The political articles of the Confession touching the power of the civil magistrate and the relation of Church and State will be discussed hereafter (§ 97) in connection with the subject of religious toleration and the changes which have been introduced in later editions.
[1463] Dr. M'Crie (Annals, p. 177) asserts without proof that the 'Westm. Conf. bears unmistakably the stamp of the Dutch theology in the sharp distinctions, logical forms, and judicial terms into which the reformed doctrine had gradually moulded itself under the red heat of the Arminian and Socinian controversies.' This is an error if we look to the direct source. See below.
[1464] See pp. 658 and 662.
[1465] This agreement was first brought to light and set forth in detail by Prof. Mitchell, of St. Andrews, in the pamphlet above quoted, and also in the Introduction to the Minutes, p. xlvii.
[1466] Vol. II. p. 41.
[1467] The Lutheran symbols make no such distinction and give no list of the canonical books. They have no separate article on the Scriptures at all, beyond the important statement in the introduction to the Formula of Concord.
[1468] Thus we find that the Epistle to the Hebrews is named separately, and not included in 'fourteen Epistles of Paul,' as in the Belgic Confession. Canonicity is not necessarily dependent on a traditional view of authorship or genuineness.
[1469] Ch. I. 5: 'We may be moved and induced by the testimony of the Church to an high and reverent esteem of the Holy Scripture, and the heavenliness of the matter, the efficacy of the doctrine, the majesty of the style, the consent of all the parts, the scope of the whole (which is to give all glory to God), the full discovery it makes of the only way of man's salvation, the many other incomparable excellencies, and the entire perfection thereof, are arguments whereby it doth abundantly evidence itself to be the Word of God; yet, notwithstanding, our full persuasion and assurance of the infallible truth and divine authority thereof is from the inward work of the Holy Spirit, bearing witness by and with the Word in our hearts.'
[1470] While arguing against creeds and councils, Dean Stanley (in the Contemp. Rev. for Aug. 1874, p. 499) writes: 'Is there any single theological question which any council or synod has argued and decided with an ability equal to that of any of the great theologians, lay or clerical? The nearest approaches to it are the chapters on Justification in the Decrees of Trent, and on the Bible in the Westminster Confession.' Comp. also the remarks of Dr. Mitchell, Introd. to Minutes, p. xlix.
[1471] The English and Scotch editions use the singular, some American editions the plural (as in the Catechisms). There was a dispute in the Assembly about decree and decrees. Several members were opposed to dividing the one, all-comprehending decree of God. Seaman said: 'All the odious doctrine of the Arminians is from their distinguishing of the decrees, but our divines say they are one and the same decree.' Reynolds differed. See Minutes, p. 151. But both Catechisms in all editions have decrees (comprehended under the one purpose of God; see Shorter Catechism, Quest. 7).
[1472] The charge derives some plausibility from the fact that the supralapsarian Beza, by his Greek Testament and his Latin translation and notes, exerted a marked influence on the translators. It is supported chiefly by three passages. In Matt. xx. 23, the words 'it shall be given' are unnecessarily inserted (after the precedent of the Geneva version). In Acts ii. 47, we read, 'The Lord added to the Church such as should be saved,' instead of 'such as were being saved, or in the way of salvation' (tous sozomenous, not tous sothesomenous). In Heb. x. 38--'Now the just shall live by faith; but if any man draw back, my soul shall have no pleasure in him'--any man is inserted, with Beza ('si quis se subduxerit'), to distinguish the subject of huposteiletai from the dikaios of the first clause, and to evade an argument against the perseverance of saints. But the case here is doubtful.
[1473] See the comparative table, pp. 762, 768. Ussher adhered to his views on predestination, which he had expressed in the Irish Articles. In his 'Method of the Christian Religion,' written in his youth, but revised and republished shortly before his death, he has even a stronger passage on reprobation than the Westminster Confession, viz., 'Did God, then, before he made man, determine to save some and reject others? A. Yes, surely; before they had done either good or evil, God in his eternal counsel set some apart upon whom he would in time show the riches of his mercy, and determined to withhold the same from others, upon whom he would show the severity of his justice.' See Vol. XI. of his Works; and Mitchell, p. liv. note.
[1474] Bradwardine's treatise, De causa Dei adversus Pelagium, which leads even to supralapsarianism, was republished in London in 1618 by Archbishop Abbot, the Calvinistic predecessor of the anti Calvinistic Laud.
[1475] Ch. V. 4: 'God, being most holy and righteous, neither is nor can be the author or approver of sin.'
[1476] Calamy said, in a sermon before the House of Commons: 'It is most certain that God is not the cause of any man's damnation. He found us sinners in Adam, but made none sinners.' In the debate on redemption in the Assembly, he stated: 'I am far from universal redemption in the Arminian sense, but I hold with our divines in the Synod of Dort that Christ did pay a price for all, [with] absolute intention for the elect, [with] 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 obey.' . . . 'This universality of redemption does neither intrude upon either doctrine of special election or special grace' (Minutes, p. 152). 'The difference is not in the offer, but in the application. For the word world [in John iii. 16] signifies the whole world' (p. 156). 'It can not be meant of the elect because of that whosoever believeth, and Mark xvi., "Preach the Gospel to every creature"' (p. 154). 'In the point of election I am for special election, and for reprobation I am for massa corrupta; . . . there is ea administratio of grace to the reprobate that they do willfully damn themselves' (p. 153). Seaman said: 'All in the first Adam were made liable to damnation, so all are liable to salvation in the second Adam. Every man was damnnabilis, so is every man salvabilis' (p. 154). Dr. Mitchell (pp. lvi. sqq.) shows that Arrowsmith, Gataker, and other members of the Assembly, in their private writings, agreed with Calamy. His interpretation of kosmos, in John iii. 16, is indeed the only tenable one, and seems to be favored by the exegetical tact of Calvin himself (in loc.), for Calvin the exegete is more fair and free than Calvin the theologian. Dr. Arrowsmith, who was a member of the Committees on the Confession and on the Catechisms, in his explanation of Rom. ix. 22, 23, justly presses the important difference between the passive katertismena and the active proetoimasen 'I desire,' he says, 'to have it punctually observed that the vessels of wrath are only said to be fitted to destruction, without naming by whom--God, Satan, or themselves; whereas, on the other side, God himself is expressly said to have prepared his chosen vessels of mercy unto glory. Which was purposely done (as I humbly conceive) to intimate a remarkable difference between election and preterition, in that election is a proper cause not only of salvation itself, but of all the graces which have any causal tendency thereunto, and therefore God is said to prepare his elect to glory; whereas negative reprobation is no proper cause either of damnation itself or of the sin that bringeth it, but an antecedent only; wherefore the non-elect are indeed said to be fitted to that destruction which their sins in conclusion bring upon them, but not by God. I call it a remarkable difference, because where it is once rightly apprehended and truly believed, it sufficeth to stop the mouth of one of those greatest calumnies and odiums which are usually cast upon our doctrine of predestination, viz., that God made sundry of his creatures on purpose to damn them--a thing which the rhetoric of our adversaries is wont to blow up to the highest pitch of aggravation. But it is soon blown away by such as can tell them, in the words of the excellent Dr. Davenant, "It is true that the elect are severally created to the end and intent that they may be glorified together with their head, Christ Jesus; but for the non-elect, we can not truly say that they are created to the end that they may be tormented with the devil and his angels. No man is created by God with a nature and quality fitting him to damnation. Yea, neither in the state of his innocency nor in the state of the fall and his corruption doth he receive any thing from God which is a proper and fit means of bringing him to his damnation."'--Chain of Principles, pp. 335, 336, etc., edition 1659 (quoted by Mitchell, p. lxi.).
[1477] Comp. Ch. IX. 1: 'God hath endued the will of man with that natural liberty that it is neither forced, nor by any absolute necessity of nature determined, to good or evil (Matt. xvii. 12; Deut. xxx. 19).
[1478] The term atonement is not used in the Confession. The English Bible exceptionally renders Rom. v. 11, katallage (reconciliation), by atonement, which in its old sense (=at-one-ment) means reconciliation, but is now equivalent to expiation, satisfaction (hilasmos). Redemption (apolutrosis) is a wider term. This distinction should be kept in view in the explanation of the Confession.
[1479] Minutes, p. 153. The ablest modern defendants of a limited atonement, Drs. Cunningham and Hodge (see his Theology, Vol. II. pp. 544 sqq.), are as emphatic on the absolute sufficiency as Reynolds. Their arguments are chiefly logical; but logic depends on the premises, and is a two-edged sword which may be turned against them as well. For if the atonement be limited in design, it must be limited in the offer; or if unlimited in offer, the offer made to the non-elect must be insincere and hypocritical, which is inconsistent with the truthfulness and goodness of God. Every Calvinist preaches on the assumption that the offer of salvation is truly and sincerely extended to all his hearers, and that it is their own fault if they are not saved.
[1480] Compare the remarks of Mitchell, p. lvii., who considers the language of the Confession in Ch. III. compatible with the liberal view, while the other passage, strictly construed, excludes it, unless 'redemption' be there taken in the sense of Baxter, as meaning 'that special redemption proper to the elect which was accompanied with an intention of actual application of the saving benefits in time.' The difference of views came up again in the debate on the 68th question of the Larger Catechism. See Minutes, pp. 369, 392, 393.
[1481] See pp. 480 sqq.
[1482] Later federalists based the primitive covenant of works on Hos. vi. 7. See p. 484.
[1483] De substantia foederis gratuiti, etc. See a German version in Sudhoff's Olevianus und Ursinus (Elberfeld, 1857), pp. 573 sqq.
[1484] Coccejus, or Koch, was at first Professor in Bremen (his native place), then at Franeker, 1636, and last at Leyden, 1649, where he died, 1669. His chief work, Summa doctrinæ de foedere et testamento Dei, appeared in 1648 (a year after the Westminster Conf.) and again in 1653. It was the first attempt of a biblical and exegetical theology in distinction from the scholastic orthodoxy which then prevailed in Holland. Coccejus was denounced by the orthodox as a Judaizing and Pelagianizing heretic. Comp. the article Coccejus and his School, by Dr. Ebrard. in Herzog's Real-Encykl. Vol. II. pp. 742 sqq.