Anthony Burgess was one of the delegates to the Westminster Assembly, and was one of the men who helped to write that puppy. A very helpful correspondent wrote in to me to note that in his defense of the covenant of works, Burgess repeatedly denies the idea of merit. He put it this way — “though it were a Covenant of works, it cannot be said to be of merit.” (Vindiciae Legis, 1647, p. 129).
Maybe this can help us reach some common ground in our contemporary discussions. Should it be within the Reformed pale for someone to deny any covenant of merit, while affirming a covenant of works? If so, then we are making some headway. If not, then we have a problem with Burgess — a voting member of the Westminster Assembly. Could Anthony Burgess be ordained by the Mississippi Valley Presbytery?