A Critique of the Covenant of Works in Contemporary Controversy

Protestant Reformed Theological Journal
fensively attempted to distinguish this merit from Rome’s merit like
Witsius, who wrote, this reward is not “from any intrinsic proportion
of the work to the reward, as the grosser Papists proudly boast; but
from God’s covenant, and engagement, which was no ways unbecoming
him to enter into.” 74
The Reformed were right to be uncomfortable with the teaching
that Adam could merit as the feeble attempt to distinguish it from
Rome’s merit shows. The Reformed thought that they redeemed
Adam’s meriting by saying that it was ex pacto, that is, merit by virtue
of the covenant, a supposedly qualified or softer form of merit.
Yet they taught that Adam could merit with God.
Whatever supposedly redeeming name Adam’s merit might be
given, it is merit, merit for a mere man, and merit for man is bad.
With regard to meritum ex pacto in particular, it is as much an invented
notion of merit as Rome’s mertitum ex congruo and ex condigno.
Besides, attempts to qualify the manner in which man merits are
dangerous. Even Rome admits that full merit is impossible for mere
humans. The dispute over man’s meriting with God never revolves
around full merit. The question always is about merit in some qualified
sense. The question is: can man in any sense merit with God? Can
God ever become indebted to man to pay him his wage? More seriously,
the question is: can God bind Himself to be man’s debtor?
To ask the question is to answer it.
The notion that man can merit with God is repugnant. The notion
that even unfallen and upright man could have merited with God
is repugnant. Merit was repugnant to the Reformed in every other
context, except for some reason in the covenant of works. It is impossible
for mere man to merit with God, ever! This is what Jesus taught:
“When ye shall have done all those things which are commanded you,
say, we are unprofitable servants: we have done all that which was
our duty to do” (Luke 17:10). It is repugnant because it ascribes too
much to man—what is impossible for man. It is repugnant because
it ascribes to God what is impossible for Him: to give His glory to
74 Herman Witsius, Economy of the Covenants between God and Man,
trans. William Crookshank (London: T. Tegg and Son, Cheapside, 1838),
70.
40
Vol. 44, No. 2