Handling A High Mystery: The Westminster Confession On Preaching Predestination

By Daniel R. Hyde

Predestination is a topic shrouded in mystery as well as misunderstanding. No less than the Apostle Peter wrote concerning the letters of his colleague, the Apostle Paul, saying, “[I]n which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do the other scriptures, unto their own destruction” (2 Peter 3:16). We can see the “wresting” of Paul’s writings on the doctrine of predestination exemplified in Romans 9. When Paul located the reason why his “kinsmen according to the flesh” (Rom. 9:3) did not believe in Jesus as their Messiah in the doctrine of predestination, he had to go on to answer several twists of his teaching. One was, “What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? God forbid” (Rom. 9:14), while another was, “Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will?” (Rom. 9:19).

These questions the apostle faced were not unique to him or even to the first century. Through the ages of church history, these and other objections to the doctrine of predestination have existed. As a result, the assembly of “divines” (theologians) at Westminster in the mid-seventeenth century (1642-1652) also dealt with predestination and how it ought to be handled by preachers. [1] These divines exposited the doctrine “Of God’s Eternal Decree” (De aeterno Dei Decreto) in chapter three of the Westminster Confession of Faith (1647). In paragraphs 1-2, they dealt with God’s decree in its all-embracing scope; in paragraphs 3-4, they dealt with the decree as it respects men and angels; and, in paragraphs 5-7, they dealt with the decree as it applies to men. [2] But they did not stop at expositing the doctrine of predestination. The assembly also spent paragraph 8 applying this doctrine vis-à-vis the preaching and teaching of it:

The doctrine of this high mystery of predestination is to be handled with special prudence and care, that men attending the will of God revealed in his Word, and yielding obedience thereunto, may, from the certainty of their effectual vocation, be assured of their eternal election. So shall this doctrine afford matter of praise, reverence, and admiration of God; and of humility, diligence, and abundant consolation to all that sincerely obey the gospel (3.8). [3]

In searching the extant expositions and commentaries of this Confession of Faith, one searches in vain for a comprehensive treatment on this most practical of paragraphs. Two examples illustrate this. First, even in a classic exposition of the Westminster Confession of Faith such as David Dickson’s (1583-1662), Truth’s Victory Over Error, the Westminster divines’ approach to predestination in chapter 3.8 has been neglected. In fact, although Dickson’s long title claims that his book stated the orthodox faith over against a multitude of false teachings, “by going through all the chapters of the confession of faith, one by one,” conspicuously absent in Dickson’s chapter on the eternal decree is any reference to paragraph 8. [4] Second, while there are several modern expositions that give brief treatments, not even in academic journal articles that claim to give a comprehensive study of the Westminster Standards’ doctrine of preaching is there any mention of this paragraph. [5] The attempt of this author, then, is to fill this void. To do so, chapter 3.8 will be examined in three contexts: first, its historic context, which reveals the catholicity of preaching predestination; second, its biblical context, which reveals the balanced biblical approach taken to preaching predestination; and third, its pastoral context, revealing exactly how the framers of the Confession preached predestination.

A Historical Approach

The issue of predestination and the preaching of it was not only an issue in the seventeenth century. This issue has a long, historical pedigree. When the divines at Westminster wrote chapter 3.8, they united their doctrine and practice with that of the historic catholic tradition. In reading the Confession, then, it is essential to understand that it is not a peculiar approach to predestination, but that it is historically rooted and catholic in ethos. This will be demonstrated by a survey of ancient, medieval, Lutheran, and Calvinist documents, stretching from the fifth to the seventeenth centuries.

Augustine (354-430)

The first example of this comes from the ancient church. We see predestination come to the fore in the works of St. Augustine. [6] In 428, Augustine received two letters from Southern Gaul from Prosper of Aquitaine and Hilary. [7] In response to these letters, Augustine wrote two treatises, “On the Predestination of the Saints” (De Praedestinatione Sanctorum) and “On the Gift of Perseverance” (De Dono Perseverantiae). [8] In De Dono, we find Augustine’s clearest teaching on the preaching of predestination. Augustine related that his opponents said, “The doctrine of predestination is an obstacle to the usefulness of preaching.” Yet Augustine went on to chronicle from Paul and Jesus’ words that they also preached predestination in texts such as Philippians 1:6 and 2:13 and John 6:66 and 14:1. [9] Augustine made it very clear that the preaching of predestination was not to absolve the preacher from preaching strongly the necessity of the saints’ perseverance and progress in faith, and that the preaching of the necessity of the saints’ perseverance and progress in faith did not absolve the preacher from preaching predestination strongly. [10] Augustine went on to relate another of his opponents’ arguments that said if predestination were preached, the saints would have no desire to be holy. To this Augustine replied,

For if on the hearing of this some should be turned to torpor and slothfulness, and from striving should go headlong to lust after their own desires, is it therefore to be counted that what has been said about the foreknowledge of God is false? [11]

Augustine concluded his responses to these Pelagian sympathizers by saying that there were only two ways to preach predestination: either it must be preached as Scripture declares it, or it must be preached as the Pelagians preach it, that is, that God’s grace is a result of our merit. [12] Augustine’s message was clear: predestination was to be preached along with the necessity of holiness in believers.

Gottschalk Of Orbais (804-869)

A second example of the historicity of preaching the doctrine of predestination comes from the early medieval church, in which there was yet another predestination controversy. In the mid-ninth century, this controversy revolved around the preaching and writing of Gottschalk of Orbais. [13] As Gottschalk began reading Augustine’s anti-Pelagian writings such as those mentioned above, he began to preach and teach throughout Italy and in the Balkans the doctrine of double predestination. This eventually generated great opposition from his former abbot, Rabanus Maurus (780-856). In 849, Gottschalk returned to Germany to appear before the Synod of Mainz, where Rabanus was archbishop. The Synod condemned, deposed, beat, and exiled Gottschalk to a monastery at Hautviller. While there, Gottschalk continued to read and write. Hincmar (806-882), Archbishop of Reims, replied to his writing by warning his parishioners in a tract, “To the Rural and Simple.” Gottschalk countered with his Longer Confession (Confessio prolixior). The fallout was that one regional synod sided with Hincmar while another sided with Gottschalk.

It is interesting to note from the vantage point of the Westminster Assembly that the works of Gottschalk were not published until James Ussher (1581-1656), a member of the Westminster Assembly, did so in 1631, while Archbishop of Armagh in Ireland. [14] The Confession of Faith’s words in 3.8 reflect the life and teaching of Gottschalk, who insisted upon a vigorous preaching of the doctrine of predestination.

The Solid Declaration Of The Formula Of Concord (1577)

A third historic example comes from the sixteenth-century Reformation, but—surprising to a Calvinist reader—from the Lutheran side of that Reformation. When the imperial army of Charles V (1500-1558) defeated the German armies that protected the Lutherans in the Schmalkaldic War at the Battle of Mühlberg on April 24, 1547, this led to the Augsburg Interim of May 15, 1548. [15] There was a further political settlement centered in Wittenberg, known as the Leipzig Interim of December 1548. This settlement caused a major divide with Lutheranism between those known as the Philippists and those who called themselves the Gnesio, that is, the true Lutherans. Despite the Peace of Augsburg in 1555, which allowed Catholic princes and Lutheran princes to worship according to their confessional and liturgical principles, the Lutheran Reformation still had two main camps: the Gnesio-Lutherans and the Philippists. Eventually, the desire for reconciliation and unity led to the Formula of Concord in 1577, which is divided into two parts: the Solid Declaration, which is much longer, and the Epitome, which was drawn up by Jakob Andreae as a summary. [16]

One of the issues that led to the Formula of Concord was that of predestination. In the Solid Declaration, article 11, “Concerning God’s Eternal Foreknowledge and Election,” the Lutheran divines declared that, if predestination was taught according to Scripture, it “cannot be regarded as unprofitable or unnecessary, much less as offensive or harmful.” Scripture taught this doctrine in many places, not merely one. [17] Because of this fact, “no one should ignore or reject this teaching of the divine Word just because some have misused and misunderstood it. Instead, precisely to avoid every abuse and misunderstanding, we should and must explain” it. [18] Against the false doctrine that God chose capriciously or randomly, the Solid Declaration stated this “would cause and strengthen either false security and impenitence or faintheartedness and despair.” [19] The correct understanding and use of this doctrine “produces or supports neither impenitence nor despair,” but Scripture teaches this doctrine to point us to the Word, to admonish us to repent, to encourage godliness, to strengthen our faith, and to assure our faith. [20]

What about the question so many ask, “Am I elect?” The Lutherans stated that this doctrine must be taught in a “salutary fashion,” meaning that this question must not be judged “according to our reason, nor according to the law, nor on the basis of outward appearance. Nor should we have the temerity to search the secret, hidden abyss of divine foreknowledge.” On the contrary, to know if one was elected was “to pay attention to the revealed will of God.” [21] Believers must hear their minister’s preaching, in which repentance and faith were preached, since the elect are described in Scripture as sheep who hear the voice of their shepherd (John 10)—“who hear the gospel, believe in Christ, pray, give thanks, are sanctified in love, have hope, patience, and comfort in their crosses (Rom. 8[:25]).” The Declaration even went on to say that while these may be weak in believers, yet “they still have a hunger and thirst for righteousness.” [22] Other marks listed by the Lutheran divines are the testimony of the Spirit (Rom. 8) and the ongoing work of God in believers (Phil. 1:6). [23] To summarize this practical section in article 11, the divines quoted Martin Luther, who said:

Follow the order of the Epistle to the Romans. Worry first about Christ and the gospel, that you may recognize your sins and his grace, and then fight your sin, as Paul teaches from the first to the eighth chapters. Then, when you come under the cross and suffering in the eighth chapters, this will teach you of foreknowledge in chapters 9, 10, and 11, and how comforting it is. [24]

According to the Solid Declaration, preaching predestination brough several benefits. First, it confirmed believers in the doctrine of justification, “that we become righteous and are saved apart from all our works and merit, purely on the basis of grace, solely for Christ’s sake.” [25] Second, and related, it refutes any doctrine of the power of our natural will. [26] Third, it brings believers comfort since God made the salvation of each Christian “such a high personal concern and intended to remain so faithful to it that...he preordained how he would bring me to salvation and preserve me in it.” [27] Fourth, it offers comfort in trials and cross-bearing. [28] Fifth, it testifies that the church will always exist as Jesus taught in Matthew 16:18. [29] Sixth, predestination also “contains powerful admonitions and warnings” since “many are called, but few are chosen” (Matt. 22:14). [30]

According to the Solid Declaration, then, predestination was to be preached according to the norm of Scripture and to point people to the Word, in order to call people to repentance and faith in Jesus Christ, and for the practical uses of calling the saints to strive for holiness and prayer.

The Synod Of Dort (1618-1619)

One final example of the historic nature of the Assembly’s approach comes from the Synod of Dort. At this Synod, in which delegates from all the Reformed churches in Europe were either invited and/or attended, the issue of preaching the doctrine of predestination was addressed. [31] In its Canons, the Synod wrote:

As the doctrine of divine election by the most wise counsel of God was declared by the Prophets, by Christ himself, and by the Apostles, and is clearly revealed in the Scriptures both of the Old and the New Testament, so it is still to be published in due time and place in the Church of God, for which it was peculiarly designed, provided it be done with reverence, in the spirit of discretion and piety, for the glory of God’s most holy name, and for enlivening and comforting his people, without vainly attempting to investigate the secret ways of the Most High (1.14). [32]

What is fascinating is how closely the Canon resembles the conclusion of the Collegiate Suffrage of the British Divines to the Synod. They spoke of it as “certaine and soundly grounded upon the word of God,” “a most sweet doctrine, and full of comfort.” They said, though, that this was only for those “who are rooted in faith, and exercised in pietie, to which kinde of men, in great conflict of conscience, it may bee instead of a strong tower of defence.” This was in contrast to those “whose mindes are wholly carried away by their carnall affections” and are called “to dive into this depth” by “the indiscretion of some Preachers.” [33]

The Synod needed to speak in such a practical way due to the accusations of the Remonstrants or Arminians. In the “Conclusion” to the Canons, the divines at Dort reproduced some of their accusations: they said predestination led the mind away from piety and religion and offered instead “an opiate administered by the flesh and the devil,” whose “wounds...mortally strikes through many with the darts both of despair and security.” They also claimed predestination caused men to be “carnally secure” since there was nothing they could do to save themselves or to live lives that please God. The Synod did not acknowledge these errors as theirs and detested the accusation “with their whole soul.” In response, Dort called upon ministers

to conduct themselves piously and religiously in handling this doctrine, both in the universities and churches; to direct it, as well in discourse as in writing, to the glory of the Divine name, to holiness of life, and to the consolation of afflicted souls; to regulate, by the Scripture, according to the analogy of faith, not only their sentiments, but also their language, and to abstain from all those phrases which exceed the limits necessary to be observed in ascertaining the genuine sense of the Holy Scriptures, and may furnish insolent sophists with a just pretext for violently assailing, or even vilifying, the doctrine of the Reformed Churches. [34]

Like Augustine, Gottschalk, and the Lutheran theologians of the Formula of Concord, the Synod of Dort affirmed the necessity of preaching predestination in order to bring glory to God, to comfort His people, to spur them onto godliness, and to call unbelievers to repentance and faith.

A Biblical Approach

The Westminster Confession of Faith 3.8 not only stresses the importance of preaching predestination in a catholic manner, but also in a way that is structured by the contours of Holy Scripture. [35] A survey of the various clauses and proof-texts offered for paragraph 8 brings this out.

Special Prudence And Care

The Westminster divines began this experiential paragraph by showing their jealousy for guarding against the abuse of using predestination wrongly. [36] Chapter 3.8 begins by saying, “The doctrine of this high mystery of predestination is to be handled with special prudence and care.”

In Romans 9:20, Paul rebukes his objectors by saying, “Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus?” They did not handle the doctrine of predestination with prudence and care. Instead, they twisted it by making God unjust (9:14) since Paul’s teaching was that Jacob was chosen over Esau before having done anything good or bad (9:11-13). They also twisted it by making human responsibility meaningless and without reality (9:19) since Paul’s teaching was that God has mercy on whom He wills and hardens whomever He wills (9:15-18).

At the end of Paul’s teaching in Romans 9-11, in which he sets out to answer the question of whether God’s promise to the Jews failed, he says, “O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! how unsearchable are his judgments, and his ways past finding out!” (Rom. 11:33). Paul’s response to all that he wrote under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit was not curiosity, inquisition, or speculation, but was care and concern for his hearers’ humility and for God’s glory. John Calvin (1509-1564) commented on this passage:

If, therefore, we enter at any time on a discourse concerning the eternal counsels of God, we must always restrain both our language and manner of thinking, so that when we have soberly and within the limits of the Word of God, our argument may finally end in an expression of astonishment. [37]

Finally, the divines offered Deuteronomy 29:29 as a proof-text of their teaching that predestination was to be handled with special prudence and care: “The secret things belong unto the LORD our God: but those things which are revealed belong unto us and to our children for ever, that we may do all the words of this law.”38 In these words, Moses sought to keep his hearers’ curiosity away from speculating when and if they would fall away from the LORD and receive the full curse of the LORD. Instead, he wanted them to focus on what they did know: the law of God.

The reason the divines began in this way was that abuses of the doctrine of predestination are real. This is born out not only in Romans 9 but also in church history. In the ninth century, Gottschalk said of those who would twist this doctrine, “False, indeed, is the witness, who in speaking of any aspect of those things, corrupts them either superficially or with respect to their essential sense” (Confessio Brevior). In the sixteenth century, John Calvin said that just because some abused this doctrine did not mean that preachers and teachers should not speak of it. In fact, Calvin made the parallel with other biblical doctrines when he said preachers should no less preach on the deity of the Son, the deity of the Holy Spirit, or the creation of the universe than on predestination; after all, these doctrines were all equally found in the Holy Scriptures. In his own particular way, Calvin said, “God’s truth is so powerful, both in this respect and in every other, that it has nothing to fear from the evilspeaking of wicked men.” [39] He continued, “We should not investigate what the Lord has left hidden in secret, that we should not neglect what he has brought into the open.” [40] Predestination has been revealed in Scripture and we should not hide it any more than we should speculate about those things God has left hidden from us.

Attending To The Will Of God

The Confession continues promoting the usefulness of teaching predestination when it says “that men attending the will of God revealed in his Word, and yielding obedience thereunto, may, from the certainty of their effectual vocation, be assured of their eternal election.” Men are to direct their attention to the will of God that is revealed unto them in the Word and not to speculation. [41] They are to yield themselves to this will in obedience. According to the Confession, the benefit to the attentive and obedient hearts of the faithful is that they will be assured of their effectual calling and therefore of their eternal election. Here the practical syllogism of the Reformation is codified in confessional language: those who read the Word and obey the Word come to know that they have been called by Christ to Himself and that they were elected in Christ before time.

The proof that the divines offered for this clause in the Confession was 2 Peter 1:10: “Wherefore the rather, brethren, give diligence to make your calling and election sure: for if ye do these things, ye shall never fall.” In this passage, Peter writes to those “to them that have obtained like precious faith with us through the righteousness of God and our Saviour Jesus Christ” (2 Peter 1:1). He goes on to assure his readers that God “hath given unto us all things that pertain unto life and godliness, through the knowledge of him that hath called us to glory and virtue” (2 Peter 1:3) and “given unto us exceeding great and precious promises: that by these ye might be partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust” (2 Peter 1:4). Peter then calls upon his hearers to live a godly life, adding to faith, virtue; and to virtue, knowledge; and to knowledge, self-control; and to self-control, steadfastness; and to steadfastness, godliness; and to godliness, brotherly affection; and to brotherly affection, love (2 Peter 1:5-7). By these virtues they would be kept from being ineffective or unfruitful in the knowledge of the Lord Jesus Christ and from being nearsighted, having “forgotten that he was purged from his old sins” (2 Peter 1:8-9). Then, and only then, does Peter call upon his hearers to be diligent to make their calling and election sure. By hearing and following what the Lord says in His Word, His people come to know their calling and election (bebaian).

To Afford Praise

The divines also saw in Scripture that predestination leads to affording the Lord praise for His predestinating grace: “So shall this doctrine afford matter of praise, reverence, and admiration of God.” Two proofs are offered. The first is Ephesians 1:6, where Paul blesses the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ because He has blessed us in Christ with every spiritual blessing and because He has chosen us in Christ before the foundation of the world (Eph. 1:3-4). Paul goes on to offer this doxological refrain: “to the praise of the glory of his grace” (Eph. 1:6). Paul repeats this doxology again in verses 12 and 14 for the lavish grace God has bestowed upon His people.

The second proof that the divines offered was Romans 11:33. Again, this doxology comes at the conclusion of an exposition on the grace of God. The God who justifies (Rom. 3-5), sanctifies (Rom. 6-7), and glorifies (Rom. 8) is the God who has eternally predestined His people. To this, Paul stands in wonder and says, “For of him, and through him, and to him are all things: to whom be glory forever. Amen” (Rom. 11:36).

To Benefit The Hearers

Finally, the divines wrote concerning the benefits of preaching predestination in its hearers being “humility, diligence, and abundant consolation to all that sincerely obey the gospel.” These three benefits are offered below.

The first benefit to the hearers of sermons on predestination was humility. As the Scottish divine, David Dickson said, preaching predestination causes humility in both believers and unbelievers. [42] Romans 11:5, 6, and 20, then, were fitting proof-texts. In these verses, Paul reflects upon the fact that although most of his kinsmen have rejected Jesus as their Messiah (cf. Rom. 9), there remains “a remnant according to the election of grace” (Rom. 11:5). Paul goes on to press home to his hearers that they needed to be humble because if election is by grace, it is not by works “otherwise grace is no more grace” (Rom. 11:6). Then he writes to Gentiles, whom he describes as wild olive branches, grafted onto the tree of God’s covenant people. Because their engrafting meant natural branches were cut off, the Gentiles were not to be arrogant: “because of unbelief they were broken off, and thou standest by faith” (Rom. 11:20).

The second benefit of preaching predestination was diligence in the Christian life and in holiness. Again, the divines cite 2 Peter 1:10 to support this phrase, since there Peter called upon his hearers to “give diligence to make your calling and election sure” by means of pursuing the qualities listed in verses 5-7. Thus predestination was not a hindrance, but a help to holiness. Although not a part of the Westminster Assembly, the eloquent words of John Owen (1616-1683) sum up this benefit according to seventeenth-century Reformed orthodox divines:

Humility in all things is a necessary consequent of a due consideration of this decree of God; for what were we when he thus set his heart upon us, to choose us, and to do us good for ever?—poor, lost, undone creatures, that lay perishing under the guilt of our apostasy from him. What did he see in us to move him so to choose us?—nothing but sin and misery. What did he foresee that we would do of ourselves more than others, if he wrought not in us by his effectual grace?—nothing but a continuance in sin and rebellion against him, and that for ever. How should the thoughts hereof keep our souls in all humility and continual self-abasement! for what have we in or from ourselves on the account whereof we should be lifted up? Wherefore, as the elect of God, let us put on humility in all things; and let me add, that there is no grace whereby at this day we may more glorify God and the gospel, now the world is sinking into ruin under the weight of its own pride. [43]

The third benefit listed by the divines was that of consolation for sincere believers. [44] Two texts were listed as proof-texts. First, Romans 8:33, in which Paul writes of the practical benefits of all he has said heretofore: “Who shall lay any thing to the charge of God’s elect? It is God that justifieth.” Luke 10:20 is the second text given as proof. In Luke 10, Jesus sent out seventy-two disciples, who preached and performed signs. Upon their return, they told the Lord, “Lord, even the devils are subject unto us through thy name!” (Luke 10:17). Jesus’ response was telling: “Notwithstanding in this rejoice not, that the spirits are subject unto you; but rather rejoice, because your names are written in heaven” (Luke 10:20). Knowing that I am among the elect is of infinitely greater value than any sign and wonder I can do in the name of the Lord.

In chapter 3.8 of their Confession of Faith, then, the Westminster divines sought to follow the contours of God’s revelation concerning predestination, seeking not only to offer guidance to preachers on how to preach predestination, but also in giving the content of what was to be taught to believers and unbelievers alike, whose souls were held in the balance.

A Pastoral Approach

Not only is predestination a mysterious and oftentimes misunderstood doctrine, with the potential to lead to theological divisiveness, it also holds the possibility of causing great concern for the average Christian. The Westminster divines lived in a time and place in which this was common not only in academic circles, but also in local parishes. [45] This concern led King James I to give his “Directions Concerning Preachers” in 1622, a decade before the Assembly. Included in these directions was the following:

III. That noe preacher of what title soever under the degree of a bishop, or a dean (at the least) do from henceforth presume to preach in any popular auditorie, the deepe poynts of predestination, election, reprobation, or of the universality, efficacity, resistibility or irresistibility of God’s grace. But leave those themes to be handled by the learned men and that moderately and modestly by way of use and application, rather than by way of positive doctrine, as being fitter for the schooles and universities then for simple auditories. [46]

James’s “Directions” were not meant to outlaw the preaching of predestination, but were intended to keep preachers focused on the basic doctrines of the faith (Directions I–II) and upon preaching faith and obedience (Direction IV). Bishops and Deans were permitted to preach on predestination in a moderate and modest way in order to bring out its use and application. In contrast was Charles I’s “Royal Declaration for the Peace of the Church, 1628-1629,” in which preachers were required to stick to the “true usuall literall meaning” of the Thirty-Nine Articles” and not in “curious points in which the present differences lie.” [47]

Following the trajectory of the Puritan fathers such as Cambridge’s William Perkins, the Westminster divines sought to address a practical issue with regards to predestination.48 This will be illustrated from two selections from delegates to the Westminster Assembly who preached predestination in a pastoral vein.

The Example Of Anthony Burgess (D. 1664)

One of the Westminster divines, Anthony Burgess, gave experiential and pastoral guidance on the doctrine of predestination. In his work, Spiritual Refining, sermon 111 concerned election and reprobation. As he exposited this doctrine, he began with a word on how to handle this high mystery. He said it could be handled in one of two ways. First, it could be handled sinfully in order to satisfy curiosity or to continue a “barren speculative dispute.” [49] Second, this doctrine could be handled in a saving way in order to make us tremble and to make us strive more diligently and closely with God in prayer and other duties. [50]

Burgess then spoke of what he called “the aggravation of the doctrine.” He illustrated this from the parable in Matthew 22 concerning the wedding feast. The man who came did so boldly, but did so without the proper attire and was excluded. Burgess applied this to the fact that not all in the church and not all who cry out, “Lord, Lord,” are elect. Burgess called upon his listeners to tremble and ask, “Is it I Lord? Is it I Lord?” [51] While this may have caused anxiety since “many are called” while only “few are chosen,” Burgess sought to assure his hearers that God’s elect was a vast multitude, like the dew in the morning (Ps. 110), like the many thousands sealed from every tribe (Rev. 7), and like the Scriptures communicate when referring to the salvation of the “world” and “all men.” [52]

The powerful and effectual preaching of this doctrine was no reason for any to despair. As Burgess said, “[N]o man in particular may conclude himself a reprobate.” [53] He gave four reasons for this assertion. First, it is everyone’s duty to repent and believe, to come to Christ, and to find rest of soul. Burgess asked his listeners rhetorically, “If then it be thy duty to believe, to repent, what dost thou trouble thyself about thy election or reprobation?” [54] He went on to give assurance that those who repent and believe have a sure testimony that they will receive eternal glory because these universal promises and invitations are offered to all. [55] Burgess’s second reason not to despair was that no one knows if he is among the reprobate: “No man can ever truly say, I know I am not chosen, I know I am not elected.” [56] The book of life is hidden from us and known only by God. Third, Burgess said ministers were commissioned by God Himself to preach the gospel to those who despaired and to administer the “balm of Gilead.” [57] Fourth, Burgess entered polemics by laying before his hearers two options: absolute election and universal grace. With the former there was certainty that God actually saved His people from eternity and that they could come to know that, but with the latter God did not actually save anyone, thus leaving people truly in despair. [58]

Burgess returned to his expositional points to say that because the number of God’s elect is precisely determined it cannot be added to or subtracted from. “The love of God is unchangeably placed upon his people, and those that are his Ammi, his people, in this sense have this mercy, he will never say to them, Loammi, you are not my people.” [59] Further, because God’s purpose to choose some and pass by others was not based in anything within those chosen, “[t]hose then that are thus chosen, are to be ravished with the consideration of free Grace.” [60]

After answering typical objections that no one who is not chosen is at fault since his reprobation is due to God’s will and all striving for holiness is meaningless if God does not take them into account, Burgess made a careful distinction. He said the foregoing discussion examined predestination a priori, that is, from the cause of election, while he went on to discuss predestination a posteriori, that is, from its effects. [61] His purpose was to show the necessity of holiness in his hearers as further evidence of their being chosen by God. All those ignorant of God were not saved. To this Burgess exclaimed, “Oh pray that God would open your blind eyes!” All those ungodly were not saved, but were “[p]lague-tones for the present of God’s eternal displeasure” so that those who believed would fear. They lived “a civil and unblameable life...but yet have never felt within themselves the mighty power of God renewing their natures.” They had some gifts and workings of God’s Spirit but did not have roots. [62]

What was the practical purpose of preaching predestination? Burgess concluded with the typical “use” of the doctrine. The use was that hearers would examine themselves: “Oh enquire, whether thou art in the number of those chosen ones or no! for the thing may be known.” The way to know was by the signs of election. Burgess listed four signs. First, those chosen to glory are chosen to grace in this life. Burgess made it as simple as possible for his hearers when he said, “This is a sure argument, No Sanctification, no Election; No choice Grace, no choice Glory.” [63] Second, those chosen have the Spirit of God, who is the Spirit of prayer (“Thy earnest, effectual prayers demonstrate thy election”), adoption (“They have a Filial and Evangelical frame of heart”), and sealing (“by the Spirits assistance they come to be thus persuaded”). Third, those chosen “have a heavenly delight and excellent joy in drawing nigh to God.” Finally, those chosen live in fear and trembling. [64]

The Example Of Thomas Jacombe (1623-1687)

Another example of Westminster’s pastoral approach in preaching the doctrine of predestination is found in the sermon of Thomas Jacombe, entitled, “The Covenant of Redemption Opened.” [65] This was sermon 11 of “The Morning Exercises.” These were special services held in London, first by Thomas Case, delegate to the Westminster Assembly and pastor of St. Mary Magdalene on Milk Street in London. The “morning exercises” begun during the Civil War as Thomas Case received more prayer requests from family and friends of those in the army than Case could pray for every Lord’s Day. He began a special morning service that spread to other parts of London. After the war, the focus turned to ministers preaching on cases of conscience on basic doctrines. [66] These sermons were preached over a period of thirty years (1659-1689) and eventually compiled and published. [67]

Jacombe’s sermon “The Covenant of Redemption Opened” was a typical twofold sermon with explication and application. This truly is a masterful exposition of the covenant of redemption, which Jacombe called “the foundation of his [man’s] recovery.” [68] After defining this covenant as “that federal transaction that was betwixt God the Father, and the Son from everlasting, about the Redemption of lost and fallen man” and distinguishing it from the covenant of grace, he then explicates the doctrine in seven propositions. [69] His conclusion was made up of three uses of the doctrine, which follow.

The first use, consistent with the Confession of Faith’s statement that “this doctrine afford matter of praise, reverence, and admiration of God,” was to “stir you up to an high admiration of the great and infinite love of God.” Jacombe rooted this not in the mysteriousness of the doctrine nor in speculating about its nature, but in terms of the love of God the Father and the love of God the Son for His chosen people. [70]

The second use of predestination was stated as how the covenant of redemption “may be improved for the encouraging and strengthening of faith” since it is “ready to question the blessings of the Covenant of Grace, and the Continuance or Perpetuity of the Covenant of Grace.” [71] Here Jacombe’s application was precisely what the Confession of Faith means: “men attending to the will of God revealed in his Word, and yielding obedience thereunto, may, from the certainty of their effectual vocation, be assured of their eternal election.” This improvement of the doctrine was necessary, since, “when it [faith] staggers about that, ’tis very sad with the soul.” [72] In order to bring assurance of faith, Jacombe went on to expound two truths. First, he said that the blessings of the covenant were sure. [73] These blessings of the covenant included the assurance that the elect would continue in faith as well as in performance of their faith. Jacombe summed up this blessing when he said, “Men may be false in their Covenants to God, but God will certainly be true in his Covenant to men. Heaven and Earth shall pass away, rather than there shall be the least entrenchment upon God’s truth, in the not performing of his Covenant.” [74] The second truth concerning the assurance of faith was the fact that assurance also came from the sureness of the covenant itself. This sureness of the nature of the covenant of grace was ratified by God’s oath, by the death of Christ, by the seals of the covenant, and by the covenant of redemption itself. [75]

For the third use of predestination, Jacombe asked a very personal question of his hearers: “I would have you to enquire what this Covenant of Redemption is to you. Here’s a blessed Covenant betwixt the Father and the Son; how far are you interested in it, or like to receive benefit by it?” [76] He inquired thus because “’tis the Elect only who are concerned in this Covenant: Such and such persons there were (individually considered), whom God the Father in his Electing love doth freely give to Christ.” [77] Jacombe then called upon his hearers to derive their comfort from this covenant by finding out if they were among the elect: “’tis very hard for a man to know his Election, but yet it may be known.” [78] How did Jacombe lead his hearers to the experiential knowledge of their election? He brought it down to its most pastoral level: “He that believes, is certainly in the number of God’s Elect.” [79] Finally, Jacombe concluded his sermon with a wonderful experiential plea:

The sum of all then for the clearing up of your interest in this Covenant of Redemption is this, Have you the precious Faith of God’s Elect? Are your hearts wrought up to a blessed accepting of Christ? Have you ever had such a sense of sin and guilt, and misery, as to go out of yourselves, and only to rest upon the Lord Christ? Do you venture your souls upon his all-sufficient merits? And is this Faith a working Faith, an heart-purifying Faith, a sin-mortifying Faith, a world-overcoming Faith; a Faith that closes with Christ as a Lord, as well as a Saviour; a Faith that is for obedience, as well as priviledge? Oh you that have this Faith, go away in peace, be of good comfort; This everlasting Covenant betwixt the Father and the Son is yours. [80]

Conclusion

The Westminster divines emphasized preaching the doctrine of predestination in a way that located them within the mainstream of historic catholicity, within the contours of the rule of faith in Scripture, and according to the pressing pastoral needs of their age and every age. Their words in chapter 3.8 of the Westminster Confession were not novel but a part of the inheritance of Christianity. Their approach that the preaching of predestination was a valid practice is also confirmed by the approach of their best contemporaries within international Calvinism. For example. at about the same time as the Westminster Assembly was held, Francis Turretin (1623-1687) began lecturing on the loci of theology in Geneva. The result of his more than thirty years of lectures was the printing of his Institutio Theologiae Elencticae in the years 1679-1685.

In his discussion of God’s decrees and predestination he asked the question, “Ought predestination to be publicly taught and preached?” Not only did he give a resounding yes to this theological question, but he also offered pastoral advice on how it should be done. While it needed to be preached, it needed to be done so not to enlarge curiosity but with sobriety and prudence so that the preacher would remain in the bounds of Scripture while maintaining “a regard for the persons, places and times to regulate the proposition of it.” He then elaborated upon this discriminatory approach with four practical points:

1. It should not be preached immediately and firstly but gradually and slowly.
2. It should not be preached equally as to all its parts, that is, election should be preached more frequently “as more useful and better suited to the consolation of the pious.”
3. It should not be preached so much in the church as it should in the school. [81]
4. It should not be preached a priori but a posteriori... “that we may know whether the seal of God is stamped upon our hearts and whether the fruits of election (viz., faith and repentance) may be found in us. [82]

Turretin’s conclusion summed up the matter for the Reformed Orthodox: “Our only object should be to increase our faith, not to feed curiosity; to labor for edification, not to strive for our glory.” [83] While predestination is a high mystery that has been twisted for centuries, the divines at Westminster believed that it must be preached because Jesus, Paul, and the church fathers preached it, and that it must be preached with reverence for the following reasons: to correct misunderstanding; to enliven believers to a life of perseverance, holiness, and progress in faith; to comfort believers in their justification as well as sufferings; to assure believers in their faith by pointing them to the revealed Word and to the marks to election and not to human wisdom or speculation; to warn unbelievers and hypocrites; for the humbling of man’s pride; and for the exalting of God’s glory.

Notes

1. On the Westminster Assembly, see S. W. Caruthers, The Everyday Work of the Westminster Assembly, ed. J. Ligon Duncan (1943, repr., Greenville, SC: Reformed Academic Press, 1994); S. W. Carruthers, The Westminster Confession of Faith: The Preparation and Printing of its Seven Leading Editions and a Critical Text (1937, repr., Greenville, SC: Reformed Academic Press, 1995); Chad B. Van Dixhoorn, “Reforming the Reformation: Theological Debate at the Westminster Assembly, 1642-1652,” 7 vols. (Ph.D. diss., University of Cambridge, 2004).
2. This outline is adapted from John Murray, “The Theology of the Westminster Confession of Faith,” in The Collected Writings of John Murray, Volume 4: Studies in Theology (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth Trust, 1982), 249.
3. The Creeds of Christendom, Volume 3: The Evangelical Protestant Creeds, ed. Philip Schaff, rev. David S. Schaff (1931, repr., Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1996), 610-11. Hereafter, Schaff, Creeds.
4. David Dickson, Truth’s Victory Over Error...(Edinburgh: John Reid, 1684). For a modern reprinting of this work, see David Dickson, Truth’s Victory Over Error: A Commentary on the Westminster Confession of Faith, ed. John R. De Witt (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth Trust, 2007).
5. E.g., Alan D. Strange, “Comments on the Centrality of Preaching in the Westminster Standards,” Mid-America Journal of Theology 10 (1999): 185-238.
6. On Augustine, see the classic text by Peter Brown, Augustine of Hippo: A Biography (1967, rev. ed., Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 2000).
7. In Letters 225 and 226 in Augustine, Letters, trans. Roland J. Teske, ed. John E. Rotelle, The Works of Saint Augustine: A Translation for the 21st Century (Hyde Park, N.Y.: New City Press, 2005), 87-102.
8. For a summary of these letters and the predestination controversy in the 420s, see Hubertus R. Drobner, The Fathers of the Church: A Comprehensive Introduction, trans. Siegfried S. Schatzmann (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2007), 404-409.
9. Augustine, “The Gift of Perseverance,” ch. 34, in Answer to the Pelagians, IV: To the Monks of Hadrumetum and Provence, trans. Roland J. Teske, ed. PhJohn E. Rotelle (Hyde Park, NY: New City Press, 1999), 213.
10. Ibid., ch. 36, 215.
11. Ibid., ch. 38, 216-17.
12. Ibid., ch. 41, 219.
13. On this controversy and the teaching of Gottschalk, see Gillian R. Evans, “The Grammar of Predestination in the Ninth Century,” Journal of Theological Studies 33, 1 (1982): 134-45; Boyd Harry Evert, “Gottschalk of Orbais and the Debate over Predestination in the Ninth Century,” (M.A. thesis, University of Dallas, 1994); David Ganz, “The Debate on Predestination,” in Charles the Bald: Court and Kingdom, ed. Margaret T. Gibson and Janet L. Nelson, 2nd ed. (Brookfield, VT: Variorum, 1990), 283-302; Francis X. Gumerlock, “Gottschalk of Orbais: A Medieval Predestinarian,” Kerux 22, 3 (December 2007): 17-34; Louise Reinecke Gustavsson, “Gottschalk Reconsidered: A Study of His Thought as It Bears on His Notion of Predestination” (Ph.D. diss., Yale University, 1964); Ronald Hanko, “Gotteschalk’s Doctrine of Double Predestination,” Protestant Reformed Theological Journal 12, 1 (1978): 31-64; D. E. Nineham, “Gottschalk of Orbais: Reactionary or Precursor of the Reformation?” Journal of Ecclesiastical History 40, 1 (1989): 1-18.
14. James Ussher, Gotteschalci, et praedestinationae controversiae ab eo motae historia: una cum duplice ejusdem confessione, nunc primum in lucem edita (Dublin, 1631).
15. On the Interim, see Robert Kolb, Nikolaus Von Amsdorf (1483-1565): Popular Polemics in the Preservation of Luther’s Legacy, Bibliotheca Humanistica & Reformatorica, Volume XXIV (Nieuwkoop, The Netherlands: B. De Graaf, 1978), 72-82.
16. The Book of Concord: The Confessions of the Evangelical Lutheran Church, ed. Robert Kolb and Timothy J. Wengert, trans. Charles Arand, Eric Gritsch, Robert Kolb, William Russell, James Schaaf, Jane Strohl, Timothy J. Wengert (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2000), 514. Hereafter, The Book of Concord.
17. The Book of Concord, 641.
18. Ibid.
19. Ibid., 642.
20. Ibid., 643.
21. Ibid., 644.
22. Ibid., 645-46.
23. Ibid., 646.
24. Ibid.
25. Ibid., 648.
26. Ibid.
27. Ibid.
28. Ibid.
29. Ibid., 649.
30. Ibid.
31. On the Synod of Dort, see Crisis in the Reformed Churches: Essays in Commemoration of the Great Synod of Dort, 1618-1619, ed. Peter Y. De Jong (1968, repr., Grandville, MI: Reformed Fellowship, 2008).
32. Schaff, Creeds, 3:584. On this article, see the commentary by Homer Hoeksema, The Voice of Our Fathers: An Exposition of the Canons of Dordrecht (Grand Rapids: Reformed Free Publishing Association, 1980), 219-32.
33. The British Delegation and the Synod of Dort (1618-1619), ed. Anthony Milton, Church of England Record Society 13 (Woodbridge, England: The Boydell Press, 2005), 292-93.
34. Schaff, Creeds, 3:596-97.
35. Expositors such as Robert Shaw, Francis R. Beattie, and Wayne R. Spear give a simple exposition of this chapter in The Reformed Faith: An Exposition of the Westminster Confession of Faith (1845, repr., Ross-Shire, Scotland: Christian Focus Publications, 2008), 97-99; The Presbyterian Standards: An Exposition of the Westminster Confession of Faith and Catechisms (Richmond, VA: Presbyterian Committee of Publication, 1896), 75; and Faith of our Fathers: A Commentary on the Westminster Confession of Faith (Pittsburgh, PA: Crown & Covenant Publications, 2006), 23-27, respectively. Iain Murray gives the most in-depth review of the article in modern writings in “The Puritan and the Doctrine of Election,” in Puritan Papers, Volume 1: 1956-1959, ed. D. Martyn Lloyd–Jones (Phillipsburg, N.J.: P&R Publishing, 2000), 3-16.
36. See John Murray, “The Theology of the Westminster Confession of Faith,” 251. Cf. A. A. Hodge, A Commentary on the Confession of Faith: With Questions for Theological Students and Bible Classes, ed. W. H. Goold (London: T. Nelson and Sons, 1870), 76. Cf. John Murray, who said, “The concluding section (viii) places the ‘high mystery of predestination’ in proper perspective in relation to human responsibility and the comfort to be derived from it for all those who sincerely obey the gospel” (“The Importance and Relevance of the Westminster Confession,” in The Collected Writings of John Murray, Volume 1: The Claims of Truth [1976, repr., Edinburgh: Banner of Truth Trust, 1989], 319).
37. John Calvin, The Epistles of Paul the Apostle to the Romans and to the Thessalonians, trans. Ross Mackenzie, ed. David W. Torrance and Thomas F. Torrance, Calvin’s New Testament Commentaries 8 (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1961), 259.
38. Cf. John Calvin, Commentaries on the Last Four Books of Moses Arranged in the Form of a Harmony: Volume 1, trans. Charles William Bingham, Calvin’s Commentaries 2 (1852-1855, repr., Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1996), 410-12; Matthew Poole, A Commentary on the Holy Bible, Volume I: Genesis–Job (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2008), 394-95.
39. John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, trans. Ford Lewis Battles, ed. John T. McNeill, The Library of Christian Classics 21 (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1960), 3.21.4. Hereafter, Calvin, Institutes.
40. Calvin, Institutes, 3.21.4. Cf. “A Treatise on the Eternal Predestination of God,” in Calvin’s Calvinism: Treatise on the Eternal Predestination of God & the Secret Providence of God, trans. Henry Cole (1856, repr., Grand Rapids: Reformed Free Publishing Association, 1987), 144-50. On Calvin’s doctrine of predestination see W. Robert Godfrey, John Calvin: Pilgrim and Pastor (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 2009), 113-27. On the controversy with Bern over predestination see Willem Van’t Spijker, Calvin: A Brief Guide to His Life and Thought, trans. Lyle D. Bierma (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 2009), 104-106. This section on the necessity of preaching the doctrine of predestination was added by Calvin after his conflict with Jerome Bolsec and Bern. Richard A. Muller, The Unaccommodated Calvin: Studies in the Foundation of a Theological Tradition (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000), 151.
41. For an excellent treatment on this theme see Thomas Ridgeley (1667-1734), A Body of Divinity: Wherein the Doctrines of the Christian Religion are Explained and Defended, Being the Substance of Several Lectures on the Assembly’s Larger Catechism, 4 vols. (1731-1733, repr., Philadelphia: William W. Woodward, 1815), 1:519-20.
42. Select Practical Writings of David Dickson (1845 ed.), 1:95-96 cited in Murray, “The Puritan and the Doctrine of Election,” 13-14.
43. John Owen, PNEUMATOLOGIA Or, A Discourse Concerning the Holy Spirit in The Works of John Owen, ed. William H. Goold, 16 vols. (1850-1853, repr., Edinburgh: The Banner of Truth Trust, 1994), 3:598-99. Hereafter, Owen, A Discourse Concerning the Holy Spirit.
44. John Owen spoke of this as a “proper benefit and advantage toward others also,” meaning, unbelievers. Owen, A Discourse Concerning the Holy Spirit, 3:603.
45. For an example, see Matthew Reynolds, “Predestination and Parochial Dispute in the 1630s: The Case of the Norwich Lectureships,” The Journal of Ecclesiastical History 59, 3 (July 2008): 407-25.
46. Cited in Visitation Articles and Injunctions of the Early Stuart Church, I: 1603-25, ed. Kenneth Fincham, Church of England Record Society (Woodbridge, Suffolk: Boydell Press, 1998), 212.
47. Cited in Visitation Articles and Injunctions of the Early Stuart Church, II: 1625-42, ed. Kenneth Fincham, Church of England Record Society (Woodbridge, Suffolk, UK: Boydell Press, 1998), 33.
48. For a summary of Perkins’s practical use of predestination in preaching, see Joel R. Beeke, “William Perkins on Predestination, Preaching, and Conversion,” in The Practical Calvinist: An Introduction to the Presbyterian and Reformed Heritage, ed. Peter A. Lillback (Fearn, Ross-shire: Christian Focus, Mentor, 2002), 183-213.
49. Anthony Burgess, Spiritual Refining: or A treatise of grace and assurance Wherein are handled, the doctrine of assurance (London: A. Miller, 1652), 643. Hereafter, Burgess, Spiritual refining. On Burgess, see Joel R. Beeke and Randall J. Pederson, Meet the Puritans: With a Guide to Modern Reprints (Grand Rapids: Reformation Heritage Books, 2006), 113-17.
50. Burgess, Spiritual Refining, 644. Cf. Francis Turretin, Institutes of Elenctic Theology, trans. George Musgrave Giger, ed. James T. Dennison, Jr., 3 vols. (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R, 1992), IV.vi.3, 5. Hereafter, Turretin, Institutes.
51. Burgess, Spiritual Refining, 644.
52. Ibid.
53. Ibid.
54. Ibid.
55. Ibid., 644-45.
56. Ibid., 645.
57. Ibid.
58. Ibid.
59. Ibid., 646.
60. Ibid.
61. This way of viewing election was stated as a practical syllogism by Johannes Wollebius in 1626: “In examining our election by logic it is necessary to proceed from the means of carrying out the decree itself, making a beginning from our sanctification. The argument is as follows: Whoever knows that he has the gift of sanctification, by which we die to sin and live to righteousness, is justified, called, or endued with true faith, and elect. But I know this by the grace of God; therefore, I am justified, called, and elect.” Compendium Theologiae Christianae IV.2.xv in Reformed Dogmatics: Seventeenth-Century Reformed Theology through the Writings of Wollebius, Voetius, and Turretin, ed. and trans. John W. Beardslee III (1965, repr., Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1977), 53.
62. Burgess, Spiritual Refining, 647.
63. On this theme see also the excellent treatment given by Christopher Ness (1621-1705) in his helpful treatise, An Antidote Against Arminianism, ed. Henry Atherton (East Sussex and Hampshire, England: Focus Christian Ministries Trust/Academy Books, 1998), 26-27. Among Dutch Reformed authors, the practical connection between predestination and holiness can be seen in a summary way in the catechetical work of Abraham Hellenbroek (1658-1731), A Specimen of Divine Truths for those who are Preparing for Confession of Faith, trans. Joel R. Beeke (Grand Rapids: Reformation Heritage Books, n.d.), 21-22. For a comprehensive application of predestination, see Wilhelmus à Brakel, The Christian’s Reasonable Service, trans. Bartel Elshout, ed. Joel R. Beeke, 4 vols. (1992, repr., Grand Rapids: Reformation Heritage Books, 2007), 1:243-250.
64. Burgess, Spiritual Refining, 648. Cf. “Sermon 112, “More Signs and Effects of Election,” in which Burgess deals with a case of conscience for those in fear of whether they belonged among the elect. Burgess, Spiritual Refining, 649-53.
65. On Jacombe, see Dictionary of National Biography, Volume XXIX, ed. Sidney Lee (London: Smith, Elder, & Co., 1892), 125-26; Beeke and Pederson, Meet the Puritans, 374-76.
66. Beeke and Pederson, Meet the Puritans, 139-40.
67. Most recently these sermons have been republished as Puritan Sermons, 1659-1689, 6 vols. (Wheaton, IL: R. O. Roberts, 1981). For purposes of this essay, I will be using the following edition: The Morning Exercise Methodized; Or Certain Chief Heads and Points of the Christian Religion Opened and Improved in Divers Sermons, By Several Ministers of the City of London, in the Morning Course of the Morning Exercise at Giles in the Fields, ed. Thomas Case (London: Printed by E. M., 1659). Hereafter, Case, The Morning Exercise Methodized.
68. Ibid., 218.
69. Ibid., 218, 218-219, 220-226.
70. Ibid., 227-228.
71. Ibid., 228.
72. Ibid.
73. Ibid.
74. Ibid., 229.
75. Ibid.
76. Ibid., 230.
77. Ibid., 231.
78. Ibid.
79. Ibid.
80. Ibid., 232.
81. For an example of how predestination was taught at the University of Franeker in the mid-seventeenth century, see Scholastic Discourse: Johannes Maccovius (1588-1644) on Theological and Philosophical Distinctions and Rules, trans. Willem J. van Asselt, Michael D. Bell, Gert van den Brink, and Rein Ferwerda, Publications of the Institute for Reformation Research, ed. William den Boer (Apeldoorn, The Netherlands: Instituut voor Reformatieonderzoek, 2009).
82. Turretin, Institutes, IV.vi.11.
83. Ibid. The Latin text reads: et scopus unicus nobis esse débet fidem instituere, non curiositatem pascere, sedificationi eonsulere, non gloriœ nostrœ velificari. Francisco Turrettino, Institutio Theologiae Elencticae: Pars Prima (Edinburgh: John D. Lowe, 1847), 297.