From Dogma To Practice: Systematic Theology And Application In The Sermons Of The Scottish Commissioners To The Westminster Assembly

By Breno Macedo

[Breno Macedo is a teaching elder in the Presbyterian Church of Brazil (IPB). He serves as Assistant Pastor at First Presbyterian Church in Teresina, Brazil, and is Professor of Historical Theology and Homiletics at the Presbyterian Seminary in Teresina.]

Many still tremble when they hear the term Reformed orthodoxy. This reaction, far from being positive, expresses the reproof and rejection that some scholars nurture for the theological works produced from the late sixteenth century to the beginning of the seventeenth century.[1] These scholars’ reproof has probably best been described by Richard Muller, who writes that “protestant orthodoxy has, in general, been declared ‘rigid,’ ‘dry,’ and ‘dead.’ Reformed orthodoxy in particular has been accused of being ‘speculative’ and ‘metaphysical,’ ‘decretal,’ ‘predestinarian,’ and ‘legalistic.’ It is said to deduce entire systems of theology from the central dogma of an eternal divine decree—and to draw its principles entirely from Aristotle. It is called by turns ‘biblicist’ and ‘proof-texting,’ or ‘rationalistic’ and ‘philosophical.’”[2] It would seem obvious that a theological tradition with so many negative characteristics is unlikely to draw much attention to the works produced by its proponents.

Surprisingly, recent studies have turned the tables. Muller himself, along with many other able scholars, has demonstrated that instead of distancing themselves from the theology and principles of the Reformation, especially as articulated by John Calvin, the theologians who came after Calvin maintained the same principles and kept in line with the same thought.[3] This continuity between the thought of the Reformation and that of the post-Reformation was demonstrated, in general, through the analysis and study of the dogmatic works produced during both eras. It was particularly through the comparison and contrast of their systematic theologies that the similarities of ideas and differences of focus were detected and identified. But while the highly elaborated theological treatises were examined, the more practical and pastoral works were not so much investigated. Mark Beach rightly observes that there remains “a rich field awaiting further exploration … in how the Reformed orthodox engaged in the practical labor of ministry—especially catechesis and homilesis.”[4]

This article aims to contribute to the “mining” of this rich field in search of those “golden nuggets” that reveal the theology produced by Reformed orthodoxy to be formulated for the instruction and practice of the Christian minds and hearts sitting in the pew. This article will attempt to show that the highly elaborate and technical theological treatises that marked this period were translated through the pulpit to the ears of the less theologically astute in a way that was consistent with the treatises but in simple and practical form. In order to demonstrate this kind of preaching, I will examine sermons preached during the meetings of the Westminster Assembly before the English House of Lords by two Scottish commissioners, Alexander Henderson and Samuel Rutherford. This study is particularly relevant because it seeks to demonstrate how such eminent and learned men, who contributed to such a complex document as the Westminster Standards, moved from dogma to practice. As Robert L. Dabney once said, “Had we no histories of its members, and no record of its discussions, the contents of the Confession itself are enough to teach us that those profound and illustrious scholars were enriched with all the stores of sacred learning gathered from previous ages, and culminating in their epoch.”[5] But did they make such marvelous and complex learning accessible to simpler minds? How did they accomplish such a challenging task?[6]

In terms of method, this article will seek to identify the dogmatic loci present in the sermons. It will explore how the dogma was presented and what level of detail and minutia the divines used in their approach to preaching doctrine. Next it will compare the dogma exposed in the sermon with the formulation of the same dogma in the Westminster Standards, aiming to determine how much of the official teaching of the assembly was present in the sermon. Finally, it will analyze the transition from dogma to practice and experience, aiming to determine if the divines were true to the meaning of the doctrine. It will be concluded that the Reformed orthodox theologians were not afraid of using their highly systematized doctrine in the pulpit. It was precisely the accuracy in definitions, the preciseness of the language, that made post-Reformation preachers so effective and pointed in their application.7

I. Dogma And Practice In Alexander Henderson

We begin this investigation of how highly systematized dogma is reflected in the practical and experimental level by examining a sermon preached by Alexander Henderson on May 28, 1645. This was a day appointed for solemn and public humiliation, and Henderson’s sermon was an exposition of John 18:36–37. Henderson wrote a brief introduction to the sermon in which he revealed the subject of his exposition, “the kingdom of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.”8 Right in the introduction the reader’s expectations are raised in regard to the applicatory and experimental nature of the sermon. Henderson points to several practical deficiencies caused by disregard for the doctrine of Christ’s kingly office. He affirms,

It has been of old and is at this day a just complaint, that of the offices of Christ, his kingdom is least considered of, and most mistaken; which as it is dishonor to his name, so is it a mighty hindrance of the comfort of some, to the sanctification of others, and to the salvation of many, and is a main cause of the many disorders and scandals in the Church of Christ.[9]

He emphasizes this point by explaining that some teachers of theology are content to have Christ as a prophet for their instruction and as a priest for their satisfaction and intercession before the Father, but they “are not willing to serve Christ as their king, that he may rule over them.”[10]

1. Doctrinal Elements In Henderson’s Sermon

From John’s verses Henderson extracts four points which are the main headings of his sermon: the dominion and sovereignty of Christ, the condition and quality of the kingdom of Christ, the end and use of Christ’s kingdom, and the subjects of the kingdom.[11] Henderson uses the first two headings to explain the first sentence Christ spoke to Pilate, “My kingdom is not of this world.” In the first heading he focuses only on the expression “my kingdom” and infers from it that Christ does have a kingdom and that therefore he is a king. This, then, becomes the perfect moment to explain how Christ functions as a king. “As our supreme Lord and King,” Henderson affirms, “by his mighty power and sovereignty, he rules in us and over us, and conserves and maintains our blessed estate thus revealed and purchased, against all enemies.”[12]

Henderson supports this description of Christ as king with four reasons.[13] He points first to the honorific titles that are used to address Christ in the Scriptures, titles such as “king of kings,” “lord of lords,” and “prince of the kings of the earth,” among others. These titles, according to Henderson, find in Christ their most eminent fulfillment both positively and negatively. Christ is the most powerful of the kings, his rule is the most supreme and sovereign, and none of the imperfections and infirmities of earthly kings are present in him. The second reason consists of the promises and prophecies about King Jesus present in the writings of the OT. The third reason is the obvious and clear execution of his office which he carries out “in giving laws unto his people, and executing them, in giving gifts unto his servants for the good of his people, in ruling his people by his Word and Spirit, in defending and delivering them from their enemies, and in subduing and destroying their enemies in the end.”[14] The fourth and last reason is the glory, honor, and worship that the entire church gives to him.

Having developed Christ’s kingship, Henderson moves on to describe the qualities of Christ’s kingdom as the fulcrum of his sermon’s second main heading. His emphasis here is on the spirituality of Christ’s kingdom: “His kingdom is not of this world; it is not an earthly or worldly kingdom, and therefore by consequence must be a spiritual and heavenly kingdom.”[15] Henderson mentions several similarities between Christ’s spiritual kingdom and earthly kingdoms in general: both belong to God, both are for God’s glory, both are for the good of the people, both have laws to govern them, and both have their particular enemies.[16] Nonetheless, that the kingdom of Christ is not of this world is perceived when one pays attention to its particular and unique characteristics. Earthly kingdoms are temporal; once these kingdoms are established people speculate about their duration, and at some point they come to a tragic end. “But the kingdom of Christ shall not be destroyed forever.” Kingdoms of this world are ruled by human laws and policies; “but the kingdom of Christ, by the law of another kind, by the simplicity of the gospel, which to the natural man is foolishness.” Henderson pushes the differences between Christ’s kingdom and material kingdoms to a climactic end in a beautiful rhetorical way: “The kingdoms of the world consist in riches, honor, power of men, external splendor, and earthly greatness, but in the kingdom of Christ, poverty and humility triumph over the world, under the standard of the cross. The kingdoms of the world have carnal weapons and strength of arms to pursue their ends, but the weapons of the kingdom of Christ are spiritual, to procure spiritual obedience unto him.”[17]

The differences between these two kingdoms lead Henderson to draw some conclusions regarding the government of the church. “We are to distinguish between that which is of this world, and that which is external and visible in this world.”[18] Henderson makes a clear reference to the church as the temporal and material administration of Christ’s spiritual kingdom. In this world, Christ’s kingdom becomes visible through the ministry of the church. The administration of church ordinances is an evidence of Christ’s spiritual rule of his kingdom. The selection and installation of church officers is a visible fruit of the inward work of Christ’s Spirit making man to perform this ministry and to care for the kingdom of heaven. In Henderson’s words,

This part of the administration of Christ’s kingdom, although it be external, yet it is not of this world, but spiritual, for it comes from the Spirit, and is done by the gifts of the Spirit. The Word and sacraments, which are the matter of it, are things spiritual; for the manner of doing it is by the evidence of the Spirit; the spirits and souls of men are the object of it; the end thereof is spiritual edification, and the effect the ministry of the Spirit. So that in this respect also, the kingdom of Christ is not of this world, but a spiritual kingdom in both parts of the administration thereof.[19]

Thus, Henderson characterizes the church as the visible manifestation of the kingdom of Christ, a kingdom completely separated from the domain of earthly rulers, governed only by God’s word and his Spirit.

2. Henderson’s Dogmatics In Light Of The Westminster Standards

The Westminster Confession of Faith (WCF) and Catechisms contain a detailed and theologically mature chapter on Christology. In the confession, this doctrine is found particularly in Chapter 8 entitled “Of Christ the Mediator.” In the Shorter Catechism (WSC) this doctrine is explained in Questions 21–28, and in the Larger Catechism (WLC) it is present in Questions 36–57.[20] Apparently the assembly debated the questions of the WLC regarding Christology around May 1647, and these discussions were not free of controversy.[21] But as early as March 1645, two months before Henderson delivered his sermon before the House of Lords, the assembly was already involved in debating the kingly office of Christ.[22] It seems safe to assume that Henderson’s sermon was at least informed by the debates and expressed the theology agreed on in the assembly after the sessions.[23] In the theological system of the assembly, the doctrine of Christ flows from the doctrine of God’s covenant with man, for “the only mediator of the covenant of grace is the Lord Jesus Christ” (WLC Q. 36).[24]

It also involves aspects of ecclesiology since the mediator was called Christ, a name that expresses his being “fully furnished with all authority and ability to execute the Offices of Prophet, Priest, and King of his Church (WLC Q. 42).[25] It seems, therefore, more than natural that Henderson found the opportunity to approach both Christology and ecclesiology in his sermon.

The confession teaches that Jesus was appointed by God “to be the Mediator between God and Man; the Prophet, Priest, and King, the Head, and Saviour of His Church, the Heir of all things, the Judge of the World (WCF 8.1).[26] According to this document, Christ’s office is that of a mediator and surety. It does not apply the category of office to the titles prophet, priest, and king. On the other hand, the WLC uses the title mediator as a reference to the manifestation of God’s grace in the post-lapsarian covenant but does not classify it as an office; under this category the catechism places the triple titles previously mentioned (WLC Q. 42; cf. WCF 8.3, 4). It seems that here the assembly made an inconsistent and confusing use of the office category. David Dickson, in his famous commentary on the confession, is not of much help in understanding the assembly’s thought here since he creates a different category, considering Christ’s mediation as a work and not as an office. On the other hand, he labels as office Christ’s triple titles.[27] It is important to note, nevertheless, that he makes a distinction of categories. Apparently A. A. Hodge noticed this problem of categories in the Westminster Standards and attempted to clarify it. According to him, to be the mediator is the office while to be prophet, priest, and king are functions one executes in the exercise of the office. In his words, “Hence, the mediatorial office involves all the three great functions of prophet, priest and king, and Christ discharged them all, both in his estate of humiliation and exaltation. These are not three distinct offices meeting accidentally in one office, but three functions inhering essentially in the one office of mediator. And they each so belong to the very essence of the office that the quality peculiar to each gives character to every mediatorial action.”[28]

The confession does not explain in detail the functions of the mediator, but the catechisms do. The WLC deals particularly with Christ’s kingly function in Q. 45, and the WSC in Q. 26. This last text bears a remarkable resemblance to Henderson’s words in his sermon. It affirms that “Christ executeth the office of a king, in subduing us to himself, in ruling and defending us, and in restraining and conquering all his and our enemies.”[29] Out of the four reasons Henderson used to support his statement about Christ’s function as king, three could be supported through the proof texts in the WSC, although he himself does not care to support them. Isaiah 32:1–2 is one of the OT prophetic promises of the coming Messiah. Isaiah 33:22 depicts the Lord as a law giver. Psalm 110:3 depicts the people of the promised king living under his rule and participating in his government. Henderson seems to support his statement with the central idea of certain biblical texts, although he does not explicitly mention them.[30]

Henderson’s ecclesiological views are also in line with the theology of the Westminster Symbols. Henderson’s recognition of the universal rule of Christ while having the focus of his government over the church finds clear support in the text of the WLC Q. 45, which affirms that “Christ executeth the office of a king, in calling out of the world a people to himself, and giving them officers, laws, and censures, by which he visibly governs them.” Thomas Ridgley’s comments on this question are particularly helpful. He affirms that the “divines generally distinguish his [Christ’s] kingdom into that which is natural, and that which is Mediatorial.” He further explains that the first is that which is naturally his due to his deity, the second is his due to his Father’s commission.[31] That the church is the visible manifestation of Christ’s kingdom is completely in line with the confession when it affirms that

the visible church, which is also catholic or universal under the Gospel (not confined to one nation as before under the law), consists of all those throughout the world that profess the true religion, and of their children, and is the kingdom of the Lord Jesus Christ, the house and family of God, out of which there is no ordinary possibility of salvation. (WCF 25.2)[32]

Commenting on this section, Hodge explains that “this visible Church is called ‘the kingdom of heaven’ on the earth, and its nature and progress are set forth in the parables of the ‘sower of the seed,’ the ‘field and the tares,’ the ‘mustard seed,’ the ‘leaven,’ the ‘net which was cast into the sea and gathered fish of every kind,’ etc.”[33]

In regard to the spirituality of the church and of the total separation of its government from the earthly government of worldly kingdoms, Henderson’s teachings are in complete harmony with the confession which affirms that “the Lord Jesus, as king and head of His Church, hath therein appointed a government, in the hand of Church officers, distinct from the civil magistrate” (WCF 30.1).[34] The confession thus makes a complete separation between church and state, avoiding any intervention or intrusion from civil authorities, and making Christ’s kingdom completely spiritual. Robert Shaw’s comments on this chapter of the confession are most valuable. He, using the same text Henderson used in his sermon, draws the exact same truth preached by the old Scottish divine. He affirms that “that remarkable declaration of Christ, ‘My kingdom is not of this world,’ plainly shows that his kingdom, though in this world, is totally and specifically distinct from all others in it; and when he forbade the exercise of such dominion over his subjects as the kings of the Gentiles exercised, the different nature of the government to take place in it was clearly pointed out.”[35]

Therefore, Henderson’s sermon on Christ’s kingly office and his kingdom “prophetically” expressed in full in 1645 what would be the official position of the assembly by the end of that decade. It does so in a simple and persuasive manner, fit for the pulpit, shining light onto complicated matters of theology and educating his hearers on important issues of dogmatics.

3. From Dogma To Practice In Henderson’s Sermon

After explaining the doctrines of the text, Henderson moves to their practical and experimental applications. He leaves all his applications to the end of the sermon. It is very important to note how crucial this part of the sermon was for him. Suppose for the sake of argument that the printed sermon represented the manuscript Henderson took into the pulpit. There are thirty-three pages total in the edition and format consulted, of which twenty-two are totally dedicated to application. In other words, Henderson used over 65 percent of his time in the pulpit to draw the doctrine he had explained into the hearts, consciences, and lives of his listeners. One can only conclude that Henderson held application in very high regard. He draws five applications from the text: two are dedicated to issues of church polity and the relationship between church and state; the last three are intended for the Christian life in the different spheres.

In the applications regarding church and state relations, Henderson seeks to emphasize the separation between each institution while preserving their harmonious and parallel functions. Both institutions are divinely appointed and they have some overlapping characteristics. “There is nothing so ecclesiastical,” he says, “but it belongs some way to the magistrate, he being keeper of both tables, nor is there anything so secular, but it concerns the ministry, in so far as secular things fall under obedience or disobedience to God.”[36] They must, therefore, coexist harmoniously and cooperatively. In light of this, Henderson moves to some exhortations regarding the responsibility the state has in seeking the preservation and reformation of the church. This involves resistance to the pope and to his claims of authority over temporal affairs. In this way, Henderson finds room to reprove kings who do not rebel against papal authority, civil authorities who procrastinate in the pursuit of the reformation of the church in those places where the Roman pontiff does not have authority, and those who want to replace the pope with the state. This last group, which he sees as proponents of a “new papacy,” he identifies with strong and convicting language as “court-parasites,” “politicians,” “enemies of the kingdom of Christ,” who “would introduce into the reformed churches, ascribing to the highest civil authority, or to the supreme magistrate, the same place in the reformed church within his dominion, that the pope has in the Roman church, and making him head of the church, by which the pope is changed, but not the papacy, the dominator but not the domination.”[37]

The three last applications regard the relationship between Henderson’s hearers and Christ’s kingship and his kingdom. First, Henderson focuses on those who oppose Christ’s rule either openly or secretly. He affirms that this resistance is the fruit of a heart that rejects Christ’s spiritual kingdom and falls into Satan’s temptation to love this present world and earthly kingdoms. The root of this sin is in the heart and simply expresses one’s love for the things of this world. Henderson warns,

If men might be pleased to examine themselves narrowly, and descend into their own hearts, they would find that their hearts deceive them, and while they seem to others and to themselves to be despisers of the world, they are either by covetousness or vain-glory, or love of carnal liberty, or some other tie, entangled and kept fast by the world, and are either, directly or indirectly, drawn to oppose the kingdom of Christ.[38]

Instead of loving the world, man must love the spiritual kingdom of Christ. Because they know such a kingdom exists, it is their duty to know more about this kingdom. They must seek active participation and membership in Christ’s kingdom, acknowledging their fallen state, recognizing Christ as their king, and sacrificing themselves for his sake. They must also seek the advance and establishment of Christ’s kingdom.[39] Henderson concludes his sermon with a word of consolation. If one is truly under the rule of Christ and bows to his royal position, this is a matter of great comfort to his soul. First, in spite of all the present difficulties and struggles, ultimately Christ reigns as absolute king. No one can remove him from his seat, and he will bring all under subjection to him. Second, because he is king he is bound by office to protect and bring salvation unto all those under his rule. “Because his is the kingdom, he is bound by right to fight for, to defend, and to deliver his own subjects that are fighting for his kingdom. His is power in heaven and on earth, over angels, over devils, over armies of men, and over all creatures. And his is the glory; the honor of his own actions will return upon himself.”[40] It is not only Christ’s obligation to save his people; it is also an ability that he, and only he, has.

II. Dogma And Practice In Samuel Rutherford

Another Scottish commissioner who preached during the Westminster Assembly was Samuel Rutherford.[41] The sermon selected for this study was that preached before the House of Lords on June 15, 1645, almost a month after Alexander Henderson preached his sermon to the same group. Rutherford’s approach to preaching, at least in this sermon, is quite different from Henderson’s. Instead of using a verse from which to bring out topical subjects, he uses a more expository approach in which an entire pericope is explained and the exegetical details of the passage are explored. During his sermon, Rutherford makes extensive reference and usage of the original biblical languages and expresses his rich scholarship making use of Aristotle and Thomas Aquinas. The passage preached is Luke 8:22–25, the famous narrative of Jesus calming a storm, and Rutherford also refers to the parallel passages in Mark 4:38–40 and Matt 8:26. It is also worth noting the use of allegory in his sermon. Rutherford considers the boat and the storm as representations of the church and of her struggles while living in a fallen world.

1. Doctrinal Elements In Rutherford’s Sermon

Rutherford divides this passage into six particular ideas: (1) Christ’s going on a sea journey, (2) the condition of the ship and of the crew, (3) the disciples’ attitude amidst danger, (4) Christ’s response to the disciples’ behavior, (5) Christ’s rebuking of the storm, and (6) the effect of the miracle upon the crew. While all of these points or headings are very textual, they do not clearly express any dogmatic loci; but as he develops them, Rutherford formulates his systematic theology.

On the second heading, for example, Rutherford uses his allegory of the storm as the struggles of the church in order to explain his views on providence. He affirms that “Christ, his ship, his Church, and the passengers have in their sailing more than ordinary storms.”[42] He goes on to explain the relationship between believers, suffering, and God. He demonstrates from the Scriptures that suffering is a characteristic of the Christian life. He points to Job’s experience, to the testimony of the book of Psalms and of the prophets (Ps 102:3–5; Ezek 3:10), and to the experience and teaching of the NT apostles (1 Cor 4:9; Heb 11:35–37) to support his assertion. This suffering comes from the hands of God, affirms Rutherford, because of his displeasure toward the sins of his own people, but it is very different from that displeasure that God has against unbelievers.

The reason of the Lord’s so dealing is, 1. God declares himself more impatient of sin in his own children than in the wicked. I mean of God’s impatience evangelic, in regard that it is a sin of higher ingratitude to sin against: (1) the Gospel; (2) Illumination; (3) And the mercy of regeneration than to sin against the Law, and common favors and gifts; though God’s legal impatience in regard of revenging justice be far more against the sins of the wicked, than against sins of believers, it being an act of vengeance which God cannot exercise towards believers.[43]

Thus, Rutherford organizes the way in which God administers affliction into two categories: evangelic and legal. The sufferings of the saints are a fruit of God’s design and are under his control. They are different from the sufferings of unbelievers in that for them they are not demonstrations of God’s love and care towards them. Rutherford also affirms that these sufferings are temporary and they are not to be compared to the torments unbelievers will experience in hell. “The sufferings of the saints in this life is their whole hell,” he affirms.[44] Christians should not try to understand God’s plans, for their ultimate purpose is hidden from them. “God’s deep counsels work underboard; providence is a great mystery.… The end, cujus gratia, which seasons God’s works with wisdom and grace, is unseen. Honey is sweet, but tasting only discerns it. Neither eye can see it, nor ear can hear of it; our senses cannot reach the reason of his counsel, who will have the godly plague every morning [Ps 73:14].”[45]

Still under this heading, Rutherford finds opportunity to discourse on the humanity of Christ. Considering the portion of the narrative in which Christ is described as sleeping, he teaches that Christ embraced in his divinity a true human nature. This embracement of fleshly frailty, explains Rutherford, is the greatest demonstration of God’s love toward humanity. He says, “How then can God sleep? He that is in one person God-man can sleep. (1) Because in this rare piece of redemption, Christ-God took all our infirmities on him, except sin; as he took our nature, so he took our condition and place, to express the depth of the love of God to mankind; the lower and baser our glorious redeemer was, it has the greater impression of love.”[46] Christ’s humanity is not only a demonstration of love towards sinful man, but it is a necessary element for the redemption of sinners. Salvation required a sacrifice that no mere creature, either of the material world or of the spiritual world, could offer. “Man as man is but a creature, and all the angels could not endure the infinite wrath of God, and therefore God must be in this play, unless all had been marred.”47 Therefore, Christ, the God-man, took upon his divine person a human nature so that the infinite wrath of God could be satisfied by the infinite merit of his divine sacrifice, something that no mere creature could do even if God had bestowed upon it supernatural powers and abilities. “But here [in Christ] all strength, and which is more all worth and merit of suffering came from the Godhead.”[48]

2. Rutherford’s Dogmatics In Light Of The Westminster Standards

The assembly’s position regarding the providence of God can be found in WCF 5. It seems that the assembly of divines debated this chapter, along with other subjects, from July 16 to December 2, 1645.[49] Of particular interest in regard to Rutherford’s doctrinal statements are sections 4–7. WCF 5.1, along with WLC Q. 18 and WSC Q. 11, teaches that by providence it means God’s absolute control of his creation and particularly of his rational creatures and their actions. This is clearly understood from the plain reading of its text.[50] This statement raises the thorny question of the relation between God and evil. This issue is addressed in 5.4 in which, while not explaining precisely the relationship and how exactly one harmonizes God’s holy providence with the appearance of sin, the confession affirms that God’s providence involves even the fall of rational creatures “and that not by a bare permission, but such as hath joined with it a most wise and powerful bounding, and otherwise ordering, and governing of them, in a manifold dispensation, to his own holy ends.” At the same time sinfulness itself is only to be attributed to the creation and not to the creator, and therefore God “neither is nor can be the author or approver of sin.” In spite of the clarity of its language, the confession does not attempt to solve this apparent paradox but only attempts to establish that nothing, even the worst things, escapes the rule and government of God. As Robert Shaw in commenting on this section concludes, “The full elucidation of this abstruse subject, so as to remove every difficulty, surpasses the human faculties. We are certain that God is concerned in all the action of his creation; we are equally certain that God cannot be the author of sin; and here we ought to rest.”[51]

This paves the way to deal with the issue of difficulties and struggles in the Christian life. The confession deals with this subject in the next paragraph, 5.5. It approaches an issue which became known as spiritual desertion and further develops it in Chapter 12 in reference to assurance of salvation.[52] The confession teaches that believers are sometimes left for a specific period of time to many temptations and to the sinfulness of their own hearts. These seasons, nevertheless, are under God’s control and they serve several godly purposes including chastisement, self-awareness, humbleness, dependence, and watchfulness. According to Hodge, this section teaches that “hence in the way of discipline for their own good, to mortify their sins and to strengthen their graces, God does often wisely and graciously, though never finally, for a season and to a degree, withdraw his spiritual influences from his own children, and ‘leave them to the manifold temptations and corruptions of their own hearts.’”[53] Thus the assembly, in harmony with Rutherford, affirms that God is behind the sufferings of his people. And what a comforting assurance this is! As Edward Morris wrote, this section “is a beautiful description … of the tender ministries of God by his providence toward his own children by grace.”[54]

The confession also teaches that the divine providence that determines and controls the adversities in the life of believers is the same that withholds divine grace, withdraws gifts, and leaves unbelievers to their own corruptions. This is the content of 5.6. The purpose of this demonstration of divine providence, or desertion, is very different from that bestowed upon believers. Through it, “it comes to pass that they harden themselves, even under those means which God useth for the softening of others” (WCF 5.6). Thus, with Rutherford, the confession does affirm that by the same act of divine providence God is involved in the affliction of both believers and unbelievers but with very different ends. This seems to be in line with Rutherford’s division of God’s anger into legal and evangelical categories. As Morris affirmed,

We are certainly not to conceive of two schemes of providence, working by divergent methods, and bringing to pass one result for the wicked, and another for the holy. But while as our Lord taught, the plan of God in providence does include all men, it still is true that this providence is administered in the interest of grace, and in many ways concerns itself specifically with the welfare and the culture of those who believe.[55]

In regard to the doctrine of the humanity of Christ, the Westminster Standards adopted the language and theology of the old creeds of the church. In fact, it seems that here we find the best formulation of the doctrine of Christ ever written in a public and official church document. As Morris assesses, “In the Westminster Symbols taken in their entirety, we find a completer description of Christ in his being, his personality human and divine, his mission and offices and states whether of humiliation or of exaltation, than can be found in any of these preceding creeds. Here the Christology of Protestantism reaches its full and beautiful consummation.”[56]

As already noted, the confession deals with Christology in Chapter 8, right after addressing covenant theology. WLC Q. 36 clearly makes the connection between the two doctrines. It asks, “Who is the mediator of the covenant of grace?,” making a harmonious transition from one subject to the other. The answer is a short but detailed articulation of the doctrine of the person of Christ: “The only Mediator of the covenant of grace is the Lord Jesus Christ, who, being the eternal Son of God, of one substance with the Father, in the fullness of time became man, and so was and continues to be God and man, in two entire distinct natures, and one person, for ever.”[57] Thus, in clear language, the WLC teaches, like Rutherford, that Christ’s divine person embraced a human nature. It was the second person of the Trinity who became incarnate without giving up anything in regard to his divinity. Even the language used in the Westminster documents replicates that found in the ancient creeds. Ridgley rightly notes,

He [Christ] is styled the eternal Son of God, of one substance with the Father, and, with respect to his personality, equal with him. This is the same mode of speaking that was used by the Nicene fathers, in defense of our Savior’s divinity against the Arians, which we have largely insisted on, in our defense of the doctrine of the ever-blessed Trinity.[58]

The Westminster Standards also express the idea of the infinite worth of Christ’s sacrifice and its relation to his divine person. In WCF 8.5, the assembly expressed their idea regarding Christ’s obedience and God’s wrath in the following way: “The Lord Jesus, by his perfect obedience, and sacrifice of Himself, which He through the eternal Spirit, once offered up unto God, has fully satisfied the justice of His Father; and purchased not only reconciliation, but an everlasting inheritance in the kingdom of heaven, for all those whom the Father has given unto him.” The assembly, like Rutherford, taught that Christ had performed a sacrifice most perfect and pure, the only sacrifice able to satisfy the demands of the Father, to pay the wages of sin, and to procure the eternal redemption of his people. Hodge sheds light on the theology of this paragraph by explaining,

Christ suffered only in this single human soul and body, and only for a time. Nevertheless, his person was the infinite and transcendently glorious person of the eternal Son of God. Consequently his sufferings were precisely both in kind and degree what the infinite righteous wisdom of God saw to be in strict rigour a full equivalent in respect to the demands of legal justice, for the eternal sufferings of all for whom he suffered. This is the doctrine of the whole Christian Church.[59]

The link between the efficacy of Christ’s sacrifice and his divine person is clearly expressed in WLC Q. 38: “Why was it requisite that the Mediator should be God?”60 The answer can be divided into three reasons: (1) a divine person was needed to empower the human nature to tolerate all its burdens and sufferings, (2) it was only as God that Christ’s sacrifice could have infinite worth, and (3) only a divine person could execute and accomplish the much needed redemptive work. As Robert Shaw explains, “His [Jesus’] sufferings were, from the dignity of his person, of infinite value for the expiration of our sins.”[61] Therefore, salvation could only be accomplished by the Son, by the second person of the Godhead, and not by any other creature either from the material or from the spiritual world.[62]

Just like Henderson, Rutherford did not refrain from using doctrine in his sermons. He explains it in plain language, and its content, in full, was already in harmony with what would become the positions agreed upon by the assembly at Westminster.

3. From Dogma To Practice In Rutherford’s Sermons

As in Alexander Henderson’s sermon, Rutherford uses his exposition on dogmatics to bring relevant practical applications to his listeners. It is important to note that he does not wait until the end of his sermon to begin the application. Right after explaining the doctrines, as one who does not let the main dish of a banquet go cold, he applies them. In regard to the doctrine of providence, Rutherford uses it, first, to alarm unbelievers and call them to repentance. If he is right in his exposition, if God casts towards them his legal afflictions and they are not the fruit of his grace and love but of his wrath, these are the most horrifying of afflictions and sinners must flea from them, they must repent. Such terrible afflictions come most unexpectedly, and therefore they must repent now! “If it be so, that the godly, the green tree, suffer such a fire, it must be more than fire that is abiding the enemies,” Rutherford concludes. And, thus, he warns, “Wrath, wrath creeps on the sinners in Zion by theft, without a cry or noise of feet; you hear not the rattling of your sun’s wheels, when it is setting, and the night falls on you.”[63] As an able homiletician, Rutherford uses a series of probing questions to engage his listeners’ reason and to stir up their consciences. The questions are crafted to provoke, in those who hear, the self-application of the doctrine explained. Through his questions, Rutherford creates a frightening scenario of war in which sinful mortal men fight against the eternal Almighty God, a battle impossible to win. Here are some examples of this homiletical tool:

O enemies of the gospels, O malignants and haters of the Lord and his saints, have you castles and strongholds to run to in the day of wrath? Or are your castles judgment proof? Cannot death and hell scale your walls, and though you shut your doors, climb in at your windows? Are your bulwarks and wall salvation?… Has not the second death long and sharp tusks? Will you endure the siege and batteries of everlasting death?[64]

He also makes a second application, this time to believers, reminding them that the Christian life is full of afflictions and believers should be ready to face them comforted in the fact that they were designed by God himself. “We desire to go to paradise through no other way but paradise, and a way strewn with roses. Nay but we must endure hardness, and resolve the way cannot be changed to flatter our softness; it is as God has carved it out.”[65] Christians must face their hardships and struggles inspired by the example of Christ and in a way that resembles his sufferings in completing his redemptive work. “Heaven was not so feasible to Christ, but it was to him sweating. If Christ had taken the fair way and a street to heaven like paradise, and left the rough way to us, we had the more reason to complain. But it should silence us that Christ says, you have no harder usage than the Captain of your salvation.”[66] Rutherford concludes his application of this doctrine with a call to arms. Christians are part of a holy army and there is no place for cowards among those who are led and guided by Christ. “God has drawn and molded the topography of heaven, and set all our guest before; he is a bad soldier who follows such a captain of salvation as Christ, weeping and murmuring.”[67]

Regarding the doctrine of Christ’s person, Rutherford uses it to encourage his hearers, here the House of Lords, in their task of reforming the kingdom. They must not simply accept that in their fight for reformation there will be adversities and opposition, they must fight against them. He affirms that “the church of Christ must have also strength against all the persecutions of men. There is a bone in the head of the church, that is, strength in Christ that cannot be broken. Malignants shall fight against Mount Zion, but shall not prevail.”[68] In this fight the enemies are many and one stronger than the other, but the House of Lords should fear no one while they are fighting for the cause of Christ, even if the opposition comes from a royal seat. “Christ has endured more than the wrath of the King of Britain, and believe it, he shall be victorious and shall prevail.”[69]

Rutherford also uses this doctrine to encourage the magistrates in their fight against Rome and Erastians. He appeals to the fact that if Christ truly is fully God and fully man, “it is neither piety nor good policy to take anything from him that is his due.”70 Kings should not want to take the throne of Christ from his kingdom, they should not attempt to be rulers of a kingdom that is not his.

“If Caesar had stept in and usurped a headship over the assembly convened in the name of Christ … I conceive the apostles would have called it a wronging of Christ the King of the church, in his prerogative royal, and an abridging of the freedom of his court.”[71] On the other hand, the church should not attempt to manipulate the civil authorities to do the church’s bidding.

They are not puppets in the hands of the church, neither blinds who find the Church their walking stick. Nor was it ever in our hearts to teach that the Christian magistrate is with blind obedience to execute the decrees of the church; for this poor argument, if it has any nerves, as it would cast upon us the doctrine of Papists and Jesuits to make the ways of Christ odious, it has a great strength against the preaching of the Gospel.[72]

Rutherford thus uses this application to explain briefly the role of the magistrates in relation to the church and concludes with an appeal that his hearers would honor their role and the expectation of the reformed community as a whole. “But we shall hardly believe that the honorable Houses will take on them supreme authority above the assemblies and courts of the Lord Jesus, or that they will give occasion to all the Protestant Churches in the world who pray for them, to write against their proceedings.”[73]

III. Conclusion

Far from being dry, rigid, or dead, the sermons of the Scottish commissioners demonstrate a lively, practical, and experimental link between dogma and the Christian life in the mind of the Reformed orthodox theologians. These sermons are of great value for the historical theologian in that they reveal the picture some portray of the theology produced during this time and of the divines to be just poorly drawn caricatures! These sermons demonstrate that, against the accusation of being biblicist or proof-texting, the post-Reformation theologians sought to be faithful to Scripture and to interpret it in its own context. This is clearly evident from the heavy use of the original biblical languages and the use of historical background to determine the meaning of the preaching passage, a true demonstration of the practical use of the grammatical-historical method of interpretation. It also shows that they were neither alienated from the theology of the church as catholic nor isolated from other sources of knowledge. This is evident from their use of ancient creeds, the writings of church fathers, medieval theologians, and Greek philosophers, and even of other non-theological sources.

But the most striking characteristic observed in these sermons is their use of systematic theology and movement from doctrine to practice. On the one hand, they demonstrate that the preachers were not afraid to use doctrine in the pulpit. They made use of dogmatic language and content to instruct their listeners, a language very similar to that used in what would become the standard documents for theological and catechetical instruction in the church. On the other hand, these sermons demonstrate that the preachers were concerned to find ways to make doctrine become part of the personal experience of those in the pews. The applications of the dogma were relevant, addressing contemporary issues and problems, such as the relation between church and state and the reformation of the church. They were also listener-driven, considering the target audience and the learning of the listeners. They passionately aimed at changing hearts and practice through the use of pointed and specific applications, suggesting godly alternatives to sinful patterns and probing and provoking the hearers’ consciences.

In our own times, when preaching has frequently become an opportunity for self-promotion, ego-massaging, and self-help encouragements, the sermons of the post-Reformation preachers are a remarkable source from which modern preachers must learn. These preachers of old challenge those whose responsibility is to unveil God’s will as he has revealed it in his infallible Word; to know their sheep and their needs individually and corporally; to be familiar with the modern challenges of the Christian life and to address them from the pulpit along with practical and experimental biblical remedies; to make use of the doctrinal formulations of the church without fear of boring listeners, but effectively making the connection between dogma and practice.

Notes

1. In his published inaugural address, historical theologian Richard Muller defines this period of church history as follows: “‘Reformed orthodoxy’ indicates both the confessionally defined teaching of the Reformed churches and the era, ca. 1565-1700 or 1720, during which Reformed theologians made their greatest effort in the definition and defense of that confessional teaching. This orthodoxy implies the confessional acceptance, the systematic elaboration, and polemical defense of such teachings as the famous ‘five points of Calvinism,’ but also the acceptance, elaboration, and defense of the doctrines of the Trinity, the two natures of Christ, and infant baptism” (Richard A. Muller, Scholasticism and Orthodoxy in the Reformed Tradition: An Attempt at Definition [Grand Rapids: Calvin Theological Seminary, 1995], 26).
2. Richard A. Muller, After Calvin: Studies in the Development of a Theological Tradition (New York: Oxford University Press, 2003), 47-48.
3. See Richard A. Muller, “Calvin and the ‘Calvinists’ : Assessing Continuities and Discontinuities between the Reformation and Orthodoxy, Part 1,” CTJ 30 (1995): 345-75; Richard A. Muller, “Calvin and the ‘Calvinists’ : Assessing Continuities and Discontinuities between the Reformation and Orthodoxy, Part 2,” CTJ 31 (1996): 125-60; Andrew Woolsey, “Unity and Continuity in Covenantal Thought : A Study in the Reformed Tradition to the Westminster Assembly” (PhD diss., University of Glasgow, 1988); J. Mark Beach, “Christ and the Covenant: Francis Turretin’s Federal Theology as a Defense of the Doctrine of Grace” (PhD diss., Calvin Theological Seminary, 2005).
4. J. Mark Beach, “Preaching Predestination: An Examination of Francis Turretin’s Sermon De l’affermissement de la vocation et de l’élection du fidìle,” Mid-America Journal of Theology 21 (2010): 133, emphasis added.
5. Robert L. Dabney, “The Doctrinal Contents of the Confession: Its Fundamental and Regulative Ideas, and the Necessity and Value of Creeds,” in Memorial Volume of the Westminster Assembly, 1647-1897 (Richmond: Presbyterian Committee of Publication, 1897), 92.
6. For more relevant questions regarding this subject, see Beach, “Preaching Predestination,” 133-34.
7. I consulted several resources regarding the preaching during the period of Reformed orthodoxy that, due to space limitations, I did not cite or reference in this article. For more on the preaching during the Westminster assembly and the assembly’s view on preaching, see Robert M. Norris, “The Preaching of the Assembly,” in To Glorify and Enjoy God: A Commemoration of the 350th Anniversary of the Westminster Assembly, ed. John L. Carson and David W. Hall (Carlisle, PA: Banner of Truth, 1994), 65-81; Alan D. Strange, “Comments on the Centrality of Preaching in the Westminster Standards,” Mid-America Journal of Theology 10 (1999): 185-238. For more on the Puritan practice of preaching to civil magistrates, see Ethyn Williams Kirby, “Sermons before the Commons, 1640-1642,” AHR 44 (1939): 528-48; James Fulton Maclear, “The Influence of the Puritan Clergy on the House of Commons, 1625-1629,” CH 14 (1945): 272-89. For the historical value of the Puritan sermons preached during the Westminster assembly, see James C. Spalding, “Sermons before Parliament (1640-1649) as a Public Puritan Diary,” CH 36 (1967): 24-35. For the Puritan philosophy and practice of preaching, see John Brown, Puritan Preaching in England: A Study of Past and Present (New York: C. Scribner’s Sons, 1900).
8. Alexander Henderson, “A Sermon Preached before the Right Honorable House of Lords in the Abbey Church at Westminster, Upon Wednesday the 28th of May, 1645. Being the Day Appointed for Solemn and Public Humiliation,” in Sermons Preached Before the English Houses of Parliament by the Scottish Commissioners to the Westminster Assembly of Divines, 1643-1645, ed. Christopher Coldwell (Dallas: Naphtali Press, 2011), 137.
9. Ibid., 138.
10. Ibid.
11. Ibid., 142.
12. Ibid., 143.
13. Ibid., 143-44.
14. Ibid., 144.
15. Ibid., 146.
16. Ibid. It is interesting to note the side application Henderson makes here in reference to a kingdom being for the good of the people. On the basis of this statement he explains the difference between a tyrant and a king. “A tyrant conceives the people to be for him and his ends, but a king knows that he is set over the people for their good,” he affirms. Although he does not make explicit reference to a king in particular, one wonders if he has in mind Charles I. Regardless of whether or not he has a specific king in mind, it is remarkable to witness Henderson using his sermon, especially in his historical setting, to educate the leaders of England regarding the true characteristics of a monarch.
17. Ibid., 147-48.
18. Ibid., 148, emphasis added.
19. Ibid., emphasis added.
20. Morton H. Smith, Harmony of the Westminster Confession and Catechisms: 350th Anniversary of the Westminster Assembly, 1643-1993 (Greenville, SC: Southern Presbyterian Press, 2010), 34-44.
21. Alexander F. Mitchell and J. P. Struthers, eds., Minutes of the Sessions of the Westminster Assembly of Divines (Edinburgh: W. Blackwood & Sons, 1874), 360-69. The minutes register that during session 841 on May 12, 1647, Sidrach Simpson and another member whose last name was Ny (probably a misspelling for either Henry Nye or Phillip Nye) dissented from the sentence “by which he visibly governs them” present in Q. 45 in reference to Christ’s giving his church officers, laws, and censures (see p. 365).
22. Ibid., 430-32.
23. The minutes show that Henderson was active during these debates. It registers his bringing to the attention of the assembly Martin Bucer’s work on the kingdom of Christ, De regno Christi (Minutes of the Sessions, 432). Apparently, this was a very important work for Henderson for he also cites it in his sermon’s introduction to the reader (“Sermon Preached Before the Right Honorable House of Lords,” 138-39).
24. Quotations from the WLC are taken from “The Humble Advice of the Assembly of Divines, Now by Authority of Parliament Sitting at Westminster, Concerning a Larger Catechism, Presented by Them Lately to Both Houses of Parliament,” in The Westminster Standards: An Original Facsimile (Audubon, NJ: Old Paths Publications, 1997).
25. Emphasis added.
26. Quotations from the WCF are taken from “The Humble Advice of the Assembly of Divines, Now by Authority of Parliament Sitting at Westminster, Concerning a Confession of Faith, With the Quotations and Texts of Scripture Annexed. Presented by Them Lately to Both Houses of Parliament,” in Westminster Standards: An Original Facsimile.
27. David Dickson, Truth’s Victory Over Error; or, The True Principles of the Christian Religion Stated and Vindicated (Glasgow: John Bryce, 1764), 77-78.
28. Archibald Alexander Hodge, A Commentary on the Confession of Faith: With Questions for Theological Students and Bible Classes (Philadelphia: Presbyterian Board of Publication, 1869), 186, emphasis added.
29. Quotations from the WSC are taken from “The Humble Advice of the Assembly of Divines, Now by Authority of Parliament Sitting at Westminster, Concerning a Shorter Catechism, With the Proofs Thereof out of the Scriptures, Presented by Them Lately to Both Houses of Parliament,” in Westminster Standards: An Original Facsimile.
30. Thomas Vincent interprets these biblical texts in the exact same manner. See Thomas Vincent, An Explanation of the Assembly’s Shorter Catechism (Philadelphia: Presbyterian Board of Publication, 1854), 103-6.
31. Thomas Ridgley, A Body of Divinity: Wherein the Doctrines of the Christian Religion Are Explained and Defended (1815; repr., Gale ECCO, Print Editions [print on demand], 2010), 2:352.
32. Emphasis added.
33. Hodge, Commentary on the Confession of Faith, 425.
34. Emphasis added.
35. Robert Shaw, The Reformed Faith: Exposition of the Westminster Confession of Faith, rev. ed. (1845; repr., Fearn, Ross-shire: Christian Heritage, 2008), 303.
36. Henderson, “Sermon Preached Before the House of Lords,” 152. It is interesting to note that here Henderson makes use of the medieval scholastic Bernard of Clairvaux who, according to him, taught that the church had two swords, one spiritual and one temporal, that were used in different ways. Regardless of whether or not Henderson used Bernard correctly, this Scottish Presbyterian demonstrates no animosity toward the medieval catholic scholars.
37. Ibid., 155. Here Henderson extensively combats Erastian thought. He reminds his listeners that comparisons between OT Israelite monarchy and contemporary England were inappropriate. Readers of the Bible should be able to distinguish between times, cases, and jurisdictions. Here he makes use of the writings of Augustine. Henderson uses his last minutes to make comments regarding the application of the text to matters of church and state, answering what seems to have been a common objection raised by Erastians, namely, the unavoidable collision between church and state if one did not rule over the other. He proposes a threefold remedy “which being well observed, will cure all this unnecessary and groundless jealousy.” The threefold remedy recognizes the subjection of both spheres to God, the mutual respect these spheres must nurture, and the people under their mutual care (see pp. 157-60).
38. Ibid., 161.
39. Ibid., 161-65. Henderson also proposes seven practical attitudes his listeners must have to carry out the execution of their duties: they must beware of (1) self-respect, (2) lukewarmness and indifference in matters of religion, (3) divisions, (4) delays and procrastinations in the settling of Christ’s kingdom, (5) discouragements coming from those who oppose Christ’s kingdom while they are building and furthering it, (6) imprudence in choosing and employing instruments for the growth of the kingdom, (7) fainting and wearying in the setting up of the kingdom. For how Henderson develops each one of these practical actions, see pp. 165-70.
40. Ibid., 171.
41. For more on Rutherford’s theology and practice of preaching, see Matthew Vogan, “Samuel Rutherford and the Theology and Practice of Preaching,” Scottish Reformation Society Historical Journal 1 (2011): 13-37.
42. Samuel Rutherford, “A Sermon Preached Before the Right and Honorable the House of Lords at Their Monthly Fast, June 25, 1645, in the Abbey Church at Westminster,” in Sermons Preached Before the English Houses of Parliament, 473.
43. Ibid., 475-76.
44. Ibid., 476.
45. Ibid., 476-77.
46. Ibid., 484.
47. Ibid.
48. Ibid., 485. Here Rutherford uses two illustrations to impress upon the mind of his listeners the relation between Christ’s humanity and divinity. The second is noteworthy due to its simplicity and wit. In it Rutherford makes an analogy between Christ and Noah’s ark, between the ark’s materials and Christ’s divine and human nature: “The iron wedges of Noah’s Ark separated from the Ark, and cast into the waters would sink to the bottom, but being fastened to the Ark they float above the water. The manhead separated from the Godhead should sink under the wrath that Christ did sustain, but being wedged and united to the Godhead, in a personal union, could not but ride out against all the storms” (pp. 485-86).
49. Mitchell and Struthers, Minutes of the Sessions, 114, 167.
50. The text of WCF 5.1 reads: “God the great Creator of all things doth uphold, direct, dispose, and govern all creatures, actions, and things, from the greatest even to the least, by His most wise and holy providence, according to His infallible foreknowledge and the free and immutable counsel of His own will, to the praise of the glory of His wisdom, power, justice, goodness, and mercy.”
51. Shaw, Reformed Faith, 70.
52. Robert Letham, The Westminster Assembly: Reading Its Theology in Historical Context (Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian & Reformed, 2009), 197.
53. Hodge, Commentary on the Confession of Faith, 114.
54. Edward D. Morris, Theology of the Westminster Symbols: A Commentary Historical, Doctrinal, Practical, on the Confession of Faith and Catechism and the Related Formularies of the Presbyterian Churches (Columbus, OH: Champlin, 1900), 226. The comfort for believers in this section becomes even clearer when it is read in light of section 7 of the same chapter which reads: “as the providence of God doth, in general, reach to all creatures; so, after the most special manner, it taketh care of His Church, and disposeth all things to the good thereof” (WCF 5.7).
55. Morris, Theology of the Westminster Symbols, 227.
56. Ibid., 304.
57. Emphasis added. This question is also reflected in WSC Q. 21: “Who is the Redeemer of God’s elect? The only Redeemer of God’s elect is the Lord Jesus Christ, who, being the eternal Son of God, became man, and so was, and continueth to be, God and man in two distinct natures, and one person, for ever.”
58. Ridgley, Body of Divinity, 2:220.
59. Hodge, Commentary on the Confession of Faith, 207.
60. The answer to this question is: “It was requisite that the Mediator should be God, that he might sustain and keep the human nature from sinking under the infinite wrath of God, and the power of death; give worth and efficacy to his sufferings, obedience, and intercession; and to satisfy God’s justice, to procure his favor, purchase a peculiar people, give his Spirit to them, conquer all their enemies, and bring them to everlasting salvation.”
61. Shaw, Reformed Faith, 109.
62. For more on this subject, see a thorough discussion in Ridgley, Body of Divinity, 2:235-44.
63. Rutherford, “Sermon Preached Before the Right and Honorable the House of Lords,” 477.
64. Ibid.
65. Ibid.
66. Ibid., 477-78.
67. Ibid., 478.
68. Ibid., 486.
69. Ibid.
70. Ibid.
71. Ibid.
72. Ibid., 486-87.
73. Ibid., 487.