Conclusion

The conclusion summarizes the study. The doctrine stands in continuity with patristic versions and does not arise de novo in the sixteenth century. Roman Catholics were also some of the first sixteenth-century theologians to teach an Adamic covenant. The doctrine is a construct based on a good and necessary consequence. This means that the doctrine has a broad scriptural foundation. There are also different variants of the doctrine and even confessional formulations allow for a diversity of opinion. These points stand in contrast to the claims of critics who rarely engage a close reading of primary sources. Moreover, with the development of biblicism, critics have approached the question with a different hermeneutic methodology than early modern Reformed theologians. Lastly, one of the most important themes in the covenant of works is love, something that most critics of the doctrine fail to factor.

The Twentieth Century

In the twentieth century, critics of the covenant works rejected it for several reasons. First, the doctrine had a faulty understanding of the nature of a covenant. A covenant is promise not agreement. Second, they believed there was scant, if any, biblical evidence for the doctrine. Third, they believed that Reformed scholasticism was an unhelpful development in the Reformed tradition. Conversely, proponents of the doctrine held diametrically opposed views. A covenant is an agreement but context and parties determines the precise nature of the covenant. There were a host of biblical texts that teach the doctrine. And, Reformed scholasticism was a good resource. Especially in the twentieth century, the rise of biblicism marks the period as well as the influx of Idealist-influenced methods.

John Colquhoun

In the nineteenth century indifference toward the doctrine of works grew to outright rejection and hostility because of the influence of higher criticism and negative opinions of Reformed scholasticism. Critics of the doctrine argued that in order for the doctrine to be legitimate, there had to be an explicit biblical statement attesting to its existence. This was a change from earlier exegetical patterns of argumentation. Critics also characterized the covenant of works as an agreement between equals, which was an erroneous understanding of God’s dealings with Adam. Proponents of the doctrine, however, maintained earlier methodologies and commitments, saw Reformed scholastic theology as a good resource, and were careful to qualify their definitions of covenant to ensure that it was not construed as an agreement between equals. Theologians such as John Colquhoun promoted the doctrine.

Robert Rollock

This chapter surveys the contribution of Scottish theologian Robert Rollock through several of his key works. Rollock develops the doctrine of works exegetically but also in likely reliance on insights from a Roman Catholic theologian, Ambrogio Catharinus. Rollock is the first to advocate a fully federal doctrine of the covenant of works that impacted future formulations of the doctrine. The chapter therefore reveals that the doctrine was not purely a Reformed novelty but has broader, catholic, roots—catholic in the sense that Reformed theologians looked to the broader universal church as they wrote theology. The chapter also shows that Rollock was engaged in significant exegetical work, which was a source for his doctrine. Both his exegetical and theological works were influential upon the later Reformed tradition.

Introduction

This chapter introduces the topic of the history of the early modern Reformed doctrine of the covenant of works. It first defines the doctrine and then provides a state of the question through a survey of relevant secondary literature. After the state of the question, the chapter states the book’s main aim, which is to present an overview of the origins, development, and reception of the covenant of works. In contrast to critics of the doctrine, this book stands within another strand of historiography that sees the covenant of works as a legitimate development of ideas present in the early church, middle ages, and Reformation periods. The chapter then lays out the topics of each of following chapters: the Reformation, Robert Rollock, Jacob Arminius, James Ussher, John Cameron and Edward Leigh, The Westminster Standards, the Formula Consensus Helvetica, Thomas Boston, and the Twentieth Century.

Thomas Boston

In the wake of the turbulent seventeenth century, eighteenth-century theologians began to turn away from the covenant of works. Theologians and philosophers became critical of perceived doctrinal strictness and sought to reduce theological commitments to bare minimums. One of the supposed enemies of the simplicity of faith was Reformed scholasticism. Thus, for some, the covenant of works became a casualty. There were others, such as Thomas Boston, who were positively disposed to the doctrine because they saw Reformed scholasticism as an asset. They also continued to employ Reformation-era exegetical methods. Advocates of the doctrine also saw the Westminster Confession as a good source.

The Formula Consensus Helvetica

This chapter explores the confessional codification of the covenant of works in the Formula Consensus Helvetica, written by Johannes Heidegger and Francis Turretin. In the prior generation Reformed theologians were willing to allow differences of opinion on the finer points of the doctrine of the covenant of works, such as the nature of Adam’s reward (temporal or eternal) and the relationship between the Adamic and Mosaic covenants. But with the perceived threat of doctrinal novelty coming from the Academy of Saumur, Swiss theologians sought to narrow the gates of orthodoxy by precluding the Salmurian views. Adam’s obedience would secure eternal, not temporal, life, and the Cameronian idea of a third distinct covenant in addition to the covenants of works and grace was disallowed. Despite narrowing the gate, the Formula Consensus Helvetica was not widely adopted.

Jacob Arminius

This chapter surveys the works of Jacob Arminius, a figure infrequently associated with covenant theology. Through his labors at the University of Leiden, Arminius and his colleagues continued to develop the covenant of works based upon a number of different texts and thus acted as a dissemination point for the doctrine. But the chapter also coordinates Arminius’s doctrine with the formulations of his colleagues at Leiden, Franciscus Gomarus, Francis Junius, and Lucas Trelcatius. Arminius’s doctrine was common and relatively uncontroversial. Instead, later Reformed theologians critiqued his theology because they believed his doctrine of the covenant of grace too closely resembled the covenant of works. Later theologians also critiqued Arminius’s understanding of the precise nature of Adam’s natural state, namely, that he received the supernatural grace of God.

James Ussher

This chapter surveys the views of James Ussher, a relatively little-known but nevertheless key figure in the development of the covenant of works. Ussher’s key contributions include treating the doctrine in a number of his writings but also codifying it for the first time in the Irish Articles. This document served an influential role in the creation of the Westminster Confession. Ussher was influential upon the later tradition for two main reasons. First, his Body of Divinity was a highly respected work and contained an exposition of the covenant of works. Second, his inclusion of the covenant of works in the Irish Articles likely encouraged the Westminster divines to include the doctrine in the Westminster Standards.

The Westminster Standards

Many contemporary critics of the Westminster Standards believe that it is a doctrinal straightjacket that narrows the bounds of permissible beliefs within the church. The confession does define the boundaries of orthodoxy but it was written in such a manner as to accommodate several different versions of the covenant of works. The Westminster divines did not agree on whether Adam’s reward was temporal or eternal life. They also disagreed on the proper exegetical foundation for the doctrine. There was also disagreement on the precise way to relate the Adamic and Mosaic covenants. The confession thus codifies the broad parameters of the doctrine to allow for a diversified orthodoxy.