Private Memoirs and Confessions of a Justified Sinner stands as a literary monument to the belief that Calvinism led Christians into antinomianism.155 In fact, Hogg sets the novel in the same context of the Marrow controversy (1715–​30).156 While Scottish religious life undoubtedly had manifestations of antinomianism, the covenant of works was not necessarily the culprit. On the whole, the doctrine serves as a barrier to antinomianism because once Adam breached the covenant, theologians claimed that only Christ could repair the damage. In other words, given the Adam-​Christ parallel, whatever theologians said of Adam and pre-​fall anthropology was ultimately true of post-​fall Christology. That is, the last Adam comes to fulfill the failed work of the first Adam. Adam’s reward of eternal life was the same as Christ’s reward for his work.157 The broken covenant of works hung over the head of every human being like the sword of Damocles, and the only remedy was Christ’s intercessory work—​union and communion with the second Adam.158 But even then, as noted earlier, Christ delivered believers from the moral law as a covenant, but not as a rule.159 Colquhoun borrowed the covenant-​rule distinction from the Westminster Confession’s chapter on the law of God, a statement carefully crafted specifically to refute antinomianism.160 To claim, therefore, that the covenant of works yielded the aberrant fruit of antinomianism lacks evidential warrant. It seems that critics saw the covenant of works as part of the overall confessional corpus of doctrine that, in their minds, produced antinomianism. They tried, therefore, to sweep up the covenant of works along with other troubling teachings and attempted to toss them all into the theological trash bin. But in this case, it seems to be more of a case of guilt by association than actually finding the covenant of works holding the smoking gun of antinomianism. One of the potential links, however, between the covenant of works and antinomianism comes from two divergent sources, John McLeod Campbell (1800–​72) and Colquhoun. Campbell was a Scottish and Reformed theologian who published his controversial book that rejected the so-​called doctrine of limited atonement.161 Campbell naturally spends the lion’s share of his book discussing the doctrine of the atonement, but in a number of places he makes three observations relevant to the negative reception of the covenant of works. First, he believed that “theological systems, and traditional habits of thought” affected religious experiences. He does not expressly mention the Westminster Standards, but his comments nevertheless reveal his antipathy toward them.162 This was part of a larger theme in his theology in which Campbell pitted experience against dogmatic theology, or what

184  The Covenant of Works he calls speculative theology.163 Second, like Eagleton, Campbell posited a theological conflict between the theology of the Reformation and later Calvinists.164 Theologians like John Owen, for example, gave more authority to reason than the life of Christ. Owen deduced the doctrine of limited atonement from logical principles, not from Scripture.165 Third, the most relevant observation for discovering the covenant of works–​legalism connection lies in Campbell’s rejection of the doctrine of imputation. In his view, this cast salvation in an inherently legal mold, which thus fed the instinctive legalism of the human heart—​that which destroys the grace of God.166 Therefore, Campbell wanted to free the atonement of its legal character.167 Campbell falls within the broader pattern of dissatisfaction with Reformed Orthodoxy, but his desire to strip the atonement of its legal character presents the potential connection between the covenant of works and antinomianism. But at first glance this appears to be irrelevant because legalism is the inverse error of antinomianism. The link between these two false doctrines, however, emerges in Colquhoun’s explanation of the potential faults associated with the covenant of works. Colquhoun crisply observes, “Unbelief and a legal spirit, are the very soul or life of the body of sin.” To support this claim, Colquhoun appeals to Ralph Erskine (1685–​1752), one of the Marrow men. In his comments on 1 Corinthians 15:56—​“The strength of sin is the law”—​ Erskine writes, “The legal strain, under covert of zeal for the law, hath a native tendency to mar true holiness, and all acceptable obedience to the law; insomuch that, the greatest Legalist is the greatest Antinomian, or enemy of the law.”168 If Campbell and Colquhoun shed any light on the possible connections between the covenant of works and antinomianism they are (1) a broader definition of antinomianism and (2) the doctrine’s inherently legal character. Critics of the covenant of works may be painting with a very broad brush when they claim that the doctrine leads to antinomianism—​that is, all types of abuses of the law, whether salvation by works or a disregard for the moral law. But one should note that, while critics and proponents both decried antinomianism, the critics believed the covenant of works naturally led to the error whereas proponents believed antinomianism was the bastard child of the doctrine’s misuse and abuse. In fact, Colquhoun makes this very observation when he identifies the two chief errors associated with abuse of the covenant of works: legalism and antinomianism. The legalist believes he is still under the law as a covenant of works even though he has been redeemed by Christ, and the antinomian supposes that, since Christ has redeemed him, he

John Colquhoun  185 is no longer under the law as a rule of life.169 Even with the light provided by Campbell and Colquhoun, connections between the covenant of works and antinomianism do not appear immediately evident.

Conclusion The covenant of works enjoyed nearly uncontested acceptance from the late sixteenth through the eighteenth centuries, but this all changed in the nineteenth century. Due in part to changing convictions about hermeneutics, a negative assessment of scholasticism, and fears about antinomianism, a small but vocal minority of theologians both within and outside the Reformed churches began to lodge their criticisms against the doctrine. Those, however, who were positively disposed to employing the good and necessary consequence and the use of confessions, and who held Reformed Orthodox theologians in esteem, still professed and defended the doctrine. But there was now no way to turn back the clock on the negative reception of the covenant of works. In the twentieth century, criticism of the doctrine would move from the periphery to the very heart of the Reformed community.

10 The Twentieth Century Small fissures in the reception of the covenant of works developed in the nineteenth century when theologians expressed their doubts about the doctrine’s viability. There was a shared sentiment that it was the illegitimate child of weak exegesis and scholasticism. In the twentieth century, these fissures grew into full-​fledged chasms within the Reformed community. No longer were outsiders such as Methodist minister John Eagleton (1785–​1832) registering his objections to the doctrine, but rather respected theologians within the Reformed community openly challenged it. At the same time, however, other theologians within the tradition believed the doctrine was scriptural and thus defended and promoted it. This chapter sets forth the two streams of reception of the covenant of works by surveying the doctrine’s critics and proponents. In this comparative survey, the chapter demonstrates that critics rejected the doctrine because of changing exegetical methodologies, a negative attitude toward scholasticism, and philosophical influences. Conversely, proponents of the covenant of works largely maintained early modern exegetical methodologies, esteemed Reformed scholastic theology, and did not allow modern philosophical views to create obstacles for the doctrine. Meanwhile, some advocates of the doctrine promoted a weaker version. Negative attitudes toward early modern Reformed theology and biblicism affected twentieth-​century Reformed theology as a whole. The first section of this chapter surveys three representative critics of the doctrine: Karl Barth (1886–​1968), John Murray (1898–​1975), and Herman Hoeksema (1886–​1965). Although these three Reformed theologians had different doctrinal commitments, several factors unite them:  a rejection of the covenant of works; a rejection of the common early-​modern definition of covenant; and in the case of Murray and Hoeksema, both employed a biblicistic hermeneutic in dealing with this doctrine rather than the Reformation principle of a good and necessary consequence. In the case of Barth, German Idealism and Kierkegaardian existentialism also colored his covenant theology and thus contributed to his rejection of the covenant of works. The second section examines proponents of the doctrine chiefly The Covenant of Works. J. V. Fesko, Oxford University Press (2020). © Oxford University Press. DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780190071363.001.0001

188  The Covenant of Works through the work of Geerhardus Vos (1862–​1949). At first glance this might seem like an odd choice, given other theologians who might warrant attention, such as Abraham Kuyper (1837–​1920), Herman Bavinck (1854–​1921), or Louis Berkhof (1873–​1957). This second section references the works of these important Reformed luminaries to provide contextual information for Vos’s views. As much as Vos has a reputation as a biblical theologian, he was first a professor of systematic theology. Moreover, Vos was influential in the development of twentieth-​century Reformed thought through the publication of his essay on the history of covenant theology as well as with his interaction with Kuyper, Bavinck, and Berkhof.1 All four theologians were epistolary dialogue partners, and Bavinck and G. C. Berkouwer (1903–​96) both positively cited Vos’s essay on covenant theology.2 Vos also interacted with B. B. Warfield (1851–​1921) in the creation of his essay on Reformed covenant theology.3 And Berkhof was dependent on Bavinck and especially Vos when he wrote his own Systematic Theology, at times virtually copying Vos’s dogmatics lectures verbatim into his own work.4 In other words, while perhaps relatively unknown in the present as a major figure in the twentieth century, Vos’s covenant theology was influential in the development of modern Reformed theology. Thus, this chapter examines the positive reception of the covenant of works primarily through Vos’s work, with ancillary reference to other twentieth-​century theologians for context. The third section highlights the three categories that separate the positive versus negative reception of the covenant of works: exegetical methodologies, philosophical stimuli, and attitudes toward Reformed scholastic theology. The chapter concludes with some observations about the twentieth-​century reception of the covenant of works.

Critics Karl Barth Unlike earlier nineteenth-​century criticisms of the covenant of works, Barth directly engaged primary sources in his rejection of the doctrine. He was familiar with numerous early modern theological works either through secondary sources such as Heinrich Heppe’s (1820–​79) Reformed Dogmatics, and Gottlob Schrenk’s (1879–​1965) The Kingdom of God and Covenant, or

The Twentieth Century  189 direct use of primary sources.5 In spite of his familiarity with early modern Reformed theology, Barth was not reticent to register his complaints against the tradition, correct perceived errors, and present alternative formulations. This pattern was true of a number of traditional doctrines, including the covenant of works. Barth rejected the covenant of works for two chief reasons: he believed it introduced anthropocentrism and was insufficiently christologi­ cal. In his rejection of the covenant of works, Barth surveyed the origins of covenant or federal theology and traced it backward from Johannes Cocceius (1603–​69) to Zacharias Ursinus (1534–​83), Caspar Olevianus (1536–​87), Wolfgang Musculus (1497–​1563), and ultimately Ulrich Zwingli (1484–​ 1531), Heinrich Bullinger (1504–​75), and John Calvin (1509–​64).6 On the whole, Barth believed that Reformed covenant theology was an improvement over medieval and Protestant scholasticism. Covenant theology was supposedly a different genre than scholastic theology, and thus he pitted one against the other.7 Covenant theology was allegedly livelier than the static propositional scholastic theology. In contrast to the Reformed scholastics, Barth believed Calvin in his Institutes better captured the “living dynamic” of redemptive history.8 In other words, Barth pitted the Reformed scholastics against Calvin. But as much as Barth appreciated Reformed covenant theology, he nevertheless believed that theologians infected the early Reformation doctrine of the covenant with a virus, namely anthropocentrism: There is only one historical explanation for this innovation, the introduction of this first stage in the history for which the Federal theology thought that it had biblical reference. This is that biblical exegesis had been invaded by a mode of thought in which this history, however extraordinary the course it took, could only unfold itself and therefore only begin as the history of man and his works, man who is good by nature and who is therefore in covenant with God—​a God who pledged to him by virtue of his goodness. To this mode of thinking it became more and more foreign to think of the history as conversely the history of God and His works, the God who originally turns to man in grace, and therefore as from the very first the history of the covenant of grace.9

Barth does not invoke the term, but he substantively accuses the tradition of injecting Pelagianism into its covenant theology, a platform from which Adam could have secured eschatological blessing apart from Christ and

190  The Covenant of Works apart from God’s grace. Barth does not directly appeal to the word contract, but he objects to the apparent contractual nature of the covenant of works: The first place is taken by the strange spectacle of man in Paradise to whom eternal life is promised as a reward which he has earned, whose works can perfectly fulfill the command of God (even if his obedience is not yet secure), to whom God is just as much bound by this fulfillment as he is to God, between whom and God the relationship is clearly that of a do ut des [I give, so you will give]. And this relationship I supposed to be the original form of the covenant.10

Such a quid pro quo relationship does not accord with Barth’s understanding of God’s covenantal dealings with humanity. The covenant of works sets the tone for all of God’s subsequent interactions with humanity as the do ut des never departs.11 So in contrast to nineteenth-​century criticisms, Barth leveled the accusation of legalism against the doctrine rather than antinomianism. Rather than the twofold structure of the covenants of works and grace, Barth believed that there was only the covenant of grace. Barth looked at the first-​and second-​generation reformers such as Zwingli, Bullinger, and Calvin and believed they had a nearly pure conception of covenant; the outlier was their doctrine of double predestination. According to Barth, Calvin did not introduce the law by means of the lex naturae, which thus destroyed the grace of God.12 Barth rejected all forms of natural theology and argued that there was no law inherent in humans or written in the cosmos.13 Calvin’s unwillingness to employ natural categories preserved God’s grace, unlike later Calvinists who introduced and maintained this nature-​grace dualism.14 In Barth’s judgment, there was only one covenant of grace, and that covenant was essentially synonymous with Christ. Creation is not itself the covenant, nor is the creation the means to arrive at the covenant. Instead, the covenant is the goal of creation. The covenant, in fact, is the inner basis of the creation, and this covenant is the free love of God, or more accurately, the eternal covenant by which God decreed the incarnation of Christ, the representative of all creation.15 God makes this one covenant with Adam (even in his pre-​fall state), the patriarchs, Abraham, and the people of Israel.16 Three observations should be made regarding Barth’s rejection of the covenant of works. First, Barth does not engage in any counter-​exegesis in his survey of the history of covenant theology. Second, Barth’s analysis of the development of covenant theology includes historical-​theological errors.

The Twentieth Century  191 Barth, for example, follows Schrenk’s analysis, which locates the origins of the development of covenant theology in Zwingli’s and Bullinger’s polemic engagement against Anabaptism.17 While there is some truth to this claim, at the same time Reformed covenant theology owes its origins to more than a polemic defense of infant baptism. Zwingli and Bullinger certainly appealed to the covenant, and their work constitutes an important stage of development, but covenant theology—​and more narrowly an Adamic covenant—​ has roots that reach back to the patristic age and has testimony in the ancient church, and even among Roman Catholic theologians.18 Additionally, Barth claims that the Westminster Confession (1647) was the first time that the Reformed churches accorded the covenant of works confessional status.19 This is inaccurate; the Irish Articles (1615) first codified the doctrine. Such an error is easily forgiven, but other more significant mistakes hobble Barth’s claims. Namely, his claim that Calvin rejected natural law does not accord with the overwhelming evidence to the contrary.20 Third, and finally, Barth’s monocovenantal view arguably owes more to idealism and existentialism than to exegesis. The comparative analysis that appears later addresses this point in greater detail.

Herman Hoeksema Herman Hoeksema is another twentieth-​century critic of the covenant of works. At first glance he does not appear to reject the doctrine given that he does have a chapter on the topic in his systematic theology, but closer examination reveals that he did in fact dismiss it. He rejected the historic doctrine, redefined the term, and advocated another version of it. Hoeksema was familiar with the basic tenets of the doctrine, though he only interacts with the work of Charles Hodge (1797–​1878). On the one hand, there is nothing wrong with only interacting with Hodge, since he holds a common version of the doctrine. But on the other hand, it represents an odd stance toward the doctrine because Hoeksema does not engage any other historic sources; he does not, for example, address the numerous early modern Dutch Reformed theologians who advocated the doctrine, such as Herman Witsius (1636–​ 1708), Wilhelmus á Brakel (1635–​1711), or Petrus Van Mastricht (1630–​ 1706).21 By way of contrast, Vos either explicitly or implicitly interacted with historic sources such as Witsius, Mastricht, Brakel, Cocceius, and Johannes Braunius (1628–​1708). The same holds true in spades for Vos’s essay on the

192  The Covenant of Works history of Reformed covenant theology.22 In fact, despite the hearty promotion of the doctrine among early modern Dutch Reformed theologians, Hoeksema sought to distance the tradition from the covenant of works. He claimed that the Three Forms of Unity never speak of God and Adam’s relation as a covenant: “And certainly, of a so-​called ‘covenant of works’ our confessional standards know nothing.”23 Hoeksema’s efforts to distance the continental confessional tradition from the covenant of works is the polar opposite of Bavinck’s efforts to align them.24 When Hoeksema rejects the doctrine he provides five reasons: (1) there is no scriptural support for it; (2) it is impossible for humans to merit any reward from God; (3) the idea that Adam would have gained eternal life through his obedience does not fit at all with Scripture or any possible dogmatic conception; (4) claiming that God first created Adam and then covenanted with him makes the covenant accidental rather than essential to humanity’s existence; and (5) the concept of a covenant of works is unworthy of God. Based on these five reasons Hoeksema concludes, “We cannot accept the theory of the covenant of works, but must condemn it as unscriptural.”25 In one sense, Hoeksema’s objections to the doctrine echo the earlier nineteenth-​century criticisms, but at the same time they reveal a degree of unfamiliarity with the basic contours of the early modern doctrine. Hoeksema, for example, does not engage any of the commonly cited texts in any great detail (e.g., Gen. 1:28; 2:16–​17; Lev. 18:5, Rom. 2:15; 5:12–​21; 7:1–​4, 10; 10:5; Gal. 3:10; 4:24; 1 Cor. 15:45; Eccl. 7:29). He also appears unaware that there were a number of different views regarding the nature of Adam’s reward. The Westminster divines only state that Adam received “life,” which left the specific nature of his reward undefined because this was a matter of dispute. Could Adam receive eternal or temporal life as the reward for his obedience? And while many Reformed theologians believed that God covenanted with Adam as a post-​creation act, there were those such as Robert Rollock (ca. 1555–​99) who believed that Adam was created in rather than for covenant. But even then, such a distinction seems overblown, given that no early modern Reformed theologian would have claimed that Adam could have refused the covenant of works. Given what Hoeksema states about the covenant of works, one might assume that he completely sacked the doctrine. Instead, he retained the term but, in his mind, realigned it with scriptural teaching. As much as Hoeksema claimed no scriptural support for the doctrine, he admitted that Hosea 6:7 could be cited in its favor. Whether the text meant “like Adam” or “like

The Twentieth Century  193 men,” the verse revealed that all relations between God and humanity were covenantal. All of Scripture presupposes that Adam and God were in covenant.26 Such an admission might appear to undermine all that Hoeksema previously claimed in his rejection until one factors in his definition of covenant. Unlike Hodge, for example, who defines a covenant as an agreement, Hoeksema defines it as a relationship.27 He does not provide any exegetical or lexical argumentation to substantiate his definition, but Hoeksema nevertheless claims that the triune God exists in a state of covenantal friendship.28 Since Adam was created in God’s image, his creation mirrors the covenantal existence of the triune God. Thus, from the instant of his creation, Adam existed in a covenant relation to God. In this covenant Adam was God’s friend-​servant and office-​bearer, a prophet, priest, and king.29 Hoeksema posits that Adam would have lived in a static environment in his role given that God uncoupled his obedience from the prospects of eschatological life. He was supposed to obey God and fulfill the mandate (e.g., Gen. 1:28), but he would have dwelled in God’s presence and maintained his will in all the earth.30 One of the elements of the covenant of works that Hoeksema retains is the doctrine of imputed guilt. Despite his reshaping of the doctrine, Hoeksema acknowledges that Adam stood in an organic and legal relation to his offspring.31 Here he appeals to Romans 5:12–​19 to support his contention that Adam was the legal head of the human race. Hoeksema closely traces the apostle’s words to claim that Adam’s one sin was the reason death entered the world, and that by this one offense, “many were made sinners.” This brought condemnation and judgment, which are forensic terms and prove the legal solidarity between Adam and his offspring. “Adam,” therefore, “is placed by God in the position of federal head of the whole race.”32 Hoeksema continues to affirm the federal element of the historic covenant of works but redefines what federal means. Adam’s disobedience is the only federal factor; Hoeksema does not address the implications of Adam’s obedience. Vos links the covenant of works to eschatology, but Hoeksema has no such connections in his redefined covenant of works. Vos stood in continuity with the majority report in early modern Reformed tradition by claiming that eschatology precedes soteriology.33 That is, there was an eschatology prior to the necessity of soteriology—​an eschatological goal for the creation bound with the covenant of works. Hoeksema only affirms a shadow of the doctrine and it only explains the fall; he does not link his covenant of works to other doctrines such as Christology or eschatology.

194  The Covenant of Works

John Murray The third and final of three twentieth-​century critics discussed here is John Murray, professor of systematic theology at Westminster Theological Seminary in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Unlike Hoeksema, Murray presented significant interaction with early modern Reformed theologians in an essay on the history of covenant theology.34 In his essay he interacts with all three traditional covenants (redemption, works, and grace) and matters of definition. Murray looked back over the history of covenant theology and believed that disputes regarding the question of conditions and the covenant of grace began hundreds of years earlier and continued into the present day.35 He does not explicitly reference them, but he likely had in mind the antinomian-​neonomian controversy of the late seventeenth century and the Marrow controversy of the eighteenth century. Like some of his nineteenth-​century Scottish predecessors, Murray was concerned about antinomianism.36 Murray thus believed that the only viable solution to ending this controversy was to revise the definition of covenant.37 Murray understood that early modern Reformed theologians up until the nineteenth century defined a covenant as a contract or compact between parties; in other words, fundamentally, a covenant was an agreement.38 Instead of agreements, Murray believed that covenants were promises. In Murray’s view, a covenant was a sovereign promissory dispensation of grace related to redemption.39 The Noahic covenant was paradigmatic in Murray’s covenant theology because it was a unilateral promise. Covenants were not mutual agreements. Murray’s redefinition was not new but rather had precedent in nineteenth-​century Scottish theologians. In fact, in his lecture on the covenant of grace, Murray cites David Russell’s and John Kelly’s works in support of his definition.40 Given his understanding of covenant, Murray creates a system in which the early modern covenant of works no longer has a hospitable environment. Thus, Murray redefines the Adam-​God relationship as the Adamic administration. In some respects, Murray’s Adamic administration has continuities with the covenant of works. For example, Murray still designates Adam as the legal representative for all humanity and argues for the doctrine of immediate imputation.41 At the same time, the discontinuities between Murray’s Adamic administration and the early modern covenant of works are significant, which appear under three categories: hermeneutics, exegesis, and engagement with early modern sources.

The Twentieth Century  195 Murray remains largely committed to historic Reformed hermeneutics, especially the principle of the good and necessary consequence. For example, in his assessment of the divine prohibition against eating from the tree of knowledge, in line with early modern exegesis, Murray infers that Adam had the possibility of life had he been obedient to the command.42 Even though the biblical text does not explicitly state that Adam could have secured life by his obedience, Murray applies the Reformed hermeneutical principle that prohibitions have positive sides; the command not to kill, for example, implies the requirement to preserve life.43 But in spite of his use of this principle, he nevertheless rejects the presence of an Adamic covenant on the grounds that Scripture does not explicitly identify it as such. In his mind, the lone text that might warrant the doctrine is Hosea 6:7, which according to Murray can be legitimately interpreted as a generic reference to people rather than Adam.44 Despite Murray’s familiarity and interaction with early modern sources, he reduces the exegetical viability of the doctrine to one text. He may at points employ good and necessary consequences in his theology, but for reasons unknown, Murray was unwilling to use it to establish the covenant of works. For this doctrine, he required an explicit statement from Scripture to warrant its existence. This leads to the issue of exegetical discontinuities. Early modern theologians appealed to a number of biblical texts to prove the doctrine, including Genesis 2:16–​17; Romans 2:14–​15; 3:27; 5:12–​21; 7:1–​4; 10:5 (cf. Gal. 3:10; Lev. 18:5); and Galatians 4:24. Yet, with most of these texts, Murray does not connect them to the covenant of works. Genesis 2:16–​17 is merely a command or prohibition, neither part of a covenantal administration nor a representative part of the whole moral law.45 Romans 2:14–​15 reveals that God inscribed the “works of the law” on Gentile hearts, not the moral law as in early modern formulations, which served as a constituent element of the covenant of works.46 Romans 3:27 speaks of the “law of works” and the “law of faith,” which in Murray’s view denote the “system,” “order,” or “rule,” and thus reveals that one’s justification is either by works or by faith in Christ.47 And though he acknowledges that one of Adam’s goals was justification through his obedience, Murray does not invoke the concept of covenant in his explanation.48 Even though there is a “system” of justification by works and a “system” of justification by faith, Murray does not see a problem with one being non-​covenantal and the other covenantal. This same pattern unfolds in his analysis of Romans 5:12–​21, where Murray readily identifies the principles of legal representation but apart from

196  The Covenant of Works covenant. He has no historical mechanism to link Adam and his offspring; rather, God merely decrees a connection, a view that has some similarities to Calvin’s explanation.49 But Calvin does not teach immediate imputation as Murray does; Calvin holds to a medieval Anselmic view on the transmission of original sin.50 In his exegesis of Romans 7:1–​4, Murray argues that when Paul writes, “Ye are not under law, but under grace” (Rom. 6:14), the text speaks of the believer’s freedom from the Mosaic law (Rom. 3:19; 5:13; 1 Cor. 9:8, 9; 14:21, 24; Gal. 3:10, 19), “and there is no need to look for any other denotation here. Gentiles as well as Jews in the church at Rome could be credited with the knowledge of the Old Testament.”51 Murray saw no Adamic connections as in early modern exegesis of these texts.52 The only text to which Murray devotes significant attention is Leviticus 18:5 as it appears in Romans 10:5 and Galatians 3:10. Murray was aware that this was a key proof text for the historic covenant of works, but for two reasons he did not believe it spoke of the doctrine. First, Murray believes that Leviticus 18:5 “refers not to the life accruing from doing in a legalistic framework but to the blessing attendant upon obedience in a redemptive and covenant relationship to God.”53 Second, Murray argues that the only way Leviticus 18:5 and “do this and live” could be used in antithesis to faith is if Paul misquoted the verse; according to Murray, in its original context Leviticus 18:5 simply refers to the third (or normative) use of the law. Murray writes, “It has been maintained that here is not strictly quotation in support of his argument but ‘a free employment of the words of Moses, which the apostle uses as an apt substratum for his own course of thought.’ ”54 For Murray, “do this and live” could apply to Adam under the “Adamic administration,” but in a post-​fall world it has no place.55 In other words, one can apply the principle to Adam’s context, but this is not what the verse in the original context means. Early modern exegesis of the verse contended that it spoke of eternal life as the result of obedience and thus applied it to Adam’s pre-​fall state.56 But opinions were not uniform. Thomas Goodwin (1600–​80), for example, appealed to Leviticus 18:5 but argued that temporal, not eternal, life was Adam’s reward.57 Few early modern proponents of the covenant of works assigned Leviticus 18:5 to the normative use of the law.58 Nevertheless, Murray swims against the strong current of early modern opinion and contends that Leviticus 18:5 “is, of itself, an adequate and watertight definition of the principle of legalism.”59

The Twentieth Century  197 In summary, Murray believes that Paul took Leviticus 18:5 out of context to echo the erroneous teaching of the Judaizers and their misinterpretation of the law so that he could disprove it. We can note three things about Murray’s exegesis: (1) it is perhaps one of the best examples of a rejection of Leviticus 18:5 as a proof text for the covenant of works; (2) Murray’s exegesis runs counter to the majority report in the early modern Reformed interpretation; and (3) it stands in contrast to the interpretations of his colleagues at Westminster Theological Seminary, such as J. Gresham Machen (1881–​ 1937), Oswald T. Allis (1880–​1973), E. J. Young (1907–​68), and Cornelius Van Til (1895–​1987).60 Machen, for example, rejected the “misinterpretation theory” regarding Leviticus 18:5. In concert with common early modern exegesis, he maintained that Paul addressed the two paths of justification, works versus faith, when he contrasted Leviticus 18:5 with Habakkuk 2:4 in Galatians 3:10–​12.61 In other words, unlike Murray, Machen believed that Leviticus 18:5 legitimized the covenant of works. The last area of discontinuity lies with Murray’s engagement with historical sources. Murray was familiar with Early and High Orthodox Reformed works, but at the same time he wanted to return to the theology of the Reformation—​a period that, in his mind, did not advocate the covenant of works:  “It is, however, significant that the early covenant theologians did not construe this Adamic administration as a covenant, far less as a covenant of works. Reformed creeds of the 16th century such as the French Confession (1559), the Scottish Confession (1560), the Belgic Confession (1561), the Thirty-​Nine Articles (1562), the Heidelberg Catechism (1563), and the Second Helvetic (1566) do not exhibit any such construction of the Edenic institution.” According to Murray, Reformation-​era theologians applied the doctrine of the covenant to God’s redemptive provisions, not to the initial creation. Murray believed that Calvin’s theology was paradigmatic and expressive of this general trend.62 In other words, Murray pits the early Reformed tradition against the later tradition, Calvin against later Calvinists. But Murray only makes superficial comparisons between Calvin and the later Reformed tradition. Just because Calvin does not designate Adam’s pre-​fall state as a covenant is reason enough to posit a significant discontinuity with the later tradition, according to Murray. He therefore implicitly identifies Calvin as precedent for his own view, but he does not note Calvin’s exegetical disagreements with him over texts commonly cited for the covenant of works, exegesis that stands in continuity with the later tradition.

198  The Covenant of Works For example, Calvin’s exegesis of Leviticus 18:5 (Rom. 10:5; Gal. 3:10) differs from Murray’s interpretation.63 Calvin’s exegesis is virtually the same as those theologians who cite Leviticus in support of the covenant of works. Murray also does not recognize the fact that Calvin identified the tree of life as a sacrament, which in his broader theology implies the existence of an Adamic covenant.64 Additionally, as much as Murray registers his disagreement with the idea that a covenant is not a contract, this was arguably something that Calvin affirmed. Calvin writes concerning Isaiah 24:5, “They have broken the everlasting covenant”: “The third term employed by him is berith, by which he means a covenant and contract [foedus et pactum]. This word is limited to those ‘contracts’ [pactiones] by which the Lord, who adopted his people, promised that he would be their God.”65 Calvin’s description of God’s covenant fits the early modern definition of agreement, not Murray’s definition of promise. In other words, Murray can only substantiate his doctrine of the covenant view through a selective appeal to Calvin, which is a legitimate methodology. No theologian must repristinate another theologian’s views. But just because Murray finds Calvin’s views attractive for his own revisionary project does not mean that he embodies Calvin’s views or that he accurately presents the reformer’s views on the covenant.

Vos on the Covenant of Works Vos discusses the covenant of works under the locus of anthropology nested in the cradle of a doctrine of the threefold covenants: redemption, works, and grace. More specifically, Vos introduces the doctrine in his discussion of the communication of original sin; he weighs the three different theories (federal, mediate imputation, and realistic) and opts for the federal theory and its historical mechanism of transmission—​namely, the covenant of works. God covenantally binds Adam to his offspring and immediately imputes the guilt of original sin to them.66 Among other reasons, Vos believes that God imputed original sin to Adam’s offspring because of the parallel that Paul presents in Romans 5:12–​21. He argues, “The covenant of grace is nothing other than a covenant of works accomplished in Christ, the fulfillment of which is given to us by grace.”67 In the covenant of works, God provided Adam with the opportunity to secure eternal life through his obedience, a conclusion that rests on the principle stated in Leviticus

The Twentieth Century  199 18:5, “The man who does these things will live by them.”68 This obedience-​ reward structure remains even after the fall, but becomes “hypothetical,” since sin hobbles a person’s ability to fulfill this requirement.69 Within the covenant of works, Vos argues that there are natural and positive elements.70 Adam knew the difference between good and evil by virtue of his nature as an image-​bearer of God, and that by breaking this natural bond he would incur punishment. But God also gave him a positive command, the prohibition of eating from the tree of knowledge. Given the natural and positive bonds of the covenant of works, humans are always bound to the natural legal relation.71 Natural law continues to serve as a rule of life even for the redeemed elect, but they no longer stand under this bond as the means by which they obtain eternal life once they are legally in Christ in the covenant of grace.72 But the covenant of works was not just about a legal bond between God and Adam. In line with early modern formulations, Vos believed that the ultimate goal of the covenant was intimate communion with God.73 Vos also explains the points of agreement and disagreement between the covenants of works and grace. He identifies five points of agreement: 1. God is the author of both. 2. Parties—​God and man. 3. The general purpose—​the glorification of God. 4. The external form, which includes requirement and counter-​ requirement, or requirement and promise. 5. The content of the promise—​namely, heavenly eternal life. He then pinpoints six areas of disagreement between the two covenants as shown in Table 10.1.74 In this delineation of the points of agreement and disagreement, Vos’s doctrine of the covenant of works largely follows early modern patterns.75

Comparison with the Critics Beyond Vos’s positive exposition of the doctrine, what distinguishes his treatment from those who reject the covenant of works? Two categories showcase the differences: (1) exegetical methodology and (2) historical knowledge and interaction with the doctrine.

200  The Covenant of Works Table 10.1:  Differences between the covenants of works and grace, according to Geerhardus Vos Categories

Covenant of Works

Covenant of Grace

God God’s activity

Creator and Lord Love and benevolence toward unfallen man No mediator Obedience of mutable man, which is uncertain “Do this and live” (Lev. 18:5) and general faith Known in part by nature through the law written on the heart

Redeemer and Father Mercy and particular grace toward the fallen creature Mediator Obedience of the mediator, which is certain Faith alone in the mediator

Relations Foundations Requirements Promulgation

Known only through positive revelation, i.e., Scripture

Exegetical Methodology The first apparent difference between the exegetical methodologies of the critics versus the proponents is that the former do not employ the good and necessary consequence and the latter do. In answer to the question of why Vos accepts the theory of the covenant of works, he responds, On the general ground that, if all the data are present, it is allowable for us to connect them with each other and to give a suitable name to the connection so constructed. This is the case here. Here is a free covenant alongside the natural relationship. Although it is true that one cannot speak of a formal enacting of a covenant, God had only had to announce the covenant and that Adam was perfect before God guaranteed of itself that He accepted it.76

Vos recognizes that the covenant of works is ultimately a doctrinal construct, and thus, like the doctrine of the trinity, one will not necessarily encounter an explicit statement testifying to its existence.77 In fact, in a similar fashion, Bavinck notes, “Reformed scholars were never so narrow as to insist on the word ‘covenant’ since the matter itself was certain: one may doubt the word provided the matter is safe (de vocabulo dubitetur, re salva). But hidden behind the opposition to the word was opposition to the matter itself. And this must never be surrendered inasmuch as covenant is the essence of true religion.”78 That being said, Vos believes that Hosea 6:7 is arguably explicit

The Twentieth Century  201 evidence of the doctrine’s existence.79 But the exegetical support for the doctrine extends far beyond this one text. Vos explicitly appeals to Romans 5:12–​ 21; Leviticus 18:5; Genesis 2:17; 3:22; 2 Timothy 1:10; Revelation 2:7; and implicitly to Romans 2:15.80 Vos’s commitment to the good and necessary consequence emerges quite clearly when he answers the question regarding how one can demonstrate that God promised life in the covenant of works, to which he responds, “From the analogy of Scripture.”81

Historical Knowledge and Interaction with the Doctrine Nineteenth-​century critics seldom engaged early modern sources, but this changed to a certain degree among twentieth-​century detractors. Barth and Murray interacted with early modern sources; Hoeksema only interacted with Hodge. Even then, however, a certain biblicism colors Murray’s rejection of the doctrine. Vos, on the other hand, presents a very different picture. While he infrequently cites sources, numerous points in Vos’s exposition reveal his knowledge of the finer debated points of the early modern doctrine. In his discussion of imputation he references the debate over mediate imputation.82 He expresses a degree of sympathy for Cocceius’s peculiar view regarding the five abrogations of the covenant of works.83 He notes differences of opinions regarding the precise number of sacraments for the covenant of works—​two (Braunius and Cocceius) versus four (Witsius).84 In his characterization of the Mosaic covenant, he distinguishes between the “legal side” and the “new, spiritual dispensation of the covenant of grace,” which echoes common early modern formulations of the relationship between the Adamic and Mosaic covenants.85 Vos formulates the obedience-​reward relationship between God and Adam in terms of God’s divine condescension where God and man are not equals: “In establishing the covenant of works the motivation was God’s love and benevolence toward unfallen man.”86 God rewards Adam’s obedience in terms of his faithfulness to his covenantal promise, not due to any intrinsic worthiness of Adam’s obedience. In other words, God rewards Adam’s obedience ex pacto; he does not construe Adam’s obedience in terms of condign merit.87 Such a construction echoes the High Orthodox formulations of Witsius, Cocceius, Benedict Pictet (1655–​1724), Salomon Van Til (1643–​ 1713), and Braunius.88 In fact, given Vos’s earlier citation, Braunius may be one of the immediate sources for his understanding of Adam’s obedience.89

202  The Covenant of Works Vos also expresses his agreement with the early modern doctrine when he acknowledges that people know the covenant of works through natural law, namely, the inscribed law of God on humanity’s heart.90 All of these points reveal his familiarity with the doctrine and, for the most part, do not appear in the rejections of Barth, Murray, or Hoeksema. On the one hand, this is unsurprising since they do not advocate the doctrine and thus should not be expected to engage these issues. But on the other hand, it reveals that their rejection was superficial since they largely dealt with formal issues such as the definition of the term covenant and did not address the substance of the covenant of works. Additionally, one cannot claim that Murray or Hoeksema reject the term but retain the substance of the covenant of works. The covenant of works is more than the doctrine of imputation; in addition to imputation, the doctrine deals with natural law, the image of God, how the covenant of grace abrogates the covenant of works, the sacraments of the covenant, its relationship to the Mosaic covenant, and the question of Adam’s merit, among others.

Analysis Investigation of the reception of the covenant of works must move beyond the counting of noses for and against as well as comparisons of the two positions and attempt to identify the exegetical, philosophical, and historical reasons behind the rift. Thus, this section addresses matters related to exegetical methodology, philosophical commitments of the critics and adherents, and historical factors, chiefly the rejection or acceptance of Reformed scholasticism.

Methodology As this chapter’s analysis notes, one of the factors that distinguishes critics from advocates is the (dis)use of the good and necessary consequence in evaluation of the covenant of works. Critics do not reject good and necessary consequences in toto but do so with this particular doctrine. Theologians were no longer satisfied with searching for a concept and creating a doctrinal construct under a term but instead demanded that the doctrine have an explicit statement in Scripture to justify its existence. But another factor

The Twentieth Century  203 arises in the exegetical methodology of the critics, most notably in Murray’s covenant theology. In his lecture on the covenant of grace, Murray cites a number of authorities when he rejects the early modern definition of covenant as agreement and submits his own definition of promise. In this footnote Murray cites earlier nineteenth-​century Scottish theologians who redefined covenant, including John Kelly and David Russell. But he also quotes the following observation from Herman Ridderbos (1909–​2007): In LXX diatheke is regularly used as the translation of the covenant of God (berith), rather than the apparently more available word suntheke. In this there is already an expression of the fact that the covenant of God does not have the character of a contract between two parties, but rather that of a one-​sided grant. This corresponds with the covenant-​idea in the Old Testament, in which berith, even in human relations, sometimes refers to a one-​party guarantee which a more favored person gives a less favored one (cf. Josh 9:6, 15, 1 Sam. 11:1, Ezek. 17:13). And it is most peculiarly true of the divine covenantal deed that it is a one-​party guarantee. It comes not from man at all, but from God alone.91

This analysis arguably rests on defining a term by means of its etymological roots, which is common among nineteenth-​and twentieth-​century exegetes. They establish the meaning of a term by its etymological root rather than by its contextual usage. A  suntheke is supposedly a mutual agreement—​ given its prefix, sun-​—​and a diatheke is promissory. The Septuagint and New Testament use the latter to translate the Hebrew term berith instead of suntheke, which means that covenants are promissory rather than some sort of agreement. Although defining terms by their etymological root was common in nineteenth-​and twentieth-​century biblical exegesis, James Barr (1924–​2006) famously dismantled this problematic approach.92 Barr’s chief criticism was that a single word cannot adequately capture a theological concept. Other biblical scholars have defined this method as the exegetical root fallacy.93 Generally speaking, early modern theologians did not define diatheke in this manner. By way of contrast, early modern Reformed theologians like Witsius examined the possible etymologies of terms like berith but ultimately arrived at no conclusive answers.94 Rather than rest on the possible etymology of the term in question, Witsius instead investigates its variegated usage throughout the Old Testament to determine its meaning. Sometimes the Old Testament

204  The Covenant of Works employs the term loosely to denote something fixed or a statute, a last will and testament, or promise (Jer. 33:20; 31:36; Heb. 9:15–​17; Exo. 34:10). The Old Testament also employs the term strictly to denote an agreement between two or more parties (Gen. 14:13; 26:28–​29; 1 Sam. 18:2).95 Witsius distinguishes between intra-​human covenants and those between God and humans; he does not claim a one-​size-​fits-​all definition.96 When he finally concludes that a covenant is an agreement between God and man with the goal of obtaining consummate happiness, Witsius does not universally apply this general definition to all divine-​human covenants.97 In the end, context is all-​determinative. Is the Adamic, Abrahamic, Mosaic, Davidic, or new covenant under discussion? Each covenant is an agreement of some kind, but has different characteristics. In general, Vos and Bavinck employ this type of nuanced approach in their definition of covenant. In his basic definition Vos claims, “A covenant is always a reciprocal relationship between parties; this is essential to the concept.”98 Bavinck likewise submits, “Generally, a covenant is an agreement between persons who voluntarily obligate and bind themselves to each other for the purpose of fending off an evil or obtaining a good.”99 Vos and Bavinck both present studies of the likely etymology of the Old Testament term berith and trace its translation by the Greek term diatheke and its use in the Old and New Testaments.100 Vos notes that even though the translators of the Septuagint did not use the common term suntheke to translate the term berith, they did not intend to supplant the covenant concept with another idea. He points to the translation of Isaiah 28:15 as evidence:  “We have made a covenant (diatheken) with hell and an agreement (sunthekas) with death.” Vos explains: “Here diatheken and sunthekas ( = ‘treaty,’ ‘pact’) are parallel, so that no doubt remains with regard to the usual meaning of the former.”101 But Vos believed that suntheke meant an agreement between equals whereas diatheke stressed the inequality of the covenanting parties, God and humans.102 Hence, the translators did not change the Old Testament meaning of berith but rather changed the meaning of the term diatheke to capture the nature of biblical covenants.103 As a result, in most contexts, diatheke means covenant (or agreement), but in others it could mean a last will and testament, such as in Hebrews 9:15–​17, 20.104 In other words, Vos and Bavinck did not place a straitjacket on the definition of covenant but instead tried to determine the nature of each covenant based upon context. Bavinck, for example, writes, “Whether berith is a bilateral covenant

The Twentieth Century  205 or a unilateral [royal] grant depends neither on the word nor on the historical development of the concept but simply on the parties involved.”105 Are the participants equals, lord and servant, conqueror and conquered, or God and humans? This contextual definition of covenant versus an abstract definition among critics distinguishes the two groups from one another. Critics operate with a different exegetical methodology in matters related to defining covenant.

Philosophical Commitments A second significant difference between critics and advocates is the relative influence of philosophical commitments, which is prominent in Barth’s rejection:  his German Idealism and Kierkegaardian existentialism.106 The next section on anti-​scholasticism addresses Barth’s existentialism. In general terms, German Idealism maintains that a single concept or idea serves as the basis for a holistic, systematic, and exhaustive explanation of the world.107 Barth’s principle of christomonism bears this characteristic.108 Christ is the single doctrine from which all other doctrines originate. Barth’s christomonism does not arise with his own theology but in nineteenth-​century German theology, which posited the idea that Christology is the central dogma of Christian theology.109 With this type of presupposition—​namely, that Christ is the covenant of grace and thus God’s first interaction with humanity even in the pre-​fall state—​there is no theological room for natural categories; they simply do not exist. Barth’s idealist-​influenced christocentrism stands in marked contrast to early modern use of the locus method of theology. The locus method found in the early reformers, such as Calvin and Philip Melanchthon (1497–​1560), and later Reformed scholasticism was designed to survey the broadest spectrum of doctrines and accommodated the development of theological systems with multiple foci.110 It is one thing to say that Christology is at the center of one’s soteriology and another entirely to say that it is the single doctrine from which one deduces a complete system of theology.111 There is a sense in which this type of pattern unfolds in Hoeksema’s rejection of the traditional covenant of works. Rather than Christology, election overrides all other doctrines so that there is no room for natural categories. In short, Barth’s Christology and Hoeksema’s doctrine of election

206  The Covenant of Works completely swallow early modern anthropology and with it the covenant of works. This is not to say, however, that twentieth-​century advocates of the covenant of works were unreconstructed early modern theologians. On the contrary, there are indicators that Vos and Bavinck found idealism attractive and even incorporated it to a certain extent in their theology. In a letter to Bavinck, Vos pondered how he would structure his lectures as the newly appointed professor of biblical theology at Princeton Theological Seminary: “I have reflected long on the question of how to deal with the subject, so that justice will be done to both the demand of the unity and the historical development and to both the theoretical and practical character of revelation, while at the same time deducing the principle of how to deal with the subject from the Scriptures.”112 Vos was searching for the one principle from which to deduce his systematic treatment of the biblical data, a hallmark of idealist-​influenced methodology.113 Vos concluded, “I have come to the conclusion that the covenant idea fulfills the requirements the best of all and so I think I will start from that. At the same time I remain grounded on Reformed theology. When Dr. Kuyper says that Cocceius, by bringing the covenant idea itself into prominence, already inflicted losses on the claims of Reformed principles, I cannot go along with that view.”114 In other words, Kuyper believed that organizing theology along covenantal lines was a mistaken path, an opinion that Vos rejected. Vos thus used the covenants as the organizing principle of his biblical theology. In another letter to Bavinck, Vos once again briefly explained the methodology behind his biblical theology lectures. Unlike Gustav Oehler (1812–​72), who begins with the doctrine of God, treats anthropology, and then explains the doctrine of the covenant, Vos tried to show that covenant “is the center of the revelation in this stage. Doctrine and history are also, according to my view, inseparable. Beginning with the covenant emphasizes just that.”115 That Vos speaks of identifying the center once again reveals the fingerprints of the monistic tendencies of idealism. For Barth, Christology was the principle from which one deduced his system, whereas for Vos it was covenant.116 They both employ a similar idealist methodology, but what separates them is the doctrine they each choose. Vos’s amicable relationship with classic Reformed theology and his choice of covenant as the central doctrine meant that he embraced multiple doctrinal foci embodied in the covenants of works and grace. Conversely, Barth’s choice of Christology and his open hostility to the

The Twentieth Century  207 tradition led him to reject significant elements of classic covenant theology, such as the covenant of works.

Anti-​Scholasticism The nineteenth-​century rejection of the covenant of works witnessed a growing hostility toward scholastic theology, and this trend continued in the twentieth century. Hoeksema’s rejection of the covenant of works, for example, does not interact with early modern versions of the doctrine; rather, he only quotes Hodge as a foil. At one level, this is fine, but from another vantage point an unwillingness to engage the earlier tradition reveals a degree of antipathy toward early modern theology. Why, for example, does Hoeksema bypass the many Dutch Reformed advocates of the covenant of works and engage Hodge, who would be relatively unknown among his Dutch American readers? Hoeksema’s attitude toward Reformed scholasticism fully appears in his rejection of the covenant of redemption, which he characterizes as scholastic pettifoggery: “It cannot be denied that the development of this doctrine was characterized by much scholastic reasoning and subtle hair-​splitting.”117 Barth expresses similar opinions, though his Kierkegaardian existentialism partially motivates his own aversion to Reformed scholasticism.118 To be sure, Barth at times expressed his appreciation for scholasticism: Nothing that can claim to be truly of the Church need shrink from the sober light of “scholasticism.” No matter how free and individual it may be in its first expression, if it seeks universal acceptance, it will be under constraint to set up a school and therefore to become the teaching of a school. Fear of scholasticism is a mark of a false prophet. The true prophet will be ready to submit his message to this test too.119

Barth’s positive interaction with Reformed scholasticism appears, for example, in his foreword to Heinrich Heppe’s Reformed Dogmatics, which was a collection of early modern Reformed quotations arranged by doctrinal loci.120 But at the same time, Barth was critical of scholastic theology. In his rejection of the covenant of works he characterized scholastic theology as “static,” and too focused on system and propositional truth. Such theology did not adequately capture Barth’s commitment to existentialism and the idea that

208  The Covenant of Works truth is encounter and event rather than rational proposition. Barth believed that covenant theology was an improvement in comparison to scholasticism, in that “traditional dogmatics had started to move like a frozen stream of lava. The ‘Loci’ are no longer ‘Loci,’ common places, to which this and that must be related either not at all or on the basis of a presupposed concept, as abstract doctrine and truth revealed in and for itself.” In contrast to the static Reformed scholasticism, Barth believed Calvin captured the “living dynamic of history.”121 In one existentialist-​stamped assessment, Barth writes of the need experientially to study Calvin: “We open books from the past in order to come to ourselves. The living, speaking, working past is the present. . . . No historian can be detached and not seriously seek and find himself or herself in history.”122 We can make three observations regarding Barth’s assessment of Reformed scholasticism. First, one should factor in the influence of existentialism on Barth’s assessment of this theological movement. Exegesis is not the lone determining factor in Barth’s rejection of the doctrine. This is not to say that Barth alone was corrupted by philosophical influences and that proponents of the doctrine did not suffer from similar weaknesses. Rather, in the historical assessment of the development of doctrine, historians must account for factors beyond the exegesis of Scripture to present the clearest account as to how and why a doctrine develops and what marks its reception. Changing philosophical winds altered Barth’s tack. Second, Barth erroneously assumed that Calvin was free of scholasticism, but historians have demonstrated that this is far from the truth.123 The literary genre of Calvin’s Institutes is certainly different from Turretin’s Institutes, as the former is a textbook for beginning theology students and the latter is a work in polemic theology.124 Moreover, more than one hundred years separated the publication of the two works: 1559 for Calvin’s definitive edition and 1679–​85 for Turretin’s work. The theological conversation had changed, as had the nature of polemics. With the rise of the Jesuits and the renaissance of Thomism, for example, Reformed theologians adapted their argumentation for their context.125 Third, related to matters of genre, critics often rail against scholastic theology for its logical rigor and turgid prose. For example, Barth stated that scholastic works read like logarithm tables.126 Were someone to step into an academic context and evaluate a student’s theology textbook, he might walk away with the impression that it was dry, technical, and uninspiring. Scholastic theology was academically oriented, written for theological

The Twentieth Century  209 disputation, which demanded precision and accuracy; it was written in and for schools and the education of students.127 Critics rarely, if ever, evaluate the sermons of Reformed scholastic theologians. Turretin, for example, was a professor and wrote scholastic theology, but he was also a pastor, a fact evident in the subtitle of a collection of his sermons: “Minister of the Holy Gospel and Professor in Theology.”128 Turretin’s contemporaries recognized that he served in two distinct roles that had different manners of communicating the same doctrinal substance—​sermons versus scholastic disputations. But even then, many Reformed scholastic works brim with warm tones of piety and scholastic precision.129 All things being equal, if one applies Barth’s rules of assessment to his Church Dogmatics, he might walk away with similar conclusions. Many a student’s eyes have glazed over in the face of Barth’s thirteen bloated volumes with densely packed footnotes of tedious prose. A final observation regarding the aversion to scholasticism relates to Murray’s biblicism. Murray demonstrated knowledge and critical appreciation of early modern theology, evident in his essay on the history of the covenant in the Reformed tradition. At the same time, the absence of any direct interaction with early modern versions of the covenant of works reveals the revisionary character of Murray’s theological program. He was ultimately dissatisfied with the Reformed tradition at certain points and thus wanted to revise and recast covenant theology: Theology must always be undergoing reformation. However architectonic may be the systematic constructions of any one generation or group of generations, there always remains the need for correction and reconstruction so that the structure may be brought into closer approximation to the Scripture and the reproduction be a more faithful transcript or reflection of the heavenly exemplar. It appears to me that the covenant theology, notwithstanding the finesse of analysis with which it was worked out and the grandeur of its articulated systematization, needs recasting.130

Murray wanted to turn back the clock and go beyond Reformed scholasticism to the earlier theology of Calvin and the Reformation.131 His essay on the Adamic administration reflects his polite effort to sidestep Reformed scholasticism and base his own understanding exclusively on exegesis.132 But this pattern fits within the overall twentieth-​century negative assessment of Reformed scholasticism among critics of the covenant of works.

210  The Covenant of Works This biblicistic trend, however, is to a certain extent present even among advocates of the doctrine. O. Palmer Robertson (1937–​), for example, does not cite any early modern sources in his explanation of the “creation covenant.”133 Likewise, despite being a vociferous advocate of the doctrine, Meredith G. Kline (1922–​2007) typically interacts with twentieth-​century theologians such as Murray, Vos, Kenneth Kitchen (1932–​ ), Herman Ridderbos, Gerhard von Rad (1901–​71), or Walter Eichrodt (1890–​1978). Only rarely does Kline cite early modern sources, such as Calvin.134 A similar pattern unfolds in E. J. Young’s treatment of covenant theology, when, ironically, he presents a defense of the Westminster Confession’s doctrine of the covenants.135 And even though he promoted the covenant of works, Kline was critical at times of early modern Reformed theology. In a review of a book promoting theonomy, a twentieth-​century movement that taught that all Old Testament civil laws were still binding on New Testament believers, Kline argued that the concept had precedent in the original Westminster Confession and that theonomists were the true champions of confessional orthodoxy. Kline was under the mistaken impression that the Erastian elements in the original 1647 confession were essentially the same as theonomy.136 In Kline’s opposition to Murray’s revisionist project, he set forth “classic covenant theology” but nowhere cites an early modern source; he only references secondary literature from one author.137 The disregard for historical theology was likely fostered by the modern splintering of theology into disconnected disciplines. The Enlightenment shattered the vase of theology into different pieces that few sought to glue back together. Biblical theologians and Old Testament exegetes such as Robertson, Kline, and Young did not address historical issues because doing so was beyond the scope of their discipline.138 Although an advocate of the doctrine, Kline’s approach stands in stark contrast to Vos’s positive appropriation of the tradition and confessions. Vos was an ardent defender of the Westminster Confession during the efforts to revise it.139 He believed that traditional Reformed theology was vital to dogmatics—​and that his own day suffered from significant doctrinal atrophy and needed to learn from the past. Classic Reformed theology required careful and diligent study: It must be seriously doubted whether even in our best-​educated circles today the level of theological knowledge is as high as it was in the period of its flowering among the fathers. It is certain that even if we have not

The Twentieth Century  211 declined in terms of content, nevertheless the sharpness and clarity of [our] judgment and discernment has suffered. But if in fact we are in a slump, why would we not first go to learn from those who were our betters? But let us especially understand that this is not about knowing piecemeal what the ancients have said about one or another concrete dogma, but that knowl­ edge of their theology means mastery of [that theology], to have entered deeply into its trains of thought, to have traced and laid bare her deepest principia, and to have modeled the methodology of those who performed the work. [This is] truly a work that requires diligence and devotion and that, no matter how attractive as a whole, is not on every point equally appealing and does not every moment bear visible fruit. We must once again endeavor to enter into the beautiful thought world instead of haltingly stating a few phrases from it. Something of the spirit of the ancients must through [this] contact also fall on us, their children.140

Hence, unlike in the nineteenth century, there is no clear line of division between twentieth-​century critics and proponents of the covenant of works regarding the positive reception of early modern theology. Advocates of the doctrine were not all positively disposed to the early modern tradition, but like the critics, some shared a biblicistic methodology.

Conclusion The story of the twentieth-​century reception of the covenant of works is not about the competing exegetical claims and counter-​claims. Neither is it a story of theologians regurgitating a traditional doctrine appealing solely to confessional statements to assert the validity of the doctrine. The story is a bit more complex than such caricatures. At the most fundamental level, those who rejected the doctrine took, to varying degrees, a more negative stance toward early modern Reformed theology, and proponents were generally more favorable toward it. But even then, biblicism marked both the critics and advocates of the doctrine. Theologians of the twentieth century were disinterested in engaging their theological forefathers in dialogue. The more historically disposed advocates of the doctrine, such as Vos and Bavinck, however, also engaged the Scriptures in very careful exegesis, evident for example in their explanation of the terms berith and diatheke. They did not blindly accept traditional formulations.

212  The Covenant of Works Another important factor that colors the doctrine are the philosophical influences, particularly idealism. In Barth’s case, the impact was significant, whereas it was diminished in Vos and Bavinck. In the twentieth-​century reception of the covenant of works, the compatibility of idealism and early modern theology largely hinges on what doctrine a theologian chooses as his organizing principle and his disposition toward Reformed orthodoxy. If he chooses Christology, then the covenant of works withers due to the absence of any natural categories. Special revelation and grace entirely swallow general revelation and nature. In their efforts to improve on the theology of the past, modern critics tossed the Jonah of nature overboard, and the whale of Christ and the covenant of grace swallowed him whole. If, on the other hand, a theologian chooses covenant, then the covenants of works and grace continue to function relatively unharmed. In short, efforts to trace the reception of the doctrine in the modern era must account for methodological, philosophical, and exegetical shifts. In this instance, theologians who favorably received the doctrine were convinced of the basic soundness of the early modern doctrine but more importantly continued to maintain the same exegetical methodology—​namely, the good and necessary consequence.

Conclusion The covenant of works is neither a one-​text doctrine, as many contemporary critics allege, nor is it a cold, contractual legal agreement between equals. As common as these claims are, they are closer to caricature than responsible historical descriptions of the doctrine. One can summarize the early modern doctrine of the covenant of works in the following nine points. First, formally it is an early orthodox doctrine but it stands in continuity, not discontinuity, with Reformation constructions of the relationship between the pre-​and post-​fall functions of the law. Calvin’s exegesis of Leviticus 18:5 stands in continuity with later early modern uses of the text in support of the covenant of works. Second, the doctrine did not arise de novo in the late sixteenth century but originates in the patristic era. Patristic theologians such as Augustine read inter-​testamental texts such as Ecclesiasticus 14:17, which interpreted Genesis 2:17 as the divine administration of a covenant. Augustine concluded from the comparison with other texts that God and Adam were in covenant. Theologians including Jerome translated texts such as Hosea 6:7 and determined that God and Adam were in covenant. Third, Roman Catholic, not Reformed, theologians were some of the first to advocate a twofold covenant theology, and Ambrogio Catharinus was the first to advocate a fully covenantal and federal relation between Adam and his offspring. Reformed theologians such as Robert Rollock arguably gleaned federalism from the text of Scripture but were nudged in that direction by Catharinus. Fourth, early modern Reformed theologians recognized that the covenant of works was a doctrinal construct. They concluded that God and Adam were in covenant through the collation of numerous biblical texts, including Genesis 2:17; Exodus 20; Leviticus 18:5; Deuteronomy 30:19; Ezekiel 20:11; Hosea 6:7; Matthew 19:16–​17; Romans 2:14–​15; 3:27; 5:12–​21; 7:1–​10; 10:5, and Galatians 3:10–​12, 4:24. By the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, detractors whittled the doctrine’s support to one single text, Hosea 6:7, without adequately recognizing the web of texts that constituted its exegetical foundation. One can arguably remove Hosea 6:7 to no ill effect and still have all the major points of the doctrine. The Covenant of Works. J. V. Fesko, Oxford University Press (2020). © Oxford University Press. DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780190071363.001.0001

214 Conclusion Fifth, as unified as early modern Reformed theologians were regarding the existence of the covenant of works, they were still divided on many issues: the best exegetical route to establish the doctrine’s existence, whether Adam’s reward was temporal or eternal life, the manner by which God abrogated the covenant of works, the exact nature of Adam’s obedience, and the precise relationship between the Adamic and Mosaic covenants. Even given these rifts, the Westminster Standards represent the codification of the chief elements of the doctrine and leave such questions to the side. The confession states that Adam’s reward was “life,” and does not specify whether it is eternal or temporal. The divines made room for John Cameron’s view. The confession does not state that Adam received God’s grace but rather that God voluntarily condescended to make his covenant with Adam. The divines only proscribed the views of Tobias Crisp and his two covenants of grace, one denying the reappearance of the covenant of works at Sinai. Similarly, the Formula Consensus Helvetica is silent regarding the abrogation of the covenant of works; it was also silent regarding Johannes Cocceius’s theory of the fivefold abrogation. Sixth, nineteenth-​and twentieth-​century critics rejected the covenant of works for several key reasons: (a) they rarely engaged primary sources; (b) post-​Enlightenment critical biblical methods of interpretation arguably shaped their exegesis and caused them to reject the use of a good and necessary consequence to prove the covenant of works; (c) philosophical shifts such as the influx of German Idealism washed out natural categories, and thus theologians such as Barth inverted the law-​gospel distinction and replaced it with a gospel-​law construction. The critics reject the covenant of works due to different exegetical methods, different philosophical commitments, and a negative assessment of scholasticism. Conversely, contemporary proponents have inverse convictions:  shared hermeneutical principles as their early modern counterparts, philosophical commitments that did not alter early modern formulations, and a positive assessment of scholasticism. Seventh, biblicism was a significant influence upon the opponents of the covenant of works, as they dismissed the doctrine because it supposedly did not have explicit warrant from Scripture. That is, the Bible did not explicitly identify God’s relationship with Adam as a covenant, Hosea 6:7 notwithstanding. While proponents of the doctrine exhibited lesser commitments to biblicism, some advocates still exhibited signs of biblicism in their own theology. Meredith Kline and E. J. Young, for example, hardly engaged early

Conclusion  215 modern sources in their own promotion of the doctrine. They both largely exegeted the biblical text to the exclusion of the tradition. Eighth, as much as modern critics deride the covenant of works as a cold contract between God and Adam, one of the recurring themes among the doctrine’s advocates was the idea of love. The covenant of works was the stage on which God unfurled his love for his creation, especially his image-​bearer, Adam, as he invited him into union and communion. Conversely, Adam’s obedience was the means by which Adam was supposed to show his love for his benevolent creator. Adam’s covenantal violation, therefore, was a failure to love God. Ninth, and finally, the covenant of works is more than Adam’s federal representation of humanity; it is more than presenting Adam’s failed obedience. Rather, the covenant of works is a crossroads for a number of key theological loci, including theology proper, anthropology, Christology, soteriology, and eschatology. The covenant of works is not solely about the doctrine of imputation and a failed Adamic probation. Rather, early modern formulations treat a number of doctrines under the rubric of the covenant of works: God creating his image-​bearer, inscribing God’s law on his heart, giving him the covenantal command to secure eschatological life for him and his offspring by which he demonstrates his love, his failure imputed to his offspring, the doctrine’s reappearance in some sense in the Mosaic covenant, and the last Adam successfully taking up the failed work of the first. In short, as a matter of history, to understand early modern Reformed theology, one must carefully study the relationship between law and gospel, or the covenants of works and grace. To repeat Wilhelmus à Brakel’s dictum, “For whoever errs here or denies the existence of the covenant works will not understand the covenant of grace, and will readily err concerning the mediatorship of the Lord Jesus. Such a person will readily deny that Christ by his active obedience has merited a right to eternal life for the elect.”1 Hopefully this study is a small step forward in assisting historians and students of the Reformed tradition in obtaining a greater understanding of the early modern doctrine of the covenant of works.

Notes Introduction 1. Wilhelmus à Brakel, The Christian’s Reasonable Service, 4 vols., trans. Bartel Elshout (Morgan, PA: Soli Deo Gloria, 1992), I:355. 2. The Humble Advice of the Assembly of Divines, Now by Authority of Parliament Sitting at Westminster, Concerning a Confession of Faith (London: Company of Stationers, 1647), VII.ii. 3. J. Todd Billings, Calvin, Participation, and the Gift: The Activity of Believers in Union with Christ (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007), 22. 4. Karl Barth, Church Dogmatics, 14 vols., ed. G. W. Bromiley and T. F. Torrance (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1936–​68), IV/​1:62. Note that Barth does not specifically invoke the term Pelagianism, but he nevertheless substantively describes it as the chief error of the covenant of works. 5. Thomas Boston, A View of the Covenant of Works from the Sacred Records, 2nd ed. (Edinburgh: John Gray, 1775); John Colquhoun, A Treatise on the Covenant of Works (Edinburgh: Thomsons Brothers, 1821); William Lusk, Discourses on the Covenant of Works, the Fall of Man, and Original Sin (Troy, NY: N. Tuttle, 1832); James Duncan, A Treatise on the Covenant of Works, Man’s Fall and His Recovery through Jesus Christ (Pittsburgh, PA: S. Engles & Co., 1813); John Love, The Covenant of Works: Its Nature and End. A Discourse (Aberdeen: G. & R. King, 1848). 6. John Eagleton, Thoughts on the Covenant of Works: Epistolary Address, to the Junior Ministers of the Gospel of All Denominations (London: R. Baynes, 1829); Abraham Booth, An Essay on the Kingdom of Christ to Which Is Added the Doctrine of the Covenants Wherein Is Shewn That There Never Was a Covenant of Works Made with Adam by Samuel Jones (Norwich: John Sterry, 1801). 7. Francis Turretin, Institutes of Elenctic Theology, trans. George Musgrave Giger, ed. James T. Dennison Jr. (Phillipsburg:  P & R, 1992–​97), VIII.i.3; Herman Witsius, Economy of the Covenants between God and Man:  Comprising a Body of Divinity, trans. William Crookshank (rep.; Escondido, CA: Den Dulk Foundation, 1990), I.i–​ ix; Francis Roberts, Mysterium et Medulla Bibliorum: The Mysterie and Marrow of the Bible, or God’s Covenants with Man (London: George Calvert, 1657), 19–​60. 8. Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology, 3 vols. (New York: Scribner, Armstrong, and Co., 1876), II:117–​22; Herman Bavinck, Reformed Dogmatics, 4 vols., trans. John Vriend, ed. John Bolt (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2003–​07), II:564–​71; Louis Berkhof, Systematic Theology: New Combined Edition (1932, 1938; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996), 211–​18.

218 Notes 9. See, e.g., William Cooper, “The Covenant of Works,” in Puritan Sermons 1659–​1689, 6 vols. (1659, 1845; Wheaton, IL: Richard Owen Roberts, 1981), V:93–​103. Other sermons include treatment of the covenant of works along with the covenant of grace. See, e.g., James Morgan, A Sermon on the Covenant of Works and the Covenant of Grace (Abingdon, VA: John G. Ustick, 1818). 10. For a critical survey of older scholarship on covenant theology, see J. Mark Beach, Christ and the Covenant:  Francis Turretin’s Federal Theology as a Defense of the Doctrine of Grace (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2007), 19–​64. 11. N. Diemer, Het Scheppingsverbond Met Adam (Het Verbond der Werken):  bij de Theologen der 16e, 17e en 18e Eeuw in Zwitserland, Duitschland, Nederland en Engeland (Kampen: Uitgave van J. H. Kok N. V., 1932). 12. Barth, Church Dogmatics, IV/​1:62–​63. 13. Barth, Church Dogmatics, IV/​1:59. 14. John Murray, “Adamic Administration,” in Collected Writings, 4 vols. (Edinburgh:  Banner of Truth, 1977), II:50–​51; Murray, “Covenant Theology,” in Collected Writings, IV:216. 15. Holmes Rolston III, John Calvin versus the Westminster Confession (Richmond, VA: John Knox Press, 1972). 16. James B. Torrance, “Covenant or Contract? A Study of the Theological Background of Worship in Seventeenth-​ Century Scotland,” Scottish Journal of Theology 23 (1970): 51–​76; Torrance, “The Concept of Federal Theology—​Was Calvin a Federal Theologian?” in Calvinus Sacrae Scripturae Professor:  Calvin as Confessor of Holy Scripture, ed. Wilhelm H. Neuser (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1994), 15–​40. 17. See, e.g., Peter A. Lillback, The Binding of God: Calvin’s Role in the Development of Covenant Theology (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2001), 276–​304. 18. David A. Weir, The Origins of the Federal Theology in Sixteenth-​Century Reformation Thought (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1990); cf. Richard A. Muller, “Review of David Weir, The Origins of Federal Theology,” Journal of Religion 72/​4 (1992): 597–​98. Also see J. Wayne Baker, Heinrich Bullinger and the Covenant:  The Other Reformed Tradition (Columbus: Ohio State University Press, 1980). For a survey of the nineteenth-​ century state of the question on covenant theology in general, see Andrew A. Woolsey, Unity and Continuity in Covenantal Thought: A Study in the Reformed Tradition to the Westminster Assembly (Grand Rapids: Reformation Heritage Books, 2012), 80–​102. 19. Lyle D. Bierma, German Calvinism in the Confessional Age: The Covenant Theology of Caspar Olevianus (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1996); also, Bierma, “Federal Theology in the Sixteenth Century:  Two Traditions?” Westminster Theological Journal 45 (1983): 304–​21. 20. Weir, Origins of the Federal Theology, 105; Robert Letham, “The Foedus Operum: Some Factors Accounting for Its Development,” Sixteenth Century Journal 14/​4 (1983): 457–​ 67; cf. Derk Visser, “The Covenant in Zacharias Ursinus,” Sixteenth Century Journal 18/​4 (1987): 531–​44. 21. Peter A. Lillback, “Ursinus’ Development of the Covenant of Creation:  A Debt to Melanchthon or Calvin?” Westminster Theological Journal 43 (1981): 247–​88. 22. Richard A. Muller, “The Covenant of Works and the Stability of Divine Law in Seventeenth-​Century Reformed Orthodoxy:  A Study in the Theology of Herman

Notes  219 Witsius and Wilhelmus à Brakel,” Calvin Theological Journal 29 (1994):  75–​ 101; Muller, After Calvin:  Studies in the Development of a Theological Tradition (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003), 175–​90; Richard A. Muller and Rowland S. Ward, Scripture and Worship: Biblical Interpretation and the Directory for Public Worship (Phillipsburg, NJ: P & R, 2007), 69–​81. 23. Cornelis P. Venema, “Recent Criticisms of the ‘Covenant of Works’ in the Westminster Confession of Faith,” Mid-​America Journal of Theology 9/​2 (1993): 165–​98; J. Mark Beach, “Some Observations about the Three Forms of Unity and the Doctrine of the Covenant of Works,” Mid-​America Journal of Theology 21 (2010): 103–​19. 24. Rowland S. Ward, God and Adam:  Reformed Theology and the Creation Covenant (Wantirna, Australia: New Melbourne Press, 2003); also A. T. B. McGowan, Adam, Christ and Covenant: Exploring Headship Theology (London: Apollos, 2016). 25. Mark W. Karlberg, “The Mosaic Covenant and the Concept of Works in Reformed Hermeneutics:  A Historical-​Critical Analysis with Particular Attention to Early Covenant Eschatology” (PhD Diss., Westminster Theological Seminary, 1980); Brent C.  Ferry, “Works in the Mosaic Covenant:  A Reformed Taxonomy” (ThM Thesis: Westminster Theological Seminary, 2009). 26. Aaron C. Denlinger, Omnes in Adam Ex Pacto Dei: Ambrogio Catarino’s Doctrine of Covenantal Solidarity and Its Influence on Post-​Reformation Reformed Theologians (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2010). 27. Edward Leigh, A Treatise of the Divine Promises (London: George Miller, 1633).

Chapter 1 1. David A. Weir, The Origins of the Federal Theology in Sixteenth-​Century Reformation Thought (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1990), viii. 2. As quoted in Gehard Ebeling, “Luther and the Beginning of the Modern Age,” in Luther and the Dawn of the Modern Era, ed. Heiko A. Oberman (Leiden: Brill, 1974), 11. 3. Ebeling, “Luther and the Beginning,” 32; cf. Jacques Le Goff, Must We Divide History into Periods? (New York: Columbia University Press, 2017). 4. Ebeling, “Luther and the Beginning,” 35. 5. Heiko A. Oberman, The Dawn of the Reformation (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1986), 19–​20; cf. Andrew A. Woolsey, Unity and Continuity in Covenantal Thought: A Study in the Reformed Tradition to the Westminster Assembly (Grand Rapids: Reformation Heritage Books, 2012), 184. 6. Heiko A. Oberman, “The Shape of Late Medieval Thought: The Birth Pangs of the Modern Era,” in The Pursuit of Holiness in Late Medieval and Renaissance Religion, eds. Charles Trinkaus and Heiko A. Oberman (Leiden: Brill, 1974), 3. 7. Cornelius à Lapide, R. P. Cornelii A Lapide e Societate Jesu, Sacrae Scripturae Olim Lovanni, Postea Romae Porfessoris, Commentaria in Duodecim Prophetas Minores (ex Typographia Balleoniana, 1761), loc. cit. Hos. 6:7 (p. 111); Richard A. Muller, Post-​ Reformation Reformed Dogmatics, 4 vols. (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2003), II:437. 8. Irenaeus, Against Heresies, IV.ix.1, in ANF I:472. For an overview of Irenaeus’s covenant theology, see Nathaniel C.  Milne, “Zealous for the Covenant of Christ:  The

220 Notes Covenant Theology of Irenaeus of Lyons” (MA Thesis, Westminster Seminary California, 2016). 9. Irenaeus, Against Heresies, III.xi.8, in ANF I:429; also Woolsey, Unity and Continuity, 164; Everett Ferguson, “The Covenant Idea in the Second Century,” in Texts and Testaments:  Critical Essays on the Bible and Early Church Fathers, ed. W. Eugene March (San Antonio, TX: Trinity University Press, 1980), 135–​62, esp. 145, 151. 10. Woolsey, Unity and Continuity, 166. 11. Eusebius, The Church History of Eusebius, I.iv.5–​11, in NPNF2 I:87–​88. For a survey of patristic covenant theology, see Woolsey, Unity and Continuity, 161–​83. 12. Augustine, City of God, XVI.xxvii, in NPNF1, II:326. 13. Augustine, City of God, XVI.xxvii, in NPNF1, II:326. For what follows, see Woolsey, Unity and Continuity, 172–​75. 14. Augustine, City of God, XVI.xxvii, in NPNF1, II:326. 15. Augustine, On Free Choice, Ancient Christian Writers, ed. Johannes Quasten (Westminster, MD:  Newman Press, 1955), I.vi.15 (pp.  48–​ 49; cf. pp.  241–​ 42); Augustine, De Libero Arbitrio Libri Tres, in Patrologia Latinae Elenchus, vol. 32 (Paris:  Petit-​Montrouge, 1845), col. 1229; cf. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica (Allen, TX: Christian Classics, 1948), I II q. 93 art. 1. Also see Matthew Levering, Biblical Natural Law:  A Theocentric and Teleological Approach (Oxford:  Oxford University Press, 2012), 77–​81. 16. On Augustine’s theory of natural law, see Brett W. Smith, “Augustine’s Natural Law Theory in De libero arbitrio,” Irish Theological Quarterly 80/​2 (2015): 111–​35. 17. Gerard O’Daly, Augustine’s City of God: A Reader’s Guide (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999), 60–​61; Marcia L. Colish, Medieval Foundations of the Western Intellectual Tradition, 400–​1400 (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1997), 30; Colish, The Stoic Tradition from Antiquity to the Early Middle Ages, vol. 2 (Leiden: Brill, 1990), 142–238, esp. 159–65, 212–38. 18. Augustine, On Free Choice, I.xv.31–​ xvi.35 (pp.  67–​ 73); Woolsey, Unity and Continuity, 174. 19. Augustine, On Free Choice, I.xv.32 (p. 68). 20. Augustine, On the Predestination of the Saints, I.xxxii–​xxxiv, cf. xiv–​xvi, in NPNF1 V:513–​15, 505–​06. 21. Nicolas of Lyra, Biblia Sacra cum Glossis, Interlineari & Ordinaria, vol. 4 (Leiden: 1545), comm. Hos. 6:7, “Ipsi au sicut Adam. Sicut enim Adam transgressus fuit mandatum domini de lingo vetito comedendo, sic Iudae de utroque regno transgressi fuerunt lege domini data in mote Sinai.” 22. Walafrid Strabo, Bibliorum Sacrorum cum Glossa Ordinalia, 6 vols. (Venice: Iuntas, 1603), comm. Hos. 6:7 (vol. IV, col. 1743). My thanks to Todd Rester for pointing out this possible connection between Strabo and Lyra. 23. Aquinas, Summa Theologica, IaIIae q. 100 art. 8. 24. Aquinas, Summa Theologica, IaIae q. 100 art. 5. 25. Brian Davies, Thomas Aquinas’s Summa Theologiae:  A Guide and Commentary (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014), 219–​20. 26. Aquinas, Summa Theologica, IIIa q. 4 art. 6 rep. 3.

Notes  221 27. E.g., I. John Hesselink, Calvin’s First Catechism:  A Commentary (Louisville, KY:  Westminster John Knox Press, 1997), 119; cf. Richard A. Muller, “Demoting Calvin: The Issue of Calvin and the Reformed Tradition,” in John Calvin, Myth and Reality: Images and Impact of Geneva’s Reformer, ed. Amy Nelson Burnett (Eugene, OR: Cascade Books, 2009), 3–​17, esp. 14. 28. Matthew Levering, Christ’s Fulfillment of Torah and Temple: Salvation according to Thomas Aquinas (Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 2002), 66. 29. Aquinas, Summa Theologica, IIIa q. 31 art. 2. 30. Levering, Torah and Temple,  68–​69. 31. Thomas Aquinas, Commentary on the Letter of Saint Paul to the Romans, trans. F. R. Larcher, vol. 37, Latin/​English Edition of the Works of St. Thomas Aquinas (Lander, WY: Aquinas Institute for the Study of Sacred Doctrine, 2012), §424 (p. 144). 32. Richard Cross, Duns Scotus (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999), 136; cf. Aquinas, Summa Theologica, IIIa q. 62 art. 1. 33. Cross, Duns Scotus, 137; cf. John Duns Scotus, Ordinis Minorum, Questiones in Lib. IV Sententiarum, in Johannes Duns Scotus Opera Omnia, vol. 8 (1629; Hildesheim: Georg Olms Verlagsbuchhandlung, 1968), IV.i.4–​5, also IV.xiii.1 (pp. 105, 808). 34. Heiko Oberman, The Harvest of Medieval Theology: Gabriel Biel and Late Medieval Nominalism (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1963), 148. 35. Richard A. Muller, Dictionary of Latin and Greek Theological Terms: Drawn Principally from Protestant Scholastic Theology, 2nd ed. (1986; Grand Rapids: Baker, 2017), s. v. potentia absoluta (p. 271). 36. Muller, Dictionary, s. v. potentia ordinata (p. 271). On the distinction, see John Duns Scotus, Ordinatio, I.xliv.16, in Duns Scotus on the Will and Morality, trans. Allan B. Wolter and William A. Frank (Washington, DC: Catholic University of America Press, 1997), 191–​94; also Oberman, Harvest of Medieval Theology,  30–​56. 37. William J. Courtenay, “Covenant and Causality in Pierre d’Ailly,” Speculum 46 (1971): 94–​119, esp. 117. 38. See, e.g., claims by Gottlob Schrenk, Gottesreich und Bund im älteren Protestantismus vornehmlich be Johannes Cocceius (1923; Darmstadt: 1967), 47–​49; J. Wayne Baker, Heinrich Bullinger and the Covenant: The Other Reformed Tradition (Athens: Ohio University Press, 1980); cf. Woolsey, Unity and Continuity, 104. 39. Joseph H. Fichter, James Layñez: Jesuit (St. Louis: Herder Book Co., 1944), 61–​65. 40. Diego Lañyez, “Disputatio de justitia imputata,” in Jacobi Laínez Disputationes Tridentiae, vol. 2, ed. Hartmannus Grisar (Ratisbonae: Feliciani Rauch, 1886), II.v (p. 159), II.xxxvii (p. 189); Lañyez, EIP. Diego Laynez, trans. Andrés Martínez de Azagra y Beladiez (Madrid: Victorian Suárez, 1933), 331–​84. 41. Ambrogio Catharinus, De Lapsu Hominis et Peccato Originali Liber Unus, in Opuscula (Lugduni: apu Mathiam Bonhomme, 1542), 189: “Sic ergo pactum statuit Deus cum Adam ab initio.” See also Aaron C. Denlinger, Omnes in Adam Ex Pacto Dei: Ambrogio Catarino’s Doctrine of Covenantal Solidarity and Its Influence on Post-​Reformation Reformed Theologians (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2010), 11. 42. Catharinus, Peccato Originali, 195. 43. Weir, Federal Theology,  13–​15.

222 Notes 44. Paolo Sarpi, Historia del Concilio Tridentino (London:  Giovani Billio, 1619), 170; Sarpi, The Historie of the Councel of Trent, trans. Nathanael Brent (London: Robert Barker and John Bill, 1620), 175. 45. Sarpi, Historia del Concilio, 171. 46. Sarpi, Historie of the Councel, 176; Sarpi, Historia del Concilio, 171. 47. Catharinus, Peccato Originali, 190–​91; Denlinger, Omnes in Adam,  11–​13. 48. John G. Snaith, Ecclesiasticus:  or The Wisdom of Jesus Son of Sirach (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1974), 74–​75. 49. Robert Parsons, A Christian Directorie Guiding Men to Eternall Salvation (Rouen: Parson’s Press, 1585), 142. 50. For the medieval use of covenant, see Woolsey, Unity and Continuity, 184–​203. 51. W. P. Stephens, The Theology of Huldrych Zwingli (Oxford:  Clarendon Press, 1986), 186. 52. Ulrich Zwingli, Refutation of Baptist Tricks, in Selected Works of Huldreich Zwingli (1484–​1531):  The Reformer of German Switzerland, ed. Samuel Macauley Jackson (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1901), 219. My thanks to Richard Muller for pointing me to this reference. 53. Zwingli, Refutation of Baptist Tricks, in Selected Works, 221. 54. Heinrich Bullinger, A Brief Exposition of the One and Eternal Testament or Covenant of God (1534), ed. and trans. Charles McCoy and J. Wayne Baker, in Fountainhead of Federalism:  Heinrich Bullinger and the Covenantal Tradition (Louisville, KY: Westminster/​John Knox Press, 1991). 55. Bullinger, Brief Exposition, 103. 56. Heinrich Bullinger, The Decades of Henry Bullinger, 2 vols., trans. Thomas Harding (1849–​52; Grand Rapids: Reformation Heritage Books, 2004), III.vi (vol. II, p. 169). Note, volume and page number citations refer to the nineteenth-​century Parker edition division, not the two volumes of the reprint edition cited here. 57. Bullinger, Brief Exposition, 111. 58. Bullinger, Brief Exposition, 126–​27. 59. Bullinger, Brief Exposition, 127–​28; Bullinger, De Testamento seu Foedere Dei Unico et Aeterno (Zurich: Christoph Frosch, 1534), fol. 39v. 60. Michael McGiffert, “Grace and Works: The Rise and Division of Covenant Divinity in Elizabethan Puritanism,” Harvard Theological Review 75/​4 (1982), 472; Jens Møller, “The Beginnings of Puritan Covenant Theology,” Journal of Ecclesiastical History 14 (1963): 56. 61. William Tyndale, Doctrinal Treatises and Introductions to Different Portions of the Holy Scriptures, Parker Society, ed. Henry Walter (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1848), 470. 62. Tyndale, Doctrinal Treatises, 469. 63. John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, trans. Henry Beveridge (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1957), II.xi.1. 64. See, e.g., Stephen R. Spencer, “Francis Turretin’s Concept of the Covenant of Nature,” in Later Calvinism:  International Perspectives, ed. W. Fred Graham (Kirksville, MO: Sixteenth Century Journal Publishers, 1994), 71–​91, esp. 80–​81.

Notes  223 65. John Calvin, Hosea, CTS (rep.; Grand Rapids: Baker, 1993), comm. Hos. 6:7 (p. 235). 66. On this point, see Peter A. Lillback, The Binding of God:  Calvin’s Role in the Development of Covenant Theology (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2001), 276–​304. 67. Martin Luther, Genesis 1–​5, Luther’s Works, vol. 1, ed. Jaroslav Pelikan (St. Louis, MO: Concordia Publishing House, 1958), 103–​15, esp. 107, 110. For Calvin’s interaction with Luther’s Genesis commentaries, see Anthony N. S.  Lane, John Calvin: Student of the Church Fathers (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1999), 193–​94. 68. Muller, Post-​Reformation Reformed Dogmatics, II:437. 69. Calvin, Institutes, II.i.5; Calvin, Institutio Christianae Religionis (Geneva:  Robert Stephanus, 1559). 70. Calvin, Institutes, III.xiv.6. 71. Calvin, Institutes, II.ii.22; cf. Tertullian, An Answer to the Jews, II.i, ANF, III:152; J.  Ligon Duncan, “The Covenant Idea in Ante-​Nicene Theology” (PhD Diss., University of Edinburgh, 1995), 196, 205–​06; Ian Christopher Levy et al., ed. The Bible in the Medieval Tradition: The Letter to the Romans (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2013), 88; Michael Scott Woodward, ed., The Glossa Ordinaria on Romans (Kalamazoo, MI:  Medieval Institute Publications, 2011), 40–​41; Martin Luther, Lectures on Romans, Luther’s Works, vol. 25 (St. Louis, MO: Concordia Publishing House, 2007), 19; Martin Bucer, Metaphrasis et Enarratio in Epist. D. Pauli Apostoli ad Romanos (Basel: Peter Pernus, 1562), 120–​21; Philip Melanchthon, Commentary on Romans, trans. Fred Kramer (St. Louis, MO: Concordia Press, 1992), 89–​90. 72. Calvin, Institutes, II.viii.1. 73. Peter Martyr Vermigli, The Most Learned and Fruitful Commentarie of D.  Peter Martir Vermilius Florentine, Professor of Divinity in the Schole of Tigure upon the Epistle of S.  Paul to the Romanes (London:  John Daye, 1558), fols. 43r–​44v–​ r; Vermigli, In Primum Librum Mosis Qui Vulgo Genesis Dicitur Commenarii (Zurich: Christopher Frosch, 1569), fol. 11r; The Humble Advice of the Assembly of Divines, Now by Authority of Parliament Sitting at Westminster, Concerning a Confession of Faith (London: Company of Stationers, 1647), XIX.i–​iii. 74. John Calvin, Commentaries on the Last Four Books of Moses Arranged in the Form of a Harmony, trans. Charles William Bingham, CTS, vol. 3 (rep.; Grand Rapids: Baker, 1993), 203. 75. Vermigli, Romanes, fol. 318v–​r; Luther, Lectures on Romans, 405–​07; Melanchthon, Romans, 195–​96. 76. Vermigli, Romanes, fol. 318r; cf. Levy, et al., Letter to the Romans, 233; Woodward, Glossa Ordinaria on Romans, 157. 77. Calvin, Harmony, comm. Lev. 18:5 (p. 204). 78. Cf. John Calvin, Romans and Thessalonians, CNTC (1960; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996), comm. Rom. 10:5 (pp. 222–​24); Calvin, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, & Colossians, CNTC, eds. David W. Torrance and T. F. Torrance (1960; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996), comm. Gal. 3:10–​12 (pp. 52–​55); Calvin, Institutes, II.vii.3. 79. Calvin, Harmony, comm. Lev. 18:5 (p. 205). 80. John Calvin, Genesis, CTS (rep.; Grand Rapids:  Baker, 1979), comm. Gen. 2:9 (pp.  116–​ 17); Peter A. Lillback, “Ursinus’s Development of the Covenant of

224 Notes Creation: A Debt to Melanchthon or Calvin?” Westminster Theological Journal 43/​2 (1981): 284–​86. 81. Calvin, Genesis, comm. Gen. 3:22 (p. 184). 82. John Calvin, 1 Corinthians, CNTC, eds. T. F. Torrance and David F. Torrance (1960; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996), comm. 1 Cor. 11:25 (p. 249). 83. Calvin, Institutes, IV.xiv.18. 84. Martin Luther, Lectures on Galatians 1–​4, Luther’s Works, vol. 26 (St. Louis, MO: Concordia Publishing House, 1962), 435–​38. 85. Calvin, Institutes, II.x.2; Calvin, Institutio. Cf. Woolsey, Unity and Continuity, 253–​ 343, esp. 253–​76. 86. Calvin, Institutes, II.x.7. 87. Calvin, Institutes, II.xi.2. 88. Calvin, Institutes, II.xi.4. 89. Calvin, Institutes, II.xi.4. 90. Calvin, Galatians, comm. Gal. 4:1 (p. 71); Calvin, Commentarii in Epistolam Pauli ad Galatas (Geneva: Jean Girard, 1548), 59. 91. Calvin, Institutes, II.vii.3. 92. Peter Martyr Vermigli, The Most Learned and Fruitful Commentaries of Peter Martir Vermigli (London: John Day, 1560), fols. 74r, 75r. 93. Calvin, Galatians, comm. 4:24 (pp. 85–​86). 94. Calvin, Galatians, comm. 4:24 (p. 86). 95. Calvin, Galatians, comm. 4:24 (p. 86). 96. Richard A. Muller, “The Covenant of Works and the Stability of Divine Law in Seventeenth-​Century Reformed Orthodoxy: A Study in the Theology of Herman Witsius and Wilhelmus à Brakel,” Calvin Theological Journal 29 (1994): 87; Lyle D. Bierma, “Covenant or Covenants in the Theology of Olevianus,” Calvin Theological Journal 22 (1987): 235–​42. 97. For an overview of Musculus’s doctrine of the covenant, see Jordan J. Ballor, Covenant, Causality, and Law:  A Study in the Theology of Wolfgang Musculus (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck& Ruprecht, 2012), 43–​110. Also see Richard A. Muller, “Divine Covenants, Absolute and Conditional:  John Cameron and the Early Orthodox Development of Reformed Covenant Theology,” Mid-​America Journal of Theology 17 (2006): 11–​56, esp. 17–​21. 98. Wolfgang Musculus, Common Places of Christian Religion (London:  1613), fol. 121v; Musculus, Loci Communes Sacrae Theologiae (Basil:  Eusebius Episcopus, 1567), 306. 99. Musculus, Common Places, fol. 121. 100. See Lyle D. Bierma, “Law and Grace in Ursinus’ Doctrine of the Natural Covenant: A Reappraisal,” in Protestant Scholasticism:  Essays in Reassessment, eds. Carl R. Trueman and R. Scott Clark (Carlisle, PA: Paternoster, 1999), 96–​110. 101. Zacharias Ursinus, Larger Catechism, q.  10, in An Introduction to the Heidelberg Catechism: Sources, History and Theology, ed. Lyle D. Bierma et al. (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2005), 164. 102. Weir, Federal Theology, 105. Debate persists about the role Ursinus plays in the development of the covenant of creation. Weir argues that Ursinus was the first

Notes  225 theologian to speak of a covenant of creation (Federal Theology, 22). Cf. Robert Letham, “The Foedus Operum:  Some Factors Accounting for Its Development,” Sixteenth Century Journal 14 (1983): 457–​67; Lillback, “Covenant of Creation,” 247. Contra Weir, Lillback, and Letham, cf. Derk Visser, “The Covenant in Zacharias Ursinus,” Sixteenth Century Journal 18 (1987): 531–​44. Weir does not acknowledge appearances of the creation covenant in Zwingli. 103. Ursinus, Larger Catechism, q. 36, in An Introduction to the Heidelberg Catechism, 168–​69; Ursinus, Summa Theologiae, in Der Heidelberger Katechismus und Vier Verwandte Katechismen (Leipzig: Georg Böhme, 1907), 156. 104. Bierma, “Covenant or Covenants,” 235–​36; cf. Caspar Olevianus, De Substantia Foederis Gratuiti Inter Deum et Electos (Geneva: Estathuis Vignon, 1585), 9, 26, 251, 254. Cf. Lyle D. Bierma, German Calvinism in the Confessional Age: The Covenant Theology of Caspar Olevianus (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1996), 107–​39. 105. Bierma, “Covenant or Covenants,” 237. 106. Bierma, “Covenant or Covenants,” 240–​41. 107. So, e.g., Weir, Federal Theology, 158.

Chapter 2 1. Aaron Clay Denlinger, “Introduction,” in Robert Rollock, Some Questions and Answers about God’s Covenant and the Sacrament That Is a Seal of God’s Covenant, trans. and ed. Aaron Clay Denlinger (Eugene, OR: Pickwick Publications, 2016), 1–​2. 2. Andrew Woolsey, “Biographical Introduction,” in Select Works of Robert Rollock, 2 vols., ed. William M. Gunn (1844–​49; Grand Rapids: Reformation Heritage Books, 2008), I:[5–​6]; Woolsey, Unity and Continuity in Covenantal Thought: A Study in the Reformed Tradition to the Westminster Assembly (Grand Rapids: Reformation Heritage Books, 2012), 516–​17. 3. Denlinger, “Introduction,” 2–​3. 4. T. F. Torrance, Scottish Theology:  From John Knox to John McLeod Campbell (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1996), 61; see also J. B. Torrance, “The Concept of Federal Theology—​ Was Calvin a Federal Theologian?” in Calvinus Sacrae Scripturae Professor, ed. W. H. Neuser (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1994), 15–​40. 5. William Perkins, Armilla Aurea, Id Est, Theologiae Descriptio, Miranda Series Causarum et Salutis & Damnationis Iuxta Verbum Dei Eius Synopsin Continet Annexa Tabula (Cambridge: John Legatt, 1590). 6. Denlinger, “Introduction,” 6; Torrance, Scottish Theology, 61; cf. William Perkins, Armilla Aurea, Id Est, Theologiae Descriptio, Miranda Series Causarum et Salutis & Damnationis Iuxta Verbum Dei Eius Synopsin Continet Annexa Tabula (Cambridge: John Legatt, 1591); Perkins, A Golden Chaine, or The Description of Theologie, Containing the Order of the Causes of Salvation and Damnation, According to Gods Word (London: Edward Alde, 1592). 7. Rollock, as cited in Denlinger, “Introduction,” 7; cf. Robert Rollock, In Epistolam Pauli Apostoli ad Ephesios, Roberti Rolloci Scoti (Edinburgh: Robert, 1590), 18. 8. Denlinger, “Introduction,” 7.

226 Notes 9. David Weir, The Origins of the Federal Theology in Sixteenth-​Century Reformation Thought (Oxford:  Oxford University Press, 1990), 119; Michael McGiffert, “Grace and Works: The Rise and Division of Covenant Divinity in Elizabethan Puritanism,” Harvard Theological Review 75/​ 4 (1982):  492; Derk Visser, “The Covenant in Zacharias Ursinus,” Sixteenth Century Journal 18 (1987): 534. 10. Dudley Fenner, Sacra Theologia Sive Veritas quae est secundum Pietatem (Geneva: Eustathium Vignon, 1586), IV.i (pp. 39–​40): “Foedus duplex est: Operum fodeus /​Gratuitae promissionis foedus.” 11. Fenner, Sacra Theologia, IV.i (p. 40): “Operum foedus, est foedus ubi conditio annexa est perfecta obedientia . . . Foedus gratuitae promissionis, es foedus (a) de Christo & eulogia in ipso extante, gratuitio promissionis, (b) ubi conditio est, si recepiatur Christus.” 12. Weir, Origins, 118. 13. Thomas Cartwright, A Treatise of Christian Religion:  Substantially, Methodicallie, Plainlie, and Profitablie Treatised (London: Felix Kingston, 1611), 123–​24. 14. Weir, Origins, 118; Thomas Cartwright, “Ornatissimo et Clarissimo Fratri et in Ministerio Collega, Domino Dedleio Fennero,” in Fenner, Sacra Theologia, preface. 15. Weir, Origins, 119. 16. Joseph H. Fichter, James Layñez: Jesuit (St. Louis: Herder Book Co., 1944), 61–​65. 17. Diego Lañyez, “Disputatio de justitia imputata,” in Jacobi Laínez Disputationes Tridentiae, vol. 2, ed. Hartmannus Grisar (Ratisbonae: Feliciani Rauch, 1886), II.v (p. 159), II.xxxvii (p. 189); Lañyez, EIP. Diego Laynez, trans. Andrés Martínez de Azagra y Beladiez (Madrid: Victorian Suárez, 1933), 331–​84; cf. Biblia Sacra: Iuxta Vulgatam Versionem, 3rd ed. (1969; Stuttgart:  Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1983), Hosea 6:7; Augustine, City of God, XVI.xxix, in NPNF1 II:326. 18. Ambrogio Catharinus, De Lapsu Hominis et Peccato Originali Liber Unus, in Opuscula (Lugduni:  apud Mathias Bonhomme, 1542), 189:  “Sic ergo pactum statuit Deus cum Adam ab initio.” Aaron C. Denlinger, Omnes in Adam Ex Pacto Dei: Ambrogio Catarino’s Doctrine of Covenantal Solidarity and Its Influence on Post-​Reformation Reformed Theologians (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2010), 11. 19. Catharinus, Peccato Originali, 195. 20. Catharinus, Peccato Originali, 190–​91; Denlinger, Omnes in Adam,  11–​13. 21. Rollock, Treatise on God’s Effectual Calling, XXV (vol. I, pp.  176–​77); cf. Rollock, Tractatus De Vocatione Efficaci (Edinburgh: Robert, 1597), 195–​96. 22. Cf. Robert Bellarmine, Controversia Secunda Generalis. Quae Est De Amissione Gratiae Sive Status Peccati, in Disputationes de Contrversiis Christianae Fidei, 4 vols. (London: Sartorius, 1601), V.xvi (vol. IV, pp. 434–​36). 23. Denlinger, Omnes in Adam, 268–​70. 24. Rollock, God’s Covenant, q. 1 (p. 21); Rollock, Quaestiones et Responsiones Aliquot de Foedere Dei (Edinburgh: Henry Charter, 1596). 25. Rollock, God’s Covenant, q. 2 (p. 21). 26. Rollock, God’s Covenant, q. 3 (pp. 21–​22); cf. Rollock, Treatise on Effectual Calling, III (vol. I, p. 42). 27. Rollock, Treatise on Effectual Calling, III (vol. I, p. 50).

Notes  227 28. Rollock, Treatise on Effectual Calling, IV (vol. I, p. 52). 29. Robert Rollock, Analysis Dialectica Roberti Rolloci Scoti . . . in Paul Apostolis Episotlam ad Romanos (Edinburgh: Robert Waldgrave, 1594), 246–​47. 30. Robert Rollock, Analysis Logica in Epistolam Pauli Apostoli ad Galatas (London: Felix Kyngston, 1602), 54: “Justitia est per fidem, sequitur, inquam, justitiam nullo modo esse per legem.” 31. Rollock, Analysis Logica, 54. 32. Rollock, Analysis Logica, 55: “Legem non esse fidem, vel nihil legi esse commune cum fide ostendit ex formula foederis legalis, cuius conditio, quae est operum, cum fide non potest consentire.” 33. Rollock, God’s Covenant, qq. 7–​8 (pp. 22–​23). 34. Rollock, God’s Covenant, q. 10 (p. 23). 35. Rollock, God’s Covenant, q. 12 (p. 23). 36. Rollock, God’s Covenant, q. 13 (p. 23). 37. Rollock, God’s Covenant, qq. 14–​15 (p. 24). 38. Rollock, God’s Covenant, q. 16 (p. 24). 39. Rollock, God’s Covenant, q. 17. (pp. 24–​25); cf. Rollock, Analysis Logica,  27–​28. 40. John Calvin, Romans and Thessalonians, CNTC (1960; Grand Rapids:  Eerdmans, 1996), comm. Rom. 2:14 (p. 48). 41. John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, trans. Henry Beveridge (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1957), II.viii.1, cf. IV.xx.16; Calvin, Institutio Christianae Religionis (Geneva: Robert Stephanus, 1559). 42. John Calvin, Genesis, CTS, vol. 1 (rep; Grand Rapids:  Baker, 1996), comm. Gen. 2:16 (pp. 125–​26); Richard A. Muller, After Calvin: Studies in the Development of a Theological Tradition (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003), 182. 43. Wolfgang Musculus, Common Places of Christian Religion (London:  1563), fol. 121v; cf. Jordan J. Ballor, Covenant, Causality, and Law: A Study in the Theology of Wolfgang Musculus (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2012), 55; Ursinus, Larger Catechism, q. 10, in Introduction to the Heidelberg Catechism, 164. 44. Muller, “Divine Covenants,” 26; cf. Rollock, Effectual Calling, IV, in Works, I:52. 45. Rollock, Effectual Calling, III, in Works, I:39. 46. Rollock, Effectual Calling, IV, in Works, I:54. 47. Rollock, Effectual Calling, XXV, in Works, I:175. 48. Denlinger, Omnes in Adam, 266–​67. 49. Rollock, Effectual Calling, XXV, in Works, I:176. 50. Denlinger, Omnes in Adam, 268–​70. 51. Edward Leigh, A Treatise of Divinity Consisting of Three Books (London: William Lee, 1646), I.iv (p. 69). 52. Leigh, Treatise of Divinity, I.ix (p. 187). 53. Edward Leigh, A Treatise of Religion and Learning, and of Religious and Learned Men (London: Charles Adams, 1656), I.vi (p. 20). 54. Samuel Rutherford, The Covenant of Life Opened, or A Treatise on the Covenant of Grace (Edinburgh: Robert Broun, 1655), 19. 55. Rutherford, Covenant of Life Opened, II.ii (p. 234).

228 Notes 56. Anselm, On the Virgin Conception and Original Sin, in Anselm of Canterbury: The Major Works, ed. Brian Davies (Oxford:  Oxford University Press, 1998), §§I–​II (pp. 359–​60); Henri Rondet, Original Sin: The Patristic and Theological Background (Shannon, Ireland: Ecclesia Press, 1969), 149; Thomas Aquinas, Commentary on the Letter of St. Paul to the Romans, vol. 37, Latin/​English Edition of the Works of St. Thomas Aquinas (Lander, WY: Aquinas Institute for the Study of Sacred Doctrine, 2012), lect. 3, §410 (p. 139); Calvin, Institutes, II.i.7; Calvin, John 1–​10, CNTC (1960; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996), 66; Aaron Denlinger, “Calvin’s Understanding of Adam’s Relationship to His Posterity: Recent Assertions of the Reformer’s ‘Federalism’ Evaluated,” Calvin Theological Journal 44 (2009):  240–​42; cf. Cornelis Venema, “Calvin’s Doctrine of the Imputation of Christ’s Righteousness: Another Example of ‘Calvin Against the Calvinists’?” Mid-​America Journal of Theology 20 (2009): 15–​47. 57. Rutherford, Covenant of Life Opened, II.ii (p. 234). 58. Rutherford, Covenant of Life Opened, II.ii (p. 235). 59. Denlinger, Omnes in Adam, 187–​88. 60. For what follows, see Denlinger, Omnes in Adam, 273–​74. 61. Nehemiah Coxe, A Discourse of the Covenants That God Made with Men before the Law (J. D., 1681), II.vi (p. 28). 62. Coxe, Discourse of the Covenants, II.v (p. 26). 63. Francis Roberts, Mysterium & Medulla Bibliorum. The Mysterie and Marrow of the Bible. viz. God’s Covenants with Man (London: George Calvert, 1657), II.i (p. 22). 64. Roberts, Mysterium & Medulla Bibliorum, II.i (p. 22). 65. Anthony Burgess, The Doctrine of Original Sin (London: Thomas Underhill, 1659), III.xxiv.7 (p. 201).

Chapter 3 1. Two notable exceptions are Richard A. Muller, “The Federal Motif in Seventeenth-​ Century Arminian Theology,” Nederlands Archief voor Kerkgeschiedenis 62/​1 (1982): 102–​22; Raymond Blacketer, “Arminius’ Concept of Covenant in Its Historical Context,” Nederlands Archief voor Kerkgeschiedenis /​Dutch Review of Church History 80/​2 (2000): 193–​222. 2. Todd M. Rester, “Theologica Viatorum: Institutional Continuity and the Reception of a Theological Framework from Franciscus Junius’s De Theologia Vera to Bernardinus De Moor’s Commentarius Perpetuus” (PhD Diss., Calvin Theological Seminary, 2016), 14–​17. 3. E.g., Richard A. Muller, After Calvin:  Studies in the Development of a Theological Tradition (Oxford:  Oxford University Press, 2001), 175–​90; Aaron C. Denlinger, Omnes in Adam Ex Pacto Dei: Ambrogio Catarino’s Doctrine of Covenantal Solidarity and Its Influence on Post-​Reformation Reformed Theologians (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2010). 4. Richard A. Muller, Post-​ Reformation Reformed Dogmatics, vol. 1, Prolegomena to Theology (Grand Rapids:  Baker, 1987), 43; Willem Van Asselt, “The Life of Francis Junius,” in Francis Junius, A Treatise on True Theology, trans. David C. Noe (Grand Rapids:  Reformation Heritage Books, 2014), 13–​ 72; Willem Van

Notes  229 Asselt et  al., Introduction to Reformed Scholasticism, trans. Albert Gootjes (Grand Rapids: Reformation Heritage Books, 2011), 116. 5. Muller, Reformed Dogmatics, 43; Van Asselt, Introduction to Reformed Scholasticism, 116–​17. 6. Muller, Reformed Dogmatics, 43. 7. Franciscus Gomarus, Oratio De Foedere Dei, in Opera Theologica Omnia (Amsterdam: Joannis Jansonius, 1664), 2. 8. Gomarus, De Foedere Dei, 2; Muller, “Federal Motif,” 104 n. 6. 9. Gomarus, De Foedere Dei, 2. 10. Gomarus, De Foedere Dei, 3. 11. Francis Junius, De Foederibus et Testamentis Divinis, XXV.ii, in Opuscula Theologica Selecta, ed. Abraham Kuyper (Amsterdam: Frederic Muller, 1882), 183–​84. 12. Junius, De Foederibus et Testamentis Divinis, XXV.iii (p. 184). 13. Junius, De Foederibus et Testamentis Divinis, XXV.v (p. 184). 14. Junius, De Foederibus et Testamentis Divinis, XXV.vi (p. 184). 15. Junius, De Foederibus et Testamentis Divinis, XXV.viii–​ix (p. 184). 16. Junius, De Foederibus et Testamentis Divinis, XXV.x (p. 184). 17. Cf. Zacharias Ursinus, Larger Catechism, q.  36, in Lyle D. Bierma et  al., An Introduction to the Heidelberg Catechism:  Sources, History, and Theology (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2005), 168–​69. 18. John Calvin, Commentary on Genesis, CTS (rep.; Grand Rapids: Baker, 1993), comm. Gen. 2:9 (p. 117). 19. John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, trans. Henry Beveridge (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1957), II.viii.1, cf. IV.xx.16; Calvin, Institutio Christianae Religionis (Geneva: Robert Stephanus, 1559); Calvin, Romans and Thessalonians, CNTC (1960; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996), comm. Rom. 2:14 (p. 48). 20. Cf., e.g., Calvin, Institutes, IV.xx.14; Franciscus Junius, The Mosaic Polity, trans. Todd M. Rester, ed. Andrew M. McGinnis (Grand Rapids: CLP Academic, 2015), 29,  44–​48. 21. Keith D. Stanglin, The Missing Disputations of Jacobus Arminius: Introduction, Text, and Notes (Leiden: Brill, 2010), 43–​100. 22. Arminius, Priv. Disp. XXIX, “On the Covenant into Which God Entered with Our First Parents,” Works, II:369. 23. Jacob Arminius, Analysis of Romans IX, in The Works of James Arminius, 3 vols. (1875; Grand Rapids:  Baker, 1996), III:500–​01; Blacketer, “Arminius’s Concept of Covenant,” 200. 24. Arminius, Priv. Disp. XXIX.i, Works, II:369; Arminius, Disputationes, magnam partem s.  theologiae complectentes, publicae & privatae, quarum index epist. dedicatoriam sequitur, in Opera Theologica (Leiden: Godefridum Basson, 1629), 374. 25. Arminius, Priv. Disp. XXIX.ii, Works, II:369; Arminius, Disputationes, 374. 26. Wolfgang Musculus, Common Places of Christian Religion (London: 1563), fol. 121v; cf. Jordan J. Ballor, Covenant, Causality, and Law: A Study in the Theology of Wolfgang Musculus (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2012), 55. 27. C. O. Bangs, ed. The Auction Catalogue of the Library of J.  Arminius:  A Facsimile Edition (Utrecht: HES Publishers, 1985), 4.

230 Notes 28. Bangs., ed., Auction Catalogue, 4. 29. Stephanus Szegedinus, Theologiae Sincereae Loci Communes de Deo et Homine Perpetuis Explicati Tabulis et Scholasticorum Dogmatis (Basil:  Conrad Waldkirch, 1585), 71. 30. Arminius, Priv. Disp. XXIX.iii, Works, II:369; Arminius, Disputationes, 374. 31. Arminius, Pub. Disp. XII.ii, Works, II:197. 32. Arminius, Priv. Disp. XXVII.vi, Works, II:366; Blacketer, “Arminius’s Concept of Covenant,” 201. 33. Arminius, Priv. Disp. XXIX.iv, Works, II:369; Arminius, Disputationes, 374. 34. Arminius, Priv. Disp. XXIX.ix–​x, Works, II:371; Arminius, Disputationes, 375. 35. Jacob Arminius, Theses Theoloicae de Legis et Evangelii Comparatione, V, in The Missing Public Disputations of Jacobus Arminius: Introduction, Text, and Notes, ed. Keith D. Stanglin (Leiden: Brill, 2010), 238. 36. Jacob Arminius, Oration I: The Object of Theology, in The Works of James Arminius, 3 vols. (1875; Grand Rapids: Baker, 1996), I:332–​33; Blacketer, “Arminius’s Concept of Covenant,” 202. 37. Junius, De Foederibus et Testamentis Divinis, XXV.ii (p. 184). 38. Arminius, Object of Theology, Works, I:329; Blacketer, “Arminius’s Concept of Covenant,” 202. 39. Arminius, Priv. Disp. XXX–​XXXI, Works, II:371–​75. 40. Arminius, Priv. Disp. XXX.i, Works, II:371. 41. Arminius, Priv. Disp. XXXI.ix, Works, II:375. 42. Arminius, The Apology or Defense of James Arminius, art. XIX, Works, II:22–​ 23; cf. Johannes Cocceius, Summa Theologiae Ex Scripturis Repetita, 2nd ed. (Geneva: Johannes Herman Widerhold, 1665), VIII.xxii.46 (p. 278). 43. Arminius, Disputation XXXI.x, Works, II:375. 44. Arminius, Disputation XXXI.ix, Works, II:375; cf. Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Ia IIae q. 82 art. 1; Anselm, On the Virgin Conception and Original Sin, III, in The Major Works, ed. Brian Davies and G. R. Evans (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998), 361–​62; Keith D. Stanglin and Thomas H. McCall, Jacob Arminius:  Theologian of Grace (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012), 145–​49. 45. Arminius, Nine Questions, III, Works, II:65; Arminius, Quaestiones Numero Novem, in Opera Theologica (Leiden: Godefridum Basson, 1629), 184; Stanglin and McCall, Jacob Arminius, (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012), 149–​50. Medieval theologians distinguished between liability to penalty (reatus poenae) and liability to guilt (reatus culpae). They maintained that Christ removed guilt (culpa) through baptism but that the believer still had to account for penalty (poena) through temporal satisfactions, i.e., penance (cf. Richard A. Muller, Dictionary of Latin and Greek Theological Terms:  Drawn Principally from Protestant Scholastic Theology [Grand Rapids: Baker, 1986], s. v. reatus; Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica [rep.; Allen, TX: Christian Classics, 1948], IIIa q. 86 art. 4; IaIIae q. 87 art. 1; Heinrich Denzinger, Compendium of Creeds, Definitions, and Declarations on Matters of Faith and Morals, 43rd ed. [San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2012], (§§1689–​92, §§1712–​15). Reformed orthodox theologians generally refused to distinguish poena and culpa and simply

Notes  231 discussed the reatus of sin (see Zacharias Ursinus, The Commentary of Dr. Zacharias Ursinus on the Heidelberg Catechism, trans. G. W. Williard [1852; Phillipsburg: P & R, n.d.], 40; Ursinus, Corpus Doctrinae Christianae [Hanoviae: Jonas Rosae, 1651], 43; Girolamo Zanchi, Omnium Operum Theologicorum, vol. 4 [Geneva:  Ioannis Tornaesij, 1649], I.iv [col. 38]; Calvin, Institutes, II.i.8; Francis Turretin, Institutes of Elenctic Theology [Phillipsburg: P & R, 1992–​97], IX.iii.1–​7). 46. Arminius, Conference with Junius, prop. X, Works, III:115. 47. See Junius, De Feoderibus et Testamentis Divinis, in Opuscula, 183–​90. 48. Bangs, ed., Auction Catalogue, 8. 49. Lucas Trelcatius, A Briefe Institution of the Common Places of Sacred Divinitie (London:  Francis Burton, 1610), II.x (pp. 276–​ 78); Trelcatius, Scholastica, et Methodica, Locorum Communium S.  Theologiae Institutio Didactice et Elenctice in Epitome Explicata (Leiden: 1604), 95–​96. 50. Bangs, ed., Auction Catalogue, 11; cf. William Perkins, Armilla Aurea, Id Est, Theologiae Descriptio, Miranda Series Causarum et Salutis & Damnationis Iuxta Verbum Dei Eius Synopsin Continet Annexa Tabula (Cambridge:  John Legatt, 1591), XXXI. 51. Bangs, ed., Auction Catalogue, 12. 52. See, e.g., Robert Rollock, Analysis Dialectica Roberti Rolloci Scoti . . . in Paul Apostolis Episotlam ad Romanos (Edinburgh: Robert Waldgrave, 1594), 246–​47. 53. Bangs, ed., Auction Catalogue, 22; cf. Amandus Polanus, Partitiones Theologicae (Basel: Conrad Waldkirch, 1590), 79; Polanus, The Substance of Christian Religion, Soundly Set Forth in Two Books (London: R. F., 1595), 88. 54. Herman Witsius, The Economy of the Covenants between God and Man: Comprehending a Complete Body of Divinity (1822; Escondido: Den Dulk Foundation, 1990), II.vii.14. 55. Witsius, Economy of the Covenants, II.vii.15. 56. Witsius, Economy of the Covenants, II.vii.15. 57. Pierre Du Moulin, The Anatomy of Arminianisme: or The Opening of the Controversies Lately Handled in the Low-​Coutnryes, Concerning the Doctrine of Providence, of Predestination, of the Death of Christ, of Nature and Grace (London:  Nathaniel Newberry, 1620), 88. On universal prevenient grace, see Richard A. Muller, God, Creation, and Providence in the Thought of Jacob Arminius: Sources and Directions of Scholastic Protestantism in the Era of Early Orthodoxy (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1991), 244–​45. 58. Jacob Arminius, Apology, XVII, in The Works of James Arminius, 3 vols. (1875; Grand Rapids:  Baker, 1996), II:20; Muller, “Federal Motif,” 107; Blacketer, “Arminius’s Concept of Covenant,” 208–​09. 59. Samuel Rutherford, The Covenant of Life Opened: or, A Treatise of the Covenant of Grace (Edinburgh: Robert Broun, 1654), I.vii (p. 21). 60. Rutherford, Covenant of Life, I.vii (p. 22). 61. Rutherford, Covenant of Life, I.vii (p. 22). 62. Rutherford, Covenant of Life, I.vii (p. 22). 63. Rutherford, Covenant of Life, I.vii (p. 23); cf. Anselm, Book of Meditations and Prayers, trans. M. Rul (London: Burns and Oates, 1872), XI.liv (p. 150).

232 Notes 64. Rutherford, Covenant of Life, I.vii (p. 23); cf. Anselm, Monologion, LXX, in Works, 75. Note, Rutherford incorrectly cites chp. XL. 65. Rutherford, Covenant of Life, I.vii (p. 23); cf. Thomas Bradwardine, De Causa Dei, Contra Pelagium et De Virtute Causarum (London:  John Bill, 1618), I.xxxix (p. 343, E). 66. Cf., e.g., Henri de Lubac, The Mystery of the Supernatural (New York: Herder and Herder, 2011); Lawrence Feingold, The Natural Desire to See God According to St. Thomas Aquinas and His Interpreters (Ave Maria, FL: Sapientia Press, 2010). 67. Arminius, Conference with Junius, VIII, Works, III:88; Arminius, Iacobi Arminii . . . amica cum D. Francisco Iunio de praedestinatione per litteras habita collatio, in Opera theologica (Leiden: Godefridum Basson, 1629), 508. Note that this work includes portions written by Junius, but the overall treatise is attributed to Arminius, hence subsequent references cite Arminius as author even though the reference is to Junius. 68. Arminius, Conference with Junius, VIII, Works, III:94. 69. Arminius, Conference with Junius, VIII, Works, III:93. 70. Arminius, Conference with Junius, VIII, Works, III:96. 71. Michael Baius, De Prima Hominis Justitia, et Virtutibus Impiorum, in Michaelis Baii Opera (Cologne:  Balthasar ab Egmont, 1696), §XI (pp. 62–​63); Feingold, Natural Desire to See God, 246. 72. Denzinger, Compendium of Creeds, 437–​38. 73. Arminius, Conference with Junius, XIV, Works, III:152. 74. Arminius, Conference with Junius, X, Works, III:109; Arminius, Collatio, 521. 75. Arminius, Conference with Junius, XII, Works, III:136. 76. Arminius, Conference with Junius, XII, Works, III:138. 77. Cf. Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Ia q. 95 art. 1. 78. Arminius, Conference with Junius, XII, Works, III:138. 79. Muller, God, Creation, and Providence, 245–​46. 80. Arminius, Conference with Junius, XIII, Works, III:153. 81. Arminius, Conference with Junius, XIV, Works, III:164; Arminius, Collatio, 561. 82. Rutherford, Covenant of Life, I.vii (p. 22). 83. Muller, “Federal Motif,” 102–​03. 84. Muller, “Federal Motif,” 109–​21; Frederick Calder, Memoirs of Simon Episcopius, The Celebrated Pupil of Arminius (London: Hayward and Moore, 1838). 85. Muller, Reformed Dogmatics, 49. 86. Muller, Reformed Dogmatics, 49. 87. Daniela Prögler, English Students at Leiden University, 1575–​1650: ‘Advancing Your Abilities in Learning and Bettering Your Understanding of the World and State Affairs’ (Surrey: Ashgate, 2013), 110–​11, 214.

Chapter 4 1. Richard Snoddy, The Soteriology of James Ussher: The Act and Object of Saving Faith (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014); Alan Ford, James Ussher: Theology, History, and Politics in Early-​Modern Ireland and England (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007).

Notes  233 2. On Ussher’s doctrine of the covenant of works, see Harrison Perkins, “James Ussher and the Covenant of Works,” (PhD Thesis, Queen’s University Belfast, 2018); Perkins, “Reconsidering the Development for the Covenant of Works,” Calvin Theological Journal 53/​2 (2018): 289–​317. 3. Charles Richard Elrington, Life of Archbishop Ussher, in James Ussher, The Whole Works of the Most Rev. James Ussher, 17 vols. (Dublin: Hodges and Smith, 1847–​64), I:43–​44; Chad VanDixhoorn, ed., Minutes and Papers of the Westminster Assembly, 5 vols. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012), I:141. 4. Harrison Perkins, “The Westminster Assembly’s Probable Appropriation of James Ussher,” Scottish Bulletin of Evangelical Theology 37/​1 (2019): 45–​63. 5. See, e.g., B. B. Warfield, “The Westminster Doctrine of Holy Scripture,” in The Works of Benjamin B. Warfield, ed. E. D. Warfield et al., 10 vols. (1931; Grand Rapids: Baker, 1981), VI:169–​90. 6. James Ussher, A Body of Divinitie, or The Summe and Substance of Christian Religion (London: Tho. Downes and Geo. Badger, 1645). On Ussher’s authorship of A Body of Divinitie, see Harrison Perkins, “Manuscript and Material Evidence for James Ussher’s Authorship of A Body of Divinitie (1645),” Evangelical Quarterly 89/​2 (2018): 133–​61. 7. Ford, James Ussher,  32–​33. 8. Ford, James Ussher,  38–​39. 9. Ford, James Ussher, 40–​41. The dichotomizing tendencies of Ramist theologians, therefore, did not play a role in the origins or development of the covenant of works, as Ramist and non-​Ramist theologians both advocated the doctrine (pace Robert Letham, “The Foedus Operum:  Some Factors Accounting for Its Development,” Sixteenth Century Journal 14 [1983]: 456–​67, esp. 465–​67). 10. Charles Richard Elrington, A Life of the Author, in James Ussher, The Whole Works of the Most Rev. James Ussher, 17 vols. (Dublin: Hodges and Smith, 1847–​64), I:2–​ 7; Andrew A. Woolsey, Unity and Continuity in Covenantal Thought:  A Study in the Reformed Tradition to the Westminster Assembly (Grand Rapids:  Reformation Heritage Books, 2012), 539. 11. See, e.g., Andrew Melville, Commentarius in Divinam Pauli Apostolam ad Romanos (Edinburgh: Woodrow Society, 1849), 477. 12. Woolsey, Unity and Continuity, 539. 13. Ford, James Ussher, 33. 14. Ford, James Ussher, 38. 15. Ford, James Ussher,  81–​83. 16. Thomas Cartwright, A Short Catechism, in Cartwrightiana, ed. Albert Peel and Leland H. Carlson (London: George Allen and Unwin Ltd., 1951), 159. 17. Cartwright, Short Catechism, 159; Woolsey, Unity and Continuity, 445. 18. Thomas Cartwright, Christian Religion, Substantially, Methodicallie, Plainlie, and Profitablie Treatised (London: Felix Man, 1611), 64–​65; cf., e.g., Ford, James Ussher, 83. 19. Cartwright, Short Catechism, 123–​24. 20. James Ussher, The Whole Works of the Most Rev. James Ussher, 17 vols. (Dublin: Hodges and Smith, 1847–​64). 21. James Ussher, The Principles of Christian Religion: With a Briefe Method of the Doctrine Thereof (London: George Badger, 1653).

234 Notes Ussher, Principles,  9–​10. Ussher, Method, 71. Ussher, Method, 71–​72; Ussher, Principles, 10. Ussher, Principles, 10. Ussher, Principles,  11–​12. Ussher, Method,  72–​73. Ussher, Method, 75. Ussher, Principles, 12. Ussher, Body of Divinitie, 123. Ussher, Body of Divinitie, 123. Ussher, Body of Divinitie, 124. Ussher, Body of Divinitie, 124. Ussher, Body of Divinitie, 124. Ussher, Body of Divinitie, 124. Ussher, Body of Divinitie, 125. Robert Rollock, Some Questions and Answers about God’s Covenant and the Sacrament That Is a Seal of God’s Covenant, trans. and ed. Aaron Clay Denlinger (Eugene, OR: Pickwick Publications, 2016), q. 3 (pp. 21–​22); cf. Rollock, Treatise on Effectual Calling, in Select Works of Robert Rollock, 2 vols., ed. William M. Gunn (1844–​49; Grand Rapids: Reformation Heritage Books, 2008), III (vol. I, p. 42). 38. Ussher, Body of Divinitie, 125. 39. Ussher, Body of Divinitie, 125. 40. Ussher, Body of Divinitie, 125. 41. Ussher, Body of Divinitie, 141. 42. Ussher, Body of Divinitie, 142; cf., e.g., Augustine, The Literal Meaning of Genesis, vol. 41, Ancient Christian Writers, trans. John Hammond Taylor (New York: Paulist Press, 1982), VI.9 (pp. 187–​88). 43. Ussher, Body of Divinitie, 144. 44. For the exchange between Arminius and Junius on this issue, see Jacob Arminius, Conference of James Arminius with Francis Junius, in The Works of James Arminius, eds. James Nichols and William Nichols, 3 vols. (1875; Grand Rapids: Baker, 1996), III:88–​165; cf. Samuel Rutherford, The Covenant of Life Opened: or, A Treatise of the Covenant of Grace (Edinburgh: Robert Broun, 1654), I.vii (p. 22). 45. Ussher, Body of Divinitie, 125. 46. Ussher, Body of Divinitie, 105, 160. 47. Cf., e.g., John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, trans. Henry Beverage (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1957), II.ii.12. Also note Perkins, “Ussher and the Covenant of Works,” 62–​67, 75–​80, 121–​37. 48. Ussher, Body of Divinitie, 104. 49. Ussher, Body of Divinitie, 126. 50. Ussher, Body of Divinitie, 159–​60. 51. Ussher, Body of Divinitie, 160. 52. Ussher, Body of Divinitie, 160. 53. Ussher, Body of Divinitie, 160. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37.

Notes  235 54. Jaroslav Pelikan and Valerie Hotchkiss, eds., Creeds and Confessions of Faith in the Christian Tradition, 3 vols. (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2003), II:551. 55. Carl Trueman, “Reformed Orthodoxy in Britain,” in A Companion to Reformed Orthodoxy, ed. Herman J. Selderhuis (Leiden: Brill, 2013), 275; Ford, James Ussher, 85–​103, esp. 86–​87. 56. Ford, James Ussher, 87. 57. Articles of Religion Agreed Upon by the Archbishops and Bishops, and the Rest of the Cleargie of Ireland, in the Convocation (Dublin: John Franketon, 1615); cf. Perkins, “Ussher and the Covenant of Works,” 72–​75. 58. Ford, James Ussher, 87. 59. Ford, James Ussher,  96–​97. 60. Trueman, “Reformed Orthodoxy in Britain,” 276. 61. Edward Leigh, A Systeme or Body of Divinity: Consisting of Ten Books (London: William Lee, 1654), To the Reader (fol. A2).

Chapter 5 1. E.g., Holmes Rolston III, John Calvin versus the Westminster Confession (Louisville, KY: Westminster/​John Knox, 1986); R. T. Kendall, Calvin and English Calvinism to 1649 (rep.; Eugene, OR: Paternoster, 2011). 2. E.  g., Richard A. Muller, “Divine Covenants, Absolute and Conditional:  John Cameron and the Early Orthodox Development of Reformed Covenant Theology,” Mid-​ America Journal of Theology 17 (2006):  11–​ 56; Andrew Woolsey, Unity and Continuity in Covenantal Thought:  A Study in the Reformed Tradition to the Westminster Assembly (Grand Rapids: Reformation Heritage Books, 2012), 442–​98. 3. For biographical information on Cameron and Leigh, see Robert Wodrow, Collections on the Life of Mr. John Cameron, in Collections upon the Lives of the Reformers and Most Eminent Ministers of the Church of Scotland, vol. 2 (Glasgow: 1848), 79–​223; “Edward Leigh,” in Dictionary of National Biography, vol. XXXII, ed. Sidney Lee (New York: Macmillan and Co., 1892), 432–​33. 4. E.g., Peter A. Lillback, The Binding of God:  Calvin’s Role in the Development of Covenant Theology (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2001). Others deal with the development of covenant theology but hardly mention Cameron or bypass Cameron and Leigh altogether (so Woolsey, Unity and Continuity, 22, 36, 131–​33; N. J. Poole, The History of the Covenant Concept from the Bible to Johannes Cloppenburg:  De Foedere Dei [New York: Edwin Mellen Press, 1992]). 5. Brian G. Armstrong, Calvinism and the Amyraut Heresy:  Protestant Scholasticism and Humanism in Seventeenth-​Century France (rep.; Eugene, OR:  Wipf & Stock, 2004),  42–​45. 6. For primary and secondary sources on these figures, see previous chapters. 7. John Downame [Henry Finch], The Summe of Sacred Divinitie (London:  William Stansby, 1625?). On Finch’s authorship of the Summe of Sacred Divinitie, see Randall J. Pederson, Unity in Diversity:  English Puritans and the Puritan Reformation,

236 Notes 1603–​1689 (Leiden: Brill, 2014), 89–​90 n. 2, 123–​27; Richard A. Muller, Calvin and the Reformed Tradition:  On the Work of Christ and the Order of Salvation (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2012), 224 n. 176. 8. [Finch], Summe, I.xv (p. 222). 9. The Humble Advice of the Assembly of Divines Now by Authority of Parliament Sitting at Westminster Concerning a Shorter Catechism (London:  J. F., 1648), q.  12. Note, I employ the commonly accepted numbering of the catechism’s questions; the original does not number the questions. 10. [Finch], Summe, I.xv (p. 223). 11. [Finch], Summe, I.xv (p. 223). 12. [Finch], Summe, I.xv (p. 224). 13. [Finch], Summe, I.iii (pp. 80–​81). 14. [Finch], Summe, I.xv (pp. 225–​26). 15. [Finch], Summe, I.xv (p. 226). 16. For biographical information on Ames, see Jan Van Vliet, The Rise of Reformed System:  The Intellectual Heritage of William Ames (Milton Keynes:  Paternoster, 2013),  5–​26. 17. William Ames, The Marrow of Theology, trans. John Dykstra Eusden (1968; Grand Rapids: Baker, 1997), I.xxiv.10–​22 (pp. 150–​52). 18. Ames, Marrow, I.xxxix.9 (p. 206). 19. Ames, Marrow, I.x.9 (p. 111). 20. Ames, Marrow, I.x.10 (p. 111). 21. John Preston, The New Covenant or the Saints Portion (1629; London: Nicolas Bourne, 1639), 316–​17, 338. 22. Preston, New Covenant, 315. 23. Preston, New Covenant, 314. 24. Theodore Haak, “The Argument of the New Testament,” in The Dutch Annotations upon the Whole Bible (London: Henry Hills, 1657); “Inhoudt des Niewen Testaments,” in Het Nieuwe Testament, Ofte Alle Boecken des Nieuwen Verbondts onses Heeren Jesu Christi. Nu Eerst, Door Last vande Hoog: Mog: Heeren Staten Generael Der Vereenighde Nederlanden, ende volgens ‘t besluyt vande Syndoe Nationael, gehouden tot Dordrecht, in de Jaeren 1618 ende 1619 (Leiden: Staten Generael, 1637). 25. Johannes Polyander, Antonius Walaeus, Antonius Thysius, and Andreas Rivetus, Synopsis Purioris Theologiae /​Synopsis of a Purer Theology: Latin Text and English Translation, vol. 1, ed. Dolf te Velde et  al. (Leiden:  Brill, 2014), XXIII.i–​vii (pp. 575–​81). 26. Polyander et al., Synopsis Purioris, XXIII.vi (pp. 579–​81). 27. Polyander et al., Synopsis Purioris, XIII.xii (pp. 583–​84). 28. Polyander et al., Synopsis Purioris, XXIII.xv (pp. 586–​87). 29. For a brief overview of Sibbes’s covenant theology, see Mark E. Dever, Richard Sibbes:  Puritanism and Calvinism in Late Elizabethan and Early Stuart England (Macon, GA: Mercer University Press, 2000), 109–​21. 30. Richard Sibbes, “The Faithful Covenanter,” in The Complete Works of Richard Sibbes, vol. 6 (Edinburgh: James Nichol, 1863), 4.

Notes  237 31. Sibbes, “Faithful Covenanter,” 3. 32. Dever, Richard Sibbes, 118–​19. 33. Sibbes, “Faithful Covenanter,” 5. 34. John Cameron, De Triplici Dei Cum Homine Foedere Theses (Heidelberg:  1608); Cameron, Ioh. Cameronis S. Theologiae in Academia Salmuriensi Nuper Professoris, Praelectionum Tomus Tertius et Ultimus (Saumur:  Cl. Girard & Dan. Lerpiner, 1628), 609–​30; Cameron, Ioannnis Cermonis Scoto-​Britanni Theologi Eximij Ta Sosomena, sive Opera Partim ab Auctore Ipso Edita (Frankfurt:  Clement Schleich Haered, 1642), 544–​51; Cameron, Certain Theses, or, Positions of the Learned John Cameron, Concerning the Threefold Covenant of God with Man, in Samuel Bolton, The True Bounds of Christian Freedome (London: P. S., 1656), 353–​401; Muller, “Divine Covenants,” 27. I quote the English translation in consultation with the Latin in his Praelectionum. 35. Muller, “Divine Covenants,” 15, 27. 36. Cf., e.g., Robert Rollock, Some Questions and Answers about God’s Covenant and the Sacrament That Is a Seal of God’s Covenant, trans. and ed. Aaron Clay Denlinger (Eugene, OR: Pickwick Publications, 2016), q. 2 (p. 21); Franciscus Gomarus, Oratio De Foedere Dei, in Opera Theologica Omnia (Amsterdam: Joannis Janssonius, 1664), 2; Jacob Arminius, Analysis of Romans IX, in The Works of James Arminius, 3 vols. (1875; Grand Rapids: Baker, 1996), III:500–​01. 37. Cf., e.g., Francis Junius, De Foederibus et Testamentis Divinis, XXV.iii, in D. Francisci Junii Opuscula Theologica Selecta, ed. Abraham Kuyper (Amsterdam:  Frederic Muller, 1882), 184; James Ussher, A Body of Divinitie, or The Summe and Substance of Christian Religion (London: Tho. Downes and Geo. Badger, 1645), 125. 38. Cameron, Threefold Covenant, theses I–​II (pp. 353–​54); Cameron, Triplici Foedere, pp.  609–​10. Others, such as John Preston, argue similarly; see The Breast-​Plate of Faith and Love (London: Nicolas Bourne, 1630), 38. 39. So, e.g., Ussher, Body of Divinitie, 160; Junius, De Foederibus et Testamentis Divinis, XXV.x (p. 184); Arminius, Priv. Disp. XXIX.iii, Works, II:369. 40. Cameron, Threefold Covenant, thesis III (p. 354). 41. Muller, “Divine Covenants,” 33–​35. 42. Cameron, Threefold Covenant, thesis IV (p. 355). 43. Cameron, Threefold Covenant, thesis V (p. 355); Muller, “Divine Covenants,” 34–​35. 44. Cameron, Threefold Covenant, thesis VII (p. 356); Cameron, Triplici Foedere, p. 611. 45. Cameron, Threefold Covenant, thesis VIII (p. 357). 46. Cameron, Threefold Covenant, thesis IX (pp. 357–​58). 47. Cameron, Threefold Covenant, thesis X (p. 358). 48. Cameron, Threefold Covenant, thesis XI (p. 359). Cameron does not abandon his presupposition of God’s love, notably evident when he says that the covenant of nature was the context for Adam’s obedience and love. 49. In other treatments of the covenant of works, theologians denote Adam’s faith as legal in contrast to evangelical (see, e.g., Arminius, The Apology or Defence of James Arminius, art. XIX, Works, II:22–​ 23; cf. Johannes Cocceius, Summa Theologiae Ex Scripturis Repetita, 2nd ed. [Geneva: Johannes Herman Widerhold,

238 Notes 1665],VIII.xxii.46 [p.  278]; Samuel Rutherford, The Covenant of Life Opened; or, A Treatise on the Covenant of Grace [Edinburgh: Robert Broun, 1655]; I.ii [p. 175]; Antonius Waleaus, Loci Communes S.  Theologiae [Leiden:  Adrian Wyngaerden, 1647], 416). This legal-​evangelical distinction arises from the exegesis of Galatians 4:21ff., and appears in the commentaries of Calvin and William Perkins (John Calvin, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, and Colossians, trans. T. H. L. Parker, ed. David W. Torrance and T. F. Torrance, CNTC [1965; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996], comm. Gal. 4:24 [p. 86]; William Perkins, A Commentarie or Exposition, upon the Five First Chapters of the Epistle to the Galatians [Cambridge: John Legat, 1604], 344–​45). 50. Cameron, Threefold Covenant, thesis XII (p. 360). 51. Cameron, Threefold Covenant, thesis XIV (pp. 362–​63); Cameron, Triplici Foedere, pp. 613–​14; Muller, “Divine Covenants,” 41. 52. E.g., Robert Rollock, Treatise on God’s Effectual Calling, in Select Works of Robert Rollock, 2 vols., ed. William M. Gunn (1844–​49; Grand Rapids:  Reformation Heritage Books, 2008), III (vol. I, p. 42); Jacob Arminius, Theses Theoloicae de Legis et Evangelii Comparatione, V, in Keith D. Stanglin, The Missing Public Disputations of Jacobus Arminius: Introduction, Text, and Notes (Leiden: Brill, 2010), 238; James Ussher, The Principles of Christian Religion: With a Briefe Method of the Doctrine Thereof (London: George Badger, 1653), 10. 53. Cameron, Threefold Covenant, thesis IX (pp. 357–​58); Muller, “Divine Covenants,” 41. 54. Cameron, Threefold Covenant, thesis XIX (p. 365); Cameron, Triplici Foedere, p. 614. 55. Mark A. Herzer, “Adam’s Reward: Heaven or Earth?” in Drawn into Controversie: Reformed Theological Diversity and Debates within Seventeenth-​Century British Puritanism, eds. Michael A. G. Haykin and Mark Jones (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2011), 162–​82. 56. Cameron, Threefold Covenant, thesis XLII (p. 381). 57. Cameron, Threefold Covenant, thesis XLV (p. 382). 58. Cameron, Threefold Covenant, theses LXXX–​LXXXI (pp. 400–​01). 59. Cameron, Threefold Covenant, thesis XXV (p.  368); Cameron, Triplici Foedere, p. 616. 60. Cameron, Threefold Covenant, theses XXVI–​XXVII (pp. 368–​69). 61. Cameron, Threefold Covenant, thesis LVIII (p. 389). 62. Cameron, Threefold Covenant, thesis LV (p. 388). 63. Cameron, Threefold Covenant, thesis XLVI (pp. 383–​84); Cameron, Triplici Foedere, pp. 622–​23. 64. Cameron, Threefold Covenant, thesis LXVIII (p. 393). 65. Cameron, Threefold Covenant, thesis LXXX (p. 400). 66. Cameron, Threefold Covenant, thesis LXXX (pp. 400–​01). 67. Cameron, Threefold Covenant, thesis LXXXI (p. 401). 68. Edward Leigh, A Treatise of the Divine Promises. In Five Bookes (London: George Millar, 1633). Leigh employs the doctrine of the covenants in his Body of Divinity, but it does not structurally shape the work (Edward Leigh, A Systeme or Body of Divinity [London: William Lee, 1654]). 69. Cf. Cameron, Threefold Covenant, theses I–​II (pp. 353–​54).

Notes  239 70. Leigh only cites phrases and names of authors; he does not provide page-​specific or edition-​specific references. I therefore provide either direct or probable references to Leigh’s cited sources when able to locate them. 71. Cf., e.g., Amandus Polanus, Syntagma Theologiae Christianae (Hanau:  Johannes Aubrius, 1615), VI.xxxiii (p. 450); Francis Junius, Ad Testamenti Veteris Interpretationem (Heidelberg: Jacob Mylius, 1585), 27, 44. 72. Leigh, Divine Promises, I.i (p. 2); cf. Johannes Piscator, Analysis Logica Libri S. Lucae Inscribitur Acta Apostolorum:  Una cum Scholiis et Observationibus Locorum Doctrinaei, 2nd ed. (Herborn: Christoph Corvinus, 1600), comm. Acts 2:33, 38–​39 (pp. 25, 27–​29). 73. Leigh, Divine Promises, I.i (p. 2). 74. Leigh, Divine Promises, I.i (p. 3); cf. Polanus, Syntagma, VI.xxxiii (p. 450). 75. See, e.g., James B. Torrance, “Covenant or Contract:  A Study of the Theological Background of Worship in Seventeenth-​Century Scotland,” Scottish Journal of Theology 23 (1970): 51–​76. 76. Leigh, Divine Promises, I.i (p. 5). 77. Leigh, Divine Promises, I.ii (p. 7); cf. Perkins, Galatians, comm. Gal. 3:16 (p. 210). 78. Leigh, Divine Promises, I.ii (p. 8). 79. Leigh, Divine Promises, II.i (p. 61). For a critique of Torrance’s covenant vs. contract thesis, see Carol A.  Williams, “The Decree of Redemption Is in Effect a Covenant: David Dickson and the Covenant of Redemption,” (PhD Thesis, Calvin Theological Seminary, 2005), 211–​15. 80. Cf. Johannes Buxtorf, Lexicon Hebraicum et Chaldaicum Complectens (Basel: Conrad Waldkirch, 1600), s. v. berith (p. 85); Sante Pagnino, Epitome Thesauri Lingaue Sanctae (Rephelengius: 1609), s. v. berith (p. 38); Matthias Flavius Illyricus, Clavis Scripturae S. seu De Sermone Sacrarum Litararum, 2 vols. (Basel: Iohannes Oporinus & Eusebius Episcopius, 1567), s. v. foedus (vol. I, cols. 447–​50). 81. Leigh, Divine Promises, II.i (pp. 61–​62). 82. Wolfgang Musculus, Common Places of the Christian Religion (London:  1613), fol. 121. 83. Varro, On the Latin Language, 2 vols., trans. Roland G. Kent (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1938), V.xv.86 (pp. 82–​83). 84. Isidore of Seville, The Etymologies of Isidore of Seville, trans. Stephen A. Barney, W. J. Lewis, J. A. Beach, and Oliver Berghof (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006), VIII.ii.3 (p. 173). 85. Johann Heinrich Alsted, Lexicon Theologicum (Antonius Hummius, 1612), 271–​73. 86. Virgil, The Aeneid, trans. Allen Mandelbaum (New York: Bantam Classics, 1981), bk. VIII, line 641. 87. Peter Martyr Vermigli, Loci Communes (London: John Kingston, 1576), XVI (p. 440). 88. Leigh, Divine Promises, II.i (p. 62). 89. E.g., Edward Leigh, Critica Sacra or Observations on All the Radices, or Primitive Hebrew Words of the Old Testament in Order Alphabeticall, 2nd ed. (London:  A. Miller, 1650), 31, s. v. berith. 90. Leigh, Divine Promises, II.i (pp. 62–​63).

240 Notes 91. Leigh, Divine Promises, II.i (pp. 63–​64). 92. Cf. Cameron, Threefold Covenant, thesis VII (p. 356); Cameron, Triplici Foedere, p. 611. 93. Leigh, Divine Promises, II.i (p.  63); cf. The Humble Advice of the Assembly of Divines, Now by Authority of Parliament Sitting at Westminster, Concerning a Larger Catechisme (London: A. M., 1648), q. 20. Again, the original does not number the questions; I employ common numbering for ease of reference. 94. Cf. Cameron, Threefold Covenant, thesis LXVIII (p. 393). 95. Leigh, Divine Promises, II.i (p. 64). 96. Leigh, Divine Promises, II.i (p. 66). 97. Leigh, Divine Promises, II.i (p. 70). For an overview of the history of the covenant of redemption, see J. V. Fesko, The Covenant of Redemption: Origins, Development, and Reception (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2015). 98. Edward Leigh, A Systeme or Body of Divinity (London:  William Lee, 1662), V.ii (p. 546). 99. Cf. Polanus, Syntagma, VI.xxxiii (pp. 450–​51). 100. Leigh, Divine Promises, II.i (p. 70). 101. Cf. Johannes Scharpius, Cursus Theologicus in Quo Controversiae Omnes de Fidei Dogmatibus (Geneva: Francis Nicloaus, 1622), 354–​55. Recall this is similar to the distinction Calvin employs; see John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, trans. Henry Beveridge (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1957), II.x.2; Calvin, Institutio Christianae Religionis (Geneva: Robert Stephanus, 1559). 102. Leigh, Divine Promises, II.i (p. 71). 103. Leigh, Divine Promises, II.i (p. 71); cf. Gulielmus Bucanus, Institutiones Theologicae seu Locorum Communium Christianae Religionis (Bern: John and Isaiah Le Preux, 1605) XXII.xv–​xvii; Bucanus, Body of Divinity or Institutions of Christian Religion, trans. Robert Hill (London: Daniel Pakeman et al., 1659), XXII (pp. 243–​44). 104. Leigh, Divine Promises, II.i (pp.  73–​ 75); cf. Lucas Trelcatius, Scholastica & Methodica Locoram Communium Theologiae Institutio (Leiden:  1604), II (pp. 99–​100); Trelcatius, A Briefe Institution of Common Places of Sacred Divinitie (London: Francis Burton, 1610), II.x (pp. 276–​86). 105. Leigh, Divine Promises, II.i (p. 74). 106. William Pemble, Vindiciae Fidei, or a Treatise of Justification by Faith, 2nd ed. (1625; Oxford: John Adams et al., 1629), IV.i (p. 151). 107. Pemble, Vindiciae Fidei, IV.i (p. 152). 108. Pemble, Vindiciae Fidei, IV.i (p. 154). 109. Armstrong, Calvinism and the Amyraut Heresy,  55–​56. 110. Mark Jones, “The ‘Old’ Covenant,” in Drawn into Controversie: Reformed Theological Diversity and Debates within Seventeenth-​Century British Puritanism, eds. Michael A. G. Haykin and Mark Jones (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2011), 183–​ 203, esp. 194–​202. 111. Martin I. Klauber, “The Helvetic Formula Consensus:  An Introduction and Translation,” Trinity Journal 11NS (1990): 103–​23. 112. Muller, “Divine Covenants,” 50–​53.

Notes  241 113. The Humble Advice of the Assembly of Divines, Now by Authority of Parliament Sitting at Westminster, Concerning a Confession of Faith (London: Company of Stationers, 1647), VII.ii. 114. Herzer, “Adam’s Reward,” 162–​82. 115. Muller, “Divine Covenants,” 15.

Chapter 6 1. William Bridge, Christ and the Covenant (London: N. Ranew, 1667), 56. 2. See, e.g., Richard A. Muller, “Divine Covenants, Absolute and Conditional: John Cameron and the Early Orthodox Development of Reformed Covenant Theology,” Mid-​America Journal of Theology 17 (2006): 11–​56. 3. Westminster Confession, VII.ii; Shorter Catechism, q.  12. All subsequent quotations from the Standards come from The Humble Advice of the Assembly of Divines, Now by Authority of Parliament Sitting at Westminster, Concerning a Larger Catechism (London: A. M., 1648); The Humble Advice of the Assembly of Divines, Now by Authority of Parliament Sitting at Westminster, Concerning a Confession of Faith (London: Company of Stationers, 1647); The Humble Advice of the Assembly of Divines, Now by Authority of Parliament Sitting at Westminster, Concerning a Shorter Catechism (London: F. F., 1648). The original catechisms do not have question num­ bers, but I use the now common numbers for citation purposes. 4. Divine is an early modern word that commonly denotes theologian, but I employ it here to refer to a member of the Westminster Assembly. To see a brief survey of the different views on the covenant, see, e.g., Edmund Calamy, Two Solemn Covenants (London: Thomas Banks, 1646). 5. For broad overviews of Rutherford and Burgess, see Guy M. Richard, The Supremacy of God in the Theology of Samuel Rutherford (Eugene, OR: Paternoster, 2009); John Coffey, Politics, Religion and the British Revolution: The Mind of Samuel Rutherford (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002); Stephen J. Casselli, Divine Rule Maintained: Anthony Burgess, Covenant Theology and the Place of Law in Reformed Scholasticism (Grand Rapids: Reformation Heritage Books, 2015). 6. Samuel Rutherford, The Covenant of Life Opened: Or, A Treatise of the Covenant of Grace (Edinburgh:  Robert Broun, 1654); Anthony Burgess, Vindiciae Legis:  or, A Vindication of the Morall Law and the Covenants (London: Thomas Underhill, 1647). 7. John Cameron, De Triplici Dei Cum Homine Foedere Theses (Heidelberg:  1608); Cameron, Ioh. Cameronis S. Theologiae in Academia Salmuriensi Nuper Professoris, Praelectionum Tomus Tertius et Ultimus (Saumur:  Cl. Girard & Dan. Lerpiner, 1628), 609–​30; Cameron, Ioannnis Cermonis Scoto-​Britanni Theologi Eximij Ta Sosomena, sive Opera Partim ab Auctore Ipso Edita (Frankfurt: Clement Schleich Haered, 1642), 544–​51; Cameron, Certain Theses, or, Positions of the Learned John Cameron, Concerning the Threefold Covenant of God with Man, in Samuel Bolton, The True Bounds of Christian Freedome (London: P. S., 1656), thesis IX (pp. 357–​58); Muller, “Divine Covenants,” 41.

242 Notes 8. Rutherford, Covenant of Life, I.ii (p. 1); cf. Cameron, Threefold Covenant, thesis XIX (p. 365); Cameron, Triplici Foedere, p. 614. 9. Rutherford, Covenant of Life, I.ii (p. 2). 10. Rutherford, Covenant of Life, I.ix (p. 49). 11. Rutherford, Covenant of Life, I.vii (p. 46). 12. Rutherford, Covenant of Life, I.v (p. 14). 13. Cameron, Threefold Covenant, thesis XLVI (pp. 383–​84); Cameron, Triplici Foedere, pp. 622–​23. 14. Burgess, Vindiciae Legis, 233. 15. Calamy, Two Solemn Covenants, 15, 19. 16. E.g., Thomas Blake, Vindiciae Foederis; or, A Treatise of the Covenant of God Entered with Man-​Kinde, 2nd ed. (London: Abel Roper, 1658), 210–​11. 17. Burgess, Vindiciae Legis, 233. 18. Burgess, Vindiciae Legis, 233; cf. Thomas Stapleton, Antidota Apostolica Contra Nostri Temporis, vol. 2, In Epistolam B. Pauli ad Romanos (Antwerp: Keerberg, 1595), 622–​72. Note, Stapleton’s main foil is Calvin’s explanation of Romans 10:5 (see, e.g., John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, trans. Henry Beveridge [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1957], III.xi.17). 19. Rutherford, Covenant of Life, I.vii (p. 35). 20. Burgess, Vindiciae Legis, 129. 21. William Strong, A Discourse of the Two Covenants: Wherein the Nature, Differences, and Effects of the Covenant of Works and of Grace Are Distinctly, Rationally, Spiritually and Practically Discussed (London: Francis Tyton, 1678), 32; Rutherford, Covenant of Life, I.ii (p. 3), I.viii (p. 49); Goodwin, Of the Creatures, in The Works of Thomas Goodwin, 12 vols. (1861–​66; Eureka, CA: Tanski Publications, 1996), II.i (vol. VII, p. 24). 22. Rutherford, Covenant of Life, I.vii (pp. 42–​43). 23. Rutherford, Covenant of Life, I.ii (p. 2). 24. Burgess, Vindiciae Legis, 47. 25. Burgess, Vindiciae Legis, 129. 26. Thomas Goodwin, Of the Creatures, and The Condition of Their State by Creation, in The Works of Thomas Goodwin, 12 vols. (1861–​66; Eureka, CA: Tanski Publications, 1996), I.ii (vol. VII, p. 10). 27. Goodwin, Of the Creatures, I.iii (vol. VII, pp. 22–​23). 28. Edward Fisher, The Marrow of Modern Divinity: Touching Both the Covenant of Works, and the Covenant of Grace (London: G. Calvert, 1645), 6. 29. Goodwin, Of the Creatures, II.v (vol. VII, p. 45). 30. Goodwin, Of the Creatures, II.vi (vol. VII, p. 49). 31. Goodwin, Of the Creatures, II.vi (vol. VII, p. 48). 32. Goodwin, Of the Creatures, II.vi (vol. VII, p. 48). 33. Goodwin, Of the Creatures, II.vi (vol. VII, p. 49). 34. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, 5 vols. (Allen, TX: Christian Classics, 1948), IIa IIae, q. 57, art. 1; IIa IIae, q. 58, art. 1; Aquinas, Truth, 3 vols., trans. Robert W. Mulligan (1952; Eugene, OR:  Wipf & Stock, 2008), XIII.vi (vol. III, pp.  118–​20);

Notes  243

35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42.

43.

44. 45. 46. 47. 48. 49.

50.

51. 52. 53. 54.

55. 56. 57. 58.

cf. Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics, V.vi, VIII.xii, in The Basic Works of Aristotle, ed. Richard McKeon (New York: Random House, 1941). Goodwin, Of the Creatures, II.vi (vol. VII, pp. 49–​50). Goodwin, Of the Creatures, II.vi (vol. VII, p. 50). Goodwin, Of the Creatures, II.vi (vol. VII, pp. 50–​51). Goodwin, Of the Creatures, II.vi (vol. VII, p. 51). Goodwin, Of the Creatures, II.vi (vol. VII, pp. 52–​53). Goodwin, Of the Creatures, II.vi (vol. VII, p. 53). Goodwin, Of the Creatures, II.vii (vol. VII, p. 59). Thomas Goodwin, The Work of the Holy Ghost in Our Salvation, in The Works of Thomas Goodwin, 12 vols. (1861–​66; Eureka, CA: Tanski Publications, 1996), VII.iv (vol. VI, p.  354); Mark Jones, “The ‘Old’ Covenant,” in Drawn into Controversie:  Reformed Theological Diversity and Debates within Seventeenth-​Century British Puritanism, eds. Michael A. G. Haykin and Mark Jones (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2011), 195. Samuel Bolton, The True Bounds of Christian Freedome (London: Austin Rice, 1656), 137–​62; Jeremiah Burroughs, Gospel Conversation (London: Peter Cole, 1653), 47; Jones, “ ‘Old’ Covenant,” 186–​87, 194–​202. Goodwin, Of the Creatures, II.i (vol. VII, p. 24). Goodwin, Of the Creatures, II.ii (vol. VII, p. 33). Goodwin, Of the Creatures, II.v (vol. VII, p. 44). Goodwin, Of the Creatures, II.vi (vol. VII, p. 50). Goodwin, Of the Creatures, II.viii (vol. VII, pp.  73–​ 74); cf. John Cameron, Myrothecium Evangelicum (Saumur: I. et H. Desbordes, 1677), 211–​13. Thomas Goodwin, First Chapter of Ephesians, in The Works of Thomas Goodwin, 12 vols. (1861–​66; Eureka, CA: Tanski Publications, 1996), I:99; Mark Jones, “Thomas Goodwin’s Christological Supralapsarianism,” in Joel R. Beeke and Mark Jones, A Puritan Theology (Grand Rapids: Reformation Heritage Books, 2012), 154. John Calvin, Commentary on Genesis, CTS (rep.; Grand Rapids: Baker, 1993), comm. Gen. 2:9 (p. 117); cf. Oliver D. Crisp, Revisioning Christology: Theology in the Reformed Tradition (Aldershot: Ashgate, 2011), 23–​42. Goodwin, Of the Creatures, II.x (vol. VII, p. 104). George Walker, The Manifold Wisedome of God: In the Divers Dispensation of Grace by Jesus Christ (London: John Bartlet, 1640), 2–​3. Walker, Manifold Wisedome, 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 9, 10, 160–​73. Walker, Manifold Wisedome, 8; cf. Martin Luther, “Two Kinds of Righteousness,” in Luther’s Works, vol. 31 (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1957), 297, 299; cf. Mark Mattes, “Luther on Justification as Forensic and Effective,” in The Oxford Handbook of Martin Luther’s Theology, ed. Robert Kolb, Irene Dingel, and L’Ubomír Batka (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014), 264–​73, esp. 264–​66. Walker, Manifold Wisedome,  11–​12. Walker, Manifold Wisedome, 18. Walker, Manifold Wisedome, 22. Walker, Manifold Wisedome, 23.

244 Notes 59. Walker, Manifold Wisedome, 39. 60. Walker, Manifold Wisedome, 44. 61. Walker, Manifold Wisedome, 50. 62. Walker, Manifold Wisedome, 51. 63. Walker, Manifold Wisedome,  87–​89. 64. Walker, Manifold Wisedome, 87–​100. 65. Walker, Manifold Wisedome, 67. 66. Walker, Manifold Wisedome, 71. 67. Walker, Manifold Wisedome, 119. 68. Walker, Manifold Wisedome, 128–​29. 69. Walker, Manifold Wisedome, 114. 70. Walker, Manifold Wisedome, 133. 71. Walker, Manifold Wisedome, 134. 72. Walker, Manifold Wisedome, 136. 73. Walker, Manifold Wisedome, 152. 74. Walker, Manifold Wisedome, 152. 75. Mark A. Herzer, “Adam’s Reward: Heaven or Earth?” in Drawn into Controversie: Reformed Theological Diversity and Debates within Seventeenth-​Century British Puritanism, eds. Michael A. G. Haykin and Mark Jones (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2011), 162–​82. 76. Rutherford, Covenant of Life, I.ix (p. 50). 77. Burgess, Vindicae Legis, 123. 78. See, e.g., Andrew Willet, Hexapla, A  Six-​fold Commentary upon the Most Divine Epistle of the Holy S. Paul to the Romans (Cambridge: Leonard Greene, 1620), 3; John Davenant, A Dissertation on the Death of Christ, in An Exposition of the Epistle of St. Paul to the Colossians, trans. Josiah Allport (1627; London: Hamilton, Adams, and Co., 1831), 364; Antonius Walaeus, Responsio ad Censuram Ioannis Arnoldi Corvinus, in Antonii Walaei Opera Omnia (1625; Leiden:  Adriani Wyngaerden, 1647), 149; Johann Heinrich Alsted, Synopsis Theologiae (Hanau:  Conrad Eyfridius, 1627), 6; Edward Leigh, A Treatise of the Divine Promises. In Five Bookes (London:  George Millar, 1633), II.i (pp.  63–​64); Cameron, Threefold Covenant, thesis VII (p.  356); Cameron, Triplici Foedere, p. 611; Rutherford, Covenant of Life, I.vi (pp. 18–​20). 79. Obadiah Sedgwick, The Bowels of Tender Mercy Sealed in the Everlasting Covenant (London: Adoniram Byfield, 1661), I.ii (p. 7). 80. See, e.g., William Pemble, Vindiciae Fidei, or a Treatise of Justification by Faith, 2nd ed. (1625; Oxford:  John Adams et  al., 1629), IV.i (p. 152); Franciscus Gomarus, Oratio De Foedere Dei, in Opera Theologica Omnia (Amsterdam: Joannis Janssonius, 1664), 2; Robert Rollock, Some Questions and Answers about God’s Covenant and the Sacrament That Is a Seal of God’s Covenant, trans. and ed. Aaron Clay Denlinger (Eugene, OR:  Pickwick, 2016), q.  16 (p. 24); Cameron, Threefold Covenant, thesis XLVI (pp. 383–​84); Cameron, Triplici Foedere, pp. 622–​23. 81. Burgess, Vindicae Legis, 58. For similar conclusions in the analysis of Burgess’s views, see Casselli, Divine Rule,  43–​98. 82. Burgess, Vindicae Legis, 67.

Notes  245 83. Burgess, Vindicae Legis, 62. On common notions, see J. V. Fesko, Reforming Apologetics: Retrieving the Classic Reformed Approach to Defending the Faith (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2019), 27–​48. 84. Burgess, Vindicae Legis, 104. 85. Burgess, Vindicae Legis, 113. 86. Burgess, Vindicae Legis, 123. 87. Burgess, Vindicae Legis, 128. 88. Burgess, Vindicae Legis, 136. 89. Bridge, Christ and the Covenant, 62. 90. Burgess, Vindicae Legis, 149. 91. As highly regarded as Burgess’s views on the law were, he was not without his critics. Edmund Calamy, for example, rejected the idea that the law at Sinai was in any sense a covenant but was purely a rule for obedience (Calamy, Two Solemn Covenants, 8–​14). This stands diametrically opposite to the views of James Pope (fl. 1675), who believed the only time God ever made the covenant of works was with Israel, not with Adam (Pope, The Unveiling of AntiChrist [London: Henry Overton, 1646], 2). 92. Rutherford, Covenant of Life, I.vi (p. 19). 93. Goodwin, Of the Creatures, II.v (vol. VII, pp. 46–​47). 94. Goodwin, Of the Creatures, II.i (vol. VII, pp. 22–​24). 95. Goodwin, Of the Creatures, II.i (vol. VII, p. 27). 96. Strong, Two Covenants, 1. 97. The same type of threefold understanding of the law in its various pre-​redemptive and redemptive appearances was common to early modern formulations of the covenant of works (see, e.g., James Ussher, A Body of Divinitie, or The Summe and Substance of Christian Religion [London: Tho. Downes and Geo. Badger, 1645], 124). 98. Walker, Manifold Wisedome, 152. 99. For uses of the distinction before the assembly, see, e.g., William Whitaker, An Answer to the Ten Reasons of Edmund Campian (London: Felix Kyngston, 1606), 252–​54; Robert Rollock, A Treatise of God’s Effectual Calling, in The Select Works of Robert Rollock, 2 vols. (1597; Edinburgh:  Woodrow Society, 1849), I:37; John Preston, The New Covenant or the Saints Portion (London:  Nicolas Bourne, 1629), 75–​76. For an example of works contemporaneous with the assembly, see Fisher, Marrow of Modern Divinity, 121; David Dickson, An Exposition of All St. Paul’s Epistles (1645; London: Francis Eglesfield, 1659), comm. Gal. 3:25 (p. 99). For uses of the distinction after the assembly, see William Jenkyn, An Exposition of the Epistle of Jude (London: Sa. Gellibrand, 1656), comm. v. 4 (p. 160); Francis Roberts, Mysterium & Medulla Bibliorum. The Mysterie and Marrow of the Bible (London: George Calvert, 1657), III.iv (p. 718); Thomas Watson, A Body of Practical Divinity (London: Thomas Parkhurst, 1692), 270. 100. Theophilus Gale, “A Summary of the Two Covenants,” in Two Covenants, preface. 101. Strong, Two Covenants, I.ii (p. 38). 102. Strong, Two Covenants, I.ii (p. 38). 103. William Perkins, A Commentarie or Exposition, upon the Five First Chapters of the Epistle to the Galatians (Cambridge: John Legat, 1604), 344–​45.

246 Notes 104. Bridge, Christ and the Covenant, 64. 105. Strong, Two Covenants, I.v (p. 63). 106. Strong, Two Covenants, I.v (p. 68). 107. Formula Consensus Helvetica, XXV, in A. A. Hodge, Outlines of Theology (1860; Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 1991), 663. 108. Strong, Two Covenants, I.viii (p. 88). 109. Strong, Two Covenants, I.viii (p. 88). 110. Strong, Two Covenants, I.viii (pp. 89–​90). 111. Rollock, Treatise on Effectual Calling, XXV, in Works, I:175; cf. Aaron Denlinger, Omnes in Adam Ex Pacto Dei:  Ambrogio Catarino’s Doctrine of Covenantal Solidarity and Its Influence on Post-​ Reformation Reformed Theologians (Göttingen:  Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2010), 266–​67; Ussher, Body of Divinitie, 141, 144. 112. “The Synod of Charenton, Synod XXVIII 1644–​45,” in John Quick, ed., Synodicon in Gallia Reformata, 2 vols. (London: Thomas Parkhurst, 1692), II:473; cf. F. P. Van Stam, The Controversy over the Theology of Saumur, 1635–​1650: Disrupting Debates among the Huguenots in Complicated Circumstances (Amsterdam:  APA-​Holland University Press, 1988), 183, 209–​12. 113. Josua Placaeus, De Imputatione Primi Peccati Adami Josue Placaei in Academia Salmuriensi S.  S. Theologiae Professoris Disputatio (Saumur:  Ioannes Lesnerius, 1661), 18. 114. Cf. Rutherford, Covenant of Life, II.ii (pp. 234–​35). 115. Placaeus, De Imputatione Primi Peccati, 425. 116. A  number of different historians have reached the conclusion that the confession is undecided on the question. See Henry Boynton Smith, System of Christian Theology, 2nd ed. (New York: A. C. Armstrong and Son, 1884), 283; Henry Clay Sheldon, History of Christian Doctrine, 2 vols. (New York: Harper & Brothers, 1886), II:127; Robert Shaw, An Exposition of the Westminster Confession of Faith (1845; Fearn:  Christian Focus, 1998), 117–​18; William Cunningham, The Reformers and the Theology of the Reformation, in The Collected Works of the Rev. William Cunningham, vol. 1 (Edinburgh:  T & T Clark, 1862), 382–​83. Others maintain that the confession teaches Augustinian realism (George Park Fisher, History of Christian Doctrine [New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1911], 359–​60; Fisher, “The Augustinian and the Federal Theories of Original Sin Compared,” in Discussions in History and Theology [New  York:  Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1880], 355–​409, esp. 382–​84). And still yet others maintain that the confession teaches both views (see James Leo Garrett, Systematic Theology, 2 vols. [Grand Rapids:  Eerdmans, 1990], I:564). 117. Formula Consensus Helvetica, canons X–​XII, in Hodge, Outlines, 662. 118. Donald McLeod, “Original Sin in Reformed Theology,” in Adam, the Fall, and Original Sin, ed. Hans Madueme and Michael Reeves (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2014), 140–​41. 119. See, e.g., Sedgwick, Bowels of Tender Mercy, I.ii (pp. 6–​7). 120. Calamy, Two Covenants, 18; Rutherford, Covenant of Life, I.xi (pp. 57–​65).

Notes  247

Chapter 7 1. John Cameron, De Triplici Dei Cum Homine Foedere Theses (Heidelberg: 1608); idem, Ioh. Cameronis S.  Theologiae in Academia Salmuriensi Professoris, Praelectionum Tomus Tertius et Ultimus (Saumur:  Cl. Girard & Dan. Lerpiner, 1628), 609–​30; Edward Leigh, A Treatise of the Divine Promises. In Five Bookes (London:  George Millar, 1633); Moises Amyraut, Theses Theologicae de Tribus Foederibus Divinis, in Syntagma Thesium Theologicarum in Academia Salmuriensi, vol. 1, pt. 1, 2nd ed. (Saumur: Jean Lesner, 1664), 212–​31. Cf. Albert Gootjes, “Scotland and Saumur: The Intellectual Legacy of John Cameron in Seventeenth-​Century France,” in Reformed Orthodoxy in Scotland:  Essays on Scottish Theology 1560–​1775, ed. Aaron Clay Denlinger (London: Bloomsbury T & T Clark, 2016), 175–​90. 2. Martin Klauber, “The Helvetic Formula Consensus (1675):  An Introduction and Translation,” Trinity Journal 11NS (1990): 103; Brian G. Armstrong, Calvinism and the Amyraut Heresy: Protestant Scholasticism and Humanism in Seventeenth-​Century France (rep.; Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2004). For a concise overview of the formula’s creation, formulations, and impact, see Philip Schaff, ed., Creeds of Christendom, 6th ed., 3 vols. (1931; Grand Rapids: Baker, 1990), I:477–​89. 3. Klauber, “Formula Consensus,” 107; Schaff, Creeds of Christendom, I:477–​89; John Walter Beardslee III, “Theological Development at Geneva under Francis and Jean-​ Alphonse Turretin” (PhD Diss.: Yale University, 1956), 1–​72. 4. Klauber, “Formula Consensus,” 108; James I. Good, History of the Swiss Reformed Church since the Reformation (Philadelphia: Publication and Sunday School Board of the Reformed Church in the United States, 1913), 161. 5. Good, Swiss Reformed Church, 162; Martin I. Klauber, Between Reformed Scholasticism and Pan-​ Protestantism:  Jean-​ Alphonse Turretin (1671–​ 1737) and Enlightened Orthodoxy at the Academy of Geneva (Selinsgrove, PA:  Susquehanna University Press, 1994), 30–​31. 6. For the full text of the Theses, see J. P. Gaberel, Histoire de L’Eglise de Geneve, 3 vols. (Geneva:  Joël Cherbuliez, 1858–​62), III:121–​23; James T. Dennison Jr., ed., Reformed Confessions of the 16th and 17th Centuries in English Translation, 4 vols. (Grand Rapids: Reformation Heritage Books, 2008–​2014), IV:413–​22; cf. Beardslee, “Theological Development at Geneva,” 52. 7. On this issue, see Mark A. Herzer, “Adam’s Reward:  Heaven or Earth?” in Drawn into Controversie:  Reformed Theological Diversity and Debates within Seventeenth-​Century British Puritanism, eds. Michael A. G. Haykin and Mark Jones (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2011), 162–​82. 8. Gaberel, Histoire de L’Eglise de Geneve, III:125. 9. Klauber, “Formula Consensus,” 109. 10. Good, Swiss Reformed Church, 164–​65. 11. Good, Swiss Reformed Church, 165. 12. Klauber, “Formula Consensus,” 109, 115. 13. Good, Swiss Reformed Church, 165. On these debated issues, see Richard A. Muller, “The Debate over the Vowel Points and the Crisis in Orthodox Hermeneutics,”

248 Notes Journal of Medieval and Renaissance Studies 10/​1 (1980): 53–​72; Albert Gootjes, “John Cameron (ca. 1579–​1625) and the French Universalist Tradition,” in The Theology of the French Reformed Churches, ed. Martin I. Klauber (Grand Rapids: Reformation Heritage Books, 2014), 169–​96; Francis Pieter Van Stam, The Controversy over the Theology of Saumur, 1635–​50:  Disrupting Debates among the Huguenots in Complicated Circumstances (Amsterdam: APA-​Holland University Press, 1988). 14. Good, Swiss Reformed Church, 166–​67. 15. Klauber, “Formula Consensus,” 113. 16. Good, Swiss Reformed Church, 166. 17. This and all subsequent quotations from the FCH come from Klauber, “Formula Consensus,” 115–​23. 18. Johannes Heidegger, Medullae Theologiae Christianae (Zurich: David Gessner, 1697), IX.iii (p. 69): “Foedus Operum est Pactum Dei cum Adamo integro, seu capite totius generis humani, initum, quo is ab homine perfectam legis obedientiam stipulates, eidem obedientie vitam aeternam coelestem promisit, transgressori vero mortem aeternam comminatus est.” 19. Heidegger, Medullae Theologiae Christianae, IX (p.  68). For a more extensive definition and treatment, see idem, Corpus Theologiae Christianiae, 2 vols. (Zurich: Heideggerian Office, 1732), IX (pp. 301–​27). 20. Francis Turretin, Institutes of Elenctic Theology, trans. George Musgrave Giger, ed. James T. Dennison Jr., 3 vols. (Phillipsburg:  P & R, 1992–​97), VIII.iii.5; idem, Institutio Theologiae Elencticae, 3 vols. (Edinburgh:  John D.  Lowe, 1847). For an overview of the covenant theology of Turretin, see J. Mark Beach, Christ and the Covenant: Francis Turretin’s Federal Theology as a Defense of the Doctrine of Grace (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2007). 21. E.g., Petrus Van Mastricht, Theoretica-​Practica Theologia, 9th ed., vol. 1 (Utrecht:  W.  van der Water et  al., 1724), XII (p. 413); similarly, Herman Witsius, Economy of the Covenants Between God and Man, 2 vols. (rep.; Escondido, CA:  Den Dulk Foundation, 1990), I.ii.2; Matthias Martinius, De Federis Naturae & Gratiae (Bremen: Thomas Vilierian, 1618), XVI (p. 50); Johannes Cocceius, The Doctrine of the Covenant and Testament of God, trans. Casey Carmichael (Grand Rapids:  Reformation Heritage Books, 2016), II.xii (pp. 27–​28); Benedict Pictet, Christian Theology, trans. Frederick Reyroux (London: R. B. Seeley and W. Burnside, 1834), 152. For a collection of other statements on the covenant of works, see Heinrich Heppe, Reformed Dogmatics: Set Out and Illustrated from the Sources, trans. G. T. Thomson, ed. Ernst Bizer (London: Allen & Unwin Ltd., 1950), 281–​300. 22. E.g., Van Mastricht, Theoretica-​Practica, III.xii.9 (p. 416); Leonard Riissen, Summa Theologiae Didactico-​Elencticae (Berne:  Daniel Tschiffel, 1703), IX.xiii (p. 232); Witsius, Economy of the Covenants, I.i.15, I.ii.1; Wilhelmus à Brakel, The Christian’s Reasonable Service, 4 vols., trans. Bartel Elshout (Morgan, PA: Soli Deo Gloria, 1992), I:355; Cocceius, Doctrine of the Covenant, II.xxii (p. 34). 23. Heidegger, Medullae Theologiae Christianae, IX.viii (pp. 69–​70); Turretin, Institutes, VIII.i.2.

Notes  249 24. Cocceius, Doctrine of the Covenant, II.xiii (p.  28); cf. Witsius, Economy of the Covenants, I.ii.12–​14; à Brakel, Reasonable Service, I:356. Also note John Owen, Biblical Theology, trans. Stephen Wescott (Morgan, PA: Soli Deo Gloria, 1996), I.iv (p. 24); à Brakel, Christian’s Reasonable Service, I:363–​64. 25. Heidegger, Medullae Theologiae Christianae, IX.i (p. 68); so also, Johannes Cocceius, Summa Theologiae, in Opera Omnia, vol. 7 (Amsterdam:  1701), VIII.xxii.19, 31, 34; Willem Van Asselt, The Federal Theology of Johannes Cocceius (1603–​69) (Leiden: Brill, 2001), 256. 26. Turretin, Institutes, VIII.iii.10. 27. Witsius, Economy of the Covenants, I.iii.7; similarly, Riissen, Summa Theologiae, IX.xi (p. 231). 28. À Brakel, Christian’s Reasonable Service, I:359. 29. Heidegger, Medullae Theologiae Christianae, IX.vii (pp. 70–​71). 30. Heidegger, Corpus Theologiae Christianiae, IX.vi–​vii (pp. 303–​04). 31. Heidegger, Corpus Theologiae Christianiae, IX.vii (p. 304). 32. See also Witsius, Economy of the Covenant, I.i.2–​8; Cocceius, Doctrine of the Covenant, I.i–​xi (pp.  20–​26); Van Mastricht, Theoretica-​Practica Theologia, XII.ii (pp.  414–​ 15); Pictet, Christian Theology, 152–​53; Patrick Gillespie, The Ark of the Covenant Opened: Or, a Treatise of the Covenant of Redemption between God and Christ, as the Foundation of the Covenant of Grace, The Second Part (London: Thomas Parkhurst, 1677), 7–​15; Francis Roberts, Mysterium & Medulla Bibliorum. The Mysterie and Marrow of the Bible (London: George Calvert, 1657), I–​II (pp. 1–​18); cf. Richard A. Muller, “The Covenant of Works and the Stability of Divine Law in Seventeenth-​ Century Reformed Orthodoxy:  A Study in the Theology of Herman Witsius and Wilhelmus à Brakel,” Calvin Theological Journal 29 (1994):  75–​101, esp.  80–​87; Carl Trueman, “The Harvest of Reformation Mythology? Patrick Gillespie and the Covenant of Redemption,” in Scholasticism Reformed:  Essays in Honour of Willem J. van Asselt, eds. Maarten Wisse et al. (Leiden: Brill, 2010), 196–​214. 33. Turretin, Institutes, VIII.iii.6. 34. Turretin, Institutes, VIII.iii.7. 35. On the canonical nature of Reformed Orthodox hermeneutics, see Richard A. Muller, Post-​Reformation Reformed Dogmatics, 4  vols. (Grand Rapids:  Baker, 2003), II:490–​501. 36. Beach, Christ and Covenant, 140. 37. Cocceius, Doctrine of the Covenant, II.xxix (p. 41). 38. Schaff, Creeds, I:484 n. 2; cf. Richard A. Muller and Rowland S. Ward, Scripture and Worship: Biblical Interpretation and the Directory for Worship (Phillipsburg, NJ: P & R, 2007), 69–​81. 39. Turretin, Institutes, VIII.iii.8. 40. So, e.g., Van Mastricht, Theoretica-​Practica Theologia, XII.i (p.  413); Heidegger, Corpus Theologiae Christianiae, IX.vi (p. 303); idem, Medullae Theologiae Christianae, IX.iii (p.  69); Riissen, Summa Theologiae Didactico-​ Elencticae, IX.xii (p.  231); Cocceius, Doctrine of the Covenant, I.iii (pp. 20–​21); à Brakel, Christian’s Reasonable

250 Notes Service, I:365–​66. Cf. Muller, Post-​Reformation Reformed Dogmatics, II:436–​41; Van Asselt, Federal Theology, 250. 41. À Brakel, Christian’s Reasonable Service, I:366–​67. 42. Turretin, Institutes, VIII.iii.9. 43. Also see, e.g., Heidegger, Corpus Theologiae Christianiae, IX.xi–​xiv (pp.  304–​06); Witsius, Economy of the Covenants, I.ii.1–​5; Van Mastricht, Theoretica-​Practica Theologia, III.xii.23–​25 (pp. 420–​23). 44. So, e.g., Thomas Goodwin, Of the Creatures, and the Condition of Their State by Creation, in The Works of Thomas Goodwin, 12 vols. (1861–​66; Eureka, CA: Tanski Publications, 1996), II.v–​vi (vol. VII, pp. 44–​53). 45. Turretin, Institutes, VIII.vi.3. 46. So, e.g., Heidegger, Medullae Theologiae Christianae, IX.x (p.  72); Cocceius, Doctrine of the Covenant, II.xxiii (p. 37); Witsius, Economy of the Covenants, I.iv.1–​ 3; Van Mastricht, Theoretica-​Practica Theologia, III.xii.13 (p. 417); Riissen, Summa Theologiae, IX.xix (pp.  233–​35); Owen, Biblical Theology, I.iv (p.  25); à Brakel, Christian’s Reasonable Service, I:360–​63; Pictet, Christian Theology, 154–​55. 47. Turretin, Institutes, VIII.vi.4–​9; cf. John Calvin, Commentary on Genesis, CTS (rep.; Grand Rapids: Baker, 1993), comm. Gen. 2:17 (p. 127). See similar claims in Cocceius, Doctrine of the Covenant, II.xxix (pp. 40–​41); cf. Van Asselt, Federal Theology, 264. 48. Heidegger, Medullae Theologiae Christianae, IX.xiii (pp.  73–​ 74); idem, Corpus Theologiae Christianiae, IX.lxxv (p.  327); Turretin, Institutes, VIII.v.1–​7; Cocceius, Doctrine of the Covenant, II.xxxviii (pp. 46–​47); Witsius, Economy of the Covenant, I.vi.11, 13–​15; cf. Pictet, Christian Theology, 155. 49. Phillip von Limborch, A Compleat System, or Body of Divinity, Both Speculative and Practical, 2 vols. (London: John Darby, 1713), III.i.2 (vol. 1, p. 184); idem, Theologia Christiana, 4th ed. (Amsterdam: Rodolph & Gerhard Wetsten, 1715), III.ii.2 (p. 171). Note, the English and Latin editions number the sections differently, given that John Tillotson (1630–​94) heavily edited and emended Limborch’s original. Hence, I consult the original Latin edition against the English translation. 50. Arminius, Private Disputations XXIX, “On the Covenant into Which God Entered with Our First Parents,” The Works of James Arminius, 3  vols. (1875; Grand Rapids:  Baker, 1996), II:369; idem, Disputationes, magnam partem s.  theologiae complectentes, publicae & privatae, quarum index epist. dedicatoriam sequitur, in Opera Theologica (Leiden:  Godefridum Basson, 1629), 374; cf. Richard A. Muller, “The Federal Motif in Seventeenth-​Century Arminian Theology,” Nederlands Archief voor Kerkgeschiedenis 62/​1 (1982): 102–​22; Raymond Blacketer, “Arminius’ Concept of Covenant in Its Historical Context,” Nederlands Archief voor Kerkgeschiedenis /​ Dutch Review of Church History 80/​2 (2000): 193–​222. 51. Limborch, Body of Divinity, III.i.2 (vol. 1, p. 185); idem, Theologia Christiana, III.ii.5 (p. 171). 52. Limborch, Body of Divinity, III.i.2 (vol. 1, p. 186); idem, Theologia Christiana, III.ii.7 (p. 172). 53. Limborch, Body of Divinity, III.i.2 (vol. 1, p. 187); idem, Theologia Christiana, III.ii.9 (p. 172).

Notes  251 54. Turretin, Institutes, VIII.iii.16. 55. Turretin, Institutes, VIII.iii.16. 56. Turretin, Institutes, VIII.iii.17. 57. See, e.g., Cocceius, Doctrine of the Covenant, II.xxx–​xxxi (pp. 41–​43); idem, Summa Theologiae, VIII.xxii.25–​ 29; Witsius, Economy of the Covenants, I.i.14; Riissen, Summa Theologiae, IX.xvi (p. 232). 58. Turretin, Institutes, VIII.iii.1–​2, 10. 59. Turretin, Institutes, VIII.iv.3. 60. Turretin, Institutes, VIII.iii.14. 61. Cocceius, Doctrine of the Covenant, II.xxxi (p. 43); cf. Robert Bellarmine, De Gratia Primi Hominis et Status Innocentiae, in Opera Omnia, vol. 4 (Naples: Joseph Giuliano, 1858), I.iii (pp. 20–​22). Also see Van Asselt, Federal Theology, 260, 266. 62. Josua Placaeus, De Imputatione Primi Peccati Adami Josue Placaei in Academia Salmuriensi S. S. Theologiae Professoris Disputatio (Saumur: Ioannes Lesnerius, 1661). 63. Robert Rollock, Treatise on God’s Effectual Calling, XXV, in Select Works of Robert Rollock, 2 vols., ed. William M. Gunn (1844–​49; Grand Rapids: Reformation Heritage Books, 2008), I:176–​77; idem, Tractatus De Vocatione Efficaci (Edinburgh: Robert, 1597), 195–​96. 64. See, e.g., André Rivet, Decretum Synodi Nationalis Ecclesiarum Reformatarum Galliae Initio Anni 1645 de Imputatione Primi Peccati Omnibus Adami Posteris, in Operum Theologicorum, vol. 3 (Rotterdam: Arnoldi Leers, 1660), 798–​827. Charles Hodge’s translation of this work appears as André Rivet, “On Imputation,” in Theological Essays:  Reprinted from the Princeton Review (New  York:  Wiley & Putnam, 1846), 196–​217. 65. Turretin, Institutes, IX.ix.11. 66. Turretin, Institutes, IX.ix.14. 67. Turretin, Institutes, IX.ix.16. 68. Turretin, Institutes, IX.ix.14. 69. Turretin, Institutes, IX.ix.15. 70. Turretin, Institutes, IX.ix.6. 71. Turretin, Institutes, IX.ix.1–​5; cf. “The Synod of Charenton, Synod XXVIII 1644–​ 45,” in John Quick, ed., Synodicon in Gallia Reformata, 2  vols. (London:  Thomas Parkhurst, 1692), II:473; see also Van Stam, Controversy, 183, 209–​12. 72. Limborch, Body of Divinity, III.i.3 (p.  192); idem, Theologia Christiana, III.iii.4 (p. 176). 73. Limborch, Body of Divinity, III.i.3 (p.  193); idem, Theologia Christiana, III.iii.6 (p. 177). 74. Limborch, Body of Divinity, III.i.3 (pp. 193–​98); idem, Theologia Christiana, III.iii.8–​ 21 (pp. 177–​81). 75. Limborch, Body of Divinity, III.i.3 (pp.  197–​98); idem, Theologia Christiana, III. iii.20–​21 (p. 181). 76. Cocceius, Doctrine of the Covenant, III.lviii (pp. 58–​59); cf. Willem Van Asselt, “The Doctrine of the Abrogations in the Federal Theology of Johannes Cocceius (1603–​ 69),” Calvin Theological Journal 29 (1994): 101–​16; idem, Federal Theology, 271–​87.

252 Notes 77. Van Asselt, “Abrogations,” 113; idem, Federal Theology, 275–​76 n. 9. 78. Van Asselt, Federal Theology, 340. 79. Witsius, Economy of the Covenants, I.ix.19–​21; à Brakel, Christian’s Reasonable Service, I:375–​77; similarly, Owen, Biblical Theology, I.iv (pp. 28–​29). 80. Witsius, Economy of the Covenants, I.ix.22–​23. 81. Klauber, “Formula Consensus,” 111. 82. Cf. Westminster Confession, VII.vi; Tobias Crisp, Christ Alone Exalted:  Being the Compleat Works of Tobias Crisp, D. D.  Containing XLII Sermons, 2  vols. (London: William Marshall, 1690), II:247–​50. 83. Jeremiah Burroughs, Gospel Conversation (London: Peter Cole, 1653), 47; Samuel Bolton, The True Bounds of Christian Freedome; or, A  Treatise Wherein the Rights of the Law Are Vindicated, the Liberties of Grace Maintained. Whereunto Is Annexed a Discourse of the Learned John Cameron, Touching the Three-​Fold Covenant of God with Man, Faithfully Translated (London:  Austin Rice, 1656), 130–​31; Obadiah Sedgwick, The Bowels of Tender Mercy Sealed in the Everlasting Covenant (London:  Edward Mottershed, 1661), I.i–​ii, I.v (pp. 6–​7, 172–​76); Thomas Goodwin, The Work of the Holy Ghost in Our Salvation, in The Works of Thomas Goodwin, 12 vols. (1861–​66; Eureka, CA: Tanski Publications, 1996), VI:354–​56. 84. Edward Fisher, The Marrow of Modern Divinity (London: G. Calvert, 1645), 28–​29. On Petto’s view, see Michael Brown, Christ and the Condition: The Covenant Theology of Samuel Petto (1624–​1711) (Grand Rapids:  Reformation Heritage Books, 2012), 87–​104; John Owen, An Exposition of the Epistle to the Hebrews, in The Works of John Owen, ed. William H. Goold, 23 vols. (1854–​55; Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 1991), XXII:79, 113; Richard Baxter, Aphorismes of Justification (London:  Francis Tyton, 1649), thesis XXIX (pp. 94–​96). 85. Samuel Rutherford, The Covenant of Life Opened (Edinburgh:  Robert Broun, 1654), I.xi (pp. 57–​65). For historical overviews of the debated issue, see Sebastian Rehnman, “Is the Narrative of Redemptive History Dichotomous or Trichtomous? A Problem for Federal Theology,” Dutch Review of Church History 80/​3 (2000): 296–​ 308; Mark Jones, “The ‘Old’ Covenant,” in Drawn into Controversie:  Reformed Theological Diversity and Debates within Seventeenth-​Century British Puritanism, eds. Michael A. G. Haykin and Mark Jones (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2011), 183–​203. 86. Turretin, Institutes, XII.vii.32. 87. Herman Witsius takes a different view when he merges these ideas but sees Sinai primarily as a national covenant between God and Israel (Witsius, Economy of the Covenants, IV.iv.54). 88. Turretin, Institutes, XII.vii.31. 89. Heidegger, Medullae Theologiae Christianae, XIII.iii (p. 101). 90. Amandus Polanus, Syntagma Theologiae Christianae (Hanau:  Johannes Aubrius, 1615), VI.xxxiii (p. 450). 91. So, e.g., the title of Brian Armstrong’s book, Calvinism and the Amyraut Heresy. 92. Muller, Post-​Reformation Reformed Dogmatics, I:76–​77.

Notes  253 93. “Formula Consensus:  Praefatio,” in Collectio Confessionum, ed. H.  A. Niemeyer (Leipzig:  Julius Klinkhardt, 1840), 730; Muller, Post-​Reformation Reformed Dogmatics, I:77; Good, Swiss Reformed Church, 165–​66; Schaff, Creeds, I:486. 94. Good, Swiss Reformed Church, 169; Schaff, Creeds, I:478; Klauber, Reformed Scholasticism, 143–​64. 95. Good, Swiss Reformed Church, 191–​92. 96. Good, Swiss Reformed Church, 169–​72. 97. Good, Swiss Reformed Church, 172–​73. 98. Good, Swiss Reformed Church, 176–​77. 99. Klauber, Reformed Scholasticism, 147. 100. Good, Swiss Reformed Church, 188–​89. 101. Klauber, Reformed Scholasticism, 147.

Chapter 8 1. Richard A. Muller, “Philip Doddridge and the Formulation of Calvinistic Theology in an Era of Rationalism and Deconfessionalization,” in Religion, Politics and Dissent, 1660–​1832: Essays in Honor of James E. Bradley, eds. Robert D. Cornwall and William Gibson (Burlington, VT: Ashgate, 2009), 65–​84; Willem J. van Asselt, et al., Introduction to Reformed Scholasticism (Grand Rapids: Reformation Heritage Books, 2011), 167. 2. For overviews of the Marrow controversy, see David C.  Lachman, “The Marrow Controversy, 1718–​ 23:  An Historical and Theological Analysis,” (PhD Diss., University of St. Andrews, 1979); and William Vandoodewaard, The Marrow Controversy and the Seceder Tradition:  Atonement, Saving Faith, and the Gospel Offer in Scotland (1718–​99) (Grand Rapids:  Reformation Heritage Books, 2011). For the impact of the Enlightenment on the Scottish Kirk, see John R. McIntosh, Church and Theology in Enlightenment Scotland: The Popular Party, 1740–​1800 (East Lothian, Scotland: Tuckwell Press, 1998), 32–​91. 3. Thomas Boston, A View of the Covenant of Works from the Sacred Records (Edinburgh: John Gray, 1775). 4.  A Declaration of the Faith and Order Owned and Practiced in the Congregational Churches in England (London: John Field, 1659), VII.i; A Confession of Faith Put Forth by the Elders and Brethren of Many Congregations (Baptized upon Their Profession of Faith) in London and the Country (London: 1677), XIX.vi, XX.i. 5. Thomas Hobbes, Behemoth, ed. Paul Seaward (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 2010), 188. 6. Hobbes, Behemoth, 189. 7. Hobbes, Behemoth, 188. 8. Richard Allestree, The Whole Duty of Man: Laid Down in a Plain and Familiar Way for the Use of All, but Especially for the Meanest Reader (London: W. Norton, 1704). 9. Allestree, Whole Duty of Man,  2–​3. 10. Allestree, Whole Duty of Man, preface (§§12–​13). 11. Allestree, Whole Duty of Man, 67, 70, 71, 93–​94. 12. Hobbes, Behemoth, 161.

254 Notes 13. Hobbes, Behemoth, 290–​91. 14. Martin I. Klauber, Between Reformed Scholasticism and Pan-​Protestantism:  Jean-​ Alphonse Turretin (1671–​1737) and Enlightened Orthodox at the Academy of Geneva (Selinsgrove, PA: Susquehanna University Press, 1994), 13. 15. James I. Good, History of the Swiss Reformed Church since the Reformation (Philadelphia: Publication and Sunday School Board of the Reformed Church in the United States, 1913), 172–​73. 16. Klauber, Reformed Scholasticism, 154. 17. Klauber, Reformed Scholasticism, 170; Van Asselt et  al., Introduction to Reformed Scholasticism, 173–​74, 181–​82. 18. Klauber, Reformed Scholasticism, 171; cf. Francis Turretin, Institutes of Elenctic Theology, trans. George Musgrave Giger, ed. James T. Dennision Jr. (Phillipsburg, NJ: P & R, 1992–​97), I.xiv.1–​27. 19. Klauber, Reformed Scholasticism, 172, 175–​81. 20. Jean Frédéric Ostervald, Catechisme ou Instruction dans la Religion Chrestienne (Geneva: Company of Libraries, 1702); Ostervald, A Catechism for Youth Containing a Brief Comprehensive Summary of the Doctrines and Duties of Christianity (New York: New Jersey Bible Society, 1812). 21. Klauber, Reformed Scholasticism, 166–​67. 22. The Humble Advice of the Assembly of Divines, Now by Authority of Parliament Sitting at Westminster, Concerning a Shorter Catechism (London: J. F., 1648), q. 12. 23. Ostervald, Catechism for Youth, I.i (p. 9); Ostervald, Catechisme, 2. 24. Ostervald, Catechism for Youth, II.i (pp. 41–​42); Ostervald, Catechisme,  40–​41. 25. Ostervald, Catechism for Youth, III.i (pp. 47–​48); Ostervald, Catechisme,  46–​47. 26. Jonathan Swift, Gulliver’s Travels (1726; New York: Penguin Classics, 2011), 48. 27. Van Asselt et al., Introduction to Reformed Scholasticism, 167–​93, esp. 180–​81. 28. Wilhelmus á Brakel, The Christian’s Reasonable Service, 4 vols., trans. Bartel Elshout (Morgan, PA: Soli Deo Gloria, 1992), I:355ff.; Benedict Pictet, Christian Theology, trans. Frederick Reyroux (London: R. B. Seeley and W. Burnside), 152–​57. 29. See, e.g., J. Rodolphus Salchli, Dissertatio Tradens quaedam de Foedere Operum (Bern: Reip. Bernensius, 1738); Barthold Holtzfus, Dissertatio Theologica de Foedere Naturae s. Operum (Frankfurt: Christoph Schwartzius, 1711). 30. For an overview of Boston’s theology, see A. T. B. McGowan, The Federal Theology of Thomas Boston (Carlisle, PA: Paternoster, 1997), esp. 1–​19. 31. Van Asselt et al., Introduction to Reformed Scholasticism, 180. Contra T. F. Torrance (1913–​ 2007), who claims that seventeenth-​and eighteenth-​ century Reformed theology was a devolution from the pure theology of John Calvin and the Scots Confession (1560). More recent scholarship has discredited the Calvin vs. the Calvinists thesis (cf. T. F. Torrance, Scottish Theology: From John Knox to John McLeod Cambell [Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1996], 93–​156, 223–​55, esp., e.g., 96, 103, 105, 127, 128, 129, 139–​40, 141, 230, 243, 247; Richard A. Muller, After Calvin: Studies in the Development of a Theological Tradition [Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003], 63–​104).

Notes  255 32. John Brown of Haddington, A Compendious View of Natural and Revealed Religion in Seven Books (Glasgow:  John Bryce, 1782); Adam Gib, Kaina kai Palaia:  Sacred Contemplations in Three Parts (Philadelphia: W. Young and J. McCulloch, 1788); John Gill, A Complete Body of Doctrinal and Practical Divinity: or A System of Evangelical Truths (1809; Paris, AR: Baptist Standard Bearer, 2007). 33. McGowan, Federal Theology of Thomas Boston, 8; Lachman, “Marrow Controversy,” 126. McGowan notes that Crookshank’s translation of Witsius was in circulation and that this was the edition Boston likely used. Cf. Herman Witsius, Economy of the Covenants between God and Man: Comprehending A Complete Body of Divinity, trans. William Crookshank (1822; Escondido, CA:  Den Dulk Foundation, 1990). The problem with this claim, however, is that the earliest edition of Crookshank’s translation dates thirty-​one years after Boston’s death (Herman Witsius, Oeconomy of the Covenants, trans. William Crookshank, 3 vols. [London: Edward Dilly, 1763]). Instead, Boston testifies in his biography that he borrowed and read a Latin edition of Witsius’s work: “To that excellent book I was seasonably led by kind Providence at that time” (Thomas Boston, A General Account of My Life [London:  Hodder & Stoughton,  1908], 113). Boston knew, wrote, and taught Latin (Thomas Boston, Memoirs of the Life, Times, and Writings of the Rev. Thomas Boston [Aberdeen: George and Robert King, 1852], 230, 346, 351, 366, 387, 428, 469–​70). 34. Thomas Boston, ed., The Marrow of Modern Divinity, 13th ed. (1645; Edinburgh: R. Drummond and Co., 1745). 35. Boston, Covenant of Works,  ix–​xi. 36. Boston, Covenant of Works, 1. Boston does not offer a definition of covenant in his treatise, but his doctrine is consonant with the prevailing concept of covenant as agreement (cf. Boston, Covenant of Works, 8, 69; see also Boston, An Illustration of the Doctrines of the Christian Religion, 3 vols. [Edinburgh: Schaw and Pillans, 1796], I:247–​61; cf. similar views in Brown, Compendius View, III.i [p. 215]; Gill, Body of Divinity, III.vii [p. 313]; Samuel Willard, Complete Body of Divinity in Two Hundred and Fifty Expository Lectures, 2 vols. [Boston:  B. Eliot and D.  Henchman, 1726], I:153). 37. Boston, Covenant of Works, 2. 38. The Humble Advice of the Assembly of Divines, Now by Authority of Parliament Sitting at Westminster, Concerning a Larger Catechisme (London: A. M., 1648), q. 99. Note, the original edition of the catechism is unnumbered. I use the traditional numbering for ease of reference. 39. Boston, Covenant of Works, 2; Boston, Illustration, I:249. 40. Cf. Witsius, Economy of the Covenants, I.iv.4–​10. 41. Boston, Covenant of Works, 3; cf. James Hog, A Letter to a Gentleman Detecting the Errors Vented at This Time (Edinburgh: William Brown and William Dicky, 1716), 11. 42. C. J. Williams, “Good and Necessary Consequence in the Westminster Confession,” in The Faith Once Delivered, ed. Anthony T. Selvaggio (Phillipsburg, NJ: P & R, 2007), 171–​90; Richard A. Muller and Rowland S. Ward, Scripture and Worship:  Biblical Interpretation and the Directory for Worship (Phillipsburg, NJ: P & R, 2007), 59–​82.

256 Notes 43. The Humble Advice of the Assembly of Divines, Now by Authority of Parliament Sitting at Westminster, Concerning a Confession of Faith (London: Company of Stationers, 1647), I.vi. 44. Boston, Covenant of Works, 4. 45. Boston, Covenant of Works,  5–​7. 46. Thomas Boston, Human Nature in Its Fourfold State (Falkirk: Patrick Mair, 1787), 19; Boston, Marrow, 3–​5; cf. Hog, Letter, 10. 47. Boston, Covenant of Works, 5. 48. Gib, Kaina kai Palia, 81. 49. Brown, Compendius View, 217. 50. Boston, Covenant of Works, 5; Boston, Illustration, I:248. 51. Boston, Covenant of Works, 6; Boston, Marrow, 26. 52. Gib, Kaina kai Palia,  84–​85. 53. Also Gib, Kaina kai Palia, 81; Brown, Compendius View, 217; Hog, Letter, 11. 54. Boston, Covenant of Works, 6; also 53–​55; Boston, Illustration, I:248. 55. Boston, Covenant of Works,  54–​55. 56. Boston, Covenant of Works, 6. 57. Boston, Covenant of Works, 7; Boston, Illustration, I:254; also Gib, Kaina kai Palia, 26; Brown, Compendius View, 230; cf. Witsius, Economy of the Covenants, I.vi.1–​2; Hog, Letter, 10. 58. Gib, Kaina kai Palia, 61. 59. Gib, Kaina kai Palia, 69. 60. Boston, Covenant of Works, 80; cf. Robert Rollock, Treatise on Effectual Calling, XXV, in Select Works of Robert Rollock, 2  vols., ed. William M.  Gunn (1844–​49; Grand Rapids: Reformation Heritage Books, 2008), I:175. 61. Boston, Covenant of Works, 7; also Gib, Kaina kai Palia, 57; cf. Witsius, Economy of the Covenants, I.ii.14. 62. Boston, Covenant of Works, 12; also Gib, Kaina kai Palia, 46–​47; Hog, Letter, 15. 63. Westminster Confession, VII.i. 64. Boston, Covenant of Works, 8.  Witsius makes a similar point (Economy of the Covenants, I.i.14; cf. I.iii.25). 65. Boston, Fourfold State, 25; cf. Hog, Letter, 10. 66. Boston, Covenant of Works, 36. 67. Boston, Covenant of Works, 48. 68. Gib, Kaina kai Palia, 27. 69. Brown, Compendius View, 218. 70. Brown, Compendius View, 221. 71. Boston, Covenant of Works, 17; Boston, Marrow, 9–​13. This was a category likely gleaned from Witsius (Economy of the Covenants, I.iii.1, I.iii.20). 72. Boston, Covenant of Works, 17, 9. 73. Boston, Covenant of Works, 18; Boston, Illustration, I:249–​51. 74. Also Brown, Compendius View, 221–​22; cf. Gib, Kaina kai Palia, 25; Willard, Body of Divinity, 154.

Notes  257 75. Robert Rollock, Some Questions and Answers about God’s Covenant and the Sacrament That Is a Seal of God’s Covenant, trans. and ed. Aaron Clay Denlinger (Eugene, OR: Pickwick, 2016), qq. 14–​15 (p. 24). 76. Boston, Covenant of Works, 18. 77. Boston, Covenant of Works,  18–​19. 78. Boston, Covenant of Works, 19. 79. Boston, Marrow, 17. 80. Boston, Covenant of Works, 19; Boston, Illustration, I:250. 81. Boston, Covenant of Works, 20; also Brown, Compendius View, 231; cf. Witsius, Economy of the Covenants, I.ii.1. 82. So also for Witsius, Economy of the Covenants, I.iv.17. 83. Boston, Covenant of Works, 20–​ 23; cf. Westminster Larger Catechism, q.  20; Westminster Shorter Catechism, q. 12; Westminster Confession, VII.ii. 84. Boston, Covenant of Works, 26. 85. Mark A.  Herzer, “Adam’s Reward:  Heaven or Earth?” in Drawn into Controversie:  Reformed Theological Diversity and Debates within Seventeenth-​ Century British Puritanism, eds. Michael A. G. Haykin and Mark Jones (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2011), 162–​82. 86. Westminster Confession, VII.ii. 87. Boston, Covenant of Works, 29; Boston, Fourfold Estate, 24. 88. Boston, Covenant of Works,  33–​34. 89. Boston, Covenant of Works,  35–​36. 90. Boston, Covenant of Works, 35. 91. Gib, Kaina kai Palia, 37; Brown, Compendius View, 224–​25. 92. Gill, Body of Divinity, III.vii (p. 314). 93. Gill, Body of Divinity, III.vii (pp. 314–​15); cf. John Cameron, De Triplici Dei Cum Homine Foedere Theses (Heidelberg: 1608); Cameron, Ioh. Cameronis S. Theologiae in Academia Salmuriensi Nuper Professoris, Praelectionum Tomus Tertius et Ultimus (Saumur: Cl. Girard & Dan. Lerpiner, 1628), 609–​30; Cameron, Ioannnis Cermonis Scoto-​Britanni Theologi Eximij Ta Sosomena, sive Opera Partim ab Auctore Ipso Edita (Frankfurt: Clement Schleich Haered, 1642), 544–​51; Cameron, Certain Theses, or, Positions of the Learned John Cameron, Concerning the Threefold Covenant of God with Man, in Samuel Bolton, The True Bounds of Christian Freedome (London: P. S., 1656), 353–​401. 94. Gill, Body of Divinity, III.vii (p. 315). 95. Thomas Goodwin, Of the Creatures, and the Condition of Their State by Creation, in The Works of Thomas Goodwin, 12 vols. (1861–​66; Eureka, CA: Tanski Publications, 1996), II.vi (vol. VII, p. 51). 96. Gill, Body of Divinity, II.v (pp. 203–​09). For an overview of Gill’s understanding of the pactum salutis, see J. V. Fesko, The Covenant of Redemption: Origins, Development, and Reception (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2016), 110–​21. 97. Brown, Compendius View, 227–​29. 98. Boston, Covenant of Works,  38–​39.

258 Notes 99. Boston, Covenant of Works,  40–​41. 100. David Dickson, Truths Victory of Error (Edinburgh:  John Reed, 1684). For the broader reception of the Westminster Standards in Scotland, see Andrew McGowan, “Edinburgh to Westminster,” and W. D. J. McKay, “Scotland and the Westminster Assembly,” in The Westminster Confession into the 21st Century, 3 vols., ed. J. Ligon Duncan (Fearn: Mentor, 2003–​09), I:187–​212, 213–​47. 101. Boston, Christian Religion, I:247–​61; John Brown of Haddington, An Essay Towards an Easy, Plain, Practical, and Extensive Explication of the Assembly’s Shorter Catechism, 8th ed. (Edinburgh: J. Ogle, 1812), 52–​57. 102. See, e.g., Ebenezer Erskine, The Assembly’s Shorter Catechism Explained (Edinburgh: Daniel Blow, 1764). 103. Boston, Covenant of Works, 21–​23; Brown, Compendius View, 222–​24. 104. Ian Hamilton, “The Erosion of Calvinist Orthodoxy,” in The Westminster Confession into the 21st Century, 3 vols., ed. J. Ligon Duncan (Fearn: Mentor, 2003–​09), II:169–​ 79, esp. 171. 105. Mark U. Edwards Jr., Luther and the False Brethren (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1975), 156–​79; Mirjam G. K. van Veen, “Calvin and His Opponents,” in The Calvin Handbook, ed. Herman J.  Selderhuis (Grand Rapids:  Eerdmans, 2009), 156–​64, esp. 158–​60; Whitney Greer Gamble, “ ‘If Christ fulfilled the law, we are not bound’: The Westminster Assembly against English Antinomian Soteriology, 1643–​47” (PhD Diss., University of Edinburgh, 2014); Tim Cooper, Fear and Polemic in Seventeenth-​ Century England:  Richard Baxter and Antinomianism (Aldershot: Ashgate, 2001). 106. James Ussher, A Body of Divinitie, or The Summe and Substance of Christian Religion (London: Tho. Downes and Geo. Badger, 1645), 124; cf. similarly Witsius, Economy of the Covenants, I.iii.7. 107. Anthony Burgess, Vindiciae Legis:  or, A  Vindication of the Morall Law and the Covenants (London: Thomas Underhill, 1647), 148. 108. Boston, Covenant of Works,  18–​19. 109. Stephen G. Myers, Scottish Federalism and Covenantalism in Transition:  The Theology of Ebenezer Erskine (Eugene, OR: Pickwick, 2015), 44. 110. Erskine, Assembly’s Shorter Catechism, 98. 111. Boston, Covenant of Works, 18; cf. Boston, Illustration, I:256–​57. 112. Myers, Scottish Federalism, 45. 113. Myers, Scottish Federalism, 45.

Chapter 9 1. Richard A. Muller, “Philip Doddridge and the Formulation of Calvinistic Theology in an Era of Rationalism and Deconfessionalization,” in Religion, Politics and Dissent, 1660–​1832: Essays in Honor of James E. Bradley, eds. Robert D. Cornwall and William Gibson (Burlington, VT: Ashgate, 2009), 65–​84; Willem J. van Asselt et al., Introduction to Reformed Scholasticism (Grand Rapids: Reformation Heritage Books, 2011), 167.

Notes  259 2. John Colquhoun, A Treatise on the Covenant of Works (Edinburgh:  Thomsons Brothers, 1821). Other treatments of the doctrine touch upon it as an entry point to broader doctrinal topics: James Duncan, A Treatise on the Covenant of Works; Man’s Fall, and His Recovery through Jesus Christ (Pittsburgh, PA: S. Engles & Co., 1813); and William Lusk, Discourses on the Covenant of Works, the Fall of Man, and Original Sin (Troy, NY: N. Tuttle, 1832). One other work sets out to refute the doctrine: Samuel Jones, The Doctrine of the Covenants, Wherein Is Shewn That There Never Was a Covenant of Works Made with Adam (Norwich: John Sterry, 1801). This work is bound in one volume with Abraham Booth, On the Kingdom of Christ (Norwich: John Sterry, 1801). 3. John Eagleton, Thoughts on the Covenant of Works: Epistolary Address, to the Junior Ministers of the Gospel of All Denominations (London: R. Baynes, 1829). 4. For biographical information on Eagleton, see John Eagleton, Memoirs of the Rev. John Eagleton:  Late Minister of Ramsden-​ Street Chapel, Huddersfield (London: Huddersfield H. Roebuck, 1841). 5. Eagleton, Covenant of Works,  3–​5. 6. Eagleton, Covenant of Works, 6. 7. Eagleton, Covenant of Works, 7. 8. Eagleton, Covenant of Works,  9–​10. 9. Eagleton, Covenant of Works, 11. 10. Eagleton, Covenant of Works, 11. 11. Eagleton, Covenant of Works,  32–​33. 12. Eagleton, Covenant of Works,  11–​31. 13. Eagleton, Covenant of Works, 14, 21–​22, 29. 14. Eagleton, Covenant of Works,  35–​40. 15. Eagleton, Covenant of Works, 40. 16. Eagleton, Covenant of Works, 73; see also Jones, Doctrine of the Covenants, 105. 17. Eagleton, Covenant of Works, 93. 18. Eagleton, Covenant of Works, 93; cf. Edward Leigh, Critica Sacra (Gotha:  Jacob Mevius, 1706), 168, s. v. diatheke, testamentum. 19. Eagleton, Covenant of Works,  93–​94. 20. Cf. Edward Leigh, A Treatise of the Divine Promises. In Five Bookes (London: George Millar, 1633), II.i (pp. 62–​63). 21. Eagleton, Covenant of Works, 94. 22. Eagleton, Covenant of Works, 51, 123. 23. Eagleton, Covenant of Works, 62. 24. Westminster Confession, I.vi. 25. Eagleton, Covenant of Works, 74. 26. Jones, Doctrine of the Covenants, 107. 27. Eagleton, Covenant of Works, 92. Although Eagleton does not provide references, treatments of the covenant of works appear in the following: John Gill, A Complete Body of Doctrinal and Practical Divinity: or A System of Evangelical Truths (1809; Paris, AR: Baptist Standard Bearer, 2007); III.vii (pp. 311–​16); John Owen, The Doctrine of Justification by Faith, in The Works of John Owen, ed. William H. Goold, vol. 5 (1860;

260 Notes

28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33.

34. 35. 36. 37. 38.

39.

40. 41. 42. 43. 44.

Edinburgh:  Banner of Truth, 1996), 275–​77; Jonathan Edwards, A History of the Work of Redemption; Comprising an Outline of Church History (New York: American Tract Society, 1816), I.ii.2 (p. 53), I.iv.3 (pp. 84–​85), II.ii.3 (p. 223); Joseph Bellamy, The Covenant of Grace, Proved from the Word of God, in The Works of the Rev. Joseph Bellamy, 3 vols. (New  York:  Stephen Doge, 1812), III:151–​54, 217–​18, 234–​36, 265–​90, 334–​35, 436; Herman Witsius, Economy of the Covenants between God and Man: Comprehending a Complete Body of Divinity, 2 vols., trans. William Crookshank (1822; Escondido, CA: Den Dulk Foundation, 1990), I.i–​ix (vol. I, pp. 41–​161); Isaac Watts, “Sermon: XVIII: Faith the Way to Salvation,” in The Works of the Rev. Isaac Watts, 9 vols. (Leeds: Edward Baines, 1812), I:251–​62; Philip Doddridge, A Course of Lectures on the Principal Subjects in Pneumatology, Ethics, and Divinity, in The Works of the Rev. P. Doddridge, 10 vols. (Leeds: Edward Baines, 1804), lect. clxvi (vol. V, pp. 201–​03), lect. clxxxviii (vol. V, pp. 270–​73); Matthew Henry, A Commentary on the Whole Bible: Romans to Revelation (London: Religious Tract Society, 1835), comm. Rom. 6:16–​20 (p. 35), comm. Rom. 7:1–​6 (pp. 38–​40), comm. Gal. 4:28–​31 (p. 251); Thomas Boston, A View of the Covenant of Works from the Sacred Records (Edinburgh: John Gray, 1775); John Brown of Haddington, A Compendious View of Natural and Revealed Religion in Seven Books (Glasgow: John Bryce, 1782), 215–​52; John Wesley, The Works of the Rev. John Wesley, vol. 5, 3rd ed. (London: John Mason, 1829), serm. VI (pp. 65–​76), serm. XXXV (pp. 447–​57, esp. 453–​54). Eagleton, Covenant of Works, 55, 72, 83, 84, 88, 89, 101. Eagleton, Covenant of Works, 95. Eagleton, Covenant of Works,  95–​96. Eagleton, Covenant of Works, 49. Eagleton, Covenant of Works, 84. Eagleton, Covenant of Works, 86. Eagleton may be echoing John Calvin’s cosmic Christology here (cf. John Calvin, Commentary on Genesis, CTS [rep.; Grand Rapids:  Baker, 1993], comm. Gen. 2:9 [p. 117]; Oliver D. Crisp, Revisioning Christology: Theology in the Reformed Tradition [Aldershot: Ashgate, 2011], 23–​42). Eagleton, Covenant of Works, 117. Eagleton, Covenant of Works, 122. Eagleton, Covenant of Works, 129. Eagleton, Covenant of Works, 131. David Russell, Familiar Survey of the Old and New Covenants, Including a Summary View of the Patriarchal and Levitical Dispensations (Edinburgh: Waugh and Innes, 1824), ix. David Russell, A Compendious View of the Original Dispensation Established with Adam, and of the Mediatorial Dispensation Established through Christ, 2nd ed. (Edinburgh: Waugh and Innes, 1826), iii, 20, 23. Russell, Compendious View, 25. Russell, Old and New Covenants, 14. Russell, Old and New Covenants, 22. Russell, Old and New Covenants,  22–​23. Russell, Old and New Covenants, 26.

Notes  261 45. Russell, Old and New Covenants, 27. 46. Russell, Old and New Covenants, 30. Some proponents of the doctrine also call the God-​Adam relationship a constitution but see it as interchangeable with covenant (A. A. Hodge, Outlines of Theology [1860: Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 1991], 310). 47. Russell, Old and New Covenants, 40. 48. Russell, Old and New Covenants, 41. 49. Russell, Old and New Covenants, 42. 50. Russell, Old and New Covenants, 70. 51. Russell, Old and New Covenants, 94; see also Russell, Compendious View,  26–​27. 52. Russell, Old and New Covenants, 98. 53. Russell, Old and New Covenants, 99. 54. Russell, Old and New Covenants, 104. 55. Russell, Old and New Covenants, 198–​200. 56. Russell, Old and New Covenants, 125–​26. 57. Russell, Old and New Covenants, 194, 198. 58. Cf. John Cameron, De Triplici Dei Cum Homine Foedere Theses (Heidelberg: 1608); Cameron, Ioh. Cameronis S. Theologiae in Academia Salmuriensi Nuper Professoris, Praelectionum Tomus Tertius et Ultimus (Saumur: Cl. Girard & Dan. Lerpiner, 1628), 609–​30, esp. 611; Cameron, Certain Theses, or, Positions of the Learned John Cameron, Concerning the Threefold Covenant of God with Man, in Samuel Bolton, The True Bounds of Christian Freedome (London: P. S., 1656), 353–​401, esp. thesis VII (p. 356). 59. Cf. Cameron, Threefold Covenant, thesis XIX (p. 365); Cameron, Triplici Foedere, 614. 60. Russell, Old and New Covenants, 203. 61. John Kelly, The Divine Covenants:  Their Nature and Design; or, The Covenants Considered as Successive Stages in the Development of the Divine Purposes of Mercy (London: Jackson, Walford, & Hodder, 1861). 62. See, e.g., Witsius, Economy of the Covenants; Francis Roberts, Mysterium et Medulla Bibliorum:  The Mysterie and Marrow of the Bible viz. God’s Covenants with Man (London:  George Calvert, 1657); Thomas Blake, Vindicae Foederis; or, A  Treatise of the Covenant of God Entered with Man-​Kinde, 2nd ed. (London:  Abel Roper, 1658); William Strong, Discourse of the Two Covenants (London:  Francis Tyton, 1678); Thomas Boston, A View of the Covenant of Works from the Sacred Records (Edinburgh: John Gray, 1775). 63. Kelly, Divine Covenants, vi. 64. Kelly, Divine Covenants, 2. 65. Kelly, Divine Covenants, 7. 66. Kelly, Divine Covenants, 11. 67. Kelly, Divine Covenants, 12. 68. Kelly, Divine Covenants, 12. 69. Kelly, Divine Covenants, 8. Note that this is the same argument that later Scottish theologians employ. See, e.g., J. B. Torrance, “Covenant or Contract? A Study of the Theological Background of Worship in Seventeenth-​Century Scotland,” Scottish Journal of Theology 23 (1970): 51–​76, esp. 54–​56; John Murray, Covenant of Grace (1953; Phillipsburg, NJ: P & R, 1988), 7 n. 15.

262 Notes 70. Kelly, Divine Covenants, 9. 71. Kelly, Divine Covenants, 13–​20. Others outside the Scottish context made the same claims, such as Baptist theologian Augustus Strong (1836–​1921), who argued that the doctrine did not appear in Scripture and that no one ever authorized Adam to represent them (Augustus Hopkins Strong, Systematic Theology [Rochester, NY: E. R. Andrews, 1886], 324–​25). 72. Kelly, Divine Covenants,  22–​24. 73. Kelly, Divine Covenants, 4. 74. “Review of Eagleton on the Covenant of Works,” The Morning Watch; or Quarterly Journal on Prophecy, and Theological Review 2 (1830): 171–​79, esp. 172. A contributing factor is that some, such as Strong, believed that the covenant of works originated with Johannes Cocceius (Strong, Systematic Theology, 322–​23). In a later edition of his work, Strong states, “The so-​called ‘covenant’ of law and of grace, referred in the Westminster Confession as made by God with Adam and Christ respectively, were really ‘made in Holland’ ” (Augustus Hopkins Strong, Systematic Theology [1907; Philadelphia: Judson Press, 1960], 614). Cf. Psyche Ives, “Recasting John Murray’s Covenant Theology:  A Contextual Reexamination” (MA Thesis, Westminster Seminary California, 2016). 75. “Review of Eagleton,” 173. 76. “Review of Eagleton,” 173. 77. “Review of Eagleton,” 177. 78. “Review of Eagleton,” 176. 79. “Review of Eagleton,” 174. 80. “Review of Eagleton,” 175. 81. “Review of Eagleton,” 177. 82. “Review of The Divine Covenants, Their Nature and Design by John Kelly,” British Quarterly Review 34 (1861): 287–​88, esp. 288. 83. “Review of The Divine Covenants; Their Nature and Design by John Kelly,” London Review 16 (1861): 561–​62, esp. 561. 84. “Kelly on the Covenants,” Eclectic Review NS 1 (1861): 65–​71, esp. 66. 85. Strong, Discourse of the Two Covenants, preface. 86. “Kelly on the Covenants,” 66. 87. “Kelly on the Covenants,” 66. 88. “Kelly on the Covenants,” 67. 89. “Kelly on the Covenants,” 67. 90. Colquhoun, Covenant of Works, 5. Others survey the different terms employed for the covenant of works (e.g., Hodge, Outlines of Theology, 310; Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology, 3 vols. [rep.; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993], II:118); cf. Lusk, Covenant of Works, 19. 91. Colquhoun, Covenant of Works, 1. 92. Colquhoun, Covenant of Works, 2. 93. Colquhoun, Covenant of Works, 3. 94. Thomas Bell, A View of the Covenants of Works and Grace; and a Treatise on the Nature and Effects of Saving Faith (Glasgow: Edward Khull, 1814), 3–​185. See also W. G. T. Shedd, Dogmatic Theology, 3 vols. (1888; Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1969), II:361.

Notes  263 95. Colquhoun, Covenant of Works, 5. 96. This theme is common in a number of works from the period (see, e.g., Bell, Covenants of Works and Grace, 253–​82). James Buchanan (1804–​70) called Sinai a national covenant of works and that the covenant of works was republished at Sinai (James Buchanan, The Doctrine of Justification:  And Outline of Its History in the Church, and of Its Exposition from Scripture [Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1867], 52–​53). Charles Hodge and Robert Shaw (1795–​1863) have similar formulations (Charles Hodge, An Exposition of the Second Epistle to the Corinthians [New York: Robert Carter & Brothers, 1862], 57–​58; Robert Shaw, An Exposition of the Confession of Faith of the Westminster Assembly of Divines, 8th ed. [Glasgow:  Blackie and Son, 1857], 195); also Colquhoun, Law and Gospel,  51–​85. 97. Colquhoun, Covenant of Works, 6. 98. See, e.g., The Humble Advice of the Assembly of Divines . . . Concerning a Shorter Catechism (London: F. F., 1648), q. 12; The Humble Advice of the Assembly of Divines Concerning a Confession of Faith (London:  Company of Stationers, 1647), VII.ii, XIX.i, vii. The original edition of the Larger Catechism does not contain proof texts (see The Humble Advice of the Assembly of Divines . . . Concerning a Larger Catechism [London: Evan Tyler, 1647]). 99. Colquhoun, Covenant of Works,  8–​9. 100. Colquhoun, Covenant of Works, 10. An outlier is W. G. T. Shedd (1820–​94), who separated imputation from covenant because he held to mediate imputation and believed that the link between Adam and his offspring was natural rather than covenantal, even though he affirmed the covenant of works (Shedd, Dogmatic Theology, II:39–​41, 46–​47). 101. Colquhoun, Covenant of Works,  18–​19. 102. Colquhoun, Covenant of Works, 13; also Hodge, Outlines of Theology, 311; Hodge, Systematic Theology, I:118, 122; Buchanan, Justification, 22; Shedd, Dogmatic Theology, II:541; Robert L. Dabney, Syllabus and Notes of the Course of Systematic and Polemic Theology (St. Louis, MO: Presbyterian Publishing Co., 1878), 304–​05. 103. Colquhoun, Covenant of Works,  14–​15. 104. Westminster Confession, XIX.vi. 105. Some, such as John Dick (1764–​1833) objected to the confession’s characterization of Adam’s obedience in these terms. He believed Adam’s probation was for the specific command (Gen. 2:16–​17), and not the whole moral law (John Dick, Lectures on Theology, 2 vols. [New York: M. W. Dodd, 1850], I:463). A. A. Hodge makes a similar criticism of the Larger Catechism when he states that the duration of Adam’s perfect obedience was not perpetual but only for the period of his probation (Hodge, Outlines of Theology, 312). Others, such as Charles Hodge, pass by the issue altogether and state that the symbols of the church claim that Adam’s obedience had to be perfect (Hodge, Systematic Theology, 119). 106. Colquhoun, Covenant of Works,  15–​17. 107. Buchanan, Justification, 158, 287, 356; Shaw, Exposition, 198–​ 99; William Cunningham, Historical Theology: A Review of the Principal Doctrinal Discussions in the Christian Church since the Apostolic Age, vol. 2, 3rd ed. (Edinburgh: T & T Clark,

264 Notes 1870), 88, 359–​60. In fact, the distinction underlies Colquhoun’s entire treatise on the law and gospel (see, e.g., Colquhoun, Law and Gospel, 20, 36–​37). 108. Colquhoun, Covenant of Works, 1; also Hodge, Outlines of Theology, 310; Dabney, Syllabus, 302; Buchanan, Justification, 22; William Cunningham, Historical Theology: A Review of the Principal Doctrinal Discussions in the Christian Church since the Apostolic Age, 2nd ed., vol. 1 (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1864), 522. Shedd also speaks of Adam’s covenant as marked by grace, but he stipulates that Adam did not receive the gift of perseverance as Christians do in the covenant of grace. In other words, pre-​and post-​fall grace are different species (Shedd, Dogmatic Theology, II:149, 152); see also Lusk, Covenant of Works, 20. 109. Colquhoun, Covenant of Works, 41. Shedd has a similar view, which he terms pactional merit (Shedd, Dogmatic Theology, II:153; see also Lusk, Covenant of Works, 27). 110. Colquhoun makes the same observations in another work, where he extensively discusses the covenant of works (see John Colquhoun, A Treatise on the Law and the Gospel [New York: Wiley & Long, 1835], 15). 111. Colquhoun, Covenant of Works, 45. 112. Colquhoun, Covenant of Works, 46. 113. Colquhoun, Covenant of Works, 47. 114. Colquhoun, Covenant of Works, 48; cf. Adam Gib, Kaina kai Palaia:  Sacred Contemplations (Edinburgh: Neill and Company, 1786), 22; Shaw, Exposition, 193. 115. Colquhoun, Covenant of Works, 49. 116. Colquhoun, Covenant of Works, 100. 117. Cf. Dabney, Syllabus, 303; Stephen G. Myers, Scottish Federalism and Covenantalism in Transition: The Theology of Ebenezer Erskine (Eugene, OR: Pickwick, 2015), 44. 118. Colquhoun, Covenant of Works, 53. 119. Colquhoun, Covenant of Works, 80. 120. Colquhoun, Covenant of Works, 49. 121. James Hogg, The Private Memoirs and Confessions of a Justified Sinner (1824; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010), 13. 122. Hogg, Private Memoirs, 15. 123. Hogg, Private Memoirs, 16. 124. Crawford Gribben, “James Hogg, Scottish Calvinism and Literary Theory,” Scottish Studies Review 5/​2 (2004):  9–​26; Donald McLeod, “Scottish Calvinism:  A Dark, Repressive Force?” Scottish Bulletin of Evangelical Theology 19/​2 (2001): 195–​225, esp. 200–​04. 125. Colquhoun, Covenant of Works, 7, 48, 53, 86, 142, 148–​49, 206. 126. John Dick, Confessions of Faith Shown to Be Necessary, and the Duty of Churches with Respect to Them Explained in a Sermon (Edinburgh: William Laing, 1796). 127. Bell, Covenants of Works and Grace, preface. 128. E.g., Bell, Covenants of Works and Grace, 45, 52, 53, 55, 56, 72, 111, 117, 120, 219, 221, 225, 258, 261; also Lusk, Covenant of Works, 87, 118.

Notes  265 129. Herman Witsius, Conciliatory, or Irenical Animadversions, on the Controversies Agitated in Britain, under the Unhappy Names of Antinomians and Neonomians, trans. Thomas Bell (Glasgow: W. Land, 1807). 130. Herman Witsius, Oeconomy of the Covenants, trans. William Crookshank, 3 vols. (London:  Edward Dilly, 1763); Witsius, Oeconomy of the Covenants, trans. William Crookshank, 3 vols. (New  York:  Thomas Kirk, 1804); Witsius, The Economy of the Covenants between God and Man, trans. William Crookshank, 2 vols. (Edinburgh: John Turnbull, 1803); Witsius, The Economy of the Covenants between God and Man, trans. William Crookshank, 2 vols. (London:  R. Baynes, 1822); Witsius, The Economy of the Covenants Between God and Man, trans. William Crookshank, 2 vols. (London: T. Tegg & Son, 1837). 131. Arnold Huigen, “Calvin’s Reception in the Nineteenth Century,” in The Calvin Handbook, ed. Herman J. Selderhuis (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009), 491. 132. Witsius, Economy of the Covenants, I.vi.2. 133. Hodge, Outlines of Theology, 314; Dick, Lectures in Theology, I:474–​75. 134. Johann P. Gabler, “An Oration on the Proper Distinction between Biblical and Dogmatic Theology and the Specific Objectives of Each,” in The Flowering of Old Testament Theology: A Reader in Twentieth-​Century Old Testament Theology, 1930–​ 90, eds. Ben C. Ollenbruger, Elmer A. Martens, and Gerhard F. Hasel (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns: 1992), 489. Arguably, historico-​critical interpretive trajectories received impetus from Remonstrant scriptural interpretive principles (see Keith A. Stanglin, “The Rise and Fall of Biblical Perspicuity: Remonstrants and the Transition Towards Modern Exegesis,” Church History 83/​1 [2014]: 38–​59, esp. 40–​ 41, 52–​53, 56–​57; Kęstutis Daugirdas, “Ratio recta scripturae interpres: The Biblical Hermeneutics of Simon Episcopius before 1634 and Its Impact,” Bulletin annuel de l’Institut d’histoire de la Réformation 32 [2010–​11]: 37–​49). 135. Gabler, “Oration,” 495–​96. 136. Dick, Confessions of Faith, 4. 137. Johannes Zachhuber, “The Historical Turn,” and David Lincicum, “Criticism and Authority,” in The Oxford Handbook of Nineteenth-​Century Christian Thought, eds. Joel D.  S. Rasmussen, Judith Wolfe, and Johannes Zachhuber (Oxford:  Oxford University Press, 2017), 53–​71, 72–​88. 138. Benjamin Jowett, “On the Interpretation of Scripture,” in On the Interpretation of Scripture and Other Essays (London: George Routledge & Sons, Ltd., 1907), 55; cf. William J. Abraham, “Scripture,” in The Oxford Handbook of Nineteenth-​Century Christian Thought, eds. Joel D. S. Rasmussen, Judith Wolfe, and Johannes Zachhuber (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2017), 629–​42. 139. Immanuel Kant, Correspondence, trans. and ed. A. Swig (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999), 148–​49; cf. Zachhuber, “Historical Turn,” 56. The reference to Michaelis is to Johann David Michaelis (1717–​91), a famous Orientalist and theologian at Göttingen who co-​founded the historico-​critical interpretation of the Old Testament (Kant, Correspondence, 149 n. 3).

266 Notes 140. Richard A. Muller, Post-​ Reformation Reformed Dogmatics:  The Rise and Development of Reformed Orthodoxy, ca. 1520 to ca. 1725, vol. 2 (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2003), 455. 141. Hodge, Systematic Theology, II:117. 142. Michael C. Legaspi, The Death of Scripture and the Rise of Biblical Studies (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010). 143. Gabler, “Oration,” 501. 144. Legaspi, Death of Scripture, 48. 145. Abraham, “Scripture,” 629, 632, 634. 146. Heiko A. Oberman, The Harvest of Medieval Theology:  Gabriel Biel and Late Medieval Nominalism (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1963), 371–​72. 147. Mark A. Noll, “Chaotic Coherence:  Sola Scriptura and the Twentieth-​Century Spread of Christianity,” in Protestantism after 500 Years, eds. Thomas Albert Howard and Mark A. Noll (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2016), 274–​75. 148. Dick, Confessions of Faith,  10–​15. 149. Dick, Confessions of Faith,  25–​26. 150. Colquhoun, Covenant of Works, 273. 151. Hodge, Outlines of Theology, 309. 152. Hodge, Systematic Theology, II:117; see also Lusk, Covenant of Works, 78. 153. Note, e.g., Joseph Cottle, Strictures on the Plymouth Antinomians (London:  T. Cadell, Strand, 1823). 154. Robert Burns, “Holy Willie’s Prayer,” in Burns (New  York:  Alfred A.  Knopf, 2007),  76–​81. 155. John Bligh, “The Doctrinal Premises of Hogg’s Confessions of a Justified Sinner,” Studies in Scottish Literature 19/​1 (1984): 148–​64. 156. Gribben, “James Hogg, Scottish Calvinism,” 9–​13. 157. Colquhoun, Covenant of Works,  73–​80. 158. Colquhoun, Covenant of Works, 187. 159. Colquhoun, Covenant of Works, 186; also Buchanan, Justification, 300; Shaw, Exposition, 198–​99; Cunningham, Historical Theology, II:88, 359–​60. 160. See Whitney Greer Gamble, “ ‘If Christ fulfilled the law, we are not bound’:  The Westminster Assembly against English Antinomian Soteriology, 1643–​47” (PhD Diss., University of Edinburgh, 2014). 161. John McLeod Campbell, The Nature of the Atonement and Its Relation to Remission of Sins and Eternal Life, 2nd ed. (London: MacMillan and Co., 1867). 162. Campbell, Nature of the Atonement, 9. 163. Campbell, Nature of the Atonement, 33. 164. Campbell, Nature of the Atonement, 50, 75, 77. 165. Campbell, Nature of the Atonement,  54–​55. 166. Campbell, Nature of the Atonement, 77, 94–​95. 167. Campbell, Nature of the Atonement, 108, 111. 168. Colquhoun, Law and Gospel, 177; cf. Ralph Erskine, The Sermons and Other Practical Works of the Reverend and Learned Ralph Erskine, vol. 5 (London: R. Baynes, 1821), serm. LXXI (p. 110). The same quote appears in John Brown of Whitburn, Gospel Truth Accurately Stated and Illustrated by the Rev. Messrs. James Hogg, Thomas

Notes  267 Boston, Ebenezer and Ralph Erskine, and Others; Occasioned by the Republication of the Marrow of Modern Divinity (Canonsburg: Andrew Munro, 1827), 62. 169. Colquhoun, Law and Gospel, 224.

Chapter 10 1. Geerhardus Vos, “The Doctrine of the Covenant in Reformed Theology,” in Redemptive History and Biblical Interpretation: The Shorter Writings of Geerhardus Vos, ed. Richard B. Gaffin Jr. (Phillipsburg, NJ: P & R, 1980), 234–​70. 2. George Harinck, “Geerhardus Vos an Introducer of Kuyper in America,” in The Dutch-​American Experience, eds. Hans Krabbendam and Larry J. Wagenaar (Amsterdam:  VU Uitgeverij, 2000), 243–​ 62; Harinck, “Herman Bavinck and Geerhardus Vos,” Calvin Theological Journal 45 (2010): 18–​31. For biographical information on Vos, see Ransom Lewis Webster, “Geerhardus Vos (1862–​1949):  A Biographical Sketch,” Westminster Theological Journal 40/​2 (1978):  304–​17. For Bavinck’s and Berkouwer’s interaction with Vos, see G. C. Berkouwer, Divine Election, Studies in Dogmatics (Grand Rapids:  Eerdmans, 1960), 165. Berkouwer cites and quotes the Dutch edition of Vos’s lecture (Geerhardus Vos, De Verbondsleer in de Gereformeerde Theologie [Rotterdam: Mazijk’s Uit—​geversbureau, 1939]). For Bavinck’s interaction with Vos, see Herman Bavinck, Reformed Dogmatics, 4 vols., trans. John Vriend, ed. John Bolt (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2003–​07), III:210 n. 32, 216 n. 48, 227 n. 64. Also noteworthy is that Bavinck cites a shorter essay on the covenant (Bavinck, Reformed Dogmatics, III:205 n. 11; cf. Geerhardus Vos, “Covenant,” in A Dictionary of Christ and the Gospels, 2 vols., ed. James Hastings [New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1906–​08], I:373–​80). For Berkhof ’s interaction, see Louis Berkhof, Systematic Theology:  New Combined Edition (1932–​38; Grand Rapids:  Eerdmans, 1996), 275–​76. For Vos’s epistolary exchanges with Bavinck, Warfield, Kuyper, and others, see Geerhardus Vos, The Letters of Geerhardus Vos, ed. James T. Dennison Jr. (Phillipsburg, NJ: P & R, 2005). 3. Geerhardus Vos, “To B. B. Warfield, 7 July 1891,” in The Letters of Geerhardus Vos, ed. James T. Dennison Jr. (Phillipsburg, NJ: P & R, 2005), 160–​64. 4. See J. V. Fesko, “Vos and Berkhof on Union with Christ and Justification,” Calvin Theological Journal 47 (2012): 50–​71. 5. Heinrich Heppe, Reformed Dogmatics, trans. G. W. Thomson, ed. Ernst Bizer (London:  Unwin Ltd., 1950); Gottlob Schrenk, Gottesreich und Bund in Älteren Protestantismus vornehmlich bei Johannes Cocceius (1923; Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1967); cf., e.g., Rinse H. Reeling-​Brouwer, Karl Barth and Post-​ Reformation Orthodoxy (Aldershot: Ashgate, 2015), 1–​148. 6. Karl Barth, Church Dogmatics, 14 vols., eds. G. W. Bromiley and T. F. Torrance (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1936–​68), IV/​1:54–​55. 7. The plain facts of history contradict such a claim, as covenant theologians were also scholastic. Such a wedding appears, for example, in the theology of Herman Witsius. On the confluence of covenant theology and scholasticism, see, e.g., Joel Beeke, “Gisbert Voetius: Toward a Reformed Marriage of Knowledge and Piety,”

268 Notes in Protestant Scholasticism: Essays in Reassessment, eds. R. Scott Clark and Carl R. Trueman (Eugene, OR: Paternoster, 2005), 227–​43. 8. Barth, Church Dogmatics, IV/​1:55. 9. Barth, Church Dogmatics, IV/​1:62. 10. Barth, Church Dogmatics, IV/​1:62. 11. Barth, Church Dogmatics, IV/​1:63. 12. Barth, Church Dogmatics, IV/​1:58. 13. Barth, Church Dogmatics, IV/​1:140. 14. Barth, Church Dogmatics, IV/​1:59. 15. Barth, Church Dogmatics, III/​1:97. 16. Barth, Church Dogmatics, III/​1:267. 17. Barth, Church Dogmatics, IV/​1:56. 18. See, e.g., Cornelius à Lapide, R. P. Cornelii A Lapide e Societate Jesu, Sacrae Scripturae Olim Lovanni, Postea Romae Professoris, Commentaria in Duodecim Prophetas Minores (ex Typographia Balleoniana, 1761), loc. cit. Hos. 6:7 (p. 111); Augustine, City of God, XVI.xxvii, in NPNF1, II:326; Diego Lañyez, “Disputatio de justitia imputata,” in Jacobi Laínez Disputationes Tridentiae, vol. 2, ed. Hartmannus Grisar (Ratisbonae:  Feliciani Rauch, 1886), II.v (p. 159), II.xxxvii (p.  189); Ambrogio Catharinus, De Lapsu Hominis et Peccato Originali Liber Unus, in Opuscula (Lugduni: apu Mathiam Bonhomme, 1542), 189; cf. Aaron C. Denlinger, Omnes in Adam Ex Pacto Dei: Ambrogio Catarino’s Doctrine of Covenantal Solidarity and Its Influence on Post-​Reformation Reformed Theologians (Göttingen:  Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2010); Richard A. Muller, Post-​Reformation Reformed Dogmatics, 4 vols. (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2003), II:437. 19. Vos makes this same erroneous claim (Vos, “Doctrine of the Covenant,” 239). 20. Cf., e.g., Emil Brunner and Karl Barth, Natural Theology: Comprising “Nature and Grace” by Professor Dr.  Emil Brunner and the Reply “No!” by Dr.  Karl Barth (rep.; Eugene, OR:  Wipf & Stock, 2002), 100–​01, 106; David VanDrunen, “Medieval Natural Law and the Reformation: A Comparison of Aquinas and Calvin,” American Catholic Philosophical Quarterly 80/​1 (2006): 77–​98; VanDrunen, Natural Law and the Two Kingdoms: A Study in the Development of Reformed Social Thought (Grand Rapids:  Eerdmans, 2010), 67–​ 118; Irena Backus, “Calvin’s Concept of Natural and Roman Law,” Calvin Theological Journal 38 (2003):  7–​26; Stephen Grabill, Rediscovering Natural Law in Reformed Theological Ethics (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2006), 1–​21,  70–​97. 21. Herman Hoeksema, Reformed Dogmatics (1966; Grand Rapids:  Reformed Free Publishing Association, 1985), 214–​16. 22. Geerhardus Vos, Reformed Dogmatics, 5 vols., ed. Richard B. Gaffin Jr. et  al. (Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2012–​14), II:45–​47, also 97; Vos, “Doctrine of the Covenant,” 234–​70. The same type of heavy interaction with early modern sources appears in Herman Bavinck’s treatment of covenant theology. One must consult the original Dutch edition to see the cornucopia of sources that he names, as they have been elided from the English translation, though the editor acknowledges this (see,

Notes  269 e.g., Bavinck, Reformed Dogmatics, II:567–​68, esp. n. 15; cf. Bavinck, Gereformeerde Dogmatiek, 4 vols. [Kampen: J. H. Bos, 1895–​98], II:549–​51). 23. Hoeksema, Reformed Dogmatics, 214. 24. Bavinck argues that the Three Forms “materially” embody the doctrine and cites the Belgic Confession, XIV–​XV; the Heidelberg Catechism qq. 6–​11; and the Canons of Dort III/​IV (Bavinck, Reformed Dogmatics, II:567–​68). 25. Hoeksema, Reformed Dogmatics, 217–​20. 26. Hoeksema, Reformed Dogmatics, 220–​21. 27. Cf. Hodge, Systematic Theology, II:354. 28. For similar comments, see G. C. Berkouwer, Sin, Studies in Dogmatics (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1971), 207–​09. 29. Hoeksema, Reformed Dogmatics, 222–​23. 30. Hoeksema, Reformed Dogmatics, 223. 31. Hoeksema, Reformed Dogmatics, 223. 32. Hoeksema, Reformed Dogmatics, 224–​25. 33. Cf. Geerhardus Vos, The Pauline Eschatology (1930; Phillipsburg, NJ: P & R, 1994), 42–​61; also J. Gresham Machen, The Christian View of Man (1937; Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 1999), 156–​57, 161–​62. 34. John Murray, “Covenant Theology,” in Collected Writings of John Murray, vol. 4 (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 1982), 216–​40. 35. Murray, “Covenant Theology,” 217. 36. Cf. John Eagleton, Thoughts on the Covenant of Works: Epistolary Address, to the Junior Ministers of the Gospel of All Denominations (London: R. Baynes, 1829), 131; “Kelly on the Covenants,” Eclectic Review NS 1 (1861): 66; “Review of Eagleton on the Covenant of Works,” The Morning Watch; or Quarterly Journal on Prophecy, and Theological Review 2 (1830):  177; Crawford Gribben, “James Hogg, Scottish Calvinism and Literary Theory,” Scottish Studies Review 5/​2 (2004): 9–​26; Donald McLeod, “Scottish Calvinism: A Dark, Repressive Force?” Scottish Bulletin of Evangelical Theology 19/​2 (2001): 195–​225, esp. 200–​04. 37. Murray, “Covenant Theology,” 217; cf. Murray, The Covenant of Grace (1953; Phillipsburg, NJ: P & R, 1988), 5–​7. 38. Murray, “Covenant Theology,” 216. 39. For similar views, see Anthony A. Hoekema, Created in God’s Image (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1986), 118–​21. 40. Murray, Covenant of Grace, 7 n. 15; cf. John Kelly, The Divine Covenants: Their Nature and Design (London: 1861), 8; David Russell, A Familiar Survey of the Old and New Covenants (Edinburgh: 1824), 154. 41. John Murray, “Adamic Administration,” in Collected Writings, vol. 2 (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 1977), 50–​51; Murray, The Imputation of Adam’s Sin (Phillipsburg, NJ: P & R, 1977). 42. Murray, “Adamic Administration,” 48. 43. Cf. Westminster Larger Catechism, q. 99.4; cf., e.g., Machen, Christian View of Man, 154–​55.

270 Notes 44. Murray, “Adamic Administration,” 49. 45. Murray, “Adamic Administration,” 48; cf. Francis Turretin, Institutes of Elenctic Theology, trans. George Musgrave Giger, ed. James T. Dennison Jr., 3 vols. (Phillipsburg: P & R, 1992–​97), VIII.iii.7. 46. John Murray, The Epistle to the Romans, NICNT (1959, 1965; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1968), 74–​75; cf., e.g., Westminster Confession, XIX.i; William Pemble, Vindiciae Fidei, or a Treatise of Justification by Faith, 2nd ed. (1625; Oxford: John Adams et al., 1629), IV.i (p. 152); Franciscus Gomarus, Oratio De Foedere Dei, in Opera Theologica Omnia (Amsterdam: Joannis Janssonius, 1664), 2; Robert Rollock, Some Questions and Answers about God’s Covenant and the Sacrament That Is a Seal of God’s Covenant, trans. and ed. Aaron Clay Denlinger (Eugene, OR: Pickwick, 2016), q. 16 (p. 24). 47. Murray, Romans, 122–​23; cf. Thomas Boston, A View of the Covenant of Works from the Sacred Records (Edinburgh: John Gray, 1775), 6. 48. Murray, “Adamic Administration,” 47. 49. Murray, Romans, 180–​ 210; cf. John Calvin, John 1–​10, CNTC (1960; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996), 66; Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, trans. Henry Beveridge (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1957), II.i.7. 50. See Aaron C. Denlinger, “Calvin’s Understanding of Adam’s Relationship to His Posterity:  Recent Assertions of the Reformer’s ‘Federalism’ Evaluated,” Calvin Theological Journal 44 (2009): 226–​50. 51. Murray, Romans, 240. 52. Cf. William Strong, A Discourse of the Two Covenants: Wherein the Nature, Differences, and Effects of the Covenant of Works and of Grace Are Distinctly, Rationally, Spiritually and Practically Discussed (London: Francis Tyton, 1678), I.ii (p. 38). 53. Murray, Romans, 249. 54. Murray, “Leviticus 18:5,” 251–​52; so also Norman Shepherd, Call of Grace: How the Covenant Illumines Salvation and Evangelism (Phillipsburg, NJ: P & R, 2000), 36. 55. Murray, “Leviticus 18:5,” 250. 56. Cf., e.g., The Humble Advice of the Assembly of Divines, Now by Authority of Parliament Sitting at Westminster Concerning a Confession of Faith (London:  Company of Stationers, 1647), VII.ii, XIX.i; Annotations upon All the Books of the Old and New Testament (London: Evan Tyler, 1657), comm. Lev. 18:5. 57. Thomas Goodwin, Of the Creatures, and the Condition of Their State by Creation, in The Works of Thomas Goodwin, 12 vols. (1861–​66; Eureka, CA: Tanski Publications, 1996), II.vi (vol. VII, pp. 49–​50). 58. The annotations of the Synod of Dort (1618–​19) appear to allow for an implication that one of the purposes of Leviticus 18:5 is to serve the normative use of the law (Theodore Haak, ed., The Dutch Annotations upon the Whole Bible [London: Henry Hills, 1657], comm. Lev. 18:5). So also, Edmund Calamy, Two Solemn Covenants (London: Thomas Banks, 1646), 15, 19. 59. Murray, “Leviticus 18:5,” 251. 60. Cf. Machen, Christian View of Man, 149–​60; Oswald T. Allis, “The Covenant of Works,” in Basic Christian Doctrines, ed. Carl F.  H. Henry (New  York:  Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1962), 96–​102; E. J. Young, “Confession and Covenant,” in

Notes  271 Scripture and Confession: A Book about Confessions Old and New, ed. John H. Skilton (Phillipsburg, NJ: P & R, 1973), 31–​66, esp. 38–​40; Cornelius Van Til, The Defense of the Faith, 3rd ed. (1955; Phillipsburg, NJ: P & R, 1967), 90–​95; Jeong Koo Jeon, Covenant Theology: John Murray’s and Meredith G. Kline’s Response to the Historical Development of Federal Theology in Reformed Thought (New  York:  Lanham Press, 1999), 105–​06 n. 4. 61. J. Gresham Machen, Machen’s Notes on Galatians, ed. John H. Skilton (Philadelphia: P & R, 1972), 178–​79, 210–​11. 62. Murray, “Covenant Theology,” 217–​19. 63. Cf. John Calvin, Romans and Thessalonians, CNTC, eds. David W. Torrance and T. F. Torrance (1960; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996), comm. Rom. 10:5 (pp. 222–​ 24); Calvin, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, & Colossians, CNTC, eds. David W. Torrance and T. F. Torrance (1960; Grand Rapids:  Eerdmans, 1996), comm. Gal. 3:12 (pp. 54–​55); Calvin, A Harmony of the Gospels: Matthew, Mark and Luke, and James and Jude, CNTC, vol. 2, eds. David W. Torrance and T. F. Torrance (1960; Grand Rapids:  Eerdmans, 1996), comm. Matt. 19:16–​ 17 (pp. 253–​ 54); Calvin, Commentaries on the Last Four Books of Moses Arranged in the Form of a Harmony, trans. Charles William Bingham, CTS, vol. 3 (rep.; Grand Rapids: Baker, 1993), 203; Calvin, Sermons on Deuteronomy, trans. Arthur Golding (London: Henry Middleton, 1583), serm. L (p. 301). 64. Cf. Calvin, Institutes, IV.xiv.18; Calvin, Genesis, CTS (rep.; Grand Rapids:  Baker, 1979), comm. Gen. 2:9 (pp. 116–​17); Calvin, 1 Corinthians, CNTC, eds. T. F. Torrance and David F. Torrance (1960; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996), comm. 1 Cor. 11:25 (p. 249). 65. John Calvin, Isaiah 1–​32, CTS (rep.; Grand Rapids: Baker, 1993), comm. Isa. 24:5 (p. 170); Calvin, Commentarii in Isaiam (Geneva: Johannes Crispin, 1559), 195. 66. Vos, Reformed Dogmatics, II:31. Like Hodge before him, Vos rejected the idea that God imputes both guilt (reatus culpae) and the liability to punishment (reatus poenae) and followed Hodge’s position that God only imputes the liability to punishment. This position stands in contrast to early modern views, which advocate the imputation of both guilt and liability to punishment. Early modern Reformed theologians rejected the medieval separation of these categories (cf. Vos, Reformed Dogmatics, II:34; Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology, 3 vols. [rep.; Grand Rapids:  Eerdmans, 1993], II:194; Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theolologia [rep.; Allen, TX:  Christian Classics, 1948], IIIa q. 86 art. 4, IaIIae q. 87 art. 1; Heinrich Denzinger, Compendium of Decrees, Definitions, and Declarations on Matters of Faith and Morals, 43rd ed. [San Francisco:  Ignatius Press, 2012], §§1689–​ 92, 1712–​ 15; Zacharias Ursinus, The Commentary of Dr.  Zacharias Ursinus on the Heidelberg Catechism, trans. G. W. Williard [rep.; Phillipsburg, NJ: P & R, n.d.], 40; Ursinus, Corpus Doctrinae Christianae [Hanau: Jonas Rosus, 1651], 43; Calvin, Institutes, II.i.8; Calvin, Institutio Christianae Religonis [Geneva:  Robert Stephanus, 1559]; Turretin, Institutes, IX.iii.1–​7). Vos was not alone, as a number of his Princetonian colleagues also promoted Hodge’s view (A. A. Hodge, Outlines of Theology [1860; Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 1991], 357–​58; B. B. Warfield, “Imputation,” in The Works of B. B. Warfield,

272 Notes 10 vols. [1932; Grand Rapids:  Baker, 1981], IX:301–​08; Caspar Wistar Hodge, “Imputation,” International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, vol. 3, ed. James Orr [1939; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1974], 1462–​66; Machen, Christian View of Man, 11, 216). 67. Vos, Reformed Dogmatics, II:33; cf. Abraham Kuyper, Common Grace, vol. 1 (Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2016), 343. 68. Cf. Geerhardus Vos, Biblical Theology:  Old and New Testaments (1948; Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 2012), 22–​23; Bavinck, Reformed Dogmatics, II:565. 69. Vos, Reformed Dogmatics, II:41. 70. Vos, Reformed Dogmatics, II:43. 71. So also Berkhof, Systematic Theology, 215; O. Palmer Robertson, Christ of the Covenants (Phillipsburg, NJ: P & R, 1980), 67–​81, esp. 67; cf. Kuyper, Common Grace, 196–​98,  227. 72. Vos, Reformed Dogmatics, II:44–​45. 73. Geerhardus Vos, “Hebrews, the Epistle of the Diatheke,” in Redemptive History, 220–​23. 74. Vos, Reformed Dogmatics, II:93–​94. Note that Berkhof uses virtually the identical categories for distinguishing the covenants of works and grace, which points to the fact that he used Vos’s Reformed Dogmatics as an uncited source (Berkhof, Systematic Theology, 272); cf. Bavinck, Reformed Dogmatics, II:570. 75. Cf., e.g., Johannes Scharpius, Cursus Theologicus (Geneva:  Franciscus Nicolaus, 1628), 336–​37. 76. Vos, Reformed Dogmatics, II:35. 77. Cf. Berkhof, Systematic Theology, 213; Robertson, Christ of the Covenants, 25; Kuyper, Common Grace, 194; Meredith G. Kline, By Oath Consigned: A Reinterpretation of the Covenant Signs of Circumcision and Baptism (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1968), 26–​32; Machen, Christian View of Man, 152. 78. Bavinck, Reformed Dogmatics, II:569; cf. similarly Young, “Confession and Covenant,” 58. 79. Vos, Reformed Dogmatics, II:36. Vos’s Princeton colleague B. B. Warfield (1851–​1921) historically documented and exegeted the history of this controverted text and was aware of and agreed with Vos’s view (B. B. Warfield, “Hosea VI.7: Adam or Man?” in Benjamin B. Warfield: Selected Shorter Writings, 2 vols., ed. John E. Meeter [rep.; Phillipsburg, NJ: 2001], 116–​29, esp. 129). Also see Robertson, Christ of the Covenants, 22–​25; Kuyper, Common Grace, 193–​94; Bavinck, Reformed Dogmatics, III:200. 80. Vos, Reformed Dogmatics, II:36, 41–​42, 44, 46, 94. Berkhof, for example, appeals to Rom. 10:5; Gal. 3:12–​13; Rom. 5:12–​21; Hosea 6:7; Lev. 18:5, Ezek. 20:11, 13, 20; and Luke 10:28 in his explanation of the doctrine (Berkhof, Systematic Theology, 214, 216). 81. Vos, Reformed Dogmatics, II:40. 82. Vos, Reformed Dogmatics, II:36; cf. Josua Placaeus, De Imputatione Primi Peccati Adami Josue Placaei in Academia Salmuriensi S. s. Theologiae Professoris Disputatio (Saumur: Johannes Lesnerius, 1661); F. P. Van Stam, The Controversy over the Theology of Saumur, 1635–​1650: Disrupting Debates among the Huguenots in Complicated Circumstances (Amsterdam: APA-​Holland University Press, 1988), 183, 209–​12.

Notes  273 83. Vos, Reformed Dogmatics, II:45; cf. Johannes Cocceius, The Doctrine of the Covenant and Testament of God, trans. Casey Carmichael (Grand Rapids:  Reformation Heritage Books, 2016), III.lviii (pp. 58–​59); Willem Van Asselt, “The Doctrine of the Abrogations in the Federal Theology of Johannes Cocceius (1603–​69),” Calvin Theological Journal 29 (1994):  101–​16. Berkhof, by contrast, presents a simpler, more common understanding of the abrogation of the covenant of works (Berkhof, Systematic Theology, 218). 84. Vos, Reformed Dogmatics, II:47; Vos, Biblical Theology, 27–​33; cf. Cocceius, Doctrine of the Covenant, II.xxx, xli (pp. 41, 47); Johannes Braunius, Doctrina Foederum, sive Systema Theologiae (Amsterdam: Abraham von Someren, 1691), 262–​65; Herman Witsius, Economy of the Covenants between God and Man:  Comprehending a Complete Body of Divinity, 2 vols., trans. William Crookshank (1822; Escondido, CA: Den Dulk Foundation, 1990), I.vi.2. 85. Vos, Reformed Dogmatics, II:81; cf., e.g., Turretin, Institutes of Elenctic Theology, XII. vii.31. 86. Vos, Reformed Dogmatics, II:93; cf. Bavinck, Reformed Dogmatics, II:570, 572; Machen, Christian View of Man, 153. 87. Vos, Reformed Dogmatics, II:32. 88. Cf. Witsius, Economy of the Covenants, I.i.14–​15, ii.1–​3; I.ix.16; Johannes Cocceius, Summa Theologiae, in Opera Omnia, vol. 7 (Amsterdam:  1701), XXII.xxiii–​xxiv, xxvii–​xxviii (p. 206); Benedict Pictet, Christian Theology (London: R. B. Seeley and W. Burnside, 1834), VII (p. 153); Pictet, Theologia Christiana (London: R. Baynes, 1820), VII.iv (p.  130); Salomon Van Til, Theologiae Revelatae Compendium, in Theologiae Utrisque Compendium (Leiden: Jordan Luchtmans, 1704), II.ii (pp. 87–​ 88); Braunius, Doctrina Foederum, 259–​60; Denlinger, Omnes in Adam, 239–​44. 89. Vos, Reformed Dogmatics II:47. 90. Vos, Reformed Dogmatics, II:94; cf., e.g., Anthony Burgess, Vindiciae Legis:  or, A Vindication of the Morall Law and the Covenants (London: Thomas Underhill, 1647), 104, 113. 91. Murray, Covenant of Grace, 7 n. 15; cf. Herman N. Ridderbos, The Epistle of Paul to the Churches of Galatia, NICNT (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1953), 130; Young, “Confession and Covenant,” 42. 92. James Barr, The Semantics of Biblical Language (London: Oxford University Press, 1961), 102, 202–​62. 93. D. A. Carson, Exegetical Fallacies, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1996), 28–​32. 94. Witsius, Economy of the Covenants, I.i.2. 95. Witsius, Economy of the Covenants, I.i.3. 96. Witsius, Economy of the Covenants, I.i.7. 97. Witsius, Economy of the Covenants, I.i.10. 98. Vos, Reformed Dogmatics, II:76. 99. Bavinck, Reformed Dogmatics, II:568. 100. Vos, Reformed Dogmatics, II:76–​83; Bavinck, Reformed Dogmatics, III:202–​06. 101. Vos, Reformed Dogmatics, II:77; cf. Vos, Biblical Theology, 23–​26; similarly Young, “Confession and Covenant,” 42. 102. Cf. Vos, “Hebrews, Epistle of the Diatheke,” in Redemptive History, 172–​73.

274 Notes 103. Vos, Reformed Dogmatics, II:77–​78. 104. Vos, Reformed Dogmatics, II:78–​79; cf. Vos, “Hebrews, the Epistle of the Diatheke,” in Redemptive History, 161–​233. 105. Bavinck, Reformed Dogmatics, III:203. 106. On Barth’s idealism, see Gary Dorrien, Kantian Reason and Hegelian Spirit:  The Idealistic Logic of Modern Theology (West Sussex:  John Wiley and Sons, 2015), 562–​ 64; Hans Urs Von Balthasar, The Theology of Karl Barth, 3rd ed. (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1992), 220–​50. 107. Paul W. Franks, All or Nothing:  Systematicity, Transcendental Arguments, and Skepticism in German Idealism (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2005), 17, 61, 85–​86, 146–​47. 108. Richard A. Muller, “A Note on ‘Christocentrism’ and the Imprudent Use of Such Terminology,” Westminster Theological Journal 68/​2 (2006): 253–​60. 109. Cf., e.g., Isaac A. Dorner, A System of Christian Doctrine, 4 vols. (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1888), I:169–​70; Emanuel V. Gerhart, Institutes of the Christian Religion, 2 vols. (New York: A. C. Armstrong & Son, 1891), I:15; Philip Schaff, Theological Propaedeutic: A General Introduction to the Study of Theology (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1893), 362–​63; Richard A. Muller, “Emanuel V.  Gerhart on the ‘Christ-​ Idea’ as Fundamental Principle,” Westminster Theological Journal 48 (1986): 97–​117. 110. Muller, “Fundamental Principle,” 114. 111. Muller, “A Note on ‘Christocentrism,’ ” 253–​60. 112. Geehardus Vos, “To Herman Bavinck, 3 July 1893,” in Letters, 175, emphasis. 113. Cf. e.g., A. B. Van Zandt, “The Doctrine of the Covenants Considered as the Central Principle of Theology,” Presbyterian Review III (1882): 28–​39. 114. Vos, “To Bavinck, 3 July 1893,” in Letters, 176. Note Bavinck’s similar argument when he supports the federal headship of Adam, not from exegesis but from a philosophical principle: “Generally speaking, the law of architectonics everywhere requires the monarchical system. A work of art must be controlled by a single thought; a sermon must have a single theme; a church comes to completeness in a steeple; the man is the head of the family; in a kingdom the king [or queen] is the bearer of authority; as an organic whole, and ethical community, the human race is not conceivable without a head. In the covenant of works Adam had that position” (Bavinck, Reformed Dogmatics, III:578). 115. Vos, “To Bavinck, 1 February 1894,” in Letters, 182–​83, emphasis; cf. Gustav Friedrich Oehler, Theology of the Old Testament, trans. George E. Day (New York: Funk & Wagnall’s, 1883), 88–​198. Young has a brief overview of the various organizing principles for different biblical theologies that rejected covenant as the organizing principle and instead opted for the holiness of God, the lordship of God, or Christology (Young, “Confession and Covenant,” 34). On the other hand, Young also notes that Eichrodt believed that covenant was indeed the best organizing principle (Walter Eichrodt, Theology of the Old Testament, 2 vols. [Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1967]). 116. For Vos’s congenial stance toward idealism, see Geerhardus Vos, “The Prospects of American Theology,” Kerux 20/​1 (2005): 12–​52, esp., e.g., 21–​24.

Notes  275 117. Hoeksema, Reformed Dogmatics, 287, 292. 118. On Barth’s existentialism, see, e.g., George Hunsinger, How to Read Karl Barth: The Shape of His Theology (New  York:  Oxford University Press, 1991), 152–​84; von Balthasar, Theology of Karl Barth, 34, 68–​73, 90–​91; Dorrien, Kantian Reason and Hegelian Spirit, 466. 119. Barth, Church Dogmatics, I/​1:279. 120. Karl Barth, “Foreword,” in Heppe, Reformed Dogmatics,  v–​vii. 121. Barth, Church Dogmatics, IV/​1:55. 122. Karl Barth, The Theology of John Calvin, trans. G. W. Bromiley (1922; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995), 8. 123. Richard A. Muller, The Unaccommodated Calvin:  Studies in the Foundation of a Theological Tradition (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000), 39–​61. 124. Muller, Unaccommodated Calvin, 101–​17. 125. Richard A. Muller, After Calvin: Studies in the Development of a Theological Tradition (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003), 25–​46, 63–​104. 126. Barth, “Foreword,” in Heppe, Reformed Dogmatics, v. 127. Pieter L. Rouwendal, “The Method of the Schools:  Medieval Scholasticism,” in Introduction to Reformed Scholasticism, eds. Willem Van Asselt et al., trans. Albert Gootjes (Grand Rapids: Reformation Heritage Books, 2011), 56–​72. 128. Francis Turretin, Sermons sur Divers Passages de L’Ecriture Sainte Par Francois Turrettin Ministre du Saint Evangile, & Professeur en Theologie (Geneva:  Samuel de Tournes, 1676); cf., e.g., J. Mark Beach, “Preaching Predestination—​ An Examination of Francis Turretin’s Sermon De l’Affermissement de la Vocation et de l’Election du Fidele,” Mid-​America Journal of Theology 21 (2010): 133–​47. 129. See, e.g., Wilhelmus à Brakel, The Christian’s Reasonable Service, 4 vols., trans. Bartel Elshout (Morgan, PA: Soli Deo Gloria, 1992). 130. Murray, Covenant of Grace,  4–​5. 131. Murray, “Covenant Theology,” 217–​19. 132. Some may counter that his essay on the Adamic administration was written for a popular audience, but the same patterns of argument mark his classroom lectures on the same topic. He only cites Vos’s Biblical Theology, J. H. Thornwell’s (1812–​ 62) lectures, and Calvin’s Institutes (see John Murray, Student Lecture Notes on Anthropology [Philadelphia: Westminster Theological Seminary, n.d.], 45–​55; Vos, Biblical Theology, 27–​40; J.  H. Thornwell, The Collected Writings of James Henley Thornwell, vol. 1, ed. John B.  Adger [Richmond, VA:  Presbyterian Committee of Publications, 1871], 252–​300). So, if this set of lecture notes reveals anything, Murray did not interact with or expose his students to early modern sources on the covenant of works. One of the likely contributing factors to Murray’s biblicism was the desire to demonstrate the scriptural nature of his theology to his dispensational critics. Citing chapter and verse of early modern sources would have proven unpersuasive; hence he focused on exegesis, which the dispensational Bible church movement found more persuasive (see John D.  Hanna, An Uncommon Union:  Dallas Theological Seminary and American Evangelicalism [Grand Rapids:  Zondervan,  2009], 121, 285–​87, 294; R.  Todd Mangum, The

276 Notes Dispensational-​Covenantal Rift:  The Fissuring of American Evangelical Theology from 1936 to 1944 [Eugene, OR: Paternoster, 2009]). The modern antipathy to historic sources, nevertheless, shaped and pressed Murray’s theology into its mold. 133. Robertson, Christ of the Covenants,  67–​87. 134. Kline, By Oath Consigned, 15–​16, 20, 22, 27, 35. 135. Young, “Confession and Covenant,” 31–​66. 136. Meredith G. Kline, “Comments on an Old-​ New Error:  A Review Article,” Westminster Theological Journal 41/​1 (1978): 172–​89, esp. 173; cf., e.g., Sinclair B. Ferguson, “An Assembly of Theonomists? The Teaching of the Westminster Divines on the Law of God,” in Theonomy: A Reformed Critique, eds. William S. Barker and W. Robert Godfrey (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1991), 315–​52. 137. Meredith G. Kline, “Gospel until the Law: Rom 5:13–​14 and the Old Covenant,” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 34/​4 (1991): 433–​46, esp. 433–​36; cf. Mark W. Karlberg, “The Original Tensions within Reformed Theology,” Evangelical Quarterly 87 (1987): 291–​309. 138. On the divorce between exegesis and dogmatics, see Michael C. Legaspi, The Death of Scripture and the Rise of Biblical Studies (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011). 139. Vos, “To Bavinck, 1 February 1890,” and, “To Kuyper, 8 February 1890,” in Letters, 131–​35. 140. Vos, “Prospects of American Theology,” 49–​50.

Conclusion 1. Wilhelmus à Brakel, The Christian’s Reasonable Service, 4 vols., trans. Bartel Elshout (Morgan, PA: Soli Deo Gloria, 1992), I:355.

Bibliography Primary Sources À Brakel, Wilhelmus. The Christian’s Reasonable Service, 4 vols., trans. Bartel Elshout (Morgan, PA: Soli Deo Gloria, 1992). Allestree, Richard. The Whole Duty of Man: Laid Down in a Plain and Familiar Way for the Use of All, but Especially for the Meanest Reader (London: W. Norton, 1704). Allis, Oswald T. “The Covenant of Works,” in Basic Christian Doctrines, ed. Carl F. H. Henry (New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1962): 96–​102. Alsted, Johann Heinrich. Lexicon Theologicum (Antonius Hummius, 1612). Alsted, Johann Heinrich. Synopsis Theologiae (Hanau: Conrad Eyfridius, 1627). Ames, William. The Marrow of Theology, trans. John Dykstra Eusden (1968; Grand Rapids: Baker, 1997). Annotations upon All the Books of the Old and New Testament (London: Evan Tyler, 1657). Anselm. Anselm of Canterbury:  The Major Works, ed. Brian Davies (Oxford:  Oxford University Press, 1998). Anselm. Book of Meditations and Prayers, trans. M. Rul (London: Burns and Oates, 1872). Aquinas, Thomas. Commentary on the Letter of Saint Paul to the Romans, trans. F. R. Larcher, vol. 37, Latin/​English Edition of the Works of St. Thomas Aquinas (Lander, WY: Aquinas Institute for the Study of Sacred Doctrine, 2012). Aquinas, Thomas. Summa Theologica (Allen, TX: Christian Classics, 1948). Aquinas, Thomas. Truth, 3 vols., trans. Robert W. Mulligan (1952; Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2008). Aristotle. The Basic Works of Aristotle, ed. Richard McKeon (New  York:  Random House, 1941). Arminius, Jacob. The Missing Public Disputations of Jacobus Arminius: Introduction, Text, and Notes, ed. Keith D. Stanglin (Leiden: Brill, 2010). Arminius, Jacob. Opera Theologica (Leiden: Godefrid Basson, 1629). Arminius, Jacob. The Works of James Arminius, 3 vols. (1875; Grand Rapids: Baker, 1996). Articles of Religion Agreed upon by the Archbishops and Bishops, and the Rest of the Cleargie of Ireland, in the Convocation (Dublin: John Franketon, 1615). Augustine. The Literal Meaning of Genesis, vol. 41, Ancient Christian Writers, trans. John Hammond Taylor (New York: Paulist Press, 1982). Bangs, C. O. The Auction Catalogue of the Library of J.  Arminius:  A Facsimile Edition (Utrecht: HES Publishers, 1985). Barth, Karl. Church Dogmatics. 14 vols., eds. G. W. Bromiley and T. F. Torrance (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1936–​68).

278 Bibliography Barth, Karl. The Theology of John Calvin, trans. G. W. Bromiley (1922; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995). Baius, Michael. De Prima Hominis Justitia, et Virtutibus Impiorum, in Michaelis Baii Opera (Cologne: Balthasar ab Egmont, 1696). Bavinck, Herman. Gereformeerde Dogmatiek, 4 vols. (Kampen: J. H. Bos, 1895–​98). Bavinck, Herman. Reformed Dogmatics, 4 vols., trans. John Vriend, ed. John Bolt (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2003–​07). Baxter, Richard. Aphorismes of Justification (London: Francis Tyton, 1649). Bell, Thomas. A View of the Covenants of Works and Grace; and a Treatise on the Nature and Effects of Saving Faith (Glasgow: Edward Khull, 1814). Bellamy, Joseph. The Covenant of Grace, Proved from the Word of God, in The Works of the Rev. Joseph Bellamy, 3 vols. (New York: Stephen Doge, 1812). Bellarmine, Robert. Disputationes de Contrversiis Christianae Fidei, 4 vols. (London: Sartorius, 1601). Berkhof, Louis. Systematic Theology: New Combined Edition (1932, 1938; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996). Berkouwer, G. C. Divine Election, Studies in Dogmatics (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1960). Berkouwer, G. C. Sin, Studies in Dogmatics (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1971). Blake, Thomas. Vindiciae Foederis; or, A Treatise of the Covenant of God Entered with Man-​ Kinde, 2nd ed. (London: Abel Roper, 1658). Bolton, Samuel. The True Bounds of Christian Freedome (London: P. S., 1656) Booth, Abraham. An Essay on the Kingdom of Christ to Which Is Added the Doctrine of the Covenants Wherein Is Shewn That There Never Was a Covenant of Works Made with Adam by Samuel Jones (Norwich: John Sterry, 1801). Boston, Thomas. A General Account of My Life (London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1908). Boston, Thomas. Human Nature in Its Fourfold State (Falkirk: Patrick Mair, 1787). Boston, Thomas. An Illustration of the Doctrines of the Christian Religion, 3 vols. (Edinburgh: Schaw and Pillans, 1796). Boston, Thomas. Memoirs of the Life, Times, and Writings of the Rev. Thomas Boston (Aberdeen: George and Robert King, 1852). Boston, Thomas. The Marrow of Modern Divinity, 13th ed. (1645; Edinburgh:  R. Drummond and Co., 1745). Boston, Thomas. A View of the Covenant of Works from the Sacred Records, 2nd ed. (Edinburgh: John Gray, 1775). Bradwardine, Thomas. De Causa Dei, Contra Pelagium et De Virtute Causarum (London: John Bill, 1618). Bridge, William. Christ and the Covenant (London: N. Ranew, 1667). Brown (of Haddington), John. A Compendious View of Natural and Revealed Religion in Seven Books (Glasgow: John Bryce, 1782). Brown (of Haddington), John. An Essay Towards an Easy, Plain, Practical, and Extensive Explication of the Assembly’s Shorter Catechism, 8th ed. (Edinburgh: J. Ogle, 1812). Brown (of Whitburn), John. Gospel Truth Accurately Stated and Illustrated by the Rev. Messrs. James Hogg, Thomas Boston, Ebenezer and Ralph Erskine, and Others; Occasioned by the Republication of the Marrow of Modern Divinity (Canonsburg:  Andrew Munro, 1827). Brunner, Emil, and Karl Barth. Natural Theology:  Comprising “Nature and Grace” by Professor Dr.  Emil Brunner and the Reply “No!” by Dr.  Karl Barth (rep.; Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2002).

Bibliography  279 Bucanus, Gulielmus. Body of Divinity or Institutions of Christian Religion, trans. Robert Hill (London: Daniel Pakeman et al., 1659). Bucanus, Gulielmus. Institutiones Theologicae seu Locorum Communium Christianae Religionis (Bern: John and Isaiah Le Preux, 1605). Bucer, Martin. Metaphrasis et Enarratio in Epist. D. Pauli Apostoli ad Romanos (Basel: Peter Pernus, 1562). Buchanan, James. The Doctrine of Justification: And Outline of Its History in the Church, and of Its Exposition from Scripture (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1867). Bullinger, Heinrich. A Brief Exposition of the One and Eternal Testament or Covenant of God (1534), ed. and trans. Charles McCoy and J. Wayne Baker, in Fountainhead of Federalism:  Heinrich Bullinger and the Covenantal Tradition (Louisville, KY: Westminster/​John Knox Press, 1991). Bullinger, Heinrich. The Decades of Henry Bullinger, 2 vols., trans. Thomas Harding (1849–​52; Grand Rapids: Reformation Heritage Books, 2004). Bullinger, Heinrich. De Testamento seu Foedere Dei Unico et Aeterno (Zurich: Christoph Frosch, 1534). Burgess, Anthony. The Doctrine of Original Sin (London: Thomas Underhill, 1659). Burgess, Anthony. Vindiciae Legis: or, A Vindication of the Morall Law and the Covenants (London: Thomas Underhill, 1647). Burns, Robert. Burns (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2007). Burroughs, Jeremiah. Gospel Conversation (London: Peter Cole, 1653). Buxtorf, Johannes. Lexicon Hebraicum et Chaldaicum Complectens (Basel:  Conrad Waldkirch, 1600). Calamy, Edmund. Two Solemn Covenants (London: Thomas Banks, 1646). Calvin, John. Commentarii in Epistolam Pauli ad Galatas (Geneva: Jean Girard, 1548). Calvin, John. Commentarii in Isaiam (Geneva: Johannes Crispin, 1559). Calvin, John. Commentaries on the Last Four Books of Moses Arranged in the Form of a Harmony, trans. Charles William Bingham, CTS, vol. 3 (rep.; Grand Rapids: Baker, 1993). Calvin, John. 1 Corinthians, CNTC, eds. T. F. Torrance and David F. Torrance (1960; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996). Calvin, John. Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, & Colossians, CNTC, eds. David W. Torrance and T. F. Torrance (1960; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996). Calvin, John. Genesis, CTS (rep.; Grand Rapids: Baker, 1979). Calvin, John. Hosea. CTS. (rep.; Grand Rapids: Baker, 1993). Calvin, John. Institutes of the Christian Religion, trans. Henry Beveridge (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1957). Calvin, John. Institutio Christianae Religionis (Geneva: Robert Stephanus, 1559). Calvin, John. Isaiah 1–​32, CTS (rep.; Grand Rapids: Baker, 1993). Calvin, John. John 1–​10, CNTC (1960; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996). Calvin, John. Romans and Thessalonians, CNTC (1960; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996). Cambell, John McLeod. The Nature of the Atonement and its Relation to Remission of Sins and Eternal Life, 2nd ed. (London: MacMillan and Co., 1867). Cameron, John. De Triplici Dei Cum Homine Foedere Theses (Heidelberg: 1608). Cameron, John. Ioannnis Cermonis Scoto-​Britanni Theologi Eximij Ta Sosomena, sive Opera Partim ab Auctore Ipso Edita (Frankfurt: Clement Schleich Haered, 1642).

280 Bibliography Cameron, John. Ioh. Cameronis S.  Theologiae in Academia Salmuriensi Nuper Professoris, Praelectionum Tomus Tertius et Ultimus (Saumur:  Cl. Girard & Dan. Lerpiner, 1628). Cameron, John. Myrothecium Evangelicum (Saumur: I. et H. Desbordes, 1677). Cartwright, Thomas. Cartwrightiana, ed. Albert Peel and Leland H. Carlson (London: George Allen and Unwin Ltd., 1951). Cartwright, Thomas. A Treatise of Christian Religion: Substantially, Methodicallie, Plainlie, and Profitablie Treatised (London: Felix Kingston, 1611). Catharinus, Ambrogio. Opuscula (Lugduni: apu Mathiam Bonhomme, 1542). Cocceius, Johannes. The Doctrine of the Covenant and Testament of God, trans. Casey Carmichael (Grand Rapids: Reformation Heritage Books, 2016). Cocceius, Johannes. Opera Omnia, vol. 7 (Amsterdam: 1701). Cocceius, Johannes. Summa Theologiae Ex Scripturis Repetita, 2nd. ed. (Geneva: Johannes Herman Widerhold, 1665). Colquhoun, John. A Treatise on the Covenant of Works (Edinburgh: Thomsons Brothers, 1821). Colquhoun, John. A Treatise on the Law and the Gospel (New York: Wiley & Long, 1835). A Confession of Faith Put Forth by the Elders and Brethren of Many Congregations (Baptized upon Their Profession of Faith) in London and the Country (London: 1677). Cooper, William. “The Covenant of Works,” in Puritan Sermons 1659–​1689, 6 vols. (1659; 1845; Wheaton, IL: Richard Owen Roberts, 1981), V:93–​103. Cottle, Joseph. Strictures on the Plymouth Antinomians (London: T. Cadell, Strand, 1823). Coxe, Nehemiah. A Discourse of the Covenants That God Made with Men before the Law (J. D., 1681). Crisp, Tobias. Christ Alone Exalted:  Being the Compleat Works of Tobias Crisp, D.  D. Containing XLII Sermons, 2 vols. (London: William Marshall, 1690). Cunningham, William. Historical Theology:  A Review of the Principal Doctrinal Discussions in the Christian Church since the Apostolic Age, 2nd ed., vol. 1 (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1864). Cunningham, William. The Reformers and the Theology of the Reformation, in The Collected Works of the Rev. William Cunningham, vol. 1 (Edinburgh:  T & T Clark, 1862). Dabney, Robert L. Syllabus and Notes of the Course of Systematic and Polemic Theology (St. Louis, MO: Presbyterian Publishing Co., 1878). Davenant, John. A Dissertation on the Death of Christ, in An Exposition of the Epistle of St. Paul to the Colossians, trans. Josiah Allport (1627; London: Hamilton, Adams, and Co., 1831). A Declaration of the Faith and Order Owned and Practiced in the Congregational Churches in England (London: John Field, 1659). Dennison, James T., Jr., ed. Reformed Confessions of the 16th and 17th Centuries in English Translation, 4 vols. (Grand Rapids: Reformation Heritage Books, 2008–​2014). Denzinger, Heinrich. Compendium of Creeds, Definitions, and Declarations on Matters of Faith and Morals, 43rd ed. (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2012). Dick, John. Confessions of Faith Shown to Be Necessary, and the Duty of Churches with Respect to Them Explained in a Sermon (Edinburgh: William Laing, 1796). Dick, John. Lectures on Theology, 2 vols. (New York: M. W. Dodd, 1850). Dickson, David. Truths Victory of Error (Edinburgh: John Reed, 1684).

Bibliography  281 Doddridge, Philip. The Works of the Rev. P.  Doddridge, 10 vols. (Leeds:  Edward Baines, 1804). Dorner, Isaac A. A System of Christian Doctrine, 4 vols. (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1888). Downame, John [Henry Finch]. The Summe of Sacred Divinitie (London: William Stansby, 1625[?]‌). Du Moulin, Pierre. The Anatomy of Arminianisme: or The Opening of the Controversies Lately Handled in the Low-​Coutnryes, Concerning the Doctrine of Providence, of Predestination, of the Death of Christ, of Nature and Grace (London:  Nathaniel Newberry, 1620). Duncan, James. A Treatise on the Covenant of Works, Man’s Fall and His Recovery through Jesus Christ (Pittsburgh, PA: S. Engles & Co., 1813). Duns Scotus, John. Duns Scotus on the Will and Morality, trans. Allan B. Wolter and William A. Frank (Washington, DC: Catholic University of America Press, 1997). Duns Scotus, John. Ordinis Minorum, Questiones in Lib. IV Sententiarum, in Johannes Duns Scotus Opera Omnia, vol. 8 (1629; Hildesheim:  Georg Olms Verlagsbuchhandlung, 1968). Eagleton, John. Memoirs of the Rev. John Eagleton: Late Minister of Ramsden-​Street Chapel, Huddersfield (London: Huddersfield H. Roebuck, 1841). Eagleton, John. Thoughts on the Covenant of Works:  Epistolary Address, to the Junior Ministers of the Gospel of All Denominations (London: R. Baynes, 1829). Edwards, Jonathan. A History of the Work of Redemption; Comprising an Outline of Church History (New York: American Tract Society, 1816). Eichrodt, Walter. Theology of the Old Testament, 2 vols. (Philadelphia:  Westminster Press, 1967). Erskine, Ebenezer. The Assembly’s Shorter Catechism Explained (Edinburgh:  Daniel Blow, 1764). Erskine, Ralph. The Sermons and Other Practical Works of the Reverend and Learned Ralph Erskine, vol. 5. (London: R. Baynes, 1821). Fenner, Dudley. Sacra Theologia Sive Veritas quae est secundum Pietatem (Geneva: Eustathium Vignon, 1586). Ferguson, Everett. “The Covenant Idea in the Second Century,” in Texts and Testaments: Critical Essays on the Bible and Early Church Fathers, ed. W. Eugene March (San Antonio, TX: Trinity University Press, 1980): 135–​62. Ferguson, Sinclair. “An Assembly of Theonomists? The Teaching of the Westminster Divines on the Law of God,” in Theonomy: A Reformed Critique, eds. William S. Barker and W. Robert Godfrey (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1991), 315–​52. Fisher, Edward. The Marrow of Modern Divinity: Touching Both the Covenant of Works, and the Covenant of Grace (London: G. Calvert, 1645). Fisher, George Park. Discussions in History and Theology (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1880). Fisher, George Park. History of Christian Doctrine (New  York:  Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1911). Gabler, Johann P. “An Oration on the Proper Distinction between Biblical and Dogmatic Theology and the Specific Objectives of Each,” in The Flowering of Old Testament Theology:  A Reader in Twentieth-​Century Old Testament Theology, 1930–​ 90, eds. Ben C. Ollenbruger, Elmer A. Martens, and Gerhard F. Hasel (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns: 1992): 489–​502.

282 Bibliography Gerhart, Emmanuel. Institutes of the Christian Religion, 2 vols. (New  York:  A. C. Armstrong & Son, 1891). Gib, Adam. Kaina kai Palaia:  Sacred Contemplations in Three Parts (Philadelphia:  W. Young and J. McCulloch, 1788). Gill, John. A Complete Body of Doctrinal and Practical Divinity: or A System of Evangelical Truths (1809; Paris, AR: Baptist Standard Bearer, 2007). Gillespie, Patrick. The Ark of the Covenant Opened:  Or, a Treatise of the Covenant of Redemption between God and Christ, as the Foundation of the Covenant of Grace, The Second Part (London: Thomas Parkhurst, 1677). Goodwin, Thomas. The Works of Thomas Goodwin, 12 vols. (1861–​66; Eureka, CA: Tanski Publications, 1996). Gomarus, Franciscus. Opera Theologica Omnia (Amsterdam: Joannis Janssonius, 1664). Haak, Theodore. The Dutch Annotations upon the Whole Bible (London:  Henry Hills, 1657). Heidegger, Johannes. Corpus Theologiae Christianiae, 2 vols. (Zurich:  Heideggerian Office, 1732). Heidegger, Johannes. Medullae Theologiae Christianae (Zurich: David Gessner, 1697). Henry, Matthew. A Commentary on the Whole Bible:  Romans to Revelation (London: Religious Tract Society, 1835). Heppe, Heinrich. Reformed Dogmatics: Set Out and Illustrated from the Sources, trans. G. T. Thomson, ed. Ernst Bizer (London: Allen & Unwin Ltd., 1950). Het Nieuwe Testament, Ofte Alle Boecken des Nieuwen Verbondts onses Heeren Jesu Christi. Nu Eerst, Door Last vande Hoog: Mog: Heeren Staten Generael Der Vereenighde Nederlanden, ende volgens ‘t besluyt vande Syndoe Nationael, gehouden tot Dordrecht, in de Jaeren 1618 ende 1619 (Leiden: Staten Generael, 1637). Hodge, A. A. Outlines of Theology (1860; Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 1991). Hodge, Caspar Wistar. “Imputation,” in International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, vol. 3, ed. James Orr (1939; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1974). Hodge, Charles. An Exposition of the Second Epistle to the Corinthians (New York: Robert Carter & Brothers, 1862). Hodge, Charles. Systematic Theology, 3 vols. (New  York:  Scribner, Armstrong, and Co., 1876). Hoekema, Anthony A. Created in God’s Image (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1986). Hoeksema, Herman. Reformed Dogmatics (1966; Grand Rapids:  Reformed Free Publishing Association, 1985). Hog, James. A Letter to a Gentleman Detecting the Errors Vented at This Time (Edinburgh: William Brown and William Dicky, 1716). Hogg, James. The Private Memoirs and Confessions of a Justified Sinner (1824; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010). Holtzfus, Barthold. Dissertatio Theologica de Foedere Naturae s.  Operum (Frankfurt: Christoph Schwartzius, 1711). Humble Advice of the Assembly of Divines, Now by Authority of Parliament Sitting at Westminster Concerning a Confession of Faith, The (London:  Company of Stationers, 1647). Humble Advice of the Assembly of Divines, Now by Authority of Parliament Sitting at Westminster, Concerning a Larger Catechism, The (London: A. M., 1648). Humble Advice of the Assembly of Divines, Now by Authority of Parliament Sitting at Westminster, Concerning a Shorter Catechism, The (London: F. F., 1648).

Bibliography  283 Illyricus, Matthias Flavius. Clavis Scripturae S. seu De Sermone Sacrarum Litararum, 2 vols. (Basel: Iohannes Oporinus & Eusebius Episcopius, 1567). Isidore of Seville, The Etymologies of Isidore of Seville, trans. Stephen A. Barney, W. J. Lewis, J. A. Beach, and Oliver Berghof (Cambridge:  Cambridge University Press, 2006). Jenkyn, Francis. An Exposition of the Epistle of Jude (London: Sa. Gellibrand, 1656). Jones, Samuel. The Doctrine of the Covenants, Wherein Is Shewn That There Never Was a Covenant of Works Made with Adam (Norwich: John Sterry, 1801). Jowett, Benjamin. On the Interpretation of Scripture and Other Essays (London: George Routledge & Sons, Ltd., 1907). Junius, Francis. Ad Testamenti Veteris Interpretationem (Heidelberg: Jacob Mylius, 1585). Junius, Francis. The Mosaic Polity, trans. Todd M. Rester, ed. Andrew M. McGinnis (Grand Rapids: CLP Academic, 2015). Junius, Francis. Opuscula Theologica Selecta, ed. Abraham Kuyper (Amsterdam: Frederic Muller, 1882). Junius, Francis. A Treatise on True Theology, trans. David C. Noe (Grand Rapids: Reformation Heritage Books, 2014). Kant, Immanuel. Correspondence, trans. and ed. A. Swig (Cambridge:  Cambridge University Press, 1999). Karlberg, Mark W. “The Original Tensions within Reformed Theology,” Evangelical Quarterly 87(1987): 291–​309. Kelly, John. The Divine Covenants:  Their Nature and Design; or, The Covenants Considered as Successive Stages in the Development of the Divine Purposes of Mercy (London: Jackson, Walford, & Hodder, 1861). “Kelly on the Covenants.” Eclectic Review NS 1 (1861): 65–​71. Kline, Meredith G. “Comments on an Old-​New Error: A Review Article,” Westminster Theological Journal 41/​1 (1978): 172–​89. Kline, Meredith G. “Gospel until the Law: Rom 5:13–​14 and the Old Covenant,” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 34/​4 (1991): 433–​46. Kline, Meredith G. By Oath Consigned:  A Reinterpretation of the Covenant Signs of Circumcision and Baptism (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1968). Kuyper, Abraham. Common Grace, vol. 1 (Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2016). Lañyez, Diego. EIP. Diego Laynez, trans. Andrés Martínez de Azagra y Beladiez (Madrid: Victorian Suárez, 1933): 331–​84. Lañyez, Diego. Jacobi Laínez Disputationes Tridentiae, vol. 2, ed. Hartmannus Grisar (Ratisbonae: Feliciani Rauch, 1886). Lapide, Cornelius. Cornelii A  Lapide e Societate Jesu, Sacrae Scripturae Olim Lovanni, Postea Romae Porfessoris, Commentaria in Duodecim Prophetas Minores (ex Typographia Balleoniana, 1761). Leigh, Edward. Critica Sacra or Observations on All the Radices, or Primitive Hebrew Words of the Old Testament in Order Alphabeticall, 2nd ed. (London: A. Miller, 1650). Leigh, Edward. A Systeme or Body of Divinity: Consisting of Ten Books (London: William Lee, 1654). Leigh, Edward. A Treatise of the Divine Promises (London: George Miller, 1633). Leigh, Edward. A Treatise of Divinity Consisting of Three Books (London:  William Lee, 1646). Leigh, Edward. A Treatise of Religion and Learning, and of Religious and Learned Men (London: Charles Adams, 1656).

284 Bibliography Levy, Ian Christopher, et al., eds. The Bible in the Medieval Tradition: The Letter to the Romans (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2013). Love, John. The Covenant of Works: Its Nature and End. A Discourse (Aberdeen: G. & R. King, 1848). Luther, Martin. Luther’s Works, 77 vols. (St. Louis, MO:  Concordia Publishing House, 1958–​). Lusk, William. Discourses on the Covenant of Works, the Fall of Man, and Original Sin (Troy, NY: N. Tuttle, 1832). Machen, J. Gresham. The Christian View of Man (1937; Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 1999). Machen, J. Gresham. Machen’s Notes on Galatians, ed. John H. Skilton (Philadelphia: P & R, 1972). Martinius, Matthias. De Federis Naturae & Gratiae (Bremen: Thomas Vilierian, 1618). Melanchthon, Philip. Commentary on Romans, trans. Fred Kramer (St. Louis, MO: Concordia Press, 1992). Melville, Andrew. Commentarius in Divinam Pauli Apostolam ad Romanos (Edinburgh: Woodrow Society, 1849). Morgan, James. A Sermon on the Covenant of Works and the Covenant of Grace (Abingdon, VA: John G. Ustick, 1818). Murray, John. Collected Writings, 4 vols. (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 1977). Murray, John. The Covenant of Grace (1953; Phillipsburg, NJ: P & R, 1988). Murray, John. The Epistle to the Romans, NICNT (1959, 1965; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1968). Murray, John. The Imputation of Adam’s Sin (Phillipsburg, NJ: P & R, 1977). Murray, John. Student Lecture Notes on Anthropology (Philadelphia:  Westminster Theological Seminary, n.d.). Musculus, Wolfgang. Common Places of Christian Religion (London: 1613), fol. 121v. Musculus, Wolfgang. Loci Communes Sacrae Theologiae (Basil: Eusebius Episcopus, 1567). Nicholas of Lyra. Biblical Sacra Cume Glossis, Interlineari & Ordinaria, vol. 4 (Leiden: 1603). Niemeyer, H. A., ed. Collectio Confessionum (Leipzig: Julius Klinkhardt, 1840). Oehler, Gustav Friedrich. Theology of the Old Testament, trans. George E. Day (New York: Funk & Wagnall’s, 1883). Olevianus, Caspar. De Substantia Foederis Gratuiti Inter Deum et Electos (Geneva: Estathuis Vignon, 1585). Ostervald, Jean Frédéric. Catechisme ou Instruction dans la Religion Chrestienne (Geneva: Company of Libraries, 1702). Ostervald, Jean Frédéric. A Catechism for Youth Containing a Brief Comprehensive Summary of the Doctrines and Duties of Christianity (New  York:  New Jersey Bible Society, 1812). Owen, John. Biblical Theology, trans. Stephen Wescott (Morgan, PA:  Soli Deo Gloria, 1996). Owen, John. The Works of John Owen, ed. William H. Goold, 23 vols. (1854–​55; Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 1991). Pagnino, Sante. Epitome Thesauri Lingaue Sanctae (Rephelengius: 1609). Parsons, Robert. A Christian Directorie Guiding Men to Eternall Salvation (Rouen: Parson’s Press, 1585). Pemble, William. Vindiciae Fidei, or a Treatise of Justification by Faith, 2nd ed. (1625; Oxford: John Adams et al., 1629).

Bibliography  285 Perkins, William. Armilla Aurea, Id Est, Theologiae Descriptio, Miranda Series Causarum et Salutis & Damnationis Iuxta Verbum Dei Eius Synopsin Continet Annexa Tabula (Cambridge: John Legatt, 1591). Perkins, William. A Commentarie or Exposition, upon the Five First Chapters of the Epistle to the Galatians (Cambridge: John Legat, 1604). Perkins, William. A Golden Chaine, or The Description of Theologie, Containing the Order of the Causes of Salvation and Damnation, According to God’s Word (London: Edward Alde, 1592). Pictet, Benedict. Christian Theology, trans. Frederick Reyroux (London: R. B. Seeley and W. Burnside, 1834). Piscator, Johannes. Analysis Logica Libri S.  Lucae Inscribitur Acta Apostolorum:  Una cum Scholiis et Observationibus Locorum Doctrinaei, 2nd ed. (Herborn:  Christoph Corvinus, 1600). Placaeus, Josua. De Imputatione Primi Peccati Adami Josue Placaei in Academia Salmuriensi S. S. Theologiae Professoris Disputatio (Saumur: Ioannes Lesnerius, 1661). Polanus, Amandus. Partitiones Theologicae (Basel: Conrad Waldkirch, 1590). Polanus, Amandus. The Substance of Christian Religion, Soundly Set Forth in Two Books (London: R. F., 1595). Polanus, Amandus. Syntagma Theologiae Christianae (Hanau: Johannes Aubrius, 1615). Polyander, Johannes, et al. Synopsis Purioris Theologiae /​Synopsis of a Purer Theology: Latin Text and English Translation, vol. 1, eds. Dolf te Velde et al. (Leiden: Brill, 2014). Pope, James. The Unveiling of AntiChrist (London: Henry Overton, 1646). Preston, John. The New Covenant or the Saints Portion (1629; London:  Nicolas Bourne, 1639). Quick, John, ed. Synodicon in Gallia Reformata, 2 vols. (London: Thomas Parkhurst, 1692). “Review of Eagleton on the Covenant of Works.” The Morning Watch; or Quarterly Journal on Prophecy, and Theological Review 2 (1830): 171–​79. “Review of The Divine Covenants, their Nature and Design by John Kelly.” British Quarterly Review 34 (1861): 287–​88. “Review of The Divine Covenants; Their Nature and Design by John Kelly.” London Review 16 (1861): 561–​62. Ridderbos, Herman N. The Epistle of Paul to the Churches of Galatia, NICNT (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1953). Riissen, Leonard. Summa Theologiae Didactico-​Elencticae (Berne: Daniel Tschiffel, 1703). Rivet, André. “On Imputation,” in Charles Hodge, Theological Essays: Reprinted from the Princeton Review (New York: Wiley & Putnam, 1846): 196–​217. Rivet, André. Operum Theologicorum, vol. 3 (Rotterdam: Arnoldi Leers, 1660). Roberts, Francis. Mysterium et Medulla Bibliorum: The Mysterie and Marrow of the Bible, or God’s Covenants with Man (London: George Calvert, 1657). Robertson, O. Palmer. Christ of the Covenants (Phillipsburg, NJ: P & R, 1980). Rollock, Robert. Analysis Dialectica Roberti Rolloci Scoti . . . in Paul Apostolis Episotlam ad Romanos (Edinburgh: Robert Waldgrave, 1594). Rollock, Robert. In Epistolam Pauli Apostoli ad Ephesios, Roberti Rolloci Scoti (Edinburgh: Robert, 1590). Rollock, Robert. Quaestiones et Responsiones Aliquot de Foedere Dei (Edinburgh: Henry Charter, 1596). Rollock, Robert. Select Works of Robert Rollock, 2 vols., ed. William M. Gunn (1844–​49; Grand Rapids: Reformation Heritage Books, 2008).

286 Bibliography Rollock, Robert. Some Questions and Answers about God’s Covenant and the Sacrament That Is a Seal of God’s Covenant, trans. and ed. Aaron Clay Denlinger (Eugene, OR: Pickwick, 2016). Rollock, Robert. Tractatus De Vocatione Efficaci (Edinburgh: Robert, 1597). Russell, David. A Compendious View of the Original Dispensation Established with Adam, and of the Mediatorial Dispensation Established through Christ, 2nd ed. (Edinburgh: Waugh and Innes, 1826). Russell, David. Familiar Survey of the Old and New Covenants, Including a Summary View of the Patriarchal and Levitical Dispensations (Edinburgh: Waugh and Innes, 1824). Rutherford, Samuel. The Covenant of Life Opened, or A Treatise on the Covenant of Grace (Edinburgh: Robert Broun, 1655). Salchi, J. Rodolphus. Dissertatio Tradens quaedam de Foedere Operum (Bern:  Reip. Bernensius, 1738). Sarpi, Paolo. Historia del Concilio Tridentino (London: Giovani Billio, 1619). Sarpi, Paolo. The Historie of the Councel of Trent, trans. Nathanael Brent (London: Robert Barker and John Bill, 1620). Schaff, Philip. Theological Propaedeutic: A General Introduction to the Study of Theology (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1893). Scharpius, Johannes. Cursus Theologicus in Quo Controversiae Omnes de Fidei Dogmatibus (Geneva: Francis Nicloaus, 1622). Sedgwick, Obadiah. The Bowels of Tender Mercy Sealed in the Everlasting Covenant (London: Adoniram Byfield, 1661). Shaw, Robert. An Exposition of the Westminster Confession of Faith (1845; Fearn: Christian Focus, 1998). Sheldon, Henry Clay. History of Christian Doctrine, 2 vols. (New  York:  Harper & Brothers, 1886). Shedd, W. G. T. Dogmatic Theology, 3 vols. (1888; Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1969). Sibbes, Richard. The Complete Works of Richard Sibbes, vol. 6 (Edinburgh:  James Nichol, 1863). Smith, Henry Boynton. System of Christian Theology, 2nd ed. (New York: A. C. Armstrong and Son, 1884). Stapleton, Thomas. Antidota Apostolica Contra Nostri Temporis, vol. 2, In Epistolam B. Pauli ad Romanos (Antwerp: Keerberg, 1595). Strabo, Walafrid. Bibliorum Sacrorum cum Glossa Ordinalia, 6 vols. (Venice: Iuntas, 1603). Strong, Augustus Hopkins. Systematic Theology (Rochester, NY: E. R. Andrews, 1886). Strong, Augustus Hopkins. Systematic Theology (1907; Philadelphia: Judson Press, 1960). Strong, William. A Discourse of the Two Covenants: Wherein the Nature, Differences, and Effects of the Covenant of Works and of Grace Are Distinctly, Rationally, Spiritually and Practically Discussed (London: Francis Tyton, 1678). Swift, Jonathan. Gulliver’s Travels (1726; New York: Penguin Classics, 2011). Szegedinus, Stephanus. Theologiae Sincereae Loci Communes de Deo et Homine Perpetuis Explicati Tabulis et Scholasticorum Dogmatis (Basil: Conrad Waldkirch, 1585). Thornwell, J. H. The Collected Writings of James Henley Thornwell, vol. 1, ed. John B. Adger (Richmond, VA: Presbyterian Committee of Publications, 1871). Trelcatius, Lucas. A Briefe Institution of the Common Places of Sacred Divinitie (London: Francis Burton, 1610). Trelcatius, Lucas. Scholastica, et Methodica, Locorum Communium S. Theologiae Institutio Didactice et Elenctice in Epitome Explicata (Leiden: 1604).

Bibliography  287 Turretin, Francis. Institutes of Elenctic Theology, trans. George Musgrave Giger, ed. James T. Dennison Jr. (Phillipsburg, NJ: P & R, 1992–​97). Turretin, Francis. Institutio Theologiae Elencticae, 3 vols. (Edinburgh: John D. Lowe, 1847). Turretin, Francis. Sermons sur Divers Passages de L’Ecriture Sainte Par Francois Turrettin Ministre du Saint Evangile, & Professeur en Theologie (Geneva:  Samuel de Tournes, 1676). Tyndale, William. Doctrinal Treatises and Introductions to Different Portions of the Holy Scriptures, Parker Society, ed. Henry Walter (Cambridge:  Cambridge University Press, 1848). Ursinus, Zacharias. The Commentary of Dr.  Zacharias Ursinus on the Heidelberg Catechism, trans. G. W. Williard (1852; Phillipsburg: P & R, n.d). Ursinus, Zacharias. Corpus Doctrinae Christianae (Hanoviae: Jonas Rosae, 1651). Ursinus, Zacharias. Der Heidelberger Katechismus und Vier Verwandte Katechismen (Leipzig: Georg Böhme, 1907). Ussher, James. A Body of Divinitie, or The Summe and Substance of Christian Religion (London: Tho. Downes and Geo. Badger, 1645). Ussher, James. The Principles of Christian Religion: with A Briefe Method of the Doctrine Thereof (London: George Badger, 1653). Ussher, James. The Whole Works of the Most Rev. James Ussher, 17 vols. (Dublin: Hodges and Smith, 1847–​64. Van Til, Cornelius. The Defense of the Faith, 3rd ed. (1955; Phillipsburg, NJ: P & R, 1967). Varro, On the Latin Language, 2 vols., trans. Roland G. Kent (Cambridge:  Harvard University Press, 1938). Vermigli, Peter Martyr. In Primum Librum Mosis Qui Vulgo Genesis Dicitur Commenarii (Zurich: Christopher Frosch, 1569). Vermigli, Peter Martyr. The Most Learned and Fruitful Commentaries of Peter Martir Vermigli (London: John Day, 1560). Vermigli, Peter Martyr. The Most Learned and Fruitful Commentarie of D. Peter Martir Vermilius Florentine, Professor of Divinity in the Schole of Tigure upon the Epistle of S. Paul to the Romanes (London: John Daye, 1558). Van Mastricht, Petrus. Theoretica-​Practica Theologia, 9th ed., vol. 1 (Utrecht: W. van der Water et al., 1724). Virgil, The Aeneid, trans. Allen Mandelbaum (New York: Bantam Classics, 1981). Von Limborch, Philip. A Compleat System, or Body of Divinity, Both Speculative and Practical, 2 vols. (London: John Darby, 1713). Vos, Geerhardus. Biblical Theology: Old and New Testaments (1948; Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 2012). Vos, Geerhardus. “Covenant,” in A Dictionary of Christ and the Gospels, 2 vols., ed. James Hastings (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1906–​08), I:373–​80. Vos, Geerhardus. De Verbondsleer in de Gereformeerde Theologie (Rotterdam:  Mazijk’s Uit—​geversbureau,  1939). Vos, Geerhardus. The Letters of Geerhardus Vos, ed. James T. Dennison Jr. (Phillipsburg, NJ: P & R, 2005). Vos, Geerhardus. The Pauline Eschatology (1930; Phillipsburg, NJ: P & R, 1994). Vos, Geerhardus. “The Prospects of American Theology,” Kerux 20/​1 (2005): 12–​52. Vos, Geerhardus. Redemptive History and Biblical Interpretation: The Shorter Writings of Geerhardus Vos, ed. Richard B. Gaffin Jr. (Phillipsburg, NJ: P & R, 1980).

288 Bibliography Vos, Geerhardus. Reformed Dogmatics, 5 vols., eds. Richard B. Gaffin Jr. et al. (Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2012–​14). Waleaus, Antonius. Loci Communes S. Theologiae (Leiden: Adrian Wyngaerden, 1647). Walker, George. The Manifold Wisedome of God: In the Divers Dispensation of Grace by Jesus Christ (London: John Bartlet, 1640). Walaeus, Antonius. Responsio ad Censuram Ioannis Arnoldi Corvinus, in Antonii Walaei Opera Omnia (1625; Leiden: Adriani Wyngaerden, 1647). Watson, Thomas. A Body of Practical Divinity (London: Thomas Parkhurst, 1692). Watts, Isaac. The Works of the Rev. Isaac Watts, 9 vols. (Leeds: Edward Baines, 1812). Wesley, John. The Works of the Rev. John Wesley, vol. 5, 3rd ed. (London: John Mason, 1829). Whitaker, William. An Answer to the Ten Reasons of Edmund Campian (London: Felix Kyngston, 1606). Willard, Samuel. Complete Body of Divinity in Two Hundred and Fifty Expository Lectures, 2 vols. (Boston: B. Eliot and D. Henchman, 1726). Willet, Andrew. Hexapla, A Six-​fold Commentary upon the Most Divine Epistle of the Holy S. Paul to the Romans (Cambridge: Leonard Greene, 1620). Witsius, Herman. Conciliatory, or Irenical Animadversions, on the Controversies Agitated in Britain, under the Unhappy Names of Antinomians and Neonomians, trans. Thomas Bell (Glasgow: W. Land, 1807). Witsius, Herman. Economy of the Covenants between God and Man: Comprehending a Complete Body of Divinity, trans. William Crookshank (1822; Escondido, CA:  Den Dulk Foundation, 1990). Witsius, Herman. The Economy of the Covenants between God and Man, trans. William Crookshank, 2 vols. (Edinburgh: John Turnbull, 1803). Witsius, Herman. The Economy of the Covenants between God and Man, trans. William Crookshank, 2 vols. (London: R. Baynes, 1822). Witsius, Herman. The Economy of the Covenants between God and Man, trans. William Crookshank, 2 vols. (London: T. Tegg & Son, 1837). Witsius, Herman. Oeconomy of the Covenants, trans. William Crookshank, 3 vols. (London: Edward Dilly, 1763). Witsius, Herman. Oeconomy of the Covenants, trans. William Crookshank, 3 vols. (New York: Thomas Kirk, 1804). Woodward, Michael Scott, ed. The Glossa Ordinaria on Romans (Kalamazoo, MI: Medieval Institute Publications, 2011). Young, E. J. “Confession and Covenant,” in Scripture and Confession:  A Book about Confessions Old and New, ed. John H. Skilton (Phillipsburg, NJ: P & R, 1973): 31–​66. Zanchi, Girolamo. Omnium Operum Theologicorum, vol. 4 (Geneva:  Ioannis Tornaesij, 1649). Zwingli, Ulrich. Selected Works of Huldreich Zwingli (1484–​1531): The Reformer of German Switzerland, ed. Samuel Macauley Jackson (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1901).

Bibliography  289

Secondary Sources Armstrong, Brian G. Calvinism and the Amyraut Heresy:  Protestant Scholasticism and Humanism in Seventeenth-​Century France (rep.; Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2004). Backus, Irena. “Calvin’s Concept of Natural and Roman Law,” Calvin Theological Journal 38 (2003): 7–​26. Baker, J. Wayne. Heinrich Bullinger and the Covenant:  The Other Reformed Tradition (Columbus: Ohio State University Press, 1980). Ballor, Jordan J. Covenant, Causality, and Law:  A Study in the Theology of Wolfgang Musculus (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2012). Barr, James. The Semantics of Biblical Language (London:  Oxford University Press, 1961). Beach, J. Mark. Christ and the Covenant: Francis Turretin’s Federal Theology as a Defense of the Doctrine of Grace (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2007). Beach, J. Mark. “Preaching Predestination—​an Examination of Francis Turretin’s Sermon De l’Affermissement de la Vocation et de l’Election du Fidele,” Mid-​America Journal of Theology 21 (2010): 133–​47. Beach, J. Mark. “Some Observations about the Three Forms of Unity and the Doctrine of the Covenant of Works,” Mid-​America Journal of Theology 21 (2010): 103–​19. Beardslee, John Walter, III. “Theological Development at Geneva under Francis and Jean-​ Alphonse Turretin” (PhD Diss.: Yale University, 1956). Beeke, Joel. “Gisbert Voetius:  Toward a Reformed Marriage of Knowledge and Piety,” in Protestant Scholasticism:  Essays in Reassessment, eds. R. Scott Clark and Carl R. Trueman (Eugene, OR: Paternoster, 2005): 227–​43. Beeke, Joel R., and Mark Jones. A Puritan Theology (Grand Rapids: Reformation Heritage Books, 2012). Billings, J. Todd. Calvin, Participation, and the Gift: The Activity of Believers in Union with Christ (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007). Bierma, Lyle D. “Covenant or Covenants in the Theology of Olevianus,” Calvin Theological Journal 22 (1987): 235–​42. Bierma, Lyle D. “Federal Theology in the Sixteenth Century:  Two Traditions?” Westminster Theological Journal 45 (1983): 304–​21. Bierma, Lyle D. German Calvinism in the Confessional Age:  The Covenant Theology of Caspar Olevianus (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1996). Bierma, Lyle D. An Introduction to the Heidelberg Catechism: Sources, History and Theology (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2005). Bierma, Lyle D. “Law and Grace in Ursinus’ Doctrine of the Natural Covenant:  A Reappraisal,” in Protestant Scholasticism: Essays in Reassessment, eds. Carl R. Trueman and R. Scott Clark (Carlisle, PA: Paternoster, 1999), 96–​110. Blacketer, Raymond. “Arminius’ Concept of Covenant in Its Historical Context,” Nederlands Archief voor Kerkgeschiedenis /​Dutch Review of Church History 80/​2 (2000): 193–​222. Bligh, John. “The Doctrinal Premises of Hogg’s Confessions of a Justified Sinner,” Studies in Scottish Literature 19/​1 (1984): 148–​64. Calder, Frederick. Memoirs of Simon Episcopius, The Celebrated Pupil of Arminius (London: Hayward and Moore, 1838). Carson, D. A. Exegetical Fallacies, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1996).

290 Bibliography Casselli, Stephen J. Divine Rule Maintained:  Anthony Burgess, Covenant Theology and the Place of Law in Reformed Scholasticism (Grand Rapids:  Reformation Heritage Books, 2015). Coffey, John. Politics, Religion and the British Revolution: The Mind of Samuel Rutherford (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002). Colish, Marcia L. Medieval Foundations of the Western Intellectual Tradition, 400–​1400 (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1997). Colish, Marcia L. The Stoic Tradition from Antiquity to the Early Middle Ages. 2 vols. (Leiden: Brill, 1990). Cooper, Tim. Fear and Polemic in Seventeenth-​Century England:  Richard Baxter and Antinomianism (Aldershot: Ashgate, 2001). Courtenay, William J. “Covenant and Causality in Pierre d’Ailly,” Speculum 46 (1971): 94–​119. Crisp, Oliver D. Revisioning Christology: Theology in the Reformed Tradition (Aldershot: Ashgate, 2011). Cross, Richard. Duns Scotus (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999). Daugirdas, Kęstutis. “Ratio recta scripturae interpres: The Biblical Hermeneutics of Simon Episcopius before 1634 and Its Impact,” Bulletin annuel de l’Institut d’histoire de la Réformation 32 (2010–​11): 37–​49. Davies, Brian. Thomas Aquinas’s Summa Theologiae:  A Guide and Commentary (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014). De Lubac, Henri. The Mystery of the Supernatural (New York: Herder and Herder, 2011). Denlinger, Aaron C. “Calvin’s Understanding of Adam’s Relationship to His Posterity:  Recent Assertions of the Reformer’s ‘Federalism’ Evaluated,” Calvin Theological Journal 44 (2009): 226–​50. Denlinger, Aaron C. Omnes in Adam Ex Pacto Dei:  Ambrogio Catarino’s Doctrine of Covenantal Solidarity and Its Influence on Post-​Reformation Reformed Theologians (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2010). Dever, Mark E. Richard Sibbes: Puritanism and Calvinism in Late Elizabethan and Early Stuart England (Macon, GA: Mercer University Press, 2000). Diemer, N. Het Scheppingsverbond Met Adam (Het Verbond der Werken): bij de Theologen der 16e, 17e en 18e Eeuw in Zwitserland, Duitschland, Nederland en Engeland (Kampen: Uitgave van J. H. Kok N. V., 1932). Dorrien, Gary. Kantian Reason and Hegelian Spirit: The Idealistic Logic of Modern Theology (West Sussex: John Wiley and Sons, 2015). Duncan, J. Ligon. “The Covenant Idea in Ante-​Nicene Theology” (PhD Diss., University of Edinburgh, 1995). Duncan, J. Ligon. The Westminster Confession into the 21st Century, 3 vols. (Fearn: Mentor, 2003–​09). Ebeling, Gerhard. “Luther and the Beginning of the Modern Age,” in Luther and the Dawn of the Modern Era, ed. Heiko A. Oberman (Leiden: Brill, 1974): 11–​39. Edwards, Mark U., Jr. Luther and the False Brethren (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1975). Ferry, Brenton C. “Works in the Mosaic Covenant:  A Reformed Taxonomy” (ThM Thesis: Westminster Theological Seminary, 2009). Fesko, J. V. The Covenant of Redemption:  Origins, Development, and Reception (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2015).

Bibliography  291 Fesko, J. V. “Vos and Berkhof on Union with Christ and Justification,” Calvin Theological Journal 47 (2012): 50–​71. Ficther, Joseph H. James Layñez: Jesuit (St. Louis: Herder Book Co., 1944). Feingold, Lawrence. The Natural Desire to See God According to St. Thomas Aquinas and His Interpreters (Ave Maria, FL: Sapientia Press, 2010). Ford, Alan. James Ussher:  Theology, History, and Politics in Early-​Modern Ireland and England (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007). Franks, Paul W. All or Nothing: Systematicity, Transcendental Arguments, and Skepticism in German Idealism (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2005). Gaberel, J. P. Histoire de L’Eglise de Geneve, 3 vols. (Geneva: Joël Cherbuliez, 1858–​62). Gamble, Whitney Greer. “‘If Christ fulfilled the law, we are not bound’: The Westminster Assembly against English Antinomian Soteriology, 1643–​47” (PhD Diss., University of Edinburgh, 2014). Garrett, James Leo. Systematic Theology, 2 vols. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1990). Grabhill, Stephen. Rediscovering Natural Law in Reformed Theological Ethics (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2006). Gribben, Crawford. “James Hogg, Scottish Calvinism and Literary Theory,” Scottish Studies Review 5/​2 (2004): 9–​26. Good, James I. History of the Swiss Reformed Church since the Reformation (Philadelphia: Publication and Sunday School Board of the Reformed Church in the United States, 1913). Gootjes, Albert. “John Cameron (ca. 1579–​1625) and the French Universalist Tradition,” in The Theology of the French Reformed Churches, ed. Martin I. Klauber (Grand Rapids: Reformation Heritage Books, 2014): 169–​96. Gootjes, Albert. “Scotland and Saumur:  The Intellectual Legacy of John Cameron in Seventeenth-​Century France,” in Reformed Orthodoxy in Scotland: Essays on Scottish Theology 1560–​1775, ed. Aaron Clay Denlinger (London: Bloomsbury T & T Clark, 2016): 175–​90. Hanna, John D. An Uncommon Union:  Dallas Theological Seminary and American Evangelicalism (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2009). Harinck, George. “Geerhardus Vos an Introducer of Kuyper in America,” in The Dutch-​ American Experience, eds. Hans Krabbendam and Larry J. Wagenaar (Amsterdam: VU Uitgeverij, 2000): 243–​62. Harinck, George. “Herman Bavinck and Geerhardus Vos,” Calvin Theological Journal 45 (2010): 18–​31. Herzer, Mark. “Adam’s Reward: Heaven or Earth?” in Drawn into Controversie: Reformed Theological Diversity and Debates within Seventeenth-​ Century British Puritanism, eds. Michael A.  G. Haykin and Mark Jones (Göttingen:  Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2011): 162–​82. Hesselink, I. John. Calvin’s First Catechism: A Commentary (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 1997). Huigen, Arnold. “Calvin’s Reception in the Nineteenth Century,” in The Calvin Handbook, ed. Herman J. Selderhuis (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009): 486–​96. Hunsinger, George. How to Read Karl Barth: The Shape of His Theology (New York: Oxford University Press, 1991). Ives, Psyche. “Recasting John Murray’s Covenant Theology: A Contextual Reexamination” (MA Thesis, Westminster Seminary California, 2016).

292 Bibliography Jeon, Jeong Koo. Covenant Theology: John Murray’s and Meredith G. Kline’s Response to the Historical Development of Federal Theology in Reformed Thought (New York: Lanham Press, 1999). Jones, Mark. “The ‘Old’ Covenant,” in Drawn into Controversie: Reformed Theological Diversity and Debates within Seventeenth-​Century British Puritanism, eds. Michael A.  G. Haykin and Mark Jones (Göttingen:  Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2011): 183–​203. Karlberg, Mark W. “The Mosaic Covenant and the Concept of Works in Reformed Hermeneutics:  A Historical-​ Critical Analysis with Particular Attention to Early Covenant Eschatology” (PhD Diss., Westminster Theological Seminary, 1980). Klauber, Martin I. Between Reformed Scholasticism and Pan-​ Protestantism:  Jean-​ Alphonse Turretin (1671–​1737) and Enlightened Orthodoxy at the Academy of Geneva (Selinsgrove, PA: Susquehanna University Press, 1994). Klauber, Martin I. “The Helvetic Formula Consensus: An Introduction and Translation,” Trinity Journal 11NS (1990): 103–​23. Lachman, David C. “The Marrow Controversy, 1718–​23: An Historical and Theological Analysis” (PhD Diss., University of St. Andrews, 1979). Lane, Anthony N.  S. John Calvin:  Student of the Church Fathers (Edinburgh:  T & T Clark, 1999). Lee, Sidney. Dictionary of National Biography, vol. XXXII (New  York:  Macmillan and Co., 1892). Legaspi, Michael C. The Death of Scripture and the Rise of Biblical Studies (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010). Letham, Robert. “The Foedus Operum: Some Factors Accounting for Its Development,” Sixteenth Century Journal 14/​4 (1983): 457–​67. Levering, Matthew. Biblical Natural Law:  A Theocentric and Teleological Approach. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012. Levering, Matthew. Christ’s Fulfillment of Torah and Temple:  Salvation According to Thomas Aquinas (Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 2002). Lillback, Peter A. The Binding of God:  Calvin’s Role in the Development of Covenant Theology (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2001). Lillback, Peter A. “Ursinus’s Development of the Covenant of Creation:  A Debt to Melanchthon or Calvin?” Westminster Theological Journal 43/​2 (1981): 247–​88. Mangum, R. Todd. The Dispensational-​ Covenantal Rift:  The Fissuring of American Evangelical Theology from 1936 to 1944 (Eugene, OR: Paternoster, 2009). Mattes, Mark. “Luther on Justification as Forensic and Effective,” in The Oxford Handbook of Martin Luther’s Theology, eds. Robert Kolb, Irene Dingel, and L’Ubomír Batka (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014): 264–​73. McGiffert, Michael. “Grace and Works: The Rise and Division of Covenant Divinity in Elizabethan Puritanism,” Harvard Theological Review 75/​4 (1982): 463–​502. McGowan, A. T.  B. Adam, Christ and Covenant:  Exploring Headship Theology (London: Apollos, 2016). McGowan, A. T. B. The Federal Theology of Thomas Boston (Carlisle, PA: Paternoster, 1997). McIntosh, John R. Church and Theology in Enlightenment Scotland: The Popular Party, 1740–​1800 (East Lothian, Scotland: Tuckwell Press, 1998). McLeod, Donald. “Original Sin in Reformed Theology,” in Adam, the Fall, and Original Sin, eds. Hans Madueme and Michael Reeves (Grand Rapids:  Baker, 2014): 129–​46.

Bibliography  293 McLeod, Donald. “Scottish Calvinism:  A Dark, Repressive Force?” Scottish Bulletin of Evangelical Theology 19/​2 (2001): 195–​225. Milne, Nathaniel C. “Zealous for the Covenant of Christ:  The Covenant Theology of Irenaeus of Lyons” (MA Thesis, Westminster Seminary California, 2016). Møller, Jens. “The Beginnings of Puritan Covenant Theology,” Journal of Ecclesiastical History 14 (1963): 46–​67. Myers, Stephen G. Scottish Federalism and Covenantalism in Transition:  The Theology Ebenezer Erskine (Eugene, OR: Pickwick, 2015). Muller, Richard A. After Calvin:  Studies in the Development of a Theological Tradition (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003). Muller, Richard A. Calvin and the Reformed Tradition:  On the Work of Christ and the Order of Salvation (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2012). Muller, Richard A. “The Covenant of Works and the Stability of Divine Law in Seventeenth-​Century Reformed Orthodoxy:  A Study in the Theology of Herman Witsius and Wilhelmus à Brakel,” Calvin Theological Journal 29 (1994): 75–​101. Muller, Richard A. “The Debate over the Vowel Points and the Crisis in Orthodox Hermeneutics,” Journal of Medieval and Renaissance Studies 10/​1 (1980): 53–​72. Muller, Richard A. “Demoting Calvin: The Issue of Calvin and the Reformed Tradition,” in John Calvin, Myth and Reality: Images and Impact of Geneva’s Reformer, ed. Amy Nelson Burnett (Eugene, OR: Cascade Books, 2009): 3–​17. Muller, Richard A. Dictionary of Latin and Greek Theological Terms: Drawn Principally from Protestant Scholastic Theology, 2nd ed. (1986; Grand Rapids: Baker, 2017). Muller, Richard A. “Divine Covenants, Absolute and Conditional: John Cameron and the Early Orthodox Development of Reformed Covenant Theology,” Mid-​America Journal of Theology 17 (2006): 11–​56. Muller, Richard A. “Emanuel V. Gerhart on the ‘Christ-​Idea’ as Fundamental Principle,” Westminster Theological Journal 48 (1986): 97–​117. Muller, Richard A. “The Federal Motif in Seventeenth-​Century Arminian Theology,” Nederlands Archief voor Kerkgeschiedenis 62/​1 (1982): 102–​22. Muller, Richard A. God, Creation, and Providence in the Thought of Jacob Arminius: Sources and Directions of Scholastic Protestantism in the Era of Early Orthodoxy (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1991). Muller, Richard A. “A Note on ‘Christocentrism’ and the Imprudent Use of Such Terminology,” Westminster Theological Journal 68/​2 (2006): 253–​60. Muller, Richard A. “Philip Doddridge and the Formulation of Calvinistic Theology in an Era of Rationalism and Deconfessionalization,” in Religion, Politics and Dissent, 1660–​1832: Essays in Honour of James E. Bradley, eds. Robert D. Cornwall and William Gibson (Burlington, VT: Ashgate, 2009): 65–​84. Muller, Richard A. Post-​Reformation Reformed Dogmatics, vol. 1, Prolegomena to Theology (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1987). Muller, Richard A. Post-​ Reformation Reformed Dogmatics, 4 vols. (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2003). Muller, Richard A. “Review of David Weir, The Origins of Federal Theology,” Journal of Religion 72/​4 (1992): 597–​98. Muller, Richard A., and Rowland S. Ward. Scripture and Worship: Biblical Interpretation and the Directory for Public Worship (Phillipsburg, NJ: P & R, 2007). Noll, Mark A. “Chaotic Coherence: Sola Scriptura and the Twentieth-​Century Spread of Christianity,” in Protestantism after 500 Years, eds. Thomas Albert Howard and Mark A. Noll (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2016): 258–​79.

294 Bibliography O’Daly, Gerard. Augustine’s City of God:  A Reader’s Guide (Oxford:  Oxford University Press, 1999). Oberman, Heiko A. The Dawn of the Reformation (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1986). Oberman, Heiko A. The Harvest of Medieval Theology: Gabriel Biel and Late Medieval Nominalism (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1963). Oberman, Heiko A. “The Shape of Late Medieval Thought: The Birth Pangs of the Modern Era,” in The Pursuit of Holiness in Late Medieval and Renaissance Religion, eds. Charles Trinkaus and Heiko A. Oberman (Leiden: Brill, 1974): 3–​25. Pederson, Randall J. Unity in Diversity:  English Puritans and the Puritan Reformation, 1603–​1689 (Leiden: Brill, 2014). Pelikan, Jaroslav, and Valerie Hotchkiss, eds. Creeds and Confessions of Faith in the Christian Tradition, 3 vols. (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2003). Perkins, Harrison. “James Ussher and the Covenant of Works” (PhD Thesis, Queen’s University Belfast, 2018). Perkins, Harrison. “Manuscript and Material Evidence for James Ussher’s Authorship of A Body of Divinitie (1645),” Evangelical Quarterly 89/​2 (2018): 133–​61. Perkins, Harrison. “Reconsidering the Development for the Covenant of Works,” Calvin Theological Journal 53/​2 (2018): 289–​317. Perkins, Harrison. “The Westminster Assembly’s Probable Appropriation of James Ussher,” Scottish Bulletin of Evangelical Theology 37/​1 (2019): 45–​63. Poole, N. J. The History of the Covenant Concept from the Bible to Johannes Cloppenburg: De Foedere Dei (New York: Edwin Mellen Press, 1992). Prögler, Daniela. English Students at Leiden University, 1575–​1650:  ‘Advancing Your Abilities in Learning and Bettering Your Understanding of the World and State Affairs’ (Surrey: Ashgate, 2013). Rasmussen, Joel D. S., Judith Wolfe, and Johannes Zachhuber, eds. The Oxford Handbook of Nineteenth-​Century Christian Thought (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2017). Reeling-​Brouwer, Rinse. Karl Barth and Post–​ Reformation Orthodoxy (Aldershot: Ashgate, 2015). Rehnman, Sebastian. “Is the Narrative of Redemptive History Dichotomous or Trichtomous? A Problem for Federal Theology,” Dutch Review of Church History 80/​ 3 (2000): 296–​308. Rester, Todd M. “Theologica Viatorum: Institutional Continuity and the Reception of a Theological Framework from Fanciscus Junius’s De Theologia Vera to Bernhardinus De Moor’s Commentarius Perpetuus” (PhD Diss., Calvin Theological Seminary, 2016). Richard, Guy M. The Supremacy of God in the Theology of Samuel Rutherford (Eugene, OR: Paternoster, 2009). Rolston, Holmes, III. John Calvin versus the Westminster Confession (Richmond, VA: John Knox Press, 1972). Rondet, Henri. Original Sin:  The Patristic and Theological Background (Shannon, Ireland: Ecclesia Press, 1969). Schaff, Philip, ed. Creeds of Christendom, 6th ed., 3 vols. (1931; Grand Rapids: Baker, 1990). Schrenk, Gottlob. Gottesreich und Bund im älteren Protestantismus vornehmlich be Johannes Cocceius (1923; Darmstadt: 1967). Selderhuis, Herman, ed. The Calvin Handbook (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009). Shepherd, Norman. Call of Grace: How the Covenant Illumines Salvation and Evangelism (Phillipsburg, NJ: P & R, 2000).

Bibliography  295 Smith, Brett W. “Augustine’s Natural Law Theory in De libero arbitrio,” Iriish Theological Quarterly 80/​2 (2015): 111–​35. Snaith, John G. Ecclesiasticus: or The Wisdom of Jesus Son of Sirach (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1974). Snoddy, Richard. The Soteriology of James Ussher:  The Act and Object of Saving Faith (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014). Spencer, Stephen. “Francis Turretin’s Concept of the Covenant of Nature,” in Later Calvinism: International Perspectives, ed. W. Fred Graham (Kirksville, MO: Sixteenth Century Journal Publishers, 1994): 71–​91. Stanglin, Keith D., and Thomas H. McCall. Jacob Arminius:  Theologian of Grace (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012). Stanglin, Keith D. “The Rise and Fall of Biblical Perspicuity:  Remonstrants and the Transition towards Modern Exegesis,” Church History 83/​1 (2014): 38–​59. Stephens. W. P. The Theology of Huldrych Zwingli (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1986). Torrance, James B. “The Concept of Federal Theology—​ Was Calvin a Federal Theologian?” in Calvinus Sacrae Scripturae Professor:  Calvin as Confessor of Holy Scripture, ed. Wilhelm H. Neuser (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1994): 15–​40. Torrance, James B. “Covenant or Contract? A  Study of the Theological Background of Worship in Seventeenth-​Century Scotland,” Scottish Journal of Theology 23 (1970): 51–​76. Torrance, T. F. Scottish Theology: From John Knox to John McLeod Campbell (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1996). Trueman, Carl. “The Harvest of Reformation Mythology? Patrick Gillespie and the Covenant of Redemption,” in Scholasticism Reformed: Essays in Honour of Willem J. van Asselt, eds. Maarten Wisse et al. (Leiden: Brill, 2010): 196–​214. Trueman, Carl. “Reformed Orthodoxy in Britain,” in A Companion to Reformed Orthodoxy, ed. Herman J. Selderhuis (Leiden: Brill, 2013): 261–​92. Van Asselt, Willem. “The Doctrine of the Abrogations in the Federal Theology of Johannes Cocceius (1603–​69),” Calvin Theological Journal 29 (1994): 101–​16. Van Asselt, Willem. The Federal Theology of Johannes Cocceius (1603–​ 69) (Leiden: Brill, 2001). Van Asselt, Willem, et al. Introduction to Reformed Scholasticism, trans. Albert Gootjes (Grand Rapids: Reformation Heritage Books, 2011). Vandoodewaard, William. The Marrow Controversy and the Seceder Tradition: Atonement, Saving Faith, and the Gospel Offer in Scotland (1718–​99) (Grand Rapids: Reformation Heritage Books, 2011). VanDrunen, David. “Medieval Natural Law and the Reformation:  A Comparison of Aquinas and Calvin,” American Catholic Philosophical Quarterly 80/​1 (2006): 77–​98. VanDrunen, David. Natural Law and the Two Kingdoms: A Study in the Development of Reformed Social Thought (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2010). Van Stam, F. P. The Controversy over the Theology of Saumur, 1635–​1650:  Disrupting Debates among the Huguenots in Complicated Circumstances (Amsterdam:  APA-​ Holland University Press, 1988). Van Vliet, Jan. The Rise of Reformed System: The Intellectual Heritage of William Ames (Milton Keynes: Paternoster, 2013). Van Zandt, A. B. “The Doctrine of the Covenants Considered as the Central Principle of Theology,” Presbyterian Review III (1882): 28–​39. Von Balthasar, Hans Urs. The Theology of Karl Barth, 3rd ed. (San Francisco:  Ignatius Press, 1992).

296 Bibliography Venema, Cornelis P. “Calvin’s Doctrine of the Imputation of Christ’s Righteousness: Another Example of ‘Calvin against the Calvinists’?” Mid-​America Journal of Theology 20 (2009): 15–​47. Venema, Cornelis P. “Recent Criticisms of the ‘Covenant of Works’ in the Westminster Confession of Faith,” Mid-​America Journal of Theology 9/​2 (1993): 165–​98. Visser, Derk. “The Covenant in Zacharias Ursinus,” Sixteenth Century Journal 18/​4 (1987): 531–​44. Ward, Rowland S. God and Adam:  Reformed Theology and the Creation Covenant (Wantirna, Australia: New Melbourne Press, 2003). Warfield, B. B. The Works of B. B. Warfield, 10 vols. (1932; Grand Rapids: Baker, 1981). Webster, Ransom Lewis. “Geerhardus Vos (1862–​ 1949):  A Biographical Sketch,” Westminster Theological Journal 40/​2 (1978): 304–​17. Weir, David A. The Origins of the Federal Theology in Sixteenth-​Century Reformation Thought (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1990). Williams, Carol A. “The Decree of Redemption Is in Effect a Covenant: David Dickson and the Covenant of Redemption” (PhD Thesis, Calvin Theological Seminary, 2005). Williams, C. J. “Good and Necessary Consequence in the Westminster Confession,” in The Faith Once Delivered, ed. Anthony T. Selvaggio (Phillipsburg, NJ: P & R, 2007): 171–​90. Wodrow, Robert. Collections upon the Lives of the Reformers and Most Eminent Minsters of the Church of Scotland, vol. 2 (Glasgow: 1848). Woolsey, Andrew A. Unity and Continuity in Covenantal Thought:  A Study in the Reformed Tradition to the Westminster Assembly (Grand Rapids: Reformation Heritage Books, 2012).

Scripture Index Tables are indicated by t following the page number For the benefit of digital users, indexed terms that span two pages (e.g., 52–​53) may, on occasion, appear on only one of those pages. Genesis 1-​2,  161 1-​3, 5,  64–​65 1:26, 123 1:26-​27,  109 1:27, 115, 146 1:28,  192–​93 2:9, 64–​65, 181t 2:16-​17, 125–​26, 160, 181t,  195–​96 2:17, 109, 111–​12, 142–​43, 152, 200–​1, 213 3:3,  64–​65 3:17-​24,  181t 3:22,  200–​1 2:7-​17,  173–​74 2:16-​17, 23–​24, 30, 31, 115, 192 2:17, 13–​14, 19, 20, 47, 65, 96–​97, 110, 124,  144–​45 3:22, 47–​48,  144–​45 8-​9,  48–​49 9,  28–​29 9:6,  66–​67 9:10-​17,  124 9:11, 80, 88 9:12-​13,  144–​45 14:13,  203–​4 15:9-​10,  169–​70 17,  28–​29 17:13, 124 21:32, 88 26:28-​29,  203–​4 Exodus 19-​24,  89 20, 213 20:20, 85t 34:10, 163, 203–​4 34:27-​28,  124

Leviticus 18, 89 18:5, 24–​25, 27–​28, 37, 49, 62, 64–​65, 76, 82, 85, 91–​92, 96–​97, 101–​2, 108, 124, 125–​26, 127, 142–​43, 148, 160–​61, 164, 172, 173–​74, 181t, 192, 195–​99, 213 26, 64–​65, 89 Numbers 10:33, 124 25:12-​13,  88 Deuteronomy 4:13, 15–​16, 107 7:12,  87–​88 9:9, 107 27:26, 64–​65, 67–​68, 76, 124–​25 27-​28,  89 28,  64–​65 29:19-​20, 64–​65,  150 30:16, 97 30:19, 213 32:33,  64–​65 Joshua 9:6-​15,  203 1 Samuel 2:25,  107–​8 11:1, 203 18:2,  203–​4 2 Samuel 7:12-​13,  163 23:5, 124 Job 9:32-​33,  107–​8 22:2-​3,  107–​8 28:18, 109 31:1, 124 31:33, 125, 144–​45, 171

298  Scripture Index 35:7-​8,  107–​8 Psalms 25:10, 14, 88 44:17, 88 50:16, 88 82:7, 144–​45, 171 100:2-​3,  107–​8 105:8-​11,  163 113:5-​6,  107–​8 119:119, 14 139:3-​4,  163 Proverbs 3:18, 65 Ecclesiastes 7:29, 109, 123, 146, 173–​74, 192 Isaiah 24:5, 15–​16, 198 28:15,  204–​5 40:13-​17,  107–​8 49:21, 163 59:21, 124 Jeremiah 3:23,  87–​88 17:1, 123 31:31, 67 31:36,  203–​4 31-​33,  15–​16 33,  28–​29 33:20,  203–​4 33:25, 124, 169–​70 34:18-​20,  169–​70 Ezekiel 17:3, 203 18:21-​22,  67–​68 20:11, 76, 89, 91–​92, 124–​25, 128, 213 Hosea 6:7, 12–​13, 15, 16–​17, 19, 124, 125–​26, 143, 144–​45, 160–​61, 166, 171, 179–​80, 193, 195, 200–​1, 213–​15 Amos 1:9, 124 Habakkuk 2:4, 197 Malachi 2:10,  61–​62 Matthew 19:16-​17, 128, 213 19:16-​22, 149–​50,  181t

19:16-​30,  160–​61 19:17, 49–​50, 89, 101–​2, 124–​25 20:28,  87–​88 22:37-​39,  146 22:37-​40,  173–​74 Mark 10:17-​31,  160–​61 Luke 10:25-​28, 24–​25, 64–​65,  148–​50 10:28, 64–​65,  91–​92 17:10, 75–​76, 107–​8, 129 18:18,  101–​2 18:18-​30,  160–​61 18:20-​21,  101–​2 18:22,  101–​2 20: 26-​27, 62 22:29,  87–​88 23:43, 101 John 1:17,  16–​17 3:15,  87–​88 3:16, 148 3:18, 85 10:10, 149 10:28, 149 12:45,  66–​67 14:9,  66–​67 17:3, 149 Acts 2:30, 163 2:25,  87–​88 3:15,  47–​48 13:39, 113 17:24-​25,  107–​8 17:26, 115 17:31, 143 Romans 1:19,  38–​39 1:32,  38–​39 2:14, 38–​39, 63 2:14-​15, 14–​15, 47, 49, 51, 96–​97, 109, 125–​26, 195–​96,  213 2:14-​16,  39 2:15, 69, 85, 91–​92, 139, 146, 160, 192,  200–​1 3:3, 129 3:19, 196 3:20,  124–​25

Scripture Index  299 3:27, 62, 143, 170–​71, 195–​96, 213 3:31, 67, 68 4:4,  100–​1 4:14, 14 5, 31, 172 5:12, 42–​43, 109, 115, 130, 145 5:12-​19, 13, 65–​66, 140–​41,  193–​94 5:12-​21, 14, 19, 96–​97, 108, 131, 160, 171–​72, 181t, 192, 195–​96, 198–​99, 200–​1,  213 5:13, 196 5:14, 16 5:15-​19,  65 5:16-​19,  115 6:14, 113–​14, 143, 196 6:23, 148, 149 7:1-​4, 113–​14, 160, 192, 195–​96 7:1-​10,  213 7:4, 133 7:7, 12, 14, 62 7:8,  113–​14 7:10, 124–​25, 128, 172, 173–​74, 181t 7:14, 125–​26,  144–​45 8:1, 113 8:3,  124–​25 8:10,  101–​2 8:18, 129 9:13, 55 10:4, 22, 68, 89 10:5, 24–​25, 37, 75, 76, 89, 91–​92, 108, 109, 114–​15, 142–​43, 145, 148, 160, 164, 192, 195–​96, 197–​98,  213 10:5-​6, 62, 63 11:6, 38 11:8,  37–​38 11:27, 159 11:36,  47–​48 1 Corinthians 9:8-​9,  196 11:7,  66–​67 14:21-​24,  196 15:21-​22, 48, 115, 130 15:22, 42–​43,  65–​66 15:44-​45,  125–​26 15:45, 100, 145, 192 15:46, 99 15:46-​47,  149–​50 15:47,  96–​97

15:47-​48, 82–​83, 101,  102–​3 15:55, 150 15:56, 184 2 Corinthians 3:6,  77–​78 3:6-​7,  78 5:15-​21,  133 7:10,  87–​88 Galatians 2:16, 113 2:19, 133 3, 29 3:8, 90 3:10, 24–​25, 75, 76, 109, 150, 181t, 192, 195–​96,  197–​98 3:10-​12, 62, 67–​68, 160, 197, 213 3:10-​13,  62 3:10-​19,  196 3:11-​12,  63 3:12, 37, 76, 85, 89, 91–​92, 108, 124–​25, 128, 143, 173–​74 3:13, 113 3:13-​14,  67–​68 3:17, 159 3:21,  124–​25 4,  113–​14 4:4, 89 4:4-​5, 113, 172 4:22, 77–​78, 89 4:23-​24,  78 4:24, 62, 78, 85t, 143–​44, 170–​71, 192, 195–​96,  213 4:24-​25,  26–​27 Ephesians 2:1, 150 2:6, 101 2:12,  86–​87 4:24, 66–​67, 123, 146, 173–​74 Colossians 1:15,  66–​67 2:14,  113–​14 3:9-​10,  66–​67 3:10, 123, 146, 173–​74 2 Thessalonians 1:7-​9,  150 1 Timothy 1:5, 62 1:15, 148

300  Scripture Index 2 Timothy 1:1, 149 1:10, 149, 200–​1 2:13, 129 Titus 1:2, 149 Hebrews 1:3,  66–​67 7:6-​10,  19 7:22, 159 8:8-​10,  76–​77

8:10, 80 8:13,  80–​81 9:15,  169–​70 9:15-​17,  203–​5 9:16-​17,  90 9:17, 87–​88, 159 9:20,  204–​5 Revelation 2:7, 65, 200–​1 2:17,  47–​48 22:2-​19, 181t

Subject Index For the benefit of digital users, indexed terms that span two pages (e.g., 52–​53) may, on occasion, appear on only one of those pages.    à Brakel, Wilhelmus, 1–​3, 4–​5, 123–​24, Barr, James, 203–​4 125, 133, 142, 191–​92, 215 Barth, Karl, 1–​2, 3, 5, 9–​10, 187–​91, 201–​2, à Lapide, Cornelius, 12–​13 205–​12,  214 Abraham, 19, 28–​29, 90, 163, 190 Barthian(s),  4–​5 Academy of Saumur, 119, 137 Bavinck, Herman, 2–​3, 187–​88, 191–​92, Adam 200–​1, 204–​6,  212 covenantal/​federal headship, Baxter, Richard, 134, 149–​50 171–​72,  193–​94 beatific vision, 102 post-​fall state, 97, 163 Belgic Confession, 197–​98 pre-​fall state, 96–​97, 127, 163, 166, 174, Bell, Thomas, 170–​71, 175–​76 183,  197–​98 Bellarmine, Robert, 36, 129–​30 probation of, 100, 147, 158, 215 Bellamy, Joseph, 160 Ames, William, 74–​75, 76–​79, 93, berith, 3–​4, 87–​88, 105, 124, 158–​59, 160–​61, 149–​50,  175–​76 165, 169–​70, 198, 203–​5, 211 Amyraut, Moises, 121, 128–​29, 134, 137 Berkhof, Louis, 2–​3, 187–​88 Anabaptist(s), 18, 20–​21, 131–​32, 191 Beza, Theodore, 34, 40–​41, 86–​87 analogy of Scripture (analogia Scripturae), 2 Blake, Thomas, 164–​65 Anselm, 42, 54, 196 Bolton, Samuel, 79–​80, 84, 92, 102–​3, 134 antinomian(ism), 151–​52, 161, 167–​69, Boston, Thomas, 2–​3, 8, 137, 160, 172, 174–​85, 190, 194 164–​65,  173–​76 Aquinas, Thomas, 15–​17, 50, 55, Bradwardine, Thomas, 54 100–​1,  109–​10 Bridge, William, 95–​96, 109–​10, 113–​14 Thomistic, 42, 208 Brown, John, 137–​38, 142, 148, 150, 160 Aristotle, 100–​1, 139 Bullinger, Heinrich, 3, 12, 18, 20–​23, Arminius, Jacob, 6–​7, 43–​44, 45, 66, 188–​89,  191 74–​75,  128 Burgess, Anthony, 42–​43, 95–​99, 103, Arminian(ism),  168–​69 107–​8, 109–​10, 114, 152 atonement Burns, Robert, 181–​82 limited, 3–​4, 176–​77,  183–​84 Burroughs, Jeremiah, 134 Augustine, 13–​15, 18, 19, 24–​25, 31,    98–​99, 171–​72,  213 Calamy, Edmund, 97–​98, 117 Augustinian, 62–​63,  65–​66 Calvin, John, 1, 3–​6, 12, 14–​15, 16, 22,    23–​30, 39, 40–​41, 42, 48, 65, 73, 104, Baius, Michael, 55 127–​28, 139, 151–​52, 160, 166–​68, Ball, John, 92 175, 176–​77, 188–​89, 190, 196–​98, baptism, 13, 22–​23, 144–​45 205–​6, 207–​9,  213 of infants, 6, 12, 20–​21, 191 Calvinists, 3–​4, 5, 175–​76, 183–​84,  197–​98 Baron, Robert, 41 Five Points of Calvinism, 45, 166–​68

302  Subject Index Cameron, John, 7–​8, 41, 73, 95–​96, 102–​4, 114, 117, 119, 127, 128–​29, 134, 137, 148–​50, 154, 164, 214 Campbell, John McLeod, 183–​85 Canaan, 84, 86, 163–​64 Cartwright, Thomas, 35, 60–​61, 71, 74–​75 Cartwright’s catechism, 61 Catharinus, Ambrogio, 5, 6, 11–​12, 18–​20, 31, 36, 213 Christ. See Jesus Christ Chrysostom, John, 16, 109–​10 Cicero,  14–​15 circumcision, 13, 16, 144–​45 Clement of Alexandria, 13 Cloppenburg, Johannes, 3 Cocceius, Johannes, 3, 121, 123, 124–​25, 129–​30, 132–​33, 175–​76, 188–​89, 191–​92, 201, 206, 214 five-​fold abrogation of the covenant of works, 133 Colquhoun, John, 2–​3, 9, 155 Council of Trent, 11–​12, 18–​19, 36 covenant Abrahamic, 144–​45, 166, 203–​4 Adamic, 3–​4, 5–​6, 7–​8, 11–​13, 18, 19–​21, 25, 27–​28, 31, 38–​39, 48, 91, 93, 95–​96, 105–​6, 108, 117, 125, 146–​47, 170–​71, 191, 195, 197–​98, 201, 203–​4, 214 angelic,  111–​12 of creation, 30 Davidic,  203–​4 of the gospel, 89 of grace, 1, 18, 20–​21, 23, 29, 30, 34–​35, 36, 37, 39, 52, 57–​58, 61, 65, 66–​67, 78, 79, 82–​83, 86, 90, 96, 97, 105, 113–​15, 127–​28, 130–​31, 134, 139–​48, 170–​71, 188–​89, 190, 194, 198–​99, 201–​2, 205–​6,  215 of life, 75, 109 Mosaic, 4–​5, 7–​8, 15, 22, 26–​28, 37–​38, 47, 76, 77, 80–​81, 84, 89, 91, 93, 97, 102–​3, 105–​6, 107, 114, 117, 121, 134, 143–​44, 152, 163–​64, 170–​71, 201–​2, 203–​4, 214, 215 as a mixed covenant of works and grace,  106–​7 as a republication of the covenant of works, 30

of nature, 28, 29, 47, 82–​83, 84, 89, 90–​91, 105, 111–​12,  122–​23 new, 13, 15–​16, 18–​19, 36, 47, 76–​77, 106–​7, 114–​15, 144–​45, 164, 167–​68, 170–​71,  203–​4 Noahic, 144–​45, 194 old, 13, 76–​77, 90–​91, 164, 166, 167–​68,  170–​71 of promise, 86–​87 of redemption, 90, 194, 198–​99, 207 subservient, 84, 89, 90, 91–​92, 102–​3,  114 supernatural, 47 threefold (Cameron), 73–​74, 80–​86, 117, 119, 120, 121, 133–​35, 164 twofold, 34–​35, 37, 39, 40–​41, 47–​48, 51, 61–​63, 73, 91–​92, 213 Coxe, Nehemiah, 42–​43 cradle view of history, 11 Crisp, Tobias, 134, 214 Cyril,  12–​13    Dabney, Robert L., 173–​74 David, 163 Decalogue, 15–​16, 22, 23–​24, 29, 63, 79, 110, 123–​24, 146–​47, 151–​52,  173–​74 Denlinger, Aaron, 5, 34–​35 diatheke, 87–​88, 105, 124, 159, 165, 203–​5,  211 Dick, John, 175–​77, 180 Dickson, David, 151 Diemer, N., 3 Downame, John, 60, 75 Du Moulin, Pierre, 52–​53, 57–​58 Duncan, James, 2–​3    Eagleton, John, 2–​3, 157–​62, 164–​65, 166, 169–​70, 174–​75, 176–​77, 179, 183–​84,  187 Ebionites, 22 Eden, 15, 82–​83, 101, 103–​4, 140, 142–​43 Edict of Nantes, 136 Edwards, Jonathan, 160, 174–​76 Egypt, 89 election, 52–​53, 55–​56,  205–​6 Episcopius, Simon, 57 Erskine, Ebenezer, 151, 152–​54 eternal death, 64–​65, 76, 86, 147

Subject Index  303 eternal life, 39, 47, 48, 61, 64–​65, 66, 73, 76, 82, 92–​93, 96–​98, 101–​2, 103–​4, 107–​ 8, 119, 126–​30, 146, 147, 163–​64, 166, 180, 183, 192, 198–​99, 214–​15 Eusebius, 13, 16, 22    faith, 37–​38, 47, 50, 52, 78–​79, 82, 91, 96, 104–​5, 132–​33,  161 Fenner, Dudley, 35, 74–​75 Finch, Henry, 75–​76, 78–​79, 92–​93 Fisher, Edward, 99–​100, 134, 142 Fisher, James, 175–​76 foedus, 48–​49, 124, 198 evangelicum, 26–​27, 89 gratiae,  80–​81 legale, 26–​27, 89 naturae, 80–​81, 99, 102, 122–​23 naturale, 30, 89 operum, 6 subserviens, 80–​81, 102–​3, 114 Forbes, John, 41 Ford, Alan, 68–​69 Formula Consensus Helvetica, 8, 114, 116, 119, 137–​40, 157, 214 French Confession, 197–​98 Fullerton, James, 60    Gabler, Johann P., 177–​81 German Idealism, 205–​6 Gib, Adam, 137–​38, 142, 148, 151, 173–​76 Gill, John, 137–​38, 142, 148–​49, 154, 160,  174–​75 Gillespie, George, 41 Gomarus, Franciscus, 6–​7, 46–​49, 51, 57,  74–​75 good and necessary consequence, 155–​56, 159–​60, 161, 170–​71, 180, 185, 187–​ 88, 195, 200–​1, 202–​5, 212, 214 Goodwin, Thomas, 92, 95–​96, 99–​104, 107–​8, 111–​12, 117, 134, 149–​50 gospel, 78, 84, 90, 97, 113–​15, 162–​63, 196 gospel-​law,  3–​4 grace, 75–​76, 98, 103, 113–​14, 145–​46, 161, 173–​74, 183–​84, 190 nature and grace, 52–​53, 55–​56, 66, 73, 82 pre-​fall,  117 prevenient,  52–​53

superinfused/​supernatural, 55–​56, 66–​67,  75–​76

   Hadow, James, 8–​9, 152–​53, 173–​74 Hagar, 26–​28, 113–​15,  170–​71 Hamilton, James, 60 Hegel, Wilhelm Friedrich, 11 Heidegger, Johannes, 8, 92, 119, 121,  122–​26 Heidelberg Catechism, 34, 35–​37, 197–​98 Disputation,  79–​80 Heppe, Heinrich, 4, 188–​89, 207 Hobbes, Thomas, 138–​39 Hodge, A. A., 176–​77, 181 Hodge, Charles, 2–​3, 178–​79, 181, 191–​92, 193, 201, 207 Hoeksema, Herman, 9–​10, 187–​89, 201–​2, 205–​6,  207 Hogg, James, 174–​75, 183 Hugh of St. Victor, 12–​13, 15    idealism German,  9–​10 image of God (imago Dei), 66–​67, 103, 111, 123, 140–​41, 193, 201–​2 imputation covenantal/​federal, 19, 33, 42, 158,  198–​99 doctrine of, 201–​2, 215 double, 40 of guilt, 40, 42, 43, 65–​66, 115–​16, 131, 171–​72,  193–​94 immediate, 40–​41, 120, 130–​32, 194–​95,  196 mediate, 117, 120, 130–​31, 198–​99, 201 of righteousness ( see righteousness) of sin ( see sin) triple,  130–​31 infralapsarian(ism), 104 Irenaeus, 13 Irish Articles, 7–​8, 59, 68–​71, 74–​75, 95–​96, 122–​23,  191 Israel, 79, 80–​81, 82–​83, 90, 97–​98, 106–​7, 124, 143–​44, 146, 163, 190    Jansen, Cornelius, 55 Jansenists, 55

304  Subject Index Jerome, 12–​13, 18, 19, 31, 213 Latin Vulgate, 19, 31, 144–​45 Jesus Christ incarnation of, 190 as mediator, 1, 39, 215 obedience of ( see obedience) on the law, 146–​50, 160–​61 as second Adam, 65, 96–​104, 131, 183 union with, 107, 113–​14 John Duns Scotus, 17 Jones, Samuel, 159–​60 Judaism, 13 Junius, Franciscus, 6–​7, 46–​49, 57, 66, 74–​75,  86–​87 justification, 24–​25, 36, 37–​38, 96–​97, 107, 116–​17, 132–​33, 161,  195–​96 Justin Martyr, 16    Kant, Immanuel, 178 Kelly, John, 156, 161–​62, 164–​66, 179, 194,  202–​3 Kierkegaardian existentialism, 205–​6, 207 Kline, Meredith G., 210, 214–​15 Knox, John, 41 Kuyper, Abraham, 187–​88, 206    Lactantius, 13 Lañyez, Diego, 11–​12, 18–​20, 36 Lavater, Ludwig, 40–​41 law, 77–​78,  113–​14 and gospel, 3–​4, 39, 63, 68, 91, 93, 99–​100, 104–​5, 214, 215 creation law (jus creationis),  111–​12 moral, 63, 107, 109, 114, 143–​44, 151–​52, 172, 173–​74, 183 moral, ceremonial, and judicial, 86 of Moses, 90–​91, 97, 110, 113, 196 natural, 14–​15, 30, 34–​35, 38–​39, 48, 49, 110, 111–​12, 146, 151–​52, 173–​74, 191, 198–​99,  201–​2 legalism, 113, 161–​62, 183–​85, 190 Leigh, Edward, 7–​8, 40–​41, 71, 73, 119, 159,  174–​76 Letham, Robert, 4 Libertine(s),  151–​52 Lillback, Peter, 4 Lombard, Peter, 36

love, 62, 147, 173–​74, 214–​15 twofold love of God, 80 Love, John, 2–​3 Lusk, William, 2–​3 Luther, Martin, 23–​24, 26–​27, 104–​5, 139, 151–​52,  160    Maccovius, Johannes, 149–​50, 175–​76 Machen, J. Gresham, 197 marriage, 63 Marrow Controversy, 8–​9, 137–​38, 151–​53, 173–​74, 181–​85,  194 mediator, 103–​4, 105, 147, 149 Melanchthon, Philip, 24–​25, 205–​6 Melchizedek, 19 Melville, James, 34, 41, 60 merit, 38, 73, 98, 117, 120, 163–​64, 192,  201–​2 Morus, Alexandre, 120–​21 Moses, 24–​25, 63, 79, 89, 110, 163 Muller, Richard A., 4–​5 Murray, John, 3–​4, 5, 9–​10, 187–​88, 194–​98, 201–​3,  209 Adamic Administration, 3–​4, 194–​98,  209 Musculus, Wolfgang, 6, 12, 39, 40–​41, 48–​49, 51, 57, 74–​75, 88, 99–​100, 154,  188–​89    natural generation, 65, 116 neonomianism, 113, 151–​52, 175–​76,  194 Nicholas of Lyra, 12–​13, 15 Noah, 3–​4, 20–​21, 48–​49, 80, 163    obedience, 75–​76, 78–​79, 86, 91, 107, 113, 132–​33,  172 of Adam, 39, 47–​48, 49, 50, 52, 55–​57, 62, 64–​65, 66–​68, 82, 96–​97, 123, 124, 125–​26, 145–​46, 147, 151, 158–​63, 166, 180, 192, 195, 201–​2,  214–​15 of Christ, 121, 163–​64 evangelical,  97–​98 of Israel, 163–​64 Olevianus, Caspar, 12, 23–​30, 35, 74–​75,  188–​89

Subject Index  305 order of nature (ordo naturae),  115–​16 Ostervald, Jean Frédéric, 154, 155 Owen, John, 92, 134, 149–​50, 160, 174–​75,  183–​84 pactum salutis,  149–​50 Parsons, Robert, 19–​20 Pelagian(ism), 1, 42–​43, 131–​32, 168–​69,  190 Pelikan, Jaroslav, 68–​69 Pemble, William, 175–​76 Perkins, William, 6–​7, 34–​35, 51, 60, 74–​75, 76, 78–​79, 87–​88,  113–​14 Petto, Samuel, 134 Pighius, Albertus, 36 Piscator, Johannes, 40–​41, 86–​87, 121 Pius V, 55 Placaeus, Josua, 115–​16, 130–​31 Polanus, Amandus, 51, 86–​87, 90, 135 predestination, 4, 55–​56, 120, 181–​82 double, 190 Preston, John, 77–​78, 92 probation. See Adam    Ramus, Peter, 60 Reformation, 2, 3, 6, 11, 197–​98, 209, 213 post, 3 Remonstrance, 45 Remonstrant(s), 57, 120, 127, 128–​29,  131–​32 reward, 75–​76, 80, 91, 163–​64, 192 of Adam, 7–​8, 50, 52–​53, 55–​56, 64–​65, 82, 92–​94, 97–​109, 119, 121–​22, 126–​30, 135, 147–​49, 154, 161, 183, 196, 198–​99, 214 of Christ, 183 Ridderbos, Herman, 202–​3, 210 righteousness,  37–​38 active and passive, 104–​5 of Christ, 164 imputed, 18–​19, 42, 131 imputed righteousness of Christ, 39–​40, 65,  130–​31 Rivet, André, 40–​41, 175–​76 Roberts, Francis, 2–​3, 42–​43, 92, 164–​65 Robertson, O. Palmer, 210

Rollock, Robert, 6, 33, 51, 60, 64–​66, 74–​ 75, 111, 115–​16, 145–​46, 154, 192, 213 Roman Catholic(s), 5–​6, 11–​12 Rupert of Deutz, 12–​13, 15 Russel, David, 156, 162–​66, 179, 194,  202–​3 Rutherford, Samuel, 41–​42, 52–​58, 66, 95–​99, 100–​1, 103, 107–​8, 111, 114, 117, 134    Sabbath, 63, 101, 103–​4, 110, 140–​41,  176–​77 sacrament(s), 23, 25, 31, 109–​10, 176–​77, 197–​98,  201–​2 salvation,  76–​77 sanctification, 107 Sarah, 26–​28,  113–​15 Sarpi, Paolo, 18–​19 Savoy Declaration, 122–​23, 138–​39 Schaff, Philip, 68–​69, 124–​25 scholastic(ism), 5, 141, 154, 155, 160, 174–​85, 187, 202, 214 Anti-​scholasticism,  207–​11 Scottish Confession, 197–​98 seal (of the covenant), 105, 109–​10, 127–​28, 144–​45,  180 Second Helvetic Confession, 121–​22,  197–​98 Second London Confession, 122–​23,  138–​39 Sedgwick, Obadiah, 92, 109, 117, 134 Septuagint, 12–​13,  203–​5 Sibbes, Richard, 79 sin,  75–​76 doctrine of, 24–​25 imputation of, 36, 116, 142 original, 13, 36, 43, 50–​51, 115–​16, 130, 131–​32, 140–​41, 196,  198–​99 transmission of, 14, 19–​20, 33, 42–​43, 50, 65–​66,  115–​16 Sinai, 15, 30, 63, 90, 97, 106–​7, 109, 110, 112, 113–​15, 135, 143–​44, 164, 170–​71,  214 Socinian(ism), 127, 128–​29, 131–​32 Stoic(ism),  14–​15 Strabo, Walafrid, 15 Strong, William, 112–​13, 164–​65, 168

306  Subject Index substance and accidents, 93 suntheke, 165, 203–​5 supralapsarian(ism), 103–​4, 148 Swift, Jonathan, 140–​41 Synod of Charenton, 115–​16 of Dort, 45, 76, 120, 121 Szegedinus, Stephanus, 48–​49, 51, 74–​75    Tarnovius, Paul, 40–​41 ten commandments. See Decalogue theology biblical, 177–​81, 206 dogmatic, 177–​81,  183–​84 natural, 2, 190 systematic, 178, 188, 191–​92, 194 Thirty-​Nine Articles, 69–​71,  197–​98 Three Forms of Unity, 191–​92 Tillotson, John, 139 Torrence, James B., 3–​4, 5 Torrence, T. F., 34–​35 Tossanus, Daniel, 46 tree of knowledge, 1, 19, 20, 23, 25, 31, 47–​48, 49, 62–​63, 65, 109–​10, 112, 123, 128, 140, 142–​43, 144–​45, 173–​74, 176–​77, 195,  198–​99 tree of life, 23, 25, 27–​28, 47–​48, 62–​63, 65, 109–​10, 127–​28, 144–​45, 176–​77, 180,  197–​98 Trelcatius, Lucas, 6–​7, 51, 57, 74–​75, 90 Truman, Carl, 68–​69 Turretin, Francis, 2–​3, 8, 57, 92, 119, 121–​35, 139–​40, 149–​50, 175–​76,  208–​9 Turretin, Jean-​Alphonse, 136, 139, 154, 155, 157 Twisse, William, 149–​50 Tyndale, William, 12, 20–​23    University of Leiden, 6–​7, 43–​44, 45, 49–​50, 57–​58, 74–​75,  78

Ursinus, Zacharias, 4, 6–​7, 12, 23–​30, 34, 35–​37, 39, 46–​47, 48–​49, 51, 74–​75, 154,  188–​89 Ussher, James, 7–​8, 59, 74–​75, 95–​96, 115–​16,  151–​52    Vermigli, Peter Martyr, 23–​25, 27, 40–​41,  88 Visser, Derk, 4 Vitringa, Campegius, 175–​76 Voetius, Gisbert, 57 von Limborch, Philip, 57, 127–​28, 132 Vos, Geerhardus, 9–​10, 187–​88, 191–​92, 193–​94, 198–​99, 201–​2, 204–​6,  210    Wake, William, 139 Walker, George, 95–​96, 104–​7 Watts, Isaac, 160 Weir, David, 4, 35 Wesley, John, 160 Westminster Assembly, 7–​8, 40–​41, 42, 59, 69–​71, 73, 75, 82–​83, 89, 95–​96, 116, 119, 126, 128–​29, 138–​39,  151–​52 Confession of Faith, 1, 7–​8, 9, 23–​24, 42, 59, 69–​71, 92–​93, 95–​96, 119, 121–​22, 134, 138–​39, 143, 145, 152–​53, 166, 172, 175–​76, 183, 191, 210 Larger Catechism, 95–​96, 109, 110, 142–​43, 151,  175–​76 Shorter Catechism, 75, 95–​96, 109, 140, 151, 152–​53, 157 Standards, 95, 122–​23, 147–​48, 151, 157, 168, 169–​70, 171, 175–​76, 183–​84,  214 Witsius, Herman, 2–​3, 4–​5, 52, 57, 123–​24, 133, 142, 149–​50, 151, 154, 160, 164–​ 65, 174–​77, 191–​92, 201, 203–​4    Zanchi, Girolamo, 40–​41, 46 Zwingli, Ulrich, 3, 12, 18, 20–​23, 188–​91