Reformed Orthodoxy in Scotland

Essays on Scottish Theology 1560-1775

Aaron Clay Denlinger

• Publisher: T&T Clark
• Year: 2014
• Print ISBN: 9780567669131
• eBook ISBN: 9780567612304
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Theology & Religion
• Subtopic: Christian Denominations

Recent decades have witnessed much scholarly reassessment of late-sixteenth through eighteenth-century Reformed theology. It was common to view the theology of this period-typically labelled 'orthodoxy'-as sterile, speculative, and rationalistic, and to represent it as significantly discontinuous with the more humanistic, practical, and biblical thought of the early reformers. Recent scholars have taken a more balanced approach, examining orthodoxy on its own terms and subsequently highlighting points of continuity between orthodoxy and both Reformation and pre-Reformation theologies, in terms of form as well as content. Until now Scottish theology and theologians have figured relatively minimally in works reassessing orthodoxy, and thus many of the older stereotypes concerning post-Reformation Reformed theology in a Scottish context persist. This collection of essays aims to redress that failure by purposely examining post-Reformation Scottish theology/theologians through a lens provided by the gains made in recent scholarly evaluations of Reformed orthodoxy, and by highlighting, in that process, the significant contribution which Scottish divines of the orthodox era made to Reformed theology as an international intellectual phenomenon.

Part 1

EARLY REFORMED ORTHODOXY (c. 1560–c. 1640)

Chapter 1

KNOX VERSUS THE KNOXIANS? PREDESTINATION IN JOHN KNOX AND SEVENTEENTH-CENTURY FEDERAL THEOLOGY

Donald John MacLean

‘[T]here is no doubt that John Knox made a unique contribution to the character and shape of the theology of the Reformed Church of Scotland’.¹ When explicating the exact nature of Knox’s theology, however, differences among scholars soon emerge. Those studying his doctrine of predestination face two significant challenges in particular.² The first might be called the question of ‘Knox versus Knox’. The question is this: is the doctrine of predestination outlined in his treatise On Predestination consistent with the teaching discovered in Knox’s other writings?³ Dissonance in Knox’s writings on predestination has been posited by Charles Bell, who suggests that the Scottish reformer limited the extent of God’s love to the elect and held that God has not willed the salvation of all in On Predestination, but affirmed the universal character of God’s love in Christ and named Christ as the saviour of the world who, by his death, achieved reconciliation for all in statements scattered throughout his other works.⁴ According to Bell there were, then, two John Knoxes: Knox the reformer and preacher on one hand; on the other, Knox the author of On Predestination.

There is, secondly, the issue of the reception of Knox’s teaching on predestination, particularly among the seventeenth-century ‘federal’ theologians. Much recent scholarship concerning theological development during the ‘long Scottish Reformation’ has argued that as Scottish theology matured after the Reformation, ‘a bifurcation developed between evangelical and rationalist forms of Calvinism’.⁵ This supposed ‘bifurcation’ is evident ‘in the difference between the federal Calvinism of Samuel Rutherford, George Gillespie (of Greyfriars and St Giles, Edinburgh), David Dickson (sometime Professor of Divinity at Edinburgh) and James Durham, and the teaching of Calvin and the Scots Confession’.⁶ Such a view represents the application of what has been termed the ‘Calvin versus the Calvinists’ interpretative thesis to historical perspective on the development of Scottish theology, and could perhaps be titled the ‘Knox versus the Knoxians’ thesis. There has been much debate in recent decades regarding the issue of continuity between the early reformers (especially Calvin) and later Reformed orthodox divines, but Scottish theologians and theology have rarely been the focus of such discussion. Fresh attention, therefore, should be given to the reception of Knox’s teaching by his successors.

There are, then, two questions to be faced regarding Knox and his doctrine of predestination: first, is the Knox of On Predestination the real John Knox? And second, how was (or were) Knox’s doctrine (or doctrines) of predestination received by later Scottish theologians, particularly by the covenantal or federal theologians who participated in the Westminster Assembly and their contemporaries? In this essay these questions will be considered in turn.

On Predestination and the ‘Real’ John Knox

As noted above, Charles Bell has argued that the doctrine expressed in the treatise On Predestination does not match the theology of Knox’s other writings. Knox himself, according to Bell’s interpretation, constitutes the first ‘Knoxian’ to depart substantially from Knox’s own teaching on predestination. Bell is not alone in advancing this claim. Richard Greaves similarly raises doubts about whether On Predestination ‘represented either [Knox’s] inmost convictions or the teaching he expressed to his congregations’.⁷ In an essay exploring Knox’s treatment by modern historians James Kirk draws attention to the commonplace view that Knox ‘wrote a “dreary” book on predestination but supposedly did not really believe what he wrote’.⁸ Further instances of such a reading of Knox could be noted.⁹

The Case for Two John Knoxes

From one perspective there is much to commend the thesis that Knox’s treatise sits uncomfortably with the rest of his corpus. There is, rather obviously, the a-typicality of the work itself.¹⁰ Its length alone is unusual, running to an estimated 170,000 words. Further, it is the only sustained theological treatise he produced of this nature, and it certainly gives a prominence to predestination not found elsewhere in his writings.

But the uniqueness of this treatise should not be overstated. Andrew Woolsey attributes its singularity to Knox’s lack of time for writing. The pressing political and ecclesiastical needs of the day demanded his attention and he was therefore unable to produce more works of this nature.¹¹ In any case, it is questionable how much credit should be given to Knox’s sustained portrait of himself as a ‘painful preacher of … [the] blessed Evangel’ rather than a theologian.¹² Preachers, after all, have a profoundly theological message to convey. Torrance correctly comments that Knox ‘could not help being a theologian in the fulfilment of his vocation’.¹³ Knox, to be sure, repudiated himself as a writer, claiming a preference to use his ‘tong and livelye voice’ than to ‘compose bokes for the age to come’.¹⁴ Yet, as Farrow notes, ‘no British reformer of that period published so much in the vernacular’.¹⁵ Knox, despite his protestations, then, was both a theologian and writer, and should be considered as such.

It has also been argued that the specific form of On Predestination makes it unlikely to represent Knox’s balanced understanding. Those who make this assertion correctly observe that On Predestination is not a systematic statement of Knox’s views in a format of his choosing.¹⁶ Rather, it is a point-by-point rebuttal of an anonymously published book whose ‘manifest blasphemies’ so provoked Knox that when combined with ‘the earnest request of some godlie Breathren’ he felt compelled to reply.¹⁷ Knox, then, did not author a calmly considered dogmatic treatise; it was a fiercely polemical response to perceived error.¹⁸ He approached his task by quoting his opponent’s work extract by extract, and refuting every assertion. The effect of this method should be acknowledged; Knox himself stated that he had to ‘repeat [himself] oftner than [he] would’.¹⁹ It is not possible, of course, to reconstruct the form in which Knox would have cast the doctrine of predestination if left to his own devices, or to see where he would have placed his own emphases. The exegesis of Scripture he presents will also undoubtedly have been shaped to a degree by the adversarial manner of his treatise.²⁰ Context, for the theologian as well as others, often determines what it is prudent to say. Thus, there is some truth to the suggestion that care must be exercised in automatically assuming On Predestination represents Knox’s definitive word on the subject.

Moreover, it can be argued with some plausibility that Knox’s principal motivation for penning On Predestination was not a simple desire to vindicate truth, but rather a wish to restore himself to favour with John Calvin.²¹ Knox’s 1558 First Blast of the Trumpet Against the Monstrous Regiment of Women did not meet with approval in Geneva. Calvin regarded the publication of Knox’s views ‘an evil which could not be redressed’, which ‘had better be hushed up than publicly canvassed’.²² On Predestination, published only two years later, contains repeated expressions of appreciation for Calvin.²³ So, for instance, Knox begins his treatise by asserting that ‘we dissent not from the judgment of the reverend servant of Jesus Christ, John Calvin’.²⁴ However, the likely truth that Knox sought Calvin’s approval in his work on predestination need not imply that the views expressed by Knox in this work were not sincere. Seeking Calvin’s approval and presenting an honest articulation of his beliefs on predestination need not have been mutually exclusive tasks for Knox.

The Case for One John Knox

Several factors indicate that Knox’s views on predestination were in fact in line with On Predestination. These must now be considered.

Predestination in Knox’s Writings before 1559

A survey of Knox’s references to predestination in writings prior to 1559 suggests that the views expressed in On Predestination were consistent with his understanding of that doctrine more generally. In his 1552 ‘Epistle to the Congregation of Berwick’ Knox states that there is no ‘other cause moving God to elect and choose us than his own infinite goodness and mere mercy’, thereby affirming the unconditional nature of election.²⁵ His 1554 ‘An Exposition Upon the Sixth Psalm of David Addressed to Mrs Bowes’ affirms the certainty of the perseverance of the saints, noting that God’s elect can be sure that is it ‘impossible’ that God ‘shal leave his chosen’.²⁶ Indeed whatever difficulties God’s chosen encounter in life, Knox wrote, there was ‘that leag [covenant] and felowschip that is betuene God and his elect’ which remains sure.²⁷ There are also references to the reprobate in this work, although Knox does not present a detailed doctrine of reprobation.²⁸ Knox’s 1554 ‘Comfortable Epistles to His Afflicted Brethren in England’ taught that God’s dealings in the world included the purpose to ‘suffre the reprobate to declare their owne impenitencie before the world’.²⁹ His ‘Faithful Admonition to the Professors of God’s Truth in England’, also from 1554, was replete with references to election.³⁰ This same work articulated a stronger doctrine of reprobation. To the reprobate, Knox writes, the gospel was always a ‘very messenger of death’.³¹ The elect, by way of contrast, were ‘appointed to lyfe’ and drawn to God through his word.³² Knox’s interest in election is also evident in his letters during this time (1553–4) to Elizabeth and Marjorie Bowes. These letters are largely pastoral and focused on convincing Elizabeth that she had no reason to doubt her election.³³ In a letter dated 26 February 1553 Knox writes that ‘For sic as be reprobate can never love God, nor the memberis of Chrystis bodie’, indicating again that a robust doctrine of reprobation was present in this thought well before 1559.³⁴

Knox’s writings in 1555 and 1556 indicate a continued, but largely practical, interest in election and reprobation, with the certainty of the saints’ perseverance as a significant theme.³⁵ His 1557 letter ‘To His Brethren in Scotland’ is noteworthy for its clear articulation of a doctrine of double predestination. He condemns the ‘sect’ of the Anabaptists for holding that ‘everie man may elect or reprobat himself be his awn frie will’.³⁶ This was to teach ‘the rottin heresies of Arius and Pelagius’ and to ‘to destroy and call in dout his hale Godheid’, because to question God’s free sovereign election and reprobation was in effect to say he ‘lackit … wisdome and frie regiment’.³⁷ Knox’s latest writing’s prior to the publication of On Predestination evidence continued interest in this doctrine.³⁸

Thus, it c...

Table of contents

• FC
• Half Title
• Title Page
• Toc
• Acknowledgements
• Abbreviations
• List of Contributors
• Introduction
• Part 1: Early Reformed Orthodoxy (c. 1560–c. 1640)
• Part 2: High Reformed Orthodoxy (c. 1640–c. 1690)
• Part 3: Late Reformed Orthodoxy (c. 1690 Onwards)
• Bibliography
• Index
• Copyright Page