Scotland produced some of the finest men in the history of covenant theology. In fact, this area of theology became so prominent among Scottish divines that James Walker affirmed “the old theology of Scotland might be emphatically described as a covenant theology.”[1] Among prominent names and their particular contributions are the seventeenth-century theologians David Dickson and his detailed and precise formulation of the covenant of redemption, [2] Samuel Rutherford and his understanding of the covenant of works as a gracious covenant, [3] and Patrick Gillespie, who wrote a five-volume work on covenant theology of which only two were published. [4] In the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, other important contributions were made by Thomas Boston, Adam Gib, Thomas Bell, and John Colquhoun. [5] But can covenant theology or even the idea of the covenant be traced further back in Scottish church history and theology? Was this unique theological theme brought from the Continent to the Island, or was it already present there in seminal form?
The goal of this article is to trace the origins of the idea of the covenant in Scotland as a social movement and its development in theology until the end of the sixteenth century, introducing Robert Rollock and demonstrating the importance and significance of his work. This will be examined in two parts: the first dealing with the covenant idea as present in the history of Scotland in its social-political-religious context, the second dealing with the covenant idea in the context of church history and historical theology as present in the writings of the Scottish theologians of that specific period. The argument will be made that the secular idea of bonding and leaguing, abundantly present in Scotland in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries was also very much present in the religious and theological usage of the covenant theme in the sixteenth century. However, over the years there was a shift, as evidenced in Rollock’s work, from a strong emphasis on the contractual and obligatory character of the covenants to a more elaborate system of doctrine due to the church’s faithfulness to the Reformation principle of sola Scriptura.
The Covenant Idea Before The 16th Century
Covenant making is a characteristic trait of the Scottish nation. It is impossible to study the history of the Kirk of Scotland without becoming acquainted with terms like “Covenanters,” “bands,” or “leagues” and the implications that the notion of making a covenant brought to Scottish life, society, and religion. However, it would be misleading to think that the usage of these terms implies a mature understanding of covenant theology as it was later developed in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. G. D. Henderson warns about the danger of attributing to some confederacies, pledges, and contracts in early Scottish history the status of a covenant. According to him, at least some of these documents do have spiritual connotations; they were vows taken in the presence of God, and involved the embracement of specific oaths, “but it does not appear that the word covenant was explicitly used before the beginning of 1596, and the reading back of the conception into an earlier period of our national religious history must be considered misleading.” [6]
On the other hand, it would be historically inaccurate to restrict the appearance of man-made covenants to the Renaissance period. The presence of vow taking can be traced back to very early periods in Scottish history. Their main focus was “the protection of individuals, clans, or families, and then nation, or of certain rights, privileges, or possessions, personal or national, when these were menaced.” [7] It is possible to find this kind of agreement in the very beginning of the fourteenth century when three lads vowed to defend Robert the Bruce, [8] the Scottish king enthroned on March 25, 1306. The oath is recorded in the Balfour’s Annals and reads like this: “This zeire ther was a mutuall endenture made betuix Sr Gilbert Hay of Erole, Sr. Neill Campbell of Lochaw, and Sr. Alexander Setton, Kinights, at the abbey of Londors, to defend King Robert and hes croune to the last of ther bloodes and fortunes; wpone the sealing of the said indenture, they solemly toke the Sacrament at St. Maries altar, in the said abbey-church.” [9]
Various biblical elements are present in this compact which would later become crucial parts of covenant theology proper. Its stipulations, mutuality, and sacramental nature are particular characteristics that will be present in the formulations of Scottish federal theologians in the sixteenth century. It is important to observe its ethical nature. The compact obligates those who take it to behave according to the pattern agreed even in face of the most catastrophic of effects. Also noteworthy is the mix of religion with the social nature of the compact. In spite of its political focus and goal—the protection and preservation of the Scottish crown—the bond only becomes meaningful in the presence of God, and its validity and import is sealed with the celebration of the Lord’s Supper inside a church. It is certainly this religious character that compels obedience to the compact and binds so strongly those who embrace it.
The fifteenth century was marked by the making of bonds of manrent. These were agreements made between landlords and neighboring small landowners in Scotland, in both the Highlands and Lowlands in the context of the feudal system, as regulative instruments to standardize and guide their relationships. Keith Brown explains that “among other things they helped to keep the peace and a good deal of itself seems to have been inspired by the need of both peace and justice.” [10] They were, therefore, the means by which organized and ordered life in Scotland was made possible in this particular time for about 150 years. This kind of bonding helped to control those who worked within a particular feud and promoted peace between them and others who labored in neighboring feuds. [11]
In spite of its name, however, it seems that this particular contract was more than a frigid contract between a lord and a servant. F. R. H. Du Boulay affirms that “this had nothing do with rent: the word has the same root as the Anglo-Saxo raedan, and the German raten: to give counsel.” [12] He goes on to explain that these documents were written in the Scottish dialect and along with the agreement of service they also promised counseling, friendship, and loyalty among other private elements that characterize a very close relationship between two people. They were generally made for life and involved neither money nor land. “It was a personal transaction between the man who, in the first instance, gave and the lord who, reciprocated; and it met the need, on one side, for loyal followers and, on the other, for social and political support as though between kinsmen and untrammeled by a special property connection.” [13]
Bonding (or banding or leaguing), therefore, became an essential and traditional part of Scottish life and thought in the first two centuries prior to the reformation of religion, binding people’s conscience and stirring a feeling of deep commitment. It became such a powerful element in that society that, in 1424, all bonding or leaguing among commons was forbidden by law under pain of serious penalties. This banishment was only waived in 1584/5, but those who decided to enter into a covenant could only do so in issues already legislated by state and church and deemed lawful. [14] Those who broke covenants were considered “dishonest, perjurers, and impious men…the offender thus constituted himself a criminal punishable by the law.” [15]
The Covenant Idea In The Sixteenth Century
The 1500s in Scotland was definitely a time of covenant making. John Lumsden in his The Covenants of Scotland, indentifies twenty-five different covenants made in the second half of that century. [16] Several had a religious connotation and sought to promote true religion in the land against the abuses and errors of the Roman Catholic Church.
The Dun Band Or Covenant Of 1555-1556
The first covenant identified in this period was the Dun Band or Covenant of 1555-1556. By the year 1525, the Tyndale translation of the New Testament and other Protestant books were brought to Scotland. According to Lumsden, all those who could read eagerly obtained this literature and began to devote themselves to the study of Scripture. In the same year, the Scottish clergy reacted by burning books and passing an act prohibiting the importing and commerce of those books and threatening those who would infringe this law with death by fire. As the years passed by, the suppression extended from literature to thoughts, and the verbal manifestation of Protestant thought was forbidden by law. Roman Catholics enforced the worship of Mary and burned anyone found with Protestant books. [17] It was during this time that John Knox was converted to Protestantism and exiled, spending around nine years outside of Scotland. [18]
Before his final return to Scotland in May 1559, Knox paid a quick visit to the mother land in September 1555, and during this time “he openly preached Protestant doctrine with considerable success” and soon was “summoned to appear in Edinburgh in May 1556 on a charge of heresy.” [19] During this short period he visited the Laird of Dun, and after preaching boldly and serving the elements of the sacrament, those men partaking of it entered into a solemn agreement to depart from all kinds of Roman Catholic practices and beliefs and to fervently uphold the Protestant cause. In Knox’s own words:
…and teaching them in great liberty, the Gentlemen required that he should minister likewise unto them the Table of the Lord Jesus, whereof were partakers the most part of the Gentlemen of the Merns; who, God be praised, to this day constantly do remain in the same doctrine which then they professed, to wit, that they refused all society with idolatry, and bond themselves to the uttermost of their powers, to maintain the true preaching of the Evangel of Jesus Christ, as God should offer unto them preachers and opportunity. [20]There are no remaining copies of this agreement, if ever there was one. But this event Thomas M’Crie later identified as the “first of those religious covenants, by which the confederation of the Protestants of Scotland was so frequently ratified.” [21]
The Godly Band Or Covenant Of 1557
In 1557, another covenant would take place and it would be again the fruit of Knox’s influence. Shortly after his return to the Continent, the Reformer received a letter from some powerful nobles of Scotland, inviting him to return to Scotland. In the letter, they encouraged Knox, describing a very prosperous picture of the growth of the Reformation in the land, the discredit the Roman Catholic adversaries were suffering, the absence of persecution, and their disposition to support Knox and the religious cause morally and financially. [22] After reflecting upon the proposal and consulting with fellow Reformers, including John Calvin, he decided to accept the invitation and prepared to leave at the first possible opportunity. [23] Knox departed from Geneva to Scotland near the end of September 1557 and reached Dieppe by the end of October.
While waiting for transportation to Scotland, he received letters that grieved him greatly and were, according to him, “not very pleasing to the flesh.” [24] According to M’Crie, “these informed him that new consultation had been held; that some begun to repent of the invitation which they had given him to return to Scotland; and that the greater part seemed too irresolute and faint-harted.” [25] Knox promptly responded to these letters with a strong rebuke. Lumsden is of the opinion that “he was very much annoyed at this apparent lukewarmness and instability on the part of the nobles, and wrote upbraiding them for their coldness and want of fervor.” [26] It was certainly because of this letter that the nobles responded with a “godly band” or a “common bond” in which they re-affirmed their commitment with the Reformation and their purpose to bring Knox to their country.
Similar to the previous private covenant of 1556, this is a private association with religious purpose. Its text, although not mentioning the Bible texts once, is full of theological content. It speaks of the Roman Catholic Church as “the antichrist of our time” and the members of the body of Satan, and their bond is to resist it by all means, even to death and loss of goods, and to secure the proclamation and spread of the true gospel of Christ throughout the Scottish land. The parties of this covenant are those signing it; “we do join us,” they write, and both God and the whole nation are called as witnesses. The tone is that of religious war, for those who are against this compact are considered as “enemies.” It becomes, again, an instrument of coercion to ethical behavior. All the responsibilities in the document are considered as “bonded duty.” [27]
It is easy to note, therefore, that the feudal idea of commitment through the bonds of manrent were brought into this religious covenant, as if the act of covenanting itself promoted, as it truly did, “fidelity, perseverance, and reasonableness” from those who subscribed it. [28] However, its main focus is the spiritual, not social, good not only of the individual or of their families or even of their neighbors but of the entire society. A remarkable result of this bond was a strong commitment to Scripture, as noted by Lumsden who refers to those who embraced this covenant as “Covenanters.” He explains that one of the outcomes of this specific covenant was a general agreement of the necessity of biblical teaching, doctrinal education, and interpretation and preaching of Scripture. This should be done privately until the Crown granted them true ministers of the gospel. [29]
The King’s Confession Or Covenant Of 1581
Time passed and reformation came to Scotland in 1559. On August 17, 1560, the Scottish Confession passed before Parliament and was adopted as the expression of the faith of the land along with public pronouncements against the celebration of the mass, the abuse of the sacrament, and the supremacy of the pope. [30] Between the Godly Band or Covenant of 1557 and the Scottish Confession, four different covenants happened in Scotland, of which perhaps the most important is the Leith-Edinburgh Covenant of 1560 which bonded Englishmen and Scotsmen together to the expulsion of the oppressive French forces present on the island.
From 1560 to 1580, six more covenants were made in which again and again either the Parliament or the Scottish nobles would bind themselves together concerning religious matters and for the protection of the Crown. Through these legal and public bonds, they would profess their faith in God, swear allegiance to the King, and promise the protection of the poor and needy and the continual spread of the true gospel of Christ. Edwin Moor summarizes well the spirit of these bonds when he says: “The Scottish Reformation followed the Old Testament pattern of the days of Ezra and Nehemiah wherein the leaders of church and state…renewed their covenant promise to be God’s people. They saw themselves much like the nation Israel, specially chosen by God to be his people.” [31]
But all these past covenants would find their climax at what perhaps was the most significant covenant of the sixteenth century: the King’s Covenant. Fleming affirms that “all the earlier covenants were eclipsed in interest and importance by the one drawn up by John Craig, and commonly called “The King’s Confession,” sometimes “the Second Confession of Faith,” and sometimes “The Negative Confession.” [32] This document was drawn as a response to the counter-Reformation and to eliminate all possible Romanist infiltration in the Scottish government. [33] It reaffirmed the Scots Confession of 1560 in all its doctrinal statements; provided an oath renouncing all Roman Catholic inclinations; and declared fidelity to the Scottish Crown, government, and Protestant religion. It also provides precise and detailed critique of several Catholic doctrines. [34]
Along the same lines of the previous covenants, this one is a religious and political declaration. However, it is characterized by enormous publicity and acknowledgment as it was signed and subscribed “by all ranks of classes and people.” [35] The strength of this document was such that it was later interpreted as a covenantal oath binding all future generations to keep the church as it was established in 1581 and also served as leverage for later disputations concerning the mode of church government, as the “covenanters” would affirm that departure from a Presbyterian form of government was a breach of this covenant. [36] Once again, and maybe even more than in the previous covenants, this covenant works as an instrument of coercion of thought, behavior, and conscience. It demands not only from the clergy or from Scottish Christians in general but from all Scottish society, conformity and uniformity of religion in the land according to the Reformed standard.
The Little Kirk Covenant Of 1596
The threat of a Spanish invasion led many in Scotland, fifteen years after the King’s confession, to enter “into a new league with God, that being sanctified by repentance, they might be the meeter to provocke others to the same.” [37] This covenant was made after the General Assembly of the Scottish Kirk convened together to consider the imminent war, resulting in a public confession of sin where kings, commons, and ministers were all included and in a mutual bond among the ministers to faithfully exercise their duty as shepherds of the church. [38] G. D. Henderson explains that in this circumstance “renewing the covenant, it was taught, involved self-examination, confession and repentance, faith in God, earnest resolve to reform, and sustained faithful endeavor thereafter.” [39]
John Davidson of Prestonpans was selected to exhort the ministers gathered in that assembly of about four hundred persons. [40] Ezekiel 15 and 34 were read, chapters that emphasize Israel’s breaking of God’s covenant and the preparation of a new covenant, and the sermon was based on Luke 12:41. After the proclamation of God’s Word, there was such a commotion among those present, abounding in tears, sobbing, and sighs, “that the place might worthily have been called Bochim, for like of that day was never seene in Scotland, since the Reformatioun, as everie man confessed.” [41] All this culminated in the first written document in which the word “covenant” appears in Scotland and with it a shift in its usage. According to S. A. Burrell: “here, for the first time, the word ‘covenant’ was actually used in a fashion so precise and explicit as to make it clear that this was something very different from the older bonds of religious association.” [42]
Two particular things are remarkable in this covenant. First, while the previous covenants so far mentioned were bonds made among Crown, commons, and the church under God as witness, here God becomes a party of the covenant. In the previous dealings, God stood as a Judge who has the power to enforce the terms agreed upon the consciences of those who embraced them. [43] Now, God becomes a contracted party, which certainly enhances the seriousness and coercive power of the agreement.
Second, there is a remarkable difference in the content of the agreement, which moves from a social-political emphasis to a more theological and spiritual connotation. “The Covenant idea thus coming into evidence was of course Biblical.” [44]
Therefore, from the fourteenth to the end of the sixteenth century, the idea of the covenant in Scotland evolved from a regular agreement between equals, to a national bond protecting church and state, culminating in the concept of a personal covenant with God Himself to abandon sinful patterns and strive for a pious life. This evolution shows that scriptural concepts were added to what was initially a simple social idea of the covenant. This becomes even more evident as one looks into the usage of the covenant theme in the sermons of the early Reformers and in the theological treatises from different divines of that precise time. The covenant theme becomes a tool of instruction and exhortation in preaching where the beauty of the glory and mercy of God is portrayed and the consciences of man stirred and exhorted to honor the God of the covenant. [45]
The Covenant Idea In Scottish Theology
After surveying the covenant concept in the medieval and Reformation history of Scottish society, we move to locate the usage of this doctrine among Scottish theologians. As early as in the second half of the sixteenth century, this theme appears, initially, in sermons and short theological treatises aiming to impress the layman. By the end of the 1500s, it becomes the structing principle upon which bodies of divinity were developed. The main names connected with covenant theology during this period are John Knox, Andrew Melville, Robert Bruce, Robert Howie, and Robert Rollock. It will be noted that the works of these men are related to each other by a progressive process of maturity in which the social-political idea of the covenant is abandoned little by little and a strictly theological and systematical formulation is embraced.
The Idea Of The Covenant In The Thought Of John Knox
John Knox did not write extensively and systematically on covenant theology. He never published a treatise on the subject, neither was it the object of his attention as a dogmatic subject in need of formulation. Andrew Woolsey rightly notes that “Knox was so embroiled in the reformation of political and ecclesiastical issues that he had little time for the penning of theological treatises.” [46] However, his sermons are packed with the peculiar language of the Scottish bonding custom. Words like “league,” “band,” and “covenant” establish the framework in which Knox delivered his message to the readers. Two particular addresses provide helpful case studies: A Godly Letter of Warning and Admonition to the Faithfull in Lond, Newcastle, and Berwick, written in 1553, and Answers to Some Question Concerning Baptism, etc., written in 1556. [47]
In the Warning and Admonition, the Scottish Reformer addressed his readers with the purpose of making them “to avoid and flee, as well in body as in spirit, all fellowship and society with idolaters in their idolatry.” [48] It was written after his departure from England when the country was assailed with persecution against Protestants by Queen Mary Tudor, a strong Roman Catholic. [49] It bears a remarkable pastoral tone since it demonstrates Knox’s love and concern for the souls he had so diligently shepherded since 1549. It also carries a strong prophetic strain since Knox’s whole argument is developed on the basis of a comparison between England and Judah/Israel. Placing himself in the role of a prophet according to the pattern of Jeremiah and Ezekiel, he argues that, based on the covenantal status of the people of England and trusting in God’s immutable holiness, justice, and vengeance, the Lord’s judgment will fall upon England if she breaks her league with the Lord by falling into idolatry. [50]
It is in this context that Knox uses the covenant idea as an instrument of coercion, employing it to move people’s conscience toward obedience expressed in a faithful embracement of the truth revealed to them through the Reformed movement and in complete rejection of the Roman Catholic beliefs. [51] In this treatise, the covenant theme is expressed by means of the word “league” or the expression “league with God.” The league is characterized by privileges and obligations contracted by both God and the believer. There is no mention in this particular document of Christ as a mediator of the league; instead, Christians are directly linked with their Lord and they are the ones who respond to Him concerning its maintenance or breach. [52] It seems clear that Knox is not emphasizing here the covenant concept in soteriological terms; it is not the way one achieves salvation. But, as in the Scottish social bonds, it is the instrument which regulates the relationship between God (the supreme monarch) and the believers (His loyal subjects).
The privileges and obligations of the league express, respectively, the concepts of mutuality and conditionality in Knox’s idea of the covenant. By mutuality it is meant the responsibilities that both parties hold in the covenantal dealing. God’s part in the dealing is the bestowal upon His people of special privileges that only those individuals and nations who are in this relationship would have. They involve the enjoyment of the special favor and grace of God by which the Reformer seems to be referring to material blessings, although he does not clearly spell this out. But the highest blessing of all is one’s preservation from perdition; it is the league with God that makes eternal life possible. Believers, on the other hand, promise complete and exclusive servitude to God. This servitude is expressed in a life of obedience in light of God’s revealed will in His Word. In the context of the admonition, the particular duty God requires for the maintenance of the league is the avoidance and rejection of all idolatrous worship as well as the preservation and promotion of true worship according to God’s own revelation. [53]
The mutual character of the league leads to its conditionality. By conditionality is meant that characteristic of an agreement in which it stands or falls upon the fulfillment of some certain stipulation. Knox never mentions the possibility of God breaking His covenant, but it is upon the believer’s shoulders that he presses the conditionality of the league. They are the ones who must strive to meet God’s just demands. The Reformer reminds them of God’s requirement to the nation of Israel, through the mouth of Moses in Deuteronomy 13:8-18, that they should abstain from all forms of idolatry, denouncing all those who practiced it (even family members) and eliminating them from their midst. [54] Employing strong conditional terms and language, Knox affirms repeatedly:
I have good hope that you will admit it to be necessary that idolatry be avoided, if the league betwixt God and us stand inviolate. [55]
…what God requires of them [the Israelites] that will continue in league with him; and what he has damned by his express word. And do we esteem, beloved brethren, that the immutable God will wink at our idolatry as that he saw it not?… Therefore he wills that we neither obey them (be they kings or be they queens), neither yet that we conceal their impiety (were they son, daughter, or wife), if we will have the league to stand betwixt God and us. [56]
…obedience given to God’s precepts in this case, is the cause why God shows his mercy upon us, why he multiplies us, and does embrace us with fatherly love and affection. Where by the contrary, by consenting to idolatry, by haunting or favoring of the same, the mercies of God are shut up from us, and we [are] cut off from the body of Christ. Left to wither and rot, as trees without sap or moister; and then, alas! In what estate stand we? [57]
Such is the condition of the league betwixt my God and me, that as he is my tower of defence against my enemies, preserving and nourishing both the body and soul; so must I be wholly his, in body and soul; for my God is of that nature, that he will suffer no portion of his glory to be given to another. [58]The practice of idolatry is what breaks the covenant because it attacks God’s exclusive possession of His people. This exclusivity constitutes the condition (obligation) of the league. This condition does not rely solely upon the individual Christian, but upon fathers as head of their households, upon ministers as representatives of their churches, and upon rulers as representatives of their countries. [59] The league with God has an overarching binding character and to keep it the nation must behave properly, fulfilling its condition.
This whole idea of mutuality and conditionality resembles the social bonds in several ways. First, as the Scottish covenants (particularly the bonds of manrent), the league with God is an agreement between two parties, one superior and another inferior. Although the stipulations of the league are unilateral, made by God alone, they involve the parties in a relationship where both have their particular responsibilities to perform. Second, the proper performance of one triggers the other and the economy of the league may be described as a kind of cycle in which the servitude of believers leads them to experience God’s love, approval, and blessing. That was exactly the expectation of the Little Kirk Covenant of 1596. As a minister would diligently execute his duties, he expected God to bless his labors in the conversion of souls and the expansion of true religion in the land. Third, the league with God is characterized by a national bonding power. As individual believers enter in covenant with the Lord, they bring their whole families, and therefore the whole nation is reckoned to be under covenantal responsibility, a notion already present in the King’s Confession of 1581.
In 1556, Knox wrote a letter providing Answers to Some Questions Concerning Baptism, etc. This small document, different from the Admonition, is more pedagogical than polemical and pastoral. It certainly demonstrates the pastor’s heart of the Reformer but with a more theological than ethical emphasis. His goal is to explain what baptism is and whether one who received the Roman Catholic rite should receive it again. Here, the league or covenant is described in christocentric and soteriological terms. [60]
According to Knox, baptism is the sign of one’s entrance in the league with God. It signifies one’s cleansing from sin, appropriation of Christ’s righteousness, and entrance in the church of Christ. “Baptism is the sign of our first entrance into the household of God our Father; by which is signified that we are received in league with him, that we are clad with Christ’s justice [righteousness], our sin and filthiness being washed away in his blood,” affirms Knox. [61] Now, concerning the salvation of the elect two things are clear for him: that Christ’s victory at the cross is permanent and that “the league with God is of that firmness and assurance, that rather shall the covenant made with the sun and moon, with the day and night, perish and be changed, than that the promise of his mercy made to this elect shall be frustrated and vain.” [62] For Knox, therefore, the covenant, when viewed with soteriological lenses, is inviolable and eternal. The chosen children of God do not have the power to break or nullify it, and its seal once received does not need to be repeated, even if it was administered by an unlawful minister and under the erroneous doctrine of the Church of Rome. [63]
It is also clear that Christ is the mediator of the league, an idea completely absent from Knox’s previous use of the covenant theme. Christ is the one who feeds His people and keeps the covenant perpetual. This understanding influences the way the sacraments are administered; while the elect enters in the covenant only once and forever, as is signified by a single administration of baptism, he needs to constantly be reminded of his eternal status in the covenant and thus be nourished by Christ. The elect experiences this continual spiritual nourishment in the administration of the Lord’s Supper and participation in it “is the declaration of our covenant, that by Christ Jesus we are nursed, maintained, and continued in the league with God our Father.” [64] Christ is the one who keeps the covenant between God and the believer, and because He keeps it, it is constant and sure. The believer’s personal assurance, on the contrary, is sometimes not so firm due to his dullness, infirmity, and forgetfulness, and must be often strengthened as the Lord Jesus Himself commanded. [65]
In this way, it is possible to conclude that Knox’s use of the covenant theme in his writings presents continuities and discontinuities with the practice of the Scottish social-political and religious bonds. This is certainly due to the Reformer’s use of Scripture as his primary and single source of theological formulation. Woolsey says that Knox’s application of covenant theology in his political theory shows that he “was not attempting to be a political theorist, but was dominated by a religious passion, with the Bible as the most important influence in his thinking.” [66] This dependence on Scripture to formulate his ideas certainly shaped the covenant theme in a more theological and biblical way.
Nevertheless, it is also very clear that in Knox’s writings the Reformer “was concerned only with contractual obligations” and that in them is present “the influence of the twin medieval streams of theological and political expression.” [67] When looked at from the perspective of an agreement, his covenant theology emphasized the elements of any regular contract: promises, stipulations, benefits, and curses. It requires strict obedience and is breakable upon the unfaithfulness of the one who contracts it. Severe penalties threaten those who fail to meet its demands. On the other hand, different from any man-made covenant, when looking to its mediator and maintainer, Jesus Christ, it is inviolable. Those who truly belong to the group of the elect never break the covenant in the sense of nullifying it because the perfect work of Christ secures their entrance in the league and maintains them there. Soteriologically, this covenant is eternal and only has validity for those who are in Christ. In Knox, the Scottish practice of social bonds and leagues begins to move into a more biblical direction, being the first steps of what will become a full developed theological system. [68]
The Idea Of The Covenant In The Thought Of Robert Bruce
Robert Bruce (1554-1631) is another theologian in Scottish church history whose writings demonstrate the early use of the covenant theme in Scottish Reformed theology. Bruce started his academic career as a law student. He went to Paris to study Roman jurisprudence and later returned to Edinburgh where he finished his academic labors. In spite of the prominent law career ahead of him, he decided to become a minister of the Word, giving up an opportunity to become a judge. He moved from Edinburgh to St. Andrews, where he would remain until 1587. At St. Andrews, he was highly influenced by Andrew Melville, who brought him back to Edinburgh and recommended him to the General Assembly as a fit successor to James Lawson (1538-1584), who, in turn, had been the successor of John Knox in the pulpit at that city. He quickly became renowned for his powerful preaching and soon was considered a leader of the Scottish Reformed clergy. Starting in 1600, after the Gowrie Conspiracy, Bruce suffered several exiles to France and Inverness, dying in exile in 1631.
Robert Bruce was distinguished in several ways. He possessed a unique knowledge of theology, languages, Scripture, and law, which commanded respect among Scottish divines. He was also known as a man of deep spirituality and of profound meditation on religious subjects. But it was his preaching that most distinguished Bruce. From his appearance in the pulpit, which commanded reverence and authority, to his powerful sermon delivery, which was deemed like an earthquake to those who heard him, often bringing them to tears, Bruce’s sermons brought together theology and experience through the employment of practical applications that penetrated the hearts of his hearers. Among his published works are his sermons on the Lord’s Supper—and it is in one of them (the third sermon) that he spells out his idea of the covenant. [69]
Bruce expresses the spiritual union between Christ and the believer by the word “band.” Using this spiritual union, he develops the spirituality of the Lord’s Supper. The elements of the Supper were not given “for the nuriture of the body,” says Bruce, “he hes appointed Christ to be delivered to the inward mouth of the saull, to be given in the hand of the saule, that thy saull may beed on him and be quickened with the life quherewith the angels lives.” [70] And it is this spiritual food for the soul that feeds and strengthens the spiritual band between Christ and the believer. “For ye man understand this principle in the Scripture of God; our saull cannot be joyned nor bound with the flesh of Christ, nor the flesh of Christ cannot be joyned with our saull, but by ane spiritual band; not by ane carnall band of blood or allya, nor be the twitching of his flesh with our fleshe: but he conjoined with us by ane spiritual band, that is, be the power and virtue of his Halie Spirit.” [71]
This band is faith-based, and this faith is not the fruit of a decision the believer makes in which he obligates himself to do something before God. It is a necessary condition to be united with Christ and a crucial element to enable one to participate in the Lord’s Supper. Bruce explains that one of the requisites to partake of the elements is that, after thorough examination of his soul, the believer would be found in Christ by faith. He exhorts: “Examine, gif your saull be seasoned with this faith; for gif ye have not faith in Christ, Christ is not in you; and gif Christ be not in you, ye are in ane evill estate, ye are in the estate of the reprobate and damned.” [72] Another requisite is that there should be peace between the partaker of the Supper and his brethren; just as he needs to be united to God by faith, he also needs to be united with his neighbors by love. Bruce explains: “Ye man trie, Quhither ye be in love and under charitie with your neighbor of not: For as thou art not coupled with God but be the band of faith, sa thou art not coupled with thy neighbor, nor joined with na member of Christ in this earth, but be the band of love, amitie, and charity.” [73]
It becomes clear, thus, that in Bruce’s work the word “band,” which was previously used to convey the agreement between two or more people for a specific purpose, now gains a very different meaning. It now expresses the union between Christ and the Christian, which is completely spiritual and not physical, and its specific purpose is not the defense of the nation or of the true religion but the salvation of the believer’s soul. Moreover, this band exists by faith alone and is not sealed with ink and paper, by a solemn oath, or even with the celebration of the sacrament, but is sealed only by and through the power of the Holy Spirit. The word “band” acquires here a theological meaning focused completely on soteriology.
The word “league” is not found in Bruce’s writings. On the other hand, Bruce employs the word “covenant” as one presupposing a mature and developed understanding of covenant theology in the mind of his audience. He speaks of the “covenant of grace” which he also calls the “covenant of grace and mercy.” This covenant is made between God and the believer. He concludes this by arguing that the words of the institution of the Lord’s Supper are directed to believers and not to the elements.
With quhom makes God his covenant of mercie and grace? Will he make a covenant with a peece bread, or anie dumb element? There is na man will enter in a covenant with his servant, let be to enter in a covenant with a dumb element. Sa, in respect this sacrament seals up a covenant, this covenant of necessity man be knit up with ane faithfull saul, and not with the dumbe element; and, therefore, thir words cannot be directed to the elements. [74]Although it becomes clear who the parties of this covenant are, Bruce does not develop his concept of the covenant. He does not describe its blessings or curses, its stipulations and obligations. Contrary to Knox, the covenant here is not an instrument of coercion; rather, it describes the status of the believer before God. The theological idea of the covenant must be a concept already known to Bruce’s hearers so that his sermon would be intelligible for them.
Another crucial characteristic of the covenant for Bruce is that it is in Christ. While Knox emphasized the bilateral character of the covenant, reinforcing human responsibility in the covenantal dealing, Bruce’s idea of the covenant is that it is an agreement made in Christ Jesus. The Supper is the seal of the covenant; because Christ is signified in the elements, as one partakes of them, he testifies and experiences his union with the Savior. In Bruce’s own words:
and I call this sacrament of the supper ane halei seal annexed to the covenant of grace and mercie in Christ; a seal to be ministered publikly, according alwayis to the halie institution of Christ Jesus, that, be the lawful ministerie thereof, the sacramentall union betwixt the signes and the things signified may stand; and this union standing, Christ Jesus, quha is the thing signified, is als turlie delivered to the increase of our nuriture spiritual, as the signes are given and delivered to the bodie to the nuriture temporall. [75]This covenant is a gracious dealing which blesses those who are part of it. Bruce does not use the covenant concept to provoke his hearers to obedience but to remind them of the grace and mercy they received in Christ. And it is precisely this grace and mercy of the covenant that is signified in the Supper. “As the seal quhilk is annexed to the evident confirmes and seals up the truth conteined in the evident, sa this sacrament of the bodie and blood of Christ confirms and seals up the truth of mercie and grace conteined in the covenant of mercie and grace; for this respect it is called a seal.” [76]
But what is the “grace and mercy” of the covenant which is signified in the elements of the supper and which is given to those who partake of it? For Bruce, it is Christ and all the salvific and spiritual benefits merited by Him. Therefore, the blessings of the covenant are “life everlasting” and “salvation,” even Christ Himself. These are the things signified in the Supper. [77]
In summary, Robert Bruce’s usage of the idea of the covenant represents a strong shift from the contractual tone present in the Scottish social-political bonds to a more biblical-theological concept. It is expressed in a particularly spiritual and Christocentric way and as the fruit of the grace of God and the product of saving faith. For Bruce, the bond that exists between God and the believer is strictly spiritual and the product of the salvific and powerful work of the Spirit. The covenant is not a contract but a relationship with God, which, in fact, reflects the believer’s union with Christ. Jesus is fundamental in this relationship, making the covenant impossible without Him. The supreme blessing of the covenant is life eternal and in the economy of the covenant it flows from Christ. And the simple fact that Bruce uses such an elaborate concept without spelling it out seems to imply that he was counting on an already existent understanding of the doctrine of the covenant in the mind of his hearers. All this points us to a clear and radical shift from the social-political concept of the covenant to a more biblical-theological approach, something that can only be the product of a complete dependence upon the Holy Scriptures.
The Idea Of The Covenant In The Thought Of Andrew Melville
After Knox, the Scottish Reformed church found its most eminent leading scholar in Andrew Melville (1545-1622). He was the uncle of James Melville, who wrote an autobiography and diary where expressions of admiration of his uncle are frequently found. He was extremely active in the composition of the Second Book of Discipline from 1576 to 1578. Melville started his theological education at St. Mary’s College, St. Andrews, in 1559. After completing his arts courses, he pursued further education in the continent, sitting under famous names of early orthodoxy like Peter Ramus in France (1566) and Theodore Beza in Geneva (1569). He returned to Scotland in 1574, where different institutions recognized his academic abilities and sought for his services. He became the principal at Glasgow; there he implemented radical changes in the educational system, downgrading the amount of philosophical courses and changing the commonly practiced regency for a curriculum based on the teaching of specialists. [78]
Melville was renowned for his defense of the Presbyterian form of church government. He defended the position that in the Greek language of the New Testament, the words πρεσβυτέρους and ἐπίσκοπος are synonyms and, therefore, used interchangeably. His efforts and struggle to establish and preserve Presbyterianism in the Kirk raised the opinion that “Knox made Scotland Protestant, but Melville made it Presbyterian.” [79] In the area of covenant theology, the influence and thought of Melville are evidenced mainly in two works. The first is A Soum of the Doctrine of the Covenant of Scotland, written in 1596 as a response to the great spirit of conviction bought by the Little Kirk Covenant. This document seems to have been written primarily by James Melville, but it was surely highly influenced by Andrew and most certainly depicts his thought on the subject. [80] The second is his Commentarius in Divinam Pauli Epistolam ad Romanos, written in Latin in 1601 and republished in 1850 along with a translation of Charles Ferme’s commentary on the same book. [81]
The Soum of the Doctrine of the Covenant starts its exposition of covenant theology in an experimental tone. Reminiscent of the first question of the Heidelberg Catechism, it asks:
M. What does thow think and stemi of the Covenant of God?
P. I think and esteem of the Covenant of God as the onlie evident, right, securitie, and warrand of all my weilfear. [82]This expresses the notion that life is impossible without or apart from the covenant. Outside of it there is only misery, despair, and captivity to the power of death and Satan. The state of every man not in covenant with God is powerfully described in the third question of the Soum. There, man is depicted as a creature in a state of sin and misery by nature, separated from God and Christ as a child of wrath. [83] Thus, to be in covenant with God savingly is an absolute necessity that needs to be earnestly and urgently pursued.
But what is the covenant? Using the common contract language and the vocabulary of the Scottish social-political covenants, the Soum affirms that it is “the contract, band, and obligation, wharbe God binds and oblesses him selff to be my loving God and Father in Chryst, sa as thairby I am sure to want na guid thing, and to be keipit from all evil.” [84] The notion of dependence and duty is strongly present here. Curiously, God is the active party in the covenant. He is required to bless and protect those who are in covenant with Him. The same idea is expressed in another part of this Catechism, where the common scriptural covenantal formula “I will be your God and you will be my people” is used. It says: “God oblesses him selff, of his frie grace, to be my God and Father in his Sooner Jesus Chryst; and I with the rest are bound to be his servants and chidring.” [85] In this manner, the covenant is a mutual contract in which the Lord promises to bless His people and they swear allegiance to Him. There is no merit in this contract; the blessings of God are exclusively the fruit of His gratuitous love and mercy.
The Soum also presents strong Trinitarian underpinnings. While the covenant binds God the Father, the bond is in the Son. The idea of union with Christ was already expressed previously. It is only in Christ, affirms the Catechism, that God obligates Himself to be the Father of those in the covenant. In other portions of the document, Christ is described as the Mediator of the covenant due to His suffering and death at the cross. [86] It is as a sacrifice that Jesus establishes the bond between a just God and filthy sinners. Behind this idea are the notions of propitiation and expiation, satisfaction and purification.
Christ is also portrayed as the Surety of the covenant. Only in His perfect obedience are the demands of a relationship with the most holy God satisfied.87 But another dimension of the covenant is the promised inward work of God the Father through His Holy Spirit in the heart of the believer, bringing in him repentance and faith. [88] This conviction of sin is the assurance that one has truly been brought into an intimate relationship with the God of the covenant, for, as it has already been remarked, by nature man is enslaved to the desires of the flesh. [89] In this way, the covenant implies communion with the three persons of the Godhead.
In spite of the free grace of God displayed in Christ, the covenant is described as a conditional contract. In a portion of the Catechism the instructor asks:
M. And what is the condition on thy part, wharby thow may be kend his servand and child in Chryst?
P. Gif I embrace this promise of God’s grace and benefeit of the blissed Covenant (purchassit be Jesus Chryst) be a trew fathe, and testifie the sam in love, halines, and obedience. [90]The covenant was previously described as a mutual agreement in which the Lord promises to be the people’s God, and in their turn they promise to be His servants. The condition of the covenant, therefore, is expressed in the necessity of true faith and a devoted and pious life. One may hastily accuse Melville of contradiction, for if the covenant is a gracious dealing it cannot be at the same time conditioned to the obedience of the believer. The issue is solved through the work of the Holy Spirit. The Lord not only causes faith and repentance but is also responsible for the spiritual growth of the elect so that it is impossible to truly participate in the covenant without showing the signs of the regenerative work of the Spirit in one’s daily life. [91] The condition of the covenant is fulfilled by God Himself and the believer experiences and evidences it.
The Soum also addresses the dissolution of the covenant. This takes place when one does not fulfill his role in the contract. Here, the social-political Scottish covenant echoes again, enforcing obedience to the contract’s stipulations under the most severe penalties which involve even to return to the previous miserable state under the power of the kingdom of darkness. The covenant-breakers are exhorted to make a “new Covenant and Contract” with God. This happens when one approaches the offended party with true repentance and earnest desire to live up to the vow previously made. [92] Once again, one may quickly accuse Melville of inconsistency, for if God fulfills the condition of the covenant, the covenant cannot be broken. Melville himself affirms that God does not require perfect obedience of those in the covenant and that it is only through the perfection of Christ that the bond between Him and the elect is maintained. [93] The problem can only be solved when one moves from a soteriological to an ecclesiological perspective. In the practical life of the Christian, as member of the church and participant of the covenant, he daily breaks God’s holy requirements and therefore must constantly use God’s appointed means (the Word, sacraments, fasting, and public repentance) to make amends with the offended Lord. The idea of the dissolution of the covenant does not refer to the loss of one’s salvation, but to the reality of one’s life in the covenant. Melville concludes: “Bot because daylie we brak, it haid neid daylie to be renewed to us.” [94]
Andrew Melville expresses a mix of Knox and Bruce. In him we find the strong and coercive language of the Scottish bands and leagues associated with the spiritual view of the covenant. The covenant is the fruit of the free grace of God to all He chooses. As in Bruce, the Son and the Spirit are actively involved in the covenantal economy, but while Bruce emphasized the union between Christ and the believer, Melville develops a more balanced Trinitarian concept. This can only be the product of a more biblically based approach to the covenant, less influenced by secular ideas. Nevertheless, like in Knox, the covenant is still a contract, with its conditions which demand obedience, compelling the contracting party into a life of servitude.
The Idea Of The Covenant In The Thought Of Robert Howie [95]
In 1606, amid the great controversy concerning Presbyterian and Episcopal forms of church government and the limits of the Crown’s control over the church, King James IV removed his great opponent Andrew Melville from the position of principal of St. Mary’s College, St. Andrews, and put in his place Robert Howie (1568-1646), a sympathizer of the Episcopal cause. Little is known about Howie’s birth, infancy, and early education. It seems that he grew up in Aberdeen and that his early studies took place at King’s College. In spite of all the applause Bishop George Gladstanes offered to Howie at his arrival in St Mary’s, describing the new principal as a man of “so much rare learning as not only breeds great contentment to all the clergy here, but also ravishes them with admiration,” he soon encountered resistance; while defending the episcopal system in the course of his lecture, he was opposed and refuted by his own students. The episode rendered him a rebuke from the presbytery of St. Andrews. [96]
Howie’s education was acquired on the Continent. He went oversees in the company of another Scotsman, John Johnston, and studied at Herborn and Basel under Caspar Olevianus and John James Gynaens. Basel was the center of his literary production, having three of his writings published there: Iustificatione Hominis coram Deo (1590), De Communione Fidelium cum Christo (1590), and Reconciliatione Hominis cum Deo (1591). In these works, Howie expressed a highly developed view of God’s covenants and exhaustively used it in the composition of his theological formulations. [97] It is mainly from these works that Howie’s view on covenant theology can be reconstructed.
For Howie, the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments are the instruments in which God reveals the covenant of grace to mankind. He defended this idea as early as 1587 in his “Theses Philosophicae” while a student at Herborn under Piscator and Olevianus. This idea of making all God’s revelation covenantal was early perceived among Howie’s friends. John Johnston, a fellow Scotsman also studying on the Continent, wrote a letter to Piscator expressing his discomfort with Howie’s approach to theology and asked him to evaluate its validity. He complained that for Howie “theology existed in nothing other than the doctrine of the covenant.” [98] Not all of Howie’s friends shared Johnston’s discomfort, as would be confirmed in the writings of Robert Rollock.
In his works, Howie expounds the covenant in terms of unity and continuity. In a work called De Reconcialiatione Hominis cum Deo, he spent two chapters explaining the distinction between the old and new covenants and defended ideas similar to those of John Calvin in his Institutes. [99] He affirmed the existence of a single and eternal covenant which set the telos of the Bible as the reconciliation of man and which is the sole instrument of the salvation of sinners. This eternal covenant, however, was made evident in time through the progress of redemption in history. In Howie’s own words:
The gratuitous covenant of God is eternal and one…. This covenant is said to be one, because it is the one and only way by which man is freed from the tyranny of Satan and the bondage of sin and that they are at any time saved by any other means, which by the mercy of God, is observed in this gratuitous covenant and contract. Therefore, this covenant was with Adam in the beginning, and was confirmed and repeated with Abraham. In the same way, it was established with David and with the faithful in Jeremiah during the time of the Babylonian captivity. But this covenant is not new and different from the salvation that separates and raises mankind. [100]In other words, for Howie, the old and the new covenants are essentially one and the same given that their common objective is the redemption of man and their common source is the free grace of God. [101] On the other hand, he does not minimize or despise the differences. According to him, the old covenant was mostly restricted to the Jews while the new is open to all humanity. The old was more material and related to the land, the new is spiritual and characterized by the abundant presence of the Holy Spirit. [102]
Howie affirms the existence of a covenant of creation (foedus creationis), which was made with Adam before the fall (pre lapsus). In this covenant, eternal life was promised to Adam on the condition of perfect obedience to the moral law (lex moralis). After the fall, this covenant continues and was repeated by Moses as a means to point the participants of the covenant to the covenant of grace.
The moral law is nothing other than the covenant of creation, a covenant in which God stipulates perfect obedience and that of our own strength, for it was sufficiently great in us in the creation he first made, and gave it promise of eternal life. This covenant of creation God in his own right did not nullify due to the fall of man; rather, he repeated it by Moses but for the purpose of the covenant that follows. [103]The prelapsarian covenant thus is in full force and is what keeps man captive to the curses of the fall. As the moral law is repeated, it creates the expectation of one who will fulfill the requirements of the old covenant. Christ’s redemptive work is depicted as the only solution for man’s redemption and “with the knowledge they might flee for help to Christ who fulfilled the law for us.” [104]
In Howie, the idea of a Trinitarian covenant prevails in which union with Christ and the work of the Holy Spirit in the believer are fundamental characteristics. Salvation by faith alone is the condition of the covenant and the instrument which unites the elect with Christ, produces fellowship between them, and provides peace between a just and holy God and the covenanted sinner. The role of the Spirit is that of generating faith in man who cannot do it on his own. Union with Christ, the absolute necessary condition for man’s salvation and participation in the covenant, is a work wrought entirely by the Spirit. It is exactly this Trinitarian approach that removes any trace of merit on the part of man, since he is passive in all this creative process and held responsible only to live according to the gift he has received. [105]
As covenant theology develops in Scotland, Howie demonstrates substantial progress. Probably because his works were produced outside of Scotland and in an academic environment, his doctrine of the covenant bears a more systematic, scholastic, and philosophical approach. There is a complete absence of the characteristic vocabulary used in Scotland in reference to social bonds and covenantal dealings. In spite of the notion of a condition in the covenant of grace, Howie’s works do not present the strong emphasis on contractual obedience found in previous works on the subject. His works evidence dissociation from the ethical emphasis aiming to engage the conscience and behavior to an approach marked by the use of logic and Scripture, resulting in a rich systematization of biblical truths regarding the covenant.
The Idea Of The Covenant In The Thought Of Robert Rollock
The climax of the development of covenant theology in Scotland is found at the end of the sixteenth century in the writings of Robert Rollock, the first principal of the University of Edinburgh. Rollock was born in 1555, and at an early age was sent to Stirling to study grammar under Thomas Buchanan. In 1574, he was sent to St. Salvator’s College, University of St. Andrews, where he was influenced and molded according to the revolutionary educational system implemented by Andrew Melville. [106] There, Rollock’s abilities were augmented and quickly recognized; after the completion of the four-year program in that institution, he became professor of philosophy, and later, in 1580, he became the director of the faculty of arts. [107] Although extremely busy with his professorship and other professional duties, Rollock still found time to study and attended Hebrew classes under James Melville. Melville wrote about Rollock in 1580: “I had the honour, of Him to whom all honour appertains, to be the teacher of Mr. Robert Rolloc, of most worthie memorie, the Hebrew toung, wha resorted ordinarlie to my lessons and chalmer to that effect.” [108]
In 1583, Rollock moved from St. Andrews to Edinburgh by invitation of the town’s council to initiate a university in that city. The suggestion was made by James Lawson, Knox’s successor in the city, and it was readily accepted. He started teaching philosophy there and soon many were hasting to Edinburgh to listen to Rollock’s lectures. [109] As an instructor, Rollock’s concern was both with the mind and soul of his students. He was noted for taking particular interest in the devotional life of his students, praying publicly with them every morning and preaching to them at least once a week. His sermons were characterized by his powerful delivery and their experimental nature. They always included several practical applications and exhortations. Rollock’s preaching as a whole “was attended with a remarkable degree of spiritual power and impressiveness, and the most learned and cultivated class were as much impressed as the ignorant.” [110] Rollock’s first class graduated in 1586; 48 students received their degree that year. As part of the ceremony, the King’s Confession of 1581 was signed by both graduates and professor. [111] Until his death in 1599, he remained an active teacher and preacher of the Word. At his funeral, most of Edinburgh’s population was present since they “considered him as their spiritual father, and regarded his death as a public calamity.” [112]
Rollock’s career was later marked by his involvement with ecclesiastical polity, which brought great criticism. King James took advantage of Rollock’s respect for him at least on two occasions: first, in the general assembly of 1596/97 at Perth, when James wanted the Kirk to consider thirteen articles that would enforce his Episcopal view of church government; and secondly, in another situation in 1597, which resulted in the expulsion of Andrew Melville from St. Andrews and in the prohibition of several professors of that institution to participate in the disciplinary meetings of the presbytery. These two episodes granted Rollock the antipathy of many colleagues. James Melville said he was “a good, godly, learned man, but extremely simple and pusillanimous, so that he was easily carried with counsel.” [113] Chambers described Rollock in bitter and unkind words: “Mr. Rollock’s simplicity of character degenerated into, or rather originally possessed a natural imbecility, not at all uncommon in minds of this description, which disqualified him from acting a consistent, or a profitable part in the conduct of the public affairs of the church, which at this period were of paramount importance.” [114] This negative attitude toward Rollock may well be the cause of him becoming such a neglected Scottish theologian who contributed much to the growth and maturing of the church.
Although Rollock never left Scotland, his theological thought and work seem to have been highly influenced by continental theologians. According to Sherman Isbell, the philosophical education Rollock implemented in the University of Edinburgh leaned heavily on Aristotle. Students were also trained in more secular areas such as mathematics, anatomy, and geography. But the divinity preparation seemed to lean heavily on the study of the original biblical languages, on the system of doctrines contained in the Heidelberg Catechism, and on Beza’s Quastiones. [115] German theology seems also to have influenced Rollock’s thought. Henderson affirms that a copy of Olevianus’s De Substantia Foederis was in the possession of a colleague and friend of Rollock during the late 1500s in Edinburgh, and the works of Johannes Piscator, the German theologian who was at Herbon with Olevianus, were also known in Scotland. [116] Thus it is reasonable to assume that Rollock’s theology, as well as of those trained under him, would bear a Continental flavor.
Rollock was a prolific writer; “between 1590 and 1634 at least forty printings of his writings issued from presses in Edinburgh, Geneva, and Heidelberg and Herborn in Germany.” [117] He wrote several commentaries on different Pauline letters, including Romans (1594), Ephesians (1590), Thessalonians (1598), Galatians (1602), and Colossians (1603). He also wrote commentaries on other portions of the New Testament such as the Gospel of John (1599) and the narrative passages of Christ’s passion, resurrection, and ascension (1616), as well as on the letter to the Hebrews (1605) and the Old Testament prophet Daniel (1591). But of crucial importance to Rollock’s views on the covenant and for an assessment of his contribution in this field of theology two treatises are of utmost importance: his Questiones et Responsiones Aliquot De Foedere Dei (1596) and his Tractatus De Vocatione Efficaci (1597). The former was the first treatise completely dedicated to covenant theology published in Scotland, and the latter was a body of divinity in which the central theme is God’s covenants with man. [118]
Rollock’s definition of a covenant bears the usual contractual traces. He says that “the covenant of God generally is a promise under some one certain condition.” [119] On the other hand, for him the covenant idea is totally theocentric. In the Scottish social-political context, the covenants were agreements that bonded individuals among themselves or with God in an upward direction, but Rollock defines the covenant in a downward direction: it is an agreement initiated by God under His own stipulations and sanctions. For Rollock, the idea of the covenant also functions as a worldview. He affirms that “all the word of God appertains to some covenant; for God speaks nothing to man without the covenant.” [120] This statement puts man in a strict covenantal relationship with God since it is by God’s speech that man’s role in divine creation is disclosed. It also places the composition of the holy writs in a covenantal context, for since the Bible is the Word of God, it must be covenantal. In fact, Rollock affirmed that the Bible is the book of the covenant: “For which cause all Scripture, both old and new, wherein all God’s words is contained, bears the name of God’s covenant or testament.” [121]
A new emphasis is clear in Rollock’s view of the covenant. Words like “bond” and “league,” so common in previous works, are absent from his formulation. This absence demonstrates his detachment from the social-political notion of the Scottish covenants. The notion of a contract is still present but in a completely different flow: from God to man. Moreover, his revelational view of the covenant and its equivalence with the Word of God creates strong dependency of Rollock’s theology on the Scriptures. One can expect a strong reliance on the Bible, in harmony with the Reformed principle of sola Scriptura, as he develops his treatises.
Rollock embraces a twofold idea of God’s covenants. For him, there are two covenants between God and man: “the covenant of nature or works, and the covenant of grace.” [122] This view comes from Rollock’s understanding of Galatians 4:24 and the two women mentioned in that passage, Hagar and Sarah, as “those two covenants.” [123] Man is not completely passive in the covenantal dealing. Although he is not involved in its formulation, it is not an imposed agreement forced upon man, but man accords with all its parts and voluntarily enters in it. The very first question in Rollock’s catechism on the covenants expresses this idea:
Q. What is the covenant of God established with man?
A. It is that by which God promises man something of good under some certain condition, and man, moreover, accepts that condition. [124]The covenant of works is described as a conditional agreement based on Adam’s perfect obedience. Due to his original righteousness, Adam would be able to perfectly fulfill its conditions. Rollock explains that this perfection in character and action is the fundamentum of the covenant of works.
A good, holy, and upright nature, of the kind which was in man at creation. For if God had not made man in the beginning, according to his own image—That is, wise, holy and just by nature—then he could not, surely, have established with man this covenant, which has for its condition only, just, and perfect works proceeding from man’s nature. [125]Adam’s perfect obedience was in light of the law written in his heart and later published by God at Sinai. Rollock calls these conditions the moral law and affirms that they were written in man’s heart at the moment of his creation. Upon the fulfillment of this covenant, Adam would live “a blessed life which should endure forever.” [126]
The covenant of grace is made in Christ only with the elect. It is the remedy for the broken covenant of works. Its purpose is to bring redemption to a particular group of fallen humanity. In spite of its breach and of man’s corrupt nature, the covenant of works continues to act. Every man is included in the covenant of works and even after the fall it continues to promise eternal life for those who perfectly abide in it and eternal death for those who break it. [127] The terrible effects of sin brought by the Fall prevent man from meeting the requirements of the old covenant in any sense, for he has been wholly contaminated with sin: body soul, mind, and affections. [128] On the other hand, in the covenant of grace it is Christ who fulfills the requirements of the covenant of works and takes upon Himself the just condemnation demanded by the breached covenant. Rollock beautifully and systematically explains why Christ needed to perfectly obey the law on behalf of the elect and also to die for them. He portrays Christ as the only Mediator of believers, actively (agendo) and passively (patiendo) fulfilling their role in the covenantal dealing. [129]
Rollock uses the doctrine of the covenant to develop other theological subjects. He forms a link between effectual calling and the covenant of grace. The latter is the instrument through which chosen men are effectually brought into a peaceful relationship with God. Effectual calling is a promise of the covenant of grace which becomes reality in the life of the elect in the moment of their conversion. The graphic below illustrates Rollock’s idea:
Effectual calling, defines Rollock, “is that whereby God calleth out of darkness into his admirable light, from the power of Satan unto God, in Christ Jesus, those whom he knew from eternity, and predestinated unto life.” [130] Contrary to his prelapsarian state, man finds himself in complete separation from his Creator. Only by the intervention of God Himself can this situation be reversed. This intervention is the fruit of God’s grace toward fallen humanity since the works-principle of the first covenant cannot be met anymore.
“The cause which moved God hereunto is his own special grace; for the cause of all God’s blessings upon us is in himself.” [131] And it only becomes effectual because of the same special grace, not because of any residual good in man.
This “outward calling,” says Rollock, is made “by the publication of the covenant of grace, or preaching of the gospel.” [132] Preaching of the covenant of grace removes elect fallen men from their terrible state as Christ is presented to them and as the Holy Spirit regenerates their hearts and gives them faith. In explaining why sinners answer God’s calling, Rollock describes the function of the covenant of grace in Trinitarian terms. It is the means by which God communicates His free grace in Christ and works faith in the believers by the Holy Spirit. “That the cause wherefore we answer God’s calling, or believe in God, is God’s own grace, which worketh in us this faith by the Holy Ghost, which is given us with his word; for, like as God of his mere grace calleth us outwardly unto himself, so the same—his grace and free love in Jesus Christ—kindleth this faith in us, whereby we answer his heavenly calling.” [133] So the covenant of grace, which is the Word of God and the gospel, is the instrument the Father actively uses to communicate to sinners His abundant mercy in the Son and to bring them to faith by the Spirit.
The doctrine of God’s covenant clearly finds a mature and systematic development in Rollock and acquires the form of a body of divinity, as it used to be called, that is, a systematic theology. The influence of the Scottish covenants as social and political dealings is certainly present in Rollock’s mind. It was a strong factor in his time as he himself signed the Kings Confession of 1581 along with his first graduates from Edinburgh. [134] The coercive spirit of those covenants was most certainly present in the ecclesiastical struggles Rollock was involved in during the second half of his life and ministry. But what one finds in Rollock is an idea of the covenant completely free from those ideals. His approach differs from those of Robert Bruce and Andrew Melville, who, although employing a biblical view of the covenant, did not achieve a significant and organized development of the theme. Relying entirely on the Scriptures but employing a more methodical, philosophical, and systematic approach, Rollock developed a double-covenant scheme in continental style and becomes “the first to print the precise phrase foedus operum, ‘covenant of works,’ and also the first to enlarge the contrast between the covenants, thus foreshadowing later federalist doctrine.” [135]
Conclusion
Covenant theology in Scotland was not a phenomenon only evidenced from the seventeenth century on. Already at the end of the sixteenth century, the covenant idea was a well-developed system among Scottish theologians. It was not only present in the theological academies and universities but used from the pulpits and in the doctrinal instruction of regular church members. It was a tool for theological formulations to make sense of the grand scheme of redemption present in the Bible and also to teach, admonish, and encourage parishioners in the pew. It is in the works of Robert Rollock that the maturity in covenantal thought is found as he uses it as the foundation for every theological loci.
This mature formulation, however, ensues from a mix of both theological endeavor and the social bond and contracts of Scotland. Being in practice among the Scottish people since the fourteenth century, the leagues often were classified as “covenants” and had the power to mold and shape the ethical behavior of those who contracted them. As the Scottish divines embraced the principle of sola Scriptura, grounding their writings and sermons only in the Bible, the covenant idea was quickly identified in the writings of the Old Testament and used as an instrument to address the conscience of believers, stirring them to obedience to God. Along with the growth of scriptural knowledge came the purification of the idea which shifts from its initial contractual-conditional tone to a complex twofold (sometimes threefold) redemptive scheme in which the grace of the Triune God was displayed in the salvation of His elect. Although the covenant idea was not something new among the Scots, it is only in Christ and through the writings of Scripture that it acquired its true and meaningful place in the life of the believer.
Notes
- James Walker, The Theology and Theologians of Scotland, 1560-1750 (Edinburgh: Knox Press, 1982), 73.
- David Dickson, Therapeutica Sacra: Shewing Briefly the Method of Healing the Diseases of the Conscience (Edinburgh: Printed by James Watson, 1697). Dickson develops the doctrine of the covenant in chapters 4-6 of his work. Chapter 4, which deals with the covenant of redemption, is remarkably longer than the other two. The remaining chapters deal with the covenant of works and the covenant of grace, respectively. For more on David Dickson and his contribution to covenant theology, see Carol A. Williams, “The Decree of Redemption is in Effect a Covenant : David Dickson and the Covenant of Redemption” (PhD diss., Calvin Theological Seminary, 2005); Nathan D. Holsteen, “The Popularization of Federal Theology: Conscience and Covenant in the Theology of David Dickson (1583-1663) and James Durham (1622-1658)” (PhD diss., University of Aberdeen, 1996).
- Rutherford’s doctrine of the covenants is best expressed in two of his works: Samuel Rutherford, Lex, Rex: or, The Law and the Prince (Harrisonburg, Va.: Sprinkle Publications, 1982); Samuel Rutherford, The Covenant of Life Opened, ed. C. Matthew McMahon (New Lenox, Ill.: Puritan Publications, 2005). For other areas in which covenant theology greatly influenced Rutherford’s thought see John L. Marshall, “Natural Law and the Covenant: the Place of Natural Law in the Covenantal Framework of Samuel Rutherford’s Lex, Rex” (Ph.D. Dissertation, Westminster Theological Seminary, 1995); Shaun A. De Freitas, “Samuel Rutherford on Law and Covenant: the Impact of Theologico-Political Federalism on Constitutional Theory” (PhD diss., University of the Free State, 2003).
- Gillespie’s published works on the covenant are: Patrick Gillespie, The Ark of the Testament Opened, or, The Secret of the Lord’s Covenant Unsealed: in a Treatise of the Covenant of Grace (London: Printed by R.C., 1661); Patrick Gillespie, The Ark of the Covenant Opened: or, A Treatise of the Covenant of Redemption Between God and Christ, as The Foundation of the Covenant of Grace (London: T. Parkhurst, 1677). According to David Lachman, the third volume of the series was on the “instrumentality of faith on justification.” It seems that the other two volumes, which treated the privileges and duties of the covenant, were lost. David C. Lachman, “Gillespie, Patrick,” in Dictionary of Scottish Church History & Theology, ed. Nigel M. de S. Cameron (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 1993), 360. In spite of his two extant treatises, Gillespie seems to be another forgotten theologian of the post-Reformation period. For more on him in recent scholarship, see Carl R. Trueman, “From Calvin to Gillespie on Covenant: Mythological Excess or an Exercise in Doctrinal Development?,” International Journal of Systematic Theology 11, no. 4 (Oct. 2009): 378-97.
- Donald Macleod, “Covenant Theology,” in Dictionary of Scottish Church History & Theology, ed. Nigel M. de S. Cameron (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 1993), 214-18.
- George D. Henderson, “Idea of the covenant in Scotland,” Evangelical Quarterly 27, no. 1 (Jan.–Mar. 1955): 2-14.
- James K. Hewison, “‘Bands’ or Covenants in Scotland, with a list of Extant Copies of the Scottish Covenants,” in Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland, vol. VI, 4th Ser., 1908, 166.
- Robert the Bruce became famous in Scottish history due to his great victory against the English in the battle of Bannockburn. King Robert received great support from the Scottish church, and he himself was recognized as a pious and religious man. See G. W. S. Barrow, “Robert I,” in Dictionary of Scottish Church History & Theology, ed. Nigel M. de S. Cameron (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 1993), 721-22.
- Citation found in Hewison, “‘Bands’ or Covenants in Scotland, with a list of Extant Copies of the Scottish Covenants,” 166.
- Keith M. Brown, “Lords and Men in Scotland: Bonds of Manrent 1442-1603,” The Scottish Historical Review 66, no. 181 (April 1, 1987): 89.
- Brown, “Lords and Men in Scotland: Bonds of Manrent 1442-1603,” 89.
- F. R. H. Du Boulay, “Lords and Men in Scotland: Bonds of Manrent 1442-1603,” The International History Review 9, no. 1 (February 1, 1987): 163.
- Boulay, “Lords and Men in Scotland: Bonds of Manrent 1442-1603,” 163. More on bonds of manrent in S. A. Burrell, “The Covenant Idea as a Revolutionary Symbol : Scotland 1596-1637,” Church History 27, no. 4 (Dec. 1958): 339-40.
- Hewison, “‘Bands’ or Covenants in Scotland, with a list of Extant Copies of the Scottish Covenants,” 167.
- Hewison, “‘Bands’ or Covenants in Scotland, with a list of Extant Copies of the Scottish Covenants,” 167.
- John Lumsden, The Covenants of Scotland (Paisley: A. Gardner, 1914), 12.
- Lumsden, The Covenants of Scotland, 17-18.
- Knox’s exile can be divided into four phases: (1) Slavery in the French galleys from 1547 to 1549, (2) exile in England from 1549 to 1554, (3) Geneva and Frankfurt from 1554 to 1556, and (4) Geneva again from 1556 to 1559.
- R. G. Kyle, “John Knox,” in Dictionary of Scottish Church History & Theology, ed. Nigel M. de S. Cameron (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 1993), 465. See also John H. S. Burleigh, A Church History of Scotland (London: Oxford University Press, 1960), 134. He explains that this quick visit can be considered as the beginning of the Reformed church in Scotland and the public recognition of Knox as its leader.
- John Knox, The History of the Reformation of Religion within the Realm of Scotland, ed. Lord Charles John Guthrie (London: A. & C. Black, 1898), 116. Emphasis mine.
- Thomas M’Crie, The Life of John Knox: with Biographical Notices of the Principal Reformers, and Sketches of the Progress of Literature in Scotland during a Great Part of the 16th Century (New York: Thomas Nelson and Sons, 1889), 92.
- M’Crie, The life of John Knox, 102.
- Knox remarks on the powerful words of those who counseled him to return to Scotland. They said “that he could not refuse that vocation unless he would declare himself rebellious unto God and unmerciful with his country.” Knox, The History of the Reformation of Religion within the Realm of Scotland, 129-30.
- Knox, The History of the Reformation of Religion within the Realm of Scotland, 130.
- M’Crie, The Life of John Knox, 102-3.
- Lumsden, The Covenants of Scotland, 24. The whole text of the letter can be found in Knox, The History of the Reformation of Religion within the Realm of Scotland, 130-33.
- This document can be found in its entirety in Knox, The History of the Reformation of Religion within the Realm of Scotland, 133-34, and in a more organized form in Lumsden, The Covenants of Scotland, 25.
- Lumsden, The Covenants of Scotland, 31.
- Lumsden, The Covenants of Scotland, 26.
- Knox, The History of the Reformation of Religion within the Realm of Scotland, 232-33. The Scottish Confession is not classified as one of the Covenants made in Scotland. This may be because it does not spell in its text the covenantal language characteristic of the other documents placed in this category. Nevertheless, in practical terms, it united the whole Protestant movement, if not the whole country, under the doctrine contained in that document and bonded the Scottish citizens into a single faith. It was also enforced upon the land as stated in a footnote on page 233 of Knox’s History. There the editor explains that severe penalties were set against the Catholic practices condemned by the Parliament, like the confiscation of goods, banishment, and even death, although they were not heavily enforced in the land. It also caused a strong reaction and commotion in the Scottish people as the English ambassador, who witnessed the adoption of the confession, described the scene to Cecil, Elizabeth’s minister. He informed the minister that as the articles of faith were read, the barons not only entirely agreed with them but some were so moved to the point of “offering ‘the shed of their blood in defense of the same.’” John C. Johnston, Treasury of the Scottish Covenant (Edinburgh: Andrew Elliot, 1887), 29-30. More on the Scots Confession in Burleigh, A Church History of Scotland, 154-60; W. I. P. Hazlett, “Scots Confession,” in Dictionary of Scottish Church History & Theology, ed. Nigel M. de S. Cameron (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 1993), 751-52.
- Edwin Nisbet Moore, Our Covenant Heritage: the Covenanters’ Struggle for Unity in Truth as Revealed in the Memoir of James Nisbet and Sermons of John Nevay (Tain, Ross-shire: Christian Focus Publications, 2000), 18. For more on the similarities between Old Testament Israel and the covenants of Scotland, especially in the mind of the Covenanters of the seventeenth century, see James B. Torrance, “The Covenant Concept in Scottish Theology and Politics,” in The Covenant Connection: from Federal Theology to Modern Federalism, ed. Daniel Judah Elazar and John Kincaid (Lanham, Md.: Lexington Books, 2000), 154-57.
- David Hay Fleming, The Story of the Scottish Covenants in Outline (Edinburgh: Oliphant, Anderson & Ferrier, 1904), 20-21.
- Johnston explains that the fragile relationship between Crown and Church during the time “encouraged many Jesuits and Papists to avow their tenets openly.” Catholic priests received dispensations from Rome giving them, and any Catholic, permission to subscribe Protestant documents and confessional formulas “provided that in mind they continued firm, and secretly used their diligence to advance the Romish faith.” Johnston, Treasury of the Scottish Covenant, 50. It was the acquaintance of King James VI with one of these dispensations that triggered him to ask his minister, Rev. John Craig, to write this confession.
- The anti-Romanist tone of this document is remarkably strong. It is possible to identify, first of all, a general denouncement and rejection of any false religion, but specifically of the Roman Church and of the pope as its head. “And therefore we abhor and detest all contrary religion and doctrine; but chiefly all kinds of Papistry in general and particular heads even as they are now condemned and confuted in the Word of God and Kirk of Scotland. But, in special we detest and refuse the usurped authority of that Roman Antichrist upon the Scriptures of God, upon the kirk, the civil magistrate, and consciences of man.” Johnston, Treasury of the Scottish Covenant, 48. This section asserts a complete denial of the validity of any papal decision or doctrine like “his five bastard sacraments,” “his blasphemous opinion of transubstantiation or real presence of Christ’s body,” and “his profane sacrifices for the sins of the dead and the quick.”Johnston, Treasury of the Scottish Covenant, 49. The pope and papacy are seen not as the eschatological antichrist but the Johannine antichrist who arises against Christ and His church.
- Fleming, The Story of the Scottish Covenants in Outline, 21. “It was sent through the land to be subscribed in every parish, and all commissioners and ministers were ‘to crave subscription and report refusers under the pain of forty pounds to be taken from their stipend.’” Johnston, Treasury of the Scottish Covenant, 48.
- W. I. P. Hazlett, “King’s Confession,” in Dictionary of Scottish Church History & Theology, ed. Nigel M. de S. Cameron (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 1993), 459. This covenant was later reaffirmed in full in the National Covenant of 1638. For a more full analysis of the King’s Covenant and its full text see Lumsden, The Covenants of Scotland, 105-19. John D. Ford provides an excellent explanation of the binding effects of this covenant to Scotland as a nation and to all its citizens in John D. Ford, “The Lawful Bonds of Scottish Society: The Five Articles of Perth, The Negative Confession and the National Covenant,” The Historical Journal 37, no. 1 (March 1, 1994): 48-49.
- David Calderwood, The History of the Kirk of Scotland, ed. Thomas Thomson, vol. 5 (Edinburgh: Wodrow Society, 1844), 406.
- Lumsden, The Covenants of Scotland, 173. An extensive list of practical changes was proposed in order that a faithful ministry would flourish among those taking this covenant. Among them were the devotional reading of Scripture, the catechizing of children and servants, the utmost use of the ministers’ abilities within the parishes they served, and even the engagement of the minister in common works as the repairing of bridges. For an extensive list of all these duties, check the section called “corruptions in the office” in Calderwood, The History of the Kirk of Scotland, 5:401-6.
- Henderson, “Idea of the covenant in Scotland,” 3.
- Calderwood, The History of the Kirk of Scotland, 5:406.
- Calderwood, The History of the Kirk of Scotland, 5:407.
- Burrell, “The covenant idea as a revolutionary symbol,” 341.
- Burrell, “The covenant idea as a revolutionary symbol,” 341-42.
- Henderson, “Idea of the covenant in Scotland,” 4.
- “In Scotland at least, and certainly among the English puritans, it enabled the clergy to introduce exhortation into homiletics without, at the same time, destroying man’s ultimate dependence upon divine grace as the sole means of salvation.” Burrell, “The covenant idea as a revolutionary symbol,” 342.
- Andrew Woolsey, “Unity and Continuity in Covenantal Thought: a Study in the Reformed Tradition to the Westminster Assembly, Volume 2” (PhD diss., Glasgow, Scotland: University of Glasgow, 1988), 239.
- These two short treatises are remarkably covenantal. Richard Greaves says of the first that it “contains Knox’s basic treatment of the covenant.” Richard L. Greaves, “John Knox and the Covenant Tradition,” Journal of Ecclesiastical History 24, no. 1 (January 1973): 23. The second work helps to grasp Knox’s thought in a more soteriological context.
- John Knox, Selected Writings of John Knox: Public Epistles, Treatises and Expositions to the Year 1559 (Dallas: Presbyterian Heritage Publications, 1995), 148.
- Kyle, “John Knox,” 465.
- “Consider, dear brethren, if all these things be alike between England and Judah before the destruction thereof; yea, if England be worse than Judah was, shall we think that the Lord’s vengeance shall sleep, man’s iniquity being so ripe?” Knox, Selected Writings of John Knox, 169. For more on John Knox and his role as social prophet, see Dale Walden Johnson and Edward McGoldrick, “Prophet in Scotland: The Self-Image of John Knox,” Calvin Theological Journal 33, no. 1 (April 1998): 76-86; Richard G. Kyle, “The Thundering Scot: John Knox the Preacher,” Westminster Theological Journal 64, no. 1 (Spring 2002): 135-49; Richard G. Kyle, The Ministry of John Knox: Pastor, Preacher, and Prophet (Edwin Mellen, 2002); Paul M. Little, “John Knox and English Social Prophecy,” The Journal of the Presbyterian Historical Society of England xiv (1970): 117-27.
- Addressing the conscience through covenantal responsibilities became a common practice in the late sixteenth century and in the English Puritan movement among men like William Perkins, John Downham, John Bunyan, and Richard Baxter. Read more in Richard A. Muller, “Covenant and Conscience in English Reformed Theology: Three Variations on a 17th Century Theme,” Westminster Theological Journal 42, no. 2 (Spring 1980): 308-34.
- “This is the league betwixt God and us: that he alone shall be our God and we shall be his people.” Knox, Selected Writings of John Knox, 172. Emphasis added.
- “He [the Lord] shall communicate with us of his graces and goodness; we shall serve him in body and in spirit. He shall be our safeguard from death and damnation; we shall seek to him, and shall flee from all strange gods. In making which league we swear solemnly never to have fellowship with any religion, except with that which God has confirmed by his manifest word.” Knox, Selected Writings of John Knox, 172. Emphasis added. Note here the use of the language characteristic of the Scottish bonds to express the believer’s part and responsibility in the league.
- In spite of his energetic language, Knox does not incite violence against the Roman Catholics, the idolaters in question in his admonition. He places the responsibility of persecution and judgment of those who reject the true religion into the hands of the civil authorities. He affirms: “But now, shall some demand, ‘What then? Shall we go to and slay all idolaters?’ That were the office, dear brethren, of every civil magistrate within his realm. But of you is required only to avoid [the] participation and company of their abomination, as well in body as in soul, as David and Paul plainly teach unto you.” Knox, Selected Writings of John Knox, 176.
- Knox, Selected Writings of John Knox, 172. Emphasis added.
- Knox, Selected Writings of John Knox, 173-74. Emphasis added. In this statement one also finds a glimpse of Knox’s idea of lawful resistance to magistrates and rulers in defense of the true religion and of the gospel of Christ, which differs a bit from Calvin’s idea of passive obedience. Woolsey mentions the possibility of Knox’s idea to be an expansion of Calvin. Woolsey, “Unity and Continuity in Covenantal Thought, Vol. 2,” 249. More on Knox’s political theory in Richard C. Gamble, “The Christian and the Tyrant: Beza and Knox on Political Resistance Theory,” Westminster Theological Journal 46, no. 1 (Spring, 1984): 125-39; John R. Gray, “The political theory of John Knox,” Church History 8, no. 2 (June 1939): 132-47; W. Stanford Reid, “John Knox’s Theology of Political Government,” The Sixteenth Century Journal 19, no. 4 (December 1, 1988): 529-40.
- Knox, Selected Writings of John Knox, 175. Emphasis added.
- Knox, Selected Writings of John Knox, 177. Emphasis added.
- Knox, Selected Writings of John Knox, 173.
- It is important to note that although Knox emphasizes the league with God as a conditional agreement, it is clear that this condition is nothing but a grateful response of the believer who had been brought into such a gracious and merciful relationship with God. The believer does not obey the Lord to enter or remain in the league, but because he already is in it.
- Knox, Selected Writings of John Knox, 319.
- Knox, Selected Writings of John Knox, 319. Emphasis added.
- Here one sees the reflex of Knox’s doctrine of predestination, election, and visible and invisible church. These doctrines are developed in full harmony with Calvin’s theology. Greaves affirms that this understanding of an unbreakable covenant is incompatible with Knox’s previous idea of believers breaking the covenant. He affirms that Knox uses “some rhetorical warnings that his theology could not support.” Woolsey completely and ably refutes Greaves, noting that he overlooks and misunderstands the twofold view of election espoused by Knox and Calvin. See Greaves, “John Knox and the Covenant Tradition,” 24-25; Woolsey, “Unity and Continuity in Covenantal Thought, Vol. 2,” 239-43.
- Knox, Selected Writings of John Knox, 321.
- “This holy table, I say, has the wisdom of God commanded to be used in his kirk, to assure the members of his body that his Majesty changes not as man does, but that his gifts and vocation [calling] are such, as of the which he cannot repent himself towards his elect.” Knox, Selected Writings of John Knox, 321.
- Woolsey, “Unity and Continuity in Covenantal Thought, Vol. 2,” 248-49.
- Woolsey, “Unity and Continuity in Covenantal Thought, Vol. 2,” 248.
- Greaves recognizes this blend of Scripture with Scottish social covenant in Knox’s political theory. He affirms that “before Knox left Geneva he had transposed the religious covenant or league freely and smoothly into the political realm, where it became allied with the traditional Scottish band and the natural law-social contract theory, which was of major significance in British and American political history in the following centuries.” Greaves, “John Knox and the Covenant Tradition,” 32.
- According to S. A. Burrell, these sermons were delivered in 1589. See Burrell, “The covenant idea as a revolutionary symbol,” 341. For more bibliographical information on Robert Bruce, see Robert Wodrow, “Wodrow’s Life of Robert Bruce,” in Sermons by the Rev. Robert Bruce, Minister of Edinburgh, ed. William Cunningham (Edinburgh: Wodrow Society, 1843), 1-160; Robert Chambers, “Rollock, Robert,” in Lives of Illustrious and Distinguished Scotsmen, Forming a Complete Scottish Biographic Dictionary, vol. 3 (Glasgow: Blackie and Son, 1841), 375-82; I. R Torrance, “Bruce, Robert,” in Dictionary of Scottish Church History & Theology, ed. Nigel M. de S. Cameron (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 1993), 104-5; Iain Murray, A Scottish Christian Heritage (Edinburgh; Carlisle, Pa.: Banner of Truth Trust, 2006), 39-72.
- Robert Bruce, “Sermons Upon the Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper,” in Sermons by the Rev. Robert Bruce, Minister of Edinburgh, ed. William Cunningham (Edinburgh: Wodrow Society, 1843), 65.
- Bruce, “Sermons Upon the Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper,” 66. Emphasis added. In the same page, Bruce also affirms: “We are made all to drinke of that blood, quhen we drinke of that lively power and virtue that flows out of that blood; sa there is not a band that can couple my saull with the flesh of Christ but onely a spirituall band and ane spirituall union.” Bruce supports his argument with biblical texts like 1 Corinthians 12:13 and 6:17, where the Apostle Paul emphasizes the spiritual union between Christ and the believer.
- Bruce, “Sermons Upon the Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper,” 115. Emphasis added.
- Bruce, “Sermons Upon the Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper,” 116. Emphasis added.
- Bruce, “Sermons Upon the Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper,” 98.
- Bruce, “Sermons Upon the Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper,” 70. Emphasis added.
- Bruce, “Sermons Upon the Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper,” 70.
- “Therefore it is not aneugh to us to see Christ, bot he man be given us, or els he cannot work health and salvation in us. And as this salvation is given us, wee man have a mouth to take it. Quhat avails it me to see meat before me except I have a mouth to take it? Sa, the thing signified in the sacrament man be bien us be God, be the three person of the Trinity, and God, be Christ Jesus, quha man give himself, and as he gives himself, sa we man have a mouth to take him.” Bruce, “Sermons Upon the Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper,” 14.
- For more detailed biographical information on Andrew Melville, see J. Kirk, “Melville, Andrew,” in Dictionary of Scottish Church History & Theology, ed. Nigel M. de S. Cameron (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 1993), 556-57; Thomas M’Crie, Life of Andrew Melville, 2 vols. (Edinburgh: William Blackwood, 1824); Andrew Lang, “Andrew Melville’s St. Andrews,” in St. Andrews (London: Longmans, Green, and Co., 1893), 188-227; Collin Campbell, “Andrew Melville,” in Scottish Divines: 1505-1872 (Edinburgh: Macniven and Wallace, 1883), 37-72; John Howie, The Scots Worthies (New York: Robert Carter and Bros., 1853), 239-77. For more on the educational reforms implemented by Andrew Melville, especially in the area of philosophy, see Robert S. Rait, “Andrew Melville and the Revolt Against Aristotle in Scotland,” The English Historical Review 14, no. 54 (April 1, 1899): 250-60; John Veitch, “Philosophy in the Scottish Universities,” Mind 2, no. 6 (April 1, 1877): 207-34; Veitch, “Philosophy in the Scottish Universities”; Steven John Reid, “Education in post-Reformation Scotland: Andrew Melville and the University of St Andrews, 1560-1606” (PhD diss., University of St. Andrews, 2009).
- William M. Taylor, The Scottish Pulpit from the Reformation to the Present Day (New York: Harper, 1887), 75.
- Robert Chambers, Lives of Illustrious and Distinguished Scotsmen, Forming a Complete Scottish Biographic Dictionary, vol. 1 (Glasgow: Blackie and Son, 1841), 583; Henderson, “Idea of the covenant in Scotland,” 3. Henderson affirms that Andrew Melville shared responsibility for the composition of the Soum. Chambers attributes its authorship to James Melville alone, but there is no concrete proof of this fact. The complete document appears in James Melville’s diary, but he does not mention who the author was. Given his intimate relationship with his uncle and that both were strongly involved with the movement of covenant renewal in 1595-1596, it seems safe to assume Andrew’s influence in the document. The Soum is a fascinating document written in catechetical form for popular instruction. See the whole document in James Melville, The Autobiography and Diary of Mr. James Melvill, With a Continuation of the Diary, ed. Robert Pitcairn (Edinburgh: The Wodrow Society, 1842), 362-67.
- Andrew Melville, “Commentarius in Divinam Pauli Epistolam ad Romanos,” in A Logical Analysis of the Epistle of Paul to the Romans, ed. William Lindsay Alexander, by Charles Ferme (Edinburgh: Wodrow Society, 1850), 379-515. This work is not going to be the object of analysis in this chapter, for its date of composition extrapolates the interval of time of this research. In this commentary, Melville describes the covenant as starting with Adam and as being progressively disclosed in time reaching its climax in Christ and the salvation worked on the cross. See Henderson, “Idea of the covenant in Scotland,” 8; Melville, “Commentarius in Divinam Pauli Epistolam ad Romanos,” 429-31.
- Melville, The Autobiography and Diary of Mr. James Melvill, 362. The letters “M” and “P” in the question of the catechism stands for minister and people, respectively.
- “Even that maist miserable estaeat of Nature, without God, without Chryst, a Chylde of wrath, alian from the cmoun-weill of his people, under the slaverie of the devil and sinne, and, finalie, a faggot of helle-fyre.” Melville, The Autobiography and Diary of Mr. James Melvill, 362. Emphasis added.
- Melville, The Autobiography and Diary of Mr. James Melvill, 362. Emphasis added. In another portion of the document the covenant is described as a “Contract and Mutuall Band.” Melville, The Autobiography and Diary of Mr. James Melvill, 363.
- Melville, The Autobiography and Diary of Mr. James Melvill, 363. Emphasis added.
- “The onlie Mediator and Reconcylar, my Lord Jesus Chryst, and that be his awin pretius glood, and bitter passioun and deathe.” Melville, The Autobiography and Diary of Mr. James Melvill, 363.
- “For Chryst is the Cautionar of the Covenant and Contract for us, and sa principall deatter, taking the sam upon him to satisfie in all whar we are unable.” Melville, The Autobiography and Diary of Mr. James Melvill, 365. The word “cautionar” means surety or security.
- “Bot tak heid, I pray thie, whom God sa disposes and moves, (for ther is nocht monie of that sort!) as it is weill done to think na thing of thy self, sa be war till extenuate the grace of God and working of his Spreit, quhilk should be always acknawlagit with thankfull hartes to his praise.” Melville, The Autobiography and Diary of Mr. James Melvill, 366. Emphasis added.
- “Assure thy selff, thairfor, of a guid cais if thow find that feilling, yea, of the sorrow for want thairof, with desire to have it, for that is nocht of flech and bluid, bot of the Spreit of grace, quhilk can work bath the will and deid in that missour that he knawes meit for thie; with the quhilk be content.” Melville, The Autobiography and Diary of Mr. James Melvill, 366. Emphasis added.
- Melville, The Autobiography and Diary of Mr. James Melvill, 363.
- “Onlie remember this; whar Chryst dwelles in the hart be fathe, thair is a continuall grouthe and progres in knawlage and halines during this lyff, quhilk hes the awin perfection in the lyff to come, fulfilled even in us be the quicning Spreit of Chryst, working then without all contradictioun, impediment, or stay.” Melville, The Autobiography and Diary of Mr. James Melvill, 365. Emphasis added.
- “M. Now, what if God might be moved to forget and remit all bygeans, and enter in a new Covenant and Contract with thie, wald thow nocht be glade to embrace sic grace? P. O! Will all my hart; bot whow sall that be? M. Giff thow enestlie repent thy sinnes bypast, tak up a fecfull purpose of amendiment, with a fathful promise and vow of the sam unto the Lord by his grace for the tyme to come, and by assurit fathe cleive to the Lord Jesus in whom is all holiness and perfecioiun.” Melville, The Autobiography and Diary of Mr. James Melvill, 363.
- “For God requires nocht perfection of us in this lyff, quhilk he knawes we can never attain unto, because he will nocht giff it…Therefor, heir we have to strive against our awin imprectiones…and be trew fathe to cleive to that perfection of his Sone, the Lord Jesus Chryst, our Saviou, in whom he is weill appleasit, and of whase perfection be will accept of as ours.” Melville, The Autobiography and Diary of Mr. James Melvill, 365.
- Melville, The Autobiography and Diary of Mr. James Melvill, 364.
- I am greatly indebted in the writing of this section to the excellent work of Andrew Woolsey and his “The Scottish Connection: Robert Rollock and Robert Howie” in Woolsey, “Unity and Continuity in Covenantal Thought, Vol. 2,” 255-90.
- Robert Wodrow and Robert Lippe, Selections From Wodrow’s Biographical Collections: Divines of the North-East of Scotland (Aberdeen: Printed for the New Spalding Club, 1890), 237-39; Thomas M’Crie, Lives of the Scottish Reformers (Xenia, Ohio: Published by the Board of the Calvinistic Book Concern, 1846), 330. M’Crie offers a somewhat negative evaluation of Howie’s academic abilities. According to him: “Howie’s literary and theological acquirements were respectable; but he did not possess the genius, the elegant taste, or the skill in sacred languages, by which his predecessor was distinguished.”
- N. R. Needham, “Howie, Robert,” in Dictionary of Scottish Church History & Theology, ed. Nigel M. de S. Cameron (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 1993), 415.
- Woolsey, “Unity and Continuity in Covenantal Thought, Vol. 2,” 259.
- Calvin explains the difference between the old and new dispensations in Institutes, Book II, Sections 9, 10, and 11.
- “Foedus Dei gratuitum esse aeternum, et unum…Dicitur hoc foedus unum, quia unica et sola ratio qua homines ex tyrannide Satanae, et servitute peccari liberantur; et quod nulli unquam alia ratione servati sint, quam per hanc Dei misericordiam, quae in hoc foedere et contractu gratuito, conspicitur. Ideo hoc foedus cum Adamo ini tum, cum Abrahamo repeti tur et confirmatur. Sic cum Davide, sic cum fidelibus apud Ieremiam tempore captivitatis Babylonicae: Non autem nova et diversa foedera de salute humani generis sanctiuntur et eriguntur.” Cited in Woolsey, “Unity and Continuity in Covenantal Thought, Vol. 2,” 283 n. 39. My translation.
- George D. Henderson, “Idea of the covenant in Scotland,” Evangelical Quarterly 27, no. 1 (Jan.–Mar., 1955): 8.
- Woolsey, “Unity and Continuity in Covenantal Thought, Vol. 2,” 262.
- “Lex Moralis nihil aliud est quam foedus creationis, quo foedere Deus stipulatur a nobis perfectam obedientiam et quidem ex nostris viribus, quippe cum satis magnas nobis in prima creatione dederit: et praestatibus eam promittit vitam aeternam. Hoc foedus creationis, quia Deus suo iure per hominis lapsum non exciderat, repetiit per Moysen, sed in hunc finem de quo sequitur.” Cited in Woolsey, “Unity and Continuity in Covenantal Thought, Vol. 2,” 284 n. 47. My translation.
- “Cur non potius cum id agnoscant, ad Christum confugiunt, qui Legem pro nobis implevi.” Citation found in Woolsey, “Unity and Continuity in Covenantal Thought, Vol. 2,” 284 n. 51.
- Woolsey, “Unity and Continuity in Covenantal Thought, Vol. 2,” 267.
- According to Thomas F. Torrance, Andrew Melville was responsible for the introduction of Aristotelian philosophy and Ramist dialectics in the Scottish educational system. Such changes greatly influenced the thinking of the next generation of Scottish theologians, being evident in the logical analysis present in the biblical commentaries written in that time, particularly those written by Robert Rollock. See Thomas F. Torrance, Scottish Theology: From John Knox to John McLeod Campbell (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1996), 60-61.
- Paul Tomassi, “Rollock, Robert,” in The Continuum Encyclopedia of British Philosophy, ed. A. C. Grayling et al., vol. 3 (Bristol: Thoemmes Continuum, 2006), 2750.
- Citation found in Andrew Woolsey, “Robert Rollock (1555-1598): Principal, Theologian, and Preacher,” in Select Works of Robert Rollock, vol. 1 (Grand Rapids: Reformation Heritage Books, 2008), 4.
- Chambers, “Rollock, Robert,” 166.
- William Garden Blaikie, The Preachers of Scotland From the Sixth to the Nineteenth Century (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1888), 75; Chambers, “Rollock, Robert,” 167. Blaikie provides a good example of Rollock’s experimental preaching. In a sermon on the doctrine of regeneration, Rollock exhorted all the parents present to be instrumental in the conversion of their children if they were to be found faithful in their life of imitation of their heavenly Father who had first regenerated them.
- Hewison, “‘Bands’ or Covenants in Scotland, with a list of Extant Copies of the Scottish Covenants,” 171; Johnston, Treasury of the Scottish Covenant, 48; Howie, The Scots Worthies, 226. This reveals Rollock’s personal acquaintance and involvement with the Scottish social-political covenants.
- Chambers, “Rollock, Robert,” 170. There are some discrepancies concerning the precise year of Rollock’s death. Some authors place it in 1598 and others in 1599.
- Citation found in Blaikie, The Preachers of Scotland From the Sixth to the Nineteenth Century, 76.
- Chambers, “Rollock, Robert,” 167.
- Sherman Isbell, “Rollock, Robert,” in Dictionary of Scottish Church History & Theology (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 1993), 726. Beza himself held Rollock in high regard; after having contact with the Scottish theologian’s commentaries on Romans and Ephesians, which were published in Geneva, he affirmed: “I have got a treasure of incomparable value; having never before met with the like for brevity, elegance, and sound judgment. I pray God to preserve the Author, and daily to increase his gift in him, especially in these times, wherein the vineyard of the Lord has so few laborers.” Erasmus Middleton, Evangelical Biography (London: Printed for W. Baynes, 1816), 291.
- Henderson, “Idea of the covenant in Scotland,” 8-9. For a detailed comparison between Rollock and Piscator see Irena Backus, “Piscator Misconstrued: Some Remarks on Robert Rollock’s ‘Logical Analysis’ of Hebrews 9,” Journal of Medieval and Renaissance Studies 14, no. 1 (Spr 1984): 113-19.
- Isbell, “Rollock, Robert,” 726.
- “In Scotland it would seem Rollock was the first to print the precise phrase foedus operum, ‘covenant of works,’ and also the first to enlarge upon the contrast between the Covenants, thus foreshadowing later federalist doctrine.” Henderson, “Idea of the covenant in Scotland,” 9.
- Robert Rollock, “A Treatise of God’s Effectual Calling,” in Select Works of Robert Rollock, vol. 1 (Grand Rapids: Reformation Heritage Books, 2008), 34. For more biographical information on Robert Rollock, see Henry Charteris, “Narrative of the Life and Death of That Most Pious and Learned Gentleman, Mr. Robert Rollock, of Scotland, Minister of the Gospel and Principal of the College of Edinburgh,” in Select Works of Robert Rollock, vol. 1 (Grand Rapids: Reformation Heritage Books, 2008), lix–lxxxvii; Woolsey, “Robert Rollock (1555-1598): Principal, Theologian, and Preacher.”
- Rollock, “A Treatise of God’s Effectual Calling,” 33. Emphasis added.
- Rollock, “A Treatise of God’s Effectual Calling,” 33-34.
- Robert Rollock, “Robert Rollock’s Catechism on God’s Covenants,” trans. Aaron Clay Denlinger, Mid-America Journal of Theology 20 (2009): 110.
- Rollock, “A Treatise of God’s Effectual Calling,” 34.
- Rollock, “Robert Rollock’s Catechism on God’s Covenants,” 109-110.
- Rollock, “Robert Rollock’s Catechism on God’s Covenants,” 110-11. Rollock relies on the following biblical passages to make this statement: Genesis 1:26, 27; Ephesians 4:24; Colossians 3:9.
- Rollock, “Robert Rollock’s Catechism on God’s Covenants,” 111. Here Rollock appeals to the New Testament to determine Adam’s reward. He uses Romans 10:5 and Galatians 3:12 to support his statement.
- Rollock, “A Treatise of God’s Effectual Calling,” 33-38 and 51-55; Rollock, “Robert Rollock’s Catechism on God’s Covenants,” 110-12.
- Rollock, “A Treatise of God’s Effectual Calling,” 167.
- Rollock, “Robert Rollock’s Catechism on God’s Covenants,” 117. In Question 41, Rollock explains the necessity of satisfaction based on Deuteronomy 21:26.
- Rollock, “A Treatise of God’s Effectual Calling,” 29.
- Rollock, “A Treatise of God’s Effectual Calling,” 40.
- Rollock, “A Treatise of God’s Effectual Calling,” 29-30.
- Rollock, “A Treatise of God’s Effectual Calling,” 30.
- Hewison, “‘Bands’ or Covenants in Scotland, with a list of Extant Copies of the Scottish Covenants,” 171.
- Henderson, “Idea of the covenant in Scotland,” 9.
No comments:
Post a Comment