The Puritans and the Doctrine of Election
1
The Puritans and the
Doctrine of Election
It would be foolish to ignore the very wide difference which lies between our days and those of our seventeenth-century fore-fathers. Their times were characterized by the powerful operations of the Spirit of God. The observance of secret prayer and family worship, the hearing of sermons of two hours’ duration, the keeping of days for thanksgiving or for fasting, were all pleasant duties to a great many of the people. Macaulay truly wrote of the Puritans, “To know Him, to serve Him, to enjoy Him, was with them the great end of existence.” It was not uncommon in their days for such a demonstration of the Spirit to accompany the word preached that multitudes were converted—five hundred people traced their conversion to one sermon preached by John Livingstone at Kirk O’ Shotts in 1630—and believers overwhelmed with the force of the truth.
Thomas Goodwin, after hearing Rogers of Dedham preach, hung “a quarter of an hour upon the neck of his horse weeping, before he had power to mount.” From the Houses of Parliament to the homes of lowly cottagers godliness was known and loved. One historian writing of seventeenth-century Scotland, says, “There was the atmosphere of a paradise of communion with God.” But an even clearer difference between their times and ours is in matters of doctrine, and no doctrine so unquestionably proves this as the doctrine of election. Of all the doctrines of the gospel, the one about which Christians today have become must unlike the Puritans in their view of it, is the doctrine of election.
It is the place which the Puritans gave to this doctrine, and the value which they set upon it, which supplies the real explanation why their memory and writings have fallen into such neglect and even disrepute in the last hundred years. The enlightened nineteenth century outgrew the Calvinistic faith of their forefathers. Matthew Arnold could write of the Puritan movement, with its doctrine of election, as extinct, save for some backward corners of the land. Professor Froude of Oxford, addressing the students of St. Andrews in 1871, declared, “Every one here present must have become familiar in late years with the change of tone throughout Europe and America on the subject of Calvinism. After being accepted for two centuries in all Protestant countries it has come to be regarded by liberal thinkers as a system of belief incredible in itself, dishonouring to its object, and as intolerable as it has been itself intolerant” (Short Studies on Great Subjects, J. A. Froude, vol. 2, Ch. Calvinism). In 1873 even such an alleged leader of evangelical thought as Dr. Dale of Birmingham described Calvinism as obsolete. Spurgeon had few to stand by him when he replied to Dale, “Those who labour to smother ‘Calvinism’ will find that it dies hard, and, it may be, they will come, after many defeats, to perceive the certain fact that it will outlive its opponents. Its funeral oration has been pronounced many times before now, but the performance has been premature. It will live when the present phase of religious misbelief has gone down to eternal execration amid the groans of those whom it has undone. Today it may be sneered at; nevertheless, it is but yesterday that it numbered among its adherents the ablest men of the age, and tomorrow it may be, when once again there shall be giants in theology, it will come to the front, and ask in vain for its adversaries” (The Sword and Trowel, Feb. 1874). Any superficial consideration of the Puritans which overlooks the great gulf which lies between their doctrine, and the doctrine commonly accepted by most evangelicals today, merely obscures the real issues. The doctrine of election was vital to the Puritans, they believed with Zanchius that it “is the golden thread that runs through the whole Christian system,” and they asserted that a departure from this truth would bring a visible church under God’s judgment and indignation. No subject could have a more direct reference to us and to our times.
In taking up this subject it is essential to remind ourselves of the manner and spirit in which the Puritans approached the doctrine of election. “This truth,” writes Anthony Burgess, “may be handled either sinfully or profitably; sinfully as when it is treated on only to satisfy curiosity, and to keep up a mere barren speculative dispute . . . This point of election . . . is not to be agitated in a verbal and contentious way, but in a saving way, to make us tremble and to set us upon a more diligent and close striving with God in prayer, and all other duties . . . This doctrine, if any other, should produce sobriety, holy fear, and trembling” (folio entitled “Spiritual Refinings,” Sermon 111, 1658). The Puritans were men whose deep concern was to feel the power of the truth in their hearts.
Let us then proceed to the doctrine itself. The following statement from the Westminster Confession of Faith, declares their united belief: “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 . . . 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 good pleasure of His will, hath chosen in Christ, unto everlasting glory, out of His mere free grace and love, without any foresight of faith or good works” (Confession 3.3, 5).
From this tremendous statement we can extract the principal points of their doctrine of election.
(1) Election Is an Act of God’s Eternal Will and Sovereign Pleasure
All the Puritan divines were agreed in this, writes Sibbes, “that there was an eternal separation of men in God’s purpose; secondly, that this first decree of severing man to his ends, is an act of sovereignty over his creature, and altogether independent of anything in the creature as a cause of it” (Sibbes’s Preface to Baynes on Ephesians, Nichols ed., p. 3). “The purpose of God,” writes Thomas Brooks, “is the sovereign cause of all that good that is in man, and of all that external, internal and eternal good that comes to man. Not works past, for men are chosen from everlasting, not works present, for Jacob was loved and chosen before he was born; nor works forseen, for men were all corrupt in Adam. All a believer’s present happiness, and all his future happiness, springs from the eternal purpose of God” (Brooks’s Works, Nichols, 5:317). “God dealeth not equally with all,” asserts Thomas Manton, “that are of equal merit . . . That grace is given to some and not to others, floweth from God’s eternal decree. This eternal decree is a free election, or the mere pleasure of God, giving faith to some and not to others” (Manton’s Works, 20:361–62, Nichols). Burgess expounding John 17:2, “That to as many as thou hast given him, he should give eternal life,” says, “We see here that God the Father hath power to appoint and determine concerning the everlasting salvation and damnation of men: It’s plain, for you see it is as the Father wills, whom He chooses He gives to Christ . . . This disparity of God’s grace choosing some and leaving others, is plainly asserted by Scripture, Matthew 11, where Christ makes a solemn acknowledging of it . . . Take we then this Truth for a foundation, it is in the sovereign power of God to choose when He pleases to Salvation and to leave the rest in their damnable estate: Neither is this any cruelty or injustice in God, for He might have forsaken all mankind, and not recovered one of them” (A. Burgess, Expository Sermons on John 17, Folio 1656).
(2) Election Is an Unchangeable Act
It is according to God’s “immutable purpose.” Which means, as the Confession states (3.4) that the number of the elect “cannot be either increased or diminished,” and that therefore God infallibly gives them in time all things necessary for their eternal salvation. “The doctrine of election,” says Elisha Coles, “containeth the whole sum and scope of the gospel,” all the other parts are but the carrying out of God’s first intention. Listen to Thomas Goodwin giving a comment on this marvellous truth. “All the ways and acts that God doth to eternity are but mere expressions of that love which he at first took up,” when He elected us. “Christ, and heaven, and whatever else God shews you of love and mercy in this world, or in the world to come, they all lay in the womb of that first act. God was not drawn on to love us, as a man is, who first begins to love one, and to set his heart upon him, and then his heart being engaged, he is drawn on beyond what he thought, and is enticed to do this and thus beyond what he first intended. No, God is not as a man herein, but as ‘known unto God are all his works, from the beginning of the world,’ so is all his love that he meant to bestow. There is no new thing to God, his love at the very first dash, when he began to love us, was as perfect as it will be when we are in heaven . . . My brethren, when God first began to love you, he gave you all that he ever meant to give you in the lump, and eternity of time is that in which he is retailing of it out” (Goodwin’s Works, Nichols, 2: 166–67). Brooks drives home the same truth in these words: “The love of God is unchangeable; ‘whom he loves he loves to the end,’ John 13:3; whom God loves once he will love for ever. He is not as man, soon in and soon off again, Malachi 3:6, James 1:17; Oh no! His love is like himself, lasting, yea, everlasting; ‘I have loved thee with an everlasting love,’ Jeremiah 31:3” (Brooks, Nichols, 5:316).
It is this “immutable purpose” of God which makes the conversion (effectual calling), justification, and perseverance of the elect certain. “Whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified; and whom he justified, them he also glorified” (Romans 8:30). Thomas Horton mightily expounds that verse—“It is clear from the text that God’s Election and Predestination is necessarily and infallibly followed with other acts in the execution of it, as calling and justification etc.” There is an “indissoluble connection and conjunction of the means with the end. These rings and links in this golden chain here before us are so involved one in another, as that they cannot possibly be disjoined or severed one from the other . . . predestination is not only the antecedent, but also the cause of effectual vocation. And the same grace, and good pleas-ure of God, that ordains us to eternal life, makes us also to embrace the means which tend to this life . . . Those who were elected shall be glorified, God Himself cannot be deceived, nor his purpose be intercepted, nor his calling be revoked” (Horton’s Sermons on Romans 8, folio 1674, pp. 500–507. See also Westminster Confession 3.6).
(3) Election Is in Relation to Christ
Now this truth lay at the very heart of their doctrine of election and determined every other part of gospel truth. God, says the apostle Paul, “hath chosen us in Him [in Christ] before the foundation of the world” (Ephesians 1:4). “His first choice of us was a founding us on Christ,” comments Goodwin on this verse, “and in and together with choosing us, a setting us into him, so as then to be represented by him. So that now we are to run the same fortune, if I may so speak, with Christ himself for ever, our persons being made mystically one with his, and he a Common Person to us in election. Other men, as likewise the angels that fell, were ordained to be in themselves,—to stand or fall by themselves . . . But we were considered in Christ from the first, and therefore, though we fall, we shall rise again in him and by him for he is a Common Person for us, and to stand for us, and is for ever to look to us, to bring us to all that God ordained us unto, and so this foundation remains sure. We are chosen in Christ, and therefore are in as sure a condition, as for final perishing, as Christ himself . . . Remember election is unto this great privilege, to be in Christ, and one with him, (of all the highest, and fundamental to all other)” (Goodwin’s Works, 1:76–77, Nichols).
It is not until we understand this point that we will see why the Puritans regarded a denial of the doctrine of election as an overthrow of the whole nature of the gospel. The great glory of the New Covenant is that God should carry out both His part and ours, and He does this by committing the elect to the care of Christ, by whom they are given all saving graces. “Christ, as mediator,” says Brooks, “had a command from his Father to die, and he observes it: ‘I lay down my life for my sheep; this commandment have I received of my Father,’ John 10:11, 15 . . . Jesus Christ has not only leave to save the elect, but a charge to save the elect: ‘All that the Father giveth me, shall come to me, and him that cometh to me, I will in no wise cast out, for I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will but the will of him that sent me. And this is the Father’s will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me, I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day . . .’ Christ is to be answerable for all those that are given to him; at the last day, and therefore we need not doubt but that he will certainly employ all the power of his Godhead to secure and save all those that he must be accountable for. Christ’s Charge and care of these that are given to him, extends even to the very day of their resurrection, that he may not so much as lose their dust, but gather it together again, and raise it up in glory, to be a proof of his fidelity, for, saith he, ‘I should lose nothing, but raise it up again at the last day’” (Brooks, 5:368–69).
We find this truth affirmed throughout the writings of the Puritans. Thomas Manton says, “If the elect should not be saved, Christ should neither do his work nor receive his wages” (Manton’s Works, 5:213). Likewise Christopher Love, “If the elect could perish then Jesus Christ should be very unfaithful to his Father, because God the Father hath given this charge to Christ, that whomsoever he elected, Christ should preserve them safe, to bring them to heaven. Now should not this be accomplished, Christ would be unfaithful to his Father, John 6:39” (A Treatise of Effectual Calling and Election, p. 187, 1658 ed.). The whole of the work of Christ is therefore to be understood in relation to the doctrine of election, and indeed they asserted it cannot be understood without it. “Christ’s blood-shedding was special blood-shedding, not for all, but for you many, Matthew 26:28. Sanctification is a special sanctification, not for all, but of you, John 17:9. Justification is a special justification, not of all, but of you only, his elect, Romans 8:33. Christ’s purchasing was a special purchasing, not of all, but of you his church, Acts 20:28. Christ’s prayer is a special prayer, not for all, but for you, John 17:9” (William Fenner, Sermon on The Mystery of Saving Grace, 1626).
We have thus considered the three principal points which characterize the Puritan doctrine of election. Before we proceed to hear them answer objections, we will consider a few reasons why they considered this truth to be of such tremendous importance.
(1) It is neglect of the doctrine of election which leads to the Arminian error of supposing that Christ purchased redemption for some to whom it shall never be applied. This is a direct denial of Christ’s office. “We are reconciled by his merit, but saved by his life,” writes Manton. “He liveth in heaven, and procureth influences of his grace . . . In heaven he accomplisheth the other part of his priesthood. He doth not work out a part of man’s salvation, and leave the rest of our freewill: the sacrificing part is ended, and by his intercession, we get the merit applied to us” (10:167). If we should say that Christ died for some who now are in hell, it is “blasphemous against Christ: it is as much as to say, that Christ died for some, and after that, was not able to bring them to life and salvation” (Elton’s Commentary on Colossians 1:4, 1620).
(2) A neglect or denial of the doctrine of election destroys the perfect unity and agreement of the Trinity in their will and intention of salvation. Manton writes, “Our spiritual estate standeth upon a sure bottom, the beginning is from God the Father, the dispensation from the Son, and the application from the Holy Ghost . . . It is free in the Father, sure in the Son, ours in the Spirit; the Father purposeth, the Son ratifieth, the Spirit giveth us the enjoyment of all . . . Election is ascribed to God the Father, sanctification to the Spirit, and reconciliation to Jesus Christ . . . This is the chain of salvation and never a link of this chain must be broken. The Son cannot die for them whom the Father never elected, and the Spirit will never sanctify them whom the Father hath not elected nor the Son redeemed.” Then Manton solemnly charges the Arminians, “which put asunder those operations which God hath joined together, by dividing Christ from election, or election from Christ, as if Christ were to die for those that were never elected and chosen to life, equally as for those that were” (10:161, 256–57).
(3) The denial of the doctrine of absolute election leads to the dishonouring and destroying errors of universalism. Dishonouring to God, in that, says Burgess, “by the doctrine of those universalists, notwithstanding Universal grace, and Christ’s dying for all, not one man may be saved, God may lose all the glory of his mercy, and Christ all the fruit of his sufferings.” Destroying to men, in that, says Perkins, it leads to “universal atheim. For it pulls down the pale of the church, and lays it waste as every common field: it breeds a carelessness in the use of the means of grace, the word and sacraments” (Perkins’s Works, 1:302, 1608 ed.).
We will now briefly consider the Puritan’s answers to objections that are ever raised against these truths.
(1) Listen to Anthony Burgess clearing God from the charge of injustice. “Howsoever it be God’s Sovereign good pleasure to choose some and not others, yet a man’s damnation is wholly of himself in respect of the meritorious cause; for no man is damned precisely because God hath not chosen him, because he is not elected, but because he is a sinner, and doth willfully refuse the means of grace offered, insomuch that there is no sinner but he doth as willingly and readily sin with as much choice and delight, as if he were not at all left by God; and therefore the Scripture doth wholly attribute a man’s destruction to his own self. Let no man think then to evade God’s justice under this pretence. No, God will be justified, and every man will be found to be a sinner. Neither may this be thought injustice in God; for if he had not saved one man, none could have blamed him: we see he did not spare one of the apostate angels. Thus also might he have done with all mankind. Let us therefore admire the goodness of God that chooses and to eternal life” (Sermons on Spiritual Refining, p. 646).
(2) A further objection is that this doctrine leads to carelessness. The Puritans would answer that the great cause of carelessness is presumption, self-confidence, and the lack of the fear of God, and that nothing more breaks down these things than this very doctrine.
But they would moreover make this reply. God has not only ordained the persons who shall be saved, but He has also ordained the means—namely faith, sanctification, and holiness. Now the only way any soul may know God’s secret will, namely his election, is by so diligently applying himself to the means of grace and striving after holiness. Only by obedience to the duties of God’s revealed will may anyone know his election. “As Dr. Preston says, if a man does not use those means that may evidence to his soul that he is elected, it is an argument he is not elected. If thou say, if God hath determined it, he will save me, whether I am holy or profane, and therefore I will never hear sermon, never pray in my family, never use holy duties; says Preston, if thou neglect these means, it is an argument thou art not elected . . . At that very instant wherein God did decree or determine to bring a man to life, at that very instant God did decree that that man would be holy before he died; he shall use all holy and sanctified means conducible to his salvation. Romans 8:29. Whom he did predestinate, them he did predestinate to be comformable to the image of his Son” (Christopher Love, Treatise on Calling & Election, pp. 197–98). So that rather than making men careless nothing could make men more serious and earnest than this doctrine. “Oh then search, and again search and try your ways! Oh enquire, whether thou art in the number of those chosen ones or no! For the thing may be known. The Scripture gives many characters of those chosen, do thou then fall upon this study . . . If God appoint thee to eternal life, he doth here in this world appoint thee to a gracious and heavenly life. This is a sure argument, no Sanctification, no Election; no choice grace, no choice glory. Thou art to be a precious jewel here, ere God will make thee up at that great day” (Burgess, Sermons, Spiritual Refining, p. 648).
The Practical Use of the Doctrine of Election
(1) Knowing that nothing was more humbling and alarming, they used this doctrine in preaching to the unconverted. A remarkable illustration of this occurs in a sermon of David Dickson’s. Dickson was one of the most prominent ministers in a widespread revival which occurred in Scotland between 1625 and1630, and great numbers were saved under his ministry. In a sermon on 2 Timothy 2:19 Dickson speaks as follows: “The doctrine of election and reprobation is a doctrine which may be safely taught and propounded unto people, albeit men say it should not be meddled with, because (say they) it makes some men despair, and others become careless what they do. I answer, let God make an answer for his own doctrine, who has commanded us to teach it . . . The apostle says boldly, the election obtained it, and the rest were blinded. Would Christ have propounded this doctrine if it had been dangerous? Therefore we oppose to such carnal men, secure sleepers in sin, this doctrine of Christ and his apostles, clearly set down in scripture. Let none take offence at this doctrine, for Christ’s sheep will hear his voice, and if any will startle away, let them go . . . This doctrine is a strong attractive to draw back those who are fallen in error or vice, that they lie not in it, for this doctrine forces such men to turn to God, or else, to take on the name of reprobates . . . It is a doctrine meet for this age, wherein God is mocked and blasphemed by the lewd lives of those who are called Christians, to tell them, that they must either turn to God, or take home with them these black tidings, that they are vessels of dishonour, fitted for destruction. This doctrine is very needful to put men to their decisions; and yet it condemns not a man to hell presently, who is lying in sin; but it tells him, that there are some elect, who will come home, and some reprobate, who will not come home. Therefore, if a man be elect, albeit for the time he be a deboshed villain, this doctrine will serve him for the third and last summons: for when he hears that he must either quit his sinful courses, or have no portion with God, presently he must resolve, I will renounce my old lovers, my uncleanness, worldliness, and turn in to God, and seek a covering to hide my vileness. This effect will this doctrine work in the elect” (Select Practical Writings of David Dickson, 1:95–96, 1845 ed.). Owen defends this use of the doctrine of election; it is not only to be preached to believers, he says, but “it hath its proper benefit and advantage toward others also” (3:603).
(2) The Puritans further used this doctrine in comforting awakened and distressed souls. “This doctrine” (of election), says Thomas Horton, “is a doctrine of comfort, as it takes all out of ourselves, and our own deservings. Doctrines of arrogance and presumption, they are for the most part doctrines of despair, because indeed they are such as will not hold out, nor support a man when he stands in greatest need of them. But doctrines of free-grace and favour, they are doctrines of special comfort and encouragement, because they reduce all to God, who is able to perform what he promises, and to do all that he undertakes.” Likewise Elnathan Parr, in his commentary on Romans, “This doctrine affords comfort: the unworthiness may dismay thee, but remember that thy election depends not upon thy worthiness but upon the will of God.” “Oh despise not election! therein lies all your hope, that there is a remnant who shall infallibly be saved” (Goodwin, 9:6).
(3) The pre-eminent use they made of this truth was in teaching believers their privilege and safety, and in instructing them in it as a foremost motive to holiness. “God maketh the consideration of his electing love, as free and undeserved, his principal argument to stir up the people unto holy obedience, Deuteronomy 7:6–8,11. And a supposition hereof lies at the bottom of that blessed exhortation of our apostle, Colossians 3:12–13, ‘Put on therefore, as the elect of God, holy and beloved, bowels of mercies, kindness, humbleness of mind . . .’ These things are required of them on the account of their interest in electing love and grace. Men may frame a holiness to themselves, and be stirred up unto it by motives of their own . . . , but that which the gospel requires is promoted on the grounds and by the motives that are peculiar unto it, whereof this of God’s free electing love and grace is among the principal” (Owen, 3:598). Not only is election a motive, it is also an indispensable encouragement to holiness. “The difficulties we meet withal in a course of holiness are great and many. Here Satan, the world, and sin, do put forth and try their utmost strength. Ofttimes the best are foiled, ofttimes discouraged, sometimes weary and ready to give over. It is no small relief herein, no small encouragement to continue in our progress, that the fountain of electing grace will never fail us, but continually give out supplies of spiritual strength and refreshment. Hence may we take heart and courage to rise again when we have been foiled . . . And they are unacquainted with a course of holy obedience who know not how needful this consideration is unto a comfortable continuance therein” (Owen, 3:601).
In conclusion it is necessary for us to note what relevance this great subject has to us and to the times in which we live. There can be few better ways of finding an explanation of the present low state of the visible church than reconsidering what was taught by God’s servants when this land enjoyed His favour three hundred years ago. When we make a study of the Puritans with this in mind, we cane to the startling and solemn conclusion that this doctrine of election which they considered to be vital and essential to the very existence of the gospel, has almost wholly disappeared in the past century. The denial and disappearance of this truth has been accompanied by a decay in godliness, and a decline in powerful preaching. Men and women no longer hearing that apostolic command to give all diligence to make their calling and election sure by observing all the holy duties recorded in God’s word (2 Peter 1:10), are content with a mere profession of faith. Carelessness has replaced seriousness, and carnal presumption a well-grounded assurance. A lack of the fear of God is betrayed by the neglect of those duties, such as secret prayer and family worship, which He has enjoined. These errors which the Puritans so faithfully and scripturally opposed have become almost universally accepted. Free-will teaching is dishonouring to Christ, whose office it is to teach His people and make them willing (John 17:6, Psalm 110:3), and offensive to the Spirit to whom is entrusted the application of the work of redemption. In the latter part of the seventeenth century some of the Puritans lived to see a similar withdrawal of the Spirit as we have experienced. John Owen accounted for the causes in one of his last and most important treatises, “The Nature and Causes of Apostasy from the Gospel.” Among the foremost causes he lists the denial of the sovereignty of God, and all that involves. For “the sovereignty of God,” writes Owen, “is the sole foundation of the covenant of grace and runs through the whole mystery of the Gospel. Thence proceedeth the incarnation of the Son of God . . . Thence was His substitution as the surety of the covenant in our stead. Eternal election flows from thence, and is regulated thereby, Romans 9:11,18; so doth effectual vocation, Matthew 11:25–26, and justification by faith. The like may be said of all other mysteries of the gospel. Love, grace, goodness, dispensed in a way of sovereign, unaccountable pleasure, are in them all proposed as the objects of our faith” (Works, 7:157). Surely such considerations as these must make it clear to us that we are living in days of apostasy from the truth, that this is the cause of the controversy which God has with us, and that our only hope of escaping those judgments which have swept many visible churches from the pages of history is the performance of that duty recorded in 2 Chronicles 15:12: “They entered into a covenant to seek the Lord God of their fathers with all their heart, and with all their soul.”