The Formulation of the Third Chapter
the perfecting of the Confession of Faith do prepare a title for it"; and on September 24 this duty was apparently laid specifically on Dr.
Burgess. On September 25 the report upon the title came in, "and it was Ordered - This to be the title: 'To the Honble the House of Commons assembled in Parliament, The humble Advice of the Assembly of Divines, now by authority of Parliament sitting at Westminster, concerning part of a Confession of Faith."' To the completed Confession also a like title was assigned: and it was under this title that the Confession was printed in the first instance. The title thus suggested, however, did not meet with the approval of the House of Commons. It seemed to it, as Rushworth tells us,80 that nothing was practically a Confession which did not take the form of "I confess" at the beginning of each section, and, moreover, that it were well to keep up the usage established by the Thirty-nine
Articles; and so they altered the title to "Articles of Faith agreed upon by both Houses of Parliament," or rather to "Articles of Christian religion approved and passed by both Houses of Parliament after advice had with the Assembly of Divines" - under which latter title they published the Confession with the slight alterations they had made in it, in the summer of 1648.81 The adoption of the earlier title by the Church of Scotland in its previous action, together with the failure of the whole movement in England, has secured that the work has lived under the simple title of "The Confession of Faith": and it is as such that it is known among all the Churches which still adhere to it.
II. THE FORMULATION OF THE THIRD CHAPTER
The third chapter of the Confession of Faith, having been prepared in first draft by the Committee appointed for that service
(May 12, 1645), passed through the hands of the First Great Committee (July 16, 1645) to the Assembly. It was reported from this
Committee on August 29, 1645 (Friday), and the Assembly at once entered into debate upon it. Debate is mentioned as being held upon it August 29, September 2, 3, [8], 9, 11, October 3, 17, 20, 21, 22, 23,
24, [30], 31, November 3, 6, 7, 11. In the meantime portions of the
chapter were twice, at least, (September 3 and November 6) recommitted - doubtless (for such seems to have been the Assembly's custom) to special Committees: and on five occasions (September
[8], 9, 11, October 3, 17, 21) the original Committee brought in additional reports. In the subsequent reviewing of the Confession as passed, the third chapter was debated again on Thursday and Friday,
June 18, 19, 1646, before it was finally ordered. It appears, further, that Mr. Whitaker, a member of the Committee of Review, appointed
December 8, 1645, but acting apparently on his own behalf alone on this occasion, moved an additional alteration in the chapter on September 23, 1646, and this naturally caused some further debate.
The text was now, however, finally passed from. The proof-texts for the chapter were debated on January [13], 19, 20, 21, 1647, and after having been considered by the reviewing Committee appointed
March 5, 1647, were finally passed on by the Assembly, April 6, 1647.
Thus the text of the third chapter occupied the attention of the Assembly some part of at least twenty separate days, besides all the time given to it in the various Committees through whose hands it or parts of it passed. The proof-texts similarly occupied the Assembly on some parts of at least four days in addition to the care given to them in Committee. It would not be excessive to say, in a word, that a good portion of a month's public labor was given to this chapter by the Assembly; and certainly much more than this was expended on it by its Committees.
The debates upon the chapter which are signalized in the Minutes seem to have been especially careful and persistent:82 and they are perhaps unusually fully reported. We are not able to trace them in full, to be sure, or even to ascertain all the points on which they turned. But it is presumable that those mentioned explicitly were of more importance than those passed over without so much as an indication of the points on which they turned; and doubtless those recorded in some detail were the most important of all. If we may assume so much, we are not without some hint as to the matters about which most interest was felt, and the phraseology of which was framed most carefully and in the fullest light. As is usual in such
cases, the real work of creating the chapter was of course done in Committee; and the chapter as finally passed by the Assembly is obviously substantially what in the first instance was reported by the Committee. The notes of debate are sufficient to certify us of that natural and almost inevitable fact. But they also certify us that it was not passed by the Assembly without the most careful scrutiny or without many adjustments and alterations, so that as passed it represents clearly the deliberate and reasoned judgment of the Assembly as a whole.
This will at once be made evident by merely noting the special points on which debate is signalized. They concern the title of the chapter (August 29); the phrasing of the first section in no less than six separate particulars (August 29); the whole form of statement of the latter half of the second section (September 3 and 11); the statement of reprobation in section three (November 3, 1645, and September 23, 1646); the whole fabric and especially the retention of a particular phrase of the fifth section (October 3 and 17, 1645); the entire structure of the sixth section (October 20, 21), and, above all, the assertion of its last clause (October 22, 23, 24, 30, 31); the mode of statement of section seven (November 6, 7, 11); and at least the phraseology of section eight (June 18, 1646). It must be borne in mind that this is but a partial list of the topics debated; the precise topic debated is not always mentioned when the fact of a debate on chapter iii. is, nevertheless, recorded; and there is no reason to believe that when it is mentioned it is always done with completeness. The record is enough, however, to assure us that the debate was both extremely searching and very comprehensive. This chapter did not leave the Assembly's hands, we may feel sure, without having been conformed in every particular to the Assembly's belief and even taste.
This will become even more apparent if we will attend to the details debated, so far as the record enables us to follow them. It is quite clear that the report brought in by the Committee, while framed with independence and special theological knowledge and
skill, was yet based upon the Irish Articles, and in places followed them very closely - though elsewhere breaking away from them and striking out a new path. The knowledge of this fact will enable us now and again to reconstruct the form of the language in the original report, and so to follow the lines of the debate somewhat more closely than would otherwise be possible from the meager hints of the record.
1. For example, when we are told in the Minutes of August 29, 1645, that debate on this chapter was first joined "upon the title," we shall be wise to remind ourselves that the title of the corresponding
Article in the Irish Articles ran: "Of God's Eternal Decree and Predestination"; and that it is therefore extremely likely that it was reported to the Assembly in some such form. We note accordingly with interest that in the distribution of the heads of the Confession to the three great Committees which was made on July 16, this head reads "God's decrees, Predestination, Election, etc." It is altogether likely, therefore, that when this chapter came to the Assembly it bore a title somewhat like that of the Irish Articles, "Of God's Eternal
Decree and Predestination," and that the Assembly curtailed this to the simpler "Of God's Eternal Decree"; although, of course, it is possible, on the other hand, that it was the simpler title that it bore, and what happened in the Assembly was that it was queried whether the longer title of the earlier Articles were not better restored. This
Irish title was not exactly tautological; for in the prevailing speech of the time the term "Predestination" was commonly limited to the soteriological decree, so that in the Irish title the collocation really is equivalent to "of God's general and special decree," or "of God's cosmical and soteriological decree." Even the threefold enumeration made in the designation of the topic in the act distributing the heads of the Confession to the Committees, would not be incapable of defense on the ground of progressive advance from the more general to the more specific. It was not uncustomary at the time, however, to look upon the word "Predestination" as so much a synonym of "Election," that it embodied all its precious connotations - a fact which underlies the discrimination between the terms "predestinate"
and "foreordain" as used in the third and fourth sections, which otherwise would be puzzling. However accordant with current usage it was, it might well have seemed, therefore, desirable to avoid the formal and unexplained treatment of Predestination as a more inclusive word than Election. Even the Irish heading might seem, indeed, to some, although not essentially tautological, yet to bear so nearly the formal appearance of tautology as to be offensive to the severer taste represented in the Assembly. The choice of the brief and simple "Of God's Eternal Decree" surely seems, in any event, to do the Assembly credit: it is as terse and simple as all the rest of its work and may be looked upon as a fair indication of its temper and taste alike.
We might be tempted to suppose that in the debate on the title of the chapter another point would be raised - whether the singular or plural form should be used - "Of God's Eternal Decree," or "Of God's Eternal Decrees."83 On October 20, when the sixth section of the chapter was under discussion, a question involved in this difference was under debate, and some difference of opinion on the matter was developed. There is no hint, however, that the question was raised when the title of the chapter was under discussion; and the very occurrence and especially the nature of the subsequent debate render it difficult to suppose that the same subject had already been threshed out so short a while before. It seems altogether likely that the debate on the title was confined, therefore, to its compass, and that the form "Of God's Eternal Decree" was simply adopted, without question raised, from the Irish Articles.
How little importance was attached to the difference between the singular and plural forms is evident not only from the subsequent debate, in which indifference to it is manifested by the strongest
Calvinists in the body and it is generally treated as a question of language rather than of things; but also from the circumstance that though the singular form is consistently maintained in the Confession, the plural is equally consistently maintained in the Catechisms, both Larger and Shorter."84
2. Our knowledge that the Irish Articles underlay the draft sent in to the Assembly is of yet more aid to us in understanding the debates that are noted as having taken place on the first section of the chapter (August 29, 1645). These are hinted at in the Minutes as follows: "Debate about the word 'counsel,' about those words 'most holy wise,' and about those words 'his own.' Debate about that word
'time,' about the word 'should.' Debate about the transposing." Not all these words occur in the section as passed: but they are explicable from the Irish Articles. We need only to assume that the first half of the section as at first reported was more similar to the Irish Articles than it became in the course of the debate. It probably ran as follows:
"God from all eternity did, by the most holy and wise counsel of His own will, freely and unchangeably ordain whatsoever in time should come to pass." In the process of the debate the word "counsel" was scrutinized and retained; the adjectives "holy" and "wise" were transposed; "His own" was scrutinized and retained; and the last clause after careful scrutiny of its phraseology was exchanged to the simpler "whatsoever comes to pass." Thus the form that was adopted was arrived at: "God from all eternity did, by the most wise and holy counsel of His own will, freely and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass." That the changes thus made were improvements we can scarcely doubt: the order "wise and holy" is the order of nature as well as climax, in its progress from the intellectual to the moral perfections; while the new concluding clause is not only simpler and free from apparent but fictitious limitation, but avoids raising puzzling questions as to what are to be classed as preor extratemporal and what as temporal acts.85
What is intended by " the transposing," debate on which is noted, we have no means of confidently determining. It may concern simply the transposition of the adjectives " wise " and " holy," which we have already referred to. It may, on the other hand, concern some other transposition of words as originally reported of which we have no knowledge - or indeed some transposition of the words as given us which was not carried out. We note that the concluding words " but rather established " stand in the Irish Articles " but established
rather ": possibly the reference is to this. It seems most probable, however, that it refers to a transposition to a new section of the clause excluding dependence of the decree on the Divine foresight, to the likelihood of which we shall recur when speaking of the following section - which, as we shall see, was originally a part of this section.
3. The second section of the Confession has nothing parallel to it in the Irish Articles, which reserve the guarding of the independence of God's decree until they are dealing with specific or soteriological predestination (§ 14). Without this aid we find ourselves naturally in difficulties as we essay to reconstruct its original form. The chief notes in the Minutes concerning it are found in the entries for September 3 and September 11. The former reads: "Report from the first Committee about adding the word 'absolutely' - debated.
Absolutely without any [not being moved thereunto by any]86 foresight of anything without himself as a condition moving him thereunto. Ordered - This recommitted." The latter reads: "Report from the morning Committee that they think the former vote of the Assembly sufficient to print? the conditional decree."
It is at least evident from these notes that the framing of this section cost the Assembly some trouble. The new report from the digesting Committee as to adding the word "absolutely" is proof that there had already been puzzled discussion of the section. The recommitment of the matter, doubtless (as was the wont of the Assembly) to a special Committee, exhibits its dissatisfaction with its work so far. Probably between September 3 and September 11 the matter had again been before the Assembly, and the adjustment made which gives us our present section: for the report of September
11 appears to have come from a Committee meeting that morning, and seems to close the matter by recommending the treatment of a so-called "conditional decree," as it then stood, for passage for printing. Certainly the adjustment that was made was a good deal of a triumph: we do not indeed know the wording of the whole section as originally reported, or at any former stage of the debate - but the phrasing as ultimately agreed on is obviously a much finer piece of
work than anything could have been of which the phraseology of the note of September 3 was a part. Is it too much to conjecture that this clause, for which no appropriate place can be found in section 2 as passed, was originally only a part of the first section - coming, perhaps, in between the first and second clauses of that section? In that case the sentence would have read: "God from all eternity did, by the most wise and holy counsel of His own will, freely and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass, without any foresight of anything without Himself as a condition moving Him thereunto: yet so as thereby, etc." The stages of procedure would, in that case, be as follows: First, it was sought to strengthen the statement by inserting "absolutely" before "without." Then it was queried whether the "any" might not be better omitted. Then a new phraseology was tried: instead of "absolutely without foresight of anything," it was proposed to read "not being moved thereunto by any foresight of anything." It was finally seen that the trouble lay deeper than any adjustment of mere phraseology could cure; that the proposed addition to the Irish statement at this point hopelessly overweighted the sentence. The knot was then happily cut by relieving the sentence of the addition altogether and erecting a new section, which then it was comparatively easy to phrase happily. And, as we have already hinted, perhaps it is this transposition that was debated, but not determined, on August 29.
It is so far in favor of this general supposition that it is altogether likely that an attempt would first be made to include the whole doctrine of the general or cosmical decree in one section, as had been done in the Irish Articles; and the relieving of the heavy sentence which thence resulted would be apt to be an afterthought.
And it seems to be brought, in this general sense at least, out of the region of conjecture into that of ascertained fact by a note in the Minutes of September 8: "Dr. Gouge offered a report of an addition, though the Committee was not a full number, but 7. He read it; but the Assembly thought not fit to meddle with it, because they were not a Committee. The addition was, without respect to anything foreseen, to be added after freely and unchangeably." These words
occur in the first section, which, accordingly, it was proposed to read thus: "God from all eternity did, by the most wise and holy counsel of His own will, freely and unchangeably, without respect to anything foreseen, ordain whatsoever comes to pass." The proposal brought by Mr. Gouge is evidently a substitute for the heavy clause that was debated and recommitted on September 3, and accordingly that clause too was a part of the first section.
The main result, in any event, of our scrutiny of the section is to advertise to us the importance which was attached by the Assembly to the proper guarding of the doctrine of the decree. This they sought to accomplish by adding in some fit way to the statement of the Irish
Articles a clause explicitly affirming the independence of the decree or, as has actually resulted in the event, fully setting forth the relation of the decree to the divine knowledge.
4. So far as the Minutes record, there was very little debate on sections 3 and 4, which, again, together represent a single section in the Irish Articles (§ 12). We read indeed in the notes for October 3:
"Report additional to the article of Predestination. Debate about it."
It is possible that this may refer to section 3, in which the term "predestinated" occurs for the first time, and in which the thing, as currently defined (of specific or soteriological predestination), for the first time emerges. On the other hand, however, the term may be used in a still narrower sense arid the reference be to section 5, where the doctrine of election is discussed in its details. And it is almost equally possible that it is used in its broadest sense and refers to the chapter as a whole. The sequence of notices runs as follows:
August 29, 1645, "Debate on the report of . . . God's decree"; September 2, "proceed in the debate of the report of decrees";
September 9, "report concerning God's decree"; September 11, "proceed in the debate about the decree"; October 3, "report additional to the article of Predestination"; October 17, "debate upon the report . . . concerning Predestination" [when § 5 was debated];
November 6, "the paragraph concerning Reprobation referred to the Committee, to make report to-morrow morning"; November 7,
"Report made . . . about Reprobation"; November 11, "Debate the report of Reprobation" [when § 7 was debated]. The appearance is rather strong that under the term "Predestination" the portion of the chapter that treats of soteriological predestination, or more particularly §§ 3-6, was intended.
There can be little doubt that the entry in the Minutes of November 3, "Debate about leaving out those words, 'foreordained to everlasting death,"' refers to section 3: though it is, of course, not absolutely impossible (though most unlikely) that coming in at this late point in the debate, it may refer to a phrase originally in section
7, and omitted as the result of this debate. The likelihood of its reference to section 3 is moreover distinctly increased by an entry at a much later date - after the Confession, in fact, had been completed, and was ready to be sent up to Parliament. In the Minutes for September 23, 1646, we read: "Mr. Whitakers moved an alteration in these words in the chapt[er] of Predestination, viz., 'and some ordained to everlasting death.'87 It was debated, and upon debate it was Resolved upon the Q., The words shall stand without alteration.
Mr. Whitakers enters his dissent." It can scarcely be doubted that the words in which Mr. Whitaker desired some alteration are the closing words of section 3; and the suggestion will perhaps present itself that he was only persisting at this final opportunity in pressing the desire of those who wished these words omitted in the earlier debate
(November 3, 1645). It certainly is not said that Mr. Whitaker wished the words omitted, but only that "he moved an alteration in these words" - and what alteration he desired we have no means of ascertaining. And it would appear that he met with little or no support for his proposition. The Assembly not only rejected his motion, but he alone entered dissent. But it is at least not impossible that he was here only carrying to its latest stage the debate of November 3 for the omission of these words.
In that case, we should learn that there were some in the Assembly - or perhaps only one, as Mr. Whitaker is alone in his dissent on September 23, 1646, and may have been equally alone in
the contention of November 3, 1645 - who desired that the doctrine of reprobation should not be so sharply stated in section 3. What their - or his - reasons for so desiring were, we do not know.88 But we should equally learn that the Assembly was not only decided, but we may say unusually decided in its determination to have the doctrine of reprobation clearly asserted in this its appropriate place in the Confession. We must not fail to observe that the matter was pressed to a vote, to the sharpest of decisions, and to a recorded dissent: and we must not fail to note the significance of this. Says Dr. Mitchell:89
"So far as appears from the minutes, the various articles of the Confession were passed by the Assembly all but unanimously. On some occasions, when dissent was indicated even by one or two of the members, the wording of the article they objected to was so modified as to satisfy them. The main occasions on which this policy was not followed were on 4th September 1645, with regard to Dr.
Burgess's dissent from the resolution of the Assembly to leave out the word 'Blessed,' retained both in the English and Irish Articles, before the name of the Virgin mother of our Lord; on 23d September 1646, with regard to Mr. Whitaker's dissent from the words 'foreordained to everlasting death'; and on 21st October 1646, with regard to the dissent of several of the Independents from the insertion in a Confession of Faith of certain parts of § 3, chap. xxiii." We must esteem the clear and firm statement of the doctrine of foreordination to death, therefore, a matter which the Assembly deemed of the highest importance. When it was proposed to omit the words
(November 3, 1645) the proposition was defeated: and when, at the eleventh hour, Mr. Whitaker returned to the charge and proposed at least some alteration in the words, it was resolved shortly, "The words shall stand without alteration," and Mr. Whitaker was left to enter his dissent. It is very clear that the Assembly by a very large majority - doubtless, in this case too, practically unanimously deemed that important concerns were guarded by these words.
It is noteworthy that no debates and no dissents are noted on section 4.
5. Only the slightest hint of debate on section 5 is preserved. We have already observed the possibility, but hardly probability, of the notice of debate on "the article of Predestination" mentioned on October 3, 1645, referring to the fifth section. If that be set aside we have only the entry of October 17: "Report from the first Committee concerning Predestination. . . . Debate upon the report of the first
Committee concerning Predestination. Debate about those words, 'unto everlasting glory,' whether they be not superfluous." The words were retained - to the enrichment of the statement. But the raising of the question of their superfluity is another indication of the severe terseness of the style given by the Assembly to this chapter - in contrast with the greater elaborateness, if not exactly elaboration, of the language of the underlying Irish Articles.
6. It was about the sixth section, however - the section in which is concentrated the ordo salutis of the Westminster Divines - that debate most gathered. From before October 20 to October 31 the Assembly was occupied with this great statement, and every element of it was subjected to the closest scrutiny. Especially did the discussion expand around the three points of the unity of the decree and the relation respectively of the decrees concerning the fall and redemption to the decree of election. We do not know precisely when debate on this section was first begun. The first notice of it (October
20) runs already: "Proceed in the debate about permission of man's fall; about 'the same decree."' Nor can we reconstruct in its entirety the original form of the section. It seems to have begun somewhat thus: "As God hath appointed the elect unto glory, so hath He, to bring this to pass, ordained by the same decree to permit man to fall, etc."; and the debate first turned on the phrase "the same decree," and then on the phrase "to bring this to pass." To meet the objection to the former phrase, for which he would not contend - for, said he,
"when that word is left out, is it not a truth, and so every one may enjoy his own sense" - Mr. Gillespie proposed that the statement should be modified so as to read: "As God hath appointed the elect unto glory, so hath He for the same end ordained to permit man to fall." This involved, however, the retention, in other language, of the
idea involved in the phrase "to bring this to pass," which the Assembly was not disposed to insist on. A formula offered by Mr.
Reynolds on October 21 accordingly found more favor. It runs as follows: "As God hath appointed the elect unto glory, so hath He by the same eternal and most free purpose of His will fore-ordained all the means thereunto, which He in His counsel is pleased to appoint for the executing of that decree; wherefore they who are endowed with so excellent a benefit, being fallen in Adam, are called in according to God's purpose." This formula preserves the mention of the fall of Adam, as had just been ordered, but also the phrase "the same decree," which had been debated but the omission of which was not yet determined fully on, and meets by a happy turn the determination that the words "to bring this to pass" should not stand. Whether, however, this formula was simply (as we have presumed) the original formula, modified to meet these orderings, or an entirely new one wrought out by Mr. Reynolds himself, we have no sure means of determining. Immediately after the entry, "Mr.
Reynolds offered something," with the text as given above, it is added, "Mr. Chambers offered something" - but no hint is given of what it was, possibly because the differing reception given to the propositions of the two advertised the scribe that it was Mr.
Reynolds' and not Mr. Chambers' offering that would form the basis of subsequent debate. In any event, Mr. Reynolds' paper appears to register the results of the debate so far, and to lay the basis for further advance.
So far, we may say then, two things had been settled about this section: it should mention the fall of Adam and it should not insist on emphasizing the unity of the divine decree. In both matters the decision had been arrived at in the interest of what we may call, perhaps, comprehension - though this must be understood, of course, as a generic Calvinistic and not universalistic Christian comprehension. The Assembly had been led in this policy by the strictest Calvinists in the body. The sharp assertion of the sameness of the decree ordaining both the end and the means (for it was on this point of the unity of the decree alone that the debate turned) was
advocated by Mr. Seaman, who seems to be most concerned about the possible misapprehension of the omission; by Mr. Whitaker, who takes the high ground that it is true, and therefore would best be expressed - an indication, by the way, of the sound Calvinism of the man who later was so strenuous to have some alteration (we know not what, but surely from this we can infer no anti-Calvinistic one) made in the last words of the third section; and by Mr. Palmer, who fears to be brought into a worse snare by leaving it out than could arise from inserting it. Mr. Seaman urged that "if those words 'in the same decree' be left out, will involve us in a great debate"; that "all the odious doctrine of Arminians is from their distinguishing of the decrees, but our divines say they are one and the same decree"; that the censure the Remonstrants lay under for making two decrees concerning election would lie equally against making two decrees of the end and means. Mr. Whitaker simply urged that with reference to time all decrees are "simul and semel: in eterno there is not prius and posterius"; that though the conceptions of the Divines were very various about the decrees, there was no reason why the truth should not be frankly asserted. The other side was taken by men like
Rutherford, Gillespie, Gouge, Reynolds, and Calamy. They did not deny the truth meant to be expressed in the phrase "the same decree," but rather unanimously affirmed it. But the keynote of their discussion was expressed by Gillespie when he said, "When that word is left out, is it not a truth, and so every one may enjoy his own sense," and by Reynolds when he remarked, "Let not us put in disputes and scholastical things into a Confession of Faith."
Obviously it was generic Calvinism they were intent on asserting and not any particular variety of it. And this is given point to by another incident of the debate. Besides the mere phrase "the same decree," its sameness was asserted in the original draft by the concatenation of the clauses. We do not know precisely how its language ran at first; but apparently it was, as we have seen, something like this: "As God hath appointed the elect unto glory, so hath He, to bring this to pass, ordained by the same decree to permit man to fall" - and so on enumerating the several steps in the ordo decretorum. "I question," remarked Mr. Calamy, "that 'to bring this to pass'; we assert massa
pura in this. . . . I desire that nothing may be put in one way or other; it makes the fall of man to be medium executionis decreti." It was in the same sense that Rutherford wished to amend by saying simply
"God also hath decreed." "It is very probable but one decree," he added, "but whether fit to express it in a Confession of Faith. . . ." A remark of Gillespie's would seem to show that he was not quite willing to yield in this matter; let there be no dispute indeed about a word, he seems to say - but the matter involved is another thing:
"Say, 'For the same end God hath ordained to permit man to fall.' . . .
This shows that in ordine naturce God ordaining man to glory goes before His ordaining to permit man to fall." The appearance is that Gillespie desired the Confession to be committed not indeed to the supralapsarian position - for that occupies narrower ground than his words need to imply - but to the inclusion of the fall of Adam explicitly in the means to glorification.
Counsels of moderation thus prevailing as the result of this debate of Monday (October 20), the Assembly listened on Tuesday morning (October 21) to the "report made from the first Committee sitting before the Assembly"; and resolved "that mention be made of man's fall," and "that those words 'to bring this to pass' shall not stand." This is to say, it resolved to include man's fall within the decree of God, but not to assert it to be means to the end of glorification. It was then that Mr. Reynolds' statement as already quoted was brought before them and the debate commenced afresh from this new beginning. By what process this statement was ultimately reduced to the exquisite formula that was finally passed we are not informed. Considerable adjustment was needed. The first sentence required the omission not only of the word "same," but also of its whole concluding clause: "which He in His counsel is pleased to appoint for the executing of that decree" - a redundancy which must have been intolerable to this tersely speaking Assembly. Similarly, while the structure of the second section is adopted, and, of course, the happy phrase - cutting all knots - "being fallen in Adam," the language is wholly recast in the interests of clear and succinct statement: thus the long clause (derived from the Thirty-nine
Articles) "who are endowed with so excellent a benefit" gives way to the simple "who are elected"; and the Scriptural "called according to God's purpose" to the more technical "effectually called," with an additional definition of that unto which they are called and by what divine agency. Thence the statement proceeds through the items of the ordo salutis. So far as we can trace it, this is the history of the formulation of this beautiful section - wise in its insertions and omissions alike.
There remains, however, a very important clause of the section about which apparently the keenest and certainly the most fully reported of all the debates on this chapter was held - the final sentence of the section, which affirms: "Neither are any other redeemed by Christ, effectually called, justified, adopted, sanctified, and saved, but the elect only." The discussion of this statement was formally ordered at the close of the session on Tuesday, October 21,
1645: "Ordered - To debate the busin[ess] about Redemption of the elect only by Christ to-morrow morning." The debate, begun
Wednesday morning, October 22, and continued at least to October 31, constitutes one of the most notable debates reported in the Minutes, and certifies us that the closing sentence of the sixth section is one of the most deliberate findings of the Assembly.
The protagonist in the debate was Mr. Calamy, who opened it with the enunciation of what is known as the "Hypothetical
Universalistic" schema - a well-guarded expression of this theory, certainly, and even, perhaps, a somewhat modified expression of it, but also a clearly-cut and fully developed enunciation of universal redemption with limited application. "I am far from universal redemption in the Arminian sense," he said; "but that that I hold is in the sense of our divines in the Synod of Dort, that Christ did pay a price for all, - absolute intention for the elect, conditional intention for the reprobate in case they do believe, - that all men should be salvabiles, non obstante lapsu Adami . . . that Jesus Christ did not only die sufficiently for all, 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." Again, "The Arminians hold that Christ did pay a price for this intention only, that all men should be in an equal state of salvation. They say Christ did not purchase any impetration. . . . This universality of R[edemption]" - that is, of course, that which he, in opposition to this Arminian construction, advocates - "doth neither intrude upon either doctrine of special election or special grace." Still again: "In the point of election, I am for special election; and for reprobation, I am for massa corrupta. . .
. Those to whom He . . . by virtue of Christ's death, there is ea administratio of grace to the reprobate, that they do wilfully damn themselves." If we were to take these statements just as they stand, we should probably be obliged to say that Calamy's position was characterized by the following points: 1. It denied the Arminian doctrine of a universal redemption for all men alike, without exception, on condition of faith, which faith is to be man's own act by virtue of powers renewed through a universal gift of sufficient grace.
2. It denied equally the Amyraldian doctrine of a universal redemption for all men alike, without exception, on condition of faith, which faith, however, is the product of special grace given to the elect alone, so that only the elect can fulfil the condition. 3. It affirmed a double intention on Christ's part in His work of redemption - declaring that He died absolutely for the elect and conditionally for the reprobate. Theologically his position, which has its closest affinities with the declarations of the English Divines at Dort, was an improvement upon the Amyraldian; but logically it was open, perhaps, to all the objections which were fatal to it as well as to others arising from its own lack of consistency.
Both sets of objections were made to tell upon it in the debate.
For example, the fundamental objection to all schemes of conditional redemption, that it is inapplicable to more than a moiety of the human race, was early pressed upon him with telling effect. Mr.
Palmer asked subtly, "I desire to know whether he will understand it de omni homine," i.e. whether Christ died for every man - of all sorts and in all conditions - only conditionally on the exercise of faith. Mr.
Calamy must have felt hard pressed indeed when he answered
simply, "De adultis." Where, then, shall those that die in infancy appear? On the other hand, Mr. Reynolds struck a deadly blow at the peculiar form which Mr. Calamy had given his doctrine when he remarked that to assert that Christ, besides dying absolutely for the elect, died also conditionally for the reprobate - in case they do believe - is to say He died for them" upon a condition that they cannot perform, and God never intends to give them." It cannot seem strange to us, therefore, that Mr. Calamy was not able to preserve in the debate his somewhat artificial middle position, and is found arguing roundly for universal redemption of all and several, without distinction, at least in the Amyraldian sense.
To Calamy's aid in the debate there came Messrs. Seaman, Marshall, and Vines: while he was opposed by Palmer, Reynolds,
Gillespie, Rutherford, Wilkinson, Burgess, Lightfoot, Price, Goodwin, and Harris. In the early part of the first day the debate turned on the ordo decretorum. Gillespie held it firmly to this broader question, and from that point of view - that "there is a concatenation of the death of Christ with the decrees" - asked significantly "a parte post what follows upon that conditional redemption." On the authority of the Dordrechtan Divines, to whom Calamy had appealed, Reynolds explained that "the Synod intended no more than to declare the sufficiency of the death of Christ; it is pretium in se, of sufficient value to all, - nay, ten thousand worlds," and that "to be salvable is a benefit, and therefore belongs only to them that have interest in Christ." Later in the day the debate turned rather on the Scriptural argument, and Calamy rested his case on the two texts, John iii. 16 and Mark xvi. 15. From the former he argued that it was on account of the love of God for the world at large, not for the elect only, that Christ came - as the "whosoever believeth" sufficiently indicates.
From the latter he argued that a universal redemption is requisite to give verity to the universal offer. Those who essayed to answer him exhibit minor differences, especially in the detailed exegesis of John iii. 16. Gillespie and Rutherford understand that when it is said God so loved the world, it is the elect scattered everywhere in the world that are intended; Lightfoot and Harris understand that "the world"
in contra-distinction from the Jews is meant; and Price very wisely remarks that even if mankind at large be meant it does not at all follow that Christ died equally and alike for every individual - there is no inconsequence in saying that it was because of His love for the world that He gave His very life for the multitudes He chose out of this world to save. However the term "the world" be taken, therefore, the result of the debate showed that no conclusion could be drawn from this text to the universality of redemption. As to Mark xvi. 15,
Rutherford pointed out at once that the argument that the universality of the offer of the Gospel necessarily inferred precedent universality of redemption as its ground was obviously unsound inasmuch as it proved too much - the same argument is equally applicable to, say, justification. The promise of justification is as much included in the Gospel as the promise of redemption: shall we say, then, that we cannot preach the Gospel to all except on the supposition of a precedent universal justification? To this Mr.
Seaman could reply only by repeating the shibboleth that what Christ did was to make all men only salvable, as Adam had made all men damnable - which one cannot believe was much of an aid to the cause he was advocating, as it involved a seriously low view of the effect of Adam's fall as well as of Christ's redemption: surely there were few in the Assembly who would assent to the proposition that the whole effect of Adam's sin was to render men liable to be condemned, instead of bringing them under actual condemnation, and the whole effect of Christ's work was to render men capable of salvation, instead of actually saving them. Gillespie, however, as was usual with that brilliant young man, put his finger here, too, on the technical flaw in Calamy's reasoning by insisting on the distinction between the voluntas decreti and voluntas mandati: "The command doth not hold out God's intentions; otherwise God's command to Abraham concerning sacrificing of his son. . . ." Mr. Marshall, who with Mr.
Vines gave a support to Mr. Calamy which was evidently as effective and wise as that of Mr. Seaman seems the opposite, acutely replies to this that "there is not only a mandatum but a promise" - but obviously this was a good rejoinder rather than a solid distinction.
The weight of the debate was clearly on the side of the proposition
proposed, and on that score alone we cannot feel surprise that it was retained in the Confession.
The interest of the debate to us lies in the revelation which it gives us of the presence in the Assembly of an influential and able, but apparently small, body of men whose convictions lay in the direction of the modified Calvinism which had been lately promulgated by Cameron and Amyraut for the express purpose of finding a place for a universal redemption in the Calvinistic system.
For the origin of this party Dr. Mitchell90 would point us to English sources: but Baillie especially mentions Amyraut in this connection;91 and it would seem that it was Amyraut and Cameron both of whom Gillespie mentions in this debate - whom men had especially in mind during the discussion; and it would seem further to be clear that while the adherents of this universalistic view of the atonement in the Assembly held it with British moderation, and were not prepared to go all lengths with the French Divines who had lately promulgated it with such force, they yet looked upon them as of their school and sought support from them. The result of the debate was a refusal to modify the Calvinistic statement in this direction - or perhaps we should rather say the definitive rejection of the Amyraldian views and the adoption of language which was precisely framed to exclude them. Dr. Mitchell, reviving an old contention, suggests indeed that unless the clause of the Confession in question be read disjunctively rather than, as it is actually phrased, conjunctively, it will not operate for the exclusion of Amyraldians.92
It is not clearly obvious, however, that the word "and" here binds the several items of the enumeration so closely together as to make it appear that all that is affirmed is only that the whole of this process takes place in the case of the elect only: the natural sense of the clause is clearly that no one of the transactions here brought together is to be affirmed of the non-elect. And this impression is increased by the broader context, not to speak of the parallel passages in viii. 3 and 5.93 It might seem somewhat more to the point, possibly, to recall that in this section the language is so ordered as to seem to
deal with the actual ordo salutis rather than directly with the ordo decretorum. It is asserted that the ordo salutis is the result of the decreeing of the means by which the elect are brought to glory. But what is subsequently asserted is that none but the elect are (actually) redeemed by Christ, effectually called, etc. - the mind being abstracted for the moment from the intention to the performance.
The Westminster Amyraldians - if we may venture so to call them had, of course, freely admitted the distinction between the elect and nonelect in the application: it was only in the impetration that they disputed it: and it might perhaps seem to them possible to confess that though Christ had died for all, the merits of His death had actually been applied only to some, and to contend that only this is actually expressed by saying that none but the elect "are redeemed by Christ." Even this, however, appears more subtle than satisfactory; and in any event it would seem quite obvious that the Assembly intended to state in this clause with adequate clearness their reasoned and deliberate conviction that the decree of election lies behind the decree of the gift of Christ for redemption, and that the latter is to be classed as one of the means for the execution of the decree of election. This is the definite exclusion of the Amyraldian view, and anything that can be made really consistent with this conception of the ordo decretorum will be found to differ fundamentally from Amyraldism.94
7. We first hear of the seventh section in the Assembly on November 6, 1645; but then after such a fashion as to suggest that it had already been before the Assembly and perhaps may have been already somewhat debated. We read simply: "The paragraph concerning Reprobation referred to the Committee, to make report to-morrow morning." This was doubtless a special Committee, according to the wont of the Assembly in such instances. On November 7 accordingly we read: "Report made by Mr. Reynolds about Reprobation." Then again on November 11 we read: "Debate the report of Reprobation. . . . Debate about that 'sovereign power.'"
This is all that the Minutes tell us about the passage of this important section through the Assembly: and this tells us practically nothing,
except that it was carefully scrutinized and debated. We may conjecture that the debate on the words "sovereign power" turned on the query whether something more or other than "power" might not wisely be indicated at this point: but this is mere conjecture, and we learn only that the retention of the phrase just as it now stands was not inadvertent but deliberate. The section is one of those which, though it has a point of suggestion in the Irish Articles, yet as it stands is the independent product of the Assembly: and it certainly does credit to the Assembly by the combined boldness and prudence, faithfulness, and tenderness of its sonorous language.95
8. There is no debate signalized on section 8 in its first passage through the Assembly. But when the chapter came back again from the perfecting Committee - June 18, 1646 - we read: "The Assembly proceeded in debate of the Article 'of God's Eternal Decree'; and upon debate part of it was ordered. Upon debate about the last clause of it, concerning the handling of this doctrine, it was Resolved upon the Q., To refer this till to-morrow morning." We find nothing, however, on the subject in the Minutes for June 19 beyond this: "The Assembly proceeded in the debate of the Confession of Faith; and upon debate, that head' of God's Eternal Decree' was ordered, and is as followeth. . . ." We are therefore only certified concerning this admirable section that it was the object of the care of the Assembly itself up to the last moment, without being informed what precisely in the course of its stately march engaged its latest attention.
From this survey, by means, as it were, of specimen bits of the debates during which the third chapter of the Confession as we have it was beaten out, we may obtain some sort of idea of the labor and care expended on it by the Assembly. The survey is certainly calculated to enhance our idea of the deliberateness of its formulation. We have here no hasty draft, rushed through the body at breakneck speed and adopted at the end on the credit of the Committee that had drafted it. The third chapter of the Confession is distinctly the work of the Assembly itself, and comes to us as the well-pondered and thoroughly adjusted expression of the living
belief of that whole body. The differences that existed between the members were not smoothed over in ambiguous language. They were fully ventilated. Room was made for them when they were considered unimportant and mere apices logici: but when they concerned matters of moment, after full discussion, the doctrine of the Assembly - well-reasoned and fully thought out - as distinguished from that of individuals, was embodied clearly and firmly in the document. The document as it stands is thus emphatically the Confession of Faith of the Westminster Assembly. We cannot say that this or that clause represents this or that party in the Assembly.
There were parties in the Assembly, and they were all fully heard and what they said was carefully weighed. But no merely party opinion was allowed a place in the document. When it came to voting the statements there to be set down, the Assembly as such spoke; and in speaking it showed itself capable of speaking its own mind. It is doing only mere justice to it, therefore, to read the document as the solemn and carefully framed expression of its reasoned faith.
In the appended text (to follow on the succeeding pages) we have given, in the middle column, as nearly as we can make it out, the form in which the third chapter came before the Assembly from its Committee, marking in footnotes the chief amendments which were made in it in the process of reducing the earlier draft to the form in which it left the Assembly and has come down to us. In order that the relations of this first reported text to the Irish Articles, on the one hand, and the completed Westminster Confession, on the other, may be easily apprehended, we have printed these two texts alongside of it, and we have sought so to present them that the eye may easily unravel the historical connections involved.
IRISH ARTICLES
WESTMINSTER
COMMITTEE'S
(1615)96
CONFESSION98
PROPOSAL
III. OF GOD'S
ETERNAL DECREE
OF GOD'S ETERNAL
OF GOD'S ETERNAL
DECREE [AND
PREDESTINATION]97
DECREE
AND
PREDESTINATION
(11) God, from all eternity, did, by his unchangeable counsel, ordain whatsoever in time should come to pass: yet so as thereby no violence is offered to the wills of the reasonable creatures, and neither the liberty nor the contingency of the second causes is taken away, but established rather.
[1] God from all eternity, did by the most holy [and] wise99
1. GOD FROM ALL
ETERNITY DID, by the most wise and holy COUNSEL of his own will, freely and unchangeably ORDAIN
WHATSOEVER
COMES TO PASS;
YET SO AS
THEREBY neither is God the author of sin; counsel100 of his [own]100 will freely and unchangeably101 ordain whatsoever in time102 should come103 to pass, [2] without any foresight of anything without himself as a condition moving him thereunto:104 yet so, as thereby neither is God the author of sin, nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures, nor is the liberty or contigency of second causes taken away but established rather.
NOR IS VIOLENCE
OFFERED TO THE WILL OF
THE CREATURES, NOR IS
THE LIBERTY OR
CONTIGNECY OF SECOND
CAUSES TAKEN AWAY,
BUT RATHER
ESTABLISHED.
2. Although God knows whatsoever may or can come to pass, upon all supposed conditions; yet hath he not decreed anything because he foresaw it as future, or as that which would come to
pass, upon such conditions.
(12) By the same eternal counsel, God hath predestinated some unto life, and repreobated some unto death: of both which there is a certain number, known only to God, which can neither be increased nor diminished.
[3] By the decree of God, for the manifestation of his glory, some men and angels are predestinated unto everlasting life, and others foreordained to everlasting death.105
3. By the decree of God, for the manifestation of his glory, SOME men and angels are
PREDESTINED
UNTO everlasting LIFE, and others fore-ordained TO everlasting DEATH.
4. These angels and men, thus predestinated and fore-ordained, are particularly and unchangeably designed; and their NUMBER IS so CERTAIN and definite that it
CANNOT BE
EITHER
INCREASED OR
DIMINISHED.
(13) Predestination to life is the everlasting purpose of God, whereby, before the foundations of the world were laid, he hath constantly decreed in his secret counsel to deliver [4] These angels and men, thus predestinated and foreordained, are particularly and unchangeably designed, and their number is so certain and definite, that it cannot be either increased or diminished.
[5] Those of mankind that are predestinated unto life, God, before the foundation of the world was laid, according to his eternal and immutable purpose, and the secret counsel and 5. Those of mankind that are predestinated unto life, God,
BEFORE THE
FOUNDATION OF
THE WORLD WAS
LAID, according to his ETERNAL and immutable
from curse and damnation those whom he hath chosen in Christ out of mankind, and to bring them by Christ unto everlasting salvation, as vessels made to honour. good pleasure of his will, hath chosen in Christ unto everlasting glory,106 out of his mere free grace and love, without any foresight of faith or good works, or perseverance in either of them, or any other thing in the creature, as conditions, or causes moving him thereunto; and all to the praise of his glorious grace.
PURPOSE, AND THE
SECRET COUNSEL
and GOOD PLEASURE of his will, HATH CHOSEN
IN CHRIST, UNTO
EVERLASTING glory, out of his free grace and love alone,
WITHOUT ANY
FORESIGHT OF
FAITH OR GOOD
WORKS, OR
PERSEVERANCE
in either of them, or any other thing in the creature, as conditions, or causes moving him thereunto; and all to the praise of his glorious grace.
(14) The cause moving God to predestinate unto life, is not the forseeing of faith, or perseverance, or good works, or of anything which is in the person predestinated, but only the good pleasure of God himself. For all things being ordained for the manifestation of his glory, and his glory being to appear both in the works of his mercy and of his justice, it seemed good to his heavenly wisdom to choose out a certain number, towards whom he would extend his undeserved mercy, leaving the rest to be
spectacles of his justice.
(15) Such as are predestinated unto life, be called according unto God's purpose (his Spirit working in due season), and through grace they obey the calling, they be justified freely, they be made sons of God by adoption, they be made like the image of his only-begotten Son Jesus Christ, they walk religiously in good works, and at length by God's mercy they attain to everlasting felicity.
6. As God hath appointed the elect unto glory, so hath he, by the eternal and most free purpose of his will, fore-ordained all the means thereunto. Wherefore they who are elected being fallen in Adam are redeemed by Christ, ARE effectually CALLED unto faith in Christ
BY HIS SPIRIT
WORKING IN DUE
SEASON; ARE
JUSTIFIED,
ADOPTED, sanctified, and kept by his power through faith unto salvation.
Neither are nay other redeemed by Christ, effectually called, justified, adopted, sanctified, and saved, but the elect only.
But such as are not predestinated to salvation shall finally [6] As God hath appointed the elect unto glory, so hath he to bring this to pass,107 by the same decree,108 ordained to permit man to fall; [and such as are predestinated unto life effectually to call to faith in Christ by his Spirit working in due season, to justify, adopt, sanctify, and to keep by his power through faith unto salvation109].110
Neither are any other redeemed by Christ, effectually called, justified, adopted, sanctified, and saved, but the elect only.111
[7] The rest of mankind, God was pleased, according to the unsearchable 7. The rest of mankind, God was pleased, according to the unsearchable
be condemned for their sins. counsel of his own will, whereby he extendeth or withholdeth mercy as he pleaseth, for the glory of his sovereign power over his creatures, to pass by, and to ordain them to dishonour and wrath FOR THEIR SIN, to the praise of his glorious justice.
(16) The godly consideration of predestination and our election in Christ, is full of sweet, pleasant, and unspeakable comfort to godly persons, and such as feel in themselves the working of the Spirit of Christ, mortifying the works of the flesh, and their earthly members, and drawing up their minds to high and heavenly things; as well because it doth greatly confirm and establish their faith of eternal salvation to counsel of his own will, whereby he extendeth or withholdeth mercy as he pleaseth, for the glory of his sovereign power112 over his creatures, to pass by, and to ordain them to dishonour and wrath for their sin, to the praise of his glorious justice.
[8] The doctrine of this high mystery of predestination is to be handled with special prudence and care, that men attending to the will of God revealed in his word, and yielding obedience thereunto, may, from the certainty of their effectual vocation, be assured of their eternal election. So shall this doctrine afford matter of praise, reverence, and admiration of God, and of humility, diligence, and abundant consolation 8. The doctrine of this high mystery of predestination is to be handled with special prudence and care, that men
ATTENDING THE
WILL OF GOD
REVEALED IN HIS
WORD, and yielding obedience thereunto, may, from the certainty of their effectual vocation, be assured of their eternal election. So shall this doctrine afford matter of praise, reverence, and admiration of God; and of humility, diligence, and
be enjoyed through Christ, as because it doth fervently kindle their love towards God. And, on the contrary side, for curious and carnal persons lacking the Spirit of Christ, to have continually before their eyes the sentence of God's predestination is very dangerous. to all that sincerely obey the gospel.113 abundant consolation to all that sincerely obey the gospel.
(17) We must receive God's promises in such wise as they be generally set forth unto us in holy Scripture: and in our doings, that will of God is to be followed which we have expressly declared unto us in the word of God.
Endnotes:
1. From The Presbyterian and Reformed Review, xii. 1901, pp.
226-283.
2. The fundamental authority for the study of the work of the Assembly for the period covered by it is, of course, the volume of
its "Minutes" edited by Drs. A. F. Mitchell and John Struthers, and published by William Blackwood and Sons in 1874. Along with this Dr. Mitchell's Baird Lectures for 1882 on "The Westminster Assembly: Its History and Standards" (ed. 2,
Philadelphia, 1897), should be consulted. Next to the "Minutes" the fullest source of information is Robert Baillie's "Letters and Journals," edited by Mr. David Laing, Edinburgh, 1841-1842. A very painstaking study of the whole constructive work of the Assembly has recently been published by Dr. Wm. A. Shaw in his "History of the English Church during the Civil Wars and under the Commonwealth, 1640-1660," 2 vols., London, New
York, and Bombay: Longmans, Green & Co., 1900-a book simply packed with facts. The present article was unfortunately written before Dr. Shaw's book came into our hands. But we have carefully compared it with the account he has given (in pages
357-367 of his first volume) and examined the data afresh in the light of his narrative-not without profit to ourselves, or, occasionally, correction of details in Dr. Shaw's narrative. Where our account differs from Dr. Shaw's, therefore, it is to be understood that the difference is not unintentional.
3. See the full and very interesting account of this work given by Dr. Mitchell, "The Westminster Assembly," ed. 2, pp. 150 sqq.
Cf. Dr. Briggs's article in the Presbyterian Review for January, 1880.
4. He notes the emergence of the matter only on July 8, 10, 11, 12, 15, 17, 18, 27, 28, August 1, 18, and October 12.
5. "The Westminster Assembly," pp. 150 sq. Cf. Shaw, i. pp. 147 sq.
6. Thus: Art. i. Old and Revised Artt. and Conf. of Faith: "of one substance" (Irish: "of one and the same substance"). Art. ii. Old and Revised Artt. and Conf. of Faith: "very and eternal God"
(Irish: "true and eternal God"). Especially the following: Art. ii.
Revised Artt. and Conf. of Faith: "and the manhood" (Old Artt. and Irish omit "the"); Art. x. Revised Artt. and Conf. of Faith: "or [to] prepare" (Old Artt. and Irish: "and prepare").
7. The text of the Westminster revision of the first fifteen Articles of the Church of England may be found in Hall's "Harmony of
Protestant Confessions," 1844, Appendix i. pp. 505-512; Neal's "History of the Puritans," ii. 1849, Appendix vii. pp. 454-457;
Stoughton's "Ecclesiastical History of England," ii. ("The Church of the Commonwealth"), 1867, Appendix iii. pp. 528-535; but correctly as to the 8th Article only in E. Tyrrell Green's "The Thirty-nine Articles and the Age of the Reformation," London,
1896, Appendix iv. pp. 343-348. Mr. Green marks all the changes made in the test. For the Preface and revised Article viii., see especially Mitchell and Struthers, "Minutes," pp. 541542. Cf. Schaff, "Creeds of Christendom," i. 1877, pp. 653 sq.
8. A good account is given by Shaw, "History of the English Church," i. 1900, pp. 259-261. Cf. "Journals of Commons," iv. pp. 89 sq., etc., and Minutes of Assembly for March 1, 5, 21, 24,
28, April 2 (4?), 21 (August 14), 1645.
9. For some indication of the nature of these topics see below, p.
85.
10. Chapter xxiii. § 3.
11. See especially Mitchell, "The Westminster Assembly," pp. 420 sqq., but compare Shaw, i. p. 369, note. References may be found in the Minutes on December 2, 1644, February 7, 1645,
May 12, 13, August 1, 4, 5, 19, 20, and September 11. Then especially September 14 (1646), 15, 17, 22, 23, 24, November 27,
30, December 1, 2, 7, 10, 11, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 28, 31, and January 4 and 14, 1647, on which last day the order was given to intermit the preparation of the Catechism on which the Assembly had hitherto been working and to cast the material into two
Catechisms. The text of this "first Catechism," so far as it is recorded in the Minutes, has been put together by Mr. Wm.
Carruthers, in his admirable "The Shorter Catechism of the Westminster Assembly of Divines," in facsimile, London, 1897, pp. 21-26.
12. When the first propositions from the Catechism were reported the Assembly had just passed chapter xvii. of the Confession
(though one or two immediately preceding chapters were not yet passed).
13. "Letters," ii. p. 379: July 14, 1646.
14. It is with reference to this engagement that the following Minute, entered immediately after the completion of the (Larger) Catechism, October 15, 1647, must be read: "Upon a motion made by Mr. Rutherford, it was Ordered - That it be recorded in the Scribes' books, 'The Assembly hath enjoyed the assistance of the Honble Reverend and learned Commissioners from the Church of Scotland in the work of the Assembly'; during all the time of the debating and perfecting of the 4 things mentioned in the Covenant, viz., the Directory for Worship, the Confession of Faith, Form of Church Government, and Catechism, some of the Reverend and learned Divines
Commissioners from the Church of Scotland have been present in and assisting to this Assembly." There is no question here of a farewell to the Assembly: but of a record of covenanted work completed. Rutherford's leavetaking was made on November 9 subsequent. The relation of the Scottish Commissioners to the Assembly and its work is not always fully understood: it is lucidly explained by Dr. Mitchell in his "The Westminster
Assembly," ed. 2, pp. 180-181, note. They were not members of the Assembly and cast no vote in it: they took part in its debates only as private persons on its invitation. They were representatives of the Church of Scotland coordinate as a body with the Assembly as a whole, which represented the Church of England, and conferring with it as a whole on the common formularies.
15. See Shaw, i. p. 127, note, and cf. the "Ordinance" itself as printed in most Scotch editions of the Confession of Faith and in Dr.
Mitchell's "The Westminster Assembly," pp. xiii. sqq.
16. So it says in its Preface prefixed to the portion of the Thirty-nine Articles it had revised, when this was sent up to the Commons.
See the Preface in "Minutes," pp. 541-542.
17. Preface to Thirty-nine Articles, as above. Cf. Mitchell, "The Westminster Assembly," p. 185.
18. Mitchell, "The Westminster Assembly," p. 161.
19. Lightfoot, "Works," ed. Pitman, xiii. 1824, p. 303. Baillie's ("Letters," ii. pp. 220-221) account is as follows: "So soon as my
Lord Warriston came up, we resolved on the occasion of his instructings, and the letters of our Generall Assemblie, both to ourselves and to this Assemblie, which he brought, to quicken them a little, who had great need of spurrs. My Lord Warriston very particularlie declared in the Assemblie the passionate desires both of our Parliament, Assemblie, armies, and whole people, of the performance of the Covenanted Uniformitie; and withall we called for a meeting of the grand Committee of Lords,
Commons, Assemblie, and us; to whom we gave a paper penned, notablie well, by Mr. Henderson, bearing the great evills of so long a delay of settling religion, and our earnest desyres that some wayes might be found out for expedition. This paper my
Lord Say took to deliver to the House of Lords, Mr. Solicitor also for the House of Commons, and a third copy was given to Mr.
Marshall, to be presented to the Assemblie. . . Also we have the grand committee to meet on Monday, to find out wayes of expeditione; and we have gotten it to be the work of the Assemblie itselfe, to doe no other thing till they have found out wayes of accellerating; so by God's help we expect a farr quicker progress than hitherto."
20. Lightfoot, as above, p. 305.
21. Lightfoot, "Works," xiii. p. 305. The Assembly's own Minute runs: "A Committee to join with the Commissioners of the Church of Scotland to prepare matter for a joint Confession of Faith.
R. neg. 12.
R. aflirmat. 9 [to be a Committee].
Dr. Gouge.
Mr. Burges. or any 5 of them."
Mr.
Gataker.
Mr. Vines.
Mr.
Arrowsmith. Mr. Goodwin.
Dr. Temple. Dr. Hoyle.
Mr.
Burroughs.
See " Minutes," pp. lxxxvi. sq.
22. Lightfoot, p. 308. The Assembly's own Minute for September 4 runs: Report from the Committee for the Confession of Faith.
They desire an addition of those persons to the said CommitteeOrdered-Mr. Palmer, Mr. Newcomen, Mr. Herle, Mr. Reynolds,
Mr. Wilson, Mr. Tuckney, Dr. Smith, Mr. Young, Mr. Ley, Mr.
Sedgwicke, be added to the Committee for the ConI- «ion of Faith" (p. lxxxvii.).
23. "Letters," ii. pp. 232, 248.
24. On December 26, 1644, Baillie tells us why the work on the Confession was delayed: "If the Directorie and Government were once out of our hands, as a few days will put them, then we will fall on our great question of Excommunication, the Catechise, and Confession. There is here matter to hold us long enough, if the wrangling humour which long predomined in many here did continue.... I think we must either passe the Confession to another season, or, if God will help us, the heads of it being distribute among many able hands, it may in a short time be so drawn up, as the debates of it may cost little time. All this chalking is on the supposition of God's singular assistance, continuing such a disposition in the Assemblie and Parliament as hes appeared this moneth or two bypast" (ii. p. 248).
25. It was not until July that any part of the text got before the Assembly. Baillie (ii. p. 275), writing apparently early in June
(Shaw, i. p. 190), can still speak of the Assembly as only "beginning to take the Confession of Faith and Catechise to our consideration," and on the 5th September (ii. p. 315) says, "We are goeing on languidlie with the Confession of Faith and Catechisme."
26. "Letters," ii. p. 266.
27. References to the Minutes are of course all to the volume published in 1874 by Drs. Mitchell and Struthers. References are
equally easily verifiable whether made by pages, dates, or numbers of sessions - and therefore we shall not burden the footnotes with details.
28. "Minutes," p. 77. Cf. pp. 28 sq.
29. This paper was brought into the Assembly on April 14: it is given by Dr. Mitchell from the "Journals of the House of Lords," vii. pp. 317, 318, on pp. 80-81, note, of the "Minutes."
30. See a full account of the work of the Houses in this matter in Shaw's "History of the English Church during the Civil Wars and under the Commonwealth," i. 1900, pp. 257 sqq.
31. Shaw, as above, i. pp. 259-261. "Minutes," p. 71 (March 21 and 24), p. 74 (March 28), p. 75 (April 2), p. 76? (April 4).
32. Shaw, i. pp. 260-261, citing "Commons' Journal," iv. p. 114, April 17. The names of the Committee are given by Shaw, p. 261, note.
33. Shaw, i. p. 358, citing "Commons' Journal," iv. p. 113. 34
34. Shaw, i. p. 358.
35. The language is: "That the Thirty-nine Articles be reviewed by the former Committee, and the Committee to consider &sc. . . .
R. - To be referred to one Committee." Hence apparently two Committees are in view: but finally the whole matter was committed to one. Which one is not clear.
36. On Tuesday, May 6, when the propositions as to the Civil Magistrate in the Government were under debate, question was raised whether a proposed form of statement should be placed in the Government or in "a Confession of Faith."
37. Shaw, i. p. 358, quoting "Commons' Journal," iv. p. 133:
"Minutes" for May 8 (p. 90).
38. The Confession of Faith is mentioned in the interval only on May 6 (as above, p. 78, and p. 86, note 36), and then only incidentally and indeterminately.
39. As cited, ii. p. 266.
40. Shaw, i. p. 358, supposes the Committee "to have subdivided" and to be now reunited. It is possible, of course, that the two parts (that appointed August 20 and that appointed September
4) had been sitting as separate Committees and were only now combined.
41. "The Westminster Assembly," ed. 2, Philadelphia, 1897, pp. 367 sq.
42. Concerning them see Mitchell, "The Westminster Assembly," p.
147.
43. Shaw, i. p. 358, also seems to look upon the Committee of May 12, 1645, as a substitute for the former Committee.
44. Reports from First Committee, "Minutes," pp. 129, 130, 150, 151, 164, 166, 167, 171, 192. Reports from Second Committee,
"Minutes," pp. 130, 131, 150, 181, 162, 166, 167. Reports from Third Committee, "Minutes," pp. 165, 173.
45. The detailed history of the large Committees is obscure: see Mitchell, "The Westminster Assembly," ed. 2, pp. 148 sq. Dr.
Burgess was the first chairman of the First Committee, but he had in the meanwhile been in disgrace (p. 181) and during his suspension a new chairman must needs have been chosen. Cf.
January 29, 1646, "Mr. Coleman made report of Christian Liberty" (cf. p. 104), Mr. Coleman being also a member of the First Committee: March 5, "Report from Dr. Gouge about the Church."
46. Cf. November 12: "Dr. Stanton [made] report from second Committee"; December 5: "Report from Dr. Stanton of the Sacraments in general" (cf. pp. 164, 167); but December 29: "Mr.
Calamy made report of Baptism."
47. Cf. November 20: "Mr. Prophet brought in a report from the Third Committee," etc.; March 5, 1646: "Mr. Prophet made report of Religion and Worship," etc.; but December 2, 1645:
"Report from Mr. Cheynell of Justification" - Mr. Cheynell being also a member of the Third Committee; January 1, 1646: "Dr.
Wincop made report from the Third Committee about the Law of God"
48. Mr. Reynolds was, however, a member of the Committee of September 4, 1644, and also of that of May 12, 1645: and it is, of course, conceivable that it was to this fundamental Committee that the topic was recommitted. The case would not be so simple in the instances of Mr. Gouge and Mr. Arrowsmith; they were both members of the Committee of August 20, 1644, but not of
that of May 12 - which in our view had been substituted for it. In Mr. Seaman's case, just to be mentioned, it is clear that it was to a special Committee that the recommitment was made, and he was moreover not a member of any of the Committees of August
20, September 4, 1644, May 12, 1645.
49. There were four distributions - July 16, 1645, November 18, 1645, February 23, 1646 - to which should be added the supplementary distribution of August 19, 1646.
50. Mr. Cawdry was added also, September 1, 1646.
51. Compare Baillie's account of the care expended on this review, ii. pp. 400-403: the passages are extracted below, pp. 119-120.
52. This order was "due to the letter from the Assembly of the Kirk in Scotland of the 18th of June, read in the Lords on the 9th of July (L. J., viii., 425; C. J., iv., 621) "-Shaw, i. p. 360. A letter from the Church of Scotland was delivered also to the Assembly,
July 8.
53. The order was made on September 16 ("Commons' Journal," iv. p. 670; Shaw, i. p. 361), and received on September 18
("Minutes," pp. 285-286).
54. Baillie, "Letters," ii. p. 403, iii. p. 2. See the text below, pp. 119, 120.
55. The answer of the Assembly to the requisition is printed by Dr.
Mitchell in "The Westminster Assembly," ed. 2, 1897, pp. 377 sq.: the rejoinder of the House in the "Minutes," 1874, p. 295.
56. For a history of the proof-texts of the Confession, see Dr. Samuel T. Lowrie's article in The Presbyterian Review, July, 1888 (ix. pp. 443 sqq.), and his reports in the "Minutes" of the General
Assembly for 1891 (pp. 129 sqq.), and 1894 (pp. 157 sqq.), or in the "Digest " of 1898 (pp. 21 sqq.).
57. As cited, i. p. 365.
58. We have taken the idea of this tabular statement from Shaw (i. pp. 367 sqq.), who prints such an one; and we at first intended simply to quote Shaw's table. But on examination the accuracy of his presentation appeared scarcely adequate, and we have made out the whole afresh - deriving, of course, such aid from
Shaw as we could. Where our table differs from Shaw's, therefore, it differs wittingly.
59. See also " Minutes," p. 473.
60. From Baillie also (ii. p. 344) we learn that the Articles "God" and "Trinity" when first passed were two separate Articles. See below, p. 118.
61. Why the bracketed "s" appears in the printed "Minutes" is not obvious. The "s" is arbitrarily present or absent in the allusions in the "Minutes."
62. Why it is not likely that this is the first report of chapter ix. made to the Assembly is explained above, pp. 94-95.
63. It will be noted that these three chapters were apparently afterthoughts; they were, to all appearance, not contemplated in the first planning of the Confession.
64. "Minutes," p. 271.
65. Cf. also p. 205.
66. Cf. p. 436.
67. Cf. p. 437.
68. Cf. p. 439.
69. Cf. also p. 205.
70. P. 205.
71. Cf. p. 43.
72. Cf. p. 435.
73. See what is said of the topic, "Lies and Equivocations," at the end of this tabular statement (p. 116, N. B.). Is it possible that this chapter was developed out of that topic? It is against this supposition that different Committees seem concerned.
74. Cf. also p. 204.
75. Cf. also p. 206.
76. The material developed in the debates recorded on the dates contained within these square brackets entered very little into the formation of chapter xxv. Part of it was incorporated into chapter xxx.
77. The debates on the jus divinum which took place on May (1), 4, 5, 7, 8, 15, 18, 19, (25), 28, June 1, 2, 5, 8, 10, 11, 12, 15, July 6, 7,
10, 17, did not, of course, directly concern chapter xxv., but
rather were in preparation of the answer of the Assembly to certain Parliamentary "Questions." See Baillie's account as given on p. 118, below; and compare Shaw, i. pp. 308 sqq. But the material thus gathered indirectly bore fruit for this chapter also.
78. See above under chapter xxv. (note 76).
79. Shaw (i. p. 372) mentions the topic Dedication to God, which is reported as debated January 2, 1646, as "if not represented by Article XII" (Adoption), probably a subsequently omitted
Article. Possibly, however, it signalizes only a debate on one phase of Baptism, in immediate contiguity with which it is mentioned.
80. See Mitchell in "Minutes," p. 416.
81. Mitchell in "Minutes," p. 416, and in "The Westminster Assembly," pp. 378-379, and 526; Shaw, i. p. 365.
82. Baillie says (November 25, 1645; ii. p. 325): "We had long and tough debates about the Decrees of election; yet thanks to God all is gone right according to our mind."
83. In the interesting discussion published in pp. 185 sq. of his "Theology of the Westminster Symbols," 1900, Dr. Edward D.
Morris appears to suggest something like this. "An interesting discussion," he says, "seems to have arisen in the Assembly respecting the use of the singular or the plural term, decree or decrees, in the exposition of this general doctrine." There is, however, no indication of any such discussion having occurred on the title: the debate adverted to by Dr. Morris was upon the sixth section and concerned directly another matter - as will be seen below. The Westminster Divines obviously attached very little importance to this mere matter of phraseology.
84. The loosely kept notes which we have of the Minutes are too carelessly written to offer any testimony in such a matter. If we have counted correctly, the third chapter is mentioned more or less formally by name ten times in the "Minutes." In five the plural is used (pp. 114, 126, 127, 322, 323); in five the singular
(pp. 126, 129, 130, 245, 246).
85. In the Larger Catechism, Q. 12, the words "in time" are retained:
"God's decrees are the wise, free and holy acts of the counsel of
His will, whereby, from all eternity, He hath, for His own glory, unchangeably fore-ordained whatsoever comes to pass in time, especially concerning angels and men."
86. The words here placed in brackets stand in the Minutes above the line.
87. Dr. Mitchell notes that in the additional copy of the Minutes lapping at this part, which he calls Fascicle iii., the words stand:
"and some foreordained to everlasting death."
88. Whitaker was a high Calvinist (see below, p. 136), but beyond that we know too little of his personal opinions to permit ourselves any conjectures as to his position on the special point here raised. He left little in print behind him: Brook ("Lives of the Puritans," 1813, iii. pp. 190 sqq.) supposes that only a few occasional sermons were published by him, and names only three. He was a Cambridge Master of Arts, and a good scholar and unremitting in his labors as a preacher. See also Mr.
Lupton's notice in the "Dictionary of National Biography," sub nom. It is illustrative of how little even the best scholars keep in mind the most important matters of Puritan (Presbyterian) history in England that Mr. Lupton can print such a sentence as this: "When the Westminster assembly of divines was convened in June 1643, he was one of the first members elected, and in 1647 was appointed moderator." Yet he had Brook's notice before his eyes (p. 191).
89. "The Westminster Assembly," ed. 2, 1897, p. 373.
90. "Minutes," pp. lv. sqq.
91. And his "Letters" have a number of references to the Amyraldian controversy and the pressing need of a telling refutation of Amyraut, which cannot mean anything else than that it was from him that the Assembly felt that the dissenting opinions emanated.
92. "Minutes," p. lvii. This contention, together with the other expedients which have been made use of by advocates of universal atonement to explain away the Confessional statement, is judiciously examined by Dr. Cunningham in his
"Historical Theology," ii. 1864, pp. 327 sq.
93. Dr. Cunningham remarks that the followers of Cameron made their contention that they were not condemned by the Synod of Dort turn precisely on the fact that nothing exactly like these clauses occurs in its "Canons" (op. cit., p. 329, note).
94. These debates are discussed with the care and prudence habitual to him by Dr. Mitchell, pp. lii. sqq. of his Introduction to the "Minutes"; and he says the best and most that can be said in favor of the view that Amyraldism is not peremptorily excluded by the statements finally agreed on. They are also discussed in somewhat the same spirit by Dr. E. D. Morris, op. cit., pp. 187 sqq., with which should be compared the remarks on pp. 382 sqq. Dr. Morris, though claiming for the Amyraldians a right of existence under the "symbol," seems to be unable to free himself of the suspicion that the letter of the symbol scarcely justifies it.
We should heartily accord with such a conclusion - in both its elements. We have already referred to Dr. Cunningham's discussion of the meaning of the Symbolic declarations
("Historical Theology," ii. 1854, pp. 327 sq.).
95. At p. 813 of Dr. E. D. Morris' "Theology of the Westminster Symbols," 1900, we read the following sentences: "Some of the members [of the Westminster Assembly] held with Calamy
(Minutes, 153) that by virtue of the death of Christ there is an administration of grace even to the reprobate, so that they in rejecting such grace do willfully damn themselves as a massa corrupta. It is a fact of considerable significance that, in deference to this opinion, it was proposed and somewhat debated in the Assembly to omit any statement respecting reprobation. This would have been in harmony with the course pursued in the framing of most of the continental symbols, which are quite silent respecting the relation of the divine decree to those who reject the divine grace. The statement in the Confession finally agreed upon, (Ch. III. vii.) simply declares that God, in the exercise of his sovereign power or dominion over his creatures passes by the wicked and unbelieving, and ordains them to dishonor and wrath for their sins, to the praise of his glorious justice." This seems to say that the omission of
the seventh section of chapter iii. was proposed and debated in the Assembly: and indeed the omission of all statements respecting reprobation. There is nothing in the Minutes or, so far as known to us, in any witnessing document to justify such an affirmation. It would seem that Dr. Morris has fallen into an error here - possibly through a misinterpretation of the entries in the Minutes of propositions and debates concerning the language of iii. 3 - of which we have spoken above (pp. 130 sqq).
This misinterpretation would be rendered easier by the circumstances that the former of these entries occurs in the Minutes for November 3, and is noted by Dr. Mitchell on the margin as a "debate on reprobation," while in the immediately next Minute we have a reference to "the paragraph concerning
Reprobation," doubtless referring to §7, which was certainly under debate November 11. Nevertheless it is very plain that it is
§3 that was debated on November 3: and even if that were not so, there is no ground for Dr. Morris' statement that "it was proposed and somewhat debated in the Assembly to omit any statement respecting reprobation." To desire an "alteration in the words 'and some [fore-] ordained to everlasting death,"' or even the omission "of those words, 'foreordained to everlasting death"' - the extent of the notices of the proposals and debates in question - is, certainly, something extremely different from proposing and debating the omission of " any statement respecting reprobation." It is probably safe to say that the attribution to any Westminster man of a suggestion to omit all reference to reprobation from the Confession would have struck him as a calumny injurious to the soundness of his faith if not of his intelligence. With reference to the attitude of the other
Reformed symbols to reprobation see The Presbyterian and Reformed Review, xiii. 1901, pp. 49-128, especially pp. 121-126: the doctrine of reprobation is certainly not left without "any statement" in the "most" of them.
96. This exhibit is taken without change from the Rev. E. Tyrrell Green's treatise on "The Thirty-nine Articles and the Age of the Reformation" (London [1896]), pp. 354-355. Phrases in italics
are derived from the Thirty-nine Articles: those in thick-faced type from the Lambeth Articles. About 58 per cent. of the Irish
Articles is taken from Art. xvii. of the Thirty-nine Articles, and about 15 per cent. from the Lambeth Articles: leaving about 27 per cent. of new matter.
97. Possibly the title read originally as in the Irish Articles, and in the debate the last two words, here bracketed, were omitted.
98. Phrases in italics are derived from the Thirty-nine Articles: those in thick type from the Lambeth Articles: those in small capitals from the Irish Articles. Phrases derived proximately from the Irish Articles and ultimately from the Thirty-nine Articles will therefore be found set in italic capitals: those derived proximately from the Irish Articles and ultimately from the Lambeth Articles in thick capitals. About 28 per cent. of the chapter is derived matter, about 72 per cent. being original. All but a trace of the derived matter is taken from the Irish Articles: end the material thus taken from the Irish Articles is about evenly divided between material original with them, and material ultimately derived from the Thirty-nine or Lambeth
Articles - about 10 per cent. of the whole having each of these three sources for its origin.
99. Amended to "most wise and holy."
100. Debates signalized on these words, but details not given.
101. Moved to insert here "without respect to anything foreseen," and omit corresponding clause below: "without . . . thereunto."
102. "in time" omitted.
103. "should come" amended to "comes."
104. After several attempts to adjust this clause, "without . . . thereunto," vis.: (1) by prefixing "absolutely"; (2) by omitting
"any"; (3) by modifying so as to read "not being moved thereunto by any foresight of anything without himself"; (4) by transferring in a shortened form to just after "unchangeably"
(see note 3) - it was removed from this place and expanded into a new section (§ 2) of the completed Confession.
105. Omission of the words "foreordained to everlasting death" proposed but refused: Mr. Whitaker proposed some alteration in
them, which being refused, he entered his dissent.
106. The words "unto everlasting glory" were challenged, as perhaps superfluous, but retained.
107. Ordered not to express "to bring this to pass." Mr. Gilleapie proposed to substitute for the clause "so hath he . . . to permit man to fall": "For the same end God hath ordained to permit man to fall"; but it did not prevail.
108. Ordered not to assert "the same decree."
109. The bracketed portion is conjectural, to fill out the section according to the original opening: it is derived from the Irish
Article.
110. Mr. Reynolds proposed the following form, which supplied the basis on which the final form was made (the italicized words were altered in making out the final form): "As God hath appointed the elect unto glory, so hath he by the samea eternal and most free purpose of his will, foreordained all the means thereunto, which he in his counsel is pleased to appoint for the executing of that decree;b wherefore they who are endowed with so excellent a benefit,c being fallen in Adam, ared called ine according to God's purpose,"f etc. (a) "same" was omitted. (b)
This clause was omitted. (c) This clause, derived from Art. xvii. of the Thirty-nine Articles, changed into "elected." (d)
"redeemed by Christ, are" was inserted here. (e)It is uncertain whether "in" here is a mere slip due to a mixture of the two expressions "according to" and "in accordance with," or whether the word "Christ " has fallen out inadvertently after it. (f) "called according to God's purpose" was altered to "effectually called unto faith in Christ."
111. Much debate was held over this final clause, but it was retained decisively.
112. "sovereign power" perhaps challenged but retained.
113. Debate signalized on this section but no details given.
-+ scanned and marked up by Lance George Marshall, 2007 +-