John Knox’s Doctrine Of Predestination And Its Practical Application For His Ecclesiology

By Jae-Eun Park

Most scholars, including James S. McEwen, V. E. D’Assonville, W. Stanford Reid, Richard L. Greaves, Richard G. Kyle, and others, have agreed that On Predestination (1560) [1] by John Knox (1510-1572) is characterized by a theology that tends to be more practical than speculative, and is far from systematic. [2] Nevertheless, in the scholarship on John Knox, there has been insufficient discussion and relatively little attention paid to the question of why Knox’s doctrine of predestination tends to be practical. [3] Therefore, in order to look into the practical characteristic of On Predestination, it is necessary to examine who the main antagonists of On Predestination are in the historical context, [4] what their theological positions are, and how certain aspects of their theology collided with Knox’s theological stance. With reference to praxis, it is also necessary to prove a relationship between Knox’s ecclesiology and his opponents’ supposed refutation of the doctrine of predestination, since the argumentation of Knox’s opponents, specifically concerning the secrecy of God’s predestination and the notion of a small flock, threatens the overthrow of the relationship between the visible church and the invisible church. [5]

The first step of this research, therefore, will be an inquiry into the historical background of one particular adversary addressed in On Predestination, viz. Robert Cooche (variously Couche, Cooke, and Cowche), his authorship, and the contents of his treatise The Confutation of the Errors of the Careless by Necessity (1557-1559). [6] Knox excoriates the author of the treatise and takes up his arguments sentence by sentence in On Predestination. The second step of this research will be to scrutinize On Predestination with a view to the concepts of “election and reprobation” and “God’s secret will,” which are focal points of the assault by Cooche in The Confutation. As a result of this research, the differences in the theological stance between Knox and his adversary will be highlighted. The third step will be to examine such differences and their practical meaning in connection with the relationship between predestination and the ecclesiology of Knox. The relationship in Knox’s writings between God’s secret will and the nature of the church—visible and invisible church, and small flock—will be considered. The last step of this research will be to examine the Scots Confession (1560) [7] as a point of practical application in conjunction with establishing pure doctrine and a holy society.

Throughout these steps, as pointed out by Richard A. Muller, the claim of some modern theological critics that orthodox Reformed theology of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries is dry, deductive, and speculative will prove to be untrue and inapplicable to Knox’s theology. [8] Rather, as proposed by Kyle and Greaves, [9] it will be shown that On Predestination is based on ongoing dialogue in the large theological realm of the Reformed doctrine of predestination and its supposed refutations by its antagonists. [10] Knox’s On Predestination has thereby taken on a practical emphasis in order to establish pure doctrine and to preserve ecclesiastical and social stability, especially in connection with the relationship between predestination—with its doctrine of double predestination and God’s secret will—and ecclesiology, including the visible and the invisible church and the notion of a small flock.

Historical Background: Robert Cooche And The Confutation

Since Knox focuses more on those opponents affiliated with the Anabaptists and other sectaries in On Predestination rather than on the Roman Catholics and various other heretics, [11] the historical background of this article will be limited to the Anabaptists and associated sects, and in particular on Robert Cooche. Although scholars generally have assumed that Robert Cooche is the main adversary of Knox’s On Predestination, there is disagreement regarding Cooche’s theological position and his authorship of The Confutation. [12]

Unfortunately, the original copy of The Confutation has not survived, but an edited version by W. T. Whitley in the Baptist Historical Society exists.13 For various reasons it is highly likely that Cooche is the author of The Confutation. First, as proposed by David Laing, historical circumstances support his authorship by chronological and circumstantial evidence.14 Second, as pointed out by Irvin B. Horst and C. J. Clement, the contents of The Confutation reflect the theological tendency of Anabaptists and other English sects at that time. [15] Under such circumstances, Cooche could have been a contemporary of Knox, could have met him personally, and could have written the treatise The Confutation that sets out to disprove John Careless’s defense of the doctrine of predestination. Thus, although there is no direct evidence that Cooche is the author, this body of evidence is not unreasonable.

The Confutation criticizes three so-called “errors” or statements from the pen of John Careless: the errors of reprobation, election, and God’s secret will. Cooche states the first error:

God hath not created all men to be saved by any manner of means, but before the foundation of the world He hath chosen a certain (number) to salvation, which is but a small flock; and the rest, which be innumerable, He hath reprobated and ordained to condemnation: Because so it pleaseth Him. [16]

According to Cooche, the doctrine of reprobation seems to be a “horrible blasphemy,” [17]inasmuch as it directly contradicts the teaching of Scripture that “his mercy is over all his works.” [18] In essence, Cooche makes a triple retort regarding reprobation. First, if God would condemn innocent creatures, “God would be as bad as the Devil, yea, and worse…and would be author of evil, contrary to the whole scripture, and contrary to our faith.” [19] To Cooche, because human beings bear God’s own image and share in His righteousness, they would not be objects who are condemned without any reason. Secondly, if “all things of mere Necessity must come to pass, according to the prescience and foreknowledge of God, then Adam had no freedom in the fall and Christ had no free will in his works.” [20] Here, Cooche criticizes the predestinarian view for restricting human freedom by divine freedom. Thirdly, he argues the predestinarians can bring forth “no plain testimony of the Word” for their doctrine. [21] To Cooche, the Scriptures do not contain any passages concerning reprobation. For example, the story of Jacob and Esau means only two nations, Israelites and Edomites, not an individual person’s status. [22]

The second error, according to Cooche, is that

The Elect, though they sin grievously, yet are they never out of the favour and election of God, neither can they by any means finally perish…. Adam and David committing adultery and homicide, were favoured even then and beloved of God, and never out of election…the Reprobate, as Saul and Judas, were never in the favour and election of God…. [23]

Cooche argues this leads to living “a careless and libertine life,” because human “well-doing” does not suffice for God if they are reprobate and, conversely, “evil-doing” does not obstruct their redemption if they are elect.24 He further states that this second error makes a “false Christ,” [25] because “if the Elect did not fall out of the Election by Adam’s transgression, then they need no Redeemer, being already safe by reason of the Election.” [26] Cooche believes as such Christ’s atonement would be in vain. Covenantally, Cooche argues, if someone who is already elected refuses Christ, it is the same as if he or she breaks the covenant; as a result, he or she will fall out of election. [27] Thus, to Cooche, the doctrine of election is an error which leads to more errors. [28]

Cooche states that the third error of the presdestinarians is as follows:

God hath two manner of wills, one revealed will, and a secret will, which is only known to Himself. By God’s revealed will, men should not come to nought: but they which perish, do perish by His secret will, in respect of God’s commandment. It was not God’s will that Adam should sin; but in respect of God’s secret will, God willed Adam to fall. [29]

Cooche returns to Careless to ask whether God truly has two wills or not. [30] To Cooche, if God has two wills, it gives rise to “a double heart,” which speaks one thing but thinks another. [31] Also, if God has a secret will, especially concerning reprobation, it will lead to a vague incomprehensibility of God. [32] Cooche, in the case of the first error, again points out that the Scriptures say nothing about God having two wills, a revealed and a secret will. [33]

In summary, Cooche states: “God hath made man like to His own image in Christ Jesus, in whom is no damnation.” [34] In Cooche’s thought, “without both [free] will and run, we shall not obtain the reward [salvation].” [35] He thus seems to have more respect for human beings’ free will and pursues a synergistic view of salvation. He also argues that the true God “is slow unto wrath and ready to forgive” and “hath one will, which is ever only good.” [36] That is to say, Cooche seems to emphasize religious tolerance more than God’s justice. Even more telling is his statement, “God willeth the death of no creature, but willeth all men to be saved,” [37] which seems to imply that Cooche holds to a kind of universalism regarding salvation. Throughout Cooche’s writing, his theological position is aligned firmly with those who hold to the free-will position versus predestination. Although there have been several opinions regarding those who hold to the free-will position [38] (whether they simply belong to “Anabaptists” as held by G. H. Williams, [39] belong to the “half way Anabaptists” or to the “early Nonconformist conventiclers” as designated by M. M. Knappen and C. Burrage, [40] or belong to the “forerunners of later English Arminianism” as held by O. T. Hargrave [41]), they would be identified as radical sectarians within the broad spectrum of Anabaptists as designated by Knox. [42]

As pointed out by M. T. Pearse, if Robert Cooche’s theological stance including the anti-predestinarian radicalism expressed in The Confutation coincides with other radical thought within the wider horizon of Anabaptists, such a stance might lead to violence, and to ecclesiastical or social anarchy as seen in Continental Anabaptism. [43] Especially in connection with ecclesiology, if the concept of God’s secret will with respect to a double predestination is misunderstood or ignored, it could provide dangerous ground for ecclesiastical and social instability. [44] A countermeasure was urgently needed. In Knox’s On Predestination this need was met, providing a theological basis for ecclesiastical and social stability.

John Knox’s Predestination: Double Predestination And God’s Secret Will

John Knox’s understanding of predestination and assurance is deeply grounded in his understanding of God’s nature, particularly His immutability. [45] Knox continually accentuates the fact that “howsoever we be changeable, yet is God in his counsel stable and immutable.” [46] In other words, God’s love toward His elect is immutable; those elected can never fall out of divine love or be eternally lost. [47] Conversely, Knox regards reprobation as equally immutable and divinely determined. [48]

With this understanding, Knox develops a sharp rebuttal against Cooche’s critique regarding the first “error” of John Careless. First, he firmly adheres to double predestination; he affirms that “before all beginning God hath loved his Elect in Christ Jesus his Sonne, and that from the same eternitie he hath reprobate others.” [49] God does not create all people to be of the same condition. [50] Knox clearly acknowledges that there are reprobate people who will be prepared vessels of wrath, whereas there are other people who will be glorified in the end. [51] However, he places greater emphasis on the positive election to salvation than on the negative, reprobative aspect of predestination. [52] At the same time Knox articulates that “the cause and end why the reprobate were created, neither was, nor is not, their onlie perdition (as ye burden us), but that the glorie of God must nedes appere, and shyne in all his works.” [53] The issue of reprobation “must ever returne to the pleasure of his will, the cause whereof is hidde within himself.” [54]

Secondly, over against Cooche’s emphasis on the free will of Adam, Knox specifies that the foreknowledge and prescience of God neither takes away Adam’s free will nor does it compel Adam’s will by any violence, but “does use it as an ordinarie mean, by the which His eternall counsell and purpose should take effect.” [55] Thus, human beings created in God’s wisdom, righteousness, goodness, with free will are created to please God according to His will. Although in sin human purpose is opposed to the glory of God, nevertheless, it takes effect within God’s eternal counsel and under the providence of God. [56] To Knox, God’s freedom is more important than human freedom. At the same time free will never transcends the limits of God’s absolute providence, inasmuch as “neither faith, neither workses, neither yet any qualitie that is, or that God foresaw to be in us, is the caus of our Predestination or Election to life everlasting.” [57]

Thirdly, in opposition to Cooche’s argument that “there is no such saying [concerning reprobation] in the Holy Scripture,” [58] Knox defends double predestination by means of Genesis 3 and Paul’s epistles. In interpreting Adam, Cooche places more emphasis on how God’s own image is borne in Adam than on how Adam fell from that image. On the other hand, for Knox, Adam’s status correlates with Scripture’s saying “that of nature we were all the son of wrath.” [59] Knox uses Paul’s teaching to affirm that by one man sin enters into the world, and by means of sin, death comes upon all men. Thus, in Knox’s words, the Anabaptists “make the love of God common to all men; and that do we constantly deny.” [60] Knox lays stress on human responsibility for sin in the context of reprobation, [61] while at the same time accentuating the fact that God does not predestine humans to sin: “Howbeit, I say that so he [God] hath ordained the fall of man, that I utterly denie him to be the author of sinne.” [62] For Knox, God is not the principle cause of sin, but God rules over sin, damnation, and reprobation. [63]

Against Cooche’s second “error,” which states that predestination provokes people to a careless and libertine life, Knox responds to his opponent’s two misconceptions concerning conscience and human free will. Knox points out the mistake of calling free will the conscience; if human beings live according to the voice of conscience regardless of whether elect or reprobate, they would reach the condition which is most satisfactory in their own eyes. [64] In this view, the doctrine of predestination would no longer be of effect. Knox asserts that conscience is not appropriate for self-assurance in well-doing, inasmuch as such conscience is alienated from the Scripture. Thus, in Knox’s words: “Conscience must have a testimonie of God’s plaine will reveled.” [65] In response to the question of whether people are ever out of the election of God, and whether people who are elected commit fiendish sin, Knox affirms “that no man can be knowen either to be in the election or out of the election during this life.” [66] In other words, his antagonist’s refutation is absurd because it is based on uncertainty, no one knowing who is elect or reprobate. [67] As far as the necessity of a redeemer is concerned, Cooche’s theology does not need a redeemer insofar as people who are elected never fall out of election by Adam’s transgression, but Knox demonstrates that a redeemer of fallen humans is needed because “they did fall from justice to sinne, and from obedience to dissobedience.” [68]

Lastly, the third “error” of Careless as designated by Cooche relates to God’s two wills: a revealed will and a secret will. Where Cooche has a propensity to doubt a secret will, Knox constantly maintains that both wills are necessary to disclose God’s mind and work. He states:

For we confesse even the self same thing which you alledge us to say, which is, that by the Word of God we knowe that God hath a secret will whereby he worketh all that pleaseth him in heaven and in earth; and that also he hath revealed unto us so much as is profitable for us to know, either yet necessarie for our salvation. [69]

For Knox, the hidden will of God is the primary source of all things including election, eternal decree, and even reprobation: God “had just causes (but hid from us) in rejecting a part of men.” [70] If God’s secret will is denied, it is “most blasphemously spoken, not against us, but against God’s eternal wisdome.” [71] However, he does not make a sharp distinction between revealed will and secret will; rather, he believes that God’s secret will can be manifested—as in the redemption accomplished by Jesus Christ. In other words, God’s secret will is “sometime secrete in the eternall counsell of God, but nowe is most manifestly preached and declared by Christ Jesus, and by his holie Apostles.” [72] Thus, the reason why people should hold a secret will of God is that it must be a rule of all equities, perfections, and sufficiency. [73] In sum, Knox draws the conclusion “that the secret will of God, and his will reveled, is alwaies one, which is the manifestation and declaration of his own glorie, althogh it seme divers in the instruments, as before I have most manifestly declared.” [74]

A significant theological difference is found between Knox and Cooche as predestinarian and antipredestinarian. Cooche, in his articulation of human free will in an Anabaptist context, lays emphasis on religious toleration—God’s mercy—and on human freedom; Knox, as a Reformer, stresses both sides, emphasizing God’s mercy and justice as well as human freedom and God’s freedom, and both the revealed will and the secret will of God. Rather than overemphasizing human conscience and freedom, Knox indicates that human conscience and freedom are never grounds for the doctrine of predestination; the role of such human elements is not attested to by Scripture. [75] Furthermore, although Cooche deems that reprobation is an unmerciful, cruel, and horrible doctrine, [76] Knox believes that it is deeply grounded in God’s secret will, inasmuch as people “cannot be escaped abnegation of his eternall veritie,” [77] requiring humility on the part of all.

Knox links his opponents with other advocates of free will, both past and present. For example, Knox regards Sebastian Castellio as the Anabaptists’ master and champion. [78] In addition, Knox correlates his antagonists with the Pelagians and with contemporary Catholics. [79] In the dispute between On Predestination and The Confutation, therefore, there is continuity between the controversy of Augustine and Pelagius in Carthage, of John Calvin and Sebastian Castellio (and Jerome Bôlsec) on the Continent, [80] of John Careless and Henry Hart (and Robert Cooche) in England, [81] and of predestinationism and universalism in broader historical contexts. As such, Knox’s treatise must be viewed “in the context of contemporary theological controversy.” [82] Heiko A. Oberman correctly notes that “the central position in the discussion of the doctrine of predestination—namely, the role of faith, God’s will, and good works—holds in the sixteenth century is by no means a new development.” [83] Knox stands in continuity with those who present scriptural warrant to take salvation out of human hands and to undercut the semi-Pelagianism of the Middle Ages. [84] He does so joining the line of Augustine, Calvin, and other predestinarians. [85] Not only this but his doctrine of predestination does not lean toward speculative matters, such as God’s essence, attributes, and the hypostatic relationship in the eternal decrees. Rather, it is inclined to practical matters, namely, the Christian life in response to Cooche’s second and third “errors.” This appears more prominently in Knox’s understanding of the relationship between predestination and ecclesiology.

The Relationship Between Predestination And The Ecclesiology Of John Knox

Although John Knox does not write a full treatise on ecclesiology, On Predestination manifests a strong concern for the church in connection with predestination: “The doctrine of God’s eternal Predestination is so necessarie to the Church of God, that, without the same, can Faith neither be truly taught, neither surely established.” [86] Predestination not only establishes and grows the church but also preserves it. If the chief purpose of Knox’s work is the institution of a true religion in Scotland, it could be actualized through a pure doctrine in the real life of believers and the church. [87] Since the Anabaptists’ assault on the doctrine, especially in relation to a visible church and the secrecy of God’s predestination, would involve high risk of a radical separation of the church, Knox castigates the Anabaptists’ disposition and claims that these “Enemies to God’s eternall trueth…are absenting themselves from all well reformed Congregations.” [88] Thus, Knox’s ecclesiology would imply a twofold focus: defending from the false doctrine of his opponents and building the unity of the church.

Knox refers to many different facets of church: invisible and visible, a small flock and a national congregation, elected and inclusive, and so on. [89] However, his doctrine of the church is not ambiguous, even as it confronts a variety of circumstances. [90 ]In opposition to the Catholics’ adherence to the doctrine of apostolic succession and the sacramental tradition in the visible church, Knox underscores the holiness of the church against a depraved clericalism, and at the same time he focuses more on the spiritual than the visible. [91] On the other hand, when he contests against the early English Separatists and the Anabaptists, he highlights the unity of the church and the visible church in reference to predestination. [92]

Knox’s ecclesiology rests squarely on two concepts in relation to predestination: a small flock and God’s secret will. First, during the extensive persecutions of the church, Knox accentuates the concept of an elected and afflicted flock, and he repeatedly gives consolation to the persecuted church. In The Comfortable Epistles to His Afflicted Brethren in England (1554), he states:

He [God] preserved and multiplied their nomber under the most extreme persecution: So shall he do to his afflicted flocke within the Realme of England thys daye, in spite of all his enemyes…we have receaved benefite or comfort from God’s hande, when trouble lieth upon us, or when extreme daunger doeth appeare. [93]

He expounds on the number of the elected flock: “The Scripture in dyvers places affirmeth Christes flocke to be the litle flocke, the nomber to be few that findeth the way that leadeth to life.” [94] In the good pleasure of His will, God “giveth the kingdome to the litle flock,” [95] and “hath in himself for the salvation of his flock.” [96] Furthermore, God predestinates His flock: “This hath bene the mercifull providence of God towardes his lytle flock ever from the beginning.” [97] Thus, election is no theoretical doctrine but a support in the occasion of trial. The use of the idea of election to support and encourage the tormented flock is frequently presented in some of Knox’s pre-1560 writings, such as A Faithful Admonition to the Professors of God’s Truth in England (1554) [98] and Letters to His Brethren, and the Lords Professing the Truth in Scotland (1557), [99] and also in the post-1560 writing An Answer to James Tyrie (1572). [100] In principle, until the pre-1560 writings, Knox equates the small flock with the invisible church which is comprised only of the elect and the godly. However, in A Sermon on Isaiah XXVI (1565), Knox does not separate the invisible church from the visible church but holds that the visible church includes the invisible church. In his own words, the visible church contains:

A great number that were hipocrits, as this day yet are among us that doe professe the Lorde Jesus, and have refused papistrie…that had tourned their backe to God…and yet there were some godlye, as a fewe wheat cornes oppressed and hid among the multitude of such chaffe. [101]

Knox does not seem to reconcile certain personal and inner tensions that he feels between the visible and invisible church. [102] Presumably, such tensions would come from a deep-rooted concern on the part of Knox as a pastor of a congregation containing believers and unbelievers.

In regard to the second concept underlying Knox’s ecclesiology, the secrecy of God’s predestination plays a major role in establishing the visible church. In general, the Anabaptists tend to console themselves with the fellowship of the invisible church, while incessantly pursuing the holy and godly life. [103] In their eyes, the doctrine of predestination in Reformed theology is to be denounced because it leads people to an inclusive church—thus producing moral indulgence. [104] As shown above, Cooche is doubtful in The Confutation whether or not God has a secret will, [105] and argues such a doctrine might prompt excessive speculation as to who is elected and who is damned in the visible church. Knox by contrast stresses “the Election which before was secrete in God’s eternall counsel” [106] and notes in another context that “God shall judge the world, not according to Christes Evangell plainely reveled, but according to some other secret will, I see neither cause nor reason.” [107] In other words, since predestination is secret to man, no one can know the identity of the saved or of the lost, and so there should be no fear about including reprobates within the visible church. If this secrecy concerning the elect’s identity would collapse in the visible church, there would be undue and ill-advised surmising among church members, and the unity would be affected. [108] This Knox established the unity, stability, and holiness of the visible church with reference to God’s secret will.

Knox’s understanding of the church rests not in the invention of new concepts but the ideas shared with Augustine, Calvin, and the other Reformers. [109] However, his ecclesiology does not merely follow in the path of the past. Rather, Knox works to harmonize predestination with ecclesiology, while sensitively reacting to present circumstances for the sake of the unity and holiness of the church. The secrecy regarding the elect corresponds with the need for the purity of preaching, administration of the sacraments, and discipline in the church. [110] Arguably the relationship between predestination and ecclesiology is part of the background of the birth of confessional norms such as the Scots Confession. [111]

The Scots Confession As The Point Of Application

Knox regards the Anabaptists’ doctrine as an “error and pestilent doctrine,” [112] “horrible blasphemy,” [113] “Satan himself,” [114] and “horrible idolatrye,” [115] inasmuch as he thinks their doctrine “hath Sathan ever frome the beginning used, to infect the Church with all kind of heresie.” [116] Their unorthodox ecclesiastical views in connection with predestination were viewed as a serious threat to the stability of the church and even of society, particularly as religion was a significant method of social control in the sixteenth-century social order. Church and nation were coterminous; each was coextensive with the whole population. [117] Knox believes that both church and society have a common obligation to establish pure doctrine and thereby to destroy the idolatry in Scotland; both civil and religious life must be organized in accordance with the same beliefs. [118] In such a context, the Scots Confession was penned by a committee of six, as Knox himself reports. [119] The Scots Confession forms a blueprint for the intended Christian commonwealth and simultaneously marks a functional position for defending pure doctrine as thesis or attacking false doctrine as antithesis. [120]

Although the word “predestination” does not appear in the Scots Confession, the theme of predestination does make a subdued appearance in the eighth chapter under the name of election:

That same eternal God and Father, who by grace alone chose us in His Son Christ Jesus before the foundation of the world was laid, appointed Him to be our head…[including of] our souls…. Therefore we are not afraid to call God our Father, not so much because He has created us, which we have in common with the reprobate, as because He has given unto us His only Son to be our brother, and given us grace to acknowledge and embrace Him as our only Mediator…. He [the Messiah] was able to undergo the punishment of our transgressions…and by death to overcome him that was the author of death…the infinite and invincible power of the other, that is, of theGodhead, should triumph, and purchase for us life, liberty, and perpetual victory. [121]

This chapter, in its reference to Ephesians 1:4, is thoroughly dependent upon Christology; in other words, the incarnation and atonement of Christ are closely related to election. [122] Duncan Shaw agrees that the concept of election in the Scots Confession is far from Knox’s thought because it would not reflect the “tone” expressed by Knox in On Predestination. It might reflect more the position of John Willock, who is one of the committee members who follows the formulation of John á Lasco and Heinrich Bullinger on election. [123] On the other hand, McEwen holds that the Christocentric election in the Scots Confession rests directly on Knox’s faith, but his heart is not really in On Predestination. [124] Some truth or untruth can be found in both positions because Knox does not ignore the centrality of Christ in election. [125] It is a stretch to say that Knox’s faith rests only on the Scots Confession or that it is not really in On Predestination, since Knox is only coauthor of the Scots Confession but writes On Predestination by himself. Though it is true that there is a slight difference in the view on election in terms of tone or content between the Scots Confession and On Predestination, [126] there is not a radical difference between them. Rather, as pointed out by Kyle, it would be correct to explain such differences to note that On Predestination is a detailed work written in a fierce controversial context, while the Scots Confession contains only a short general statement concerning predestination. [127]

In connection with ecclesiology, Knox and his colleagues place a great deal of weight on the invisible church in the sixteenth chapter of the Scots Confession: “One Kirk, that is to say, one company and multitude of men chosen by God…is the body and spouse of Christ Jesus…. This Kirk is invisible, known only to God, who alone knows whom He has chosen.” [128] However, as described in the twenty-fifth chapter of the Scots Confession, Knox and his colleagues are not willing to equate the elect with any visible church: “We do not mean that every individual person in that company is a chosen member of Christ…and that the reprobate may be found in the fellowship of the chosen.” [129] In other words, a number of the members of a true visible church might be reprobate, confessing to God with their mouths and participating in the sacraments, yet not being saved to the end. [130] This view of the visible church as containing both the godly and ungodly seems consistent with Knox’s viewpoint as previously examined. [131] Such a view could present difficult problems practically, inasmuch as reprobates in the church might on occasion lapse into evil ways, but so might the elect. [132] Ecclesiastical discipline could control this problem but not eliminate it, as outwardly moral and professing hypocrites could remain undiscovered. The eighteenth chapter of the Scots Confession sets forth three signs of the true Kirk of God in its visible form:

First, the true preaching of the word of God; in the which God has revealed himself to us…. Secondly, the right administration of the sacraments of Christ Jesus, which must be annexed to the word and promise of God…. Lastly, ecclesiastical discipline uprightly ministered, as God’s word prescribes. [133]

Although Calvin does not seem to regard discipline as the very essence of the true church, but one of the two marks he outlines in the Institutes (1559), [134] and no major confession before 1560 makes discipline a third mark of the true church, [135] Knox and his colleagues place a strong emphasis on righteousness and holiness in the visible church and associate the doctrine of sanctification with the exercise of discipline. This view of discipline is directly reflected in the First Book of Discipline (1560), even though its ratification is rejected by the Queen and Privy Council in 1561. [136] In regard to the cases of blatant transgressions of divine law such as blasphemy, perjury, apostasy, and so forth, the Scottish Reformers believe that God bestows the right of excommunication on the church. To be excommunicated does not mean being assigned to hell; instead, it is banishment from participation in the worship and sacraments of the Kirk until such a time as repentance is openly manifested. [137] Throughout the Scots Confession and the Book of Discipline, Knox and his colleagues seek to develop and maintain a holy society and to establish pure doctrine in both areas of the church and the nation. The Scots Confession plays the role of locomotive to embody the true spirit of the Scottish Reformers against blasphemers and the ungodly who promote false doctrine or immoral behavior.

Conclusion

Among the attempts to define John Knox’s theological identity or stance, it is no accident that he characteristically has been called a “preacher-theologian,” [138] a “prophet,” [139] and a “pastor of souls.” [140] As pointed out by Muller, if modern theological critics wrongly tend to regard Reformed orthodox theology of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries as dry, simplistic, metaphysical, and often reductionistic, [141] it would also be erroneous to assume that Knox’s theology and his identity as theologian should be so characterized. Rather, as seen above, Knox’s doctrine of predestination tends to be more practical rather than speculative. The impulses for his theology could be summarized into three factors.

First, the circumstantial factor: Knox is aware of the unorthodox theological currents of his time and pursues his theology in a clear response to his opponents. In On Predestination, Knox opposes Robert Cooche as a free-willer involved in the broad spectrum of the Anabaptists. To prevent Anabaptists’ tenets from taking root in the church itself, Knox takes decisive action to defend the Reformed doctrine of predestination.

Secondly, the ecclesiastical factor: Knox’s teaching on predestination was demanded by the need of the church. To preserve the stability of the visible church he reaffirms a divine secrecy concerning the identity of the elect among church members. Knox’s concept of the church aims to preserve a scriptural unity of the church.

Thirdly, the confessional factor: Knox’s concept of predestination and ecclesiology are concretized in the Scots Confession and thereby gains a foothold for establishing pure doctrine and realizing a Christian commonwealth.

Knox exemplifies the relationship between Reformed theology and practice of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, displaying that “it was very clear to the Reformed orthodox that rightly formulated Christian doctrine would relate directly to the life of the church and the individual believer and, conversely, poorly or wrongly formulated doctrine would not.” [142] For Knox, “none other doctrine doth establishe faith, nor maketh man humble and thankfull unto God…and carefull to obey God according to his commandement,” [143] but “we be moved to praise him for his free graces receaved; so necessary also is the doctrin of God’s eternall Predestination.” [144] If there is a direct relationship between the formulation of the doctrine of predestination and the life of the church, [145] it is found in On Predestination and its practical emphasis.

Notes

1. The full title is An Answer to the Cavillations of an Adversary Respecting the Doctrine of Predestination, hereafter cited as On Predestination. On Predestination is the fifth volume of the six-volume edition of The Works of John Knox. See John Knox, The Works of John Knox, ed. David Laing (Edinburgh: T. G. Stevenson, 1854), 5:21-468. Hereafter this edition will be cited as Works followed by the volume and page number. Original spelling, italics, and punctuation are retained in quoted passages.
2. See James S. McEwen, The Faith of John Knox: The Croall lectures for 1960 (Richmond: John Knox Press, 1961), 64; V. E. D’Assonville, John Knox and the Institutes of Calvin: A Few Points of Contact in Their Theology (Durban: Drakensberg, 1969), 42-47; W. Stanford Reid, “John Knox, Pastor of Souls,” Westminster Theological Journal 40, no. 1 (Fall 1977): 1-21; Richard L. Greaves, Theology and Revolution in the Scottish Reformation: Studies in the Thought of John Knox (Grand Rapids: Christian University Press, 1980), 29; Richard G. Kyle, “John Knox: the Main Themes of His Thought,” Princeton Seminary Bulletin 4, no. 2 (1983): 101; “The Concept of Predestination in the Thought of John Knox,” Westminster Theological Journal 46, no. 1 (Sept. 1984): 55-56; The Mind of John Knox (Kansas: Coronado Press, 1984), 111; “John Knox Confronts the Anabaptists: The Intellectual Aspects of His Encounter,” Mennonite Quarterly Review 75, no. 4 (October 2001): 503-5.
3. In fact, despite ubiquity of Knox as a Scottish historical icon, Knox has not generated much interest among academic theologians or ecclesiastical historians. E.g., the fifty-year index of the Journal of Ecclesiastical History (1999) has recorded two references to Knox, one of which is a citation in passing in a general review article. The Scottish Journal of Theology has published only one article on Knox in its first fifty years. See Crawford Gribben, “John Knox, Reformation History and National Self-Fashioning,” Reformation & Renaissance Review 8, no. 1 (April 2006): 54-58. Although Kyle’s numerous journal publications and books have contributed greatly to the understanding of Knox’s theology, the study concerning the doctrine of predestination of Knox has been published only once in a journal and passim in several books. See Kyle, “The Concept of Predestination in the Thought of John Knox,” 53-77, in The Ministry of John Knox: Pastor, Preacher, and Prophet (New York: E. Mellen Press, 2002), 32-34; et passim; The Mind of John Knox, passim. In addition, the twentieth-century reception of Knox has been dominated by the literary circles and general Scottish studies rather than by his theology. For example, Margery McCulloch, Modernism and Nationalism: Literature and Society in Scotland, 1918-1939: Source Documents for the Scottish (Glasgow: University of Glasgow, 2004); R. D. S. Jack, “The Prose of John Knox: A Reassessment,” Prose Studies 4 (1981): 239-51; The History of Scottish Literature (Aberdeen: Aberdeen University Press, 1988); Kenneth D. Farrow, “Humour, Logic, Imagery and Sources in the Prose Writings of John Knox,” Studies in Scottish Literature 25 (1990): 154-75; “The Literary Value of John Knox’s Historie of the Reformation,” Studies in Scottish Literature 26 (1991): 456-69; John Knox: Reformation Rhetoric and the Traditions of Scots Prose, 1490-1570 (Oxford: Peter Lang, 2004).
4. The main theological antagonists of John Knox were the Roman Catholics and Anabaptists. See Greaves, Theology and Revolution in the Scottish Reformation, 45; McEwen, The Faith of John Knox, 64; Kyle, “The Concept of Predestination in the Thought of John Knox,” 55-57. With respect to the Roman Catholics, most scholars have reached an agreement as opponents, but some scholarly disagreements pertain to the Anabaptists. As pointed out by David Laing, Knox writes On Predestination against Robert Cooche’s writing (Works, 5:16). Although most scholars have accepted Laing’s opinion, there have been conflicting opinions in regard to the theological identity of Robert Cooche. It has been questioned whether Cooche belongs to the English separatists, Free-willers, Lollards, Familists, or early Nonconformists. See Dewey D. Wallace, Puritans and Predestination: Grace in English Protestant Theology, 1525-1695 (Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press, 1982), 19-28; Kyle, “John Knox Confronts the Anabaptists,” 9; Irvin B. Horst, The Radical Brethren: Anabaptism and the English Reformation to 1558 (Nieuwkoop: De Graaf, 1972), 117; C. J. Clement, Religious Radicalism in England, 1535-1565 (Carlisle: Paternoster Press, 1997), 247, 259; O. T. Hargrave, “The Freewillers in the English Reformation,” Church History 37, no. 3 (September 1968): 276-79; “The Predestinarian Offensive of the Marian Exiles at Geneva,” Historical Magazine of the Protestant Episcopal Church 42, no. 2 (January 1973): 119; Michael T. Pearse, “Robert Cooche and Anabaptist Ideas in Sixteenth-Century England,” Mennonite Quarterly Review 67, no. 3 (July 1993); Between Known Men and Visible Saints: A Study in Sixteenth-Century English Dissent (Madison: Fairleigh Dickinson University Press, 1994), 132-33; George Huntston Williams, The Radical Reformation (Kirksville: Sixteenth Century Journal Publishers, 1992), 1199; Joseph W. Martin, “English Protestant Separatism at Its Beginnings: Henry Hart and the Free-Will Men,” The Sixteenth Century Journal 7, no. 2 (October 1976): 55-74. In view of this inconclusiveness, I will discuss Robert Cooche’s theology along with the features of On Predestination in the historical background.
5. With respect to the relationship between the secrecy of God and the church, M. T. Pearse is helpful in stating that “the secrecy of God’s predestination was the key aspect. Via the secrecy of the identity of the elect, the distinction between visible and invisible church was maintained.” See Pearse, Between Known Men and Visible Saints, 205. For the meaning of “visible church and invisible church” and “small flock” in Knox’s writings, see Richard G. Kyle, “The Nature of the Church in the Thought of John Knox,” Scottish Journal of Theology 37, no. 4 (November 1984): 485-501; “The Church-State Patterns in the Thought of John Knox,” Journal of Church and State 30, no. 1 (Winter 1988): 71-87. For an ecclesiological background of John Knox, see Ian B. Cowan, The Scottish Reformation: Church and Society in Sixteenth Century Scotland (New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1982); Alexander F. Mitchell, The Scottish Reformation: Its Epochs, Episodes, Leaders, and Distinctive Characteristics (London: William Blackwood and Sons, 1993); John Macleod, Scottish Theology in Relation to Church History Since the Reformation (Edinburgh: Publications Committee of the Free Church of Scotland, 1943), 1-65; Pearse, Between Known Men and Visible Saints, 195-212; John T. McNeill, “The Church in Sixteenth-Century Reformed Theology,” The Journal of Religion 22 (July, 1942): 251-69; David G. Mullan, “Theology in the Church of Scotland 1618-1640: A Calvinist Consensus?,” The Sixteenth Century Journal 26, no. 3 (Autumn 1995): 595-617; Thomas Winning, “Church Councils in Sixteenth-Century Scotland,” in Essays on the Scottish Reformation, 1513-1625, ed. David McRoberts (Glasgow: Burns, 1962), 332-58; Greaves, Theology and Revolution in the Scottish Reformation, 45-54.
6. As noted by Horst, Cooche’s The Confutation of the Errors of the Careless by Necessity [hereafter The Confutation], if it was printed at all, is unfortunately lost or at least not recorded. See Horst, The Radical Brethren, 115-16.
7. For an original text of the Scots Confession, see John Knox, History of the Reformation in Scotland, vol. 2, ed. William C. Dickinson (New York: Nelson, 1949), 257-72; George D. Henderson, The Scots Confession: 1560 (Edinburgh: Saint Andrew Press, 1960); Philip Schaff, The Creeds of Christendom: With a History and Critical Notes, (New York: Harper, 1919), 3:437-79. For the contents of the Scots Confession and its historical background, see David B. Calhoun, “The Scots Confession of 1560,” Presbyterion 26, no. 1 (Spring 2000): 3-12; W. Ian P. Hazlett, “The Scots Confession 1560: Context, Complexion and Critique,” Archiv für Reformationsgeschichte 78 (1987): 287-320; A. C. Cheyne, “Scots Confession of 1560,” Theology Today 17, no. 3 (October 1960): 323-38; Arthur C. Cochrane, Reformed Confessions of the 16th Century (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1966); Edward A. Dowey, A Commentary on the Confession of 1967 and an Introduction to The Book of Confessions (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1968); W. Stanford Reid, John Calvin, his Influence in the Western World, ed. W. Stanford Reid (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1982), 220-21; Greaves, Theology and Revolution in the Scottish Reformation, 42-58; Mitchell, The Scottish Reformation, 99-122.
8. See Richard A. Muller, After Calvin: Studies in the Development of a Theological Tradition (New York: Oxford University Press, 2003), 47-49.
9. Although Richard L. Greaves’s understanding of covenant theology, namely, two divergent trends and two different Reformed traditions defined by differing covenant emphases, is not accurate, his study concerning John Knox’s historical background and its meaning has been helpful for this article. See Greaves, Theology and Revolution in the Scottish Reformation, 25-60; cf. Richard L. Greaves, “The Origins and Early Development of English Covenant Thought,” The Historian 31 (November 1968): 21-35.
10. See Kyle, “The Concept of Predestination in the Thought of John Knox,” 54; Greaves, Theology and Revolution in the Scottish Reformation, 26; cf. D’Assonville, John Knox and the Institutes of Calvin, 33-36.
11. In On Predestination, as opponents, the term “Anabaptist” was mentioned 33 times, “sect” 15 times, and “papist” (including the word “Catholic”) 15 times.
12. E.g., Horst believes that Cooche’s theological position cannot be determined precisely because his authorship on The Confutation is still vague. See Horst, The Radical Brethren, 115-16. In addition, Champlin Burrage notes that “I know of no evidence whatever that Cooche wrote it [The Confutation].” See C. Burrage, The Early English Dissenters in the Light of Recent Research, 1550-1641, vol. 1 (New York: Russell & Russell, 1966), 63. Nevertheless, inasmuch as Laing believes that Robert Cooche is responsible for writing The Confutation, and most subsequent historians have followed him in this conviction, it seems likely that Cooche is the author. See Works, 5:16, 18; Meic Pearse, The Great Restoration: The Religious Radicals of the 16th and 17th Centuries (Carlisle: Paternoster Press, 1998), 130; Wallace, Puritans and Predestination, 26; Kyle, “The Concept of Predestination in the Thought of John Knox,” 55; Clement, Religious Radicalism in England, 248; Pearse, Between Known Men and Visible Saints, 127-28, 132-35; “Robert Cooche and Anabaptist Ideas in Sixteenth-Century England,” 337-50; Hargrave, “The Predestinarian Offensive of the Marian Exiles at Geneva,” 119; Williams, The Radical Reformation, 1198-99. In addition, in W. T. Whitley and G. H. Williams’s bibliography, The Confutation is also listed with Cooche as the author. See W. T. Whitley, A Baptist Bibliography, vol. 1 (New York: G. Olms, 1984), 2; G. H. Williams, Spiritual and Anabaptist Writers: Documents Illustrative of the Radical Reformation (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1957), 286. Knox also clarifies that a purpose for writing On Predestination was to reply on the book which is “moste detestable and blasphemous, conteinyng, as it is intituled, ‘THE CONFUTATION OF THE ERRORS OF THE CARELESS BY NECESSITIE.’” See Works, 5:25; see also Edwin Muir, John Knox: Portrait of a Calvinist (New York: Viking Press, 1929), 146. Knox further defines the character of The Confutation by stating that the book “doeth contein aswell the lies and the blasphemies imagined by Sebastian Castalio…Pighius, Sadoletus…and expressed enemies of God’s free mercies.” See Works, 5:24-25.
13. Actually, it does not possess any of the writings of Cooche other than the citations by John Knox and William Turner. By using Knox’s quotations in On Predestination, Whitley attempts to reconstruct the original book of The Confutation. See Robert Cooche, “The Confutation of the Errors of the Careless by Necessity,” ed. W. T. Whitley, Transactions of the Baptist Historical Society 4 (September 1915): 88-123. I will use this edited version in the later discussion.
14. Circumstantially, as Laing pointed out, “that Knox became acquainted with Cooke during his residence in London as one of King Edward’s Chaplains, is at least highly probable.” See Works, 5:13-14. Horst notes that although the exact date of The Confutation is not known [maybe around 1557-1559], since it mentioned the burning of Cranmer (1556), it must have appeared about 1557. See Horst, The Radical Brethren, 118. In addition, M. T. Pearse states that since Knox left Geneva in January 1559, the manuscript of On Predestination was evidently completed during 1558 and was published by Jean Crespin at Geneva in 1560. Thus, perhaps, Knox had already encountered a copy of The Confutation around 1557-1558 and responded to it with On Predestination. In Knox’s words: “The copie which came to my hands was in that place imperfect….” See Works, 5:122; see also Works, 5:16; Pearse, Between Known Men and Visible Saints, 132; Clement, Religious Radicalism in England, 250.
15. In 1550, Cooche took up a debate with William Turner concerning the doctrine of original sin and the practice of infant baptism. See Horst, The Radical Brethren, 115; Clement, Religious Radicalism in England, 242-48. In 1556-1557, Henry Hart, the most influential English sectary, was on the defensive against the attacks of the fervent predestinarian, John Careless. At this point, Robert Cooche also rose to defend his friend and mentor by composing The Confutation against the doctrine of predestination. A similar set of circumstances to those that occasioned the publication of Cooche’s earlier work on baptism against Turner could account for the appearance of The Confutation. See Clement, Religious Radicalism in England, 249.
16. The Confutation, 91.
17. The Confutation, 93.
18. The Confutation, 92.
19. The Confutation, 93, 96.
20. The Confutation, 102.
21. The Confutation, 91.
22. The Confutation, 103.
23. The Confutation, 110.
24. The Confutation, 110-11.
25. The Confutation, 117.
26. The Confutation, 115.
27. The Confutation, 116-17.
28. The Confutation, 113.
29. The Confutation, 118.
30. The Confutation, 118-19.
31. The Confutation, 119.
32. The Confutation, 118.
33. The Confutation, 120-22.
34. The Confutation, 122.
35. The Confutation, 105.
36. The Confutation, 122-23.
37. The Confutation, 123.
38. E.g., Burrage maintains that Robert Cooche was an isolated individual. See Burrage, The Early English Dissenters in the Light of Recent Research, 1:60, 64. However, Clement refutes Burrage’s opinion, stating that “Robert Cooche was no eccentric individualist, neither was he an aristocrat with Protestant humanist sympathies.” See Clement, Religious Radicalism in England, 259. Horst, however, states that “Robert Cooche was a representative of the liberal Protestantism in Edward’s reign which was well in advance of the government and the leading reformers.” See Horst, The Radical Brethren, 121. Clement argues that there is not the slightest evidence to support Horst’s suggestion; rather, “Cooche was a leading member of that final generation of Lollards which maintained the doctrine of free-will.” See Clement, Religious Radicalism in England, 258-59. Also, M. T. Pearse assumes that “if Cooche was the author of The Confutation, that fact may indicate that he was in contact with the free-will men.” See Pearse, “Robert Cooche and Anabaptist Ideas in Sixteenth-Century England,” 348. Meanwhile, Hargrave attempts to answer where the free-willers fit into the overall spectrum of Protestant evolution in England. He says that “the free-willers might most accurately be characterized as a small, radical, and sectarian minority within the English Protestant tradition who nevertheless stopped short of Anabaptism.” See Hargrave, “The Freewillers in the English Reformation,” 279. Furthermore, M. M. Knappen adds that “the English freewillers might quite accurately be labeled ‘primitive Arminians.’” See M. M. Knappen, Tudor Puritanism: A Chapter in the History of Idealism (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1939), 151.
39. Williams, The Radical Reformation, 1198-1200.
40. Knappen, Tudor Puritanism, 149; Burrage, The early English Dissenters in the Light of Recent Research, 1:52.
41. Hargrave, “The Freewillers in the English Reformation,” 278-80.
42. Knox regards Cooche as a sectarian and rails against him: “Impudent lier! which of us hath promised unto thee, or unto any of thy pestilent Sect, that which he hath not perfourmed?” Knox also mentions that The Confutation was written by the “English tongue.” See Works, 5:128. Knox seems to believe that his opponent might be associated with a wider circle of radicals because Knox frequently uses the plural when referring to the adversary, “these blasphemies.” See Works, 5:54, 115, 167, 172, 175, 216, 224. Furthermore, M. T. Pearse states that “Robert Cooche fulfills the criterion of having somewhat wider horizons than most English radicals.” See Pearse, Between Known Men and Visible Saints, 134. For the English sectarian, see also Wallace, Puritans and Predestination, 19-22; Greaves, Theology and Revolution in the Scottish Reformation, 45-46; Kyle, “John Knox Confronts the Anabaptists,” 497-98.
43. With respect to Cooche’s social influence, Horst states that Cooche was “well educated, urbane, and connected with the royal household” and that “he may well have been a member of the aristocratic admirers of Bernardino Ochino.” Thus, Cooche’s thought would be influential in an ecclesiological and social area. See Horst, The Radical Brethren, 121; see also Pearse, Between Known Men and Visible Saints, 134, 141.
44. Later I hope to address the relationship between the secrecy of God’s predestination and ecclesiology.
45. Cf. Works, 5:33, 36; see also Richard A. Muller, Post-Reformation Reformed Dogmatics (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2003), 3:311-12; Richard G. Kyle, “The Divine Attributes in John Knox’s Concept of God,” Westminster Theological Journal 48, no. 1 (September 1986): 164-68.
46. Works, 5:27; see also Works, 5:38, 42-43, 47, 53, 62; McEwen, The Faith of John Knox, 76.
47. Works, 5:63-67, 70, 73.
48. Works, 5:405-6; see also Kyle, “The Divine Attributes in John Knox’s Concept of God,” 167.
49. Works, 5:61; see also Works, 5:36, 38, 125, 127, 219, 235.
50. Works, 5:36.
51. Works, 5:126.
52. Works, 5:61-62.
53. Works, 5:41.
54. Works, 5:39.
55. Works, 5:140-41.
56. Works, 5:141.
57. Works, 5:203
58. The Confutation, 91.
59. Works, 5:60.
60. Works, 5:61.
61. Knox says that “Man therefore falleth (God’s providence so ordaining); but yet he falleth by his own fault.” See Works, 5:168. Also, in Knox’s words: “He hath his Reprobate, whom for just causes he leaveth to themselves to languish in their corruption.” See Works, 5:125.
62. Works, 5:170.
63. Works, 5:112-14.
64. Works, 5:230-31.
65. Works, 5:231.
66. Works, 5:219.
67. Works, 5:218-29.
68. Works, 5:249.
69. Works, 5:312.
70. Works, 5:39.
71. Works, 5:313.
72. Works, 5:307.
73. Works, 5:309-10.
74. Works, 5:313.
75. Works, 5:230-31.
76. The Confutation, 92.
77. Works, 5:305; see also Kyle, “The Concept of Predestination in the Thought of John Knox,” 63-72.
78. Works, 5:16, 37, 111, 147, 184, 222, 295, 355, 359.
79. Works, 5:13, 24, 153, 171, 416.
80. Cf. John T. McNeill, The History and Character of Calvinism (New York: Oxford University Press, 1973), 172-73; Muir, John Knox: Portrait of a Calvinist, 147; Williams, The Radical Reformation, 882; Greaves, Theology and Revolution in the Scottish Reformation, 26-27; Kyle, “The Concept of Predestination in the Thought of John Knox,” 57-58.
81. Cf. M. T. Pearse, “Free Will, Dissent, and Henry Hart,” Church History 58, no. 4 (December 1989): 452-59; Martin, “English Protestant Separatism at Its Beginnings,” 55-74; Clement, Religious Radicalism in England, 248-49; Hargrave, “The Freewillers in the English Reformation,” 275.
82. Greaves, Theology and Revolution, 26.
83. Heiko A. Oberman, Forerunners of the Reformation: The Shape of Late Medieval Thought (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1981), 123.
84. See Pearse, Between Known Men and Visible Saints, 204.
85. For the theological relationship between Calvin and Knox, see J. D. Douglas, “Calvinism’s Contribution to Scotland,” in John Calvin: His Influence in the Western World, ed. W. Stanford Reid (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1982), 217-40; Charles D. Cremeans, The Reception of Calvinistic Thought in England (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1949), 44-59; James Kirk, “The Influence of Calvinism on the Scottish Reformation,” Records of the Scottish Church History Society 18 (1974): 158; D’Assonville, John Knox and the Institutes of Calvin, 33-34, 43; Richard G. Kyle, The Mind of John Knox (Kansas: Coronado Press, 1984), 117-119; McEwen, Faith of Knox, 70; Greaves, Theology and Revolution, 38-43.
86. Works, 5:25.
87. Works, 5:489; Kyle, “The Nature of the Church in the Thought of John Knox,” 485, 500; Greaves, Theology and Revolution in the Scottish Reformation, 50.
88. Works, 5:301.
89. Knox stresses the invisible church in the context of the Catholics. See Works, 6:492. On the other hand, he also places emphasis on the visible church. See Works, 6:494. In addition, he expounds on the church as a small flock. See Works, 3:5, 241, 351; 4:459; 5:40; 6:507, 569. Conversely, he also puts emphasis on the universal congregation. See Works, 2:110. Furthermore, he repeatedly emphasizes the church as a gathering of elect people. See Works, 3:266; 5:293, 299; 6:249-51. However, he also stresses the unity of the church. See Works, 5:300-1.
90. Cf. Kyle, “The Nature of the Church in the Thought of John Knox,” 487, 500.
91. Cf. Works, 4:513; 6:311, 315.
92. Cf. Works, 5:300-2; see also Pearse, The Great Restoration, 139; Pearse, Between Known Men and Visible Saints, 130-40; Greaves, Theology and Revolution in the Scottish Reformation, 47.
93. Works, 3:241; see also Works, 5:146.
94. Works, 5:40; see also Works, 3:351.
95. Works, 5:72.
96. Works, 5:254.
97. Works, 6:507; see also Kyle, “The Church-State Patterns in the Thought of John Knox,” 72.
98. Knox notes that God had marvelously enriched the small flock in England. See Works, 3:266, 293. Cf. John Knox, Selected Writings of John Knox: Public Epistles, Treatises, and Expositions to the Year 1559 (Dallas: Presbyterian Heritage Publications, 1995), 219-88.
99. Knox regards the Protestant community in Scotland as the small flock. See Works, 4:263. Cf. Knox, Selected Writings of John Knox, 335-70.
100. Knox notes that God knew his small flock before the foundation of the world. See Works, 6:507-8.
101. Works, 6:243.
102. See Kyle, “The Nature of the Church in the Thought of John Knox,” 488.
103. Cf. Williams, Spiritual and Anabaptist Writers, 23.
104. See Kyle, “John Knox Confronts the Anabaptists,” 502.
105. The Confutation, 118-19.
106. Works, 5:279.
107. Works, 5:361.
108. For a discussion of the relationship between predestination and the invisible church, see Pearse, Between Known Men and Visible Saints, 204-12.
109. The concept of the invisible church of all the elect is presented in Augustine’s writing. See Augustine, The City of God against the Pagans, trans. R. W. Dyson (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1998), 48-49. Calvin also seems to adopt the Augustinian distinction between the visible and invisible church: “The church includes not only the saints presently living on earth, but all the elect from the beginning of the world…. However, the name ‘church’ designates the whole multitude of men spread over the earth…. [T]herefore, the former church, invisible to us, is visible to the eyes of God alone, so we are commanded to revere and keep communion with the latter, which is called ‘church’ in respect to men.” See John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, trans. Ford Lewis Battles, ed. John T. McNeill (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1960), 2:1021-22. The idea is also familiar to John Huss. See John Huss, The Church, trans. David S. Schaff (Westport, Conn.: Greenwood Press, 1974), 3-6. Moreover, with respect to God’s secret will, Calvin notes that “it is not right for man unrestrainedly to search out things that the Lord has willed to be hid in himself, and to unfold from eternity itself the sublimest wisdom, which he would have us revere but not understand that through this also he should fill us with wonder. He has set forth by his Word the secrets of his will that he has decided to reveal to us. These he decided to reveal in so far as he foresaw that they would concern us and benefit us.” See Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, 923.
110. See Pearse, Between Known Men and Visible Saints, 210-11.
111. See Hazlett, “The Scots Confession 1560,” 293.
112. Works, 5:432.
113. Works, 5:57.
114. Works, 5:466.
115. Works, 4:497.
116. Works, 5:24.
117. Cf. Cowan, The Scottish Reformation, 182-205.
118. Moreover, Kyle states that “Knox believed that church and state should be twin pillars of God’s house on earth, twin aspects of the government of God’s people.” See Kyle, “The Nature of the Church in the Thought of John Knox,” 495. In discussing a confessional background, Hazlett also maintains that the Reformed churches were not only interested in pure doctrine; their stress lay more on pure worship, the purified church and the purified Christian life. See Hazlett, “The Scots Confession 1560,” 293.
119. Of the committee, five had been regular or secular clergy in the Old Church, namely John Knox, John Winram, John Spottiswoode, John Willock, and John Douglas. The sixth was a canonist, John Row, just back from his work in the Roman Curia. See John Knox, History of the Reformation in Scotland, vol. 1, ed. William Croft Dickinson (New York: Nelson, 1949), 343; Hazlett, “The Scots Confession 1560,” 297.
120. Hazlett explains that one of the striking features of the Scots Confession is its antiphonal alternation between thesis and antithesis, that is, between what “we believe” and what “we do not believe and damn.” The latter is simply the traditional ecclesiastical anathema. But the positive belief does dominate. See Hazlett, “The Scots Confession 1560,” 298; Calhoun, “The Scots Confession of 1560,” 4; Kyle, “The Nature of the Church in the Thought of John Knox,” 495.
121. John Knox, History of the Reformation in Scotland, vol. 2, ed. William Croft Dickinson (New York: Nelson, 1949), 260-61.
122. Hereupon, Hazlett states that the ultimate source of election in the eighth chapter of the Scots Confession was Pauline, and it made a strong appeal to theologians concerned to detract from the human will and merit in the process of salvation. See Hazlett, “The Scots Confession 1560,” 311. Cf. Calhoun, “The Scots Confession of 1560,” 8; Thomas F. Torrance, Scottish Theology: from John Knox to John McLeod Campbell (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1996), 10-26.
123. Duncan Shaw, “John Willock,” in Reformation and Revolution: Essays Presented to the Very Reverend Principal Emeritus Hugh Watt, D.D., D.LITT., On the Sixtieth Anniversary of His Ordination, ed. Duncan Shaw (Edinburgh: St. Andrew Press, 1967), 59-60.
124. McEwen questions whether On Predestination represented Knox’s real convictions on the subject. See McEwen, The Faith of Knox, 78-79. Similarly, Lord E. Percy observes that Knox’s treatise On Predestination does not reflect his views on the subject and that Knox’s heart is not really in it. See Lord E. Percy, John Knox (Richmond: John Knox, 1966), 203.
125. Knox also expresses a Christocentric view on election with particular force. Cf. Works, 2:100-2; 5:38, 42, 50-54, 103.
126. Whereas the doctrine of election in the Scots Confession contains a mild statement that centers election in Jesus Christ and does not deal with reprobation in detail, election in On Predestination takes on a polemic feature mostly in conjunction with reprobation. With respect to Christocentric election, according to D’Assonville, Calvin’s doctrine of predestination is more Christocentric and more dependent on Scripture than is Knox’s On Predestination. See D’Assonville, John Knox and the Institutes of Calvin, 45-46. In contrast, Torrance states that like Calvin, Knox stressed that predestination has to be understood strictly in Christ alone, and that in the last resort faith must rest in the eternal, incomprehensible, and immutable counsel of God. See Torrance, Scottish Theology, 16.
127. See Kyle, “The Concept of Predestination in the Thought of John Knox,” 76-77.
128. Knox, History of the Reformation in Scotland, vol. 2, 265.
129. Knox, History of the Reformation in Scotland, vol. 2, 271-72.
130. Knox, History of the Reformation in Scotland, vol. 2, 272.
131. Cf. Works, 4:262-67; 6:243.
132. See Greaves, Theology and Revolution in the Scottish Reformation, 51.
133. Knox, History of the Reformation in Scotland, vol. 2, 266; see also Douglas, “Calvinism’s Contribution to Scotland,” 221.
134. Cf. Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, 1024-28. Theologians have invariably attempted to answer the question, namely, why did Calvin retain only two notae as marks of the true church in Institutes. R. N. Caswell summarizes the problem in terms of the close relationship between the Word and discipline: “This close link with the Word, discipline being that activity that mediates between the Ecclesia docens and the Ecclesia discerns, explains why Calvin did not need to posit discipline as a mark of the church, as did Bucer and Knox.” See R. N. Caswell, “Calvin’s Views of Ecclesiastical Discipline,” in John Calvin, vol. 1, Courtenay Studies in Reformation Theology (Appleford: Sutton Courtenay Press, 1966), 211. In another place, McNeill states that discipline is actually a mark of the true church for Calvin, but a mark of difference: “A third mark, subordinate but important for Calvin, is discipline, which maintains, as it were, the tone of the visible Church, correcting the behavior of the members and excluding from communion scandalous and obdurate offenders.” See McNeill, The History and Character of Calvinism, 214. Furthermore, Charles Wiley closely connects Word and Sacrament to their vital outworking, showing the intimate connection, as he says, “Discipline was not a third mark of the church for Calvin, but instead provided space for working of the two marks….” See Charles Wiley, Ordinary and Extraordinary Discipline: Mutual Accountability in the Reformed Tradition (Louisville: Office of Theology and Worship, 2002), 8. More recently, Jack C. Whytock states that “Calvin is more concerned with the reality than with the marks as abstract criteria…though he identifies two marks, there is a broadness in his understanding of these marks…. Thus, Calvin implies discipline as a part of the two marks.” See Jack C. Whytock, Continental Calvinian Influences on the Scottish Reformation: The First Book of Discipline (1560) (New York: Edwin Mellen Press, 2009), 37.
135. E.g., not until 1559 does the French Confession make a tentative gesture to add discipline as a third mark of the true church. However, discipline as the third nota was common among the various Strangers’ Churches, e.g., the French Church at Glastonbury and the English-speaking churches at Frankfurt and Geneva. See Hazlett, “The Scots Confession 1560,” 311.
136. For the concrete historical background regarding the First Book of Discipline, see James K. Cameron, The First Book of Discipline (Edinburgh: The Saint Andrew Press, 1972), 3-14.
137. See Greaves, Theology and Revolution in the Scottish Reformation, 59.
138. Works, 6:229; Torrance, Scottish Theology, 2; Robert M. Healey, “John Knox’s ‘History’: A ‘Compleat’ Sermon on Christian Duty,” Church History 61, no. 3 (September 1992): 319.
139. Dale Walden Johnson and Edward McGoldrick, “Prophet in Scotland: The Self-Image of John Knox,” Calvin Theological Journal 33, no. 1 (April 1998): 86.
140. Reid, “John Knox, Pastor of Souls,” 1; Richard G. Kyle, “John Knox and the Care of Souls,” Calvin Theological Journal 38, no. 1 (April 2003): 125.
141. See Muller, After Calvin, 49.
142. Muller, After Calvin, 57.
143. Works, 5:30.
144. Works, 5:25-26.
145. See Muller, After Calvin, 56-57.