The Christian and the Tyrant: Beza and Knox on Political Resistance Theory

By Richard C. Gamble

Westminster Theological Seminary, Philadelphia

This article was originally prepared for reading at the Spring meeting of the American Society for Reformation Research at Western Michigan University, May 1983.

Introduction: Knox in Geneva

The years 1555–1559 found John Knox in Geneva, an exile and pastor. Some have said that this period was the most formative of his life. Certainly he had time to study the Scriptures, reflect upon his earlier thinking, and discuss his ideas with the various Protestant leaders living at that time in Geneva. “In this atmosphere of freedom, constant theological debate, discussion with refugees coming to settle or just passing through, Knox experienced a stimulation he had never known before.”[1] Knox was not in the city the whole of the four years; after staying in Geneva only a few months he returned to his homeland, soon again, however, to go back to Geneva (Sept. 13, 1556). From the time of his return with his wife and others to Geneva from Scotland, his life was filled with pastoring the English-speaking congregation,[2] made up of those who had been exiled from England and Scotland.

While still in Geneva, Knox received a call to return to Scotland. Since travel was dangerous and his first son had just recently been born, he was reluctant to go and sought out the advice of the Geneva ministers, including Calvin; they urged him to make the trip. After packing and getting as far as the city of Dieppe, he received word not to proceed further because the situation in Scotland had changed since he had first been asked to come. Knox stayed in Dieppe awaiting a reply to his request that he still be invited to come to Scotland. While he was waiting, he had time to reflect upon his political theories in light of the complex religious and political changes and events which were occurring in Scotland. It was in Dieppe that he wrote The First Blast of the Trumpet Against the Monstrous Regiment of Women. With no reply forthcoming from Scotland, he decided to make his way back to Geneva.

Upon his return to Geneva, Knox again settled into his pastoral responsibilities and received in the spring of 1558 the great honor of citizenship in the city. Finally with the death of Queen Mary and the succession of Queen Elizabeth, most of the English-speaking congregation departed from Geneva to travel to their homes. This left Knox without a congregation to pastor; he again made preparations for his journey to Scotland, leaving his family behind. Arriving once more at Dieppe, he spent some time there pastoring, waiting for a passport to travel through England to Scotland. Since it never came he traveled directly to Scotland. “His time in Geneva had so broadened his outlook on the whole movement, that he now saw the Reformation not just as an effort at religious reform, but as a movement to create a reformed Christian public and private life-style.”[3]

From this point on, the majority of our information concerning the Genevan reaction to the Scottish Reformation must be culled from the letters which were sent between Scotland and Geneva. Although there is not a plethora of information, there is certainly sufficient to draw a general picture of the situation.

I. The Correspondence

While in Geneva, Knox had established a cordial relationship with Calvin, a relationship which was maintained after Knox left Geneva in 1559. In a letter from Calvin to Knox, Calvin expresses his own personal affection as well as that of fellow pastors in Geneva for the Scottish reformer: “It was delightful not only to me, but to all the pious whom I made partakers of my joy, to bear of the very abundant success of your labors.” “Meantime, we are as much concerned for your dangers as if the warfare was common to us.” Calvin concludes by saying: “Farewell, excellent Sir and brother, most dear to us.”[4]

This friendly relationship may be observed in a letter written two years later. In the midst of a confusion brought about by the failure of a letter from Calvin to Knox to arrive in Scotland, Calvin had been rather displeased with the carriers, and Knox had apparently believed that he himself was in some measure to blame. Calvin assures Knox that “I neither said nor suspected that you in any way acted deceitfully.” He then closes the letter in a manner similar to the first: “Farewell, excellent Sir and brother, worthy of the heart’s affection.”

Commenting on the death of Knox’s wife he says: “Your widowerhood is to me grief and bitterness, as it ought to be.”[5] In the same year, 1561, Knox wrote to Calvin indicating that the correspondence between the two reformers was relatively frequent; Knox believed Calvin to be sufficiently close a friend to say: “I am a continual trouble to you, and I have no other to whom I can confide my anxieties.”[6]

Besides Calvin, Knox had also established a good relationship with Beza[7] and again the correspondence is our best guide for understanding that relationship. Five years after the death of Calvin, Beza wrote to Knox in response to the news that the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland had accepted the “Confessio et Expositio Simplex,”[8] written and approved by the Protestants of Switzerland. Beza mentions the pleasure that the acceptance caused in Geneva: “I intimated, both to yourself in private and to other brethren by letter, how agreeable and how pleasant to us all, and especially to the brethren in Zurich, was this your union with us in the Lord in all things, which too we trust will be everlasting, and stand firm against the very gates of hell.” He also wrote of his satisfaction at Knox’s incorporation of discipline within the church: “How well, my Brother, you act in uniting Discipline with Doctrine! I beseech and conjure you so to persevere.”[9] We see that there was the personal element of trust and respect between the pastors of Geneva and Scotland; Beza wrote:

Our whole Assembly salute you and all your colleagues much in the Lord, the common Author and Defender of this our union. I especially pray you, my Brother, that you will continually remember in your prayers me…; and Him in return I ask to support, by his holy and powerful Spirit, yourself and that illustrious deliverer of yours…. Nor do I ask this of you alone, my Brother, but also earnestly entreat it of your whole Assembly of most excellent and learned men, whom all may the Lord Jesus most effectually preserve, defend, and guard, to the glory of his name, and the sure and solid edification of all the churches, to which you are indeed a singular example.[10]

One of the most moving letters sent between the reformers, from Beza to Knox in 1572, is perhaps our best source for elucidating the Genevan reaction to the Scottish Reformation. There the unity between Geneva and Scotland as well as the intimate relationship between Beza and Knox is further underlined. Beza says: “Although, my Knox, we are in body separated by so great a distance both of land and sea, yet I have not the least doubt that there has always existed, and that there will exist to the last between us, that complete union of mind which is confirmed by the bond of one and the same spirit and faith.” The relationship between Knox and the entire city of Geneva is then expressed: “Truly I believe that this Church of Geneva especially is often in your thoughts, as we, in our turn, have you in continual remembrance before God, which most holy reciprocity of spirit almost solely sustains me, and you also where you are, as I think, amidst so great confusion of human affairs.” The Genevan response to the persecution and trials which were being undergone in Scotland is well documented also: “From the surest proofs, I infer that the Scottish churches are such, that the numerous and severe and continued attacks of Satan, the like of which I believe no nation has hitherto borne within so few years, have not succeeded in corrupting among them the purity of doctrine, or in changing the rule of strict discipline neglected by so many nations.”[11]

II. The Genevan Reaction to Knox’s Writings

If we were to examine exclusively the correspondence between Knox and Calvin, and that of Knox and Beza, the general impression would be that all was well on almost every front between them. This in fact was not the case, with Knox’s writings sometimes causing a furor. Calvin especially took great exception to parts of Knox’s writings.

The main book in question was The First Blast of the Trumpet, and Calvin was not alone in his disagreement with the volume. Of course there was a tremendous outcry against the book from England and possession of the book was punishable by death. The situation was an embarrassment to Calvin for a number of reasons; first, in June of 1558 Knox was granted citizenship in Geneva, after the publication of the book, but before there was time for much of an uproar to be sounded. Second, the book itself was published in Geneva, which would include Calvin under the cloud of suspicion. Third, Knox’s views were at variance with Calvin’s.

Calvin’s action in response to the book and the public outcry against it was decisive. First came the complaint against the book by the English Protestants at Strassburg. The complaint was given to Beza who passed it on to Calvin; at that time Calvin was informed of the book’s contents for the first time. Calvin himself responded to the Strassburg English and disassociated himself from Knox’s work. Afterwards, there was a ban against the sale of the book in Geneva.

Space limitations prohibit a detailed investigation of the differences between Calvin and Knox concerning proper government, but a limited survey may be helpful. Calvin wrote specifically in regard to this controversy to William Cecil, secretary to Queen Elizabeth, relating the history of his discussions with Knox concerning government by women. Calvin stated that it was not a natural state of affairs, but may be instituted by God under special circumstances. Of Knox’s book, Calvin says: “I testified in the most unequivocal manner that the public was not to be familiarized with paradoxes of that kind.”[12] Regarding the results which followed the publication of the book, Calvin says: “I think I had reason to fear…that for the inconsiderate vanity of one man, an unfortunate crowd of exiles would be driven from this city.”[13]

In terms of development, Knox was not the first “Britisher” to write concerning the nature of political power, nor was he the most original writer. Actually, he was probably dependent upon two men who wrote before him, Bishop John Ponet and Christopher Goodman. Ponet, writing his On Politicke Power in 1556, advocated the right of individual citizens to depose a wicked governor by force and even to kill a tyrant.[14] Goodman as well, publishing his How Superior Powers Ought to be Obeyed on January 1, 1558, may have influenced Knox in his promotion of removing evil rulers so that they do not pollute the people.[15]

These positions were not advocated by Theodore Beza. Beza explicitly rejected the argument for resistance which Knox made on the basis of the unbiblical nature of female government. We see the progression of Beza’s political thought with the appearance in 1554 of the De haereticis a civili magistratu puniendis; here he asserted the right of resistance within the magistracy, since it is the office of the magistrate to protect the laws and the rights of the people.[16]

Later, in 1559, Beza constructed a Confession, the Confession de la foy chrestienne, which at first did not contain much information concerning political resistance. In the second edition, however, scarcely a year later, one finds a considerable expansion of the section on political resistance.

In this second edition is the continuation of earlier thought, that it was the duty of the individual within the society to obey the authority of the lesser magistrate over him. Yet, when those who hold legitimate power abuse that power, the lesser magistrate has the right to rebel. The individual citizen may passively disobey when he feels it necessary to obedience to God, but private persons have no right to exercise active disobedience.[17]

This leaves us with some issues surrounding the relationship between the Genevans and the Scots on their view of the nature of political resistance. First, although Beza did not advocate popular or citizen political resistance against local magistrates, he did give the lesser magistrates the right to rebel. Second, is it true that Beza would have countenanced Knox’s position concerning female monarchs? The implications of these issues are extremely significant, for they lead to the broader question: Is it in fact the case that in some of the earliest writings we have a conflict of opinion within the Reformed camp regarding political theory?

Of course there are scholars who take both sides of the question. Professor Robert M. Kingdon maintained in 1955 that Knox and Goodman probably knew of Beza’s De haereticis a civili magistratu puniendis and further asserted that “Perhaps Beza was one of the men who supported the ideas of Knox and Goodman on female government when many other theologians remained dubious.”[18]

The judgment that Beza was perhaps supportive of Knox’s position regarding women monarchs is difficult to endorse. As can be seen in Beza’s Confession,[19] an allusion was explicitly inserted against Knox’s position regarding female rulers, although Knox was not mentioned by name.

It is this writer’s opinion that we have from the beginning of the Reformation a clear disagreement between Geneva and Scotland surrounding the nature of political resistance, which is at the heart of reformational thinking. A number of complicating factors must be remembered. Beza was probably writing with the consideration in mind of the independent city-states which one finds in France and other parts of Europe during the sixteenth century. Knox was thinking perhaps of a different type of political situation. It must also be granted that Beza was one of the first Protestants to advocate resistance to authorities; a number of articles have been written attempting to trace various precursors to Beza’s theory, perhaps going back to the Lutheran theologians in Magdeburg,[20] which we need to investigate. Yet the difference between Beza and Knox must be understood; although they both advocated the right to rebel, in the case of Beza it is a right of the lesser magistrate, not of the people.

III. A Brief History of the Roots of Reformation Political Resistance Theory

Current thought concerning political resistance theory, the conception that subjects can rebel against a king, asserts that the keystone for that theory is a statement written in 1550, entitled the “Magdeburg Confession.”[21] From that common root, both Lutheran and Reformed thought suposedly evolves.

Of course, in examining the beginnings of Protestant political resistance theory, we could spend a long time discussing the writings of Luther and Calvin themselves prior to 1550; certainly there is much debate regarding their respective positions.[22] Nevertheless, it seems most expedient methodologically to begin with the “Magdeburg Confession” to see if we can trace from there English and Genevan branches of thought. We will examine Calvin momentarily.

Looking first at the Confession itself, we note that the position is there put forth that the lesser magistrate must “defend himself and his subjects against such unjust force in order to preserve the true teaching, the worship of God together with body, life, goods, and honor.”[23] The question we want to ask is whether this is also the position of Knox and Beza.

As mentioned previously, Knox is especially dependent upon the earlier writings of John Ponet and Christopher Goodman. What is their relationship to the “Magdeburg Confession”? First, it is clear that there was little development of political resistance theory in Britain before the reign of Mary Tudor.[24] What little there was written before Ponet and Goodman, by Tyndale, Barnes, and Foxe, does not lend much assistance in demonstrating any British roots to Ponet and Goodman’s theory. In a sense, Goodman and Ponet were trailblazers: since there is precious little British material before their writing and since they both spent quite a bit of time in exile on the Continent, we may safely conclude that these two trailblazers began a course having received certain direction from the Continent.

There is certainly original material in Ponet’s work,[25] but his connections to the “Magdeburg Confession” are also apparent. As brought out in a recent article, one notes in chapters two and three of Ponet’s “Short Treatise” that rulers are to be subject to God’s law (including the Ten Commandments) and that civil authority is limited. In the sixth chapter of the Treatise which concerns rebellion against an evil governor, there is a great hesitation to give to the individual any rights to take up arms himself against the tyrant.[26]

Christopher Goodman takes Ponet’s theories and develops them further. Especially important for our study is the elaboration concerning the individual’s right to rebel. Goodman thinks that at times it is unlawful in the sight of God to obey the prince.[27] Furthermore, Goodman argues that women are never to be rulers.[28] These theories go beyond Ponet’s analysis and probably beyond the “Magdeburg Confession” as well.

As we look at Knox and the previously mentioned writers, we discover that there was a close personal relationship between him and Goodman,[29] as well as close similarities in their writings. As Hildebrandt says: “The two works were very similar; the main contention in both was that the kingdom of Anti-Christ must be suppressed at all costs, by the private individual acting according to his conscience if the duly constituted powers failed to live up to their responsibilities.”[30] We are also sure that Knox had read and was influenced by Ponet’s works.[31] Although the above-mentioned opinions concerning female rule and the individual’s right to resist superior powers addresses itself particularly to the situation of England and goes beyond the “Magdeburg Confession,” it is very probable that Knox had read the “Magdeburg Confession” and greeted it with approval. He cited it in a debate[32] with marked enthusiasm.

In the attempt to define the roots of Beza’s political resistance theory, one has much more difficulty with him than with Knox. Certainly there are similarities in his thought to the “Magdeburg Confession.” Yet other influences may also be observed. The first we will have to remember is that Beza’s theory and Knox’s are divergent on the important issue of the individual’s right to resist.

In determining sources for Beza, it would be well to begin earlier than do most writers to particularize his roots, not with the “Magdeburg Confession” but with Ulrich Zwingli’s Commentary on the True and False Religion. Published in 1525, this work was widely read among the Reformed; in the Commentary there is a section on magistrates. Zwingli’s theory defends obedience to an impious magistrate and considers whether it is right to question an ungodly magistrate. This political theory was taught by reformers after Zwingli’s death in 1531, notably Peter Martyr Vermigli.[33]

Martyr, who travelled widely in England and throughout the Continent, knew Beza in Geneva and John Ponet as well. It was actually Martyr’s library that Ponet used to compose his A Short Treatise of Politic Power. Martyr knew Ponet’s position concerning the individual’s right to rebel as well as Zwingli’s and consciously chose Zwingli’s over Ponet. We also have letters from Goodman in 1558 requesting Martyr to endorse his views, a request with which Martyr refused to comply.[34]

Actually, Martyr wrote against the positions of Ponet, Goodman, and Knox in his commentary on the book of Judges (1555). In this commentary he held to the more conservative position, namely that tyrants are given by God and as appointed from God they are to be patiently endured. A continuity may be observed here between Zwingli and Peter Martyr Vermigli.[35]

We have already noted, however, that Beza’s position is not as conservative as Martyr’s.[36] Where are the roots of Beza’s political resistance theory to be found? The answer to that question is probably in Calvin and the “Magdeburg Confession.”

First of all, Calvin explicitly rejects the private individual’s right to resist authority. He then maintains that magistrates of the people may restrain the king’s arbitrariness. Calvin’s reasoning is easy to follow, for he finds historical examples to demonstrate analogical relationships to his own thought: from Sparta, Rome, and Athens. It is interesting to note that in a little studied work of Zwingli, entitled “Der Hirt” (1524), he alludes, before Calvin does, to two of the three examples noted by Calvin. Yet whether there is direct Zwinglian influence here is difficult to establish.[37]

Actually these examples come directly from Roman law, and it is probable that Calvin was well trained in Roman law. This expression of Calvin’s, that a lesser legal body could restrain a tyrant, is seen as early as the 1541 edition of the Institutes. It is quite possible, but nearly impossible to directly establish, that the “Magdeburg Confession” of 1550 was not the pioneering political document that is claimed for it, in that Calvin had already written nine years earlier concerning some of its major thrusts.[38]

But before one makes a final judgment concerning the roots of Beza’s political resistance theory, it is necessary to investigate another possible source. That source would be Martin Bucer, the Strassburg theologian who influenced Calvin so deeply in so many ways, influenced Beza’s political thought either directly or via Calvin. Bucer’s ideas on the nature of secular government, expressed briefly as early as 1530 in the second edition of his commentary on Matthew, resemble Beza’s in many ways, in particular being very city-centered. An edition of Bucer’s commentary on the book of Judges, which contains a few brief anti-monarchic statements, was published in Geneva in 1554, the year after the publication of Beza’s “De haereticis.”[39]

Yet, as we have observed with Calvin as well, there is no direct citation of Bucer in Beza’s writings on the matter. Attempting to draw this part of our study to a close, we will take another look at Beza and the Magdeburg Confession.

To help us understand Beza’s theory itself, we can cite a part of Beza’s De haereticis a civili magistratu puniendis. This was Beza’s first religious polemic, written as a defense of Calvin’s arguments for the burning of Servetus. Calvin’s arguments had been attacked by Castellion, and Beza defended the position that governments have a duty to put dangerous heretics to death. It was published in 1554. Beza says:

However the inferior Magistrate must, as much as possible, with prudence and moderation, yet constantly and wisely, maintain pure religion in the area under his authority. A signal example of this has been shown in our times by Magdeburg, that city on the Elbe…. When then several Princes abuse their office, whoever still feels it necessary to refuse to use the Christian Magistrates offered by God against external violence whether of the unfaithful or of heretics, I charge deprives the Church of God of a most useful, and (as often as it pleases the Lord) necessary defence.[40]

What exactly is the Magdeburg Confession? The city of Magdeburg in Germany had become Protestant in 1524, without the consent of its temporal ruler, the Archbishop.

In 1548, Magdeburg had taken the lead in North German armed defiance of the “Interim,” enacted by the Emperor and Electors of the Holy Roman Empire to suppress Protestantism wherever it had become established in the Germanies. In each instance, the elected councillors and councils of the city, pushed by popular clamor, had defiled constituted superior authority. Here was a dramatic example of armed resistance, led by inferior magistrates against regularly constituted superior authority.[41]

The principal Lutheran ministers of the city wrote a pamphlet describing the events and providing a rationale, and thus the name the Magdeburg Confession.

In conclusion, it is quite apparent that the Magdeburg Confession was influential in Beza’s theory. He directly cites the Confession with praise in his writings. Yet we must also note the independent influence of Calvin and possibly of Bucer as well. Magdeburg should not be seen as the exclusive source of Beza’s political theory, however, as some modern scholars want to assert.

Nevertheless, it appears that Beza’s position on popular or citizen revolt may have undergone some change.[42] Regarding the situation of private persons resisting an ungodly tyrant, it has been correctly asserted that at least prior to 1560 Beza never would have agreed with Goodman, Ponet, and Knox.[43] And although it seems reasonable to assume that this same disagreement would have persisted after 1560 as well, events such as the St. Bartholomew’s Day massacre may have caused Beza to change his opinion.

Conclusion: The Confessional Accord

Concluding our analysis of the Genevan reaction to the Scottish resistance theory it would be helpful to give a final important note concerning the confessional unity between Geneva and Scotland. In September of 1566 Knox and others in Edinburgh signed the “Confessio et Expositio Simplex” which had been accepted by the Protestants in Geneva and throughout Switzerland. Here is the best documentary basis to establish the close relationship between Scotland and Geneva. Even with the acceptance of this creed, however, we should remember that the Scots disagreed with the Genevans by refusing to celebrate Christmas and Easter, because there was no warrant to do so in the Bible.[44] Therefore, the situation between Scotland and Geneva was in general a unity amid diversity. The theological unity should be underlined in that Scotland truly declared itself to be following the theology of Calvin in accepting the confession, though there were still some points of disagreement. Also, although there was unity in political resistance theory that ungodly Sovereigns may be overthrown, there still remained diversity in the extent of popular involvement in opposing the prince or sovereign.[45] The Genevan reformation did find a home in Scotland; however it was a reformation that was adapted to a different culture and climate.

Notes

1. W. S. Reid, Trumpeter of God (New York: Scribner, 1974) 132.
2. On Knox’s sojourn in Geneva, cf. W. S. Reid, Trumpeter of God, 130-54; J. Ridley, John Knox (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1968) 215–41. Concerning his pastoring the English congregation, cf. C. Martin, Les Protestants englais réfugiés a Genve au temps de Calvin, 1555–1560 (Genve: A. Julien, 1915); W. D. Maxwell, John Knox’s Genevan Service Book 1556 (Edinburgh: Oliver & Boyd, 1931).
3. Reid, Trumpeter of God, 154.
4. The Works of John Knox (ed. D. Laing; Edinburgh: Printed for the Wodrow Society, 1895) 6.95-98 (letter 43 Calvin to Knox, Nov. 8, 1559).
5. Ibid., 123f (letter 66 Calvin to Knox, April 23, 1561).
6. Ibid., 134 (letter 72 Knox to Calvin, October 24, 1561).
7. “I send you a specimen of the very extensive correspondence of Knox” (ibid., 550; letter 80 Beza to Bullinger, December 8, 1566).
8. Cf. the letter of the General Assembly to Beza, 1566 (ibid., 544ff).
9. Ibid., 562 and 565 (letter 85 Beza to Knox, June 3, 1569).
10. Ibid., 565.
11. Ibid., 613 (letter 100 Beza to Knox, April 12, 1572).
12. Letters of John Calvin (ed. Bonnet; Philadelphia: Presbyterian Board of Publications, 1858) 4.47 (letter 538 Calvin to Cecil, May 1559).
13. Ibid., 48.
14. Cf. the text reprinted in Winthrop S. Hudson, John Ponet (1516?-1556) Advocate of Limited Monarchy (Chicago: University of Chicago, 1942).
15. Repr. 1972 Amsterdam and New York: Da Capo Press. In chapter 13, pp. 189f, Goodman says, “it is lawful for the people, yea it is their duetie to do it themselves as well upon their owne rulers and magistrate as upon other of their brethren, having the worde of God for their warrant, to which all are subiecte, and by the same charged to cast forthe all evill from them, and to cut off every rotten membre, for feare of infecting the whole body.” Later, the Scots Confession (1560) will list repressing tyranny with good works (chap. 14).
16. “When then several Princes abuse their office, whoever still feels it necessary to refuse to use the Christian Magistrates offered by God against external violence whether of the unfaithful or of heretics, I charge deprives the Church of God of a most useful and (as often as it pleases the Lord) necessary defense.” Cited by R. M. Kingdon, “The First Expression of Theodore Beza’s Political Ideas,” Archiv für Reformationsgeschichte 46 (1955) 92.
17. The second edition of Point 5, Article 45, was reprinted in 1970 by Libraire Droz, Geneva, under R. M. Kingdon’s editorship as an appendix to the Du droit des Magistrats, 70-75. The Du droit des Magistrats, first published in 1574, clearly presents Beza’s position concerning the magistrates and the people’s responsibility to them.
18. Kingdon, “First Expression,” 96.
19. There he says: “Aucuns afferment le mesme touchant la domination des femmes, à l’opinion desquels toutesfois je ne puis accorder.” His discussion of female monarchs continues on the following pages. Beza, Du droit des Magistrats, 71f. Kingdon acknowledges Beza’s reference to Knox in the introduction to the work (p. x) but does not mention whether he would still agree with the position he took in the 1955 article mentioned above.
20. Cf. Kingdon, “The Political Resistance of the Calvinists in France and the Low Countries,” CH 27 (1958) 220–33; ibid., “Les idées politiques de Bze d’aprs son traitté de l’authorité du magistrat in la punition des hérétiques,” Bibliothque d’humanisme et renaissance 22 (1960) 565–69. Irmgard Höss, “Zur Genesis der Widerstandslehre Bezas,” Archiv für Reformationsgeschichte 54 (1963) 198–214.
21. Robert M. Kingdon (“First Expression,” 94) says: “Beza did indeed know of the Magdeburg example, and that the sources of his resistance theory may hence have ultimate connection to the crude but rarely used resistance theory of certain early Lutherans.” “Beza deliberately links his arguments to that of the Magdeburg Bekenntnis” (Kingdon, “Political Resistance,” 228). “Magdeburg, of course, was not the only inspiration for the Calvinist theory of resistance” (ibid., 229). Esther Hildebrandt (“The Magdeburg Bekenntnis as a Possible Link between German and English Resistance Theories in the Sixteenth Century,” Archiv für Reformationsgeschichte 71 [1981] 240) says that Beza “was most probably inspired by the ‘Magdeburg Bekenntnis’ and other Lutheran works.” Cf. also Höss, “Zur Genesis,” 270ff.
22. Cf. Hildebrandt, “Magdeburg Bekenntnis,” 228ff; David H. Wollman, “The Biblical justification for Resistance to Authority in Ponet’s and Goodman’s Polemics,” Sixteenth Century Journal 13 (1982) 29f; Irmgard Höss, “Zur Genesis,” 201ff.
23. English translation of the text as found in Christianity and Revolution (ed. Lowell H. Zuck; Philadelphia: Temple University, 1975) 137.
24. Hildebrandt (“Magdeburg Bekenntnis,” 227) says: “There is certainly little in early sixteenth century English political thought which would have inspired Ponet.” “On the English side there were no significant developments in resistance theories before Mary Tudor’s reign” (ibid., 238).
25. Hildebrandt (ibid., 240ff) outlines some of the original ideas: his breaking the tradition of passive disobedience, and placing limits upon civil authority.
26. Cf. ibid., 242ff.
27. Those circumstances are made clear in the title to the fifth chapter which reads “To obey man in anie thinge agaynst God is Vnlawfull ind playne disobedience” (Goodman, Superior Powers, 20). “For that can be no excuse for vs, thoghe he be Kinge, Quene, or Emperour that commandeth or threateneth vs. For what is Kinge, Quene, or Emperour compared to God?” (ibid., 46).
28. Extensive quotes could be made to support this point but only one is necessary: “Yf women be not permitted by Ciuile policies to rule in inferior offices, to be Counsellours, [etc.]: I make your selues iudges, whither it be mete for them to gouerne whole Realmes and nations” (ibid., 52).
29. Wollman, “Biblical Justification,” 33.
30. Hildebrandt, “Magdeburg Bekenntnis,” 245. John W. Allen (A History of Political Thought in the Sixteenth Century [New York: Barnes and Noble, 1960] 109f, 116f) sees the viewpoints of the two as nearly identical. For an opposing viewpoint, cf. Quentin Skinner, The Foundations of Modern Political Thought (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1978) 2.228f.
31. Cf. Hildebrandt, “Magdeburg Bekenntnis,” 246.
32. This was a debate during the General Assembly of 1564. For the text, cf. ibid., 246.
33. “Zwingli’s thoughts are so similar to Martyr that one thinks Martyr had reread Zwingli more than once” (Marvin W. Anderson, “Royal Idolatry: Peter Martyr and the Reformed Tradition,” Archiv für Reformationsgeschichte 69 [1978] 179).
34. Ibid., 174f and 185.
35. Ibid., 165.
36. This is the basic thesis of Marvin Anderson (“Royal Idolatry”) which is quite accurate.
37. For Calvin’s views, cf. Institutes 4.20.23; Commentary on 1 Thess 4:11; Commentary on Ps 101:5. Cf. also Institutes 4.20.31. For further information, cf. Josef Bohatec, Calvins Lehre von Staat und Kirche, mit besonderer Berücksichtigung des Organismusgedankens (Breslau: Marcus, 1937) 82f; ibid., Calvin und das Recht (Feudingen: Böhlaus, 1934) 141. Anderson, “Royal Idolatry,” is the most recent writer to cite the references to Zwingli in Calvin (cf. pp. 159 and 179).
38. Cf. H. A. Lloyd, “Calvin and the Duty of Guardians to Resist,” and Peter Stein, “Calvin and the Duty of Guardians to Resist: A Comment” in JEH 32 (1981) 65ff and 69f.
39. Cf. Robert M. Kingdon, “First Expression,” 95.
40. As cited in Kingdon (ibid., 92).
41. Kingdon, “Political Resistance,” 227.
42. For example we observe in the introduction to his edition of Du droit des Magistrats, that Kingdon sees a change of mind in Beza on the matter of citizen revolt. This reasoning is based upon a short statement by Beza in the second edition of the Confessiones, appended to the text of Du droit. There Beza claims that it is easy for a magistrate to abuse his power and that this power is not infinite: “pource qu’il est facile d’abuser du nom de Magistrat, et aussi la puissance du vray Magistrat et legitime n’est pas infinie” (p. x). Because of this statement Kingdon is convinced that at this stage there is a change in Beza’s mind. Yet Kingdon himself reminds his readers that in the confession Beza asserts in principle that the individual citizen is under obligation to obey the magistrate. It is undoubtedly Beza’s position in De haereticus and in Du droit as well. Not advocating citizen revolt is also an established tradition within continental, Protestant political writings. There is a change in Beza’s theory of political resistance, a change which comes after the St. Bartholomew’s Day massacre. He is convinced that the Huguenots, the Protestants in France, must acknowledge that they are fighting the legitimate authority of the crown of France. This demonstrates that Beza held his political theories not just to be theories, but activities that could righteously be performed. His activities and writings of the period do not demonstrate, however, that he considers the individual citizen righteously capable to bear arms against the sovereign unless he is following the lesser magistrate.
43. Dan G. Danner, “Christopher Goodman and the English Protestant Tradition of Civil Disobedience,” Sixteenth Century Journal 8 (1977) 61–73.
44. Cf. The Works of John Knox 6.547f (letter 80, the Scottish Assembly at St. Andrews to Theodore Beza, September 4, 1566).
45. It should be noted here that the present context of discussion revolves around early reformed writing and reaction to the Scottish Reformation. Discussion of later developments in Beza’s political theory goes beyond the limits of this article.

The Concept of Predestination in the Thought of John Knox

By Richard Kyle

Tabor College, Hillsboro, Kansas 67063

I. Introduction

It is generally accepted that John Knox adhered to the doctrine of predestination in some form. Nevertheless, the specifics of Knox’s predestinarian faith are not common knowledge, and the scholars that have written on this subject have often registered points of disagreement.[1] Therefore, the primary objective of this article is to focus on the details, the historical development, and the context of the Scottish reformer’s concept of predestination, and secondarily to analyze the points of scholarly difference on this subject. The variances pertain to Knox’s lengthy treatise concerning predestination, to Calvin’s influence on Knox’s predestinarian thought, and to specific points of predestinarian doctrine. Did Knox’s large predestination tract really represent his views on that doctrine? For his predestinarian thought, was Knox largely indebted to John Calvin or to a wider range of Reformed influences that would include George Wishart, John Hooper, Ulrich Zwingli, and Heinrich Bullinger? Some scholarly disagreements also pertain to Knox’s positions regarding supralapsarianism or infralapsarianism and on single or double predestination.

John Knox’s writings concerning predestination primarily span from 1552 to 1559. According to Pierre Janton, Knox read Calvin’s Institutes by 1550 and incorporated the doctrine into his thinking some time after this date, particularly during the years 1553 and 1554. In his works before 1552 and after 1559, allusions to predestination are insufficient to constitute a sound base for judgment.[2] The best sources are Knox’s writings to Mrs. Bowes (1553–1554), On Predestination (1560), and to a lesser extent, A Faithful Admonition (1554) and letters to his Scottish brethren (1557). Otherwise the reformer made few references to the subject, and even those citations occurred in the sense of practical application rather than in setting forth doctrine. On Predestination, however, was by no means insignificant for it encompassed nearly an entire volume of about 170,000 words, excluding the lengthy quotations from the work that he was refuting.[3]

Knox’s approach to predestination during the 1550s was practical in orientation and shaped by historical circumstances. He tended to emphasize predestination, as he did the small-flock concept of the church, during troubled times and prior to the establishment of the Reformation in Scotland. And for John Knox, the 1550s were troubled times characterized by the return of Catholicism to England under Mary Tudor, subsequent exile, disputes in the English refugee church at Frankfurt, and a failure to establish the Reformation securely in Scotland. Consequently, Knox’s predestination thought probably had a powerful psychological basis as well as a theological and historical background.[4]

More specifically, in writing to Mrs. Bowes, Knox’s predestinarian approach was pastoral. Mrs. Bowes, his mother-in-law, was a spiritually disturbed woman who needed assurance of salvation and Knox used predestination toward this end. In A Faithful Admonition, Knox frequently alluded to the elect as a persecuted remnant. His treatise, On Predestination, written at the request of the English refugees in Geneva, replied to the challenge of an anonymous English Anabaptist, and it assaulted all those opinions and sects loosely referred to as Anabaptist.[5] When Knox wrote On Predestination in 1558 and 1559, he was far more mature in ecclesiastical experience and theological consciousness than at any time before, and this tract represented his greatest dogmatic work. Though largely influenced by Calvin in the treatise, Knox followed the method of Zwingli and Bullinger who first turned the doctrine of predestination into a weapon against the Anabaptists. By so doing they cut the ground from under the feet of the radical argument by shifting the basis from appeal to experience, from justification and saving faith, and even from the argument about baptism, to God’s design for salvation in Christ before the foundation of the world.[6] In the free handling of Scripture by some of these sectaries, the Magisterial Reformers saw released a spirit of unrestrained inquiry, which in their view would have imperiled the existence of every church that had broken from Rome and dissolved church and state alike.[7]

Richard Greaves agrees that Knox’s orientation to the subject of predestination was practical, but he disputes the notion that On Predestination was written to refute the challenge of an anonymous Anabaptist. Knox’s treatise concerning predestination was written shortly after the publication of The First Blast of the Trumpet Against the Monstrous Regiment of Women, which not only displeased Calvin, but also upset some English Protestants. It is Greaves’ contention that Knox wrote On Predestination largely as a pedantic exercise to maintain his working relationship with Calvin and his disciples, and as a message to the English Protestants to remain loyal to Reformed doctrine.[8] This interesting theory has merit. The First Blast, indeed, had upset Calvin and Knox may have now desired to please the Swiss reformer. Nevertheless, there is no solid evidence on which to reject Knox’s stated purpose for writing his treatise, i.e., to reply to an Anabaptist.

Knox’s practical and pastoral approach to predestination corresponded with the manner in which Knox expressed himself in other areas of dogmatics. Because he was first and foremost a preacher and not a writer, the reformer made no attempt to systematize his theology nor to construct political theory. His thought came in response to real situations. Therefore, Knox’s method of presentation, if not his thought, resembled the Pauline epistles, which were written to the churches for the purpose of practical instruction. This nonsystematic, pragmatic style was even evident in Knox’s only serious attempt at an organized theological presentation. Though On Predestination is a lengthy treatise, it is far from being a systematic one. He replied to an Anabaptist who had attacked Calvin’s teaching regarding predestination; and instead of developing an orderly argument, Knox assailed the Anabaptist’s book, chapter by chapter. The result was repetition, and repetition that was by no means consistent with itself. So Knox, bound by his opponent’s argument, approached predestination in a haphazard way,and one is left with the impression that the reformer never felt truly at home in the subject.[9]

Not only was Knox’s approach to predestination practical and pastoral, but it was also personal. He had no doubt whatever that he was numbered among God’s elect. John 17, a predestinarian chapter, which recounts Christ’s prayer for the elect, was the source of his confidence.[10] Knox saw himself as among those God had given to Christ and whom Christ would preserve, sanctify, intercede for, and take unto himself. His personal confession would include: “I JOHN KNOX…most certainly believe, that in the same Christ Jesus; of free grace he did Elect and choose me to life everlasting before the foundation of the world was laid.”[11] The Scottish reformer not only saw himself elected to eternal salvation but also chosen to be on the side of God in the great battle with the forces of Satan. This conviction became a source of both Knox’s strength and weakness. Being called as a servant of God and absolutely convinced of the ultimate triumph of the divine cause, the reformer’s prevailing mood became one of confidence, conviction, and also intolerance.[12]

Knox’s writings on the subject of predestination, particularly his large treatise, also must be viewed in the context of several theological trends. First Knox, as a Marian exile, reflected the views of the English Protestant apocalyptic tradition, which regarded Rome as the whore of Babylon described in the Book of Revelation. This theme ran through Knox’s career, but it was quite pronounced in his treatise concerning predestination. Here Knox likened the “true” Christian church and the Catholic church to two armies, which God so divided and ordained to a cosmic struggle until the return of Christ.[13] Second, and more significant for the subject of predestination, was the contemporary theological controversy taking place on the Continent. Predestination was a generally accepted doctrine from the very beginning of the Reformation, although it was not a source of contention in the early years. The importance of the teaching grew, however, until after mid-century, when a rigorous position on double predestination increasingly became the test of orthodoxy in Reformed circles. But this development did not happen without a struggle. Calvin was at the center of the controversy, particularly in his argument with Jerome Bôlsec, an ex-Carmelite who was arrested in 1551 for attacking Calvin’s doctrine of predestination. Other battles over predestination followed, such as the quarrel between Theodore Bibliander and Peter Vermigli in Zurich, and Jerome Zanchi’s problem in Strassburg.[14]

As Calvin’s concern over the spread of antipredestinarian views grew, the issue increasingly came to the forefront in Geneva. Theodore Beza, who would become the leader of the Genevan church after Calvin’s death, published a summation of Calvin’s doctrine of predestination in 1555. The next year, William Whittingham, one of Knox’s advocates in Frankfurt, translated it into English with the title, A Briefe Declaration of the Chiefe Points of the Christian Religion Set Forth in an Index of Predestination. The year 1556 saw another work pertaining to predestination published at Geneva. Anthony Gilby, who also supported Knox in the controversy at Frankfurt, wrote A Briefe Treatise of Election and Reprobation. Knox certainly knew about these works regarding predestination. In fact, the Geneva Bible, which Knox helped to translate, included the doctrine of predestination in the marginal notes. Thus Knox formulated his views concerning predestination, particularly those found in his large treatise, at a time when predestination was of concern to many religious leaders.[15]

II. Knox’s Writings Prior to 1559

Knox’s earliest writings spoke to the subjects of justification, the purification of religion, and the Lord’s Supper; and in these first treatises the issue of predestination did not arise.[16] The Scottish reformer first made a serious reference to the doctrine of election in his 1552 Epistle to the Congregation of Berwick. Not only did Knox frequently use the word “elect” in this tract, but also in his summary of the gospel he related the doctrine of predestination to other aspects of salvation: Divine providence is the source of election, the church is established by election, and God chooses his children in Jesus Christ before the foundation of the world. Knox asserted that there is no “other cause moving God to elect and choose us than his own infinite goodness and mere mercy.”[17] As Knox’s theology acquired depth, his soteriology obviously moved toward a Reformed position. In many ways, his thinking at this point on election resembled that of Zwingli and Bullinger, namely, a moderate form of predestination accentuating election and relating it to other aspects of the gospel. Nevertheless, there is no evidence as to the exact source of Knox’s doctrine at this time.[18]

Knox’s Epistles to Mrs. Bowes written over the years 1553 and 1554 reveal several aspects of Knox’s early predestinarian thought. First, they indicate that Knox had some awareness of the doctrine of double predestination even before meeting Calvin. Knox asserted that the reprobate flee God and cannot love him.[19] Second, in these epistles, Knox related election to the doctrines of assurance and sanctification. Knox’s later treatise, On Predestination, dealt primarily with the objective side of assurance. Salvation comes from belief in Christ, but the elect believe because they have been ordained to do so, and thus election assures salvation.[20] Nevertheless, Knox’s unstable mother-in-law, Mrs. Bowes, doubted her election. After pointing out to Mrs. Bowes that assurance rests on something outside of her—the unchanging promise of God—Knox then advocated the dangerous course of self inspection.

According to Knox, election must produce certain fruits and signs or something is wrong. Absence of sin is not such a sign because the elect could sin grievously, and at times even resemble the reprobate. Nevertheless, despite the elect’s sin, God does not abandon them to perdition but hears their petitions and enables them to resist sin. The elect, therefore, cannot be devoid of all positive signs. Rather, they must evidence a positive godliness and a genuine desire to live a pure, holy life.[21] Third, Knox related predestination to an aspect of his ecclesiology. He regarded the invisible church, known only to God, as synonymous with the elect. Conversely, the visible church contained both the elect and reprobate. Nevertheless, Knox believed that the visible church most likely to contain the elect was the small, persecuted flock. In these epistles, written during Mary Tudor’s reign in England, Knox said: “There is few that are chosen…and therefore ought you greatly rejoice, knowing yourself to be one of the small and contemptible flock to whom it has pleased God…to give the kingdom.”[22] For the small flock, election was no abstract doctrine but a support in the moment of trial. Knox used election to comfort and exhort the menaced flock. Such a theme also came through in An Exposition upon Psalm VI (1554), A Faithful Admonition (1554), and A Letter of Wholesome Counsel (1556).[23]

Knox’s 1554 Exposition upon Psalm VI, also written to Mrs. Bowes, contained frequent mention of the elect. Knox, however, developed no systematic doctrine of predestination at this time; but rather, he continued the themes found in the Epistles to Mrs. Bowes, namely, references to the reprobate that indicate some movement toward a doctrine of double predestination, mention of the Holy Spirit’s work in creating in the elect signs of their election, and further use of election to comfort the persecuted small flock. Nevertheless, he seemed to make a fresh statement in his condemnation of Pelagianism as a heresy and its emphasis on free will, natural human power, and good works as means of securing salvation.[24]

During the remainder of 1554, Knox’s pen continued to be active. His Godly Letter of Warning made no mention of predestination; but it did contain the first reference to Calvin, and demonstrated that prior to meeting the Genevan, Knox already had been reading the Swiss reformer’s works and had a high opinion of him.[25] Though Knox barely alluded to election in his Two Comfortable Epistles of May 10 and 31, the subject arose frequently in A Faithful Admonition. Nevertheless, he still did not make any systematic statements concerning predestination, but continued his previous themes—comfort and encouragement for the elect who could be found in the small flock, insistence that the professors of faith demonstrate signs of their election, and scattered references to the reprobate.[26]

By 1556 Knox had been to Geneva, where predestination was increasingly becoming an important issue. Knox’s writings, however, did not evidence any immediate surge of interest in the subject. In fact, his earliest 1556 works—a letter to Mary of Guise and an exposition on Matthew 4—scarcely pertained to predestination. Thus only scattered references to Satan persecuting the elect can be found.[27] His Answers to Some Questions Concerning Baptism noted election in the context of the covenant. Though in other writings, Knox alluded to a general and conditional covenant to all the inhabitants of a realm, and even said that the covenant and election do not coincide, this baptismal tract spoke of a permanent covenant in the context of election to individual salvation. Even iniquity could not break this covenant: “that the league of God is of that firmness and assurance, that rather shall the covenant made with the sun and moon, with the day and night, perish and be changed, than that the promise of his mercy made to his elect shall be frustrated and vain.”[28] In A Letter of Wholesome Counsel, Knox again indicated that election made godly living possible for the elect. Temptation cannot overcome the elect because they have been called from ignorance to taste God’s mercy, which encourages them to build up their faith by the study of Scripture.[29] The Form of Prayers (1556), which included Calvin’s Catechism and was used by the English Congregation at Geneva, made several references to predestination. The Form’s Confession of Faith mentioned the elect and reprobate in connection with baptism, the last judgment, and the invisible church which “is not seen to man’s eye, but only known to God, who of the lost sons of Adam, hath ordained some, as vessels of wrath, to damnation, and hath chosen others, as vessels of mercy to be saved.”[30] Although Knox did not write this confession, he approved of it.[31]

Though the interest in predestination in Geneva continued to be strong, only one of Knox’s 1557 writings made significant references to the doctrine. Neither the Familar Epistles, penned from 1555 to 1558, nor Knox’s notes to An Apology do more than vaguely allude to the subject.[32] The Letters to His Brethren in Scotland, however, recorded some important statements concerning predestination. Knox not only reiterated some of his previous themes on the relationship of election to good works, but he made some statements that he later developed in his large predestination treatise. Knox condemned the Scottish Protestants who believe that the human will is free and therefore deny election and reprobation. He insisted that under no circumstances can good works or human choice bring about election. Knox not only said that these advocates of free will denied the Godhead, but he associated them with the heresies of Arianism and Pelagianism. At this point, Knox clearly related predestination to its source—the omnipotent providence of God. Knox, therefore, regarded it as blasphemy to deny predestination.[33]

Knox’s 1558 writings reveal his preoccupation at this time, namely the overthrow of idolatrous rulers and the establishment of “true religion” in England and Scotland. Consequently, Knox’s political pamphlets (e.g., The First Blast, The Appellation, A Letter to the Commonalty) and other tracts contain only a few references to the elect and reprobate.[34] Therefore, as Knox embarked on his major predestination treatise, two points should be observed. First, Knox had not given any extensive treatment to the subject of predestination in his pre-1559 writings. He did not, as Calvin had done, develop the doctrine gradually over a period of years. Rather, Knox moved suddenly into a lengthy treatment of the subject. Second, what Knox had written concerning predestination in these earlier works harmonized with his forthcoming expanded treatise on that subject, partly because the reformer’s earlier writings on this doctrine were quite general and pastoral.

III. Knox’s Predestination Treatise

Knox probably wrote On Predestination in late 1558 and early 1559 and it was published in 1560. At the onset of this lengthy treatise, Knox stated his agreement with the judgment of John Calvin on the subject of predestination.[35] From Knox’s frequent references to Calvin and the content of this work, such a statement seems essentially correct. The predestinarian thought of the two reformers, however, exhibited secondary differences due to methodology and circumstances, and possibly even one variance on a substantial issue. Richard Greaves does not necessarily contest Calvin’s influence in this treatise, but he questions Knox’s motive in underscoring his agreement with Calvin. Knox, Greaves insists, had to soothe Calvin because The First Blast had upset the Swiss reformer.[36]

Predestination was not the very center of Calvin’s teaching, nor was it for Knox. Yet at the same time, in On Predestination the doctrine was not just a theoretical matter for Knox, but had practical importance, revealing a mainspring of his thinking and action.[37] Calvin’s predestinarian thought ranged over a broader field than did Luther’s and Knox’s largely because his dogmatic formulations were also wider. James McEwen, therefore, contends that Knox followed Luther’s method rather than Calvin’s in taking a more narrow approach to predestination. Knox began with the doctrine as it related to personal salvation and then made excursions into the broader field of Christian theology.[38] Knox’s nonsystematic and even haphazard approach to predestination makes it difficult to confirm or deny McEwen’s judgment. It is certain, however, that Knox related predestination to other areas of his theology.

In On Predestination, Knox went to great lengths to emphasize the practical necessity of predestination to his view of salvation. Without the doctrine of predestination, faith could not be taught nor established.[39] True faith springs from election and not the reverse for “if you understand that Election has no promise without faith, I answer, That God’s free election in Christ Jesus needs neither promise nor faith…but (only) his own good pleasure in Christ.”[40] Redemption, from start to finish, depended on God’s free election and without it no salvation was possible.[41] In fact, Knox implied that predestination and the gospel were nearly synonymous.[42]

Though in his treatise Knox accentuated predestination more in the context of soteriology, he certainly integrated it into other areas of dogmatics such as God and providence, the church, human nature, and good works. Salvation depends on election, but Knox grounded predestination itself in his concept of God. For Knox God is, of course, immutable and absolutely sovereign. Consequently, predestination is an immutable and sovereign decree.[43] God can never repent of election, neither can the elect refuse election nor finally perish despite their sin. Conversely, the reformer regarded reprobation as equally immutable and divinely determined.[44] Knox, just as Calvin had done in the 1539 edition of the Institutes, and as Zwingli had done earlier, connected divine predestination and providence: predestination was but a decree within the larger context of providence.[45]

In a nonsystematic sense, Knox’s ecclesiology rested squarely on predestination. The church consists of the elect of God; and if there is no election, there is no church. Actually, only the small flock and invisible church experiences predestination, for the notion of an elected church opposes the national concept of the church.[46] In fact, Knox dedicated his predestination treatise to the church for its instruction: “But yet I say, that the doctrine of God’s eternal Predestination is so necessary to the Church of God, that, without the same, can Faith neither be truly taught, neither surely established.”[47] Predestination not only establishes and multiplies the church but also preserves it. Thus Knox largely related predestination to his ecclesiology in times of stress (e.g., while exiled from 1553 to 1559, when fearful of the Counter-Reformation in 1565). This preservation theme confirmed predestination more as a doctrine for the elect than for the damned.[48] Yet Knox, writing in apocalyptic language, insisted that the church of Satan, the reprobate, also came about because of divine predestination. Therefore, Pierre Janton argues that Knox regarded predestination as more corporate than individual because the church is the society of the elect preserved by God.[49] But, along with Calvin, Knox never elevated election to a mark of the true visible church for the elect and reprobate cannot be conclusively determined.[50]

Knox also rested his notions of sanctification and good works on his doctrine of predestination. The reformer’s sequence was election, true faith and salvation, and then good works. Without the doctrine of predestination human beings could not have a humble knowledge of themselves. True humility came when the elect became aware that God had illumined their eyes and elected them to salvation, while leaving others in darkness and perdition. The humility that comes through the knowledge of election is the mother of all virtue and the root of all goodness. Thus, in On Predestination, Knox contended that the doctrine of predestination established good works. No other doctrine could make one thankful to God and obey him according to his commandments.[51]

In the treatise, Knox defined predestination as the eternal and immutable decree of God, by which he once determined within himself what he will have done with every individual. God did not create all people to be of the same condition.[52] Predestination for Knox included both election and reprobation, which numbered all of humanity in God’s decree. In the eternal counsel of God there existed a difference in humankind even before creation.[53] Knox did not speculate about the number elected to life or reprobated to death. Rather, he simply stood on what he believed to be clearly revealed—the fact of individual election and reprobation.[54] The Anabaptist opponent accused Knox of using logic more than Scripture to support the doctrine of double predestination. But Knox insisted that the position was biblical, and logical arguments were only handmaidens of Scripture.[55] Yet it must be noted that Knox placed more emphasis on the positive election of sinners to salvation, than on the reprobative aspect of predestination.[56] Knox noted a corporate side to predestination in that the invisible church consisted of those individuals elected to eternal salvation. Nevertheless, he categorically rejected the Anabaptist’s argument for a general election of all humanity, rather than the election of individuals.[57] The Scottish reformer not only insisted on only one election—that of individuals to eternal life, but in On Predestination he denied that God loved all human beings. In Knox’s words: “You [the Anabaptist] make the love of God common to all men; and that do we constantly deny.”[58]

After Calvin’s death, his followers disagreed over the order of events in God’s plan of salvation. The question was, did God decree to elect and reprobate before or after he decreed to create human beings and permit them to fall? Supralapsarianism said that the decree to salvation or damnation came before the decrees to create and to allow the Fall while infralapsarianism contended that those elected to salvation were contemplated as members of a fallen race.[59] Some scholars have attempted to place Knox on either side of the dispute.[60] Both views firmly adhered to predestination, but supralapsarianism was the more radical of the two positions. Though Knox insisted “that man’s fall…was no less determined in the eternal counsel of God than was his creation,” he never gave the order of the decrees.[61] Moreover, he did not conjecture whether God, in issuing his decree of predestination, considered humans as fallen, or simply as subjects whose eternal fate must be decided apart from the consideration of sin. Since John Calvin refused to speculate concerning the order of decrees, it is not surprising that a man of practical orientation such as Knox did not concern himself with such a theological issue.[62] Actually the debate over the order of decrees took place after Knox wrote his major predestinarian work (1558–1559) and after Calvin’s death (1564). One contemporary, Theodore Beza, did speculate on the issue, and he was a supralapsarian.[63] In Knox’s thought, one can find strands of both infralapsarianism and supralapsarianism, and perhaps more of the latter, but it would be incorrect to categorize him as either.

Freedom—both human and divine—played a major role in Knox’s concept of predestination. In On Predestination, he insisted that no activity, regardless of its apparent unimportance, took place without God’s ordaining it to come to pass. Yet this absolute providence does not destroy human responsibility nor make God the author of sin. Predestination being so closely related with providence must be associated with the same conclusions. On one hand, Knox insisted on outright predestination; but on the other, he placed great stress on human responsibility and the fact that God did not predestinate humans to sin: “Although, I say that so he ordained the fall of man, that I utterly deny him to be the author of sin.”[64]

God’s freedom, more than human freedom, was important to Knox, and he never tired of emphasizing the fact of God’s free election. God freely chose whom he would to salvation or perdition without consideration of any foreknown works or faith on the part of human beings. Prescience, which based divine election on God’s foreknowledge of events, endeavored to achieve a synergism—a kind of cooperation between God and humankind in election. God knew in advance who would believe and who would not, and he elected or rejected accordingly. In On Predestination, Knox faithfully followed Calvin on this matter and bitterly opposed this traditional doctrine of foreknowledge.[65] Knox acknowledged the existence of prescience but he gave it a different definition: “But we say that all things be so present before God, that he does contemplate and behold them in their verity and perfection.”[66] The Scottish reformer adamantly refused to separate divine foreknowledge and divine Will. When God foresees something, it comes to pass because his power is omnipotent.[67]

The chief difficulty with the doctrine of predestination arises in regard to its negative side—reprobation. Therefore, Knox’s Anabaptist opponent centered his attack on reprobation, which he called “this horrible doctrine.”[68] So Knox, in On Predestination, found himself defending a subject not developed elsewhere in his writings, and one with which he was uncomfortable.[69] Here Knox openly attempted to expound Calvin’s view in regard to double predestination. Even though he had some success, he apparently deviated from Calvin at two points—confusion between double and single predestination and a different emphasis on the cause of reprobation. These variations arose partly because Knox, being bound by his opponent’s argumentation and terminology, constantly gave the appearance of escaping from a tight corner. This situation, of course, led to confusion, shifts of thought, and even outright contradictions.

According to its usual representation in Reformed theology, the decree of reprobation comprises two elements: preterition, or the determination to pass by some people; and condemnation, or the determination to punish those who are passed by for their sins. As such it incorporates a dual purpose: one, to pass some by in the bestowal of regenerating and saving grace; and two, to assign them to dishonor and to the wrath of God for their sins. Reformed theology has not always been constant in applying both elements. For example, the Belgic Confession (1561) mentioned only the former, but the Canons of Dort (1618–1619) named both. Even Augustine lacked consistency. He held to double predestination, but normally he applied only the element of preterition to reprobation. God simply abandoned the reprobate to experience the full consequences of their sins. Apparently Zwingli also understood reprobation to be only preterition while Bullinger may not have gone this far—he maintained a position of moderate single predestination.[70] Calvin, on the other hand, did apply both preterition and condemnation to reprobation. He did not regard reprobation as just a natural by-product of God’s determination to leave some people languish in their sins, but as a conscious decree to condemn. Nevertheless, Calvin did not emphasize reprobation in his writings. In fact, he did not fully develop any aspect of predestination, particularly a pronounced doctrine of reprobation, in his earlier editions of the Institutes. But in the edition of 1559 Calvin drew more attention to predestination, including the aspect of reprobation, largely as a result of the predestinarian disputes that had transpired.[71]

That Knox held to double predestination is not a matter of debate for he clearly referred to both election and reprobation.[72] But whether his concept of reprobation contained both the elements of preterition (passing by) and condemnation (dishonor and wrath) or just that of preterition (which resembles only single predestination) is a difficult matter. Both elements were present in Knox’s thought, but for the most part, he spoke of reprobation either so generally the components were not discernible, or as if this decree were primarily an act of preterition with condemnation coming as a natural result of God bypassing some individuals.

The aspect of condemnation can be found in Knox’s predestination treatise. He specifically placed reprobation and punishment in a cause-and-effect relationship as Calvin had done: “And from that same eternity he hath reprobate others, whom…he shall adjudge to torments and fire unextinguishable.”[73] But more numerous and explicit were the passages presenting reprobation as a decree of preterition as Augustine had represented it. Knox spoke of the reprobate as those whom God “leaves to themselves to languish in their corruption…till that they come to perdition.”[74] Representative of Knox’s teaching on passive reprobation was the following: “that God in his eternal counsel…hath of one mass chosen vessels of honor…and of the same mass he hath left others in that corruption in which they were to fall, and so were they prepared to destruction.”[75] Why did Knox apparently accent the element of preterition and give the impression of maintaining only single predestination? Any answers to this question must be a matter of conjecture. First, in a treatise acknowledging Calvin’s influence, it is doubtful that Knox would have openly rejected the Swiss reformer’s position. Instead, it might be that Knox was simply inconsistent on this issue. Second, the Scottish reformer relied heavily on the 1539 and 1550 editions of the Institutes for the content of his predestination treatise. In these editions, Calvin did not develop a pronounced doctrine of reprobation. Third, Knox appeared to be uncomfortable with the subject of reprobation and an emphasis on preterition presented fewer difficulties in his debate with the Anabaptist. Next, the Scottish reformer might have been influenced by either Zwingli or Bullinger on this matter, but this hypothesis is uncertain. Fifth, Knox was first and foremost a preacher and thus did not emphasize nor develop any aspect of reprobation, especially not its harsher element.

What caused reprobation? The Scottish reformer insisted on two causes—the hidden will of God and the sin of humanity. The hidden will of God was the primary source of all things and thus caused reprobation.[76] According to V. E. D’Assonville, at this point Knox ran counter to Calvin and created difficulties for himself in his debate with the Anabaptist. Calvin emphatically stated that people should concern themselves with the secondary cause of reprobation, sin, rather than with the primary source, God’s hidden will. The Geneva reformer guarded against meaningless speculation about the hidden cause while stressing the reason indicated by Scripture—human sin. But now Knox did just the opposite. To him, any cause sought outside the will of God led to confusion. Thus he made God’s will not only the primary source of reprobation but nearly the exclusive cause: “But because that in his Word there is no cause assigned (God’s good will only excepted) why he hath chosen some and rejected others.”[77]

Nevertheless, due to the difficulties presented by his opponent, Knox at times shifted emphasis to the point of near contradiction. He grudgingly acknowledged a second but subordinate cause of reprobation—human sin. Though Knox stressed that God’s ordinance was the primary basis for reprobation, he insisted that reprobation did not cause sin. “Man therefore falls (God’s providence is ordaining), but yet he falls by his own fault.”[78]

IV. Knox’s Later Writings

In Knox’s predestination treatise the mark of John Calvin is discernible. To an extent, Knox and the other leading figures of the English Church in Geneva came under the influence of John Calvin in this regard, especially during the years of 1556 to 1559. Nevertheless, Knox’s writings after his major treatise mentioned predestination even less than his pre-1559 works. In all probability several circumstances contributed to this situation. One, Knox tended to mention this subject during persecution; and with the establishment of Protestantism in Scotland, this oppression abated. Two, he was preoccupied with the writing of the History of the Reformation in Scotland and thus wrote less on other subjects. Next, predestination was not always pertinent to the topics that he addressed in the post-1560 years. Finally, in his major predestination tract, he probably said all that he had to say on the subject.

In 1560, the year following the writing of On Predestination, Knox and his colleagues drafted the Scots Confession. Chapter eight addressed the subject of election, otherwise the Confession contained only scattered references to election and even less to reprobation. This chapter, referring to Eph 1:4, affirmed the election of believers in Christ before creation, and mentioned the reprobate only once. The chapter on sin spoke of the Holy Spirit’s work in the heart of the elect. Chapter sixteen described the church as a company of the elect, both past and future. The next chapter, which addressed the immortality of the soul, mentioned both the elect and reprobate. Chapter twenty-one noted the role of the sacraments in assuring the elect of their union with Christ.

The last chapter of the Confession declared that both the elect and reprobate may be members of the visible church.[79] Though Knox certainly approved of the Confession, including its treatment of predestination, Duncan Shaw might be correct in his assertion that John Willock, who was influenced by Bullinger and John à Lasco, wrote the chapter on election.[80]

References to predestination can scarcely be detected in a series of letters written by Knox from 1559 to 1562 or in his tract debating the Mass with the Abbot of Crossraguel (1562). John Knox wrote his History from 1559 to 1571. In this lengthy work, Knox obviously developed no doctrine of predestination, but his concept of history, which reflected both his notion of God’s absolute sovereignty over all events and a sense of an apocalyptic conflict, naturally alluded to the subject. Not only did the God of John Knox control history, but history itself, particularly the Scottish Reformation, was a battle between the forces of God and the forces of Satan, i.e., the elect and reprobate. Though Satan persecuted the elect, God had ordained that they would triumph for his glory.[81] Knox’s Sermon on Isaiah XXVI, preached before Lord Darnley in 1565, did contain frequent references to the elect and reprobate. From 1562 on, troubles mounted for the Reformed kirk. Protestantism had been established legally but not financially and the threat of the revival of Catholicism hung like an ominous cloud over Knox. Under such conditions, Knox returned to the theme of a predestinated church, only this time it was not the small flock of the exile years, but the invisible church within the visible kirk. The visible church contained both the elect and reprobate.[82] Knox’s last writing, An Answer to James Tyrie, penned in 1568, concentrated on the visible church and contained nothing of note in respect to predestination.

V. Influences on Knox’s Predestinarian Thought

Among the sources and influences upon Knox’s predestinarian thought, the Bible was foremost. Scripture contains numerous passages—both in the Old and New Testaments—that give predestination a biblical basis. In fact, if one is inclined in that direction, predestination can be seen as the theme of the Bible from start to finish. Thus it is unnecessary to apologize for Knox’s predestination thrust; he did not invent the doctrine, neither did Augustine nor Calvin. The doctrine is in the Bible, and Knox being a man of the Bible acquired it from this source.[83]

That John Calvin influenced Knox’s predestination thought is beyond any doubt. In On Predestination, Knox quoted extensively, perhaps even slavishly, from Calvin’s Institutes and from his other works to a lesser degree.[84] To quote Knox in reference to predestination: “we dissent not from the judgment of…John Calvin…. I will faithfully recite his words and sentences in this behalf, written thus in his Christian Institutions.”[85] Thus V. E. D’Assonville is probably accurate when he says that “in Knox’s ‘On Predestination,’ Calvin is speaking as directly as in none of his other works.”[86] The only real questions are when and to what extent did Calvin influence Knox’s doctrine of predestination. Still, as has been noted, Knox did deviate from Calvin on several points: perhaps a different emphasis on the decree of reprobation, the cause of reprobation, and possibly in their approach to predestination. Moreover, according to D’Assonville, Calvin’s doctrine of predestination was more Christocentric and more dependent on Scripture than was Knox’s On Predestination.[87] The question of early influences on Knox’s predestinarian thought is no easy matter. His early references to the subject were so infrequent and general that any identification of sources is hazardous. Zwingli certainly held to the doctrine of predestination, and his thought came to Scotland via George Wishart. Although there is no concrete proof that Wishart transmitted the doctrine to Knox, it is highly probable that predestinarian ideas somehow came in with early Reformed thought. In fact, Zwingli’s understanding of a decree of reprobation to be preterition resembled Knox’s position on that issue. Knox may have already developed a doctrine of predestination before coming to Geneva, with Calvin’s Genevan influence being largely corroborative.[88]

What is more certain is that by 1552 Knox’s soteriology had incorporated predestination into it, and during 1553 and 1554 the doctrine received frequent mention in Knox’s writings to Mrs. Bowes.[89] It is equally certain that Knox had used Calvin’s commentary on Jeremiah by 1553.[90] Furthermore, some evidence indicates that Calvin’s doctrine of predestination influenced the English Protestants during Edward VI’s reign, and Knox may also have encountered these ideas at this time.[91] Still, in these early years, one cannot be absolutely certain whether Knox’s source was Calvin, other Reformed sources, or both. However, Knox substantially based On Predestination on the 1539 and 1550 editions of the Institutes, which most likely he read before his trip to Geneva.[92] In describing his rationale for predestination in his treatise, Knox referred to the 1539 edition. He said that his reasons were not “lately invented, but twenty years ago committed into writing by…John Calvin.”[93] The 1550 edition was the first version to be divided into chapters and paragraphs. The Scottish reformer made direct references to these chapters and paragraphs, which David Laing, the compiler of Knox’s collected works, confirmed as corresponding to the 1550 edition of the Institutes.[94] Therefore, it would seem that Stanford Reid, Pierre Janton, and V. E. D’Assonville are correct in noting Calvin’s influence on Knox’s thought generally and on predestination specifically, prior to his trip to Geneva. The extent of this early influence, however, cannot be determined. Other influences on Knox’s doctrine of predestination—such as Augustine and Luther—were more indirect and less certain. On Predestination contained many references to Augustine but most of these citations came via Calvin’s Institutes.[95] Knox seemed to favor Augustine’s emphasis on preterition in reprobation, but this characteristic might have developed more because of other factors than Augustine’s writings. Luther’s influence on Knox’s doctrine of predestination was problematic at best. It is certain, however, that the English apocalyptic tradition affected many areas of Knox’s thought, including his notions concerning predestination.

There exists a scholarly debate that runs right to the heart of Knox’s predestinarian thought. One group of scholars contends that Knox’s treatise On Predestination, does not represent his thought on the subject and that perhaps the 1560 Scots Confession, containing a mild nonspeculative statement that centers election in Jesus Christ before the foundation of the world, contains a more accurate view of Knox’s notion of predestination.[96] A second group argues that Knox’s treatise On Predestination does indeed reflect his views on the subject.[97]

Some truth can be found in both positions, but the latter view seems more accurate. John Knox was not at home in On Predestination, nor in any abstract theological problem for that matter, nor was predestination a prevailing concern with him. He was a preacher and a pastor. Furthermore, Richard Greaves might be correct in his contention that Knox wrote his predestination treatise to placate Calvin’s displeasure over the First Blast. Such a theory, even if accurate, does not necessarily mean that On Predestination fails to reflect Knox’s thought on this subject. Though chapter eight (“On Election”) of the Scots Confession may not reflect the “tone” expressed by Knox in On Predestination, the doctrine contained in the two documents is not in disagreement.[98] Several factors might explain this difference in tonality. First, On Predestination is a detailed work written in a controversial context while the Scots Confession contains only a short general statement regarding predestination. Second, according to Duncan Shaw, chapter eight of the Scots Confession does not echo Knox’s thought in this regard. If Shaw is correct, chapter eight might reflect more the position of Willock, who in turn followed the view of à Lasco and Bullinger on election.[99] At any rate, the treatise is a 468-page work (Laing’s edition) that sets forth the doctrine explicitly and vigorously, as opposed to a confessional statement drawn up by Knox and five other men, and would thus seem to be a more exact expression of Knox’s views concerning predestination. Moreover, despite some tonal differences, Knox’s thought regarding predestination before or after his major treatise did not conflict with the doctrine found therein. It would seem, therefore, that On Predestination accurately expressed Knox’s thought on the matter, but it did not reflect his emphasis on the subject. Knox, being most concerned with the vocation of calling people back to repentance and faith in Jesus Christ, did not belabor predestination except when he became carried away in the heat of refuting his Anabaptist opponent. Otherwise, predestination never became more than a springboard to his thinking and action.

Notes

1. James McEwen, V. E. D’Assonville, Pierre Janton, and Richard Greaves have written chapters or parts of chapters on Knox’s predestinarian thought. Most of these writings have been on Knox’s predestinarian beliefs as they pertain to a specific subject such as ecclesiology, the matter of Calvin’s influence, or the questions pertaining to Knox’s predestination treatise. Greaves’ chapter is the most descriptive in the general sense, but even this work focuses on the matter of Knox’s treatise concerning predestination. See James McEwen, The Faith of John Knox (Richmond: John Knox, 1961) 61–79; V. E. D’Assonville, John Knox and the Institutes of Calvin: A Few Points of Contact in Their Theology (Durban, South Africa: Drakensberg, 1960) 33–63; Pierre Janton, Concept et sentiment de l’eglise chez John Knox: le reformateur ecossais (Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, 1972) 91–109; Richard L. Greaves, Theology and Revolution in the Scottish Reformation (Grand Rapids: Christian University Press, 1980) 25–43.
2. Janton, Concept et sentiment, 92, 93, 95. Some references to predestination before the 1550s include: John Knox, The Works of John Knox (6 vols., ed. David Laing; Edinburgh: Bannatyne Club, 1846–1864) 3.17; 4.123, 135, 270; 6.187, 252, 410. Hereafter this collection will be cited as Works followed by the appropriate volume and page number; the spelling has been modernized.
3. The full title was An Answer to the Cavillations of an Adversary Respecting the Doctrine of Predestination. This paper, however, will use the short title, On Predestination. The volume is 468 pages (Laing’s edition) and probably was written in late 1558 and early 1559. See Works 5 and Jasper Ridley, John Knox (New York: Oxford University Press, 1968) 290.
4. Janton, Concept et sentiment, 97, 105–6. Janton probes the psychological motivation to Knox’s thought not only in regards to predestination but over a wider range of his ideas and specifically in respect to the reformer’s ecclesiology.
5. The book to which Knox responded was The Confutation of the Errors of the Careless by Necessity (ca. 1557). This adversary was one of unusual acuteness and ability, and it is suggested that he was the English Anabaptist, Robert Cooche. Works 5.17; George H. Williams, The Radical Reformation (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1962) 781; Ridley, John Knox, 291.
6. E. G. Rupp, “The Europe of John Knox,” in John Knox: A Quater-centenary Reappraisal (ed. Duncan Shaw; Edinburgh: Saint Andrew, 1975) 10.
7. P. Hume Brown. John Knox (2 vols.; London: Adam and Charles Black, 1895) 1.257.
8. Greaves, Theology and Revolution, 28, 29; Richard Greaves, “The Knoxian Paradox: Ecumenism and Nationalism in the Scottish Reformation,” Records of the Scottish Church History Society (Summer 1973) 91, 92.
9. McEwen, The Faith of Knox, 64; Greaves, Theology and Revolution, 29-30. Knox’s method of argumentation, though awkward by modern standards, was a well-recognized form in the sixteenth-century. See O. T. Hargrave, “The Predestinarian Offensive of the Marian Exiles at Geneva,” Historical Magazine of the Protestant Episcopal Church 42 (1973) 118. For information on Knox’s pastoral and practical side see W. Stanford Reid, “John Knox, Pastor of Souls,” WTJ 40 (1977–78) 1–21.
10. Works 6.639, 643, 659.
11. Ibid. 5.130.
12. Ibid. 5.412-13; 6.271, 641; Henry Cowan, John Knox: The Hero of the Scottish Reformation (New York: Knickerbocker, 1905) 373; J. D. Mackie, John Knox (London: Cox and Wyman, 1951) 22–23.
13. Works 5.413; Katherine R. Firth, The Apocalyptic Tradition in Reformation Britain 1530–1645 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1979) 111–34; Paul Christianson, Reformers and Babylon (Toronto: University of Toronto, 1978) 3–46.
14. J. Wayne Baker, Heinrich Bullinger and the Covenant (Athens, OH: Ohio University Press, 1980) 27–28; T. H. L. Parker, John Calvin: A Biography (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1975), 111–15.
15. Dan G. Danner, “Anthony Gilby: Puritan in Exile: A Biographkal Approach,” CH 40 (1971) 415–16; Hargrave, “The Marian Exiles,” 112–18; The Geneva Bible: A Facsimile of the 1560 Edition (Madison: University of Wisconsin, 1969) Ephesians 1 and Romans 8; Greaves, Theology and Revolution, 27, 40–41; Dan G. Danner, “The Theology of the Geneva Bible: A Study in English Protestantism” (Ph.D. diss., University of Iowa, 1967) 164–67.
16. Works 3.13–75; John Knox, “The Practice of the Lord’s Supper Used in Berwick by John Knox, 1550,” in John Knox and the Church of England (ed. Peter Lorimer; London: Henry S. King, 1875) 290–92.
17. John Knox, “Epistle to the Congregation of Berwick, 1552,” in John Knox and the Church of England, 258.
18. Gottfried W. Locher, Zwingli’s Thought: New Perspectives (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1981) 124, 132; Baker, Bullinger, 27-54; Greaves, Theology and Revolution, 38.
19. Works 3.349.
20. Ibid. 5.26-28.
21. Ibid. 3.338-39, 341–42, 345, 349–50, 353, 358, 360, 362–63, 371, 374, 377, 384, 393.
22. Ibid. 3.351.
23. Some examples are ibid. 3.293, 349, 351, 377; 4.123-24, 135.
24. Ibid. 3.121-24, 131, 142–43.
25. Ibid. 3.201.
26. Ibid. 3.266, 276, 285–86, 304, 313–15, 318, 323–24, 326.
27. Ibid. 4.75, 76, 102, 105, 108.
28. Ibid. 4.123. For illustrations of Knox’s ideas on the general and contractual covenant see 5.117, 484.
29. Ibid. 4.135.
30. Ibid. 4.171-72.
31. Greaves, Theology and Revolution, 39; Hargrave, “The Marian Exiles,” 113.
32. Works 4.223, 297, 327.
33. Ibid. 4.262, 269–70, 272–73, 276.
34. Ibid. 4.366, 401, 436, 527.
35. Ibid. 5.30. See also James Kirk, “The Influence of Calvinism on the Scottish Reformation,” Records of the Scottish Church History Society 18 (1974) 158, and D’Assonville, Knox and the Institutes, 33-34, 43.
36. Greaves, Theology and Revolution, 30.
37. W. Stanford Reid, Trumpeter of God: A Biography of John Knox (New York: Scribner’s, 1974) 152.
38. McEwen, The Faith of Knox, 70.
39. Works 5.25.
40. Ibid. 5.279-80.
41. Ibid. 5.26-28, 63, 278–81.
42. Ibid. 5.38.
43. Ibid. 5.27, 63–67, 70, 73, 280–81. See also Janton, Concept et sentiment, 10.
44. Works 5.405–6.
45. Ibid. 5.31-32; D’Assonville, Knox and the Institutes, 43-44; Locher, Zwingli’s Thought, 124.
46. Janton, Concept et sentiment, 94-95.
47. Works 5.25.
48. Ibid. 5.293, 299; 6.249-51; Janton, Concept et sentiment, 97, 102.
49. Janton, Concept et sentiment, 97, 102.
50. D’Assonville, Knox and the Institutes, 102.
51. Works 5.25–30.
52. Ibid. 5.36.
53. Ibid. 5.36, 73.
54. Ibid. 5.394.
55. Ibid. 5.61. According to D’Assonville (Knox and the Institutes, 59-60), Knox emphasized philosophic determinism as the cause of predestination.
56. Works 5.61–62. Janton (Concept et sentiment, 95) notes that, except for On Predestination, reprobation received little development in Knox’s thought from 1554 to 1566.
57. Works 5.72–73, 97.
58. Ibid. 5.56-60, 235.
59. Infralapsarianism said those elected to salvation were contemplated as members of a fallen race. The order of events was: God proposed (1) to create; (2) to permit the fall; (3) to elect some out of this fallen mass to be saved and to leave others as they were; (4) to provide a redeemer for the elect; and (5) to send the Holy Spirit to apply redemption to the elect. For supralapsarianism the order was: God proposed (1) to elect people who were to be created to life and to condemn others to destruction; (2) to create; (3) to permit the fall; (4) to send Christ to redeem the elect; and (5) to send the Holy Spirit to apply redemption to the elect. See Loraine Boettner, The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination (Philadelphia: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1965) 126–30.
60. Hastie, D’Assonville, Janton, and Greaves see Knox as supralapsarian while McEwen says the reformer was infralapsarian. Actually, D’Assonviue sees both supralapsarian and infralapsarian tendencies in Knox, but in his opinion, the former prevailed. He also admits the impossibility of satisfactorily applying either view to Calvin or Knox. Yet he claims Knox directly connected the Fall with what God determined in his Creation, and such a link resembled supralapsarianism. See Works 5.65, 90; D’Assonville, Knox and the Institutes, 61-62; McEwen, The Faith of Knox, 69; Greaves, Theology and Revolution, 32; William Hastie, The Theology of the Reformed Church in its Fundamental Principles (Edinburgh: T. and T. Clark, 1904) 251; Pierre Janton, John Knox: L’homme et l’oeuvre (Paris: Didier, 1967) 384–90.
61. Works 5.65. See also pp. 90, 249.
62. John S. Bray, Theodore Beza’s Doctrine of Predestination (Nieuwkoop: DeGraaf, 1975) 55–56.
63. Bray, Theodore Beza, 99-100.
64. Works 5.169–70.
65. D’Assonville, Knox and the Institutes, 48-49.
66. Works 5.36. According to D’Assonville (Knox and the Institutes, 49), Knox took his definition almost literally from the Institutes.
67. Works 5.133–34.
68. Ibid. 5.89.
69. Janton, Concept et sentiment, 95; Greaves, Theology and Revolution, 37.
70. Louis Berkhof, The History of Christian Doctrines (Carlisle, PA: Banner of Truth, 1937) 136; François Wendel, Calvin: The Origins and Development of His Religious Thought (New York: Harper and Row, 1963) 280; Arthur Cushman McGiffert, A History of Christian Thought (2 vols.; New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1932) 2.95; Bray, Theodore Beza, 60; G. W. H. Lampe, “Christian Theology in the Patristic Period,” in A History of Christian Doctrine (ed. Hubert Cunliffe-Jones; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1978) 167; Locher, Zwingli’s Thought, 132; Baker, Bullinger, 29-30.
71. John Calvin, The Institutes of Christian Religion (2 vols., ed. John T. McNeill; Philadelphia: Westminster, 1960) 3.23.1–2; Wendel, Calvin, 265-68; Bray, Theodore Beza, 61-63; Danner, “Theology of the Geneva Bible,” 164; Edward A. Dowey, The Knowledge of God in Calvin’s Theology (New York: Columbia University, 1965) 213–18.
72. See Works 5.73, 171, 394, 61, 62, 407–8, 51, 65, 41, and others.
73. Ibid. 5.61.
74. Ibid. 5.125-26.
75. Works 5.112–13. See also Danner, “The Theology of the Geneva Bible,” 166.
76. Works 5.39.
77. Ibid. 5.391. See also 5.408: “If you say, that death and damnation cometh not by God’s will, but by sin and unbelief of man, you have relieved yourself nothing.” See D’Assonville, Knox and the Institutes, 60-61.
78. Works 5.71, 112, 168.
79. Ibid. 2.100-101, 98, 108, 113–14, 119–20.
80. Duncan Shaw, “John Willock,” in Reformation and Revolution (ed. Duncan Shaw; Edinburgh: St. Andrew, 1967) 59–60.
81. Works 1.119, 131–32, 351, 223; 2.417; 4.298, 303–4; 6.271.
82. Ibid. 6.243, 252, 266–68, 270, 272.
83. There were 277 biblical references in Knox’s work, On Predestination. See Janton, John Knox: L’homme et l’oeuvre, 400. See also McEwen, the Faith of Knox, 66, 67.
84. Works 6.31, 168–72, 178; D’Assonville, Knox and the Institutes, 33-63.
85. Works 5.31.
86. D’Assonville, Knox and the Institutes, 43.
87. D’Assonville, Knox and the Institutes, 45-46. But Knox did not ignore the centrality of Christ in election. In one passage he expressed it with particular force (Works 5.50–54).
88. G. W. Bromiley (ed.), Zwingli and Bullinger (London: SCM, 1953) 33; Gottfried W. Locher, “The Change in the Understanding of Zwingli in Recent Research,” CH 34 (1965) 10–11; Locher, Zwingli’s Thought, 373-74; Danner, “Theology of the Geneva Bible,” 166.
89. Knox, “Epistles to the Congregation of Berwick, 1552,” 258.
90. Works 3.201.
91. Original Letters Relative to the English Reformation…from the Archives of Zurich (ed. H. Robinson; Cambridge: The University Press, 1846) 324ff; Danner, “Theology of the Geneva Bible,” 157.
92. D’Assonville, Knox and the Institutes, 40.
93. Works 5.124.
94. Ibid. 5.4.
95. Some examples are ibid. 5.32, 33, 38–39, 62, 77, 170–71, 332–34.
96. McEwen questions whether Knox’s treatise represented his real convictions on the subject. Percy observed that the principles set forth in the treatise had little effect on his thinking. Greaves does not deny that the doctrine found in On Predestination is representative of Knox’s thought, but he argues that predestination did not play a major role in Knox’s personal theology. McEwen, The Faith of Knox, 78-79; Greaves, Theology and Revolution, 40, 43; Lord Eustace Percy, John Knox (Richmond: John Knox, 1966) 203.
97. Shaw, “John Willock,” 59–60; Reid, Trumpeter of God, 151-52; D’Assonville, Knox and the Institutes, 33-36; Kirk, “The Influence of Calvinism,” 158.
98. Works 2.100–101; Greaves, “The Knoxian Paradox,” 91–92; Greaves, Theology and Revolution, 28-29.
99. Shaw, “John Willock,” 59–60; Locher, Zwingli’s Thought, 375.

Learn How To Do Apologetics in the Twenty-First Century with Ravi Zacharias

The Crown of Righteousness

by Thomas Watson

A sermon preached on May 1, 1656, at the funeral of Thomas Hodges

"Those who honor Me—I will honor." 1 Samuel 2:30

To my honored friend, Mrs. Mary Hodges,
It was not my intention when I preached this sermon, that it should go any further than the pulpit. But seeing you were pleased to request me to print it, that I might herein gratify your desire and exhibit testimonial of that respect which I bore to your deceased husband, I was willing to make it more public, and may the Lord make it profitable.

You are sensible enough, I doubt not, of the late loss you have sustained. I therefore chose to treat this subject that I might revive you with the hope of future gain, not forgetting that saying in Proverbs 31:6, "Give wine to those who are of heavy heart."

The Jews have this form of speech at their funerals whereby they would cheer up the surviving party: "Let your consolation be in heaven." So I say to you, look up to heaven! Let the crown laid up for you, comfort you! May the Lord help you to make a sanctified use of this sad stroke of providence.

Learn, dear friend—to make sure of Christ—when you cannot make sure of other relations. Faith will contract you to Christ, and if your Maker is your Husband, death shall not dissolve—but perfect the union. We break our earthly comforts, when we lean too hard on them! but I must not expatiate.

I have here presented you with the sermon as I preached it, only I have cast in some few additional things which, through straits of time, I was then forced to omit. May the blessing of the Almighty rest upon you, and let that golden oil be poured out upon your posterity. So prays,

Your faithful friend and servant in the Lord,
Thomas Watson


"Henceforth there is laid up for me a crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous judge, shall give me at that day!" 2 Timothy 4:8

The wise God, that He may invite and encourage the sons of men to holiness of life, is pleased to set before their eyes the recompense of reward, that if the equity of His precepts does not prevail, the excellency of His promise may. God will have His people to be volunteers in piety—not forced with fear—but drawn with love. Therefore He works upon them in such a way as is most alluring and persuasive. He would catch men with a golden bait, and allure them to obedience by showing them what is laid up in heaven for them. So says the text, "Henceforth there is laid up for me a crown of righteousness." A crown? Oh, infinite! For a delinquent to have a pardon is well—but to have a crown set upon him is no less rare, than stupendous!

A true saint has a double crown—one in this life, the other laid up. In this life he has a crown of acceptance. Ephesians 1:6: "He has made us accepted in the Beloved." Some render it, "He has made us favorites." Here is the crown of acceptance; and in the life to come a crown of righteousness.

The glory of heaven is represented in Scripture under various similes and metaphors. Sometimes heaven is compared to a place of rest, as in Hebrews 4:9. Sometimes it is compared to a house not made with hands (2 Corinthians 5:1). Sometimes it is compared to an inheritance in light (Colossians 1:12). In our text the glory of heaven is set forth by a crown.

The circle is the most perfect figure. This blessed crown encircles within it all perfection. I shall first break up the ground of the text by explanation, and then come to sow the seed of doctrine.

"Henceforth." First, it may bear date from the time of the Apostle's conversion, henceforth there is laid up a crown. As soon as a man is implanted into Christ, he stands entitled to a crown. Or, secondly, this word henceforth may relate to the end of his race and fight. Paul had run through all the several stages of Christianity. He had finished his course, and from henceforth, he said, there was laid up a crown. He knew his work was done, and there was nothing now remaining but to step out of the world—and put on his crown! "There is laid up for me a crown of righteousness."

QUESTION. Why a crown of righteousness? It is a crown of mercy—a crown which free grace bestows. Why, then, is it called a crown of righteousness?

ANSWER 1. Negatively, not that we can, by our righteousness, merit this crown. The Apostle makes a clear distinction between a reward bestowed by merit—and by grace. Romans 6:23: "The gift of God is eternal life." Had the reward been by merit, the Apostle would have said, "The wages of God is eternal life." Alas! How can we merit a heavenly crown? Before we merit, we must satisfy the justice of God for our sin; but we have nothing to satisfy. How can finite obedience satisfy infinite justice? Besides, what equality is there between our service and the eternal reward? What proportion is there between the shedding of a tear—and the receiving of a crown? So we cannot, by our righteousness, merit this crown.

2. Affirmatively, it is called a crown of righteousness in a double sense. First, because it is a crown promised. Revelation 2:10: "I will give you a crown." Since God made this promise, it is a righteous thing to bestow this crown on us.

Second, it is a crown of righteousness because it is a crown purchased. It is a crown bought with the price of blood! It was so bought as it was given, else where was God's mercy? And it was so given as it was bought, else where was God's Justice? This crown swims to us through the blood of a Savior! When Christ was hanging upon the cross, He was purchasing a crown for us! And in this sense it is a crown of righteousness. It is righteous with God to give us the crown, which Jesus Christ has paid for so dearly.

3. This crown is said to be "laid up." The crown is kept in reversion. God does not presently broach the full vessels of glory. He does not presently install us into our honor. It is a crown laid up. The saints are heirs under age. God does not crown them until they are of age. The sons of kings are often crowned during their minority, some have been crowned in the cradle—but the heirs of glory must be of perfect stature before they are crowned. God will give His children the ring and the bracelets here—some of the comforts of His Spirit—but not the crown. We are all for immediate pay. We are still putting off our repentance—yet would be putting on our crown. God will have us wait awhile. The crown is "laid up."

QUESTION. WHY is it laid up? Why is not the crown presently put on?

ANSWER 1. It is not fit that we should yet wear it for two reasons:

1. Our graces are imperfect in this life. They are in their infancy and minority. Therefore we are said to receive but "the first fruits of the Spirit" (Romans 8:23)—not all of them. We have only some imperfect lines of grace drawn in us. Our graces are mingled with much corruption, as gold in the ore is mingled with dross. The most refined soul has some lees and dregs of sin left in it. The life of grace is said to be hidden (Colossians 3:3). Our faith is hidden under unbelief—as the corn is hidden under the chaff. Now if God should set this crown upon us in this life, He would be crowning our sins as well as our graces. Therefore, the crown is laid up.

2. It is not fit that we should yet wear the crown, for then it would take us away from doing our work. We would be idle in the vineyard. Who will take pains for a reward—when he has the reward already? Therefore, the crown is laid up. We must run the race—before we wear the crown.

ANSWER 2. The crown is laid up to make heaven sweeter. The longer we wait for our crown—the sweeter it will be when it comes. The absence of that which we desire, merely endears it more to us when we enjoy it. After all our sweating for heaven, all our praying, weeping, fasting—how welcome will a crown be! Therefore God, though He will not deny our reward—will delay our reward. It is a crown laid up.

QUESTION. But if this crown is laid up, WHEN shall we wear it?

ANSWER. This brings me to the fourth and last particular in the text.

"In that day." What day? "In the day of my death," said Tertullian. Justinus and others are of the opinion that the saints shall not receive this crown until the resurrection. But Jerome confutes this opinion.

The souls of the elect shall be immediately crowned with joy and felicity. The body, indeed, shall lie in the grave as in a bed of perfume, until the resurrection. That this resurrection shall be, is clear. Therefore it is that some of the ancients have called the grave a sleeping house because this body shall wake again. The Jews called their burying place—the house of the living—because they believed that life would come into them again at the resurrection. Until then, the bodies of the saints must wait for their glorification—but their souls shall be immediately crowned after death.

Why else would Paul desire to die—if he were not immediately crowned with glory? It would be better for believers to stay here—if they would not be immediately with Christ. Here they are daily improving their stock of grace; they are increasing the jewels of their crown. Though they sit in the valley of tears—yet God often turns their water into wine. They have many sweet tastes of God's love; they have the bunches of grapes. If Paul's soul should sleep in his body (a drowsy opinion), then when he desired to be dissolved he wished that which was to be his loss. But this crown shall be given "in that day," the day of our death. It cannot be half a day's journey between the cross and paradise.

The words fall into these three parts:

1. Here is a glorious reward: a crown.

2. The adjourning of this reward: it is laid up.

3. The people on whom it is bestowed: Paul and the rest of the believers. "For me, and not for me only—but for all them that love Christ's appearing."

DOCTRINE. The righteous person shall wear the crown of righteousness.

For the illustration of this I shall do four things:

1. I shall inquire who this righteous person is.

2. I shall evidence by Scripture that the righteous person shall wear this blessed crown.

3. I shall show you wherein this reward of glory is compared to a crown.

4. I shall show you wherein the crown of righteousness excels and outshines all earthly crowns.

1. Who this righteous person is. A man may be said to be righteous in two ways:

1. LEGALLY righteous. Thus Adam, while he wore the robe of innocence, was legally righteous. He had that law of holiness written in his heart, and his life was a living commentary on it. He lived exactly according to every institute of God, like a well-made dial goes with the sun; but this is lost and forfeited.

2. EVANGELICALLY righteous. And this righteousness is two-fold.

There is a righteousness by imputation. This is as truly ours to justify us—as it is Christ's to give us.

There is a righteousness by implantation. The one is by the merit of Christ, the other is by the Spirit of Christ. Now this implanted righteousness is in the soul, as an intrinsic quality; and if it is of the right kind it must be there in three ways.

(1) Righteousness must be in the soul extensively, in every part. We do not call a black man white—because he has white teeth. Those are not said to be righteous who only speak righteously. What are these but white teeth? Righteousness, like a holy leaven, must diffuse and swell itself into every part—the understanding, will, and affections. "May the God of peace sanctify you wholly" (1 Thessalonians 5:23). Therefore grace is called "the new man," not a new eye or a new tongue—but a new man. Though a saint is righteous but in part—yet he is righteous in every part.

(2) Righteousness must be in the soul intensively. We call water hot when it is hot in the third or fourth degree. He is not said to be righteous who is tepid and neutral in religion. This was Laodicea's temper, lukewarm. Revelation 3:16: "I would you were cold or hot." It is as if God said, "I wish you were anything but lukewarm." Righteousness must rise up to some degree. David boiled over in holy zeal. Psalm 119:139: "My zeal has consumed me."

(3) Righteousness must be in the soul perseveringly. It must abide and continue. He is not a righteous person who is godly only in a passion, either of fear or joy. Hypocrites may seem righteous for a time, as long as the wind blows that way—but it is quickly over. They change quickly—like the herb whose leaves in the morning are white, at noon are purple, and at night are blue. Thus they change in their goodness and are of divers opinions, like Joseph's coat of divers colors. Hypocrites, for the most part, live to confute themselves. They are like one who has a good and hopeful beginning—but a bad end. I have read of a certain people in India called Pandorae, who have white hoary hair in their youth and black hair in their old age. This is an emblem of hypocrites, who at first look white and fair like saints—but in their elder years blacken in wickedness. The piety of these men was never ingrained. They are only to be judged righteous people who, with Job, persevere in godliness (Job 2:3).

There is a great deal of difference between the motion of a watch—and the beating of a pulse. The one is quickly at an end—but the other, proceeding from a vital principle, is permanent and constant. As long as there is life—the pulse beats. True righteousness is a spiritual pulse—which will ever be beating. So much for the first point, who this righteous person is.

2. The righteous person shall wear the crown of righteousness. James 1:12: "He shall receive the crown of life." Revelation 2:10: "I will give you the crown of life." By both Scriptures you see that a true saint, is an heir to the crown. The truth being so apparent, I may say, as they did in another sense, "Why do we need any further witness?" (Luke 22:71). I proceed therefore to the next point.

3. I will show you wherein the reward of glory, is compared to a crown. It is called here a crown of righteousness, and that in three respects:

A crown is RESPLENDENT. The royal crown, hung with jewels, is a splendid, magnificent thing. Thus the crown of righteousness is most radiant and illustrious. For the splendor of it, it is called a crown of glory (1 Peter 5:4). It must be glorious because it is a crown of God's own making. Sin has made us our crosses; God has made us our crown. What are all the beauties and glories of the world which have been esteemed most famous—in comparison to this crown of righteousness? They all fade by comparison. The glory of this crown is inexpressible. Were the angels themselves sent to heaven to give us a description of this crown of righteousness, they would sooner lack words than matter. But here I must draw a veil, as not being able to give you the dark shadow of it. Nor can it be set out by all the lights of heaven, though every star were turned into a sun.

A crown is a WEIGHTY thing. So is the crown of righteousness. Therefore it is called a weight of glory by the Apostle. We think our sufferings are weighty; alas, they are light—in comparison with our crown. This crown of righteousness is so weighty that it would soon overwhelm us—if God did not make us able to bear it.

A crown is an HONORABLE thing. "You crown him with honor" (Psalm 8:5). Therefore, when King Ahasuerus asked Haman what should be done to the man whom the king would honor, Haman could think of nothing more honorable than the crown. "Let the crown royal which the king wears, be set upon his head" (Esther 6:8). A crown is not fit for everyone. It will not fit every head; it is for kings and people of renown to wear. What a great honor it was to wear the Olympic crown, to which the Apostle here seems to allude. A crown is a badge and sign of imperial honor. So this crown of righteousness is the sign of royalty and excellence. Only those who are born of God and have the royal blood of heaven running in their souls, wear this blessed crown. The men of the world may heap up silver like dust—but the crown of righteousness, God reserves only for those whom He has made kings (Revelation 1:6).

4. The last thing is to show you wherein this crown of righteousness exceeds and outshines all earthly crowns. This will appear in six particulars.

(1) This crown of righteousness is LAWFULLY come by. It is a crown which God Himself will set upon our head. "The Lord, the righteous Judge will give it to me at that day," says the text. Therefore it is come by lawfully. Other crowns are often usurped, as history abundantly witnesses. They may be called crowns of unrighteousness because they are unrighteously gotten. Julius Caesar was accustomed to say, that for a crown it was lawful to violate any oath. The saints do not have their crown by usurpation, but by election. They are chosen to a crown.

(2) This crown of righteousness exceeds in PURENESS. Other crowns are of a more foul, drossy metal; they have their troubles. A crown of gold cannot be made without thorns. Herein the crown of righteousness excels. It is made of a purer metal—there are no crosses or thorns woven into it. It fills the soul with melody; it banishes all sorrow from the heart; there can be no more sorrow in heaven—than there can be joy in hell.

(3) This crown of righteousness can never be lost or FORFEITED. Other crowns may be lost. "The crown has fallen from the head" (Lamentations 5:16). Henry VI was honored with the crowns of two kingdoms, France and England. The first was lost through the faction of his nobles; the other was twice plucked from his head before his death. Earthly crowns have many heirs and successors. How many have been disposed either by fraud or force? But this crown of righteousness can never be lost. God will not say, "Remove the diadem, take off the crown" (Ezekiel 21:26). This crown is set upon the head of Christ's spouse—and Christ will never depose His spouse!

(4) This crown of righteousness is a NEVER-FADING crown. Other crowns are like a garland of flowers which soon withers. "Does the crown endure to all generations?" (Proverbs 27:24). All outward glory passes away as a swift stream or a ship in full sail. Crowns wear away and tumble into the dust—but the crown of righteousness does not fade (1 Peter 5:4). Eternity is a jewel of the saint's crown! After millions of years, it will be as bright and resplendent as the first day's wearing.

(5) This crown of righteousness does not draw ENVY to it. David's own son envied him, and sought to take his crown from off his head. A crown of gold is often the mark for envy and ambition to shoot at; but this crown of righteousness is free from envy. The white lily of peace is a flower which grows in this crown. One saint in glory shall not envy another—because all are crowned. And though one crown may be larger than another—yet everyone shall have as big a crown as he is able to carry!

(6) This crown of righteousness makes a man truly BLESSED. Earthly crowns have no such virtue in them. They rather make men cursed. They are so heavy that they often sink men into hell! They make men's heads so giddy, that they stumble and fall into hurtful lusts. But this crown of righteousness makes those who wear it, truly blessed. The Hebrew word for "to crown" signifies "to compass round." Because the crown compasses those who wear it with heavenly felicity, the saints shall have a sight of God to all eternity. This is the encompassing crown. But besides, the saints shall have such communications of divine excellencies, as they are capable of taking in. This is the quintessence of blessedness.

Use 1. Information. And there are four branches:

BRANCH 1. It shows us that true religion is not imposed upon hard terms. God does not put us upon unreasonable things. He does not give us work—and then give us no reward. Behold, there is a crown of righteousness laid up! When we hear of the doctrine of repentance, steeping our souls in briny tears for sin, the doctrine of mortification, calling out the right eye—we are ready to cry out as they did, "This is a hard saying, who can hear it?" No, beloved, God's terms are not unreasonable. He never sets us on work—but we are sure of double pay. He gives us many sweet encouragements while we are doing the work. He often strews our ways with roses, "shedding His love abroad in our hearts" (Romans 5:5), filling us with joy and peace in believing (Romans 15:13).

He who has the least mercy from God in this way, will die in His debt. When we look upon the recompense of reward, which as far exceeds our thoughts as it surpasses our deserts, then surely we cannot say to God, as the man said in Matthew 25:24, "I knew you that you are a hard man." If a king should bid one take up his staff when it is fallen, and for that should settle a rich annuity upon him for life—would not this be a great reward—for a little work? When you have done all, as our Lord Christ said, you are but unprofitable servants (Luke 17:10). What advantage do you bring to God? Yet for this poor, inconsiderable nothing—there is a heavenly crown laid up. Surely God does not invite you to your loss. You can never say that He is a hard master. Will Satan, who would discourage you from a strict, holy life—give bond to assure you of something equivalent to this crown? Saul said in another sense, "Will the son off Jesse give you fields and vineyards, and make you captains of thousands?" So, will Satan, who disparages the ways of God, give you crowns to possess? Will he mend your wages? Alas! You know what wages he pays. His wages are death and hell, and truly—the less of those wages the better!

BRANCH 2. See here that which may raise in our hearts a holy indignation against sin—which makes us forfeit our crown. Sin is not only hateful in its own nature—but it is the most horrid, ugly, deformed thing. This made holy Anselm say that if he should behold the pains of hell on one side and the deformity of sin on the other, and he must of necessity choose one of these two, he said, "I would rather throw myself into hell—than voluntarily commit one sin against God."

But besides the intrinsic filth that is in sin (it being the very spirit and quintessence of evil), this may cause in us an abhorrence of it: Sin would degrade us of our honor; it would pluck away our crown from our head. Think what the end of sin will be. As Abner said to Joab, "Will it not be bitterness in the latter end?" (2 Samuel 2:26). If men, before they committed sin, would but sit down and rationally consider whether the present gain and sweetness in sin—would make amends for the future loss, I believe it would put them into a cold sweat and give some check to their unbridled lusts. Jacob took Esau by the heel. Oh, do not look upon the smiling face of sin—but take it by the heel! Look at the end of it. It will bereave us of our heavenly crown! And can anything counterbalance this loss?

When a man is tempted to pride, let him remember that this will swell his head so big—that the crown will not go on! Woe to the crown of pride! The crown of pride, will hinder him from the crown of righteousness. When he is tempted to lust, let him remember that for enjoying the pleasures of sin for a season—he hazards a crown for immorality. And is there as much sweetness in sin—as in a crown? When he is tempted to drunkenness (a sin that not only unChristians him, but unmans him), let him consider here that it would uncrown him of his reason, and afterwards uncrown him of his eternal happiness. When he is tempted to swearing, let him think with himself, "This is a sin which has nothing to render it delightful." Other sins have a show of pleasure and profit, which is the bait men are drawn with—but the swearer is brought to the devil's hook without any bait!

Oh! Is it not madness—for these unfruitful works of darkness—to forfeit heaven? How will the devil reproach and laugh at men! That they should be so stupid as to forego a crown for a rattle! They are like those foolish Indians who, for pictures and glass beads, will part with their gold. Oh! How should we hate sin—which will take away our heavenly crown from us!

BRANCH 3. See here the misery of a wicked man. Though he may flourish in his bravery while he lives—yet when he dies he shall not have a crown of righteousness—but chains of darkness. Death carries him prisoner to hell—it leads him away to be punished. The Egyptians, as Plutarch reports, at their feasts brought in a death's-head with this motto: "Look upon this, and proceed with your banquet." For the sinner who sports himself with sin, and crowns himself with rosebuds in the midst of all his mirth and music, here is a death's-head for him to look on! The day of death to him will not be a day of coronation—but a day of execution! How can the wicked rejoice? Theophylact used to say, "His estate is miserable who goes laughing to hell." We may say of this laughter, "It is mad" (Ecclessiastes 2:2).

Suppose you saw a man sitting in a rotten chair. Underneath him was a burning fire; over his head a sword was hanging by a slender thread; and before him was a table spread with a variety of delicacies. Surely he would have but little appetite to eat—sitting in such a danger. So it is with a sinner. His soul sits in his body as in a rotten chair. Diseases, like worms, breed there. Under him hellfire is burning. Over his head is not a crown—but the sword of Divine justice hanging. When death breaks this chair of the body, he falls into the fire—and this fire is unquenchable. A multitude of tears cannot extinguish it; length of time cannot annihilate it.

God has the keys of hell. The damned are bound hand and foot (Matthew 22:13), so that there can be no coming out. Oh, that this might frighten and stop men in their wicked courses! When they are dying, the wicked must say to their souls, "O my poor wandering soul, where are you going? What will become of you?" There remains nothing for sinners but a "certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation" (Hebrews 10:27). God will not say to them, "Come hither and be crowned," but rather, "Depart from Me—you who are cursed!"

BRANCH 4. It shows us, as in a Scripture glass, the happiness and nobility of a righteous person. In this life he wears a robe of righteousness—and after death he wears a crown of righteousness.

1. In his lifetime he wears a robe of righteousness (Isaiah 61:10). This is the righteousness of Christ in which he is looked upon as righteous as Christ Himself (2 Corinthians 5:21). We are made the righteousness of God in Him. It is not said that we are made the righteousness of angels—but of God.

2. After death he wears a crown of righteousness. This crown encircles all blessedness within it. The saints are not perfectly happy until death—then comes the crown! Here we are but candidates and expectants of heaven. This is but seed time. We sow the seed of prayer—and water it with our tears; the golden harvest is yet to be reaped. The crown is laid up. When Croesus asked Solon who he thought happy, he told him of Tellus—a man who was dead. So a Christian is not perfectly happy until death—then the heavenly crown shall be put on! The Thracians used music in their funerals, and Theocritus observes that the heathens had their funeral banquet, because of the felicity which they supposed the deceased parties to participate in. When the mantle of a believer's flesh drops off—then shall his soul ascend in a triumphant chariot, and the garland of glory shall be set upon his head!

Use 2. Trial. Examine yourselves whether you are the heirs of this crown.

QUESTION. But how may that be known?

ANSWER. By this: if you set the crown on Christ's head while you live—He will set the crown on your head when you die! Have you wisdom to seek heaven, strength to do duties, resist temptations and bear burdens? You will not assume or arrogate any glory to yourselves—but let Christ wear the crown. Thus Paul said in 1 Corinthians 15:10, "I labored more than they all, and yet not I, but the grace of God which was with me." This is the inscription on Christ's vesture and on His thigh, "King of kings" (Revelation 19:16). We do what in us lies to make Him King when we set the crown of all upon His head. A Christian takes the crown of honor and applause from his own head—and sets it upon the head of Christ. This is hard for flesh and blood to stoop to. A proud heart will not easily part with the crown. He will bid others bow the knee. But be assured, there's no way for us to reign with Christ—but to let Christ reign here.

Use 3. Exhortation. This exhorts us to three things:

1. If there is a crown laid up, it calls for our LOVE toward God. "Behold what manner of love the Father has bestowed upon us" to give us a crown. This is the highest ennobling of a creature. If there is love in a crumb, what is there in a crown! If there is love in pardoning mercy, what is there in crowning mercy? It is a favor that we poor vermin, worms and not men, should be allowed to live; but that worms should be made kings, that Christ should be arraigned—and we adorned, that the curse should be laid on His head—and the crown on ours, "Behold, what manner of love is this!" It is beyond all hyperbole. And should this not make our hearts reverberate and echo back love? Oh, Christians! Light your love at this fire! God having shone upon us in love, let our hearts burn in love to Him!

Our love to God must be divinely qualified.

First, it must be a GENUINE love. We must not love Him for something else, as a man loves a potion for health's sake—but as a man loves sweet wine for itself. We must love God for those intrinsic excellencies in Him, which are so alluring and amiable.

Second, it must be a VOLUNTARY love, else it is not love but coercion. It must come freely, like water from a spring. It must be a free-will offering, not like the paying of a tax.

Third, it must be an EXUBERANT love. It must not be stinted; not a few drops—but a stream. It must, like the Nile, overflow the banks.

Fourth, it must be a TRANSCENDENT love. It must be of no ordinary extraction—but a choice, superlative love. We must not only give God the milk of our love—but the cream; not only the truth of it—but the quintessence. "I would cause you to drink of spiced wine, of the juice of my pomegranates" (Song of Solomon 8:2). If the spouse has a cup which is more juicy and spiced—Christ shall drink of that!

Fifth, it must be a most INTENSE, ARDENT love. The sun shines as much as it can; such must our love to God be. It must boil over. What unparalleled love has God shown us! Oh, Christian! Answer love with love. In love we may, as Bernard said, reciprocate with God. If God is angry—we must not be angry again; but if God loves us—we must love Him again. Oh, love God the Father who has made this crown for us! Love God the Son who has bought this crown for us. Love God the Holy Spirit who has made us fit to wear this crown.

2. Let us pant and breathe after this happy condition. Does not the heir desire to be crowned? Here we have a weight of sin—in heaven we shall have a weight of glory. How should our souls be big with desire to be gone hence? What is the world we so dote on? It is but a spacious prison, and should we not be willing to go out of prison to be crowned? The bird desires to go out of the cage, though it is made of gold. Every saint is a true bird of paradise; he is ever flying up towards heaven in ardent and zealous affection; he longs to be out of this earthen cage of the body, when with the Phoenix he shall receive his golden crowns on his head, and shine in glory as the angels of God! Tertullian observes that Scipio, when his father had told him of that glory the soul should be invested with in a state of immortality, that Scipio responded, "Why do I tarry thus long upon the earth? Why do I not hasten to die?"

I think that, when we hear of this crown of righteousness which will so infinitely enrich and adorn the soul—it should make us be weary of this world and long for the time of our solemn coronation. How did Paul desire to be depart and be with Christ? Would not man be willing to hoist up sails and cross the waters, though troublesome, if he were sure to be crowned as soon as he came ashore? Why are our souls so earthly? We love to be grazing in the world's full pastures, and are afraid to die. Most men look so ghastly at the thoughts of death, as if they were rather going to the cross than the crown. Oh, long for death! The Apostle calls death a putting off of our earthly clothes (2 Corinthians 5:4). This is all death does to us, if we are in Christ—it puts off our clothes and puts on a crown! This should make us say, as did Hilarion, "Go out, my soul, go out. Why do you tremble? You are going to receive a crown!" A believer, at death, will be the happiest loser—and the happiest gainer. He will lose his sins; he will gain eternal glory. The day of death is the saint's coronation day!

3. Learn to so conduct yourselves, that this crown of righteousness may be set upon your heads when you die.

QUESTION. How do we do that?

ANSWER. Do three things:

1. If you would wear the crown of righteousness, find in your hearts the WORK of righteousness, Isaiah 32:17. This work of grace in you, must be evidenced by a mighty change, which is sometimes called an engrafting, sometimes a transforming. Grace makes a metamorphosis; it produces in the soul a likeness to Christ. First there must be a consecrating work before a crowning work. We read in Scripture of the solemn inauguration of their king. First they anointed them and then they crowned them. "Zadok the priest took a horn of oil out of the tabernacle, and anointed Solomon" (1 Kings 1:39), and after that he was crowned. So there must be the unction of the Spirit: first God pours on us the anointing oil of grace, and after the horn of oil comes the crown of glory.

2. If you would wear the crown of righteousness, then walk in the WAY of righteousness (Proverbs 12:28). This is called in Scripture a walking after the Spirit (Romans 8:1). The people of Israel walked after the pillar of fire; and the wise men walked after the star—whichever way the star went, they went. And sometimes it is called a walking by rule (Galatians 6:16). Those who expect a golden crown, must walk by a golden rule. Be sure you walk with David's candle and lantern in your hand, "Your Word is a lamp for my feet and a light on my path." (Psalm 119:105). He who walks in the dark may soon be out of the way. Walk soberly in acts of temperance, righteously in acts of justice, and godly in acts of piety. Walk as Christ did upon earth. His life was purer than the sunbeams, as one said. Copy His life in yours. Be assured, that you shall never partake of the privilege of Christ's death, unless you imitate the pattern of Christ's life. Would you wear the crown of righteousness? Walk in the way of righteousness. But alas, this is a very untrodden way:

(1) Some know the way of righteousness but do not walk in it; like the Grecians of whom Plutarch speaks; they knew what was honest, but did it not.

(2) Others commend the way of righteousness, but do not walk in it; like those who taste and commend the wine but do not buy.

(3) Others walk contrary to the way, instead of walking in the way. They are good only at crossing the way; they oppose the way of righteousness. Such are persecutors (2 Timothy 3:8).

(4) Others walk a few steps in the way—and then go back again. These are apostates (2 Timothy 4:10), as if there were any going to heaven backwards!

(5) Others walk half in the way—and half out of the way. These are loose professors who, under a notion of Christian liberty, walk carelessly and presumptuously, crying up justification so that they may weaken the power of sanctification. They can take that liberty which others tremble to think of. Surely, were there no other Bible read but the lives of some professors, we would read but little Scripture there!

(6) Others walk soberly for a while in the way—but all of a sudden, drinking in the poison of error, begin to be intoxicated with novel and dangerous opinions, who, as the Apostle said, "have turned aside after Satan" (1 Timothy 5:15). Ignatius calls error "the invention of the devil!" Basil calls it a "spiritual drunkenness," and when the head is giddy the feet must reel. Loose principles breed loose practices.

(7) Others, instead of walking in the way, traduce and slander the way of righteousness. "The way of truth shall be evil spoken of" (2 Peter 2:2); or, as it is in the Greek, it shall be blasphemed. The men of the world say that the way of righteousness is a solitary way, and makes those who walk in it, melancholy; and that they must expect to lose their joy by the way. These forget that golden saying of Augustine that when a man is converted and turned to God, his joy is not taken away—but changed. It is more sublime and pure. And does not Solomon tell us that "all the ways of God are pleasantness" (Proverbs 3:17)? Take the most difficult part of the way of piety, and—it is pleasant walking. Holy weeping seems at first very unpleasant and disconsolate—but how often, while the saints weep for sin, does the Lord make them weep for joy! While the water of repentance, like rose-water, drops from the eye—it sends forth a sweet fragrance which refreshes the soul with inward consolation. Oh, what green branches! What full clusters of grapes hang all along as we are walking in the way of righteousness! How, then, dare men besmirch us with their false charges!

(8) Others creep in the way; they do not walk. They go on but very slowly. Those who look on, can hardly tell whether they make any progress or not. They are dull in their heavenly motion.

(9) Others walk quite beside the way. These are profane people who dedicate their lives to Bacchus, who border every step they take upon the devil's confines! They are like Asa, diseased in their feet. They walk, as the Apostle said, disorderly, like soldiers who march out of rank and file. Jesus Christ not only sends forth blood out of His sides to redeem us—but also water to cleanse us (1 John 5:6). They who do not have the power of the one to sanctify, question the benefit of the other to save.

Oh! All you who would wear the crown of righteousness, walk in the way of righteousness. Labor to keep up the credit of religion in the world. Walk exactly. Walk so that if we could suppose the Bible to be lost—it might be found again in your lives!

3. If you would wear the crown of righteousness, put on the ARMOR of righteousness (2 Corinthians 6:7). The meaning is this: if you will have this crown—you must fight for it. Paul said, "I have fought the good fight," a metaphor, as Chrysostom and Ambrose observe, taken from wrestlers who, when they had gotten the victory, were crowned. It is the crown of victory; therefore the saints in glory are set forth with palms in their hands in token of victory. Christians must strive like Olympian combatants. They must not only be adorned with the jewel of knowledge—but armed with the breastplate of faith. Satan is a lion in the way, "Be self-controlled and alert. Your enemy the devil prowls around like a roaring lion looking for someone to devour. Resist him, standing firm in the faith." 1 Peter 5:8-9.

This crown is worth contending for. A Christian most shines, in his spiritual armor. This is his sacred warfare. The crown is set upon the head of the conqueror. Those dainty, silken professors who live at ease, and will not make the least fight against the enemy, shall have no crown—but will be discarded as cowards. Lycurgus would have no man's name written upon his sepulcher, but he who died manfully in war. God will write no man's name in the book of life, but he who dies fighting. When the saints, after all their spiritual battles, shall come to heaven as conquerors, then shall their ensigns of honor be hung up; then shall the crown of righteousness be set upon their head!

Let this put spurs to our sluggish hearts and make us act with all our might for God. What, wrestling? What, sweating? How should we provoke ourselves to holiness! How should we spend and be spent for Christ! How should we strive to bring in some crown revenues to our Lord and Master—when we consider how infinitely it shall be rewarded! While we are laying out for God, He is laying up for us; henceforth there is a crown laid up. How should this crown add wings to prayer, and oil to the flame of our zeal! O Christian, let your head study for Christ; let your tongue plead for Him; let your hands work for Him! "What honor and dignity has been done to Mordecai?" said King Ahasuerus (Esther 6:3). Inquire what has been done for God.

I think we should sometimes go aside into our closets and weep to consider how little work we have done for God. Beloved, what a vast disproportion there is between our work—and our reward; between our sweat—and our crown. And It is but a while, a very little while, before the crown shall be put on. "The time is short!" said the Apostle. We are ready to strike sail—we are almost at shore—and then we shall be crowned. Oh! Improve the present season for the glory of God. The crown is near by; you must sail speedily and work rapidly.

And that I may quicken your obedience, consider this: the more work you do for God, the bigger crown you shall wear. There are degrees of glory. He who with his pound gained five more—was made ruler over five cities. But he who with his pound gained ten—was made ruler over ten cities. As one star differs from another in glory, so one crown differs from another in glory. If there are degrees of torment in hell, thereby, for the same reason, there are degrees of glory in heaven. That there are degrees of torments is evident from Luke 20:47: "Who for pretense make long prayers, the same shall receive greater damnation." They who wrap sin in a religious mantle, or who blame God for their wickedness, shall have a hotter place in hell. Just so—there are gradations in happiness. How, then, should we abound in work, seeing we shall exceed in reward!

Use 4. Consolation. Here is a gospel honeycomb, dropping comfort into the hearts of the godly. How may this alleviate all the afflictions of this life, and make these bitter waters of Marah, become sweet and pleasant to drink of! There is a crown laid up! A Christian in this life has something to grieve him—and yet something to comfort him. A true saint is an heir of the cross. If he wears any robes—they are bloody. If he wears any crown—it is one of thorns. But here is that which may sweeten his sufferings; here is sweet wine mingled with his bitter myrrh—he shall be crowned in paradise! This, my brethren, may change our mourning—into melody; and our tears—into triumph! Though we bear the cross, we shall wear the crown!

Our sufferings cannot continue long. If our life is short—our sufferings cannot be long. Oh, how may this sweeten all the bitter cups we drink of! Cleopatra put a jewel in her cup which contained the price of a kingdom. When we are drinking in our wormwood cup—let this jewel be put into our cup to make it go down more pleasantly—we will shortly have an eternal reward of glory! Though death is in the cup—sugar lies at the bottom!

"Henceforth there is laid up for me a crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous Judge, shall give me at that day!" 2 Timothy 4:8