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.