THE WESTMINSTER DOCTRINE OF PREDESTINATION

JAMES CRICHTON

MASTER OF THEOLOGY

UNIVERSITY OF GLASGOW

FACULTY OF DIVINITY
 ProQuest Number: 11018036

All rights reserved

INFORMATION TO ALL USERS

The quality of this reproduction is d e p e n d e n t upon the quality of the copy subm itted.

In the unlikely e v e n t that the a u thor did not send a c o m p le te m anuscript

and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if m aterial had to be rem oved,
a n o te will ind ica te the deletion.

uest
ProQuest 11018036

Published by ProQuest LLC(2018). C opyright of the Dissertation is held by the Author.

All rights reserved.

This work is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States C o d e
M icroform Edition © ProQuest LLC.

ProQuest LLC.
789 East Eisenhower Parkway
P.O. Box 1346
Ann Arbor, Ml 4 8 1 0 6 - 1346
 CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION Page 1

Chapter 1 Confession and Community Page 8

The Biblical Evidence Page 8
{*? The Evidence of the Creeds Page 11

!;!
Chapter 2 The Seventeenth Century Confessions Page 13
Europe Page 13
The British Churches Page 15

Chapter 3 Covenant, Confession, Compromise? Page 19

,a The Theology of the English Church Page 19
The Theology of the Scottish Church Page 25
r<
c The Divisive Factor - Government Page 29
d) The Solemn League and Covenant Page 32
,e The Proof Texts Page 39
The Westminster Machinery Page 40

Chapter 4 Why Predestination Page 43

a’ The Day and Age Page 43
W
>c<
The Supreme Judge
The Biblical Evidence
Page
Page
47
51
The God of Predestination Page 59
e The Author of Sin Page 63
Human Freedom and Responsibility Page 67

Chapter 5 History of the Doctrine Page 71

Augustine Page 71
fb Luther Page 73
Calvin Page 75
Beza and Supralapsarianism Page 80
Arminianism Page 83
Amyraldism Page 89
Federalism Page 91

Chapter 6 The Westminster Statement Page 94

Chapter The Doctrine in Practice Page 109

Mission Page 109
Assurance and Moral Effort Page 115
Personal Faith Page 119

Conclusion Page 122

Bibliography Page 126

 SUMMARY

In scope this work is both theological and historical. The

aim is to recover an understanding of the Christian doctrine of

predestination as presented in the Westminster Confession of Faith.

As will be made clear in the Introduction, a part of Church

teaching, once prominent, has become neglected and has even been

disowned. This work is an attempt to get beyond the ignorance and

misunderstanding that surround both doctrine and Confession, It is

an attempt to see the Westminster teaching in its context. Whither

the view is worth the journey will be known only when the journey is

completed.

The first task will be to examine the confessional form and its

place in the history and thought of the Church, While the

confessional profusion of the Seventeenth Century will be given

particular attention, study vail be made first of the Bible and the

ancient creeds to try and establish the relationship between

confessions and the affirmation of community identity, a relationship

which will be shown to be highly significant for the Westminster

Confession,

The particular situation in which the 7/estminster Confession was

composed will require detailed examination. This will include a

survey of both English and Scottish Reformed theology prior to

Westminster as well as a thorough investigation of the complicated

background to the Assembly. This will set the Confession in its

context.
 A similar service must then be performed for "the doctrine#

The prominence enjoyed by the doctrine in the Confession cries out

for investigation# So does the relationship of the doctrine to

the understanding of God and man* That cry will be answered#

The development of the doctrine from its first formulation by

Augustine through Luther and Calvin to the Seventeenth Century will

be traced with particular reference to the options open at the time

of the Assembly#

In this way the ground will have been cleared for the

meaningful analysis of the Westminster statement which will then be

attempted*

However, something more is required. In order to get a full,

rounded picture of what the divines believed it will be necessary to

consider the way they and their successors taught the doctrine.

This will be done with an eye to arguments made against the alleged

effects of their teaching.

The Westminster doctrine of predestination having been set in

its context, historically and theologically, that doctrine having

been analysed as theory and studied as practice, the Conclusion will

attempt to assess its true significance*

II
INTRODUCTION

In August 1647 the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland,

in its twenty third session, passed an act adopting the Confession

of Faith of the Westminster Assembly, Mjudging it to be most

orthodox and grounded upon the Word of God” (l). In doing so the

Assembly accepted, without comment, a belief in predestination and

reprobation.

In May 1970 the Church of Scotland Panel on Doctrine, acting

on the instruction of the 1968 General Assembly, reported to the

(General) Assembly on the place of the Westminster Confession

within the church. In the course of that report it was stated that

"the doctrine of predestination, and certain other matters, were a

burden on their (ie "many people's") consciences and could no

longer be accepted" (2).

The Church of Scotland had apparently changed its mind. A

similar change can be seen in other churches within the Reformed

tradition.

(1) Acts of the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland

1638-1842. edited by the Church Law Society (Edinburgh,1843),
pp.l58f. The text of this act was printed with Scottish
editions of the Confession and is included in The Subordinate
Standards and other Authoritative Documents of the Free Church
of Scotland (Edinburghjl955).

(2) Reports to the General Assembly with the Legislative Acts 1970
(Edinburgh,1970), p.171.

1
 New such a change must have a cause* So the question arises,

has more recent study found the doctrine of predestination to he

at fault in some important way? What arguments have been raised

against it? The 1970 Beport offers no arguments* Nor do the

subsequent reports of the Panel. The doctrine is said to be a

•’burden" but no attempt is made to examine this burden. Apparently

by 1970 the Westminster teaching was so obviously wrong that all

argument was superfluous*

However, arguments have not been lacking in the recent past

and are still present in many minds. Indeed the Westminster doctrine

has been attacked on several fronts*

In a sense the trouble is that the doctrine belongs to the

wrong century* The Westminster Confession comes as "a worthy

climax"(3) to the age of orthodoxy, that "age of vast dogmatic

systems" (4)* The pre-eminence of the Confession within this

period is heightened, not lessened, by the appearance of the Savoy

Declaration in 1658 for the later production, largely the work of

John Owen, is no more than a "modification" (5) of certain parts

of the Confession*

(3) E*Bouteley, Creeds and Confessions (London,1962),p*119*

(4) H.E.Uackintosh, Types of M o d e m Theology (London, 1964), p.15*
(5) A.Cochrane, Reformed Creeds of the 16th Century (London, 1966), p*19

2
So the Westminster statement remains Mthe last great creed

utterance of Calvinism"(6) and thus, to certain twentieth century

minds, a rigid "legalistic"(7) propositional formulation.

All propositional theology is suspect in an age that has learned

to mark the distinction between the "treasure" of Ultimate Truth and

the "earthen vessel" of all human propositions about the Truth. In

this age it has become almost a theological commonplace, at least in

some circles, that "a dogma is not a statement of objective fact, but

combines cognitive insight with existential concern"(8) and is thus

relative. To absolutise the relative is the very thing the old

propositional formulae are thought to do, blundering into an idolatrous

"elevation of a preliminary concern to ultimacy"(9). So the

confessional form itself makes the Westminster teaching uncongenial

to some modern minds*

More, in an age conscious that "theology does not go on in a

vacuum but in the midst of human and political realities"(lO), the

Westminster doctrine is suspect because of its historical situation.

It was produced by the Westminster Assembly as part of the "Covenant"

agreed to by the English Parliament in return for the assistance of

the Scottish army in the English Civil War*

(6) W. A, Curtis, History of Creeds and Confessions of Faith

(Edinburgh,1911), p.275,
(7 ) G.S.Hendry, The Westminster Confession for Today (London,I960),
p.14.
(8) J.Macquarrie, God-Talk (London,1967), p01430
(9) P.Tillich, Systematic Theology (London,1964), vol*l#f p*16.
(10) J.Macquarrie, 'A modern Scottish theologian: Ian Henderson,
1910-1969', Expository Times, vol.82 No.7 (April 1971), p.200.

3
So it is asked, can a document from suck a source be an authentic

statement of genuine oelief? Must it not rather be a compromise,

the best one side could wring from the other through the pressure of

external forces? Until that question is ansv^ered, the doctrine is

under a cloud.

The doctrine itself has also been attacked as a doctrine. It

has been argued that the Westminster statement is not true to

Scripture but is ” a product of human logic”(ll), while reprobation

is said to be no more than an ’’imagined possibility”(12), ”a perverse

belief in what God has not decreed”(13). The doctrine has been

denounced variously as making God appear the Author of sin, as

robbing Christ of His power to reassure the believer by suggesting an

unknown will of God, and as denying the freedom and responsibility of

man.

In addition, the doctrine is assailed because of the practical

results it is said to produce. Briefly, a belief in predestination

is held to preempt missionary enterprise, to encourage racissi, and to

foster an antinomian spirit. In short, the doctrine is harmful in

its effect and therefore cannot be true.

These and related criticisms have been voiced over the years and

have helped cause the change in church teaching. However, none of

this means that the question is settled.

(11) E.Brunner, Our Faith (London,1965),p.36.

(12) J.Macquarrie, Principles of Christian Theology (London,1970)
p.303.
(13) G.CV Berkouwer, The Triumph of Grace in the Theology of__Karl Barth
(London,1S56), p.107.

4
On the contrary, the very existence of so many arguments raises a

question; if the case against the doctrine is apparently so strong,

how did it ever come to enjoy such a prominent place and full

expression in the Confession? Were the Westminster divines unaware

ofthese arguments? Or, did they believe they had an answer?

It is the aim of the following pages to examine the Westminster

teaching on predestination, to determine the factors that led to the

composition of this particular statement, to see what was believed

and taught - and why* In a sense the aim is not so much to provide

a final answer as to keep open an important question*

This will involve on examination of creeds and confessions in

an attempt to discover what caused such formulations* Particular

reference will be made to the seventeenth century in order to trace

the factors behind the number, length and complexity of these

confessions* Perhaps the detailed propositions about God and man

will be found to have resulted from more than the naivety of seven­

teenth century scholasticism*

The immediate background to the Westminster Confession will be

studied to see how far the doctrinal statements were influenced by

outside pressure* Perhaps it will appear that doctrine was

discussed and formulated with more freedom and less disagreement

than our ecumenical age would think possible*

5
 Having thus ascertained the reasons why the Westminster

Assembly composed a confession in such detail and with such precision

the doctrine of predestination will come tinder inspection. The

prominence of this doctrine in the Confession requires explanation

and an attempt will be made to uncover the various causes. This

will include consideration of the Biblical evidence as cited by the

divines and thus lead on to an evaluation of the overall Bible

picture. Perhaps the divines will be found to do justice to an

aspect of scripture that a later generation has forgotten. The

understanding of God and man involved in predestination will have

to be made clear. Perhaps the God of predestination will prove to

be more than either a lifeless abstraction or a whimsical tyrant*

Perhaps, too, man will be found to make his own decisions and carry

his own responsibility.

It will also be necessary to trace the development of the

doctrine and to assess the options open at the time of the Assembly,

including those not explicitly dealt with by the Assembly, Only

thus can anyone possibly do justice to the Westminster statement.

That statement will then be analysed in some detail. Perhaps that

analysis will reveal a doctrine that cannot be simply passed over.

 Finally it must be asked, how was this doctrine taught? An

answer will be drawn from contemporary sources; sermons, diaries,

testimonies* In this way it will become clear what those who framed

the doctrine thought they were saying and what part predestination

played in their Christian lives* Perhaps the doctrine will be

found to occupy a rather different place and to exercise a rather

different influence than is commonly supposed*

Perhaps at the end of this study one will be left with a new

and challenging understanding of the Westminster doctrine of

predestination*

7
 (1) CONFESSION AND COMMUNITY

In the Introduction it was observed that the Westminster

Confession of Faith belongs to, and is the typical product of, a

distinct period in the history of the Christian church* However,

while confessions of faith may be said to be characteristic of the

age of Protestant Orthodoxy, they are not unique to it. On the

contrary, what the confessions were meant to do is something the

Church has always had to do*

Confessions of faith arise out of a basic need* For a

confession is the public declaration of the religious beliefs held

by a community* Confessions are produced in situations where a

community has to establish or affirm its identity. One result of

this is that these productions tend to have a defensive cast* This

is because, as with all dogmas, ’’they protected something experienced

as a living reality against distortions and misrepresentations and the

invasion of foreign elements’*(l)*

(a) THE BIBLICAL EVIDENCE

The Old Testament affords evidence of this connection between

confessional activity and community identity* There are few

confessional forms as such in the Old Testament but this itself is

significant*

(l) P*Tillich, Ultimate Concern (London,1965), p.66*

Although in Deutero—Isaiah the missionary vision hinted at in

passages like Genesis Xll.1-3; XV111.18; Amos 1X.7; 1 Kings

V111.41—43 becomes explicit, yet it remains true that the Old

Testament religion is largely racial, the faith of a people. The

need to formulate distinctive dogmas is not so great when the

identity of a community is racially differentiated.

Yet there is the "shema" of Deuteronomy V1.4 which is performing

the same function as a confession in a more basic form. So too

Deuteronomy XXV1.5~10a and Joshua XX1V.2-13 are more than historic

summaries, they are also meant to express the unique relationship

between the community and God. A similar point can be made with the

Ten Commandments. All these passages, essentially confessional,

are attributed to a definite period, the period when Israel was

emerging as a distinct people with their own beliefs.

The New Testament supplies more evidence. By some it is

rather grudgingly admitted that "even within the pages of the New

Testament we can detect the beginnings of a movement towards

definition"(2). It is more than that. On investigation it becomes

clear that "the element of confession is present in every stratum of

the New Testament Scripture" (3).

(2) D.Lamont, The Church and the Creeds (London, no date),p.18.

(3) W.A.Curtis, p.42.

9
 The Gospels provide ”a striking abundance of confessional

utterance”(4)« This, of course, is in a very simple form hut

remembering the evangelistic function of the Gospels, this abundance

is not surprising.

Three confessions are found in the Epistles — 1 Corinthians

XV.3-7; Philippians 11.6-11; 1 Corinthians Xl,23ff. - which while

they are essentially Summaries of the Gospel also show signs of

being a deliberate defence against misrepresentation* Here is the

defensive element clearly emerging.

Again it appears that this was a time when a new religious group

was being formed, a group committed to propagating their faith -

Matthew XXV111.19; Acts 1.8; - and forced to differentiate themselves

from their Jewish background. Evidence of this latter need is found

in contemporary pagan writing, notably in the comment of Suetonius

that ”since the Jews constantly make disturbance at the instigation

of Chrestus, he (Claudius) expelled them from Borne”(5). This

confusion illustrates the way in which the outside world tended to

regard Christianity as a sect within Judaism. Cf. Acts XX1V.5;

XXV111.22.

So the Biblical evidence suggests that a community embarks on

confessional activity when it has to establish or reaffirm its identity.

(4 ) W.A.Curtis, p*34.

(5 ) A New Eusebius, edited by J. Stevenson (London, 1965),pp.If.

10
(b) THE EVIDENCE OF THF, HREFUDfi

The connection between community affirmation and confessional

composition is clearly shown in the early Christian creeds. Although

it is possible to distinguish between creeds and confessions, yet

both perform the same function, both emerge in situations where the

beliefs of a community have to be defined or redefined.

A good example is the "Apostles' Creed'*. This is generally

understood to have been compiled for the instruction of converts.

"It grew out of the teaching practice of the early church in baptismal

and confirmation classes"(l). In its present form the creed goes

back to the mid eighth century but in essentials it can be traced at

least to the second century and to Ignatius of Antioch, while similar

statements are found in Iranaeus.

y

At the same time this creed bears the "scars of many a theological

conflict"(2)« Nor is this unexpected, for as Christianity made way

into the world of Imperial Rome it had to develop its apologetic on

several fronts. Periodically Christianity was seen as a threat to

the state, while for many scholars like Celsus it was an affront to

true philosophy, and always there was the threat from within, from

heresy.

(1) A.D.Calloway, •Are the Creeds Redundant?*, Enquiry,1

(January,1969),p.12.
(2) W.Curtist p«63.

11
 Traces of these struggles can be seen in the text of the

Apostles' Creed. The very first article - "I believe in God the

Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth” — proves the point,

for by this statement "Christianity separated itself from the

dualistic interpretation of reality in paganism"(3). Here is the

early church "rebuking the polytheism of the nations and

condemning Marcionite and Gnostic"(4).

The same defensive element appears still more clearly in

the seven ecumenical creeds. Each was the product of a council

and each was born in controversy. "Each (council) produced its own

credal statement directed against some particular deviation" (5).

Thus the church in a time of crisis, reaffirms its doctrine by

augmenting it with "the necessary additions"(6) to deal with a

particular situation.

(3) P.Tillich, A History of Christian Thought (London,1968),

p.20.
(4) W.Curtis, p.402.
(5) A.D.Galloway,p.12.
(6) W.Von Loewenick, 'Origin and Significance of the Apostles'
Creed1, in A New Look At the Apostles' Creed, edited by
G.Hein, (Edinburgh,1969),p#12.

12
 (2) THE SEVENTEENTH CENTURY CONFESSIONS

(a) Europe

The seventeenth century was the age of orthodoxy and confessional

activity because it was the age that followed on the Reformation,

That time of ferment created the need for readjustment and

redefinition. "The sixteenth century was the revolutionary period

in which these changes were made, the task of the seventeenth was the

readjustment of the world in consequence of them"(l).

The need for definition was heightened by the divisions among

those renouncing the Roman Church. In addition to the main Reformed-

Lutheran split the movement called Anabaptism gave rise to numerous

sects. Consequently "a confession became the manifesto of a

communion which wishes to make clear its difference from another or

from all others"(2). In turn this meant that any subsequent adjustment

between communions would require confessional restatement.

Another factor, anl a very powerful one, was the rise of

nationalism and national churches. The unity of the Holy Roman Empire,

although never all it claimed to be, had been shattered. For instance

when Henry Vlll of England rebelled against the pope he also called

himself King of Ireland without consulting the emperor "in order to

show that he repudiated the temporal as well as the spiritual dominion

of Rome"(3).

(1) H.Macpherson, The Covenanters Under Persecution (Edinburgh,1923),

p.l*
(2) E.Routeley, p„6„
(3) J.Bryce, The Holy Roman Empire (London, 1906), p.262.

13
 In Europe the degree of fragueatation was sucb that the rulers

of even small German states attained to unprecedented independence,

"Political concepts of unity were no longer imperial but national

and correspondingly tipe unity of the church tended to be conceived

in national terms"(4), All this added an impetus to confessional

work for strict religious uniformity was seen as a prerequisite of

national unity, "the only sure foundation for lasting peace"(5).

"In the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries the impetus towards

orthodoxy was further strengthened by another traditional belief;

that religious divergence was political treason"(6), With the emergence

of new nations and states confessional writing was given priority.

The 1555 Peace of Augsburg enunciated the principle "cuius regio

eius religio", As a result the princes demanded to know "exactly

what a minister was supposed to teach"(7). This political influence

was increased when after the wars of religion the 1648 Treaty of

Westphalia formally recognised the existence of national churches.

In this situation churches had to clarify their position. They had

to do so in some detail*

(4) J.T,McNeill, *The Ecumenical Idea and Efforts to Realise It,

1517-1618*, in A History of the Ecumenical Movement 1517-1948,
edited by R.House & S.C,Neill ( London, 1967),p.28*
(5) J.MacInnes, *The Historical Background to the Westminster
Confession*, The Records of the Scottish Church History
Society, 15 (1966),p«57*

(6) G.L.Mosse, *Changes in Religious Thought*, in New Cambridge

M o d e m History, edited by J,P,Cooper,(London,1970) I V , p o170.

(7) P.Tillich, History, P.277*

14
(b) THE BRITISH CHURCHES

In Britain the Reformation left in its wake two national churches,

each with its distinct identity. In Scotland the reformed church

produced as part of its platform the Scots Confession of 1560, a

confession said to embody "the true spirit of our Scottish

Reformers"(l). Similarly in England the Elizabethan settlement

produced the Thirty Nine Articles of 1563 with an English translation

appearing in 1571* Here again are new communities affirming their

identities in confessional forms.

In the same way in 1536 Henry Vlll had issued the Ten Articles

disowning papal authority while maintaining Roman doctrine.

When James VI of Scotland succeeded to the English throne -

"his highest ambition"(2) - a new stage was reached in the history

of the two churches. With the crowns united the idea of a united

church began to grow.

The reasons are not hard to find. James wanted "to impose

peace and unity on the church"(3). As King he felt it was part

of his office to settle the church question, a viewpoint made clear

in his "Basilikon Doron".

(1) The Scots Confession of 1560. introduction by G.D.Henderson

(Edinburgh,I960), p.9.
(2) J.H.S.Burleigh, A Church History of Scotland (London,1961),
p.206.
(3) M.Ashley, England in the Seventeenth Century (Harmondsworth,
1962), p.39.

15
.»ritten ixrst in 1598 for tne benefit of Prince neary, the boon also

Kiane something else clear; that James wanted the .English system of

episcopal government in Scotland* Any lingering doubts were excelled

in lo04 at tns uampton Court Conference when the king exclaimed "a.

Scottish presbytery agreetk as well with monarchy as God with the devil..

no bishop, no king*" The Stuarts, holding to a high doctrine of the

divine rignt of kings, believed they had found the answer that they liked
and therefore for them it was the only possible answer. So James

"strove with tenacity and cunning to bring the Church of Scotland more

nearly into line with that of England"(4), and then Charles stove for the

same end with equal tenacity but less cunning.

The dream of a united church for the united kingdom was shared by

others. The English politicians found the idea appealing because it

would help secure their Northern frontier. It was for this reason that

Elizabeth, alarmed at the possible consequences of Cateau-Cambresis, had

supported the Protestant rebels. '’The Scottish Reformation was the

English strategic reaction to a very tricky situation indeed"(5).

Significantly when John Knox was asking for English help he wrote to Sir

William Cecil in the following terms "But, Sir, I hope that ye consider

that our destruction were your greatest loss, and that when France shall

be our full masters (which God avert) they will be but slenoer friends co

you"(6). The same thought had occurred to the Duchess of Parma who wrote

to King Philip of Spain warning him that if "the jjrench once established
themselves in Scotland, England is theirs"(7).

(4) G.S.Pryde, Scotland from 1603 to the Present Day (Edinburgh,1962),p.6.

(5) I.Henderson, Power Without Glory (London,1967),p.57.
(6) The Works of John Knox, edited by D.Laing (Edinburgh, 1895),VI.p.68.
(7) E.Sitwell, the Gueens and the Hive, (Harmondsworth,197l),p*125.

16
 m e n at «notier crisis point iinox got Avord to Cecil through Gregory

Hailton at Berwick that Mary had quartered the arias of England with

those of France and Scotland on her seala Only then did the English

soldiers come.

The 1560 Treaty of Leith/Edinburgh left the Scots to establish

their own kind of Protestantism, However, it appears that the English

’’would have liked to have seen uniformity with their own church”(8).

Certainly Cecil had instructed Sir Thomas Handolph, the ambassador to

Scotland, ”to press this question of uniformity”(9), Yet they were

content not to press too hard always provided the religion of Scotland

would not afford a pretext for war.

From the Scottish viewpoint one church would help ensure the peace

that they were also coming to appreciate, Ehox told Cecil ”my eye hath

long looked to a perpetual concord betwix these two realms”(lO). At

home his arguments for a new relationship with England were not without

weight in the aftermath of Solway Moss, Similarly, ”his love of peace”

(ll) was to be the driving force behind Alexander Henderson in his search

for church uniformity. There is not a little significance in the title

of his pamphlet ’’Arguments given in by the Commissioners of Scotland

unto the Lords of the Treaty persuading conformity of church government

as one principle means of a continued peace between the two nations”,

(8) E.Whitley, Plain Mr. Knox (Edinburgh,1972),p,154,

(9) T.M. Lindsay, History of the Reformation (Edinburgh,1964), 11.p,301.
(10) J.Knox, Works VI,p.31,
(11) W,Campbell, The Triumph of Presbyterianism (Edinburgh,1958),p,49.

17
 There waa another reason why the Scots were eager to see their

own kind of church established in England. In Europe their fellow

Calvinists were on the defensive and although it could still be

said that in Scotland ,,their,s was a creed that was victorious”(12),

yet they could easily foresee the threat of defeat and they knew

that the best way to safeguard their position was to ensure an English

church Calvinist and Presbyterian*

So it was that the changed political situation in Britain

helped bring about a change in the ecclesiastical scene* That

ecclesiastical change would involve a redefinition of theology,

requiring new confessional composition* This is the background to

the Westminster Confession* It is not, however, the whole story*

(12) D.Matthew, Scotland Under Charlesl(London.l955).p«35*

18
(a.) The Theology of The English Church

The great question about any church union is the identity of the

new church. In the seventeenth century the question was not one of

theology hut rather one of government. In both countries the churches

shared in the one theological heritage, the Calvinist,

In England there was a strong native tradition that went back to

Augustine. William Tyndale, Bible translator and martyr, was one of

the main sources of the English Reformation and he can be safely

identified as a pronounced Augustinian. John Wyclif and the Lollards

belonged to the same school while Thomas Bradwardine of Oxford stands

out as a staunch and successful defender of the Augustinian theology.

In 1618 his treatise "Be Causa Dei Adversus Pelagium" was republished in

London by Archbishop Abbot,

This native tradition "the substratum of the Reformed teaching"(l), was

strengthened by continental influences. During Edward Vi's reign Martin

Bucer and Peter Martyr came to England where their lectures on Romans

and Ephesians, published in English, carried great weight.

At this time the dominant influence was Heinrich Bullinger. His

influence increased when, during the Marian persecutions, English

refugees found asylum in Zurich. Later, in Elizabeth's England, his

"Decades" were required reading in the training of clergy. The men

who came back from Zurich to positions of power included Jewel, Parkhurst,

Grindal and Sandys.

(i) A.?.Mitchell, The Westminster Assembly. Its History and Standards

(London, 1883),p.327.
 However, none of this should he read as countering Colvin's

influence,, Rather these earlier figures, together with the example

of the foreign congregations of John A'Lasco and Vallard Pullain, all

helped prepare the way for the ascendancy of the Calvinist theology,,

This does not mean that there was no difference between the

early and the later positions0 For example, while Builinger can be

called a Calvinist, he was "a very cautious and moderate one"(2).

In particular in his "De Providentia Dei" of 1533 he disagreed with

Calvin, "when he (Calvin) declares that God not only foresaw the fall

of the first man and the unhappy state of his heirs, when he declares

further that those whom He has vowed to perdition are by Him deprived

of the faculty of hearing the Word and that preaching blinds theraoe,

those are explanations that the Early Church would never have allowed,,

As for me, I should never dare to speak like that"(3)0

Nonetheless it remains true that Bullinger and the others did

make it easier for the Calvinist theology to become "the prime

theology"(4) of the English church0

Calvin himself had been careful to show an interest in English

affairs. He wrote to Edward VI, to the Protector Somerset, to Sir

John Cheke the king's tutor, to Archbishop Cranmer, and later to

Elizabeth.

(2) W.Cunningham. The Reformers and the Theology of the Reformation

(London,1969;,p.190
(3) E.G.Leonard, A History of Protestantism: the Establishment
(London,1967),p„8.
(4 ) W„Campbell, p„1340

20
During the persecutions English refugees were allowed to conduct their

own church in Geneva* Significantly this congregation produced their

own confession of faith in 1558. They dealt explicitly with

predestination and put the negative side first, "God, of the lost race

of Adam, hath ordained some as vessels of wrath to damnation; and

hath chosen others as vessels of His mercy to be saved”(5). The return

of these exiles could not but strengthen English Calvinism.

Many of Calvin’s works were translated into English and,

significantly, the translators were men known ”in the literary and

social as well as the religious life of their time”(6). In 1561 the

"Institutes” were translated by Thomas Norton, the same year that saw

the appearance on stage of ”Gorboduc”. This, the first extant tragedy

in English, was written by Norton in conjunction with Thomas Sackville0

By 1592 there were twenty seven Collections of Calvin’s sermons in

English, together with all of his New Testament and most of his Old

Testament commentaries and a number of his treatises. This reflects

the width of Calvin’s influence.

Although other aspects of Calvin’s Geneva were not welcome in

Elizabeth's England, the Calvinist theology was firmly established,

fitting in as it did with the earlier views. "The Calvinist struggle

for England seemed victorious so far as doctrine was concerned”(7).

(5) W.Dunlop, A Collection of Confessions of Faith (Edinburgh 1719)11,pp.3-9,

(6) B.Hall, ’Calvin Against the Calvinists’, in John Calvin, edited
by G.E.Duffield, Courtenay Studies in Reformation Theology
(Abingdon,1966),p.34.
(7) J.T.McNeill, The History and Character of Calvinism (New 1 ^ 1 9 6 7 )
p. 314.

21
 Schaff places the Thirty Nine Articles with ’’the Creeds of the

Evangelical Protestant Churches” and argues that ’’continental historians,

both Protestant and Catholic, rank the Church of England among the

Reformed churches as distinct from the Lutheran, and her articles are

found in every collection of Reformed Confessions’^ 8)# it is sometimes

argued that the Articles ’’incorporate doctrines of both the Lutheran

and Reformed versions of the Faith”(9), yet they are distinctly

Calvinist in the key doctrines of predestination and the Lord*s supper.

Article XVII clearly states that there is predestination to everlasting

life, that the predestinate cannot perish, that not all are predestinate-

only those outwardly called by the Word, and inwardly by the Spirit -

that the predestinate are justified by faith, sanctified by the Spirit

and will be glorified in the eternal world*

In 1586 Thomas Rogers, chaplain to Archbishop Bancroft, wrote the

first English commentary on the Thirty Nine Articles, ”the Catholic

Doctrine of the Church of England”* Rogers emphasises the points made

above and writes ”in Christ Jesus, of the mere will and purpose of God,

some are elected, and not others, unto salvation”(10).

When Arminian opinions began to be heard the Calvinist theology

was strongly reaffirmed, the lectures of Peter Barro at Cambridge being

answered by the Lambeth Articles of 1595, The prime mover was

Archbishop Whitgift and although described by some as ’’mediatory’^ 11)

the Articles are uncompromisingly Calvinist*

(8) P.Schaff, A Biistory of the Creeds of Christendom (London,1877) p.622.

(9) E. Rout el ey, p. 104.
(lC^P.Schaff,p. 636.
( ll) T.M.Parker, *Arminianism and Laudism in 17th Century England*,
in Studies in Church History (London,1964), l,p.27«

22
The first article says "God from eternity hath predestined some unto

life and reprobated some uhto death"(12).

It was not until the 1630fs that Arminian views gained any real

support. This is so even although "Hooker at Oxford, Andrewes and

Overall at Cambridge, must be regarded as the representatives of the

new school of thought that was alive in England before Arminius began

to lecture at Leyden"(13). Certainly it is true that Arminianism in

England was "almost entirely a native growth"(14). Yet it was only

with Archbishop Laud’s High Church party that this theology gained

ground* Even there the interest was more with ritual than doctrine,

and it has been suggested that Laud’s adoption of Arminianism was due

rather to his opposition to the Presbyterianism and Puritanism of the

strongest Calvinists rather than to purely theological considerations.

Conversely, the fact that Laud was Arminian was "Sufficient to condemn

the Dutch heresy in the eyes of Scotsmen"(15). The Scottish viewpoint

has been fairly summarised as follows, "the ultimate enemy was Rome,

and Episcopacy w$s its agent, and the Episcopalians were Arminian" (16).

In both countries the word "Arminian" lost its purely theological

significance and became "the odious label of the High Church and

Royalist Party" (l 7).

(12) B.B.Warfield, ’Predestination in the Reformed Confessions1, in

Studies in Theology (London, 1932), pp.203f.
(13) A.W.Harrison, Arminianism (London, 1937),p. 123.
(14) J.MacInnes, P»67.
(15) H.Macpherson, p.56.
(16) G.D.Henderson, Religious Life in Seventeenth Century Scotland
(London,1937),p„73.
(17) D.Bush. English Literature in the Earlier Seventeenth Century

1600—1660 (London,1962) p.337,

 Yet it r.!as one of the Anglican Party — a Wing's man - -v;.io

provide..: "the r ain source..•almost the exact prototype"(18) oi the

Calvinist Westminster Confession. This was Archbishop Usslier ana

the Irish Articles of 1815. Indeed the resemblance between the two

confessions is so striking that it is reasonable to conclude that

the Westminster statement bad "the purpose of showing the essential

agreement of the Assembly with the doctrinal standards of the

English and Irish Befornation"(19)« It was meant to be "a bond of

union "(20).

So it is clear that the English church shared the Calvinist

theology until the 1630's when Laud's group adopted Arminian views.

However, it remains true that in 1643 the English church, with that

one exception was still by and large Calvinist.

(18) C.G. Mccrie, The Confessions of the Church of Scotland

Their Evolution in History (Edinburgh,1907}p.54.

(19) P.Schaff, p.761.

(20) A.F.Mitchell, the Westminster Assembly, p.379.

24
(d) The Theology of the Scottish Church

In Scotland the first influences were Lutheran. Patrick Hamilton

"sat at the feet of Francis Lambert at Marburg while Lambert was still

a Lutheran"(l). His "Places" reveal this influence, and he was

subsequently accused of "disputing, holding and maintaining divers

heresies of Martin Luther and his followers"(2),

The East coast ports which enjoyed trade with the continent became

centres of literary smuggling. In 1525 Parliament forbade strangers

bringing in Lutheran works, on pain of imprisonment and forfeiture of

goods and ships(3)« In 1527 the act was extended to include those

assisting the spread of the new ideas. In 1535 it was felt necessary

to restrict the purchase of heretical books to the clergy(4)*

However, this early Lutheranism was "thoroughly Angustinian"(5).

Among the sixteen articles on which Hamilton was tried and condemned

are these:

l) "That man hath no free will".

12) "that none be saved but they are before
predestined".
13) "that God is the cause of sin in this
sense, that is, that He withdraweth His
grace from men, whereby they sin"(6 ).

(1) J.Macleod, Scottish Theology in Relation to Church History

Since the Reformation. ( Edinburgh,1946),p, 13.
(2) J.Foxe, Acts and Monuments (London, 1661),II,p.227.
(3 ) The Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland, edited by T.Thomson and
C.Innes, (Edinburgh,1814-75), II,p.295.
(4) Ibid.,11,.p.341.
(5) J.Macleod, p. 13,
(6 ) D.Calderwood, The History of the Kirk of Scotland, edited
by T.Thomson, Wodrow Society (Edinburg, 1842), I,p.75.
This Augustinian emphasis was not altogether new. For generations

Scottish students had attended the English Universities and the

Rotuli Scotiae shows that the busiest period was c.1365 when eighty

one Scottish students were at Oxford. This was when Wyclif was most

influential and "Oxford seethed with Lollardy"(7). The Lollard views

spread in Scotland and references to Lollards are found right down to

the Reformation*

The Zwinglian tradition also affected Scottish ideas. George

Wishart translated the First Helvetic Confession of 1536. Although

this confession has nothing to say about predestination other than

what can be deduced from Chapter X "of the Eternal Mind of God to

Restore Man”(7a), Zwingli's Fidei Ratio of 1530 clearly asserts that

"God freely determines and disposes concerning all things"(8)*

All this prepared the way for the Calvinism that Knox brought

home*

The Scots Confession of 1560 can safely be described as Calvinist.

"The Calvinism of the Scots Confession is undoubted"(9). On election

the chapter begins, "That same eternal God and Father, who by grace *

alone chose us in His Son Christ Jesus before the foundation of the

world was laid, appointed Him to be our head, our brother, our

pastor and the great bishop of our soul"(l0)*

(7) T.M.Lindsay, p.277,

(8) B.B.Warfield, p*149.
(9) The Scots Confession of 1560. introduced by G.D.Henderson,
p„ 18 «

(10) The Scots Confession of 1560. translated by J.Bulloch,

p.64.

(7a) The Miscellany of the Wodrow Society,edited by D.Laing

(Edinburgh, 1844), I, p*13.

2.6
X 23. G 0..L O ' J l X ‘1G C .lti .ti/G r C O IiC eilX r & t 6 S '- II tiC I . T e .. G u i o t i v o W O I'P 01

Christ. -.lio ao led iarta to conclude that ,fits authors have

made it known unambiguously that they wish the whole body of

material which is called the doctrine of Predestination to be

explained through Christology and conversely Christology to be

explained through the doctrine of Predestination”(10a). Yet the

reprobate are mentioned - their existence is not doubted. But

the chapter does not begin to explain why there are any reprobate.

Any argument from silence is dubious but it can certainly be

said that the Scots Confession does say there are reprobate and

it does refer election to ”grace alone”.

What is not argued at length in the Confession is to be found

in other parts of contemporary Scottish Church teaching. Calvin's

Catechism of 1541 was translated and used. There, in answer to

Question 157, it says "For as the Lord reserves for Himself the

freedom to show mercy to the children of the ungodly, so on the

other hand He retains the power to elect or reject in the

generation of the faithful: as it seems good to Him”(ll).

(10a) K. Barth, the Knowledge of God and the Service of God

According to the Teaching of the R e f o r m a t i o n (London,1938),
pp.69f.

(11) The School of Faith, edited by T.F. Torrance (London,1959),

p.29.

27
I
This catechism was replaced by that written by John Craig in

1581. Craig, minister at Holyrooa and chaplain to the King,

had been a Dominican and had been converted through studying

the "Institutes". In Question nine he writes "the first

cause of our salvation is God's eternal election, and here

the progress of the same and the two ends of all flesh are

declared"(12),

Knox devoted his largest work to predestination, defending

the Calvinist position against an anonymous Anabaptist usually

thought to be Robert Cooke. Although it has been suggested

that this work is really only a tour de force, there is no

reason to question what Knox wrote on a doctrine he felt "so

necessary to the Church of God that without the same faith can

neither be truly taught nor truly established"(13).

In that work Knox explicitly dealt with the reprobate: "nature

hath made us equal concerning corruption and yet we see great

diversity among men. We ask what is the cause of this?... we

conclude that God hath as well His elect, whom of mercy He calleth,

as also He hath His reprobate, whom for just causes He leaveth to

themselves to languish in their corruption"(14).

(12) Ibid., p.99

(13) J.Knox,Works,V#p. 25.

(14) J.Knox, Works,V,p. 125.

28
Just why any were passed by is not known to man - "the just causes

of reprobation are hid in the eternal counsel of God and known to

His godly wisdom alone"(15).

When Episcopacy was imposed in Scotland there was no

theological change. Although Scotland was not represented at

Dort — Y/alter Balcanquhall, who accompanied four English represen­

tatives and the English chaplain at the Hague, was a Scotsman but

a clergyman of the Church of England - yet the findings of Dort

were welcomed, "It pleased God in this same year 1618 that there

was a worthy and famous synod of divines out of several kingdoms

convened at Dort, in the which heresies and corrupt doctrines of the

Arminians were refuted, which was a great comfort to all that loved

the truth of God"(16),

The Aberdeen Confession of 1616, largely the work of Robert

Howie of St.Andrews, stands firmly in the Calvinist tradition. It

teaches that God "according to the good pleasure of His Will, for

the praise of the glory of His grace, did predestinate and elect

in Christ some men and angels unto eternal felicityj and others He

did appoint for eternal condemnation, according to the counsel of

His most free, most just and holy will, and that to the praise and

glory of His justice"(l7).

(15) Ibid., p.114

(16) J.Bow, The History of the Kirk of Scotland, Wodrow Society
(Edi nburgh,1842),p.317.
(17) C.G.McCrie, p.30,

28a
 It is significant that John Forbes, the leading Aberdeen

"Doctor”, was charged with Arminianism hut cleared in 1640. The

Presbyterian revival brought no theological changes, rather it

strengthened the existing views.

Thus it appears that in both Scotland and England the Calvinist

theology was dominant. The problem of the two churches becoming one

centred elsewhere - in the field of government. In the talks that

led up to and included the Westminster Assembly it is clear that the

Calvinist theology was not seriously in dispute. This is vital. It

means that despite all the compromise and outside pressures that

marked the Assembly, the doctrinal formulations can be read as the

authentic voice of British Protestantism in the 1640*8.

(e) The Divisive Factor - Government

The concern over church government is demonstrated in the 1640—41

negotiations. In November 1640 the peace talks that followed the

Second Bishops War were transferred from Bipon to London. The Scots

took the opportunity to begin an intense propaganda campaign. What

emerges is that they were trying to sell not Calvinism but Presbyt-

erianism. Their services held in St.Antholius church drew great

crowds and they "preached solid Presbyterianism to a packed church”(l).

(l) W.Campbell, p.46.

29
They were "the guests of the city... the favourites of the town"(2) and

made the most of it. In fact they were so cheered by their reception

that Robert Baillie's letters home have been described as "a continual

purr of complacency"(3),

On 28th February 1641 Baillie wrote "think not we live any of us

here to be idle; Mr.Henderson has ready now a short treatise, much

called for, of our church discipline; Mr. Gillespie has the grounds

of Presbyterial government well asserted; Mr. Blair a pertinent answer

of Hall's Remonstrance; all these are ready for the press"(4). This

reveals the issue at stake and the pamphlets that followed confirm this

impression.

Baillie opened with "Canterburian,s Self Conviction" which is a

partial exception to the rule as the sub title indicates - "An Evident

Demonstration of the Avowed Arminianism Popery and Tyranny of That

Faction". In January 1641 Alexander Henderson produced "The Unlaw­

fulness of Limited Prelacy". Baillie followed with "The Unlawfulness

of Limited Episcopacy". Henderson next produced "Government and Order

of the Church of Scotland" which did not push any divine right claim

but did assert scriptural warrant for Presbyterianism. George

Gillespie followed up with "Assertion of the Government of the Church

of Scotland".

(2) G.M.Trevelayn, England Under the Stuarts (Harmondsworth,1960),p.l93.

(3) H.Trevor-Roper, 'Scotland and the Puritan Revolution', in
Historical Essays 1600/1750 (London,1963),p«87.
(4 ) The Letters and Journals of Robert Baillie. edited by
D.Laing (Edinburgh,1841), I,p.308.

30
 This campaign continued during the following years, Rutherford

wrote "The Due Right of Presbyteries", "perhaps the most comprehensive

apologetic of Scottish Presbyterianism ever written"(5), Henderson

produced a more tactful move with hie "The Reformation of Church

Government in Scotland Cleared Prom Some Mistakes and Prejudices"#

Baillie added "An Historical Vindication of the Government of the

Church of Scotland"* The question of toleration was also dealt

with in Samuel Rutherford’s "The Divine Right of Church Government

and Excommunication"* In 1652 the papers exchanged between the

parties were collected under the title "The Grand Debate concerning

Presbytery and Independency by the Assembly of Divines Convened at

Westminster by Authority of Parliament”,

These titles show what was the stumbling block in the search for

uniformity. This verdict is borne out in the events that led to

the Solemn League and Covenant,

(5) W.Campbell, pft104.

31
(f ) The Solemn League and. Covenant

When the civil war broke out in England "Scotland's first

instinct was to mediate"(l). However, the Scots soon realised that

their own future would be very much in danger if Charles wonj they

knew that "in event of his triumph in England his first act would be

to recommence the old struggle in Scotland"(2),

However, the Scots were Royalists at heart and hoped to come

to some arrangement with Charles. Later this idea was to prove

disastrous. At this time no arrangement could be reached as the king

felt that to establish Presbyterianism in England was "a sin of the

highest nature"(3). According to Bishop Burnet, the Royal offer made

through the king's commissioner, James first Duke of Hamilton, was to

give Scotland Northumberland, Cumberland and Westmoreland. In

addition every office in the Royal household would go to Scots "in

the third turn" while the Prince of Wales would live there and Charles

would pay a visit every third year. However "it was impossible to

bribe them into the king's quarrel"(4).

Parliament, finding the war going badly, especially in June and

July with defeats at Adwalton Moor, Roundway Down, and Bristol, were

ready to settle with the Scots on any terms.

(1) H.Watt, Recalling the Scottish Covenants (London,1946),p.63.

(2 ) P.H.Brown, History of Scotland (London,1902),II,p.327.
(3) G.Davies, The Early Stuarts:1603^-1660 (Oxford,1962),p.l43.
(4) G.Burnet, A History of His Own Times, edited by T.Stackhouse
(London,1906),p.l0.

32
 The Sects wanted "a presbyterian crusade’’(5) and held out for a covenant

that would guarantee religious uniformity. Their ’’essential condition

of help was uniformity of kirk government”(6), Baillie summed

it up; ’’they were for a civil league, we for a religious covenant"(6a),

So Presbyterianism had to be swallowed by Parliament ”as the necessary

price of the Scottish army in an hour of peril” CO.

To some this has seemed ”a most wantonly aggressive measure”(8),

but it was not the only factor that decided the Scots, ’’Ulster more

than Laud brought Scotland in on the Parliamentary side”(9), In

1639 and 1640 the Scots had been threatened with invasion from Ireland

and during 1640 an army had been raised in Ireland to fight against the

Scots, Under pressure from Parliament it was paid off at 45;y of their

pay. This produced bitter discontent. In 1641 there was a rising

directed mainly against the Scottish "planters”. In the ensuing

massacre "several thousands were killed in cold blood and probably

two or three times as many perished from exposure and privation”(lO).

This had a profound influence on Scotland, Session records(11) note

relief given to refugees, and pamphlets enlarged on the cruelties

of the Irish, In May 1642 the Earl of .Antrim was captured by the

Scots army ifa Ireland and letters found in his possession seemed to

implicate the king in invasion plots,

(5) A Source Book of Scottish Eistory, edited by W.C.Dickinson &

G.Donaldson (London,1961),III,p,121,
(6) H.Trevor Boper, Historical Essays, p.90,
(6a) H.Baillie, Letters, II,p,90,
(7) G.M,Trevelayn,p,196„
(8) W.L.Mathieson, Politics and Religion in Scotland (Glasgow,1902)
II,p,63,
(9) W,Campbell, p,34,
(10) G.Davies,p.ll7,
(11) J.K.Hewitson, The Covenanters. (Glasgow,1913),I, Appendix VI, p.494,

33
Certainly it was ’’the reputation of the king which suffered ... for it

was hard to believe that the king's supporters would take part in

such plots without his knowledge^). It was then discovered that

Charles was again dealing with the Irish Homan Catholics and his

"Cessation’' of September 1643 hardened opposition being "the last

intolerable manoeuvre among many"(l3).

So Scotland and the English Parliament were joined in what could

be called a "shotgun marriage". An understanding of this background

had led some to question the authenticity of all the Westminster

standards. The Confession of Faith has lost prestige lately because

it "owes its origin to the desire of the English Parliament to have

the support of the Scots army in its war against Charles r(l4)«

However, as has been shown the sphere of doctrine was almost completely

free from dispute and the Confession of Faith was not significantly

affected by the other debates.

On 8th August the Assembly of 1643, meeting in the East division

of St.Giles, received a deputation of six from the English Parliament.

They were able to tell the Scots that they had abolished episcopacy

and had called an assembly of divines. They also brought a letter

from seventy English ministers asking for church union, while the

assembly of divines who had been in session at Westminster since 1st

July, also sent a letter referring to their desire for "nearer agree­

ment" with the Church of Scotland.

(12) D.Stevenson, The Scottish Revolution, (Newton Abbot,1973),p.273.

(13) J.K.Hewitson, I,ps368.

(14) I.Henderson, Scotland. Kirk and People (Edinburgh,1969),p.96.

34
.Alexander Henderson and Sir Archibald Johnston of Warriston drafted

the proposed agreement. The aim was declared "to bring the Churches

of God in the three Kingdoms to the nearest conjunction and

conformity in religion, confession of faith, form of church government,

directory of worship and catechising”(15). However, a clause was

inserted by the Englishman Sir Harry Vane that made more than one

interpretation possible. The phrase was "according to the Word of

God, and the example of the best Reformed Churches"(16).

Controversy still rages over this insertion, seen by some as a

"surreptitious monkey wrench...cunningly slipped into the works"(17).

However, the Scots had no reason to worry over the phrase which was a

favourite of their own. They were convinced that Presbyterianism was

"according to the Word of God", and although later that same year the

Westminster Assembly was to send invitations to the New England divines

Cotton, Hooker and Davenport, and to the Belgic, French, Helvetic and

other continental churches, yet the Scots had no difficulty in

recognising themselves as one of the "best Reformed Churches". Burnet

would have it that "the Scots thought the.,.words...made sure game for

the Scottish model, since they counted it indisputable that Scotland

could not miss that character" (18). Possibly they did count on "the

overwhelming influence they would wield when invincible Scots soldiers

had won the war" (19).

(15) Records of the Kirk of Scotland edited by A.Peterkin

(Edinburgh,1838),pp.362f.
(16) Ibid.p.363.
(17) J.D.Douglas, Light in the North (Exeter,1964),p.32.
(18) G.Burnet, Memoires of the Dukes of Hamilton (London, 1677) p.240.
(19) C.V.Wedgewood, The King's War (London, 1959),p.257.
Perhaps the fairest verdict on the Solemn League and Covenant is that

it '’bound Parliament morally though not verbally to establish the

Presbyterian system which it had once rejected"(20). Again, church

government is seen as the stumbling block.

In such a situation of compromise the importance of the Scottish

army - twenty one thousand trained men under the veteran Earl of Leven -

was crucial. This is openly acknowledged by the Scottish Commissioners

but what emerges from their comments is the fact that doctrine as

such was not a divisive issue at Westminster.

When sent to London to ”3611” the Solemn League and Covenant,

Henderson wrote to Douglas - "if the Scottish army were here the

Covenant would go through the more easily"(21).

In December, Baillie could write "we propose not to meddle in

haste until it pleases God to advance our army, which we expect will

much assist our arguments"(22). This is a direct reference to the

Independent party encountered at the Assembly. Again it shows the

real problem.

In January 1646 Baillie wrote to Ramsay - "Had our army been one

fifteen thousand men in England our advice would have been followed

quickly in all tilings"(23). What called forth this judgement was the

intransigence of Parliament on church government.

(2?) G.M.Trevelayn, p*250w

(21) Wodrow Manuscripts. fol.25,no,13.
(22) R.Baillie, Letters, II,p.lll#
(23) Ibid., pp.336f.

36
 Conversely, the news of Montrose's victories over the Covenanter

armies in Scotland sent the commissioners to prayer, asking "why our

forces there have received defeat upon defeat even these five times

from a despicable and inconsiderable enemy"(24). They knew that these

defeats cost prestige and lost "the military authority on which they

had counted to maintain their moral dominance over their allies"(25).

With the rise of Oliver Cromwell and the formation of the New Model

Army the need for the Scottish troop3 diminished - as did the last

hopes for a Presbyterian England. However, the theology of

Westminster was broadly accepted and is not mentioned in these

references to the power struggle.

Perhaps it is also significant that the ability of the Scots in

debate is always celebrated in the story of Gillespie's victory over

John Selden. Selden, whose memorial tablet at Oxford bears the title

"Antiquariorum Coryphoeus", was undoubtedly "the most learned member

of the Assembly"(26). However, Gillespie's reply not only

convinced the Assembly but also served to "astonish and confound

Selden himself"(27).

This story "has often been told"(28), and still remains a

favourite of Scottish writers. The point at issue was not doctrinal

so much as governmental, concerning excommunication and which

authority was to exercise that power.

(24) Correspondence of the Scots Commissioners in London,1644—6 ,

edited by H.W.Meikle (Roxburghe Club, 1917) p.97.
(25) C.V.Wedgwood, 'The Covenanters in the First Civil War,1
the Scottish Historical Review,39 (i960),p.14,
(26) J.H.S.Burleigh,p,226,
(27) J.D,Douglas, p.41.
(28) A.Smellie, Men of the Covenant (London,1962),p.22.

37
 It has been shown that the three main issues to engage attention

at the Assembly were Erastianism, Sectarianism, and Tolerationism (29)*

The Confession itself was ’’not quite but almost an afterthought"(30)*

The attitude of the Scots was quite clear — "what hope can there be

of unity in religion, of one confession of faith, one form of

worship and one catechism till there first be one form of church

government?"(31)*

The Confession afforded common ground to those who differed on

governmental matters, it wag "the part of its work in which

Presbyterians, Independents and evangelical Episcopalians were most

nearly agreed"(32)*

Thus it appears that the Westminster Confession of Faith can be

accepted as a true statement of what was believed and taught in the

Reformed Churches at this time* The Chapter on God's Eternal Decree

is "the well - pondered and thoroughly adjusted expression of the

living belief of that whole body...the solemn and carefully formed

expression of its reasoned faith"(33).

(29) J.MacInnes, passim,

(30) Ibid*,p*74*
(31) A.Peterkin, Records,?*329*
(32) Minutes of the Sessions of the Westminster Assembly
of Divines edited by A.F.Mitchell & G.Struthers
(Edinburgh, 1874), p*XII«
(33) B.B.Warfield, The Westminster Assembly and its Work
(London,1931),pp*146f*

38
(g) The Proof Texts

In trying to arrive at a correct understanding of the Westminster

teaching on Predestination there are two other points that have to be

mentioned. One is the proof texts. Originally the Confession had

none. Therefore care must be exercised in assessing their importance.

It was at the insistence of Parliament that the proof texts were

added rather grudgingly. Parliament had the right to do this as the

Assembly had been called by ordinance of June 12, 1643, to advise

Parliament. The original one hundred and fifty one members were all

nominated by Parliament and answerable to it. Baillie wrote "you

know this is no proper Assembly,but a meeting called by the Parliament

to advise them in what thingstheyare asked"(l).

In fact on at least one occasion the Scots used Parliament to

expedite the work of the Assembly. In July 1646 Baillie claimed the

credit; "I dealt so with Mr. Bouse and Mr, Tate that they brought in

an order from the House to lay aside the questions till the Confessions

and Catechisms were ended”(2),

However, the Scots were not so pleased about this message, "The

House of Commons requires to put Scripture to it before they take it

to considerations; and what time that will take up, who knows"(3).

(1) R.Baillie, Letters, II,p.l86.

(2) Ibid, pp.378f.
(3) Ibid, p.411.

39
It was seen as a delaying tactic that could give rise to needless

argument. There was nothing sinister about this reluctance. Earlier

confessions did not include proof texts. Obviously it would take up

extra space and extra time.

A committee — Wilson, Byfield, Gower — was appointed and by

Monday April 5th. ’’the Confession was finished”(4 ). On April 29th

Dr.Peter Smith presented the Confession to the English Parliament.

The Scots had left before this but seem to have been reconciled

to the addition of the proofs - ”it will be for the advantage and

strength of the Work”(5).

(4) Mitchell & Struthers, Minutes. p.345.

(5) R.Baillie, Letters. III,p.2«

(h) the Westminster Machinery

In evaluating the Westminster contribution to the understanding

of the Predestination question it is important to know something of

the way in which the divines went to work.

On July 6th, 1645 a committee was given the task of preparing a

chapter on "God’s Eternal Decree". It should be noted that some

confusion surrounds the committee structure at Westminster, the

references being not at all clear. What seems to have happened is

that on the morning of Tuesday August 20th, 1644 a committee of nine

- Temple, Gouge, Hoyle, Gataker, Arrowsmith, Burrough, Burgess, Vines

and Goodwin — were appointed to join with the Scots commissioners and
started work.

The Committee was augmented on September 4th and perhaps again

on May 9th 1645, only to be replaced by a smaller committee — the

Scots plus seven - on May 12th. The work was then submitted to the

three main committees who brought it to the Assembly.

In addition it appears that occasionally special difficult

subjects were given to ad hoc committees. For example, on January

29th 1645 Coleman reported on "Christian Liberty and Liberty of

Conscience". On February 16th this thorny subject was given to a

select committee and Seaman reported on March 10th.

On July 8th 1645 a small committee was apointed to correct the

wording. Significantly, they were to consult with the Scots before

reporting to the Assembly. On December 8th a larger committee was

set up to review the Confession as it was finished at the Assembly.

On Thursday 26th November 1646 the entry states "the Confession of

Faith was finished this day"(l). This was not quite true. Further

revision took place and the final text was not completed until

December 4th. It was presented to Parliament and read on the 7th.

Baillie presented it to the commission of the Scottish Assembly on

January 21st 1647.

In presenting the document to Parliament the prolocutor said

"if either the things do seem long, or that they have been long in

perfecting of it, that you will consider that the business is

matter of great weight and importance"(2).

(1) Mitchell & Struthers, Minutes, p.303.

(2 ) Bouse of Commons Journals, (London,1803), IV. 739.

 It is obvious that the divines took their task seriously and

wanted to say exactly what they felt. This care is illustrated in

their work on Chapter III.

The first report on Chapter III was on August 29th 1645. The

title and the phrasing of the first section were debated. September

3rd and 11th were spent on the form of the second half of the second

section. November 3rd and September 23rd 1645 - an extra debate -

were on section three. October 3rd and 17th were on section five.

October 20th and 21st concentrated on Section six and the last clause

of that section - "the elect only" — was discussed on October 22nd,

23rd, 24th,30th and 31st. Section seven was covered on November 6th,

7th and 11th. Section eight was mentioned on June 18th 1646 when

the whole chapter was being reviewed. Parliament debated it on

May 28th 1647.

In addition, the Third Chapter was discussed on the following

days when the particular point at issue is not specified - September

2nd, 8th and 9th 1645.

Together with Chapters 1,8,20 and 23 this chapter provoked the

lengthiest debate.

Well might Baillie write "we had long and tough debates about the

Decrees of election"(l).

This confirms what has been found before, namely that Chapter III

can be safely taken as a true statement of the beliefs of the Reformed

churches in Britain in the 1640*s.

(l) R.Baillie, Letters. II,p.325.

42
 4 WHT PRED.ESTINAT TOM

(a) The Pay and Age

The Westminster Confession teaches the doctrine of predestination

because the Y/estminster divines thought they found it in the Bible,

Other factors helped make this doctrine congenial to the

Protestants of mid seventeenth century Britain, In those years of

crisis - "a warlike, various and tragical age"(l) - the church "felt

the need of an all-resistless arm, of an all—subduing sovereignity" (2),

This was true in a general way of the whole post—Reformation period.

Tillich suggests that doctrines emphasising the sovereignity of God

had appeal in that time of "catastrophes and external changes, and of

profound anxiety internally"(3),

This need for reassurance was felt by the Reformed Churches in

Britain, Both the Scottish and English communions could look back

to years of struggling and with the Ulster massacres of 1641 so fresh

in their memories they knew they faced the possibility of defeat and

destruction. So the 'Westminster divines would find the idea of a

sovereign God with an irresistible will particularly comforting.

There might even be truth in the argument that "in times like

these, churches, as well as individuals, unconsciously become

Calvinist"(4).

(1) A.Cowley, the Metaphysical Poets, edited by H. Gardner

(Harmondsvrorth,1963 ), p, 26,
(2) J.Walker, The TheolofeT and Theologians of Scotland
(Edinburgh,1888),p« 53
(3) P.Tillich, History.p,267.
(4) T.D.Witherspoon, 'The Y/estminster Assembly Itself* in Memorial
Volume of the Westminster Assembly, the American Presbyterian
Church (Richmond,1897),p,62.

43
 However, while this might explain in part the reason this doctrine

enjoyed a special prominence — "they took the doctrine of predestination

as their dialectical weapon because it seemed to them to offer the most

rational assurance for restored confidence in the future of mankind"(5)

- yet none of this means that the divines invented it to suit their

own situation* The doctrine, when found, did have particular appeal

but it was thought to be found in the Bible and taught for that reason*

Again it has been suggested that in that age the idea of God*s

sovereignity would be strengthened by observations from nature. The

Yifestrainster Confession of Faith while denying any saving efficacy to

"the light of nature" does say that this light together with "works of

creation and providence" do in fact manifest the "Goodness, wisdom and

power of God"(6). Thus nature, for the divines and their followers,

furnished "concrete examples of the Divine sovereignity over the

world"(7)*

John Blackadder in his account of a Covenanter communion at East

Nisbet in 1674 can write that "there was a solemnity in theplace

befitting the occasion and elevating the whole soul to a pure and

holy frame" stimulated by a very strong sense of the "invisible

protection of the Lord of Hosts"(8)#

(5) W.Haller, the Xtise of Puritanism (New York,1957), p*84*

(g) the Westminster Confession of Faith (Edinburgh,1963) Chapter I,
Section I. All references are from this edition*
(7) H.MacPherson, P-68*
(8) J*Blackadder, Memoirs. edited by A.Crichton (Ed111burgh 1823),
pp*198-207*

44
Alexander Peden could speak on a famous occasion of a convenient mist

as the ’’lap of God’s cloak"(9). The Covenanters of the 1670’s -

1680’s driven to seek refuge in wild areas, do seem to have found in

their awesome surroundings signs of God's absolute mastery.

A similar point is made less sympathetically by Sir Walter Scott.

Recounting an old tradition in which two Covenanters, Halbert Dobson

and David Dun, enjoyed a victorious encounter with the Devil, he

concludes "it cannot be matter of wonder to any one at all acquainted

with human nature, that superstition should have aggravated, by its

horrors, the apprehensions to which men of enthusiastic character were

disposed by the gloomy haunts to which they had fled for refuge" (L0).

It is interesting to note that on another occasion Dun was

arrested with two companions but escaped when a sudden thunder storm

surprised the troopers on a hill. The Covenanters saw the storm as

"a friendly deliverer"^1 ).

However, while their experiences of nature undoubtedly did

reinforce their belief in God's sovereign power those experiences

were not the ground of that belief.

(9) K.Hewat, Peden the Prophet (London,1911),p.61.

(10) W.Scott, Old Mortality (Edinburgh, no date), Note XVIII,

p«519.

(11) R.Simpson, Traditions of the Covenanters (Edinburgh, no date),

P.38*

45
 It has also been suggested that, although a form of the

doctrine was taught in the Roman Church, predestination appealed

particularly to the Reformers and their successors because of

what it denied. By putting the believer’s destiny absolutely

in the hands of God this belief ’’declared redundant the church’s

pre-Beformation expensive mechanism for providing a better fate

for the loved one after death”(12). in other words, ”the important

thing about the doctrine of predestination is not what it asserts ...

but wjiat it denies”(13).

Undoubtedly the doctrine had that effect or rather as part of

the Reformed understanding of justification it contributed to that

effect. Yet predestination was never advanced simply as the logical

extension of another doctrine.

Although it is clear that a number of factors combined to make

the idea of predestination especially appealing to the Westminster

divines, yet it remains true that the doctrine is taught because of

*) the Biblical evidence the divines believed they found.

(12) I.Henderson, Power Without Glory.p.67.

(13) I.Henderson, Can Two Walk Together? (London,1948),p.108.

46
(b) The Supreme Judge

The attitude of the Westminister divines to the Scriptures and

their authority is given in the fact that the very first chapter of

the Confession is "of the Holy Scriptures", It is one of the longest

chapters in the Confession — a possible hint of its importance (as well

as its complexity).

On reading the chapter it becomes clear that the confession is

meant to reflect the teaching of the Bible. "The supreme judge, by

which all controversies of religion are to be determined, and all

decrees of councils, opinions of ancient writers, doctrines of men,

and private spirits, are to be examined, and in whose sentence we

are to rest, can be no other but the Holy Spirit speaking in the

Scripture"(l).

This point is worth emphasising as it is often argued against

the Confession that it "tended to oust scripture as the supreme

standard of the church"(2 ),

There is some justification in this criticism. It is possible

to trace the process by which the Confession gained in authority.

On #uly 30th 1649 the Assembly passed an act ordaining that in every

house there should be one copy of the Westminster cathechisras, directory

of worship and confession of faith (3),

(1) Westminster Confession of Faith, 1,10,

(2 ) Assembly Heport 1970, p.174.
(3) Acts of the General Assembly, p,211.

47
In the 1690 settlement the Assembly required all probationers and

ministers to "subscribe their approbation of the confession of faith".(4 )

In 1694 each minister was to declare the Westminster document "the

confession of his faith".

The result was that the Confession became the rule of sound doctrine.

"It was by the confession of faith that accused heretics were tried"(5 ).

This tendency reached its peak in 1830 when John McLeod Campbell was

deposed for heresy. The presbytery told him "we are far from

appealing to the Word of God on this ground; it is by the Confession

of Faith that we must stand; by it we hold our livings"(6),

Now, of course, the Confession of 1647 cannot be judged on the

basis of its 1830 interpreters. However, the point is that this 1830

interpretation was natural, being in-built in the confessional system.

Indeed there is evidence of similar decisions being taken on the basis

not only of the Westminster Confession but of the Synod of Dort, The

1638 Assembly condemned David Mitchell in the following terms; "this

is a sufficient ground of a sentence against him that his doctrine is

the doctrine of the Remonstrants that they avowed at the Council of

Dort, contrary to the doctrine of all the Reformed Kirks0,.and

consequently to the doctrine of the Kirk of Scotland"(7). It is also

known that James Affleck was required to subscribe to the Synod of Dort

or be deposed (8).

(4 ) Acts of the General Assembly,p.225.

(5 ) W.D.Niven, Reformation Principles (Glasgow,1953),p,48,
(6) Proceedings in the Case of John MacLeod Campbell (Greenock, 1831),
ppoxxra - xxix,
(7) A.Peterkin, Records, p*160,

(8) R.Baillie, Letters, I, p.173,

48
 It is argued that any confession will tend to grow in authority

and that the Westminster Confession did so until this subordinate

standard replaced the supreme standard of Scripture to all practical

purposes* Thus the argument of the 1970 Heporti "The suggestion that

we should now abandon altogether the idea of a subordinate standard is

intended to eliminate for the future this type of confusion and to ensure

for scripture its proper place as 'the supreme standard of faith and

life»”(9)„

The reply is that the intention of the divines was to interpret

Scripture faithfully and they expected the Confession to be accepted

only as it was true to the Bible, They explicitly put Scripture first

and in Chapter thirty-one they roundly declare that "all synods or

councils»« may err, and raa^ have erredj therefore they are not to be

made the rule of faith or practice"(10), The attitude of the Confession

then is clear, "creeds,.* have no proper authority, that being given

only to the Truth or Cod's Word"(l0a). "Scripture alone is normatively

normative, is noima nannans. A confession is only normatedly normative, is

norma normata"(lOb), The verdict stands that "immunity from criticism

is the last thing its authors would claim for the Confession. Their

main endeavour is to refer us to the Word of God"(ll),

The Assembly of 1647 approved the Confession "judging it to be most

orthodox, and grounded upon the Word of God"(l2), but in fact they felt

free to criticise the Confession especially "some part of the second

article of the thirty first chapter".

(9) Assembly Report 1970,p .174*

(10) Westminster Confession of Faith, X?CI,4,
(10a) A.T.Innes, The Law of Creeds in Scotland (Edinburgh,1847)
footnote on p,62.
(10b) F.N.Lee, The Westminster Confession and Modern Society
(Edinburgh,1972), p«12,
(11) G.S0Hendry, p*12.
(12) Acts of the General Assembly, pp,158fe

49
 This was the standard Reformed position. The Irish Articles and

many continental confessions began with a statement on the Bible,

emphasising its unique authority. The Scots Confession has the

winsome preface — "if any man will note in this our confession any

article or sentence repugning to God's holy word, that it would please

him of his gentleness, and for Christian charity's sake, to admonish

us of the same in writ; and we, of our honour and fidelity do promise

Him satisfaction out of the mouth of God, that is, from Holy Scripture,

or else we shall alter whatever he can prove to be wrong"(14). In

Chapter twenty it says of general councils - "being human, some of

them have manifestly erred, and that in matters of great weight and

importance"(15). "These statements plainly assert the supreme, final

and unique authority of scripture"(16).

So strong was this attitude in the Reformed Churches that Tillich

can talk of the Bible as "the formal principle of orthodoxy" (17).

With regard to the doctrine of predestination it is hi^ily

significant that Calvin first included a chapter on this subject in

his 1539 "Institutes". The significance lies in the fact that he had

then just completed his commentary on Romans.

(14) the Scots Confession, p.60.

(15) Ibid.. p.73.
(16) D.Macleod, ’The Theology of the Scots Confession*, Reformed
Forum. I, No.3 (December, 1972), p.5.
(17) P.Tillich, History, p.280.

50
In other words, although he did have to defend the doctrine against

the attacks of Bolsac and Pighius, Calvin came to make his definitive

statement on predestination only after intensive Bible study#

Calvin#s attitude has been thus described; "seeing that

predestination is taught by the scriptures, it must be admitted, and

not only admitted but preached in public” (18)# In reply to those

who argued, as did Reynolds at Westminster - "let us not put disputes

and scholastic things into a confession of faith"(19) - that predestin­

ation should not be mentioned even if true, Calvin said "whoever therefore,

throws obloquy on the doctrine of predestination, openly brings a

charge against God, as having inconsiderately allowed something to

escape from Him which is injurious to the church"(20)#

(18) FoWendel, Calvin, the Origin and Development of His Religious

Thought (London,1965), p*271«
(19) A.F.Mitchell & G#Struthers, Minutes, p#15l#
(20) J.Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, translated by
H.Beveridge (London, 1962), III, 21,4.

(c) The Biblical Evidence

One could start by examining the Scriptures proofs appended to the

Westminster Confession of Faith# On the face of it that sounds fair

as the divines would naturally pick the strongest evidence they could

find.

51
However, that is not necessarily the best way to get the true picture

of what the Bible actually says* Nor is it necessarily the best way

to understand what the Westminster divines thought as those who drew

up Chapter III were not all present when the texts were added.

The very title of the chapter - "Of God’s Eternal Decree” - is

often criticised in this respect. The word "Decree” is not found in

the New Testament. In fact it is used only once with reference to

election — Psalm 11,7. However, the English word does convey the

sense of other expressions that are found in both Testaments.

The Old Testament lacks a word for expressing the idea of

predestination in ”an abstract and generalised form"(l)* More than

that, it has been argued that "the thought that God really is the

sovereign disposer of all that is belongs so essentially to the Old

Testament that its explicit expression is neither frequent nor

required"(2). Nevertheless there is important evidence to be found

in the Old Testament.

The Old Testament often does talk of God ordaining and determining.

It does so in a way that makes clear the absolute priority and

independence of God's purpose. The most illuminating examples

include Psalm CXXXIX,16; Isaiah XIV,24-27; XIX, 17; XlVT,10f;

Jeremiah XlIX,20 (especially in Moffat); Daniel IV,24f.

(1) J.I.Packer, 'Predestination* in the New Bible Dictionary,

edited by J.D.Douglas (London,1965),p.1024,
(2) J.K.S.Reid, 'Determinate* in A Theological Word Book of
the Bible, edited by A.Richardson (London,1 9 5 0 ),p.65.

52
 Predestination is implicit in the monotheism so strongly affirmed

in Israel* There is only one God and therefore His will is sovereign,

His purpose sure. The absolute sovereignity of God is evidenced in

the matter of His name Exodus 111,4. The independence of Hi 3 will

and purpose is seen in His use and control of evil - Isaiah XXII, 11;

XXXVII, 26.

In particular the idea of God's elective grace is "fundamental

to the Old Testament"(3). "The notion of election was dominant in

Israel's faith from the beginning"(4). It is seen in the choice of

Abraham - Genesis, XVIII, 18; - of Isaac - Gns. XXI, 12; and Jacob -

Gns. XXVIII,Iff.

God has chosen His own people - Zechariah VIII,22f.; - and

subsequent to their failure there is a chosen remnant - Joel 11,32.

The Old Testament also makes clear that this elective grace is

totally undeserved. It is consistently attributed "only to the

unmerited favour of Yahweh"(5). "Long before there was any human

action in response, this love chose the people for God's own possession"

(6)* This is made clear in Deuteronomy VTI,7f; and Amos III,2.

On turning to the New Testament one finds a number of words that

express different aspects of the same idea.

(3) W.Eichrodt, Theology of the Old Testament (London, 1961)

I,p*286.
(4) J.Bright, A History of Israel (London,1966),p.133.
(5) Ibid., p.133.
(6) W.Eichrodt, p.94.

53
 "Pro orizo1*is the word which the Vulgate translates "praedestino",

hence the English "predestine". In the Authorised Version this is the

invariable translation with six exceptions where the reading is

"foreordain". In the case of all these six exceptions the verb has

no personal object. "Pro orizo" is used only with God as subject. It

expresses His appointing a person for a situation or, less commonly,

a situation for a person.

There are a number of related verbs which cover the same activity.

Most are listed with references that clarify their particular shade of

meaning.-
"Protasso" - to arrange beforehand - Acts XVII,26
*,Proetoimazo" - to prepare beforehand - Romans IX, 23
"procheirizomai” - to appoint beforehand - Acts 111,20
"ProcheirotoneoM_ to choose beforehand - Acts ,X,41
"Problepo" - to foresee, with sense of efficacy -
Galatians 111,8; Hebrew XI,40
"Proginosko" - to foreknow, with sense of efficacy -
Romans VIII,29; IPeter 1,20

In addition words such as "boule" or "thelenon" do refer to God’s

planning events - eg. Acts 11,23; Ephesians 1,11. The absolute

sovereignity of God is clearly affirmed in Matthew X,29; VI,26;

VII, 11, and 1 Corinthians XV,28. Therefore the New Testament does

speak of God's predestination of people and events.

This predestination is seen most clearly in the life, death,

resurrection and ascension of Jesus — Luke XXII,22. The New Testament

witness is to Jesus as the fulfillment of the Old Testament. iVriting on

the unanimity of this New Testament witness, a modern scholar summarises

the evidence - "all the New Testament books, with the exception of

James, bear clear testimony, diversely expressed yet united, to the

fulfillment feature of the character of the Christ event"(7).

(7 ) J.N.Alexander, 'the United Character of the New iestament Witness

to the Christ-Event' in the New Testament in Historical and
Contemporary Perspective, edited by ii.Anderson ec ./.Jarclay
(Oxford,1965),p .12.

54
The idea of fulfillment, found in the most primitive apostolic preaching,

obviously implies God's predestination of the Christ event. One way in

which the idea of fulfillment is given frequent expression is in

reference to "the appointed time" - cf. Matthew XXVI,45/ John VII,30;

XVII,1; XII,27, "Nothing seems to have impressed itself more deeply

on the mind of the Apostles as, in the first momentous days of their

mission to the world, they reflected upon the message they were to

proclaim, what happened in the life, death, resurrection and ascension

of Jesus had occured by the inexorable decree and ordination of God"(8),

However, this raises more questions. If, as is clear, the Christ

event was God's plan then that plan is not complete until His coming

again. As in the life and death of Jesus people were used to unfold

the plan, is it not the case that people are still being used to complete

that plan? In other words, does not the predestination of the Jesus

event imply the predestination of all men? More than that, if the

Jesus event involved the predestined sin and condemnation of certain

people - cf. Luke XXII,22 and Acts 11,23 - then is it not at least

possible that the outworking of the rest of the plan will again involve

predestined sin and condemnation? In other words, are there people who

can be classed as reprobate?

The Bible takes up this question. The word "reprobate" first

occurs in Jeremiah VI,30* It is a metaphor from metal refining and has

the idea of something corrupt failing God's test and being rejected.

Similarly the New Testament word - "adokimos" - was used of counterfeit

money and of stone rejected as unfit for use by masons in building.

(8) J.K.S.Beid, 'Determinate', p,67.

 In the New Testament the word is used both of the Gentile world -

e.g., Romans 1,28, and of professing Christians - e.g., 1 Corinthians

IX,27, In such passages the sense is that of man failing God's test,

hence New English Bible "depraved" in the Romans passage and Revised

Standard Version "disqualified" in 1 Corinthians.

However, there are other passages - eg. 1 PeterII,8 and Jude 4 -

where the implication is that this human failure is part of God's plan.

The locus classicus is Romans XX, especially in verses 19-21,

It has been suggested that there is "a profound difference in tone"(9)

between this passage and that part of the Westminster Confession of Faith

that purports to explain it. However, that verdict is debatable as it is

by no means beyond dispute that the third chapter "breathes an air of

dread and doom"(lO).

Nor is the meaning of the passage beyond dispute. Indeed it has

been argued that these chapters "put into triple harness divine election,

human responsibility, and universal salvationiabecause "all three

solutions are necessary to do justice to the breadth and profundity

of God's plan of salvation"(ll). Bearing in mind the line of argument

in verses 1—18, the point of verses 19ff. would seem to be that God has

the right to harden or nave mercy as He wishes — and that He has done so!

Does not the figure of the potter able to make different things of his

clay, to some an "unhappy analogy"(12), imply that God is able to do the

same with His creation? Does not the existence of different vessels

mean He has done so?

(9) G.S.Hendry, p.51.

(10) Ibid., p.51.
(11) G.B.Caird, 'Expository Problems: Predestination - Romans 9-11*,
the Expository Times, iGCVIII, No.Il(August,1957),pp»324—327.
(12) A.M.Hunter, the Gospel According to St.Paul (London,1966),p.73.
 However, long before Brunner argued that "it is explicitly stated

that it is not God who has made them what they are"(l3), Arrowsmith at

Westminster said "I desire to have it punctually observed that the vessels

of wrath are only said to be fitted to destruction without naming by

whom"(14)e

The use of the passive "Katartis mena" could indicate a present

condition* This reading is given in New English Bible "due for

destruction" - a suggestion made earlier by Moffat's "ripe and ready to

be destroyed". Barclay is more expansive - "men and women who deserved

nothing but His wrath and who were fit for nothing but destruction".

The argument is that God did not make them fit for destruction,

their condition being in no way attributed to God. However, following

on the picture of the potter this argument, while grammatically sound,

does not seem the natural interpretation.

What can be said is that the passage stresses no|God's wrath, nor

even His sovereignity, so much as His patience. The point of Homans XX

is to demonstrate God's invincible patience and resourcefulness. It

is most clearly put by Barclay, supported by New English Bible footnote;

"God must have wished to demonstrate His wrath and to display His power.

In spite of that He bore very patiently"...

Significantly, the Jeremiah passage which Paul adapted — XVIII,

1—10 — is intended to show the potter's patience*

(13) E.Brunner, the Christian Dcotrine of God (London,1966),p*330.

(14) Mitchell and Struthers, Minutes, p.LXI
 So when the Romans passage is meant to make a quite different point,

can it properly be used to imply reprobation? Seen thus in its

context, RomansIX does not satisfy speculation. It does not

explicitly say that God has chosen some for a life of sin and ultimate

damnation. However, it does assert His right to do so, and affirms

the existence of those fit for destruction. The implication - although

never confirmed - seems to be that those ofGod's creation made fit

for destruction are, in some sense, so made by God. Yet, over against

this, the passage argues for God's patience.

The argument of Romans IX is part of Paul's explanation of the

Jewish rejection of Jesus and their future place in God's plan. It

is not without importance that in Romans XI it is clearly said that

"all Israel will be saved" - verse 26.

Taken as a whole, the Biblical evidence does suggest that the

Westminster doctrine is a serious attempt to explain a problem found

in the Bible. The answer the divines arrived at can be shown to reflect

Scriptural teaching. Whether it does justice to all that the Bible

says on this subject is still open to question. It may be that the

divines developed the theory too rigidly in one direction — although

it should be noted that their teaching does reflect some of the

ambiguity found in the Bible. All that can be said with certainty

is that the Westminster teaching provides one possible solution.

Whither it is the best solution or not will become more clear when

the doctrine is examined in the various stages of its development and

in its implications.

58
(d) the God of Predestination

Chapter II of the Westminster Confession is entitled "of God

and of the Holy Trinity". The fadt that this chapter immediately

precedes that on God*s Eternal Decree is of the utmost importance.

The Westminster arrangement is a departure from Calvin who

delayed his account of predestination until he came to deed with the

application of Redemption. Beza in his "Tractationes Theologiae" had

been the first Reformer to consider this doctrine under that of God

and Providence - where Aquinas had put it. For some this change

represents a shift away from Christocentric teaching into the more

abstract concept of God as First Cause.

Calvin, as will be more fully demonstrated later, did wish to

centre attention oh Christ - "we cannot find the certainity of our

election in ourselves; and not even in God the Father, if we look at

Him apart from the Son. Christ, then, is the mirror in which we

ought and in which, without deception, we may contemplate our

election"(l)f "we must always come to our Lord Jesus Christ when

we talk of our Election"(2),

(1) J.Calvin, Institutes. Ill, 24,5.

(2) J,Calvin, *The Doctrine of Election* in The Mystery of Godliness
and Other Sermons (Grand Rapids, 1950), p.45.

59
However, as will be demonstrated later, Calvin is not altogether

successful in focusing attention on Christ. His presentation seems

to rely heavily on his experience as a preacher. He starts ais

chapter oy observing Tne covenant of rife is not preached equally to

all, ana among those to whom it is preached, does not always meet with

the same reception”(3). It is also true that in treating election

Calvin at least suggests that there is a divine decision higher than

Christ. To this extent it is arguable that Calvin is less Christocentric

than he claimed to be — "all the dubious features of Calvin's doctrine

result from the basic failing that in the last analysis he separates

God and Jesus Christ"(4).

Nor is it altogether proven that the Yvestminster teaching is

abstract or speculative. On the contrary, before discussing God's

sovereignity it has already made clear what this sovereign God is like.
S ''

"God's purposes (Chapter 3) are the expression of His Character

(Chapter 2)"(5). It can be argued that Jesus Christ, the Incarnate

Word, is supremely the expression of God's character and hence by tying

predestination in with the character of God, the Westminster Confession

of Faith does point to Christ. However, although Chapter II does treat

of the Trinity, the person andwork of Christ are not dealt with until

Chapter VIII. Therefore the second chapter of the Westminster Confession

of Faith must be looked at to see whither the God of predestination is

the God revealed in Christ Jesus or the god of speculative logic.

There is a tradition thatthe Westminster wording was based on an

esj^erapore prayer of Gillespie. Be that as it may the result nas been

described as "a hotch-potch"(6).

(3) J.Calvin, Institutes. 111,21,1.

(4) K.Barth, Church Hoprmatics (Edinburgh,1957),11,2,p.111.
(5) D.Macleod, The Westminster Confession Today (London, 1972),p A
(6) H.G.Smith, The Doctrine of God (London,1970) p.58.

60
Inevitably, as with all attempts to define God, the impression is given

that the writers have almost reduced God to "the object of systematic

thought"(7). Yet while this impression is unmistakable for the Mid

twentieth century reader, it is not altogether fair. Certainly any

attempt to write about God carries with it the danger of appearing to

infringe the second commandment. Certainly Protestant Orthodoxy had

developed along scholastic lines. Certainly there is something about

the long list of adjectives that gives the impression of an attempt at

scientific scrutiny. However, the divines did try to emphasise the

transcendence of God - "incomprehensible" should not be overlooked in

the catalogue of divine attributes. And in the first chapter it has

already been said that"the whole counsel of God, concerning all things

necessary for His own glory, manfs salvation*faith, and life, is either

expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence

may be deduced from scripture"(8). In other words, the divines will

try to say nothing about God that is not found in the Bible. Some

may argue that their deductions go beyond revelation, but no one can

seriously doubt their intention to be faithful to the Bible.

It can be fairly concluded that the Westminster chapter od God,

while it may appear to be too much of an impersonal description, does

reflect something of the God revealed in Christ Jesus.

(7) R.G.Smith,p#61*

(8) Westminster Confession of Faith, 1*6.

61
 The Confession is concerned to stress the absolute sovereignity

of God - something clearly revealed in the Christ event. God is

"most free, most absolute, working all things according to the counsel

of His own immutable and most righteous will, for His own glory"(9).

God "hath most sovereign dominion over them (all things), to do by

them, for them, or upon them, whatsoever Himself pleaseth"(lO).

Obviously with such a developed awareness of God's sovereignty,

the writers can speak of events ?s happening only according to God's

will. Hence Chapter III begins by stating "God from all eternity did

ordain whatsoever comes to pass"(ll). Similarly, Chapter V, "of

Providence", starts "God, the creator of all things, doth uphold,

direct, dispose and govern all creatures, actions and things"(l2).

This follows on naturally and forcefully from the picture of God

held by the divines. However, there is one obyious difficulty;

does this interpretation not make God the author of sin?

(9) Westminster Confession of Faith. 11,1*

(10) Westminster Confession of Faith, 11,2.
(11) Westminster Confession of Faith, 111,1.
(12) Westminster Confession of Faith, V,l.

62
(®) The Author of Sin

The Westminster Confession insists ’’neither is God the Author

of sin”(l) . Again in the chapter ”of Providence” it says that God

’’being most holy and righteous, neither is nor can be the author or

approver of sin”(2). An explanation is still required.

The traditional Calvinist explanation involves the controversial

notion of a double will of God. According to this argument there is

a will of decree which is secret and a will of command which is

revealed in the Bible. The idea is that when God tells man how to

live He is expressing His will. Yet the fact that man breaks God’s

Law, defying God’s revealed will, must also be part of His will,

albeit in a different sense. Otherwise this defiance would not occur

as ’’without His permission neither men nor devils can do anything”(3),

Nor can any escape be found in the notion of permission. That

God permits sin means that He has chosen to do so, The only

alternative would be to suggest a limit to God’s power* So the

conclusion follows that God’s Law is broken ”not by a bare permission”(4)

as God ’’neither permits it ignorantly or unwillingly, therefore

knowingly and willingly”(5).

(1) Westminster Confession of Faith, 111,1.

(2) Westminster Confession of Faith. V,4.
(3) J.Zanchius, Absolute Predestination (Grand Rapids,1971),p.12.
(4 ) Westminster Confession of Faith, V,4«
(5 ) J.Zanchius, p.21.

63
 The paradox is presented in the form of a double will. The

clash between the two wills is not denied, but rather it is admitted

that God*s will of decree "includes many things which He forbids in

His preceptive will, and excludes many things which He commands in His

preceptive will”(6)*

Not surprisingly this theory has been denounced as ”an intolerable

dualism”(7)* However, Calvin and his followers have been careful to

point out that there are not really two wills but that ”in condescension

to the present capacities of man” (8) this is the only way the paradox

can be discussed* Calvin expresses the argument succinctly; "while

in Himself the will is one and undivided, to us it appears manifold”(9).

The two wills are one, for God wills only good. This means that

the sin willed by God in His preceptive will "must ultimately be

directed to some wise and good end, otherwise He could not will it”(lO).

Even sin is made serve "His own holy ends”(ll)*

(6) L.Berkhof, ^Systematic Theology” (London,1969),p.79*

(7) P.Schaff, History, p.454.
(8) J.Zanchius, p*13,
(9) J.Calvin, Institutes. I, 18,3.
(10) J.Zanchius, p.21*
(11) Westminster Confession of Faith*. V,4.

64
 Man is unable to see the full picture. The small part he can see may

seem to contradict what he knows of Godfs revealed will. Yet he has this

assurance that it too fits into the whole and, despite apoearances, is

fulfilling God’s purpose.

There is strong Biblical evidence to support this interpretation. In

particular close study should be made of Genesis XXII, 12; 3xodus IV,21;

Matthew XXVI, 34; Acts 11,23. In each case man does something that, judged

by any standards, is evil. Yet each evil act is presented as being part of

God’s plan. Then it is seen that the ultimate result of the action is good. The

final proof is the death of Christ. Looked at one way this is the supreme

evil. Yet it is God’s will. And it becomes the supreme good.

However, the matter cannot be left there. The difficulty is suggested

by the title of one of Calvin’s chapters, ’’the Instrumentality of the

Wicked employed by God, while He continues free from every taint"(l2).

Can God use sin even for good ends without in some sense being guilty? And

can the end justify the means? The only answer Calvin can give is that ”in

His boundless wisdom He well knows how to use bad instruments for good

purposes”(13). Man cannot do it* Does that mean that Godcannot do it

either? With man the end does not justify the means for the meansaffect

the end. With God, however, the end transforms the means.

(12) J.Calvin, Institutes. I,Id.

(13) J.Calvin, Institutes. I,17f5.

65
 The argument that God wills only good and uses the evil which He

chooses to permit in order to bring good, this argument leads to a

further question about the nature of evil. Either the use of evil

affects God or God affects evil. If the former alternative is refused,

the latter must be considered. The logical conclusion would be that

ultimately evil is not evil at all. Although the final expression of

such an understanding belongs to the realms of Christian Science, the

V'
idea had occuted to those in the Calvinist tradition. Rutherfurd has

been quoted as saying "admit that sin is an entity and you destroy the

idea of Deity”(14).

Perhaps the only thing to be said is that such speculation has

wandered far beyond revelation and therefore is incapable of final

resolution. Yet the Calvinist argument has this much validity and

value; we do know that God is in control of all, that even sin, while

the Christian is to ahoid it, must ultimately serve His purpose. How

this happens man cannot know, that it happens he may believe. The

cross of Christ is our guarantee.

(14) J.Walker, "The Theology and Theologians of Scotland"

(Edinburgh ,1888), p.60#

66
(f) Human Freedom and Responsibility

It is often argued that predestination denies human freedom.

Chapter three of the Westminster Confession affirms the opposite; "nor

is violence offered to the will of the creatures”(l). Chapter nine

starts by insisting that man’s will has a "natural liberty”(2).

Yet is there not a fundamental contradiction; if God's

predestination is absolute, can man be free or responsible? Tillich

finds no difficulty, "the levels are different and there is no possible

contradiction on different levels"(3), In other words, as man does

not know what God has foreordained that foreordination does not affect

man's freedom. For example, when a decision has to be made the fact,

supposing it is a fact, that the decision is part of God's plan does

not deny the reality of the choice.

Here the idea of a hidden and a revealed will proves useful. Man

knows God's revealed will, the secret will is secret. So his

responsibility is with the revealed will. "Secret things belong to

God,,, when we meet a plain precept we should simply endeavour to obey

it"(4). If we fail to obey such a precept, if we choose not to do so,

we ourselves are to blame. That our choice was predetermined is no

excuse as we were totally unaware of God's decretive will.

(1) Westminster Confession of Faith, 111,1.

(2 ) Westminster Confession of Faith, IX, 1.
(3) P.Tillich, History, p.269.
(4 ) J.Zanchius, p.15.

67
 However, the argument has to be taken further. It is all very well

to say that God's predetermining will, being unknown, has no bearing

on man's responsibility. There is a complication. Man is fallen

and being fallen is unable to choose good. For the Calvinist this was

part of God's plan. So the question is asked, does not the notion of

a bondage of the will deny human freedom?

In reply the Calvinist drew another distinction. Man has the

natural ability to choose the right but since the Fall he lacks the

moral ability so to do. Man's will is free from "any absolute

necessity of nature"(5). Yet he has "wholly lost all ability of will

to any spiritual good accompanying salvation"(6), Calvin expressed the

same idea when he wrote that fallen man "has not been deprived of will,

but of healthy will"(7).

However, is this distinction valid? If all men are unable to

choose good, is there any difference between denying free will and

affirming a will that is free but "unhealthy"? The result is the same,

but there is this difference; a will that is free means a conscious

human choice and that the Calvinist insists on while saying that the

actual choice made by man must be wrong because of his fallen nature*

(5 ) Westminster Confession of Faith, IX,I.

(6) Westminster Confession of Faith, IX,3.
(7) J.Calvin, Institutes. 11,3,5.

68
 In other words it may be a fact that, left to himself, a man will

always choose evil but it remains true that he does choose and his

choice is, or at least feels, free. Men "will do evil for the simple

reason that this is the one thing they want to do"(8). The same

point is put the other way round by Jerome Zanchius, an Italian monk

converted under the ministry of Peter Martyr, "the will of man is by

nature enslaved to evil only, and, because it is fond of that slavery,

is therefore said to be free"(9).

Yet, once again, the argument must be taken further. It may be

true that sinning man is guilty in the sense that he must be answerable

for his conscious choice but if God has created man like this can he

"fairly be called to account and punishment by the God who has rigged

his every move?"(lO)* Can any act be "subject to moral praise or

blame unless the responsibility for ii rests on the agent himself?"(ll).

Perhaps there can be no final resolution of this paradox either.

The Bible does stress that man is free and quite definitely responsible.

It also stresses that all of life i3 predetermined by God. Undoubtedly

these two truths are compatible^experience teaching the reality of

human choice, faith holding to the hope of Divine election.

(8) G.I.Williamson, The Westminster Confession of Faith for Study

Classes (Philadelphia,1964),p.31»
(9) J.Zanchius, p.220
(10) A.Flew, *Divine omnipotence and human freedom* in
New Essays in Philosophical Theology (London,1966),p.163.

(11) H.D.Lewis, Philosophy of Religion (London, 1965),p.270.

69
However, the idea of fallen man's inability to choose right is a

complication that is not solved by the distinction between moral and

natural ability* All that can be said is that man must be answerable

for his own conscious choice, because as far as he knows it is his own

choice which he feels free to make*

What clearly emerges is the fact that this picture of man

strengthens the case for predestination* Unable of himself to choose

good man must receive grace* The efficacy of that grace cannot

ultimately depend on "unhealthy” human will. The final word, which

is also the first word, lies with God,

70
 (4) HISTORY OF THE DOCTRINE

(a) Augustine

It has been said that ’’before Augustine there was no doctrine of

predestination”(l), It is certainly true that Augustine was the first

to systematise Christian thinking on this question. It is also true

that in earlier days the Christian concern was more to emphasise the

responsibility of man. Yet the idea of predestination was not new.

The struggle against Gnosticism, the monotheistic affirmation, all

this did imply a purpose and a plan of the one sovereign God.

Significantly the Reformation was largely a return to Augustinian

theology and on the predestination question most of theReformed

thinking had been anticipated in Augustine's writings, Luther,

trained in the Augustinian order, followed Augustine's lead in this

and in other matters, Zwingli and Calvin are in the same tradition,

"All three - and all their colleagues with them till the later period

of Melanchton - followed in Augustine's footsteps and maintained in

some form double predestination”(2),

Augustine's understanding of predestination followed on from

his conviction that the efficient cause of man's salvation is God's

Grace alone,

(1) E,Brunner, Doctrine of God, p,340.

(2) J,I.Packer, 'Calvin the Theologian* in John Calvin,

ed, G.E.Duffield, p,171.

71
At times he seems to argue that predestination is based on foreknowledge -

"since He did foreknow that man would make bad use of his free will -

that is, that he would sin - God prearranged His own purpose so that He

could do good to aian"(3). "God foresaw withal that His grace should

adopt the godly, justify them by the Holy Spirit, pardon their sins, and

rank them in eternal peace with the angels"(3a)# However, when it comes

to the individual application of the doctrine he affirms t|?e priority of

God’s choice - on Jacob and Esau he writes "the apostle.,, did not want

us to understand that it was because of God’s foreknowledge that the

younger was elected to be served by the elder"(4).

Augustine insisted that mankind is divided into two classes and that

"grace alone separates the redeemed from the lost"(5). All are sinners

deserving God’s wrath but God has chosen to save some, "By giving to

some what they don’t deserve, He has certainly willed that His Grace

should be free and thus genuine Grace; by not giving to all, He has shown

what all deserve"(6),

It is admitted that man cannot tell why some are chosen0 "He decides

who are not to be offered mercy by a standard of equity which is most

secret and far removed from human powers of understanding" (7). Augustine

however, can see a reason for some not being chosen — They can be the

means by which the elect are warned and led to salvation, "thereby those

on whom He has mercy may find an opportunity of salvation"(8),

(3) Augustine, ’Enchiridion’ in Augustine^Confession and Enchiridion,

translated by A.C, Outler, Library of Christian Classics, VII
(London,1954;,p.402.
(3a) Augustine, the City of God, Book 12, chapter 22, translated by
J.Healey (London,1945),I,p*367,
(4) Augustine,’To Simplicion, on Various Questions* in Augustine;
Earlier Writings, translated by J.U.S.Burleigh, Liorary of
Christian Classics, VI (London,ol953),p,390,
(5) Augustine,‘Enchiridion’,p.398. . .
(6) Aup-ustiue, 'On the Gift of Perseverance1, in A Dictionary o, .,-ivia .inn
Theoloiv. ed.A.flichardsor. (I,cc0cn,]909),p.26.'n
(l) Augustine, ’To Simplicion’, p039o0
(8) Ibid., pe401.

72
He is hesitant about saying that God actually predestines any to

damnation* Rather he tends to think in terms of pretermission -

"We must not think that anything is imposed by God whereby a man is

made worse but only He provides nothing whereby a man is made better"(&).

It is doubtful if the concept of pretermission does remove the

offence of the doctrine as the with holding of mercy is no less

arbitrary than the predestinating to sin. However, Augustine is

trying to mark the distinction between the deserved fate of the

unregenerate and the undeserved gift to the elect* He is trying to be

true to the Bible teaching that man is condemned for his own sin and

saved only by Grace. In this too the Calvinist followed Augustine

and the Westminster Confession struggles to resolve the same difficul­

ties in much the same way.

(9) Augustine, ’To Simplicion’, p.397.

(b) Luther

There is some dispute about Luther’s contribution to the

development of the doctrine* It is certainly true that in later life

his views underwent a change of emphasis but it is also arguable tnat

"there had not been any theological abandonment of the earlier

position"(l)*

(l) K»BarthT Dogmatics, p«66.

73
 Basically he stood in the Augustinian line. His "De servo

Arbitrio" xuakes this clear, and Luther never went back on that book -

"I regard no book so much my own as the ’Bondage of the Will* and the

Catechism"(2), There '’double" predestination is at least implied -

"God has the will and power of hardening, showing mercy, and doing all

things"(3)* Again, Luther puts God's action above and beyond the human

understanding - "Nor is it for us to ask why He does so, but to stand in

awe of God, who can do, and wills to do such things"(4 ).

However, from 1525 there was a change in Luther's teaching. He

talks of the universalism of the Gospel offer and attributes the

condemnation of some to their own sin, "For the Gospel offers to all

men, it is true, forgiveness of sins, and eternal life through Christ;

but not all men accept the promise of the Gospel.., but the fact that all

men do not accept Christ is t$ieir own fault"(5), With this the

Calvinist would agree. The difference is that while he would go on and

trace the sin back to God's decision, the later Luther would not. For

him that was to leave revelation for speculation. lievelation would lead

one to the God of revelation and hence one would know oneself among the

elect. "If thou dost cling with firm faith to the revealed God., then

art thou certainly predestined and thou knowest the hidden God"(6).

"Concerning predestination, it is best to begin below, at Christ, as then

we both hear and find the Father; for all those who begin at the top

have broken their necks"(7), This, for Luther after 1525, was the only

way predestination can be understood. However, in practice this was the

way the Calvinist taught the doctrine so the difference is more apparent

than real.

'2 ) M.Luther, Lettur to Capito. onn

^3) M.Luther, the Bondage of the Will (London,1957J,p.200
,4) Ibid,, p,176.
5) E.Brunner, the Christian Doctrine of God, p.343.
,6) Ibid,,p.344. . T„ n •,.
1) M.Luther, the Table Talk ^ Q a r ^ J j u t h e r , edited by W.flazlitt
(London,1890),p.279.

74
(c) Calvin

Calvin is often accused of being speculative in his approach to

the problem. It is admitted that in his preaching Calvin concentrated

on election in Christ through faith. This can be illustrated from

his sermon on II Timothy where he states "we must put the cause and

fountain of our salvation in Kim (Christ) only...let us learn to

come directly to Jesus Christ if we will not doubt Grod*s election -

we must always come to our Lord Jesus Christ when we talk of our

election"(l).

However, it is argued that in his dogmatic studies he forgets

this. It is suggested that in treating predestination Calvin is led

beyond the revelation in Christ, and if one asks why, it is said that

"one word may fairly be given in answer: Logic"(2). Significance is

found in the fact that he opens discussion by observing "the covenant

of life is not preached equally to all, and among those to whom it is

preached does not always meet with the same reception"(3). It is said

that Calvin bases his argument not on Scripture but on experience and

his deductions from that experience. "He did buttress his doctrine so

emphatically by the appeal to it (experience) that we can hardly fail

to recognise that muciz of the pathos and emotional power with which he

defended it and to an extent the form in which he did so, were determined

by this experience, the effects of which were inevitably serious from

the point of view of the purity of the doctrine" (4).

(1) J.Calvin, *The Doctrine of Election*, pp.39-51.

(2) J.S.Whale, The Protestant Tradition ( London,I960),p.141.

(3) J.Calvin, Institutes. 111,21,1*

(4) K.Barth, Dogmatics, p„39.

75
While it is the earlier works of Calvin that are most criticised in

this respect the definitive edition of the "Institutes" reveals the

same use of experience in the argument. In addition to the opening

sentence already quoted, he argued "experience shows that this will...

is not such as to make Him touch all their hearts" (5) and he uses the

same example again - "among a hundred to whom the same discourse is

delivered, twenty, perhaps, receive it with the prompt obedience of

faith; others set no value upon it, or deride, or spurn or abominate

it - hence we will always be entangled until we call in the aid of Paul’s

question, 'who maketh thee to differ', intimating that some excel others,

not by their own virtues, but by the mere favour of God"(6).

However, Calvin is not the first to refer to the preaching

experience in discussing predestination. Augustine made the very same

point — "many hear the word of Truth; but some believe, while others

contradict"(7). Knox was also to remark on the same phenomenon and

draw the same conclusion. "Now, of this manifest diversity which we

see in mankind we conclude that God hath as well His Elect... as also

that He hath His reprobate"(8). Zanchius*'first proposition on

reprobation begins "let it be observed that in all ages the much

greater part of mankind etc"(9).

(5) J.Calvin, Institutes. Ill, 24, 15.

(6) Ibid., Ill, 24, 12.
(7) Augustine, On the Predestination of the Saints,,in.ADictionar£_of
, . Christian Theology, ed. A.Richardson (London,1969J,p.200,
(8) J.Knox. fforKs. v.p.1250
(9) J.Zanchius, p.70.

76
 When all is said and done, is Calvin basing his argument on

experience? First, be it noted his experience is by no means

peculiar to him and therefore unlikely to make his conclusion

peculiar. Rather the question with which he starts is one often

asked and, more important, one that Calvin thought the Bible answered.

In fact it has been said that "it is just Calvin's doctrine of election

which proves that he is not a speculative thinker"(10). Certainly

it has to be admitted that "he believes that he has derived his

doctrine entirely from the Holy Scriptures"(ll).

Calvin makes clear his opposition to speculation. "The moment

we go beyond the bounds of the Word we are out of the course, in

darkness, and must every now and then stumble, go astray, and Fall"(12).

Worse than that, speculation keeps man "perpetually miserable, subjects

him to dire torment, or throws him into a state of complete stupor"(13).

The answer for Calvin is to look to Christ. For him, as for

Luther, this made predestination a comforting doctrine, bringing real

assurance. As has been made clear already when discussing the factors

that helped make this doctrine so prominent during this period, the

need for assurance was deeply felt.

(10) W.Niesel, The Theology of Calvin (London,1956 ),p.l60.

(11) jfi.Brunner, Doctrine of God, p.345.
(12) J.Calvin, Institutes, 111,21,2.
(13) Ibid., 111,24,4.

77
So Luther is able to show the usefulness of the doctrine - "now that

God has taken ray salvation out of the control of my own xdll and puts

it under the control of His, and promised to save me, not according to

my working or running, but according to His own grace and mercy, I

have the comfortable certainty that He is faithful and will not lie

to me, and that He is also great and powerful so that no devils or

opposition can break Him or pluck me from Him"(l4).

So too with Calvin who spends five sections in Chapter twenty-

four on vindicating "the certainty of election"* This certainty is

based on Christ. "Christ then, is the mirror in which, without

deception, we may contemplate our election"(15). Thus it is argued

that on predestination Calvinfs teaching is "wholly centred on Jesus

Christ"(16).

But is it? Despite Calvin’s reiterrated call to look to Christ

does his teaching in fact not prevent this by talking of an unknown

will of God that is prior to the Christ event? By positing this

unknown and unknowable will of God does Calvin not rob Christ Jesus

of His power to assure man of his election? This is the thrust of

Barth’s criticism — "the fact that Calvin in particular not only did

not answer but did not even perceive this question is the decisive

objection which we have to bring against his whole doctrine of

predestination"(17).

(14) M.Luther, the Bondage of the Willi p.314.

(15) J.Calvin, Institutes, 111,24,5.
(16) W.Niesel, p#181.
(17) K.Barth, Dogmatics, p.111.

78
 However, it must be argued in reply that we cannot simply equate

the Son with the Father. There are some things that have not been

revealed even to the Son - Cf, Matthew XXIV,36 (although it should

be said that this is a disputed reading and rates no better than a C

in the 1966 Greek text). The point behind the Calvinist position is

that the revelation in Christ is not a complete revelation. For the

seventeenth century thinker this could only mean that there were parts

of Godfs thoughts kept secret, "arcana consilia". The twentieth century

mind might see it in terms of a partial revelation of the whole of God’s

thought rather than the whole revelation of parts. However, the

Calvinist would argue that while only knowing part of God’s will men

can trust what has been revealed to him, the unknown parts would not

contradict the revealed. So although there remains a hidden will

of the Father, the will revealed by the Son gives sufficient grounds

for hope and trust. Hence we can know the certainty of our election

in Christ*

What then of reprobation? Calvin was quite unashamedly of the

opinion that there are reprobate men, foreordained by God^ Does this

mean that one can know oneself to be of the reprobate? The answer is

"no". One cannot speculate on one's destiny* The only thing one

can do with certainty is give oneself to Christ and thus be sure of

one's election*

Thus Calvin tries to do justice to the absolute priority of God's

decision without losing sight of the centrality of Christ in election

and the real responsibility of man for sin* The Westminster Confession

has the same aim. However, this does not mean that the Westminster

teaching can be simp]}* ]abe]led Calvinist, rather it is Calvinism

seventy years on.

T9
(d) Beza and Supralapsarianism

Theodore Beza took over Calvin's system and began what some see

as a process of Protestant scholasticism. This is clearly seen in

his treatment of predestination where he changed Calvin's arrangement.

In his "Eractationes Theologiae" Beza takes the doctrine and puts

it under the doctrine of God while Calvin only considered it when

writing on the appropriation of salvation. Beza was in fact

returning it to where Aquinas had left it.

This change has been seen as a shift away from the revelation in

Christ. YJhile it does tie in predestination with God, it is almost

God as deified will. In this respect it is unfortunate that Chapter III

of the Westminster Confession of Faith begins with the general

statement - "God from all eternity did, by the most wise and holy

counsel of His own will, freely and unchangeably ordain what soever

comes to pass"(l). This is to concentrate attention away from Christ

and on God as the First Cause, Prime Mover. So, to this extent, it

opens the door to speculation and to deterministic theorising.

The same tendency is seen in Beza's teaching on Supralapsarianism.

At times Calvin seems to draw close to the Supralapsarian position —

"it is impossible to deny that God foreknew what the end of man was

to be before He made him, and foreknew, because He had so ordained

by His decree"(2).

(1) Westminster Confession of Faith, 111,1.

(2 ) J.Calvin, Institutes , 111,23,7.

80
Yet he refused to be over explicit — "it is right to treat this whole

question sparingly, not because it is abctruce and hidden in the inner

recesses of the sanctuary of God, but because an idle curiousity is

is not to be indulged"(3)» Calvin was anxious to keep within the

Biblical revelation and not to take his argument any further than

was made clear there* He had no time for asking questions not

answered in the Bible*

Beza felt less inhibited. In his "Tractationes"(4) he explained

his supralapsarian scheme as follows, God's original purpose is to

manifest His mercy and justice in saving some and rejecting others,

then God decrees to create the human race, and then comes the decree

to permit M a m to sin. Obviously, sin is included in God's purpose.

It is still sin and the supralapsarian cannot explain why God has willed

it. Although some have felt that "it is hardly necessary to criticise

this view"(5), the scheme has the advantage of putting God's free grace

first — "we cannot but recognise that in its choice and unconditional

assertion of this starting point it did aim to treat of the God of

Holy Scripture"(6). Yet it has the disadvantage of making God look

the author of sin.

Over against this view emerged the Infralapsarian. It too

insisted on a primal, basic plan of God in which the Fall in included.

The difference is that the decree to create is put before that to

elect.

(3) J.Calvin, Concerning the Eternal Predestination of God, translated

by J.K.S.Beid (London,1961),p.l25.
(4 ) T.Beza, Tractationes Theologiae (Geneva 1570-82), I,pp.344,362,418;
III,p.404.
(5) H.H.Farmer, The World and God (London,1963),p.230
(6) K.Barth, Dogmatics,p.135.

81
This means that out of the fallen mass of mankind - why man has been

created able to fall is unknown - God has chosen some* It is fallen

man who is the object of election0 The reference in Romans IX to

"one lump" was felt to strengthen this argument,,

This infralapsarian argument was really a reaction against the

supralapsarian,, However, in trying to avoid the appearance of calling

God the Author of sin, the infralapsarian has been accused of judging

God by human standards„ The idea of God creating man to fall in order

to show His love and justice is felt to be wrong and is therefore dropped

in favour of one that is thought to show Him in a more flattering lighte

Yet this is to make man the measure,,

On the other hand, can a doctrine be acceptable if it does make

God look the author of sin? Certainly it is wrong for man to judge

God, but then it is not God that the Infralapsarian judges but rather

the supralapsarian picture of God„

Neither theory is satisfactory but both point to aspects of the

truth. The Supralapsarian is right in showing God’s free grace to be

totally independent of man's desert. The Infralapsarian reminds that

God must not be made to look as though He were the Author of sin. Taken

together, the theories suggest that "decrees" are not a very adequate

model. As already shown, the word "decree" is only once used in the

Bible with overtones of predestination. It is an attempt to explain the

mystery as a series of decisions. The Bible gives no encouragement to

such speculation and the whole approach is scholastic in the worst

sense. It illustrates the dangers inherent in any developed

theological system.

82
 What the Westminster divines made of this dispute will he seen

when Chapter III is examined in detail*

(e) Arminianism

The biggest single influence on the doctrine of predestination

in the years after Calvin is Arminianism* The system known by that

name had been hinted at long before Arminius began to lecture and it

has been shown that a native version of the theory evolved in England*

Yet it was with Arminius and his continental disciples that the

theological argument was most fully developed*

Jadob Arminius (D*1605) earned distinction as a student at

Geneva and after serving as a minister in Amsterdam became the

successor of Junius at Leyden* It was when Beza*s theories were

attacked by Coornhert that Arminius discovered that he was unable to

defend the Calvinist position. Gradually he worked out his own

theory* He sought to explain election in terms of four divine

decrees (l)#

(l) J.Arminius, ’A Declaration of the Sentiments of Arminius?,

in The Works of Arminius. translated by J* Nichols (London, 1825),
I,pp*554 ff.

83
First was the decree to "appoint His Son Jesus Christ for a

Mediator, Redeemer, Saviour, Priest and King” to destroy sin and

obtain salvation. Then, there is a decree to include all who "repent

and believe”. Third, God decrees to provide the "sufficient and

efficient” means. Lastly, God decrees to save and damn particular

persons, on the basis of His foreknowledge.

This theory was taken further by the Remonstrants * Five Points

when in 1610 the Arminian party, guided by John Bytenbogaert - chaplain

to Prince Maurice - drew up their "Remonstrance”. Briefly the five

points are:

1) The decree of salvation refers to those who shall

believe and persevere.
2) Christ dies for all though only believers are
benefited.
3) Man can do no true good until born again through
the spirit
4) Grace is not irresistible
5) The believer can fall and must desire Christ's
help and be "not inactive".

With the production of a "Counter - Remonstrance" and controversy

boiling over on to the streets, the States General called a synod

to meet at Dort. There the main battle was fought, although the

result was predetermined by the clear majority enjoyed by the

Gomarist Party in the Dutch church.

84
 Five points were asserted, often described as the MFive Points

of Calvinism"* These are;

1) Unconditional election,
2 ) Limited atonement,
3) Total depravity,
4) Irresistible grace, and
5) The perseverance of the saints*

This European controversy had only indirect bearing on the

Westminster Assembly. In England, Arminians were King’s men and

therefore they were not present at the Assembly* "If there was an

Arminian in all the body, he did not have the courage to lift his

head"(2)* However, Arminianism had this much influence - it pushed the

Calvinist to a more thorough statement of the disputed aspects of

predestination. After Dort no Calvinist was going to water down his

orthodoxy*

The differences between the two schools are obvious. The

Arminian protest was partly a return to medieval semi-Pelagianism with

its concern to safeguard the dignity of man — and to stimulate effort.

While it was not a live option at Y/estminster it did provide a choice

for those troubled by aspects of Calvinism*

While God, through Christ, takes the initiative, man is left to

decide his own fate. This implies a different understanding of fallen

man* Man, for the Arminian, is able to choose - with God’s help.

This help, however, is offered to all - "Jesus Christ, the Saviour of

the world, died for all men and for every man"(3) - and so in effect

the decisive thing is man’s choice.

(2 ) T.D.Witherspoon, p»62»

(3) P.Schaff, Creeds of the Evangelical Protestant Churches

(New York,1832),pp•545—549»

35
 In a sense the Calvinist would agree that man is responsible for

his reaction to the Gospel offer, The one who rejects that offer

incurs guilt* However, according to the Calvinist, no one will make

any other than the wrong choice unless God give His grace* The fact

that different men do make different decisions is thus understood as

showing that God has chosen to help some and not others*

The Calvinist is then forced to explain how God can offer the

Gospel to some and yet not give them the grace to accept it* However,

the Arminian has no less difficulty for he is arguing that Christ dies

for all but that none might actually benefit and certainly some will

not* Neither scheme appears to offer a final solution although both

bring out the difficulty.

As part of the Arminian picture of man’s dignity it is argued that

God*s election is conditional on His foresight of man’s reaction to the

Gospel - "God by an eternal, unchangeable purpose in Jesus Christ His

Son*** hath determined out of the fallen, sinful race of men, to save

in Christ,* those who, through the grace of the Holy Ghost, shall

believe on this His Son Jesus and shall persevere in this faith and

obedience of faith through this grace even to the end”(4), That is,

there is a divine plan from all eternity but this plan is only to act

on what He foresees. The Calvinist would say that there is a

fundamental contradiction in God saving by His grace only those who

will accept His offer, because it makes God’s action depend on m an’s.

In fact it almost suggests that "God loves those who respond to Him"(5),

a total inversion of the Bible message that "we love because God first

loves us" (i John IV,19),

(4) P,Schaff, Creeds, pp«54£-549,

(5) P,Van Buren, The Secular Meaning of the Gospel (London,1966),p,176,

86
The Gospel insists that God moves in love freely and not in dependence

on man's choosing. On this point - and it is crucial for the whole

understanding of election—the Calvinist is surely in the right.

However, that is perhaps not the last word. For it can be argued

that God in deciding to act according to His foresight is nevertheless

making a free decision, and if that decision is to limit His power in

a way that emphasises the responsibility of man, it is in accord with

what has been revealed of divine love. So while the Calvinist

emphasis on unconditional election does more directly point to the

priority and independence of God's purpose, it is - perhaps - possible

to argue that the Arminian also affirms this.

There is another aspect of this debate which is of great practical

importance; which theory brings assurance to the troubled soul? Now,

of course, a doctrine cannot be judged sound merely because it would be

a comfort, but the Gospel is meant to bring comfort and therefore a

doctrine that is comforting and backed by Scriptural evidence is more

likely to be true to the God revealed in Jesus Christ. By insisting on

man's choice as being decisive, the Arminian undermines assurance, for

the comfort of election lies in the conviction that it is God's choice

that is decisive. Man, being chosen by God, does make a decision but

that decision he is only able to make because God has given him the

necessary grace. Having that grace, he is able to commit himself to

Christ, Now what happens after? Man may waver in his loyalty, his

faith may grow faint, his hold on God may slip. Both Calvinist and

Arminian admit this and both urge the Christian to work. However, the

Calvinist has the comfort of knowing that his being a Christian is the

work of God and therefore cannot be undone.

87
So although he may fall he will not be lost* Christ Jesus has

promised to keep safe all who are His - (Cf. John VI, 37-39) - "there

is no danger of their falling away, since the Son of God, who asks

that their piety may prove constant, never meets with a refusal"(6).

Although Arminius himself did not wish to say that the elect raa.y

fall, and although the "Remonstrance11 says that the question "must

be more particularly determined out of the Holy Scripture"(7),

logically the Arminian theory cannot give assurance and this was

subsequently admitted*

It is possible that this fact had not a little to do with the

struggle between the schools* As shown, Calvinism was dominant at

a time when people felt the need for some kind of assurance* As

Europe grew more settled and as the various churches made their

theological positions clear, fear and confusion were lessened and it

is at this later date that Arminianism began to flourish*

The ways in which this controversy affected the churches in

Britain will be seen more clearly when the Westminster Statement is

examined* However, before that, account must be taken of other

developments*

(d) J.Calvin, Institutes. 111,24,6*

(7) P.Schaff, Creeds, pp.545-549*

88
 (f) Amyraldism

The Calvinist orthodoxy was challenged by a new system. Known

variously as ’’New Methodism”, "Salmurianism" and "Amyraldism", its

founder was John Cameron. ’’Restless and speculative, with a dash of

ambition in his nature, and more or less, too, of the brilliant about

him’f(l), Cameron briefly succeeded Robert Boyd as Principal of Glasgow

University but made his name as Professor of Theology at Saumur. His

theology suffered because of his Erastian views* In fact those views

led to his being fatally injured in a street assault at Montauban.

His students, notably Cappel, Blondel and Daillie, together with

the man who gave his name to the system - Moses Amyrault - worked

Cameron's ideas into an integrated theory. Briefly, they taught a

"hypothetical universalism’’ in place of a limited atonment. All were

meant to be saved provided they repented and believed. This was the

first decree. Then, seeing that natural man cannot repent or believe,

God chooses some and gives them the requisite grace. This theory is

not unlike the infralapsarian idea in that it tries to make God's

election look less arbitrary, but does not succeed.

The Amyraldian wants to do justice to the universalistic side of

the Gospel offer and yet retain the distinction between the elect and

the non-elect. Now, all sides were agreed that the death of Christ was

of sufficient value to purchase the forgiveness of all men and all were

also agreed that all men were not forgiven. The *lrminian traced this

to the different reactions to the Gospel, the Calvinist took it farther

back to a prevenient decision of Gcd, the Amyraldian also makes God's

decision decisive but tries to suggest that this was not what uod

really wanted.

(i) J.Macleod, p.60* 89

The result is that the Amyraldian has to say either that God willed

something that He did not do, or that He purposed an end without

providing the means. Either way the new theory broke down. The

Amyraldian*s first deoree does not mean anything in practice for it

says that God offers salvation on an impossible condition and ” a

universalism based on an impossible condition is an unfruitful

abstraction”(2).

This viewpoint was expressed at Westminster, rather to the

chagrin of Baillie - "unhappily Amyraut*s questions are brought in

on our assembly. Many more love their fancies here than I did

expect”(3)* However, not so many as to give the doctrine a place in

the confession. The actual debate will be seen reflected in the

analysis of Chapter III.

(2) P.Sehaff, History. p*483.

(3) R.Baillie, Letters, II,324«

(g) Federalism

Another development within the Reformed School did influence

Westminster. This was Federalism. "Only in one direction was there

a substantial modification of rigid Calvinism - Federalism"(l).

The idea of Federalism is that God,s relationships with men are

always through and by means of covenants. Thus it was argued that Adam,

as representative man, is promised immortality conditional upon obedience

- the first covenant. Following the Fall, the new relationship

between man and God is the Covenant of Grace whereby a Saviour is given.

This was a new development. Calvin only spoke of one covenant,

that of grace, and is on record as declaring "God has never made any

other covenant than that He made formerly with Abraham and at length

confirmed by the hand of Moses"(2). Ke never mentioned a covenant of

works made with Adam.

From hints in continental scholars like Musculus and Ursinus, the

first clear statement on a covenant of works came in the writings of a

Scotsman, Robert Bollock, in his "Questiones et Hesponsiones" of 1595.

The reasons for the rise in popularity of this view are rather

uncertain - but interesting. Partly it arose out of the tendency to

schematise theology, a tendency already apparent in the Infra/Supralap-

sarian debate. It also reflects the movement throughout Europe "to

change social relationships from status to contract"(3). This was a

powerful force and would appeal to the Scots with their "De Jure Regni"

of George Buchanan and "Lex Rex" of Samuel Rutherford.

(1) H.Macpherscn, p„57.

(2) J.Calvin, Commentary on Jeremhiah and Lamentations transl.by J.Owen,
(Edin. 1850-55), IV, p. 127.

(3) P.Toon, Hyper Calvinisim (London,1967),p.21.

91
 The Covenant, idea was taken a stage further hy the Englishman

William Ames in his "Medulla Sacrae Theologiae" of 1623. He

distinguished between a covenant of redemption and a covenant of grace.

The first referred to the agreement of the Trinity to save man and the

latter to the offer of the Gospel to man.

This theory found its fullest and most popular expression in

1650 with the publication of "The Sum of Saving Knowledge". The work

was issued anonymously but is understood to be written by James Durham

and David Dickson. So highly was it regarded that it was printed

together with the Westminster Confession and Catechisms, and so

strong a hold did this theory gain that "the old theology of Scotland

has indeed been described as a covenant theology"(4).

Certainly Federalism is incorporated in the Westminster Confession.

Chapter VTI is "of Godfs Covenant with Man". There in paragraph two

it reads "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"*

This was new and, quite clearly, it cut across the teaching on

predestination. In a way it is repeating the Amyraldian mistake.

The Amyraldian says that God decides to save man if man repents and

believes - which man cannot do.

(4) J.Walker, p.40.

92
The Federalist says God agrees to grant man eternal life if man is

obedient - which man cannot do. Again we have a theory that suggests

God offers terms that He knows man cannot meet, terms which He has

planned that man cannot meet.

The other development distinguishing between a covenant of

redemption and a covenant of grace is not found in the Confession.

There is, however, at least a hint of it in the Shorter Catechism —

"God... did enter into a covenant of grace to deliver them out of the

estate of sin and misery, and to bring them into an estate of

salvation by a Hedeemer"(5),

While federalism, particularly the concept of a covenant of works

is a theory with a flaw, it is a theory with a personal touch. The

God of orthodox predestination looks rather impersonal and remote,

almost reduced to deified will. Indeed it is partly for this reason

that Calvin and the others, when it cones to preaching, try to

concentrate attention on Jesus. The picture of God presented in

federalism is closer to that of a loving Father, for God on this

account binds Himself freely to man. This does not mean that the

covenants are to be thought of as agreements contracted between equals,

but rather they represent "voluntary condescension on God's part"(6 ).

So strong is this personal element in federalism that some argue that

it explains the success of the new school - "the covenant of grace was

produced by the anguished effort to soften the outlines and character

of the awful God of predestination"(7).

(5 ) the Shorter Catechism (Edinburgh 1963), Q.20.

(6 ) Westminster Confession of Faith, VII,1.
(7) A.French, Charles I and the Puritan Upheaval
(London,1955),p.247.
 It is thus clear that the Westminster teaching of predestination

would be Calvinist, but Calvinist only in a limited sense, for the

later developments within the school as well as opposing theories from

outside would all shape the Westminster statement*

It is now possible to examine that statement*

(5) THE WESTMINSTER STATEMENT

The Westminster Confession makes its statement on the mystery

of predestination in the third chapter* The title of that chapter

- "Of God's Eternal Decree” - is important.

On the same head the Irish Articles bear the title ”0f God's

Eternal Decree and Predestination”* This was no tautology, but was

read as meaning God's decree in its general and particular aspects.

However, the Westminster divines felt the mention of predestination

to be unnecessary and dropped it.

The use of the singular "decree” is interesting. It seems to

argue that the fate of all mankind is decided at one time by the one

act of God's will*

94
Yet in bection three the Confession will argue that there is a

difference between election and foreordination and this has led to

talk of God's decrees* Both catechisms ask "what are the decrees of

God?"(l), The use of the singular in the confession has the effect

of emphasising the independence and priority of God's choice, while

the use of the plural points to what is subsequently argued at length

- that there is a difference between the way in which God chooses some

for life and others for damnation.

There was some discussion on the first section with the apparent

aim of simplifying the Irish wording which was broadly accepted* The

force of the paragraph is that God, of His own will, ordained "whatever

comes to pass"*

At this point an alteration should be noted; the dropping of

the Irish "in time" after "comes to pass". The idea seems to be to

emphasise God's sovereignty even more by avoiding all suggestions

that events happening out of man's time are not subject to God's

purpose* It also avoids pre-empting discussion on the Infra/

Supralapsarian Controversy, as the phrase "in time" could be under­

stood as implying the Infralapsarian interpretation*

(l) the Longer Catechism. Q«12«

the Shorter Catechism,

95
 The divines thus take care to put God*s sovereignity beyond all

dispute* For them, this must come first, everything else they have

to say must be understood in the light of this affirmation.

This leads to an immediate difficulty. If God is sovereign and

ordains “whatsoever comes to pass”, does this not make Him responsible

for Sin? The Confession insists that “God is not the Author of

Sin“ and refers to James I and I John 1,5. However, no explanation

is offered and the point was not debated at Westminster. Apparently

the traditional Calvinist explanation in terms of GodJs two wills was

accepted.

No variation of the Calvinist theology can finally explain the

existence of evil. Infralapsarian and supralapsarian alike cannot

give a reason. Nor can the Amyraldian nor the Arminian - neither

attempts to do so. This, however, is not surprising as the Bible

gives no final answer. Calvin was unhappy with attempts to find an

answer the Bible does not give - “it is not right that man should

pry with impunity into things which the Lord has been pleased to

conceal within Himself"(2). All parties admit that the existence

of evil in Godfs creation is “an inscrutable mystery which we in our

present state of knowledge cannot fully explain"(3).

(2 ) J.Calvin, Institutes. 111,21,1.

(3) L. Boettner, the Reformed Doctrine of Predestination

(Philadelphia, 1969), p.228.

96
 However, given the fact of evil, can man he held responsible for

his sin? The Confession says he can for he has freedom of choice.

Each has the choice of obeying God or following sin. This freedom

is limited and in practice man chooses sin. However, the limit

on freedom is not imposed by God but rather results from Adam’s

disobedience. This leads to the question lying behind the Infra/

Supralapsarian debate - is man’s initial choice, that of Adam, part

of God's plan? The answer both give is affirmative - but for

different reasons - the Fall is part of God's plan. However, Adam

sinned freely because whither or not his sin was predestined he did

not know, and he had a clear choice. Consequently natural man's

bias toward sin cannot be blamed on God's predestination of Adam,

for each man is given the same choice and that choice is free because

man feels free and obeys only his own wish.

So the Confession is unable to explain the existence of evil and

argues for man's freedom. However, over against both it affirms

God's sovereignty. Evil there may be but it is never outwith God's

purpose and control. Man may be free to reject God's offer of grace

but his choice is part of God's plan.

Mention of "Second causes" at the end of the paragraph bears this

out. The "liberty or contingency" of these causes is said to be

established by God's sovereignity. For the Calvinist this is

obvious; laws of nature, laws of psychology, all are part of God's

plan. A man may trace his conversion, say, to the influence of a

particular sermon, but behind that sermon lies the ultimate cause -

God's plan.

97
 The second paragraph is not found in the Irish Articles. Some

difficulty seems to have been experienced with the wording and the

section was sent down to a special committee. It appears at least

possible that it was not at first intended as a separate paragraph.

The point of the paragraph is to deny the Arminian argument

that God's decision depencb on His foresight. To the Calvinist this

would make God "The prisoner of His creation rather than its Lord" (4).

Whither this is in fact the case has already been discussed. The

Westminster divines admitted that "God knows whatsoever may or can

come to pass upon all supposed conditions" yet traced this to His

own will, and they explicitly denied that God's decrees depend on

"anything because He foresaw it as future". This follows on from

the affirmation about God's sovereignity made in the first paragraph.

Paragraphs three and four apply the argument to "men and angels".

Although a modern writer suggests that "the chief problem that arises

is in connection with section three"(5), yet at Westminster these

two sections did not occasion much debate. There are in fact no

details extant on any discussion on Section IF, but on November third

there was talk of excluding the phrase "foreordained to everlasting

death" from Section III, and in September 1646 Whitaker again challenged

the wording and recorded his dissent when he lost.

(4) R.A.Finlayson, 'Does the Westminster Confession Teach Double

Predestination?* Reformed Forum,I. No.l (Jan.1972),p.11.

(5) J.Philip, the Westminster Confession of Faith*An Exposition

(no date,no place) Part 1, p.25.
 Paragraph three states that "some men and angels are predestined

unto everlasting life, and others foreordained to everlasting death1'.

This has become known as "double predestination". However, "double

predestination" is less than accurate. The framers of the Confession,

who are obviously careful with every word, employ two different words —

"predestinate" and "foreordain". They never confuse the two but

always reserve "predestine" for the elect. So it appears that they

intend to mark a distinction.

It has to be admitted that etymologically there is no real

distinction between the words. However, it is one way of differ­

entiating between the two aspects of God’s decree, and this the

Calvinist is anxious to do - "Calvinists in general have held that

there is an important difference between the way and manner in which

the decree of election bears or operates upon the condition and fate

of those who are saved, and that in which the decree of reprobation,

as it is often called, bears or operates upon the condition of those

who perish"(6),

The distinction derives from the concern to do justice to God’s

free grace and man's responsibility for sin, both. In other words,

"God saves a man not because of his character. He does condemn a man

on the ground of His character and deserts"(7),

(6) W,Cunningham, Historical Theology (Edinburgh,1870),I^p,422,

(7) R,A.Finlayson,p#13*

99
No one deserves to be saved and so God saves some only because He

chooses to do so, while the others receive only what they deserve —

’•while election is sovereign, reprobation is judical”(8 )* The details

will become clearer in paragraphs five and six* It is interesting to

note that the term ’’reprobation” is not used although it is found in

the Lambeth and the Irish articles. It is clear that the divines do

not wish to detract in any way from God’s sovereignity but do wish to

emphasise man's responsibility. This fact has to be emphasised as it

is often overlooked - even by reputable authorities like the Oxford

Dictionary of the Christian Church which claims that the Confession

teaches the reprobate are foreordained "without any fault on their

part"(9).

Paragraph four has led to the accusation that the doctrine precludes

all missionary enterprise for it teaches that "so certain and definite

is the number of the elect that it cannot be either increased or

diminished". So it is argued that "if this doctrine were seriously

believed by any church it would petrify the whole spiritual energy of

that church"(10), It is also advanced as "a historical fact", that

"when it was thought that God's saving purpose was restricted to the

elect the church as a whole was remiss in its obedience to the great

comission"(ll),

(8 ) DoMacleod, Westminster Confession,p.9,

(9 ) ’Predestination' in the Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church,
edited by F.L.Cross and E.A.Livingstone (London,1963),p,1099,

(10) D.Lamont, P»90«

(11) G.S.Hendry, p.123*

100
 These arguments find various expressions. It has been said that

predestination implies racialism - "Calvinism, with its great insistence

on 'election1, is the ideally suitable religious doctrine for white

South Africa..• I believe that the Calvinistic theology is largely to

blame for the present tragedy in South Africa"(12),

Again, it has been asked "can a Calvinist pray?"(13), Believing

that all must happen according to Gou's plan, has a Calvinist any

motive to pray, especially intercessory prayers?

S'-
Whither in fact the Westminster divines and their successors did

pray, preach, or practice racialism will be seen when examination is

made of their use of this doctrine. At present it should be noted

that the doctrine as stated does not preclude evangelism. Zanchius

insists - "it does not follow... that all precepts reproofs and

exhortations cn the part of God, or prayers on the part of man, are

useless, vain and insignificant"(14). On the contrary, the Calvinist

position is summed up in this quotation from Augustine that Calvin

repeated in his "Institutes" - "Because we do not know who belongs to

the number of the predestined, or does not, our desire ought to be

that all may be saved, and hence every person we meet, we will desire

to be with us a partaker of peace"(15)#

(12) T.Huddleston, Nauaht for Your Comfort (London,1956), pp*64 & 233*
(13) W.B.Spear, 'Can a Calvinist Pray?', the Bulwark (June/July 1973),
pp* 12-15. S
(14) J.Zanchius, pp„86f.
(15) J.Calvin, Institutes, 111,23,14,

101
 Paragraph five of the Confession deals with ’’those of mankind

that are predestined nnto life”* The only hint of disagreement at

Westminster was over the phrase ’’unto everlasting glory” which some

felt was superfluous*

Mention is made of God's ’’eternal and immutable purpose”, the

point being that God's will has not changed but was determined "before

the foundation of the world"* As shown, both Infralapsarian and Supra/

lapsarian agreed on this but disagreed as to the place of theFall in

this divine plan* That was taken up in the next paragraph.However,

in five the text is unquestioned.

The paragraph goes on to talk of God's "secret counsel"* The

significance of this expression is that God's wisdom is above and

beyond that of man. It is impossible for man to see why Godchoose

one and not another* No system has claimed to be able to provide a

answer but rather all state that there is no answer for man. All are

sinners and deserve condemnation. That any are chosen is due alone

to God's grace. Why those chosen are chosen rather than others cannot

be explained*

Those chosen are chosen "in Christ". This is very important.

It prevents discussion wandering too far into the realm of speculation

and concentrates attention on Christ*

However, as has been argued against Calvin, the orthodox

presentation of predestination tends to obscure the person and work

of Christ. Instead the line of argument can lead to unfruitful

speculation about the order of divine decisions*

102
This objection is strengthened by the fact that this is the only part

of the chapter - paragraph five and six — where Christ is mentioned.

Nevertheless the Confession does say that the elect are chosen in

Christ and emphasises the truth that this is the only way to find

assurance. In other words, there is no way of knowing God's will

other than the way He has revealed. This is made clear in these two

paragraphs where the unique place of Christ in election is stressed.

There is some repetition of points already made as the divines

insist that Godfs choice is ’’out of His mere free grace and love”.

Explicitly excluded is ’’any foresight of faith or good Works etc.”.

This paragraph explains the reason for God's election as being

"to the praise of His glorious grace”. This does not mean that God

is being gracious for the sake of being recognised as such. The

divines would recoil in horror from such an accusation. What they

mean is God's reasons are His own and His action reveals to man His

glory and His grace. That is, man cannot question God but God in

His act of election shows His true nature as Loving Father.

It was paragraph six that occasioned most debates. It also

displays that good sense of the divines. There was a clear difference

of opinion. Twisse, the prolocutor, was ” a zealous supralapsarian”

while most members "were on the other side”(l6). There was debate

but the final wording proved acceptable to all parties because it

simply said ’’wherefore they who are elected, being fallen in Adam, are

redeemed in Christ”. As Gillespie said ’’every man can enjoy his own

sense”.

(16) C.Hodge, Systematic Theology ( London, 1960 ), II, P.317.

103
 This deliberate ambiguity is borne out in the way commentators

still disagree about the meaning. While one can argue that the

pervasive theology is supralapsarian (17), another declares that

’’our confessional standards embody the Infralapsarian position”(18).

The point of the paragraph is that God in choosing the elect has

also ’’foreordained all the means thereunto”. They are called,

justified, adopted, sanctified and ’’kept... unto salvation”. This is

the great comfort the doctrine brings, teaching that one’s salvation

depends not on one’s own efforts but on God’s irrevocable decision.

The paragraph also suggests that once the process of salvation

begins it cannot stop. However, the idea is not that of some mindless

mechanism but of God's all-providing care. The point made is much the

same as that found in the first paragraph that God's plan includes all

’’second causes”. If to be saved one must persevere through temptation,

then, the one chosen for salvation will be given the grace to persevere.

In mentioning the calling of the elect, care is taken to stress

that they are ’’effectually called”. Chapter X of the Confession is

"of Effectual Calling”. It is in this way that the Calvinist acknow­

ledges that while all may be called by "the ministry of the word”(l9),

only those chosen are saved. This means that the Calvinist is free to

preach the Gospel to everyone. The response of his hearers lies

ultimately with God.

(17) W.M,Campbell, p.140.

(18) L.Berkhof, Systematic Theologytp»125.
(19) the Westminster Confession of Faith, X, 4.

104
 It was the last three words of the paragraph that sparked off

Hone of the most notable debates reported in the minutes" (20), The

words are - "the elect only"*

It was at this point that the .Amyraldian party made their big

effort* Edmund Calamy, minister of St,Maryfs Aldermanbury, London,

argued that "Jesus Christ did not only die sufficiently for all" —

something all agreed on - "but God did intend, in giving of Christ,

and Christ in giving Himself, did intend to put all men in a state of

salvation in case they do believe"(21),

The weakness of this argument was pointed out by "the cautious

Dr, Reynolds" (22), He said that the implication was that Christ dies

to save people "upon a condition that they canhot perform and God

never intends to give them"(23),

There then followed a debate on the exegesis of several passages.

This shows that for the divines any new theory, such as iknyraldianism

was, had to be judged by appeal to the final authority of the Bible*

Calamy turned to John III, 16 to argue that Christ died for the whole

world, and to Mark XVI, 15 to say that universal redemption must be

possible*

(20) B.B.Warfield, The Westminster Assembly, p*138,

(21) Mitchell & Struther, Minutes,
(22) Ibid*, p*LV
(23) Ibid.,

105
 In reply Gillespie and Butherfurd. suggested that "world” in

John III meant the elect everywhere in the world* Light foot and Harris

held that it refers to the Gentiles, while Price argued that talk of

God loving the "world" did in no way contradict the idea of an elect

chosen from that world*

On Mark, itutherfurd replied that Calamyfs argument would logically

imply that all will be saved. Gillespie drew a distinction between

God's command and His intention, illustrating his point by referring

to the command to sacrifice Isaac (Genesis XXIl)* This argument of

Gillespie's ties in with what was said about effectual calling; man

is told what to do and this is what is to be his concern - not God's

plan which may involve the apparent contradiction of that particular

command*

At Westminster Calamy and his few followers were defeated, and

the disputed words stood* However, some have tried to read the

paragraph as meaning that it is the sum of the blessings to which the

elect alone are entitled. This would leave the possibility of a

bare redemption to others, a small concession to Calamy* However,

that is a very unnatural reading and there is no doubt that "the

Confession must be regarded as teaching that it is not true of any

but the elect alone, that they are redeemed in Christ, any more than

that any others are called, justified, or saved"(25)*

Of paragraph seven the Minutes reveal only that the wording was

gone over with care. The phrase "sovereign power" was debated but

no details are given.

(25) W,Cunningham, Historical Theology. II,p.328.

106
 This section deals with "the rest of mankind''. The non-elect

are not left with any "hypothetical" chance but are said to be "passed

by". Again there can be no possible explanation for this in human

terms, it is "according to the unsearchable counsel of His own Will".

All sinners deserve detonation but why some are passed by is no more

knowable than why some are chosen for life "it must be attributed to

the exercise of His holy sovereignity"(26).

The paragraph goes on to refer God*s passing by to "the glory of

His sovereign power over His creatures". This does not mean that God

is showing off His power but rather it firmly and reverently closes

the door to human speculation - there are some things beyond the

comprehension of man and he can only give the glory to God. Calvin

reminds us th$t in the Boraans passage "Paul does not want to claim for

God an inordinate power but the power which He should rightly be

given"(27). A proper understanding of predestination will help man

appreciate his own nature and that of God,

God is said to "pass by" the non-elect. This is an attempt to

avoid saying that God is responsible for their sin. The sin is their

own, it is only that they have not been saved from their condition.

The sin?being their own, is the reason for their "dishonour and wrath".

The argument has been summarised as "grace to some, but injustice to

none"(28).

(26) R.A.Finlayson,P*13.
(27) J.Calvin, Commentary of Homans (Edinburgh,1961),p. 210*
(28) R,A,Finlayson,p. 14.

107
 However, as already shown, there is a difficulty here in that the

Confession teaches both that God has one decree "from all eternity” ,

and that man is condemned for his sin. The truth seems to be that the

idea of election, however expressed, does lead to an appearance of

partiality. Ail the different schools were aware of this but there is

no way round the problem - “it is impossible to preserve a balance in

this matter, either in thinking or speaking, since the Bible does not

do so”(29). All that can be done - and the Confession marks the limits

of one attempt - is do justice to all that the Bible teaches and hold

the opposing truths in tension. God's sovereignity is undoubtedly

shown by the Bible. So too is man's responsibility. That some men

are saved is a fact that must be understood in the light of these

two truths.

No details exist as to what was discussed in paragraph eight.

Yet this paragraph is of the utmost importance for it explains how

the doctrine is to be handled. Straightway the divines insist that

it has to be used with "special prudence and care". Obviously they

are well aware of the attendant dangers. The great aim, as they see

it, is that people might be "assured of their eternal election". The

doctrine is to be used positively and thus "afford matter of praise,

reverence, and admiration of God, and of humility, diligence, and

abundant consolation, to all that sincerely obey the Gospel."

The other side of this is not argued at length but is of great

importance; if the doctrine is felt to cause distress or unbelief it

is a certain sign that the doctrine has not been properly understood.

(29) R.A,Finlayson,p*14.

108
Thus in paragraph eight the divines were sounding a warning; there is

more to the doctrine of predestination than a casual glance might suggest,

-Any criticism of predestination must be based on serious study and not on

instinctive reaction.

(6) TBS DOCTRINE I N PRACTICE

(a) Mission

It has already been seen in connection with paragraph four that

the doctrine of predestination has been thought to preclude missionary

enterprise. It has also been seen that Calvinism had an answer. Now

it must be asked, what happened in practice - did those brought up in

the Calvinist tradition, especially those who came after Y/estminster,

neglect evangelism?

Foreign mission has often been seen as a field neglected by the

Reformers and their Calvinist successors. There is one statement that

is often quoted as illustrating the alleged Calvinist viewpoint, that

of Ryland to William Carey - "when God pleases to convert the heathen He

will do it without your aid or mine’ll).

There is no doubt that foreign mission did not occupy the forefront

of Reformed thought. Hov^ever, it is interesting - and is significant

- that while he can find six reasons for this, Latourette does not

mention the doctrine of predestination(2),

(1) J.I.Packer,’Calvin the Theologian* in John Calvin, edited by

Buff ield,p» 1-51,
(2) K.S.Latourette, A History of the Expansion of Christianity :
Three Centuries of Advance (London,1943),

109
The plain fact is that the Reformed churches were in no position to

launch large-scale missionary enterprise* For centuries they were

on the defensive, "Protestants were fighting for their very existence

and had little leisure for anything outside Western Europe"(3)*

Yet there was some missionary activity and it was Calvin who sent

the first Protestant missionaries when in 1555 Nicholas Durand led an

expedition to an island off Brazil* Nor was this an isolated incident;

Gustavus Vasa sent missionaries to the Lapps, and in 1587, Richard

Hakluyt said in a letter to Sir Walter Raleigh that one of the purposes

of exploration was to bring the Word of God to the natives.

The same spirit is reflected in the Charter of James I for

Virginia in 1606, One of its purposes was to take "the Christian

religion to such people as yet live in darkness and miserable ignorance

of the true knowledge and worship of God" (4), James was a Calvinist*

Among those adhering to the Westminster Confession the fact would

be noted that the Confession teaches that "the gathering and perfecting

of the Saints in this life"(5) is part of the work of the church* That

this fact was not overlooked is revealed in Walter Smith’s "Rules for

Society Meetings". There it is explicitly taught that Christians

should pray for both "the out casten of Israel,,that the promised day

of their ingrafting might be hastened" and for the "poor pagan world"

that "the Lord’s written and preached word may be sent to enlighten

them"(6).
(3) K.S.Latourette, p„25.
(4) Charters to the Old English Colonies in America, edited by
S.Lucas (London,1350),p,2*
(5 ) Westminster Confession of Faith XXV,3,

(6) P,Walker, Six Saints of the Covenant, edited by D.H.Fleming

(London,1901),II,p.94,

110
It is significant that when Presbyterianism was established by

the 1689—90 settlement, the Calvinist Church of Scotland did back

missionary effort* In 1699 Alexander Shiels and three others with his

brother Michael as secretary were sent to take part in the third

Darien Expedition, Their express purpose was "to labour among the

heathen”(7)* In 1702 the Society in Scotland for Propagating

Christian lEnowledge was founded by Janies Kirkwood, an Episcopalian.

In 1704 the General Assembly authorised presbyteries to raise money

for the work of the Society and in 1709 the first meeting of the

Society was held in Edinburgh with William Carstares among those

invited. Clearly, then, missionary work both overseas and in the

Highlands of Scotland was not forgotten and even when unable to do

anything concrete the Calvinist did feel concerned. The prayer of the

Calvinist Scots Confession - ”Give Thy servants strength to speak Thy

word with boldness and let all nations cleabe to the true knowledge of

Thee”(8) - was remembered.

It was not forgotten at the local level. Preaching was regarded

as "the first duty of a minister”(9) and of preaching in seventeenth

century Scotland, G.D.Henderson affirms "there is much simple

evangelical appeal and we know of the rather extraordinary revivalistic

success of Dickson and Livingstone"(10).

(7) J.Barr, the Scottish Covenanters (Glasgow 1947), p.243.
(8) the Scots Confession of 1560, p.80.
(9) D.Matthew, p*43.
(10) G.D.Henderson, Religious Life, p.205.

Ill
 Although John Wesley, and many since, argued that a belief in

predestination "renders all preaching vain"(ll)f yet in practice the

Calvinist preached an open Gospel as Calvin and Augustine had urged.

For example, Donald Cargill on John VIII,36 emphasises the "open

proclamation of the Gospel" saying clearly that Christ is ready to

accept "all that corae"(l2).

William Guthrie affords more examples. From "the Christian*s

Great Interest" - a book still enjoying popularity in paperback form -

we read "He hath made open proclamation in the Church that whosoever

will put aside all thoughts of saving themselves by the covenant of

works, or inherent righteousness, and will agree heartily to be

saved by Christ Jesus, they shall be restored,.. and shall be saved"(13),

"Let them remember that peace and salvation are offered on universal

terms to all without exception,., God excludes none if they do not

exclude themselves"(14).

James Renwick, towards the end of the Killing Time, made a

similar appeal - "if you except not yourself, He will not except you.

His invitation is unto all. His invitation is to everyone"(15), And

"He is a free Saviour, for all who are here this night, young or old,

men or women, may have Christ Jesus"(16).

(11) J.Wesley. Journalstedited by N.Curnock (London,no date) ,V,pp,116ff.

(12) Sermons in Time of Persecution, edited by J.Kerr (Glasgow, 1880), p.489.
(13) W.Guthrie, The Christian*s Great Interest ( London, no date), p.133.

(14) Ibid., pp.1371,

(15) the Sermons of James Renwick, edited by W.Wilson (Glasgow,1776),p*19,

(16) Ibid., p.107.

112
 In fact the Calvinist Covenanters retained the vision even in

the hour of death, James Guthrie in his speech from the scaffold

said ’’all that are profane amongst you, I exhort them to repentance.••

there is yet a door of mercy open for you, if you will not despise the

day of Salvation"(17), Similarly Captain William Govan urged "you

that are profane, leave off your profanity, forbear sin and seek

mercy"(18).

If is of course to be understood that in speaking like this the

Covenanter preacher held that only the elect would respond - I pray

the Lord, that He may open the eyes of all the elect, who are yet

strangers to regeneration"(19) said Walter Smith, while John Cochran

stated that he was "bound to pray for all that were within the bounds

of election"(20).

However, while in England a school of thought arose under

Joseph Hussey that there should be no offer of grace, the Scottish

Calvinist felt bound to offer Grace to all. Only the elect could

respond but not knowing the elect, the preacher had to treat all as

possible believers, leaving the rest to God.

(17) The Cloud of Witnesses, edited by J.H.Thomson (dasgowJ870),p.71.

(18) Ibid., p.74.
(10) Ibid*,, p.354.
(20) Ibid., p.459.

113
 The argument about racialism, being a more recent form of the old

criticism, deserves a more recent reply. The Eeformed Ecumenical

Synod, comprising those churches adhering to an unqualified confessional

commitment, met in Sydney, Australia, during 1972. Among the

resolutions passed are the following; "to reject every form of racial

discrimination and racism" and "to reject every attempt to maintain

racial supremacy by military, economic, or any other means" (21).

The Dutch Eeformed Church of South Africa concurred, "Scripture teaches

and maintains the essential unity of the human race, together with the

primaeval cohesion and equality in principle of all nations (peoples)"(22),

and explicitly said that where differing "the difference is not one of

ideals and aims but of the best method of achieving them"(23).

There is no evidence to support the thesis that a belief in

predestination leads to the practice of racialism. On the contrary,

the Calvinist position is that no one can speculate on another*s

predestined lot Therefore it is impossible for a Calvinist to erect any

system of discrimination.

(21) 'Resolutions on Eace Relations (revised)', supplement Mo.28,

in Acts of the Eeformed Ecumenical Synod. Australia 1972
(Grand Rapids,1972), p.330.
(22) 'Report on Race Relations (from Dutch Reformed Church, South
Africa)1, Supplement No.9, Acts. p.227.

(23) Ibid., p.238.

114
(b) Assurance and koral Effort

It is sometimes argued that the doctrine of predestination with

its promise of assurance led to antinomini anism. In England it

helped produce the Kanters "some of whom believed that God's grace

had made them incapable of sin and acted upon that belief"( l).

Scottish literature affords two striking illustrations of this

attitude* Both belong to the eighteenth century but as that age

bore the fruits of Westminster teaching the illustrations are valid*

One is Robert Burns' "Holy Willie's Prayer" where we read:

"0 Thou that in the heavens does dwell

Wha, as it pleases best Thysel'
Sends ane to heaven an* ten to hell,
A' for Thy glory
And n o ‘for onie guid or ill
They've done afore Thee",

A recent commentator on the Confession has it that this is

"a reasonable comment on this section of the Confession"( 2), It is

about as reasonable a comment on predestination as is Parson Adams'

comment on justification by faith ( 3). Burns takes no notice of the

fact that the Confession insists that the reprobate suffer for their sin.

( l) C.Hill, The Century of Revolution 1603-1714 (Edinburgh,1961),p.167.

( 2) J.Philip, p.32#
( 3) H.Fielding, Joseph Andrews (London,1965),p.56*

115
 Willie, believing himself a "chosen sample", can excuse his

"fleshly lust" on that account and can even see it as a "fleshly thorn"

to keep him from being too good. Y/illie is not unlike the Banter and

while his reasoning is not true to Westminster teaching it does perhaps

suggest how the doctrine could be misunderstood.

Even more striking is James Hogg*s "Confessions of a Justified

Sinner". The central character, believing he is predestined to

salvation, is led to think that all his sins up to and including murder,

are not sins at all. Gradually he falls completely under the power of

his mysterious "friend", too late recognising him as the Devil.

Significantly, an early conversation includes this; "I asked if he

(the friend) believed in the eternal and irrevocable decrees of God,

regarding the salvation and condemnation of mankind? He answered that

he did so; aye, what would signify all things else that be believed,

if he did not believe in that?... He took me to dwell much on the

theme of the impossibility of those ever falling away who were once

accepted and received into covenant with God, for he seemed to know

that in that confidence, and that trust, my whole hopes were centred"( 4).

Obviously Hogg felt that predestination could lead to antiaomianism

of an extreme kind, and his book has been seen as truly illustrating

"a departure from sanity to which fundamentalist Calvinism could run

when followed out to the bitter end"( o).

( 4) J.Hogg, the Confessions of a Justified Sinner (London,1970),p.112*

( 5) D.Craig, Scottish Literature and the Scottish People (London>1961),
p.196.

116
 In England a kind of antinomianism did appear. The leaders of

this school were Saltmarsh, once a chaplain in Cromwell's army and

described by Fuller as a man "of fine and active fancy, no contemptible

poet, and a good preacher"( 6), Eaton, Crisp and Lancaster. They

taught eternal justification and argued that a man's actual justification

in time is merely the realising of what he already had. The dangers

of such a theory are obvious. However, what is equally obvious is

the fact that the Westminster Confession explicitly denied this theory

— "they (the elect) are not justified, until the Holy Spirit doth in

due time actually apply Christ unto them"( 7),

The same confession also warns that the elect can "fall into

grievious sins"( 8) and far from encouraging laziness or complacency

it says that the doctrine should produce both "humility" and

"diligence"( 9).

That is did have this effect cannot be doubted. The Calvinists

could see the dangers of their theory. Hugh McKail urged his fellow

covenanters to "make it your entire study, night and day to keep your

very garments clean... be free of the sin as ye would be of the

judgements"(lO).

( 6) C.H.Firth, Cromwell's Army (London,1962),p.321.

( 7) Westminster Confessionof Faith., XI,4*
( 8) Westminster Confessionof Faith., XVTI,3.
( 9) Westminster Confessionof Faith, 111,8.
(LO) Cloud of Witnesses, p.112.

117
Nor Calvinist preachers feel any of Holy Willie’s superiority

but rather as Cargill wrote to the Gibbite sect — ”you will join with,

none in public worship but those who have infallible signs of

regeneration* This seems fair, but it is both false and foul:

false, because of the false foundation, viz* that the certainty of

one’s interest in Christ may be known to another; whereas the scripture

says that none know it but he that has it; foul also, for this disdain

has pride in it”(ll)*

Faults were admitted. Butherford provides a most interesting

example. He wrote wif the meekness and gentleness of our Master had

got so much place in our hearts that we might have waited on gainsayers

and parties contrary minded; we might have driven gently, as our Master

Christ, who loves not to overdrive, but carries the lambs in His bosom”(12).

In fact the Calvinists were ’’well known for their moral enthusiasm

and moral strictness”(13). Predestination did not lead to moral

laxity nor to sanctimonious posturing. ”In practice the doctrine of

election, so far from discouraging effort, stimulated it... it is

interpreted as vocation, an individual trust and call from God”(l4).

And then there is the other side of the argument, for ”the evidence

certainly does not show that neglect of this doctrine has produced

that humility, diligence and abundant consolation that has marked the

church in better days - days when this doctrine was so handled”(15).

fll) Cloud of Witnesses»p«348»

Jl2) Ibid* ,p.56,
13) A.C.Ewing,Ethics (London,1962)p*164.
G.D.Henderson, the Claims of the Church of Scotland (London,1951),
P*44„
(15) G.I.Williamson,pp»39f»

118
(c) Personal Faith

It has been noted that the Confession picture of God at times

seems little more than a cold abstraction* Yet to those trained in

that tradition, those who affirmed the Westminster standards, God was

loving Father, and many talked and wrote of His love as an experienced

reality*

Alexander Wedderburn sees love as God's fundamental attribute -

"God is love, and not only loving, but love itself"(l ). Livingstone,

one of the most winning preachers of the day, challenged the angels to

"sit down and sum up the count of His love" and concluded "No, No, give

it over, give it over, it cannot be summed"(2 ),

Cargill, often thought of as one of the more austere Covenanters,

wrote "the more you delight in God, the more He will delight in you"( 3 ).

Renwick could write of that "infinite and transcendant love, in

the profound depth of the admiration where of angels drowned"( 4 ) and

later "However you may be surrounded with the world's malice and hatred,

His love is still about you and always next to y ou"(5)• Towards the

end, the day before his execution, Renwick wrote his testimony - "I

have found His cross sweet and lovely unto me, for I have had many joyful

hours, and not a fearful thought since I came to prison...welcome scaffold

for precious Christ... I commit my soul unto Thy eternal rest"( 6 ).

( 1 ) A.Wedderburn, the Believer's Priveleges (Edin., 1682 )p.35.

( 2 ) Select Biographies, edited by Vl.K.Tweedie, Wodrow Society
(Edinburgh 1845), I , p.272.
(3 ) W.H.Carslaw, Life and Times of Donald Cargill (Paisley,1902),p.35.
(4 ) W.H.Carslaw, The Life and Letters of James Renwick (Edinburgh 1893)
p.26.
(5 ) Ibid., p. 227.
(e ) Cloud of Witnesses, p.560
 Similar sentiments >;ere expressed by other, less fatuous,

Covenanters* For example, James Wood could thus state the ground of

his faith - "I have heen under several shakings, hut that word hath

stayed me 'Him that cometh to me, I will in no ways cast out*,

blessed be the mouth that spoke it, may I not trust to it?”( 7). This

statement also illustrates the centrality of Christ Jesus in the faith

of those in the Westminster tradition. Devotion to Christ is seen in

testimonies like that of John Neilson of Corsack — "if I had many worlds,

I would lay them all down, as now I do my life, for Christ and His

cause”( 8 ) .

On the Westminster divines, Rutherford in his letters gives

lyrical expression to his faith. These letters have been an object

of controversy ever since they appeared in print, but it is not

without significance that they are still in print. Although some may

still feel that Rutherfurd's raptures are ”of the grossest and most

indecent kind”( 9), yet it is at least obvious that Rutherfurd's

religion is no lifeless intellectualism* Just after his wife died

"after long disease and torment", he can write "welcome, welcome,

Jesus, what way soever Thou come, If we can get a sight of Thee"(lO).

( 7) Cloud of Witnesses, p.80

( 8 ) Ibid., p. 103.
( 9 ) W.L.Mathieson, P*224,
(10) S.Rutherford. Selected Letters, edited by H.Martin
(London,1957; p.21«

120
Among his own last words as they are recorded — WI said to the Lord

*If He should slay me five thousand times five thousand, I would

trust in Him*,, as really as ever He spake to me by His Spirit, He

witnessed to my heart, that His grace should be sufficient"(ll),

Gillespie, prematurely aged, died at thirty five. In his "latter

will" he wrote "Being through raudh weakness and sickness in expectation

of my last change, I have thought good, by this my latter will, under

my hand to declare first of all, that the expectation of death, which

appeareth not to be far off, doth not shake me from the faith and

truth of Christ, which I have professed and preached"(l2)„

Henderson could talk of his approaching death with the same calm

faith - "never schoolboy more longed for the breaking-up than I do to

have leave of the world”(13),

Thus it appears that those who helped formulate the Westminster

Confession and those who held by its standards were men of a strong

personal faith, a faith that was tried and tested in full. For them

the doctrine of predestination was a source of real comfort, and

they saw it and taught it not as a fearful message but as the final

proof of God’s sovereign grace,

(11) Cloud of Witnes8ea,Po51«,

(12) Ibido pp,43fa
(13) A,Smellie,p821,

121
 CONCLUSION

"Others apart sat on a hill retired,

la thoughts more elevate, aad reasoaed high
Of Providence, Foreknowledge, Will, aad Fate -
Fixed fate, free will, foreknowledge absolute,
And fouad no end, in wandering mazes lost"(l).

Although Milton was describing fallen angels a feeling persists

that he might have been writing of the Westminster divines. However,

if one asks why those divines devoted a whole chapter of their

confession of faith to this question of predestination, there are

several important answers.

On one level the Westminster Confession does owe much of its

content and its expression of that content to its historic situation.

Coming at the end of the immediate post Reformation period, it reflects

the search for clarity and precision that the preceding period had made

vital. For political as well as theological reasons a confession of

faith had to be able to show exactly where a community stood with

regard to the disputed doctrines of the Christian faith. This explains

not only the form confessions took but the authoritarian air they are

sometimes supposed to exude. The Westminster Confession is a child

of its age.

The actual doctrine figures prominently for reasons both political

and theological. The political reasons are to be found in the state of

ferment in which not only Scotland and England but the whole of Europe

was plunged.

(l) J.Milton *Paradise Lost1, Book II, lines 557-561, in

The Poetical works of John Milton (London,1919),p.42.

122
Changes were happening, often with dramatic suddenness, causing

confusion and uncertainty. The Protestant churches knew themselves to

he in danger of destruction. Hence men were drawn to consider the

question of God's will — could it he overturned? Would any of God's

promises fail? Were the events of the day part of God's plan? So,

out of existential concern and not out of mere academic interest,

the scholars and divines searched for an answer.

It was to the Bible they turned for that elusive answer. That

cannot he doubted. Even allowing for the fact that their attempts to

systematise their findings often led them to strange conclusions they

did try to remain faithful to what they believed the Bible said.

That the Bible has much to say on this subject is obvious. In

both Testaments there is clear emphasis on God's sovereignty. In

Christ Jesus there is supremely revealed this sovereignity in its

Character of Grace.

However, the Bible also brings out with equal force man's

freedom and responsibility. This is the consistent message; God's

will is sovereign and man's freedom is real, both. This paradox is

the source of all the difficulties experienced by the divines. It

would be relatively simple to construct a theory that integrates all

that the Bible says about one or the other truth. The trouble starts

when both truths have to be brought together.

123
 The history of the development of the doctrine in the years

preceding Westminster illustrate this point* Each theory evolved

within the Beformed school is an attempt to resolve this problem, an

effort to redress the imbalance of other efforts* None can be called

a success; each is true to one or other aspect, but all fail to hold

the whole picture together. All end up sooner or later confessing

their inadequacy, even when proclaiming their superiority to rival

theories* Thus it is not surprising, and not even a damning

indictment, to say that the Westminster Confession is not a fully

integrated account* The divines acknowledge this, at least indirectly

in paragraph eight when they call for ’’special prudence and care” in

handling this ’’high mystery”(2 ). That is to their credit.

What can be asked of their theory,is, does it do justice to the

two truths already mentioned? The answer is that it does* Perhaps

Twentieth Century divines would prefer simply to acknowledge the

paradox and hold the truths in tension knowing that it is ’’beyond our

understanding how both can operate simultaneously” (3) but the Seven­

teenth Century required some attempt at reconciliation* That this

attempt failed, was bound to fail, does not change the fact that the

Westminster divines were right in identifying and affirming the truth

of God’s sovereignity and man’s freedom.

(2) Westminster Confession of Faith. 111,8*

(3) Election* in the Lion Handbook to the Bible, edited by

D.&.P* Alexander (Berkhamsted, 1973), p.586,

124
 The doctrine and the Confession that contains it have both

suffered from neglect and distortion* The aim of these pages has

been to remove some of the many mistaken notions that surround doctrine

and confession and to attempt to do justice to what the divines felt

they had to say. To them the doctrine of predestination was a source

of strong comfort, aa impetus to bold action. For them the God of

predestination was the Father of Christ Jesus to whom alone they trusted

for salvation, only thus daring to believe themselves elect. It was

in the light of this faith that the doctrine of predestination was

believed and taught and given confessional status. Apart from that

faith, the doctrine cannot properly be understood.

125
 BIBLIOGRAPHY

INTRODUCTION

The Acts of the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland,

1638— 1842«Church Law Society (Edinburgh/l843)

Berkouwer,G*C., The Triumph of Grace in the Theology of

Karl Barth (Loudon,1965)

Brunner,E., Our Faith (London,1965)

Cochrane,A., Reformed Creeds of the Sixteenth Century

(London,1966)

Curtis, W« A., History of Creeds and Confessions of Faith

(Edinburgh,1911)

Hendry,G*S., The Westminster Confession for Today (London,I960)

Mackintosh,H.R., Types of Modern Theology (London,1964)

Macquarrie,J., God Talk (London,1967)

Macquarrie,J., *A Modern Scottish Theologian: Ian Henderson.

1910— 1969r, The Expository Times, Pol,82, No,7, (April,1971),

Macquarrie,J„, Principles of Christian Theology (London,1970)

Reports to the General Assembly with the Legislative Acts.1970

(Edinburgh,1970)

The Subordinate Standards and Other Authoritative Documents of

The Free Church of Scotland (Edinburgh,1955)

Routeley,E«, Creeds and Confessions (London,1962)

Tillich,P., Systematic Theology I (London,1964)

CONFESSION AND COMMUNITY

Galloway,A.D., fAre the Creeds Redundant?* Enquiry I (Jan.,1969)

Lamont,D», The Church and the Creeds (London, no date)

126
Stevenson, J., ed„, A New Eusebius (London,1965)

Tillich,P., Ultimate Concern (London,1965)

Tillich,P., A History of Christian Thought (London,1968)

Von Loewenick, ¥ . , ‘Origin and Significance of the Apostles*

Creed* in A Net? Look At the Apostles* Creed, ed. G*Rein
(Edinburgh,1969)

T.he SEVEWCEENTH CENTOS' CONFESSIONS

Ashley,M., England in the Seventeenth Century (Harmondsworth,1952)

Bryce,J., I)he Holy Homan Empire (London,1906)

Burleigh,J.H.S,, A Church History of Scotland (London,1961)

Campbell,W*, The Triumph of Presbyterianism (Edinburgh,1958)

Henderson,I«, Power Without Glory (London,1967)

Knox,J., The Works of John Knox, ed., D.Laing, V & VI

(Edinburgh,1895)

Lindsay,T.M., History of the Reformation, II (Edinburgh,1964)

Maclnness,J0, ‘The Historical Background to the Westminster

Confession*, The Records of the Scottish Church History Society,
15 (1968)

McNeill, J,T*, ‘The Ecumenical Idea and Efforts to Realise It,

1517-1618* in A History of the Ecumenical Movement 1517-1948,
eds., R* Rouse and H.C.Neill X London,19"S7)

Macpherson,H*, The Covenanters Under Persecution (Edinburgh,1923)

Matthew, D * , Scotland Under Charles I (London,1955)

Mosse,G*L,, ‘Changes in Religious Thought* in New Cambridge

Modern History, IV, ed* J«P*Cooper (London,1970)

Pryde,G*S*, Scotland from 1603 to the Present Day (Edinburgh,1962)

The Scots Confession of 1560, introduced by G.D.Henderson,

translated by J.Bulloch (Sdinbur gh,1960)

Sitwell,E., The Queens and the Hive (Harraondsworth,197l)

Whitley,E„, Plain Mr.Baox (Edinburgh, 1972)

127
 COVSih&iT. CCIL7ES3IOH COMPROMISE

Baillie, R . , The Letters and Journals of liohert Baillia,

ed. D. Laing "pfdinburgh,184lT ~

Brown, P.E,, History of Scotland, II (London,1902)

Burnet, G,, Memoires of the Lifes and Actions of James and

William Dukes of Hamilton (London.1677)

Burnet, G., A History of His Own Times, ed. T.Stackhouse

(London,1906^

Bush,D*, English Literature in the Earlier Seventeenth

Century 1600-1860 (London,1962)

Calderwood, D., The History of the Elrk of Scotland.I ed,,

T.Thomson, Yvodrow Society" (Edinburgh, 1342)

Cunningham,V/,, The Reformers and the Theology of the

Reformation (London,1969)

Davies,G,, The Early Stuarts:1603-1660 (Oxford,1962)

Dickinson,?/.C., & Donaldson,G., eds. A Source Book of Scottish

History. Ill (London,1961)

Douglas,J.D., Light in the North (Exeter,1964)

Dunlop,W., ed., A Collection of Confessions of Faith, II

(Edinburgh,1719)

Foxe,J., Acts and Monuments, II (London,1661)

Hall,B., 1Calvin Against the Calvinists* in John Calvin, ed.

G.E.Duffield, Courtenay Studies in Reformation Theology
(Abingdon,1966)

Harrison,A.?/., Arminianism (London, 1937)

Senderson,G.D., Religious Life in Seventeenth Century Scotland

(London,1937)

Henderson,I., Scotland, Kirk and People (Edinburgh,1969)

Hewitson,J.K., The Covenanters, I & II (Glasgow,1913)

Laing, D„, ed., The Miscellany of The Wodrow Society,

I (Edinburgh,1844)

128
Leonard, E.G., A History of Protestantism: the Establishment
(London,1967)

McCrie,C .G., The Confessions of the Church of Scotland. Their

Evolution in History"Tsdinburgh.1907)

Mackenzie,A.M., Scottish Pageant 1625-1707 (Edinburgh,1949)

Macleod,J., Scottish Theology in Relation to Church History

Since The Reformation (Edinburgh,1946)

McNeill,J.T, The History and Character of Calvinism

(New York,1967)

Mathieson,T/.L., Politics and Religion in Scotland. II

(Glasgovir,1902)

Meikle,H .W ., Correspondence of the Scots Commissioners in

London,1644-46 (Roxburghe Club,1917)

Mitchell,A.F., & Struthers,G., eds., Minutes of the Sessions of

the Westminster Assembly of Divines (Edinburgh,1874)

Mitchel 1, A. F ,, The Westminster Assembly. Its History and

Standards (London,1883)

Parker, T.M., 'Arminianism and Laudism in Seventeenth Century

England' in Studies in Church History,I (London,1964)

Peterkin,A., ed., Records of the Kirk of Scotland (Edinburgh,1838)

Row,J., The Sistory o£ the Kirk of Scotland. 77odrow Society

(Edi nburgh,1842)

Schaff,P., A History of the Creeds ox Christendom (London,1877)

Smellie,A., Men of the Covenant (London,1962)

Stevenson,D., The Scottish Revolution (Newton Abbot,1973)

Thomson,T. & Innes,C., eds., The Acts of the Parliaments of

Scotland. II (Edinburgh 1814-75j

Torrance, T.F., ed., The School of Faith: the Catechisms of the

Reformed Church (London,1959)

Trevelayn,G.M., England Under the Stuarts (Harmondsworth,I960)

Trevor—Roper,H., 'Scotland and the Puritan Revolution* in

Historical Essays 1600-1750 (London,1963)

129
 t ..iuou x»i *.vcior&3& voniesmons1
in Studies in Theology (London,1932)

V/arfield,13,13., Tbe Westminster Assembly and its Work (London, 193l)

¥att,H., Recalling the Scottish Covenants (London,1946)

Wedgewood, C.V., The King*8 War (London,1959)

Wodrow Manuscripts. Folio 25, No,13 (1643)

Wedgewood, C.V., 'The Covenanters in the First Civil W a r ’,

The Scottish Historical Review. 39 (i960)

Journals of the House of Commons, IV (London,1803)

tVHY PREDESTINATION

Alexander,J,N., 'The United Character of the New Testament

Witness to the Christ-Event' in the New Testament in
Historical and Contemporary Perspective, ed. H.Anderson &
W.Barclay (Oxford,1965)

Blackadder,J,, Memoirs, ed. A.Crichton (Edinburgh,1863)

Bright,J., A History of Israel (London,1966)

Brunner,Eo, The Christian Doctrine of God (London,1966)

Caird, G.B., ’Expository Problems: Predestination -

Homans 9 - 11’, The Expository Times, IXVIII, No.11 (Aug.1957)

Calvin,J., Institutes of the Christian Religion (London,1962)

Calvin,J., 'The Doctrine of Election1 in The Mystery of

Godliness and Other Sermons (Grand Rapids,1950)

Cheyne,A.C0, 'The Westminster Standards: A Century of

Re-Appraisal', Records of the Scottish Church History Society,
14 (London,I960)

Cowley,A., The Metaphysical Poets, ed. H.Gardner (Harmondsworth,

1963)

Eichrodt,¥., Theology of the Old Testament, I (London,1961)

Flew,A., 'Divine Omnipotence and Human Freedom* in New assays in

Philosophical Theology (London,1966)

130
Haller,W., The Rise of Puritanism (New York,1957)

Henderson,I. j Can Two 7iTalk Together? (London, 1948)

Hewat,K«, Peden the Prophet (London,1911)

Hunter,A*M*, The Gospel According; to St.Paul (London,1966)

Innes,A*T*, The Law of Creeds in Scotland (Edinburgh,1847)

Lee,F*N., The Y/estrainster Confession and Modern Society

(Edinburgh ,1972 ) ~~

Lewis,H.D., Philosophy oI Religion (London,1965)

Macleod,D*, The Westminster Confession Today (London,1972)

Macleod,D«, ’The Theology of the Scots Confession1,

Reformed Forum. 1, Noe3 (December,1972)

Niven,W,D*, Reformation Principles (Glasgow,1953)

Packer, J*I«,, ’Predestination' in The New Bible Dictionary.

ed* J.D.Douglas (London,1965)

Proceedings in the Case of John Macleod Campbell (Greenock,1831)

Reid,J.K.S*, 'Determinate' in A Theological Word Book of the

Bible, ed* A eRichardson (London,1950)

Scott,W„, Old Mortality (Edinburgh, no date)

Simpson,R*, Traditions of the Covenanters (Edinburgh, no date)

Smith,R*G*, I'he Doctrine of God (London,1970)

Walker,J«, ^he Theology and Theologians of Scotland

(Edinburgh,1963)

Wendel,F., Calvin, the Origin and Development of His Religious

Thought (London,1965)

The Westminster Confession of Faith (Edinburgh,1963)

Williamson,G*I0, The Westminster Confession of Faith for

Study Classes (Philadelphia,1964)

Witherspoon,T.D,, 'The Westminster Assembly Itself* in Memorial

Volume of the Westminster Assembly, the American Presbyterian
Church (Richmond,189IJ

Zanchius, J», Absolute Predestination (Grand Rapids,1971)

131
 HISTORY OF THE DOCTRINE

Augustine, The City of God. I (London,1945)

Augustine, Earlier Writings. ed., J.H.3. Burleigh (London,1953)

Augustine, Confessions and Enchiridion ed. A.C. Outler

(London,1954)

Arminius,J«, *A Declaration of the Sentiments of Arminius'

in %he Works of Arminius. I, ed, J.Nichols (London,1825)

Armstrong,B.G., Calvinism and the Amyraut Heresy (Wisconsin,

1969)

Barth,K., Church Dogmatics II, 2 (Edinburgh,1957)

Berkhof,Le, The History ox Christian Doctrines (London,1969)

Beza,T., Tractationes Theologiae (Geneva,1570-82)

Calvin,J., Commentary on Jeremiah and Lamentations, IV

(Edinburgh,1850-55)

Calvin,J., Concerning the Eternal Predestination of God

(London, 196T)

Parmer,H.H., The Yforld and God (London,1963)

French,A., Charles I and the Puritan Upheaval (London,1955)

Luther,M,, The Table Talk of Martin Liither. ed. W.Hazlitt

(London,1890)

Luther,M«, The Bondage of the Will (London,1957^

Niesel,W,, The Theology of Calvin (London,1965)

Packer,J.I., ‘Calvin the Theologian’ in John Calvin, ed.

Duffield

Parker,T.H.L., ‘Predestination* in A Dictionary of Christian

Theology, ed. A.Bichardson (London,1969)

Schaff,P., Creeds of the Evangelical Protestant Churches

(New York,1882)

Toon,P., Hyper Calvinism (London,1967)

Van Bnren,P., The Secular Meaning of the Gospel (London,1966)

132
 THE WESMNSTaR. STATEMENT

Boettner,L,, The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination

(Philadelphia,1969)

Calvin,J*, Commentary on Homans (Edinburgh,1961)

Cunningham, W * , Historical Theology. II (Edinburgh,1870)

Finlayson,B,A., 'Does the Westminster Confession Teach Double

Predestination?' Heformed Forum, I, No.l (January,1972)

Hodge,C., Systematic Theology, II (London,I960)

Huddleston,T«, Naught For Your Comfort (London,1956)

Philip,J., The Westminster Confession of Faith, An Exposition

(no place, no date)

'Predestination* in The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian

Church. ed« F.L.Cross & E.A.Livingstone (London,1963)

Spear,W.It0, 'Can a Calvinist Pray?' the Bulwark (June/July,1973)

THE DOCTRINE IN PRACTICE

Acts of the Reformed Ecumenical Synod. Australia 1972

(Grand Bapids,1972)

Barr,J,, The Scottish Covenanters (Glasgow,1947)

Burns,B., Poems and Songs (London,1963)

Carslaw,W.H., The Life and Letters of James Eenwick

(Edinburgh,1893^ """""

Carslaw,W.H,, The Life and Times of Donald Cargill (Paisley,1902)

Craig,D., Scottish Literature and the Scottish People

(London,1961)

Ewing,A«C., Ethics (London,1962)

133
Fielding,H., Joseph Andrews (London,1965)

Firth,C.H., Cromwell's Army (London,1962)

Guthrie, W«, The Christian's Great Interest (London, no date)

Senders on, G.i),, The Claims of the Church of Scotland

(London,1951)

Hill,C«, The Century of Revolution (3dinburgh,196l)

Hogg,J*, The Confessions of a Justified Sinner (London,1970)

I£err,J., ede, Sermons in Time of Persecution (Glasgow,1830)

Latourette, K.S., A History of the Expansion of Christianitx?

Three Centuries of Advance (London,1943)

Lucas,S., ed,, Charters to the Old L a v i s h Colonies in

America (London,1850)

Rutherford,S., Selected Letters of Samuel Rutherford, ed0 H,

Martin (London,1957)

Thomson,J.H., ed., The Cloud of Witnesses, (Glasgow,1870)

Tweedie,W.K., ed., Select Biographies, I, Wodrow Society

(Edinburgh,1845)

Walker,P., Six Saints of the Covenant, ed., D.H.Fleming, II

(London, 190T)

Wedderburn,A., The Believer's Privelegea. (Edinburgh,1682)

Wilson,W,, ed., The Sermons of James Ilenwick (Glasgow, 1776)

CONCLUSION

•Election* in The Lion Handbook to the Bible, ed. D.& P. Alexander

(Berkhamsted,1973)

Milton,J., The Poetical Works of John Milton (London,1919)

134